The Text      



PART 1: Introduction to the series

PART 2: The Q-C Test


Fifteen Propositions

01. Gradualism
02. Independent Effects.
03. Terrestrial Isolation.
04. Gravitational Accumulations.
05. Elaborative Polymorphism.
06. Lunar Capture.
07. Perennial Geological Flux.
08. Uniformitarianism.
09. Evolution.
10. Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
11. Increasing Consciousness and Self-awareness.
12. Cultural and Institutional Invention.
13. Religious Sophistication.
14. Macrochronism.
15. Cross-validation of Time and Events.


15 Propositions

01. Quantavolution.
02. Holospherics.
03. Exoterrestrial Genesis.
04. Solaria Binaria.
05. Poly-episodic Catastrophes.
06. Lunar Explosions with Global Fracture.
07. Disturbed Geological Columns.
08.Exponential Apocalypses.
09. Species Mass Changes and Extinction.
10. Schizoid Humanization.
11. Mass Amnesia and Sublimation.
12. Cultural Hologenesis.
13. Divine Succession.
14. Microchronism.
15. Consonant Paradigmatics.

PART 3: A Comment on the Q-C Test and Its Individual Items

B ] Instructions:
C ] ----
D ] ----
Fifteen Propositions
E ] 01. Gradualism.
F ] 02. Independent Effects.
G ] 03. Terrestrial Isolation.
H ] 04. Gravitational Accumulations.
I ] 05. Elaborative Polymorphism.
J ] 06. Lunar Capture.
K ] 07. Perennial Geological Flux.
L ] 08. Uniformitarianism.
M ] 09. Evolution.
N ] 10. Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
O ] 11. Increasing Consciousness and Self-awareness.
P ] 12. Cultural and Institutional Invention.
Q ] 13. Religious Sophistication.
R ] 14. Macrochronism.
S ] 15. Cross-validation of Time and Events.
Fifteen Propositions
V ] 01. Quantavolution.
W ] 02. Holospherics.
X ] 03. Exoterrestrial Genesis.
Y ] 04. Solaria Binaria.
Z ] 05. Poly-episodic Catastrophes.
AA ] 06. Lunar Explosions with Global Fracture.
BB ] 07. Disturbed Geological Columns.
CC ] 08. Exponential Apocalypses.
DD ] 09. Species Mass Changes and Extinction.
EE ] 10. Schizoid Humanization.
FF ] 11. Mass Amnesia and Sublimation.
GG ] 12. Cultural Hologenesis.
HH ] 13. Divine Succession.
II ] 14. Microchronism.
JJ ] 15. Consonant Paradigmatics.


1. Placebos:
2. Religious Dimension:
3. Additional Items:
4. Merging:
5. Validation:
6. Randomizing and Cross-sectioning the Sample:
7. Extending the number of special disciplines implicated in the results:
8. Uses:
a) Abetting theoretical studies.
b) Discovery of trends in public awareness of science.
c) Discovering relationship between creationist belief and quantavolutionary belief.
d) Q-C scores as a function of age, occupation, religion, formal schooling.
e) Discovery of trends in ideology of scientists.
f) Discovery of deficiencies and contradictions of belief brought on by specialization.
g) Enumerating the varieties of conventional and quantavolutionary thought.
h) Fostering interdisciplinary communication.

PART 5: The Scope of Quantavolution






Charles Darwin said in 1869 in the "Origin of Species" that "anyone whose disposition leads him
to attach more weight to unexplained difficulties than to the explanation of a certain number of
facts will certainly reject my theory." For a long time it seemed unwise to weigh too heavily
the anomalies. Now the time has arrived when "unexplained difficulties" have become indeed too
many for the Darwinian model of gradual incremental Evolution by natural selection to support.
It should be replaced by a theory of Quantavolution. Or, at least, it should be placed up
against a contrasting model.

Quantavolution theory maintains that the world from its beginnings, including the world of life
and humanity, has changed largely by quantum leaps, rather than by tiny increments over great
stretches of time. The over two million words of this collection of works by the author and
collaborators present the full range of ideas and phenomena that pertain to this theory. It may
be well to warn promptly against claiming any relationship to quantum field theory in physics,
although dire consequences to gravitation concepts may inhere, because of the seeming all-
sufficiency of new electromagnetic theory. Such a global change of perspective requires a search
for new evidence, a reformulation of old evidence, a reconsideration of anomalies, changes in
meanings of words and phrases, explorations of etymologies of words and concepts, and a
reexamination of assumptions, often when they are so accepted as to be trite and so trite as to
be ignored -- removed, indeed, from our very cognitive structures.

For example, there is an immense idea that persists in the literature to the effect that the
Moon was torn from the Earth; this story is told not only by scientists such as George Darwin
and George Fisher but also by myths of various cultures. Invariably, if a discussion of the
matter is allowed at all, the posited event is positioned in time billions of years ago in the
conventionally agreed upon youth of the Earth. Such an event, if it were to be treated seriously
in an encyclopedia, would invade hundreds of articles with its causes and effects, changing
practically every discipline in ways great and small. This set of works does not treat this idea
alone as the true theory; but it considers it properly so serious as to warrant consideration
under many headings.

Such theories of "quantavolution" play a part in all discussions as to the origin of the other
bodies of the solar system; one needs to explain the considerations that have led serious
scholars to ask whether and how the planets originated from the Sun or, if not, then from one or
another of themselves (such as Jupiter). Furthermore, the universal belief of ancient cultures
and legends, that the gods were born, and were members of the same family, would begin to stir
our interest.

In many cultures, there is said to have been an original chaos or world vapor and a catastrophic
event from which the father of the gods was born and from him (or her) was born the succession
of gods. Why "born" instead of having always been in existence? It is not enough to say that
these phrases are only analogies with the birth of animals in nature, or only fairy tales based
on the analogies. Why should this be? Many analogies cover realities: might this be such a case?
When one says, "Babies are born like puppies," one certainly is not denying that babies are
born. And why were all of these gods identified, if of any importance, with the planets and
other sky bodies? Most, if not all, cultures, have insisted that the planets and other sky
bodies are divinities. Does this not lend support to the hypothesis of a true succession of
birth throes in the heavens? Would this be evidence of a marvellous early philosophical
synthesis connecting the birth of the cosmos to that of the members of an earthly family? No
matter if the alarming thought should arise: the members of the solar system arose somehow from
one another in a series of catastrophes that somehow early humankind had some knowledge or
theory about.

This is the kind of reasoning that unsettles many scientists and ordinary people who are content
to rest with their ordinary perspectives on the universe; it is a "whistle-blower" on the
prevailing paradigm of the sciences and the humanities, calling back the play to the line of

The catastrophes responsible for the development of the theory of quantavolution were immensely
greater than these, to be sure, but the elemental forces at work, the chemistry, the
electricity, the psychic reactions are typical and homologous. As with a host of experiences of
the past and present, the individual person must learn about catastrophes of the world --past,
present, and future -- from the testimony of the rocks, the skies, the fossils, the carvings,
the ruins, and then from recorded history and logical thought.

The theory of Quantavolution deals with the behavior of substances of the real world so far as
one can sense them. It proposes that change in nature and life occur largely as the result of
catastrophic events; the events originate in the skies, which contain forces that are
immeasurably greater than any in man or Earth and that are especially electrical. There are
numerous "catastrophists" who have contributed to Q.. It is vital to appreciate that in
Quantavolution, the word "catastrophe" loses its completely bad connotation; for what the world
is today is an effect of catastrophe or, better, of Quantavolution, whose goodness and badness
are intertwined and to be judged by the philosophy of good and bad consequences.

The underlying philosophy of Quantavolution inclines toward a phenomenological instrumentalism.
It regards a "truth" as a fitting and useful part of a system of such truths that constitute as
a whole a possible tolerable outlook upon existence. The terms pragmatism, logical positivism,
and operationism come to mind when reaching out for related perspectives. As with
catastrophists, many philosophers might be cited. Among them would be Plato, Ockham, Bruno,
Locke, Berkeley, Vico, Husserl, Freud, Dewey, Mead, Wittgenstein, and Bridgman. The day may not
be far off when a new philosopher will draw upon the applicable contributions of such thinkers
and the fast-growing body of quantavolutionary literature to produce a new philosophy of





[Note: this letter was attached to the first experimental copies of the Q-C Test, July 1997.]



Dear Student of Cosmic Affairs:

It appears that the time may be right for a test to distinguish more or less conventional and
evolutionary scientists and scholars from what, for lack of better, can be called
quantavolutionary scientists and scholars.

I have accordingly devised a test in two parts of 15 items each, to determine the relative
position of a person in regard to these two paradigms. Your apparent interest in 'C'& 'Q'
sugests that your self-analysis would be most helpful in observing trends in science.

I would be much obliged if you would take a few minutes to circle the 30 items of the C-Q Test
and remand it to me by e-mail, or otherwise. Although it would be wonderful to obtain a number
of individualized replies to publish on

I shall withhold your identity if you say so, and merely incorporate the results in the
statistical analysis.

In either event, I would welcome your comments. I shall be improving the test and perhaps
merging the two parts with several additional "placebo" items before being done with it. Ought I
to proceed with a public discussion of the test and its cumulative findings?

Sincerely, Alfred de Grazia

Mail: Aldegrazia@ aol. com
P. O. BOX 1213,
Princeton, NJ 08542,


To gauge agreement of individuals with the Paradigm of Conventional Science

Based on Fifteeen Primary Propositions of Conventional Science respecting natural and human
history, and the degree of adherence of an individual to them.


There follow fifteen statements of major theses, principles, or propositions of Conventional
Science, each one of which is preceded by a short name. Please react to each principle by
scoring it from one (1) for firm disagreement to (5) for firm agreement. Draw a circle around
the number or check your answer. Use number three (3) when you are without any belief or
knowledge or commitment one way or another regarding the statement.

Thus, for instance, a score of 15 for the test means that you disagree totally with the
principles of Conventional Science. A score of 75 means that you are in full agreement with the
principles of the version of Conventional Science expressed here. Actually, you would most
likely be termed fully Conventional only if you agreed with all fifteen of the propositions.

There is no time limit for completing the test, of course. Please answer every statement. When
finished, add up and insert your total score where indicated.

Fifteen Propositions

1. Gradualism.

The world has changed almost entirely by small-scale, incremental transactions of small or large
scope from earliest to present times.

1 2 3 4 5

2. Independent Effects.

Changes in one field of scientific observation normally are weakly discernible in other areas
and transfer into them slowly.

1 2 3 4 5

3. Terrestrial Isolation.

From earliest times, Earth has developed its physical and vital forms from internal sources of
materials and energy.

1 2 3 4 5

4. Gravitational Accumulations.

The solar system originated in gravitational condensations from a gigantic dust cloud
surrounding a young Sun.

1 2 3 4 5

5. Elaborative Polymorphism.

Great variations of all inorganic and organic forms occurred by lawful, regular processes of

1 2 3 4 5

6. Lunar Capture.

The Moon formed during the condensation of gases and dust that originated the solar system and
came within the gravitational grasp of the Earth.

1 2 3 4 5

7. Perennial Geological Flux.

In due course, the Earth's surface has been altered by the gradual limited and calculable play
of natural forces: waters, winds, pressures, and heat.

1 2 3 4 5

8. Uniformitarianism.

Inorganic and organic nature have transmuted, with minor exceptions, at low, uniform rates for
all of Earth history.

1 2 3 4 5

9. Evolution.

The present species of life have unexceptionally developed from ever earlier forms that
themselves originated by environmental adaptation in isolation and occasional successive
chemical mutations.

1 2 3 4 5

10. Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

In the course of evolution, natural selection, working at every vital level, eventuated in a
being of high intelligence, capable of deliberate, rational decisions.

1 2 3 4 5

11. Increasing Consciousness and Self-awareness.

Gradually humans developed a sense of history that let them order their lives presently and for
their future, and learned to exercise advanced faculties for pleasure.

1 2 3 4 5

12. Cultural and Institutional Invention.

Bit by bit, cultural traits were evolved in all of the various aspects of life, and could be
placed ever higher upon a ladder of complexity and utility.

1 2 3 4 5

13. Religious Sophistication.

From primitive fear and ignorance, gods were imagined, and afforded sacrifices, but eventually
higher religions, with a benign, single god and simple rites, prevailed.

1 2 3 4 5

14. Macrochronism.

The evolution of the solar system, Earth, and life forms, took up about five billion years, of
which the last several million were required to produce human beings with their advanced

1 2 3 4 5

15. Cross-validation of Time and Events.

Dozens of distinct measures and correlations have mutually supported macrochronism and, with
evolution theory, have proven the singular correctness of the historical path of science.

1 2 3 4 5




To gauge agreement of individuals with the Paradigm of Quantavolution

Based on fifteen key propositions of quantavolution, and the degree of adherence of a person to


There follow fifteen statements of major theses, principles, or propositions of Quantavolution,
each one of which is preceded by a short name. Please react to each principle by scoring it from
one (1) for firm disagreement to (5) for firm agreement. Draw a circle around the number or
check your answer. Use number three (3) when you are without any belief or knowledge or
commitment one way or another regarding the statement.

Thus, for instance, a score of 15 for the test means that you disagree totally with the
principles of Quantavolution. A score of 75 means that you are in full agreement with the
principles of the version of Quantavolution expressed here. Actually, you would most likely be
termed a quantavolutionary even if you agreed with one or two of the propositions.

There is no time limit for completing the test, of course. Please answer every statement. When
finished, add up and insert your total score where indicated.

Fifteen Propositions

1. Quantavolution.

The world has changed mostly by large-scale and abrupt jumps or saltations or quantavolutions
from earliest to present times.

1 2 3 4 5

2. Holospherics.

Every quantavolution was holospheric such that, what became in late times human morals and
science, were affected in their every branch by its remnant evidence and its contemporary

1 2 3 4 5

3. Exoterrestrial Genesis.

The ultimate source of quantavolutions has been exoterrestrial.

1 2 3 4 5

4. Solaria Binaria.

The solar system originated and developed to this day as an often violent process of
transactions between the Sun and a solar-exploded body.

1 2 3 4 5

5. Poly-episodic Catastrophes.

Quantavolutions (usually referred to pejoratively as catastrophes) have been experienced on
sundry occasions and have been unequal in intensity.

1 2 3 4 5

6. Lunar Explosions with Global Fracture.

The explosion of Moon from Earth, and the global fracture accompanying it, produced the present
basic volume and morphology of Earth.

1 2 3 4 5

7. Disturbed Geological Columns.

Every geological column on Earth is ideosyncratically disturbed.

1 2 3 4 5

8.Exponential Apocalypses.

Every quantavolution has taken the form of an exponential catastrophic curve with a sharp ascent
and a negatively exponential descent, tailing off toward uniform change.

1 2 3 4 5

9. Species Mass Changes and Extinction.

Extant species have simultaneously on occcasion been drastically reduced in numbers and type or
extinguished while new species were being generated and old ones modified by holistic mutated
gene leadership.

1 2 3 4 5

10. Schizoid Humanization.

During a quantavolution, Homo Sapiens originated in a sudden gestalt as a schizoid species
controlling multiple selves, and preferably to be called Homo Sapiens Schizotypicalis.

1 2 3 4 5

11. Mass Amnesia and Sublimation.

Primeval Homo Sapiens experienced a traumatic suppression of memory and acquired a sublimatory
psychological complex.

1 2 3 4 5

12. Cultural Hologenesis.

Homo Sapiens promptly developed a poly-faceted language and full-function culture.

1 2 3 4 5

13. Divine Succession.

Originally gods were idealized by the human mind, and their basic traits and functions proceeded
through all successive major gods and families of gods.

1 2 3 4 5

14. Microchronism.

Quantavolutions, since the solar nova that instituted the solar system, occupied brief periods
of time, while intervals between them were also brief, measureable in thousands up to a million

1 2 3 4 5

15. Consonant Paradigmatics.

Despite a much greater stress upon electromagnetic forces in all natural and vital events, the
experiences (including experiments) and logic employed in constructing and proving the
quantavolution paradigm are homologous with those of the conventional paradigm of scientific

1 2 3 4 5






A Comment on the Q-C Test and Its Individual Items.

(Original text of test has a white background. The commentary is on normal font.)


To gauge agreement of individuals with the Paradigm of Conventional Science

Based on Fifteeen Primary Propositions of Conventional Science respecting natural and human
history, and the degree of adherence of an individual to them.

The conventional science part of the C-test assumes that a common set of attitudes toward the
method and findings of science is possessed by scientists, a correct set which, put into
practice, gives a correct view of the real world, inorganic, organic, and human. These attitudes
or beliefs are but an intuitive sample of a larger unknown number that would presumably give the
same results when administered to the same individuals. The set of attitudes reflects with
limited but fair accuracy the paradigm mentally possessed by twentieth century scientists. Since
the paradigm is most general and cosmic, all propositions about it are partial, irregular,
insufficient, and the individuals taking the test will naturally distribute themselves in
different attitudes towards them.

B ] Instructions:

There follow fifteen statements of major theses, principles, or propositions of Conventional
Science, each one of which is preceded by a short name. Please react to each principle by
scoring it from one (1) for firm disagreement to (5) for firm agreement. Draw a circle around
the number or check your answer. Use number three (3) when you are without any belief or
knowledge or commitment one way or another regarding the statement.

There are many ways of posing the attitudes as principles. One could attempt to use five
propositions as the core of the conventional scientific ideology, or ten, or twenty or fifty.

Validity and realiability might be enhanced. Often in test-construction, a large number of test
items are chosen and then the invalid and unreliable subsequently discarded, until the smallest
number that completes the universe of inquiry is left remaining. Often the salient and valid few
are doubled or trebled to be sure that the respondent understands what the inquirer wishes him/
her to understand, especially when the universe of respondents is intellectually, morally,
linguistically and otherwise diverse. In the present situation, the Q-trenders may be even more
diverse, for once the constraints of conventional scientific ideology or scientism are broken,
the escapees and refugees scatter in every direction.

Most conventional scientists will largely accept the C-test, scoring high, whereas the
quantavolutionaries will score on the C-test in varying degrees of acceptance, or so we surmise.
As the test-constructor sees it, a mark of '5' means an item is most likely true, a mark of '4'
means the item approaches broadly some truths, a mark of '3' denotes uncertainty, a maybe-yes
maybe-no position or a lack of sufficient awareness or knowledge to cast a judgement, or both of
these plus a failure to understand what is intended or what is meant by the item. This is the
infamous "don't know" category that haunts the pollsters. If the individual's position is
important, usually the test-maker provides for an extensive and intensive interview, a depth
questioning, to get the nuances of the impasse, whereupon the test-maker places the individual
respondent more to theone way or the other. An item marked '2' would be deemed to mean that the
statement is wrong-headed and contains little broad truth. A '1' is to inform the test authority
that the item is almost surely untrue. Some experts would warn against even an attempt to order
the postures and attitudes of people in this most complex region of human thought. Aside from
all the technical and straight psychological arguments of the testing discipline, a substantial
contribution to the theory of this kind of test must come from works such as those of Karl
Mannheim on the sociology of knowledge, Hans Vaihinger on the nature and logic of fictions, and
Ludwig Wittgenstein on the construction of meaningful statements.


Thus, for instance, a score of 15 for the test means that you disagree totally with the
principles of Conventional Science. A score of 75 means that you are in full agreement with the
principles of the version of Conventional Science expressed here. Actually, you would most
likely be termed fully Conventional only if you agreed with all fifteen of the propositions.

Here it should be made clear that there is no real-world difference of 1 or 5 or whatever
between the five phases of each item or between one item and another, and it has already been
said that there are different bands of respondents who will settle firmly upon one reply and
disdain a number of other items. The scores also say little about the degree of indignation with
which rejection of other markings is regarded. The very sight of an item on evolution will
elicit not only a mark of 1 or 5 but with the mark a snort of resentment against opposing


There is no time limit for completing the test, of course. Please answer every statement. When
finished, add up and insert your total score where indicated.

E] Fifteen Propositions: - 1. Gradualism.

The world has changed almost entirely by small-scale, incremental transactions of small or large
scope from earliest to present times.

That is:

one observes everywhere and in all things differences between time A and time B, which are
almost always minute in relation to the total shape of things but amount to the vast differences
between what was and what is, owing to the accumulation of small changes over long periods of

F] 2. Independent Effects.

Changes in one field of scientific observation normally are weakly discernible in other areas
and transfer into them slowly.

That is:

what happens to one being or existence has a limited scope, affecting others little or not at
all, as an avalance will affect whatever is in its path but little more, or the death of one
species will hardly affect many species.

G] 3. Terrestrial Isolation.

From earliest times, Earth has developed its physical and vital forms from internal sources of
materials and energy.

That is:

Practically all that is present on Earth has evolved solely under the influence of combinations
of ingredients and forces that preceded it on Earth and which in turn and ultimately go back to
the earliest ages of the Earth.

H] 4. Gravitational Accumulations.

The solar system originated in gravitational condensations from a gigantic dust cloud
surrounding a young Sun.

That is:

little by little, the material that composes the planets gathered in clumps that continued to
draw in other material until most of the original outbursts from the Sun were housed in them,
while space was vacated.

I ] 5. Elaborative Polymorphism.

Great variations of all inorganic and organic forms occurred by lawful, regular processes of

That is:

many shapes and physiologies and systems of being came about as one minor change succeeded
another and elaborated differences that were originally minor into major differences.

J ] 6.. Lunar Capture.

The Moon formed during the condensation of gases and dust that originated the solar system and
came within the gravitational grasp of the Earth.

That is:

the Moon began independently to agglomerate a large mass but lost its independent motion vis-a-
vis the Sun, as it was gradually carried into the Earth's orbit by the Earth's gravitational
field but maintained an acquired new equilibrium locked at a distance to the Earth.

K] 7. Perennial Geological Flux.

In due course, the Earth's surface has been altered by the gradual limited and calculable play
of natural forces: waters, winds, pressures, and heat.

That is:

soils and rocks and aquatic channels today can be shown to have been formed by the forces that
today uniformly with the past work upon them.

L] 8. Uniformitarianism.

Inorganic and organic nature have transmuted, with minor exceptions, at low, uniform rates for
all of Earth history.

That is:

on the whole, the past has been like the present, such that the changes in earth and life forms
have averaged changes proportionate to elapsed time, each being and existence developing a
unique pace owing to infinitely small changes in rate occurring through long ages.

M] 9. Evolution.

The present species of life have unexceptionally developed from ever earlier forms that
themselves originated by environmental adaptation in isolation and occasional successive
chemical mutations.

That is:

accommodating to its environment and multiplying by successfully competing for scarce goods with
other species and individuals, a given set of individuals, brought into being as a species by a
genetic mutation or related series of mutations, reinforces its identity by separation from
otherwise similar species, consciously or accidentally caused.

N] 10. Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

In the course of evolution, natural selection, working at every vital level, eventuated in a
being of high intelligence, capable of deliberate, rational decisions.

That is:

evolving like every other life form, an animal related to the great apes and sharing much of
their genetic and behavioral constitution, mutated and survived by virtue of an ever-growing
brain that could cope ever more successfully with a variety of environments through discoveries
prompted by realistic experimental reasoning.

O] 11. Increasing Consciousness and Self-awareness.

Gradually humans developed a sense of history that let them order their lives presently and for
their future, and learned to exercise advanced faculties for pleasure.

That is:

an orderly memory, which contained readily a great many lessons obtained from experience, and
permitted self-examination as well as systematic observation, brought on an accumulation of
useful information that could be used for material progress and amusement in many forms.

P] 12. Cultural and Institutional Invention.

Bit by bit, cultural traits were evolved in all of the various aspects of life, and could be
placed ever higher upon a ladder of complexity and utility.

That is:

cumulative experience in all aspects of life was put to work in the collective memory of the
group as the basis for suggestions of improvement in technique and organization, and in the
origination of new acceptable behavior and utensils.

Q] 13. Religious Sophistication.

From primitive fear and ignorance, gods were imagined, and afforded sacrifices, but eventually
higher religions, with a benign, single god and simple rites, prevailed.

That is:

lacking command over himself , his fellows, and his environment, the early human grasped for
support at whatever seemed more powerful and possibly helpful, gods who at first imitated his
savage qualities but later on gods and finally one God who were culturally advanced in their
offerings and demands of humans, to the point of being a large factor, for most unscientific
people at least, in inspiring them to virtuous conduct.

R] 14. Macrochronism.

The evolution of the solar system, Earth, and life forms, took up about five billion years, of
which the last several million were required to produce human beings with their advanced

That is:

although only rough estimates of the age of the Earth and the several periods of its organic and
inorganic evolution can be obtained, continued progress in chronometry has moved the age of the
earth and its epochs to ever longer times, allowing thus adequate time for all of the observed
transformations to have taken place.

S] 15. Cross-validation of Time and Events.

Dozens of distinct measures and correlations have mutually supported macrochronism and, with
evolution theory, have proven the singular correctness of the historical path of science.

That is:

radioactive decay, occurring at constant rates over enormous periods of time, has been measured
in association with its environment, organic and inorganic, and these have been shown to have
ages generally much greater than geological measures alone have produced, showing the latter to
have been partly conjectural, even if vastly longer than biblical time had been. Different radio
chronometries are highly correlated when applied to the same objects, and variations have been
successfully accommodated to settle differences. With the development of dendrochronology,
dating from layered ice cores, radiocarbon dating, thermoluminescence dating, and other
chemical, thermal, and historical methods, few lengthy gaps remain in the geological and
biological record that are unapproachable scientifically.




Note: two persons with the same average score may differ greatly in their fully described
positions. Paired comparisons are recommended, and ultimately also the comparison of individual
scores with a universe of hundreds and thousands of scores, not only as to averages but as to
matched item correlations and other parameters.



To gauge agreement of individuals with the Paradigm of Quantavolution

Based on fifteen key propositions of quantavolution, and the degree of adherence of a person to

There follow fifteen statements of major theses, principles, or propositions of Quantavolution,
each one of which is preceded by a short name. Please react to each principle by scoring it from
one (1) for firm disagreement to (5) for firm agreement. Draw a circle around the number or
check your answer. Use number three (3) when you are without any belief or knowledge or
commitment one way or another regarding the statement.

Thus, for instance, a score of 15 for the test means that you disagree totally with the
principles of Quantavolution. A score of 75 means that you are in full agreement with the
principles of the version of Quantavolution expressed here. Actually, you would most likely be
termed a quantavolutionary even if you agreed with one or two of the propositions.

There is no time limit for completing the test, of course. Please answer every statement. When
finished, add up and insert your total score where indicated.

The above instructions repeat closely those for the Conventional section. Perhaps it should be
added here that unmarked items should be scored as 3 on grounds that they are the effect of
confusion or unreadiness to commit an attitude.

V] Propositions 1: Quantavolution.

The world has changed mostly by large-scale and abrupt jumps or saltations or quantavolutions
from earliest to present times.

The key words behind quantavolution (Q) are change, large-scale, and abrupt. Essentially, change
refers to a detectable difference in anything between Time 1 and Time 2 . By the world is meant
the universe and all that it may contain, including its motions and events.

By most is meant something not much less than entirely, and what is left over consists of
changes that are local and gradual. Large-scale applies to spaces and things and behaviors that
rather arbitrarily we would envision as at least the size and features of Russia or South
America or the Caribbean Sea. The change would occur abruptly, which we define as time durations
from an instant to a century in which 50% of the total physical transformation happens. Terms
used for quantavolution, "development by packets", include catastrophism, neo-catastrophism,
saltation (a jump), revolution, apocalpse and punctuated equilibrium. A salient argument against
the use of the term "catastrophism" is that it denotes a total misfortune, whereas a moment's
reflection will persuade one that a great part of the fortunate inheritance of the world comes
from the same catastrophes -- including the quantavolution or abrupt evolution of the human

W] 2. Holospherics.

Every quantavolution was holospheric such that, what became in late times human morals and
science, were affected in their every branch by its remnant evidence and its contemporary

Quantavolutions were not contained to a set of rocks, a chosen people, a given language, a
particular climatic sector, etc., but within their large limits were all-encompassing. All
spheres of nature and humanity were directly affected, and their effects were transmitted to
every succeeding generation of rocks, genera, and cultures. Too, a Q employed all forces of
nature: if the Q took the form of a meteoroid, water, fire, wind, and exploded earth acted
simultaneously and in chains and mutual interactions.

X] 3. Exoterrestrial Genesis.

The ultimate source of quantavolutions has been exoterrestrial.

The Earth was itself formed from exoterrestrial elements, an obvious deduction, but the fact
leads to a realization that probably at no time in its existence has the Earth been out of touch
with the exosphere. From its beginnings, the Earth had no internal force or energy that was not
exoterrestrial in origin. Its volcanism, earthquakes, hurricanes, and floods have been compelled
by exoterrestrial bodies composed of perhaps every kind of mineral and gas, and of every degree
of density.

Y] 4. Solaria Binaria.

The solar system originated and developed to this day as an often violent process of
transactions between the Sun and a solar-exploded body.

Explaining the solar system is readily accomplished by introducing a theory of binary stars,
ever more frequently observed, in which the explosion of a heavily charged sun expels a mass of
debris whose largest portion, though a small fraction of the sun, acts as an electrical pole
exchanging charge with the sun along a current of electric fire, which also serves to create a
vast electromagnetic plenum in which planets, with their own electrical properties, develop.
Conditions for the growth of life forms are often favorable and persist until the electrical
axis and the tube around it expire, whereupon the planets are "on their own," so to speak.
Although the theory of solaria binaria is unique, it can easily entertain a number of
quantavolutionary theories that have been developing in recent years that portray the solar
system undergoing a series of explosive and high energy events.

Z] 5. Poly-episodic Catastrophes.

Quantavolutions (usually referred to pejoratively as catastrophes) have been experienced on
sundry occasions and have been unequal in intensity.

Geological, astronomical, paleontological, legendary, and archaeological research has settled
upon more than one and conjectured up to a score of global catastrophes in natural history, such
that it is possible now to hypothesize a quantavolution at the end of and beginning of every
major section of the geological column and every cultural period of the brinze and iron age.
Among the greatest in effect have been, among geologists, those associated with the global
fracture system circling the world, among paleontologists, those associated with the
disappearance of the dinosaurs, and the flowering of life forms early in the Permian period, and
among ancient historians those deemed by the ancients to be connected to the conduct of the
planets and affording evidence in the wholesale destruction of ancient civilizations repeatedly.

AA] 6. Lunar Explosions with Global Fracture.

The explosion of Moon from Earth, and the global fracture accompanying it, produced the present
basic volume and morphology of Earth

Scientists divide unevenly into a majority who believe that the Moon was captured by the Earth a
billion and more years ago, and a minority who believe that the Moon separated from the Earth at
an equally early date, most of these expert grant that the event was catastrophic and
quantavolutionary. Evidence points to the Pacific Ocean Basin as the source of the crust that
was wrenched from the Earth by an electrically attractive passing body, coincidentally with a
fracture that shot around the world as the continents-to-be swung in a great gravity slide to
fill the basin. Besides the mainly crustal loss of the Moon-gathering, the fully-encrusted Earth
lost additional material as debris into farther space and swelled in volume as its charge

BB] 7. Disturbed Geological Columns.

Every geological column on Earth is ideosyncratically disturbed.

If one were to dig anywhere in the world, one would find practically everywhere an incomplete
series of rock types and periods, with no two such drillings being alike. This claim goes
counter to the prevailing belief in conventional science that a normal deep drilling to basic
rock usually would produce mineral and fossil layers in their proper chronological order with
few or no layers or ages missing.

CC] 8.Exponential Apocalypses.

Every quantavolution has taken the form of an exponential catastrophic curve with a sharp ascent
and a negatively exponential descent, tailing off toward uniform change.

Apocalypses refer to the catastrophes pictured and popularly revered in the Christian epic of
St. John. Here it is a mnemonic nickname for quantavolutions. If charted, a Q occurs with little
warning in years, days, and other units of time, except that a repeated threat is historically
marked and watched obsessively by special priesthoods and the populace. Despite the warning, the
events themselves, of course, are precipitous; what is one day here is gone tomorrow, a
civilization, a culture, a great plain, a river, etc. After the peak period of activity,
however, the Q at first steeply declines and then ever more slowly diminishes its effects until
it establishes a mood of "it will not happen again." Thus, according to Q theory, C continental
drift theory, even though its acceptance was a concession to a Q theory, is incorrect in
believing that the continents have always been drifting very slowly, but that what is slow now
was once a continental cracking and rafting at considerable speed.

DD] 9. Species Mass Changes and Extinction.

Extant species have simultaneously on occcasion been drastically reduced in numbers and type or
extinguished while new species were being generated and old ones modified by holistic mutated
gene leadership.

The scale and intensity of Q implies the decimation of species and paleontology increasingly
locates and admits to the catastrophic ending of species. At the same time, C theory will not
admit the sudden creation of new species in the same conditions of catastrophe whereas the Q
theorists can claim that the same conditions allowed the springing forth in quick time of new
families and species. Q theory accounts for the persistence of species as well as the
destruction and creation of species to produce the puzzling array of flora and fauna of today.

EE] 10. Schizoid Humanization.

During a quantavolution, Homo Sapiens originated in a sudden gestalt as a schizoid species
controlling multiple selves, and preferably to be called Homo Sapiens Schizotypicalis.

Several Q theories of the birth of man are possible. One is indicated here. A gestalt is a
sudden complex perception and cognition of a large body of mental material that has hitherto
been disassembled and unknowledgeable. In a suddenly new natural environment and atmospheric
state and in a minor genetic change from the hominid, a new being emerged with a delayed
instinctive apparatus, connected with the bilateralism of brain hemispheres and functioning,
such that a microdelay in the transmission of menal oeprations ensued, sufficient to expand the
destinations around the brain of stimuli and the awareness of doubt about the meaning of the
stimuli and a fearful need to control the multiple selves that were groping "thoughtfully" with
the disparate end-locations of the stimuli. The mentation and behavior of the new animal is
diagnosable today as a general schizophrenia, with its basic symptoms of shock, aggression,
compulsion, and displacement.

FF] 11. Mass Amnesia and Sublimation.

Primeval Homo Sapiens experienced a traumatic suppression of memory and acquired a sublimatory
psychological complex.

The instinct-delay cerebral system genetically or permanently demanded by a new environmental
constant quickly installed a memory blockage or amnesiac system to limit the flood of fears and
doubts and contradictory demands on the new person. The amnesiac system allowed, or was
compelled by overload problems to bring about, an amorphous unconscious. The unconscious
fostered a random, partially controlled, and imaginative surfacing of materials that were the
source both of aesthetic creations and hypotheses, which, when subjected to demands to restore
the more comfortable if less competent instinctive system of the hominid, also developed logic,
calculation, science, and, in a word, rationality.

GG] 12. Cultural Hologenesis.

Homo Sapiens promptly developed a poly-faceted language and full-function culture.

Speech and variegated behaviors emerged promptly and spontaneously with the poly-ego and its
talking to itself. Transfer of first epithets, imprecations, and commands to the greatest powers
known, the happenings in the sky and the responses of the earth, would impregnate catastrophe in
the language as it developed for mundane use. The same would characterize the swiftly developing
culture -- with rites, priests, magic, acoustical and electrical performances, fire-control and
cuisine, etc. This hologenetic Q-theory stands alone perhaps to contend with conventional
theories of linguistic and cultural genesis.

HH] 13. Divine Succession.

Originally gods were idealized by the human mind, and their basic traits and functions proceeded
through all successive major gods and families of gods.

Practically all religions, although some exceptional persons will claim the opposite, are in the
line of descent from the primordial religiousness. With the illusory establishment of the first
gods and of delusory devices to control them, the basic elements of religious practices from
then until now were fixed: appeasement, obsessive forms of divine communication, sacrifice,
basic artistic forms, authoritative ideologies, institutional imitations of the sky and earth-
connected divine illusions. Successive quantavolutions repeated the same types of physical
disasters and fell upon peoples that were inclined to fortify their old religions rather than to
devise new ones, but at the same time would often rename the old and condemn them to try their
fortunes with new, more powerful gods.

II] 14. Microchronism.

Quantavolutions, since the solar nova that instituted the solar system, occupied brief periods
of time, while intervals between them were also brief, measureable in thousands up to a million

Some Q theorists have attempted to preserve the appearances and save a great many reputations by
staging their quantavolutions in accord with the present billions of years of "proven" earth
history. Such would be, for instance, the theory of "punctuated equilibrium," an awkward
euphemism as well as a scarcely justified faith in the swollen periods given to the past, now
approaching 5 billion years. The problem of erasing these billions is easy when it comes to
traditional geological measurements of time that employ stratigraphy, that apply uniform erosion
rates of today to the past, et al. The problem is more difficult when it comes to measurements
by radioactive decay of chemical elements, but here, too, uniformitarian assumptions can be
brought into question: electromagnetic conditions of the past, far different than those of
today, could eradicate the great stretches of time claimed by conventional scientists.

JJ] 15. Consonant Paradigmatics.

Despite a much greater stress upon electromagnetic forces in all natural and vital events, the
experiences (including experiments) and logic employed in constructing and proving the
quantavolution paradigm are homologous with those of the conventional paradigm of scientific

At least one branch of Q theory questions the roots of so-called rationality, yet accepts the
newer logic and linguistics as its only tools for arriving at "truth." It accepts experiments
and the scientific method generally and it guards the method by psycho-sociological analysis of
the processes. It is not mystic nor magical nor religious nor populist. The Q paradigm
reconstructs the historical and scientific world with the historical and scientifically
defensible weapons of science.


Total Score and Average are calculated in the same way as in the Conventional section of the





1. Placebos:

Placebos would designate items in the test that indicate nothing valid or useful to know for the
purposes of the test. They function to prove a lack of unrelated differences between those who
score differently on the test. For instance, it might be useful to add several items such as
"Whether fast or slow, evolution by definition must occur in natural history." And,
"Conventional science is more a matter of etiquette of science than it is a set of accepted
theories." And, "A decline in the productivity of science, noticeable in the late twentieth
century, is attributable in part to an increase in the extent of political corruption in
advanced nations." It might occur that both C and Q respondents would score similarly on these
items, whether by scattered or concentrated agreement.

2. Religious Dimension:
Creationism; agnosticism; mysticism; atheism; personal deism; scientific deism.

Religious ideologies have been shown to play a considerable role in adhering to scientific
propositions of one kind or another. It would be possible to uncover some of these connections
either by a couple of questions accompanying the test (such as, "How would you identify yourself
in respect to the list of religious positions below: accept, reject, indifferent?" or by
including distinguishing items as propositions such as "Quantavolution fortifies logically and
evidentially religions that maintain a recent creation of the world and mankind by divine

3. Additional Items:

Adding a number of items would help to validate existing items and at the same time lend
reliability to the test as a whole. Thus, proposing that the dinosaurs and most other species
were destroyed en masse in a brief time interval by the impact of an extra-terrestrial object,
or proposing that the continental crust of the earth has been creeping by tiny increments over
most of the global surface over all of Earth's history.

4. Merging:

The Q-C Test will be henceforth merged into a mixed set of items, such that the respondent will
be encountering items of C, Q and other significance randomly in the course of taking the test.
Merging will promote a more independent series of judgements on the part of the respondent, and
contribute to the significance of aggregated scores, in part and totality.

5. Validation:

Validating a test that seeks to elicit ideological syndromes can be most difficult, depending
upon the degree of certainty that the Thing exists in the first place and then the elusive and
unconscious ways in which people are disposed to mal-describe and conceal their ideologies.
Still, with the improvements already suggested, some approach to defining a Q and a C nuclear
ideology, and in the process a Q mind and a C mind, can find credence.

6. Randomizing and Cross-sectioning the Sample:

These ordinary problems of test development should present no unusual difficulties when
developing the Q-C test. Inasmuch as over half of the adult population cannot read well enough
nor are tutored enough to understand any considerable part of the test, either a special test
should be constructed for them or they should be passed over in favor of administering the test
only to persons who have passed three or more years of college. In the end, the test results
most useful would be the results obtained from the professional and managerial classes. Since
these are the people running the governmental, corporate, media and educational systems of the
modern state, their ideologies are a matter of practical as well as contemplative interest.

7. Extending the number of special disciplines implicated in the results:

In Part Five below will be found a list of entries planned for the Encyclopedia of
Quantavolution and Catastrophe. Every discipline will be found there, and thus a case is made
for finding Q relevant to all disciplines. It would not be too difficult to revise the test so
as to apply it more directly to each and every major discipline -- geology, anthropology,
theology, astronomy, mythology and so forth.

8. Uses:

a) Abetting theoretical studies.

In this connection, the Q-C test can suggest that a wholesale replacement of received doctrines
of science may be useful and possible.

b) Discovery of trends in public awareness of science.

Are popular notions of what is occurring in science changing? Perhaps the test will give some
indication of how and why the contents of the mass media are changing with regard to science and

c) Discovering relationship between creationist belief and quantavolutionary belief.

Popular creationist belief is strong and seeks, spearheaded by a small group of intellectuals,
to adapt quantavolutionary research and treatises to its own needs. Creationist scientists are
inclined to dominate quantavolutionary circles, naturally, and certainly feel comfortable moving
in and out of them. Much opposition to Q work by C scientists comes from a fear that Q is merely
a front for creationism.

d) Q-C scores as a function of age, occupation, religion, formal schooling.

The sociology of science and educators would gain by the knowledge of how Q and C ideas have
been penetrating various social formations and categories. Psychological applications are
suggested: is there a radical and conservative position on C and Q that conforms to political,
intellectual, and social radicalism?

e) Discovery of trends in ideology of scientists.

At a time when it is widely believed that the vast majorityof scientists would be high-scorers
on the C-test and low-scorers on the Q-test, the distribution of the component beliefs in the
population of scientists would reveal the actual condition in this regard. Too, one may expect
to learn whether the scientific elite, the so-called establishment, has moved from the
conventional center of gravity more or less than the mass of scientists.

f) Discovery of deficiencies and contradictions of belief brought on by specialization.

Especially with longer versions of the Q-C test, it may be observed how far and near the various
special fields of the scientists stand in relation to the conventional consensus. What medical
specialty, for instance, is most radical in acceptance of Q tendencies? How do homeopathic
practitioners rate?

g) Enumerating the varieties of conventional and quantavolutionary thought.

A great many controversies characterize both the conventional and the quantavolutionary camps.
From the hi-score C camp, it appears that the conventional scientists are divided and the Q
enemy is united, whereas nothing is more obvious to the Q, and angrily regrettable, than the
splintering into tiny fragments of the Q outlook.

h) Fostering interdisciplinary communication.

Scientists and educators who have deplored the lack of sympathy and understanding between the
public and politicians on the one side and scientists on the other might regard the results of
extensive Q-C testing as indicative of the gravity of the problem, or of improvements occurring.
At the same time, tests results of different scientific groups might demonstrate that
communication among scientists is as serious a problem as it is between science as a whole and
the public. Test results among scientific cohorts might illustrate, too, the togetherness of the
scientific fraternity as a whole. Deviations fro consensus might be regarded as deviations of
thought or deficiencies in knowledge of sciences other than one's own.





There follows a list of terms to be used as entries in the Encyclopedia of Quantavolution and
Catastrophes. Although there is no planned correlation between this list and the contents of
the present CD-Rom of 14 volumes of Quantavolution, and although the 14 volumes have an
embedded search engine for calling up all references to any idea or person or incident that
maybe contained in the volumes, the list here may be suggestive as to subjects that might be
present and treated in the 14 volumes, and then searched for and found therein.

Scores of scientific and humanistic fields have evolved. Actually every field of knowledge has
standing behind it one or more fields of science, and therefore may be considered as a field of
applied science, as for instance, architecture or fictional romances. One way of comprehending
the extended meaning of general theory of quantavolution is to browse amidst the list of
entries that are contemplated for the Encyclopedia of Quantavolution and Catastrophe. These
number several thousands and another thousand will probably be added before the first edition
is finished. It will be recalled that the criteria for including an entry in the Encyclopedia
is that at least prima facie the entry directly or indirectly affects the theory of
quantavolution. Thus, the abundance of gods carried in the work would be expected if one
considers that every known god is connected directly or indirectly with global quantavolution.
Every physical law of science is involved. Most concepts of biology and genetics are relevent.
Every part of solar system astronomy enters the work, so, too, numerous stars. By small stretch
of the imagination, every scientific and humanistic discipline has many concerns to take from
and give to the quantavolutionary paradigm. To take a seemingly removed case, political
science, in both its historical and contemporary materials, must consider many aspects of
quantavolution --legends, distortions of history, movements generated by the belief in the
immediacy of catastrophe, the behavior of not only politicians but also seemingly far-removed
scientists who are consciously and unconsciously influenced by catastrophic ideas in their
belifs and by power manipulations in their collectivities. Many entries, it must be said, are
built into the Encyclopedia on a need to understand what conventional science is saying and on
a suspicion that there must be some quantavolutionary content to the thing or idea if it were
to be more extensively pursued. Excluded from the entry are thousands, and then millions, of
things and persons and events, such as are found in general encyclopedias and library catalogs.
After all, even a football player might conceivably be included as an entry on the ground that
the origin of the game lay in the most ancient religious practices wherein the ball and the
players stood for celestial gods and other divine events long remembered. Thus one stands on
the brink of declaring that all events are subject to the core events of quantavolution.


(Copyright Metron 1997)

Aar Gorge
Aaron's rod
Abell, George D.
Abell-35 nebula
aberrational Earth forces
Abery, Jill
abiotic compound
aboriginal humans
abrupt transform
absolute zero
abyss, oceanic
Acadian disturbance
Acapulco Bay
accretion by comet
accumulation, precipitate
accumulator, bioenergy
acid rain
acid-base reaction
acquired immune deficiency syndrome (| aids|)
actinide elements
action at a distance
action, unit of
actor, acting
Adam & Eve
Adams, R. M. C
Adams, Walker S.
Aden, Gulf of
adhesion (bonding)
adiabatic process
Adrastus of Cyzicus
adrenal gland
Adriatic Coast
Adriatic Sea
Aegean region
aeon, eon
aerial photography
aether, ether
Afar Depression
African Rift
African Rift volcanism
African veldt
Agassiz, Louis
Agate, Nebraska
age determination
Age of Discovery
Ager, Derek
Agricola, Giorgius
Agua, Guatemala
Ahaggar mountains
Ahura-Mazda and Ahriman
Ain ez Zarqa
Airy, G. B.
Ajios Jakovos
Akkad, Akkadian
Alaca Hyk
Aland Islands
Alaskan oriented lakes
Albretton, Claude C.
Alcock, Norman Z.
alcohol, drinking of
Aleutian arc
Alfven, Hannes
Algonquian, Algonquin Indians
Alisar, Alishar Hyk
alkali metal
alkaline rock
All Saints Day & All Souls Day
Allchin, F. R.
Allegheny Mountains (| USA|)
Allen, F.
Allen, Richard Hinkley
allergic reaction
allogenic sediment
alluvial fan
Alps Mountains
Alt, David
Alter, Dinsmore
Alvarez, Luis Walter
AM Herculis
Amargorosa fault
Amarna Letters
Amarna, tell-el
Amatitlan, Guatemala
Amazon River, basin
Amazon submarine channel
Ambrasey, N. N.
Ameghino, Fiorentino
Amelan, Ralph
Amen, Amun
American cultures, -502 to -9| y|
American hemisphere
American sign language
Amerindians, ancient
amino acid
amino acid racemization dating
Ammizaduga tablets
Ammon, Amon
amnesia, collective
amnesia, individual
Amojjar pass
amphibole, amphibolite
amplitude, seasonal
Amudar'ya delta, U. S. S. R.
Amundsun, Roald
Ana, Anat( h)
Anafi Island
analog logic
analytic & linguistic philosophy
ancient astronauts
ancient concensus
ancient eclipses
ancient knowledge
Andean volcanism
Anderson, J. L.
Andes Mountains
Andriessen, Poul
Anemospilia, Crete
Angel Falls, Venezuela
angular momentum
angular velocity
nimal behavior
animal breeding
animal instinct
annual layer
Antarctic dryland
Antarctic Ocean
Antelope County, NE
Antelope Valley, CA
Anthes, Rudolf
Anthony and Cleopatra
Antofagasta mudslide
Aphek, Caanan
Apollo and Artemis
Apollo, asteroid family
Apollonius of Rhodes
Appalachian Mountains
apparition, comet
appearence of species
Appenine Range
applied science
Apuane Alps
Apuseni Mountains
Aqaba, Gulf of
Aqua Hedionda Creek basins
aquatic ape
aquatic ecosystem
aqueous environment, primordial
Arabian dunes
Arabian Sea
Arak Gorges, Algeria
Aral Sea
Aramaic alphabet
Ararat, Mount, Turkey
Aratus of Soli
Araucanian Indians
arc welding
archaeozoic, archean
Arctic Ocean, floor
Arctic Region, lands
arcuate structure
Ardche marl fossils
Arend-Roland, comet
arid regions, global
Ark of the Covenant
ark, arch( e)
armed force
Arnol'd, V. I.
Arnold, James R.
aromatic hydrocarbon
Arp, Halton C.
artesian well, flowing spring
artificial aurora
artificial intelligence
Aryabhataya( m)
As, tell
Asakawa, Y.
Asama, Mount
Ascalon, Ashqelon
Ashanti crater
ashera( h) tree
Asimov, Isaac
aspartic acid racemization
Assal, Lake
Assam earthquakes
assemblage, fossil
Assyria, Assyrian
Astarte, Ashtarat
Astour, M. C.
astral concern
astral wind
astrolabes, Assyrian
astronaut, cosmonaut
astronomer's vision
astronomical chronometry
astronomical mapping
astronomical motif
astronomical spectroscopy
astronomical transformation
astronomical unit
astronomy, astronomical
asymmetry of brain hemispheres
Atharva Veda
athletic contest
Atlantic Ocean
Atlantis Nigeria
Atlas Mountains
atmospheric science
atomic orbital
atomic period
atomic structure
atomic weight
Atum (TM)
Atwater, Gordon
audiovisual aid
Aughrabies falls
Augustine, Saint
Auigancan Culture
aurora at ground level
auroral form
auroral oval
auroral storm
Australian Bight
Australian glaciation
Australian string dunes
aversion, personal
awareness of self
axe, ax
Axel Heiberg Island
axial spin and tilt
Axis Mundi
axis of fire, electric
Ayala, Francisco J.
Ayre's Rock
Azov, Sea of

Baalbek, Lebanon
Babbage, Charles
Babcock, Harold Delos
Babel, Tower of (Babilu)
Babylon, Babylonia
Babylonian exile
background radiation
Bacon, Edward
Badlands of South Dakota
Baffin island
Baha Calif. cobblestones
Baikal lake
Bailey, Valentine A.
Baity, Elizabeth Chesley
Baja California Gulf Coast
Baker, Howard, B.
Bakersfield sand hills
Balaam text
Balkan Penninsula
ball lightning
ballgame, ballcourt
Baltic sea
Bam Bam ampitheaters
Bamboo Annal
Bancroftt, Hubert H.
banded rock formation
Banff, Alberta
Bangladesh cyclone, 1991
Bantu forge
Barandiarn, JosBarchan dunes, Lima, Peru
Barendregt, Ren
Barnes, Thomas G.
Barnes, Virgil Everett
barometric light
Barranca del Cobre
barrier burst flood
barrier island
barrier reef
Barringer Meteor Crater
Barstow sand, CA
Bass, Robert
Bassinger, James
Bast( et)
Batk plateaus
Bateson, William
Batten, Alan H.
Bauer, Henry
Baume Latrone, France
Bay of Fundy
Bayeux (Queen Matilda's) tapestry
be, (to)
Beals Carleton S.
Bear River, Alaska
Bearsden, Scotland
Beaty, Chester B.
Beaumont, William C.
Beaver fireball
beds of destruction
bedu mask
Beehive House (tomb)
Bego Monte
behavioral sciences
Beit Mirsim
Bel, Belos
Belit (Ninlil)
Belize Reef
Bell's paradox
Bellamy, Hans Schindler
Belorussia, Byelorussia
belt series
Ben Hadad
Ben Nevis, Scotland
Benbulbin, Ireland
Beni Basin, Bolivia
Bennett, William Harrison
Bennu (phoenix)
Benten (Benzaiten)
Bentley, John
Beppu thermal area
Bequerel, Henri
Bermuda collision theory
Bermuda deep
Bermuda triangle
Bernal, Ignaco
Berosus (Bel-usur)
Berthelot, A.
beta () decay
Beta () Geminorium (Pollux)
Beta () Lyrae
Beta () Persei (Algol)
Beth Mirsim, Palestine
Beth She'an, Israel
Bible, religious interpretation
Bible, scientific study of
Bible, translations
Biblical Deluge
Biela's comet
Big Bang, theory
bilateral symmetry
Billings, Montana
Bilma, erg of
Bimson, John J.
binary star
binding energy
biological ages
biological magnetism
biological pulsation
biological transformation
Biological tree
Biosphere 2000
bird migration
bird navigation
Bird, W. R.
Birth-giving Male
Bishop gravel, CA
Bismark archipelago
bison, primative representation
Bittersprings Formation,
Aust= l black hole
Black Sea
black shale
Black Stone of Mecca
Black virgin
Blackett, P. M. S.
Blavatsky, Helena
Blegen, Carl
blood of the pharoahs
blood sacrifice
blood type
blue green algae
blue hole
Blue Ridge mountains
Blummer, Max
Blytt, Axel
Bode's Law
bodies, orbiting
body, physical
Bog Lake, Michigan
Bohemian Massif
Bolsena, Lake
Bonneville River and Lake
Bora Bora
bore hole
boreal opening
Borrego Valley, CA
Bosomtwe crater
Bosque de Rocas, Peru
Bosumtwi, Lake
Boulanger, N. A.
boulder field
Boulder gravel fan, Sea of Cortez
boulder train
boundary clay
boundary value
bow and arrow
Boxhole crater, Australian
boycott, of q-works
Brahma, Brahmanna
Brahmaputra River
braided stream flow
Brak, tell
Brandon, S. F. G.
Brasseur de Bourbourg
Bray forest
Breasted, James Henry
breccia, volcanic
Brent crater, Ontario
(Bubastis, Egypt
Bretz, J. H.
Breuil, Henri
brick magnetism
Briffault, Robert
Brigit (Brigantia)
bristlecone pine
Bronze Ages
bronze serpent
Brough, James
Brouwer, -. -.
Brown, E. W.
Brown, Hugh A.
Bruce, Charles E. R.
Bruno, Giordano
Bryce Canyon
Buckland, W. M.
Budge, Sir Ernest Alfred Thompson Wallis
Bug Creek fossil
bull worship
Bullard, Edward
Burgess shale
burning bush
Byblos Baalat)

Cacahuamilpa caverns
Cadmus, Kadmos
Calymene (trilobite)
Cambrian Period
Camp Pendelton shoreline erosion, CA
Canuto, V.
canyon, submarine
canyon, surface
Cape Canaveral, Florida
Cape Hatteras, NC
Capella rising point
carbon cycle
carbon dioxide
carbonate mineral
Carboniferous Period
carcinogenic material
Cardona, Dwardu
Carey, Warren C.
Caribbean Region
Caribou Mountains
Cadomin conglomerates
Cajon Pass
Calaveras man
calcareous ooze
Caledonian orogeny
Calgary silt
California, gulf of
Campo del Cielo craters
Canaan, Canaanite
Canadian arctic islands
Canadian boulder broadcasts
Canadian Rocky mountains Canadian shield
Canadian Society for Interdisciplinary Studies (| CSIS|)
Canary islands
Cango caves
Canning basin
Canopus stone
canopy theory
Carli-Rubbi, Giovanni R.
Carlsbad crater
Carlson, J. B.
Carmel, Mount
Carolina Bays
Carozzi, A. V.
Carpenter, Rhys
Carquinez strait
Carsbad caverns
Carson Valley, NV
Caspian Sea
Cassini, Jacques
cataclastic rock
Catal Hayuk
catapulted ice
catastrophe, mathematics
catastrophic dualism
cattle sacrifice
Caucasus Mountains
cave art
cave dweller
cave, bones found in
cave, ice contained in
caves, limestone
celestial nucleogenesis
celestial observation
celestial sphere
cell division
cell, biological
cellular necessity
Celt, Celtic
cementation, natural
Cenozoic Era
Cenozoic volcanism
Central Australia
central fire
centrifugal force
Cepola fish
cerebral cortex
cerebral hemispheres
ceremonial & ritual object
Ceres, planetoid
Cerro Fitz Roy, Argentina
Chad, lake
Chagar Bazar, tell
Chaldea, Chaldean
chalk cliff
Challinor, R. A.
Chandler wobble
Chandler, S. C.
Chang Dynasty, China
Chang Jiang (Yangtse River)
change in nature
change of environment
change, attributes of
change, cosmic
change, human
channel, river & stream
Channelled Scablands, WA
Chardin, Teilhard de
charge, electric
Charriere, -. -.
Chela, serra de
Chellean man
chemical bond
chemical bonding
chemical compound
chemical element
chemical marker, strata
chemical reaction
Chetwynd, Thomas
Cheyenne mounds, WY
Chicago Fire
chidren's songs & stories
children's rhymes
Chinese choreography
Chinook wind
Chipewa indians
Christian, Christianity
christmas tree
chronology, historical
chronology, natural history
chronometry, techniques
Chubb crater, Quebec
church architecture
Churchill-Sempel, Ellen
circle, stone (lithic)
circular logic
circular structure
circum-Pacific pyric belt
cither, kitharis
city planning
Clark, D. M.
Clark, J. D.
clastic sediment
Clayton, Robert, N.
Clearwater lake, crater
cleavage of Earth
climate, polar
climate, temperate
climate, tropical
club, (wooden)
Clube, S. Victor
coastal feature
coastal landforms
cobblestone anomaly
Coe, Michael D.
cognitive disorder
Cohen, I. Bernard
Cohen, J. P.
cold fusion
collective amnesia
collective behavior
collective memory
colligative property
collision, cosmic
Colorado Plateau
Colorado River delta
Columbia (tidal) Glacier, AK
Columbia flood basalts
Columbia Icefield
Columbia Plateau
Columbia/ Frazer Valley system
column, rock
combat, ceremonial
comet catastrophe
comet composition
comet encounter
Comet Halley
comet impact
comet spectrum
comet tail
comet, core of
comet, failed
comet, omen
comet, orbit decay of
cometary injecta
commensurable motion
Commoner, Barry
communication, biological & human
communication, theory of
companion star
comprehension of quantity
compulsion, compulsiveness
compulsive repetition
conduction, thermal
conductivity, accoustic
conductivity, electric
conference expertise
confession, religious
conflagration, universal
conflict, interpersonal
conflicting dates
conjunction, planetary
conservation principle, in nature
Constance, Lake
continent, quantavolution of
continental drift (rafting)
continental margin
continental plate
continental shelf
continental shield
continental tropism, lunagenic
contours, topographic
contraction of Earth Cantril, Hadley
control, of self & others
convection, atmospheric
conventional science
Cook, Melvin A.
Cook, Mount
Copernicus, Nikolas
copulation, celestial
Coral islands
coral, atol
Corban Karst region
Cordillera Blanca, Peru
Cordilleran megashear
core drilling
core, deep sea
core, ice
Coriolis effect
Corliss, William
corona, solar
Corprates Canyon
corpus callosum
correlation, stratigraphic
cosmic dust
cosmic egg
Cosmic Heretic
cosmic lightning
cosmic pillar
cosmic pressure
cosmic ray
countervalancy of high energy forces
Courville, Donovan, A.
cow, sacred
Cox, Allen
Cox, Douglas
rater lake, Oregon
crater ring, South Astralia
crater, impact
Craters of the Moon, Idaho
craters with central mountains
creation myths & systems
creationism, biological
creationism, geological
Cresswell crags, England
Cretaceous Period
Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary event
Crew, Eric
crime, criminality
Cro-Magnon man
Croll, J.
crown of metal
Crozier, W. D.
crust, displacement of Earth's
crust, Earth's
crustal rebound
crustal spreading
crustal subsidence
crux anasta
Cuaretes, -.
cultural change
cultural hologenesis
cultural relativity
cultural synchronism
culture, dating of
Cumberland, MD
Curie temperature
Curie, unit of radiation
current, Earth
current, surface & deep sea
Cuvier, Georges
Cuyama Valley, CA
cycle, historical & catastrophical
cyclic stratification
Cypress Hills gravel accumulation
Cyr, Donald

Dachille, Frank
Dades gorges
Dalgacanga crater
Dallol salt flats
Dan, Lebanon
Daniken, Erich von
Danjon, Andre
Danu (dana, anu)
Danube River
Dark Age( s)
Darwin, Charles Robert
Darwin, Sir George Howard
Darwinian revolution
dating method
Dating the World
dating, absolute
dating, relative
datum, data
Davies, James C.
Davies, Paul
Davis, Chester
Davison, Charles
day length
Dayak peoples
de Geer, -.
de Leonard, Carmen C.
de Shaves, G.
Dead Sea
Dead Sea scrolls
Death Valley, CA
decay constant
Deccan traps, India
deccan traps, India
Dechend, Hertha von
Deep Bay crater
Deep Springs valley, CA
deGrazia, Alfred
Dekkas volcanic formation
Deloria, Vine
Dendera, Zodiac of
Denis of Halikarnassos
deoxyribose nucleic acid (| dna|)
deoxyribose nucleic acid (DNA)
deposit, deposition
depression, land
depression, mental
derivation, source
dessication, planetary
Deucalion Flood
deus otiosus
deva, daeva
Devil's tower
Devonian period
deVries, -.
Dewey, John
diagenic reaction
diapir, diapirism
Diego-Suarez bay
dielectric material
Diespiter (Jupiter)
Dietz, Robert Sinclair
diffusion, cultural
diffusion, physical
Dingle, Herbert
Dirac sea
Dirac's equation
Dirac, Paul A. M.
disaster effects
disasterous processes
discharge of electricity
Disco Island,
discordant ages
dissolved load
divine succession
divinity, classes of
Djamshidi, Tepe
Djerid, Chott
Dobzhansky, -.
Doda Fallet, Sweden
Dodds, E. R.
dog star
Dogon tribe
Dolomite mountains
dome mountain
domestication of animals
Dominican Republic
Donnelly, Ignatius
Doppler effect
Doran, Patrick
double layer, electrical
double star
Dover, chalk cliffs of
DQ Herculis
Drakensberg volcanics
Dravidian Culture
drift, continental
drift, glacial
drumlin field
Dry Falls, Washington
Dubrow, -.
Dudley, H. C.
dumb-bell orbit
Dunsmuir granite spires, CA
Drer, Albrecht
dust storm
duToit, -.

Ea (Enki)
early human
Earth axis
Earth axis change
earth charge
earth chimney, hoodoos
Earth crust
Earth dilation
Earth energy
Earth expansion
Earth figure
Earth fracture
Earth history
Earth interior
Earth magnetism
Earth Mother
Earth pole
Earth radius
Earth size
Earth surface
Earth's mantle
Earth, composition
Earth, development
Earth, interior
Earth, origin
Earth, structure
earthquake light
earthquake prediction
East African Rift
Easter Island
eclipse cycle
ecliptic precession
ecology, ecological
Eddington, Sir Arthur Stanley
Eddy, John A.
Eden, Garden of
Eglinton River Valley, NZ
Egyed, -.
Egypt, Egyptian
Egyptian calendar
Egyptian Chronology
Egyptian Dark Ages
Einstein, Albert
Eiseley, Loren.
Eisley, Loren
El Chichon volcano
El, Elohim
Elbrus, Mount
electric behavior
electric cosmos
electrical charge
electrical discharge
electrical engineering
electrification on mountain tops
electromagnetic encounter
electromagnetic energy
electromagnetic field
electromagnetic spectrum
electron bond
electron-antielectron pair
electron-deficient atom
electronic microscope
electrophysical effect
element, chemical
Elgon, Mount
Eliade, Mircea
Ellenberger, Charles L.
Ellesmere Island
Emery, G. T.
Emi Koussi
Emiliani, Cesare
emission spectrum
empirical method
Encke's Comet
encounter, cosmic
encounter, electromagnetic
endocranial cast
endocrine system
energy budget, annual
energy level
energy source
energy, conservation of
Engels, -.
English fens
Ennedi plateau
Eocene Epoch
eon, aeon
Eosphaerra tyleri
Etvs torsion balance
equation, conceptual
equation, mathematical
equatorial bulge
equipartition, of energy
equipotential surface
equivalence principle
Erebus, Mount
Ericson, David B.
Eridu (Abu)
erosional debris, missing
escape velocity
espionage in science
ether, aether
Etna, Mount
Etruria, Etruscan
Etruscan alphabet
Euphrates River
Evans, Sir Arthur John
evening star
Everest, Mount
Everglades swamp, Florida
evidence, rules of
evolved star
Ewing, Maurice
excited state
excrement, fossilized
existential fear
Exodus, the
exothermic expansion
exothermic process
exploding star
exploration techniques
exponential notation
exponential principle
extinction( s)
extremely low frequency energy, |elf|
eye, cosmic
Eyre, Lake

Fairbanks, Alaska
fall of a city
fall of gas
fall of glass
fall of ice
fall of metal
fall of rock and mineral
fall of water and vapor
fall, of ash and dust
Fall, The
falling star
Faraday, Michael
Farquahar, x. x.
Faul, Henry
fault-block mountains
faunal and floral succession
feast of light
Fell, B.
Fennoscandian Rise
feral humans
fertility rite
feruginous pigments
Fester, R.
Festival of Light
fictional character
field of knowledge
field, physical
Fig Tree rock series
fine particle
Fingal's cave
fire ritual
fired material
Firsoff, V. A.
first born"
Fisher, Osmund
fission dating
fission, atomic
fission, of large body
fjord, origin of
flare, solar
flash burn
Flathead Valley, BC
flood basalts
flood gravel anomaly
flood plain
flood, catastrophic
Florida sediments
flow of material
fluvial pattern
fluvial process
Foehn wind
fold morphology
Folgheraiter, Guiseppe
Folkin, A. V.
food and drink
forbidden energy state
force, chemical
force, electrical
force, fundamental
force, gravitational
force, mechanical
force, nuclear
forces of Nature
Forel, F.
forget, forgetting
Forrest, Bob
Forshufvud, Ragnar
fort, ancient
fossil assemblage
fossil imprint
fossil record
fossil river
fossil string dunes
fossil, radioactivity in
foundations; philanthropic
fourth dimension
fractional crystalization
fractional distillation
Franco-Canabrian School
Frank landslide
Franklin Institute
Franklin, Benjamin
Frasnian Revolution
fraud in science
Frazer River Canyon
Frazer, James George
free will
fresh water
Freud, Sigmund
Freya, Freyja
Fuhr, Ilse
Fujiyama, Mount
Fundy, Bay of
funeral rite
fusion, nuclear

Gabriel, Archangel
Gaea, Gaia
Gaietto, Piettro
Galapagos islands
Galilean satellites of Jupiter
Galilei, Galileo
Gallant, Rene
Galton, Sir Francis
Gambutis, Maria
gamma ray
Gammon, Geoffrey
Ganges delta
Garden of Eden
Gawra, tepe
Geiranger Fjord
Geminid progenitor comet
general adaptation syndrome
genesis and extinction of species
genetic realization
Geneva, lake
Gentry, Robert
geographically isolated population
geography, history of
geologic column
geological age
geological ages, duration of
Georgia, U. S. A.
Gerard, Ralph
gestalt of creation
Ghats, India
ghost, spirit
Giant's causeway
Gimbutas, Maria
Ginenthal, Charles
Ginzberg, Louis
Gisement of Micoque
Gisement of Pennon
Giyan, tepe
glacial ice, origin
Glass, Billy
global event
global fracture
global warming
global warming
Glomar Challenger
Gobi desert
God's Day
God's fire
god, goddess
Gold, Thomas
Golden age
Golden fleece
Goldfield Summit, NV
Goldschmidt, R.
good and evil
Goosen, Doeko
Gordon, Cyrus
Gosselin, Pascal Francois
Gould, Stephen Jay
Gowans, Alan
Graf, S. M.
Grand Aarrat
Grand Canyon
Grand Coulee
Grand Karroo
Grand Teton Range
Graves, Robert
gravity, gravitation
Great "Nevada" basin
Great African rift valley
Great barrier reef
Great Basin
Great Bear
Great Bear Lake
Great Britain
Great flood
Great Lakes
Great Lakes Basin
Great Pyramid
Great Red spot
Great Salt lake
Great Slave Lake
great tidal flooding
Great Valley deposits
Great Western Erg
Great Year
Greater Melanesia
Greater Micronesia
Greater Polynesia
Greater Tasmania
Greece, Greek
Greek history
Greenberg, Lewis
greenhouse effect
greenhouse, atmospheric
Greenland crater
Greenland ice cores
Gregorian calendar
Gregory, J. W.
Gribbin, John
Griffard, David
Grinnell, George
Gros Brukkaros structure
Gulf of Mexico
Gulf of Saint Lawrence
Gunn, Ross
Gunnison, Black Canyon of the
Gurr, Ted
Guthrie, W. K. C.
Gwarkuh, (Persian crater)
gypsy moth

Hadas, Moses
hairy star"
Halley's Comet
Halloway, -.
Hama, Syria
hand, handedness
Hapgood, Charles
Har Karkom, mount
Harappa Culture
Harkenss, Doug
harmonic motion
harmony, of the spheres
Harper's Ferry
Harris papyrus
Harrison, E. R.
Harrison, Jane
Hartung, Jack, B
Harz mountains
Hatteras, Cape
Hawaii, Hawaiian
Hawkes, Jaequetta
Heavenly host
heavens, constancy
Hebrew, Hebraic
Heezen, Bruce C.
Heinsohn, Gunnar
Heiratic writing
Hekla volcano
Helen of Troy
Heller, Joseph
Henbury crater field
Hermes stone
Hertzler, J. R.
Hess, Harry
Hesy, tell-el-Heyrdahl,
Hibben, -.
Hienghene bay
Hills, J. G.
Himmalayan Orogony
Hindu Kush
Hindu lunar catastophe
Hissarlik, Asia Minor
Hitler, Adolf
hoax, in science
Hoba meteorite
Holbrook, John
Holleford crater
Holmsoland Klit
hologram, brain model
Holy Dreamtime
Holy Ghost
Holy Mountain"
homeland of mankind
Homeric Age
Homeric aristocracy
Homeric heros
Homeric language
hominid reversion
Homo erectus
Homo sapiens
Homo sapiens schizotypicus
Homo schizo
Homo schizo reformation
homo sinemento
Hooker, J. T.
hopeful monster"
Hopi, people
Hoerbiger, Hans
horizontal strata
Horseshoe falls
Hoskins(-Boisen), R. G.
hot spring
Howorth, Henry
Hoyle, Sir Fred
Hudson's Bay
Huggett, Richard
human engineering
human evolution
human genesis
human migration
human nature
human settlement
human survival
human variation
humanist-scientist division
Humbolt, A. von
Hume, David
hunter, hunting
Hutton, James
Huxley, Thomas
Hwang Ho river
hydrocarbons, in manna
hydrocarbons, in soil
hydrocarbons, on Venus
hydrogen bomb
hydrolic cataforms
hydrologic cycle
hydrous meteorite
hypothetical construct

Ice Age termination
Ice age( s)
ice cap
ice cave
ice core
ice dump
ice fall
ice-free corridor
iderot, -.
idol, idolatry
igneous rock
Illimani, Bolivia
illo tempore
illusion in scripture
illusion, spatial
illusion, temporal
Ilopango, El Salvador
image synthesis
imagination, tricks of
impact (shock) metamorphism
impact erratic
Imperial Valley, CA
Inca Indians
India, Indian
Indian Ocean
Indo-Chinese penninsula
Indo-European language
Indo-Iranian subfamily
Indus River
Indus Valley civilization
inferiority complex
initiation rites
inner language
Inntal, Tyrole
insect, queen
instinct delay
institutions, primeval
insulation, electrical
integration of ideas
integration of ideas
intermolecular force
interstellar matter
inversion of strata
invisible matter
Io, ion torus
Ions, Veronica
Ipuwer papyrus
iridium anomalies
Iron age
iron formations
irrational number
Irrawddy River
Isaacson, Israel M.
Isbell, William
Isenberg, Aurthur
Ishim, Kazakhstan
island arcs
isotope ratio
isotopes, table of
Issyk Kul
Itabirito, Brazil
Ithica, Ithaki
Ivory Coast
Ivory Island, Siberia
Ix Chel

Jacob (Israel)
Jacot, L
James, Peter
James, William
Janet, Pierre
Japan, geography
Japan, Japanese
Japan, mythology
Japanese language
Jashar, Book of
Jaspers, Karl
Jastrow, Robert
Java man
Java trench
Java, Island of
Jaynes, Julian
Jeferson, Thomas
Jefferys, Harrold
Jehovah's Witnesses
Jerome, Saint
Jesus (Christ)
jet-stream, atmospheric
jewelry, celestial
jewelry, motifs
jewelry, uses
Jewish historiography
Jewish history
Jewish legends
Jewish, calendars and festivals
Jewish, cosmic philosopy
Jewish, mysticism
Jews, early wandering
Job, Book of
Johanson, Donald O.
John, Saint, the apostle
Johnson, F
Jones, J. C.
Jordan, Pascual
Joseph of Egypt
Josephus Flavius
Joule's Law
Joule, James Prescott
journalism, scientific
Jovea, age of
Jubilee Pass
Judah ha-Levi
Judaic monotheism
Judaism, catastrophes influencing
Judaism, divine entities
Judaism, earliest sources and practices
Judaism, Mosaism
Judeideh, tell
judgement of the soul, depiction
Judges, Book of
Jueneman, Frederick
Juergens, Ralph C.
Jung, Carl
jungle and tropical forests
Jupiter effect
Jupiter-g, attributes and behaviors
Jupiter-g, specific latin legends
Jupiter-g, typical effects produced by
Jupiter-g, world-wide identification
Jupiter-p, composition and appearence
Jupiter-p, external transactions
Jupiter-p, history and origins
Jupiter-p, radio-noises
Jupiter-p, satellites of
Jupiter-p, typical phenomena associated with
Jura Mountains
Jurassic Period
Justin, the historian

Kafer-Djarra, necropolis of
Kagra River
Kaibab formation
Kalambo Falls
Kallen, Horace
Kalos, Kalotics
Kant, Emmanuel
Kaplan, Lewis
kara structure
Karakoram, India
Karkom, Mount
karst topography
Kas shipwreck
Katewe Craters
Keen Camp summit
Keill, John
Keller, Gerta
Kellogg, V. L.
Kelly, Alan O.
Kelvin, Lord (Wm. Thompson)
Kennett, J. P.
Kentucky, Mammoth Cave
Kern River boulders and cobblestones
Kessler Loch
Kicking Horse Pass
Kilauea, Hawaii
Kimberly mines
kinetic energy
kinetic molecular theory
king list
King shepherd
King, Clarence I.
King, Henry, C.
Kinnekulle, Sweden
kitchen midden
Klamath mountain arc
Kloosterman, Hans
Knudtson, J. A.
Kobuk Sand Hills, AK
Koch, R. H.
Koestler, Arthur
Kofarh, Robert E.
Kogan, Shulamith
Kohoutek, Comet
Kojiki scripture
Koko Nor, China
Kola Bore Hole
Kola Penninsula, Russia
Komarek, Edourd V. Sr.
Kondratov, Alexander
Kopal, Zdenek
Kotelnoi island
Kotor, Gulf of
Koyukok River
Kramer, Richard
Kramer, Samuel
Kronia Group, publishers of AEON
Kronos, Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies
Kugler, Francis Xavier
Kuhn, Thomas
Kukla, G. J.
Kumar S.
Krten, Bjoeren
Kurtz, Paul
Kwale islands
Kweilin karst

La Brea pit, California
La Cluna cave
La Malbaie crater, Quebec
Laacher See
lady of Nordic Pantheon carbon laetoli beds
Lagrange, restricted solution
Lagrangian point
Lake Agassiz
Lake Bonneville
Lake Calgary flood
lake dwelling
Lake Humbolt
Lake Isabella, CA
Lake Missoula
Lake Pend Oreille, ice dam
Lake Wackitupe, NZ
lake, origins of
Lamark, -.
land bridge
landform, shaping of
Lane, Frank
Lang, Andrew
Langerie Haute
language, diffusion
LaPlace, Pierre Simon, Marquis
LaPonit, P. I.
Laramie formation
Larderello hot spring
Larry, R. D.
Lascaux Caves
Lassen Peak
Lasswell, Harold D.
Late Kingdom
latent heat
lateral displacement
laws, in science
leader gene hypothesis
Leaky, Louis B., Mary & Richard
least interaction action
Leclerc, G. L.
Lederer, Wolfgang
Lehmann, -.
Leibnitz, Gottfried
Leiden papyrus
Lemaire, J.
Lena river
Leonardo da Vinci
Les Eyzies de Tayac
LeSage, George-Louis
Levant/ Dead Sea Rift
Levi-Strauss, Claude
Leviathan cave
Lexell's Comet
Leyden jar
Liakhov island
Libby, Willard Frank
Libya, Libyan
life and entropy
life span
life, biotic precursors of
light pressure
light refraction
limbic system
Linear B script
Lingua Adamisa
linguistic ideology
lion, rampant
Lisbon earthquake
listric fault
lithic wear analysis
Little Salt spring
Littlewood, -. -.
local neutral
Loch Ness
Loham mountain
Loma Prieta earthquake
London Geologic Society
Long, C. H.
lost tribe
low elevation meteor
Lowel, Percival
Lowery, Malcolm
Lucerne, lake
Luckenbill, D. D.
Luckerman, Marvin
Lucretius, -.
lunar ...
lunar calendar
lunar fission
Lycia, tombs of
Lyell, Charles
Lyons, France
Lyttleton, Raymond

Ma, E. M.
Maccoby, Hyam
MacCrea, W. H.
MacDonnel Bay, Australia
MacGowan, -.
MacGregor, J.
Mackenzie river
Mackie, Evan W.
MacMillan Book Co.
MacNeish, Richard S.
Madura, Australia
Mage, Shane
Magna Grecia
magnetic decay
magnetic mapping
magnetic pole
magnetic reversal
magnetic tube
main sequence star
Mainwaring, Bruce
Majdalouna, necropolis of
Malapina Glacier
Malay Penninsula
Maldeve Islands
Malkus, W. V. R.
Malthus, David
Mammoth cave, Kentucky
Man (early in America)
Manavgat River
Mandelkehr, Moe
Mandraka falls
manic depressive
manna, medicinal properties
manna, nutritional properties
Manson structure
Manson, Lewis A.
Maori lore
Maran, S. P.
Maranatos, S.
Marble Canyon sand deposit, AZ
Marcanton, Pierre L.
Mare Imbrium
marfa lights
Margolis, Howard
marine extinction
Marshak, Alexander
Martia, age of
Martin, P. S.
Martinatos, Spiridon
Marx, Christoph
Marx, Karl
Marxist paradigm
mass organization
mass spectrum
mass, physical
mass, religious
mass-luminosity relation
Massif Central, France
massive dunes, Somali coast
massive ion
massive sand-deposit
Mauna Loa, Hawaii
Maunder minimun
Maxwell, James Clerk
Maya, Mayan
Mazama mountain
MBI" people
McClintock, Barb
McKinnon, Roy
McLaren, D. J.
measure and test
Mecalli scale
Mecklenberg Lake
medicine, medicinal
megalithic monument
Meinesz, Venning F. A.
Mekong river
melting point
membrane, cellular
memorial generation
Mendel, Gregor
Mendeleev, D. I.
Mendocino, CA
menstruation, menstrual
mental health/ illness
Menzel, Donald
Merapi, mount
Mercalli scale
Mercanton, P. L.
Mercator projection
Mercator, Gerardus
Mercuria, Mercurian Period
Merovingian period
Meservey, R.
mesiah, mesianism
Meso, ..., Middle...
Meso-America, Mesoamerican
Mesolithic period
Mesopotamia, Mesapotamian
Mesopotamian chronology
Mesozoic era
Mesquite gravel, NV
Messabi Iron Range
metamorphic rock
meteor crater
Meteor Crater," AZ
meteor shower
Meteora, Greece
meteorite, encounter with
meteorites from Mars
meter, metre
Metonic Cycle
metric system
Michael, Archangel
Michell, John
Michelsohn, Irving
Michigan, Lake
microlithic technique
microwave energy
Mid-Atlantic ridge
Middle Bronze age
Middle East
Midsummer Night's Dream
migration, animal
migration, bird
migration, human
Milankovitch, M.
Milford Sound, N. Z.
Milford Sound, NZ
Milky Way
Miller, Alice
Miller, Hugh
mima mound
Minoa, Minoan
Miocene epoch
Mireaux, Emile
missing link
missing mass
Mississippi River
Mississippi, U. S. A.
Mississippi-Missouri Basin
Missoula, Lake
Missouri, U. S. A.
Mistaseni (Sask. rock)
mixture, chemical
model, scientific
Moen Cliffs, Denmark
Mogollon Rim river gravel, AZ
moho (discontinuity)
Moldavite tektites
money, catastrophic origin
Mont Blanc, France
Montazuma Hills, CA
Monte Bolca
Montgomery Creek formation
Monument Valley
moon worship
Moore, Brian
Moorea, French Polynesia
Morar Loch, Scotland
Morgan, Elaine
Morgan, Lewis H.
Morning Star
Morris, Charles
Morris, Henry
Morrison, Philip
Motz, Lloyd
mound builder
Mount Saint Helens
Mount Shasta mineral deposits
Mount Shasta, CA
Mount Sinai
Mount Whitney, CA
Mount Woodson granite
mountain range
mouse, cosmic
Mousterean culture
Mt. Pelee
Mt. Pinatubo, Phillipines
Muir Glacier, Alaska
Muldrow Glacier, Alaska
Mullen, William (Bill)
Mller, Max
Muller, William.
multiple star system
Munk, W. H.
Murchison meteorite
murmmurings, of crowd
music of the spheres
mutagenic agent
mutual repulsion
Mycenea, Mycenean
Myres, John
myth interpretation
myth, mythology
mythical and celestial movement

Nafud Desert depression
names of gods
names of planets
Nampa image
Nanga Parbat
Nansen, F.
Naos of El Arish
Napier, William M.
Narmada River, India
Narryer, mount
Nasca, Peru
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
natural force
natural history
natural law
natural rights
natural scientist
natural selection
Nature, periodical
Navajo sandstone
navigation, primitive
Naxos, Greece
Nazis, Nazism
Neanderthal man
Near East
Nebraska Sand Hills
nebular cosmogony
Needham, -.
needs, human
negative electrical charge
negative exponentialism
negro race
Nelson, John H.
Nemi Lake
Neo..., New...
Neolithic age
nervous system
Nestor, Palace of
Neugebauer, Otto
neutral, neutrality; electric
neutron star
neutron transformation
Nevadan Revolution
Neville, -.
New Brunswick, Canada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Madrid earthquake
New Mexico
New River, CA
New Scientist, periodical
New Testament
New Year's Day
New York
New Zealand
Newcomb, Simon
Newgrosh, Bernard
Newham, -.
Newton, Sir Isaac
Newtonian definitions
Newtonian formulations
Ngorongoro Crater
Niagra falls
Niederberger, Chistine
Niemann, V. D.
Nieto, M. M.
Nietzsche, Friedrich W.
Niger Republic
Niger river
Nile river
Nilsson, Herbert
Ninninger, H. H.
Nishapur mines
nitrogen cycle
nitrogen oxides
Nix Olympia
Noah's flood
Noah, Noachian
noble savage"
noise pollution
noise, accoustic
noise, cosmic
noise, electrical
nonconformity, geological
Nordic myth
Nordic, Norse
normality, abnormality
Norman, John
North America
North American Flood
North American Lacustrian Rift
North American tektite field
North Carolina
North Dakota
North Pole
North Sea
North Star
North, Robert G.
Northern Kingdom of Israel
Northwest Territories, Canada
Nova Komenei
Nova Scotia
Novaya Zemlya, Siberia
nuclear energy
nuclear missile
nuclear physics
nuclear reaction
nuclear synthesis
nucleic acid
nucleus, atomic
nucleus, cell
nuclidic masses
Numa Pompilius
numbers, sequences and series
nursery rhyme

O'Geoghan, Brendon
O'Keefe, John A.
O. K.
Oahu, Hawaii
Ob-Irtysh Basin
obliquity, changes
Occam, William of
ocean basin
Oceana, cultures of
oceanic flood gravel
Oceanic plate subduction
Oesel island
Ogden, J. G. III
Okotoks erratic
Old Crow Basin, Yukon
Old Faithful geyser
Old Man of Hoy
Old One of the Sea"
old red sandstone
Old Testament
Olgas, the
olive oil
Olivet, mount
Olmec world
Olympic games
Olympus Mt., Mars
Olympus, Mt., Greece
Ometepe Island and volcanoes
omnipotence of thought
Omo River
Oort cloud of comets
Oosterhout, G. van
Oparin, A. I.
Optimkist's Cave, U. S. S. R.
orbit transition (solar system)
Ordovician hammer
ore deposit
organic geochemistry
organic illness
organic sediment
orgy, orgiastic
oriented lakes
origin of life
original horizontality" concept
original man
Orontius Fineus
Orphic hymns
Orphic mysteries
Otto, Walter F.
Ouadi es Seboua
ought-is" problem
Ovendon, Michael W.
overturned strata
Owens Valley aprons
ox-bow lake
Oxnard, Charles
oxygen isotope ratio
oxygen, transmutation of
oxygenation of the atmosphere

Pacific ring of fire
Pacific rise
Padagonian man
Page, Denys
Paine-Gaposchkin, Celia
Pakicetus fossil
Paleolithic Age, Palaeolithic
Paleozoic Era
Paluxy footprints
Pamir range
Pangea, Pangaea
Paricutin, Mexico
Paris, France
Parry, Alan
particle physics
particle/ wave duality
Pascal, Blaise
Patagonia, fjords of
Patroni, Giovanni
Patten, Donald
Patterson, Clair
paucity of evidence
Pausanias, -.
Payne-Gaposhkin, Cecilia
peer review
Peirce, Charles
Peking man
Pelean volcano
Peloponnesian Penninsula
Peltier, Jean
Penniston, G. B.
Pennsylvanian Period
Peoples of the sea
period, geologic
period, resonant
period, sidereal
period, synodic
Periodic table
Permean period
Permian Period
Persia, ancient
Persia, Persian
Persian Gulf
Peruvian gravel anomalies
Pestigo fire
Petrie, W. M. S.
petrifaction, petrification
petrified forest
Petrified Forest, AZ
Petrona skull
Petterson, Hans
Pfeiffer, John
Pfeiffer, Robert H.
Pharoah Ramses
Philippine Islands
Philistine pick
Phoenicia, Phoenician
Phoenix, AZ
phonetic, phonemic
phylogenic inheritance
physical binary system
Phythian oracle
Pickering, William
Pikering, William
Pilat dunes
pillar of fire"
Pillars of Hercules
Piltdown man
Piltdown, England
Pindar, -.
Piri Reis map
Plagues of Egypt
Planck, Max
plane, ecliptic
planetary gods
planetary motion
planetary nebula
planetary tide
planetary, transaction
planets and human directives
planets, in language
plasma, cosmic
plastic flow
Plata, rio de la
plate tectonics
Pleistocene Epoch
Pleistocene-Holocene Boundary
Plinian eruption
Pliocene epoch
plural environment
plural selves
Pluto-g, god
Pluto-p, planet
plutonic rock
plutonium, toxicity
Pobitite Kamani
poetic meter
Poincare, Jules Henri
Point Loma erratics
Polaki, Lake
Polanyi, Michael
polar icecap, shift
political control
political science
politics of science
polluted sediment
polycyclic aromatic compounds (PAC)
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, PAH
polymerase chain reaction
Pont d'Ambon
Ponto-Aralian Mediterranean
Ponway gravel
Popol Vuh Epic
popular science
Postojna Cave
potassium-argon dating
potential energy
potential, electric
Poverty Point, Louisiana
power, intellectual
power, physical
power, political
Poznansky, Arthur
pragmatics of legend
Pratt, J. H.
Pre-Cambrian Era
precession of equinoxes
precident, need for
Predmost, Moravia
pressure group, lobby
pressure of light
pressure, biological
pressure, environmental
pressure, physical
Prestley, Joseph
Prestwich, Joseph
prevailing wind
Priam, T.
priapic wand
Pribriam, Carl
Price, George McCready
primeval sculpture
primordial soup"
principal star in binary system
priority in scientific discovery
pro-human ape
promised land"
prophecy of doom
Prouty, W. F.
psychic mechanism
psychological therapy
psychoneurosis, psychosis
psychosomatic genetics
Ptolemy, Claudius
public policy
punctuated equilibrium
Puys volcanic chain
Pyrannes, mountain range

q, charge on electron
Qraye, necropolis of
quantum relativity
quantum sedimentation
quantum-mechanics, theory of
Quaternary Period
Queen of Heaven"
Queen of Sheba
Queenstown, NZ
Quiche Mayans

Ra, Re
Raabjerg mile dunes
Rabbitkettle hot springs
Rabinowitz, Eugene
Radhakrishnah, V.
radiant genesis
radiation chemistry
radiation detector
radiation sickness
radiation storm
radiation therapy
radiation, biological effects of
radical, chemical
radient genesis
radioactive dating, (RAD)
radioactive decay
radioactive halo
radioactive isotope
radioactive waste
radioactive, radioactivity
radiogenic helium
rafting of land masses
Raikes, Robert J.
Rainbow Bridge, Utah
raised sealevel
Ralph, Elizabeth
Ramesses II
Ramona cobbles, CA
Rampino, M. R.
Ramses II
Ramses III
Ramses VI
Rank, Otto
Rapp, George
Ras Shamra
Raup, David M.
Rawlinson, Gerald
rayed crater
reading backwards
recent time
reception system, science
Reck, H.
recombination, genetic
red colored environmental substances
Red Deer badlands
red dwarf star
Red Sea
red shift
red tide
refining, metal
refining, natural
refrigeration, natural
Reich, Theodor
Reich, Willhelm
Reid, G. C.
relative density
relativity in physics
relativity, social
religion, reformation
religion, sociology of
REM, unit
remains, human & animal
remanence, magnetic
remnant, celestial
reproduction, exponential rates
reproductive system
reservoir, natural
Reshetov, Yuri
resonance, physical
resonant ratio
retired god
reversed magnetism
reversion to hominidae
revolution, intellectual
revolution, political
revolution, scientific
revolution, social
Rezanov, I. A.
Rhine river
Rhine River valley
Rhone glacier
Rhone River
rhythm, biological
Richat structure
Ries Crater
Rift, African
Rift, Mid Atlantic
Rig Veda
right handedness
right hemisphere
Riley, C. J.
rille, lunar
Rilli, Nicola
ring of fire"
ring, planetary
Rio de Janeiro
ripple mark
ripple marking in rock
rising land
rite of passage
Rittmann, A.
river delta
Rivers, W. H. R.
Rix, Ziv
Roche Limit"
rock art
rock chimney
rock salt
Rock, Fritz
Rocky Mountain structures
Rocky Mountains
Rodabaugh, David
Roheim, Geza
Roman religion
Rome, Roman
Rommulus, Remmus
Rooser, R. G.
Rose, Lynn
Rosetta stone
Ross ice shelf
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques
Roussel, Rene
rubble hill
Rugus, Carl W.
runaway" star
Runcorn, S. .K
Russell, Bertrand
Russell, D. A.
Russell, Henry Norris
Rutherford scatter
Ryan, W. B. F.

Sacral man
sacrifice ritual
Sagan, Carl
Saguenay river
Sahara, Saharan Sea
Saint-Hilaire, Geoffrey
Salinas Valley alluvial fan, CA
Salop, L. J.
salt dome, salt plug
salt flat, salt pan
salt lake
Salt Lake crater
Salt pans, S Australia
salt, evaporation of brine
Salton Sea, California
Salzkammergut, Austria
Sammer, Jan
San Andreas Fault
San Diego Hills, CA
San Felipe ocean flood apron
San Francisco earthquakes
San Jacinto Mountains
sand barrier
sand dune
Santa Klaus
Santillana, Giorgio di
Santorini remnant
Sargasso Sea
Saskatchewan gravels
satellite, artificial
satellite, celestial
Saturn symbol
Saturn's rings
Saturn, binary
Saturnia, Saturnian Age
Saturnian Deluge
Saturnian nova
Saudia Arabia
Saul, John
Saussure, F de
Scaligar, J. J.
scanning electron microscope
Scarisora Cave
Schaeffer, Claude
Schindewolf, Otto H.
schizophrenia, schizophrenic
Schliemann, Heinrich
Schorr, Edward
Schramm, David
science fiction
Science, Organ of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
scientific espionage
Scotia Sea
Scrope, George Poulett
sculpture, ancient
sea feature
sea level
Sea level changes in
seafloor exploration
seafloor, spreading
season, seasonal
Second Millennium BC
secret word
sedimentary meteorite
sedition & science
seismic discontinuity
seismic sea wave
self awareness
self control
self destructiveness
self fulfillment
Selye, Hans
sense( s)
separation of heaven & earth
Serpent mound
Servan, lake
Set, Seth
settlement, primeval
Seuss, H. E.
Sewalich Hills
sexual selection
Shansi Loess region
Shapley, Harlow
sheath, electric
Sheldrake, R.
Shelton, John S.
Sherman Glacier, AK
Shiaparelli, Giovanni V.
shield volcano
Ship rock
Shklovskii, I. S.
shock metamophism
shock therapy
Shocked quartz
Siberian craters
Sieff, Martin
Sierra foothills sand blanket, CA
Sierra Leone
sign language
Sigri, petrefied forest
silica, silicate
Simiriyan, tell
simple harmonic motion, SHM
Simpson, George G.
Simpson, John, A.
simultaneous havoc
Singer, Fred
sinking land
Sithylemenkat, lake
Siwalik hills
Sizemore, Warner
Skidi Pawnee
sky mimicry
sky movement
Slabinsky, Victor
Sleeping Bear dunes
slip fault
Slovensky Raj
Smart, W. M.
Smith, William
Smokey Valley, NV
Snake River Canyon
social imprinting
social invention
social science
Society For Interdisciplinary Studies (London), SIS
society over time
Soda Lake, Chad
sodium chloride
soft landing
solar antapex
solar flare
Solar magnetic field
solar mansion"
Solar motion
solar power
solar prominence
solar radar
solar size
solar storm
Solar System
solar wind
Solaria Binaria
Solomon's temple
solution, chemical
songs, sacred
sonic boom
Soos Springs, Czechoslovakia
soot in sediments
Sorenson, I.
Sorokin, Pitrim
Sothic dating
Soufriere volcano
sound, catastrophic
South Africa
South America
South Carolina
South China Sea
South Dakota
South Pole
South Sea Islands
South-East Asia
Soviet Union
space exploration
space infra-charge
space medicine
space plasma
space science
space, concept of
space-charge sheath
Spangler, George W.
Spanish Sahara
spark, electrical
Sparkling Goat"
Sparta, Spartan
specific charge ratio
specific gravity
spectrum class of stars
spectrum measurement
speech disorders
Spencer, Herbert
Spokane Flood
Spring Equinox
Sri Lanka
St. Elmo's Fire
St. Gervais, France
St. Lawrence River
stability, constancy
Stag dance
standard atmosphere
standard geologic column
Stanley, Steven M.
star as pointed emblem
star dunes, W Algeria
star emblem
statitc electrification
Stecchini, Livio
Steibing, Wm.
Steinhaur, Loren C.
stellar evolution
stellar population
stellar structure
Stengler, William
Steno, Nicholas Surinam
Stenson, Niels
Stephanos, Robert
Stetson, -.
Stevanson, ?. ?.
Still, Elmer G.
Stone Age
Stone calendar
stone circle
Stone Mountain, Georgia
stones, falling
strata, statification
stratographic column
stream channel
string dunes, Arabia
Stromboli, volcano
structure of nature
Stube, -.
subatomic particle
submarine canyon
submarine mountain
submarine seep
succession of gods
Sudbury, Ontario
Suess, Eduard
Sugarloaf mountain
Suhr, E. George
sulfur compound
Sullivan, Walter
Sumer, Sumerian
Sumner, William Graham
sun worship
Sun, James
Sun, myths & dances
Sun, Sol
Sunda Arc
sunken land
super ego
Super Saturn
Super Uranus
supression, devices of
supression, techniques of
Surtsey, Iceland
survival of the fittest"
Sutherland Falls, NZ
Sutter Buttes, Marysville, CA
Swaddle, T. W.
Swanscombe Man
Swift-Tuttle, Comet
symbolic logic
symmetry of form
synchronization of history
synodos, synodic period
synthetic Q-theory
Syrian-Palastinian Rift Valley
systemic mutation
Szasz, Thomas

Ta-hsueh Mountains
Taal Lake & Volcano
Taannek, tell
Tabernacle of Moses
Table Mountain
Talbott, David N.
Talbott, George
Talbott, Stephen L.
Talmud & Midrash
Tamboro Volcano
tar sand
Taylor, Thomas
Teays River
Tecate Summit
technology, development of
technology, origin
Teilhard de Chardin, Pierre
telescope, optical
telescope, radio
Temecula Valley
Temple of Jerusalem
temple, archetecture
temple, origin
Temple, Robert
Ten Commandments
Tenerife, Canary Islands
tensile strength
Terminal Cretaceous Catastrophe
Ternifine fossils
terra-cotta relief
Terrace, H. S.
terrestrial ecosystem
terrestrial methane
territory as claimed habitat
Tertiary Period
Tesla, Nikola
test of time
test, general
test, of matter
test, philosophical
testing, mental
Tethyan Sea
Tethys belt
tetrapyrrole pigment
Teutonic religion
textual critiscism
texture & structure of rock
Tey Gawra
Thackrey, Ted
Thales of Miletus
Thera, Thira
thermal energy
thermal expansion
thermal metamorphism
thermodynamics, laws of
thermoluminescence in dating
thermonuclear reaction, fusion
Thom, Rene
Thomson, Sir William
thorium series
thought disorder
thought process, thinking
Thoum, Pharaoh Thao
Three Valley Gap gravels
thrusting, rock
Thutmose I
Thutmose II
Thutmose III
tidal bore
tidal flat
tidal friction
Tiglath Pileser III
Tigris River
till, glacial
tilting, axial
time of humanization
time, current measurements of
time, disclosure in rocks
time, disclosure in statigraphy
time, perception of
time, physiological clock
time, psychology of
Tithonius Lacus
Titicaca, Lake
Tiubergen, Nickolaos
Toba lake, Indonesia
Tompkins, Peter
tornado, whirlwind & waterspout
totem, totemism
toungues, speaking in
Tower of Babel"
town plan
toxicity, plutonium
trace element
Trainor, Lynn
transactive matrix
Transarctic Mountains
transmission of brain messages
transmutation of chemical elements
transparency of water
trap, petroleum
tree, cosmic
tree-ring dating
trenche, submarine
Tresman, Harold
Triassic Period
Triassic-Jurassic Boundary
tribe, tribal
Trinil faunal zone
tripod cauldron
Triton, Lake
Trojan asteroids
Trojan Wars
truth, in science & sociology
Tsaidan Basin
Tsunoda, Tadanobu
Tuba, Lake
Tucson Mountains, AZ
Tunguska Explosion
turbidity current
turbulance, aquatic
turbulence, atmosphere
turbulence, lithic
Turfan Depression
Turin Papyrus
Turman, B. W.
Twelve Tribes of Israel
Two Creeks Interglacial Stage
Tycho's nova
Tyndal, John

U. S. Northeast Coast
ultramafic chemistry
Umbgrove, J. H. F.
uncertainty principle
unconformity, cartographical
unconformity, classificatory
unconformity, geological
undersea exploration
unidentified flying objects, UFO
unified field theory
unified science
uniformitarian, uniformitarianism
universal language
Universe, development of
Universe, dynamics of
Universe, origin
Universe, structure of
unseen body
Upham, Warren
Uralian Geosyncline
Urania, age of
uranium-thorium-lead dating
Uranus Minor
Uranus-g, as god
Uranus-p, as planet
Uranus-p, satellites of
urban revolution
Urey, Harold C.
Ursa Major constellation

Vail, Isaac
Van Allan radiation belts
van Andel, Tjeerd
van Flandern, Thomas C.
van Oosterhout, G. W.
Van, Lake
Vanderpool, Eugene, Sr.
vapor pressure
variation, biological
varve, dating by
varve, deposits in
Vaucluse, Fontaine de
Vaughn, Raymond
Veda, Vedic
Velikovsky, Immanuel
velocity of light
Venus, comet
Venus-g, mythology
Venusia, Age of
Venuturi Harbor, Tijuana River
Veracruz erratics, Mexico
Verdon Gorge, France
Vernal Equinox
Vico, Giambattista
Victoria, Australia, Lake Nyanza
Victoria, Lake, Africa
Vijin, mexican bullcart
Vilks, -.
virgin birth
Virgin River, NV
Vishnu, Visnu
visual agnosia
visual binary
Vita-Finzi, Claudio
Vitaliano, Dorothy
vitrified structures
volcanic surge cloud
volcanism, explosive
volcano light
von Buch, Leonard
Von Fange, Eric
Vredefort Structure
Vsekhsviatskii, Sergi K.

Wabar craters
Waddenzee, Netherlands
Wadjak fossils
Walker Pass impact cones, CA
Wallace, Alfred Russel
Wanlesa, Harold R.
Warlow, Peter
Warner's Ranch sand hills
Warwick, James, W.
water depositions, UT
water transport
water, effects
water, origin of
water, World resources of
Watson, Alan
wave, in physics
wave, seismic
wave, tidal
Wealden Series
weather dynamics
weathering, rocks
Weaver, Warren
Webb, Willis L.
Weber, Max
Wegener, Alfred
weights & measures
Weiner, J. S.
West Frisian Islands
West Indies
Westcott, Roger
Western cordilleras
Westfall, Richard S.
Whakarewarewa Thermal Area, NZ
Wheeler, Mortimer, R. F.
Whelton, Clark
Whipple, Fred
whirl wind
whistling atmospheric
Whiston, William
White, J. P.
Whitney, J. D.
Whorf, Benjamin Lee
Whyte, Martin A.
Wickenberg flood gravel, AZ
Wickramasinghe, D. T.
Willamette Valley
Willis, B.
Wilson, Colin & A. T.
Wilson, J. Tuzo
Winchell, Alexander
wind and water anomalies
wind tunnel
Winsconsin glacial stage
Wise, D. U.
Wituratersrand system
Witwatersrand formation
Wolf of Rome"
Wolfe, Irving
Wollin, Goesta
Wondjina pictures
Wong, Kee Kuong
Wonguri ceremonies
wood, preserved
Wood, Robert Muir
Woodmoappe, John
Woodward, John
Wooley, Leonard
world government
World Order
World Tree
World, celestial archetypes
Worzel, J. Lamar
Wreschener, Ernst
Wright, Frederick G.

x-ray burst
x-ray source
x-ray style, in Art

Yamato mountains
Yangtze River, Yellow River
Yayanos, Aristes
year, calendar
year, cermonies of
year, concept & calendar
Year, Great
Yellowstone National Park
Yosemite National Park
Yosemite Valley
Yuba River, CA
Yucatan karst
Yukon Territory, Canada

Zagros Mountains
Ziegler, Jerry L.
zodiacal light
Zysman, Milton


by Alfred de Grazia

A Personal History of Attempts
to Establish and Resist Theories of Quantavolution
and Catastrophe in the Natural and Human Sciences,
1963 to 1983.

Alfred de Grazia

Metron Publications
Princeton, N. J.

Notes on first printed version of this book

ISBN: 0-940268-08-6

Copyright (c) 1984 by Alfred de Grazia

All rights reserved Printed in the U. S. A. Limited first edition of 300 copies.


Metron Publications,
P. O. Box 1213,
Princeton, N. J.,
08542, U. S. A.

Cosmic Heretics was processed by the Princeton University Computing Center, using the processing
language called Script.

Photocomposition, printing, and binding were accomplished by the Princeton University Printing

The text is set in 10 and 9 point Times Roman.

The Author thanks Rick Bender, Steve Pearson, and Skip Plank for managing ably and considerately
the production of this and other works of the Quantavolution Series, and also thanks Marion
Carty for her contributions to the designs and formatting of the books.

On the cover, Isodensitometer tracing of comet Morehouse 1908 III, in J. Rahe et al., Atlas of
Cometary Forms (Washington: NASA, 1962), 63-4.

This book
is dedicated
to whoever figures in it,
whether or not
by name.

The most elementary books of science betrayed the inadequacy of old implements of thought.
Chapter after chapter closed with phrases such as one never met in older literature:

"The cause of this phenomenon is not understood;"

"science no longer ventures to explain causes;"

"the first step towards a causal explanation still remains to be taken;"

"opinions are very much divided;"

"in spite of the contradictions involved;"

"science gets on only by adopting different theories, sometimes contradictory."

Evidently the new American would need to think in contradictions, and instead of Kant's famous
four antinomies, the new universe would know no law that could not be proved by its anti-law. To
educate -- one's self to begin with -- had been the effort of one's life for sixty years; and
the difficulties of education had gone on doubling with the coal-output, until the prospect of
waiting another ten years, in order to face a seventh doubling of complexities, allured one's
imagination but slightly.

From :

The Education of Henry Adams : An Autobiography.

Privately published in 1906, in 100 copies, and sent to interested persons for comment. General
publication ensued in 1918. In 1975 republished by Berg: Dunwoody, Georgia.



















by Alfred de Grazia



I did not obtain Alfred de Grazia's materials for this book without remonstrance and persiflage.
I had thought that he would be pleased to have someone writing about his activities, especially
someone like myself who could be counted upon for sympathy, and indeed intended to do so, in
several volumes, no less. Strange, for Immanuel Velikovsky had responded to me in the same way!

When I muttered something about reminiscence and the consolations of old age, he was primed for
the retort, and I learned that Leonard Woolf had written his autobiography in his eighties, in
five volumes, and Woolf was then old enough to be his father, and Bertrand Russell at the same
age in three volumes. And I had better read them.

Furthermore, said he, I have a lot to recount, think of it, a boyhood spent sniffing the stench
of the Chicago stockyards, shivering in the icy blasts off the prairies, a small critter's
glance up the skirts of the Roaring Twenties. Then the University of Chicago in the heyday of
Robert Maynard Hutchins. And more, seven campaigns of World War II, and still more, an island of
the Aegean Sea, an experimental college in the Swiss Alps, intelligent women, singular, even
beautiful, women, even beautiful men, for that matter. No, I can't let you take it away, there's
too much to say.

Let me try, I said, there'll be no conflict of interest. I'll hew to the line of the Cosmic
Heretics as they tried to break into the halls of science. It's got to be dull. It'll save you
doing the chore. I can't take in your enfants terribles or your politicking, your love affairs
or your friends who escaped your involvement in cosmic heresies. Or your poetry or attempts at
educational revolution. No Naxos, not the beautiful ideas by half. No grueling trips, failures,
pains, unless they're cosmical. No Vietnam, no University life.

Then Deg began to reproach me for taking a person's life out of its context, arguing that you
have to talk about everything to say the truth about anything, whereupon I argued that no field
of science could exist if most of everything weren't left out of the investigation of single

Well certainly, he granted, you'll have a better chance of excising the insignificant details of
life. Yes, exactly, I said, but I thought there's the problem and the genius of biography,
fixing upon the details which may be the fulcrum of a change of life, precisely the sort of
thing that is often lost in sociology and history.

Where will it start, where will it end, he wondered. I'll start, I said, at the time when you
met Immanuel Velikovsky, the beginning of 1963, and carry it down to the publication of your
Quantavolution Series, that is, the beginning of 1984. Not in chronological order of course. The
story will lurch from side to side and pitch and roll.

Using your iconoclastic word "quantavolution" will help to define the dramatis personae. If a
person's been observed by you amidst the melee provoked by the claim that nature and mankind
have been fashioned by disaster, then that person belongs to the cast of characters.

Deg told me that the cosmic heretics were many, and their number would grow with the acceptance
of the heresy. But, he warned me, if the heresy were to fail, I would be guilty of slandering
decent citizens by inclusion. In either event, he said, history will be rewritten; it always is.

To whom will you dedicate your book, he asked, which was tantamount to giving his blessing to
the project. To the Cosmic Heretics, naturally, I answered Anyhow, I have already taken care of
Velikovsky with the dedication of my first book in the field. V. died four years ago, seventeen
years after we met, and before we met had done almost all of his writing. For my own part,
previously I had done a lot in political behavior and methodology, but nothing that might be
called quantavolution. It was a sociological problem that brought us together in the first
instance -- the reception system of science I called it afterwards. Although I might have known
better, I almost immediately entered into the substantive theory of catastrophe; I couldn't
resist the challenge. And I am just about finished now. (I grinned, and so did he.) I'm
beginning to repeat myself, too, so it's not a bad time to end with your book. By the way, have
you read everything that I've ever written? Yes, of course. Just wondering, he mused, because V.
tried never to talk to a person about his works who hadn't read the pertinent volumes. It makes
sense and saved his time.

I don't feel strongly about it: my books are children who have gone off somewhere, on their own
responsibility. I don't possess them, though I ask that they not be mistreated -- the same as I
would for other people's children. Who is entirely read, anyhow, he asked of me almost angrily,
as if I had raised the subject.

I said I didn't know. Once I had met a psychologist who had read the 24 volumes of Freud's
collected works. Still, commented Deg, some of his pieces escaped the Hogarth Press. William
Yeats dedicated his autobiography "to those few people mainly personal friends who had read all
that I have written," but probably no one qualified. It's good that nobody has read everything
of anybody. It might abet the idea that where the pen stops the person vanishes. Rather,
although the powers of expression tower above life, life rampages uncontrollably below.


by Alfred de Grazia


Alfred de Grazia was entering his forty-fourth year when he met a self-styled cosmic heretic,
Immanuel Velikovsky, who was already sixty-seven, and for the next twenty years a wide band of
life's spectrum was colored by their relationship. As with a love affair, all that happened in
the beginning presaged what would happen later, stretched out on the scale of time, themes
doubling back upon themselves, attractions and reservations never to be erased, continuing

The men changed, the world of science changed, too, and also the political world, yet this
latter less; for, after all, one man died and the other grew old, whereas science and politics,
those statistical behemoths of collective behavior, go on forever, compounded of many millions
of individuals whose average age hardly varies, exhibiting trends whose progress, if it could be
called such, is hardly discernible and might indeed have constituted a regression. At least so
it seemed to these two men who were trying to affect the science and politics of their time.

Velikovsky died a heretic, with scattered generally unfavorable press, while his friend de
Grazia moved on with a spirit that could be called existential, convinced as before that
politics (and he insisted upon regarding science, too, as politics and often included politics
in psychopathology) -- that politics, although probably irredeemable, was the elemental hydrogen
of human behavior, no matter how compounded into life styles.

As the winter days of 1962 became 1963 in Princeton, New Jersey, 08540 U. S. A., families and
friends gathered into clusters like the last of the leaves, so the half-consciously and driven
by eddies of customs and calendar, de Grazia saw more of his friends like Livio Catullus
Stecchini and of his brother Sebastian. He did not know Velikovsky, and if he had been asked
about him, he would have replied that he had never heard of him.

This may appear strange, considering that Deg was to be numbered, by whatever scales a social
psychologist might invent to distinguish the "informed and involved" from the "ignorant and
apathetic," as a high-scorer on information and involvement. He had enough children in the
Princeton school system, a half-dozen, to catch the sound of names from all quarters. He spent
part of each week in New York City and at Greenwich village where, of all places, the name of
Velikovsky might have been brutted about. He had since 1957 published and edited a magazine, the
American Behavioral Scientist, which pretended to cover those matters that were or should be the
concern of social scientists. He personally

scanned a hundred and fifty magazines in the social sciences and current affairs each month. He
had many students, several of them close friends. His parents and the families of two brothers
were living most of the time at Princeton.

He was not socially pretentious, nor a prideful man, not a University snob, and had had to pawn
his professional reputation several times on behalf of scholarly and political iconoclasm.
Withal, when it came down to it, he claimed that he had never heard of a man about whom a
million or more Americans could have delivered him a rancorous account. One feature that makes
mass society a horror-show is the actual anonymity of the famous. (However, the mass scatoma of
social realities may be a worse feature.)

This he confessed when Livio Stecchini, as they walked a along Nassau street on that cold day,
brought up the matter, disjointedly, as happens with men walking down the street to no end,
intellectuals with minds chock-full of oddly related and far-off affairs, old friends whose
thoughts needed no introduction nor conclusion. Knowing the two men, I imagine that their
conversation would have gone something like this:

There is a man in Princeton with good material on the scientific establishment...
Cosmogonist... They suppressed his books." "What do you mean, suppressed his books ?" "They
smeared him." "Like Reich? Like Semmelweis?" "Yes." "What does he do?" "He lives here. He
writes." "About what?" "Mythology, astronomy, the Bible, ancient catastrophes." "What does he
live on?" "His books. They are very well sold." "That's not our topic." "No. The ABS could take
up the sociological side. It's rich.

Deg was skeptical. Although his American Behavioral Scientist would stop at nothing, every
scientist had his one or two little scandals of defamation, every professor his Dean's crime,
his edgy paranoia, and you had to take his word for it. It was the same in politics, dirty
tricks everywhere and defamation as a matter of course. As for the juggernaut of science, it
rolled along smashing unconscionably the god's celebrants who crowded in upon it from all sides
with fresh ideas and reputations.

His materials are rich." Again that remark. "Really?" "I can introduce you. We can go to his
house. He lives on Hartley Avenue." "Down near the Lake." "To take a look at his stuff."
"Maybe... What's his name?" "Velikovsky." "Never heard of him.

A few days later Stecchini received a phone call from Deg. Deg had been to dinner at Sebastian's
home. There was the usual babble and movement afterwards. He circled around the front room with
its piles of papers and open bookshelves, pausing at the one where books of high mobility and
heterogeneity sunned themselves for a few days. He picked out a forcefully jacketed book,
Oedipus and Akhnaton, the author: Velikovsky. First the large photograph of the author, then the
flyleaf, then the , then the index

-- he is grasping now for the thesis: the ill-fated incestuous Oedipus was none other than the
Egyptian monotheistic pharaoh Akhnaton --more riffling of pages -- the small definite sparking
of the book browser.

"What's this?" He poked the book at Sebastian. "Any good ?" Sebastian was non-committal:
probably he had not read it. "Mind if I borrow it ?"

He began to read it that evening. It was "True Detective," connecting two eminent figures never
before joined. He finished it the next day.

How did he find the time to read it so promptly? A man who attends to a wife, a passel of kids,
a dog, a cat, a station wagon, a large house with many doors and windows to mind, fireplaces to
dampen, a busy telephone, a fat folder marked "action now", with half a dozen jobs, including a
professorship and an editorship, with a propensity to daydream, and in that American society
which tries in a hundred ways to pry into one's time and makes life tough for readers, and
needing seven hours of sleep -- how does he read a book? They say, "When you want something
done, go to a busy man." His urges are compelling.

This act of devouring the book was typical of Deg. He would seize things out of his life-stream
like a bear grabbing fish and do something with them, a compulsion to undertake and a compulsion
to complete, not unlike Velikovsky, and the tie between the two men had something to do with
V.'s recognition of this similarity, and perhaps with his growing problem of completion after
the compulsion to take on matters lingered: but both men too sometimes had to drop affairs that
needed completion or stuck to them beyond their point of pay-off, beyond hope also, so I would
not stress the trait, and I even think that it may be so common as to be undistinguished.
Velikovsky had made wide turns in his life too, architecture, medical practice, psychoanalysis,
politics, and now all this catastrophism which had something of everything.

Outwardly, they differed most apparently. Deg of medium height and compact build, V. tall and
spare, the one with a midwestern back ground and accent, the other with a heavy Russian accent,
Jewish above all. To V outrage was a simple, direct emotion; Deg had the youngness of Americans
that comes from promiscuous outrage and wide dispersal of feelings inimical to authorities.
Pablo Picasso used to tell Gertrude Stein: "They are not men; they are not women; they are
Americans." So how could Deg become outraged at the enemies of V.? Living was parceled among
sporadic outrages; indignation cropped out all over the American landscape.

While I am at it, I might say something, too, about Deg's attitude to his own writing because
this also explains how he might view V.'s troubles. It is also about Gertrude Stein: " In those
days she never asked anyone what they thought of her work, but were they interested enough to
read it. Now she says if they bring themselves to read it they will be interested."

Victim of the Rule of Three, Deg added a first phrase: at first he thought what he wrote was
interesting and everyone should be required to read it. Then, after he had passed most of his
life in Gertrude Stein's second stage, he postulated a final stage, a nirvana where what he
wrote was objectively of interest but neither he nor anyone else should be interested to read

This is too early to be analyzing character, but I cannot refrain from another comparison, a
fatal difference. Whatever V. completed, he fiercely possessed; whatever Deg completed he
relinquished. This made their cash flows, you might say, very different. And their advice to
each other very different. Deg was saying to V.. "Give it away. Let it go !" and V. to Deg,
baffled; "Why didn't you hold on to that?" Moreover V. overvalued whatever he gave, and
undervalued what he received.

Halfway through the book -- before Akhnaton had espoused his own mother. Queen Ty, Deg was
committed to V., the author. A literary tour de force of the rarest kind, it succeeds in making
a single person out of two of the most famous heroes of antiquity. Nor are they of the so
numerous type of military heroes. They are the active substances of the raging intellect,
flourishing amongst squirmy snakes of psychology and religion. Should the temporal sequence be
right, then the book would be valid, that Moses preceded Akhnaton and Akhnaton came before
Oedipus. The legendary, historical, psychological and archaeological evidence marched in
brilliant composition and concordance on behalf of V.'s thesis. That Moses had come first
follows from V.'s book, Ages in Chaos, already a decade old, which was to be read and to
convince Deg in a matter of weeks. That the Oedipus legend developed after the history of
Akhnaton was established in the book itself to Deg's satisfaction, and he confirmed it once
again when it came time to write The Disastrous Love Affair of Moon and Mars, years later.

By then he was convinced of V.'s theory that Greek Dark Ages were in fact several centuries that
had never existed, and then, within a couple of years, the masterful work of young Eddie Schorr
effectively closed up the gap in two articles on Mycenae, Pylos, Troy, Gordion, and other sites.
Velikovsky himself here speculated that Nikmed of Ugarit became Cadmus the founder of Thebes and
carried the Oedipus legend from the East to the North. V. 's reconstructed chronology closed the
centuries like a vise, to where Akhnaton could readily reach to Nikmed and Nikmed to Cadmus and
out of it all came the Oedipus Rex of Thebes, the fabled character who gave name to the most
popular concept of Sigmund Freud, and it was Freud who had brought on all of this work by his
psychoanalytic disciple, but had himself missed both the precession of Moses and the identity of
Oedipus as Akhnaton, although he had written directly about all three figures.

The book was the best produced of V.'s which were ordinarily drab. Oedipus and Akhnaton carried
many fine illustrations, a superior jacket, an excellent typeface, and good printing paper.
Still, it did not sell as well as any of a dozen detective novels of the day, and, vibrant and
valid, was marked by its publisher for abandonment in 1984.

Deg could be sure that practically none of his hundreds of friends and colleagues, students and
acquaintances had yet read the book or would ever do so... But then he, too, had written books
of which none but the textbooks had sold over a thousand copies. And he could recite the names
of many distinguished scholars whose books had sold less. The dream of best-selling great books
nevertheless carries on, a myth, deadly to most and profitable to a very few.


by Alfred de Grazia



The other book, that which won Velikovsky fame, income, and scientific disgrace, was a happy
accident of publishing. It could hardly have become a best-seller on its merits; very few books
do, and this one was not easy to read or flamboyant. Worlds in Collision was reluctantly
published, deceptively publicized, and foolishly attacked. It was written in the 1940's, after
Ages in Chaos had been completed and had been circulating among publishers and collecting one
rejection after another. Evidently the later work had the better chance, because of its larger,
more explosive message.

But Worlds in Collision, too, was rejected time after time, this all during a period of high
prosperity when publishing company shares boomed on the stock market and practically anything
might be brought out. Velikovsky was desperate. One evening he walked the Upper West Side of
Manhattan with Elisheva, telling her of how he would buy a typesetting machine and they would
compose the book at home and he would sell it himself. He would have done so.

All of his publications before then -- there were not many -- had been in some sense subsidized,
the articles appearing in psychoanalytic journals, supported by small intellectual circles, the
pamphlets appearing under the shadowy imprint of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem when this
was only a few dedicated utopians enjoying an impetus from Simon Velikovsky's purse. V. knew
something about publishing, as he did about many things.

V. would never have been "himself", a revered image to countless readers and a buffoon to
scientists and scholars, had he not fallen into the crazy typical pattern of a popular author.
He was able to catch the attention of John J. O'Neill, Science Editor of the New York Herald
Tribune, who was thrilled by the manuscript and wrote about it in an article of August 11, 1946.
James Putnam, an Editor of Macmillan Company, took it up, praised it among his acquaintances,
processed it through several readers, and achieved a favorable vote. A chapter of the book was
sold to the Reader's Digest and other selections to Collier's Magazine. Collier's, struggling
for circulation, took a large ad in the Herald Tribune, headlining that modern science had now
proved the Bible correct, while the Reader's Digest carried the story of the Sun's standing
still at Beth-Horon by the command of Joshua, so as to let the Israelites finish off their

Both stories and the publicity attendant upon them played directly to a large audience of
bemused Jews and "Old Testament" Christians, including what would be called creationists and
millennialists. Then, even before its readers could discover that it was not quite what they had
expected, the wrath of scientists descended upon the book. Velikovsky's figure, until then only
that of a minor personage in psychoanalytic reading circles, was elevated to a pyre of fame and
burned to the ground. Macmillan hastily sold its rights to Doubleday publishers.

Of all this that occurred between 1950 and 1962, Deg learned upon his first meetings with V. "I
want you to read everything," he said and handed over to him two monumental manuscripts entitled
Stargazers and Gravediggers. "Everything" meant also Worlds in Collision and Ages in Chaos. Deg
complimented him upon the Oedipus book and wondered at the documentation piled upon the living
floor for examination.

Velikovsky wondered, too for none came to him as innocently as his new acquaintance. He was
thankful but also dismayed at this walking effect of the suppression of his books. (It hardly
occurred to him that his book might have sold under a thousand copies if it had been published
by a university press without the publicity that he himself found rather obnoxious, in which
case practically everyone might have been expected to be ignorant of it, but the ilk of Deg
might have known it).

V.'s correspondence was still heavy after a dozen years. His readers sent him every scrap of
publicity that they found and he kept it all and tried to reply, far more so than any other
author of Deg's acquaintance. A large public was out there somewhere, a heterogeneous network of
bright students, people suspicious of the scientific and academic establishments, Bible
believers in profusion.

Mrs. V. was present; she tried always to be on hand when visitors came and to Deg at least, hers
was always a welcome presence. V. kept nothing from Elisheva that he was not also keeping from
his visitors. Sheva's grand piano stood in the next room, between a desk loaded with papers and
a great cabinet stuffed with books. In the front room were couches and chairs, none too
comfortable, and a large coffee table accommodating the tea, crackers and cheese, cakes and dry
Israeli white wine that would be brought forth. There were ashtrays, too, for then many were
smokers, not V., for he had quit years before after he had suffered a stomach cancer, whose
removal had forced a lightened diet as well. Oriental rugs stretched across the floors.

The ponderous front porch let in little light, nor did the rooms have much place for an elegant
style; or perhaps they reflected an empiricist, not a philosopher. Their charm depended upon the
objects in themselves: Sheva's piano and the music resting on it, her strong marble sculptures,
several handsome and less useful books on art and archaeology that had entered lately, like
those at Sebastian's from which Deg had plucked Oedipus and Akhnaton.

From the porch, one penetrated into the sitting room through heavy gray stone walls in five
stages: first up the flagstone walk through thick bushes, then up the stairs, then through the
first heavy door into a tiny hall, then another heavy door, then an anteroom with a mail-
cluttered table and clothes-closet, and finally into the front room.

Elisheva, like her husband, had a strong character and great energy. She had large hands and a
solid body, maintained a direct and friendly stare through thick glasses, and was perhaps of his
age. She had mastered the arts of music and sculpture. Perhaps all the laborious functionalism
of its occupants gave the rooms a lack-luster belying the considerable value of their contents.
Poor cooks have dazzling automated kitchens; disemployed people have smart interiors. Much later
on, when he finally released his books to Dell Publishers for publication in paperback and
received a hundred thousand dollars, V. went into a fit of remodeling, building a garage and new
airy light-struck rooms, redistributing books and papers for greater efficiency, buying flashy
cars for himself and his grandchildren, reminding Deg of Parkinson's "Law", that, as an Empire
enters upon its finale, it builds extravagantly.

Deg had often to consider, when he taught courses on leadership and creativity, whether a
person's appearance correlated with his mind and effectiveness. The stereotype is, of course,
"Yes, it does." A great general has a martial air, a scholar looks like a parsnip, an athlete is
muscle-bound, and so on.

Deg had arrived at the all-answering concept of sociology -- the mutual interaction of physique
and role. Little Napoleon looked more imperial than tall de Gaulle, who was an obstinate dumb-
bell. But de Gaulle thought he looked like a Great Leader and worthy husband to La Belle France,
and played the part and became a great leader. (" France is a widow," Pompidou orated when De
Gaulle died.)

"The Russian Jews are the handsomest of all," Stephanie Neuman told Deg, and he, looking at her,
had of course to agree. The best explanation of the phenomenon comes in a note by V. himself,
published posthumously. The "lost Tribes of Israel" had been moved North, and passed through the
Caucasus between the Black and Caspian Seas into the lower Volga River Basin. There they mingled
genetically with the ever-changing population, with always at least a critical fraction
maintaining the Judaic culture-core. Deg had won a piece of the action; his wife's family, with
its cluster of Teutonic cognomens - Oppenheim, Lauterbach, Weinstein, Fleishacker, etc. - had
managed some handsome blonde alternatives in the aftermath of the Diaspora.

"But see here..." to use a common interjection of V. Velikovsky stretched his large spare frame
a full two meters, his face will all its big bones and high forehead was clean-shaven and
forceful, his large brown eyes open and direct behind his reading glasses, his movements from
his favorite low chair, up and down, across the room, were untiring and easy, not graceful but
neither awkward. His voice was sure, slow, deep, his words marvelously well-chosen, uttered in
the language that he knew least well of Russian, Hebrew, and German, while Arabic and French
came after. He couldn't match Stecchini, who had these, plus Italian, Latin, Greek and Arabic,
plus the dead languages of Babylon and Egypt, while Deg with his modest portions of French and
Italian and smattering of German, Latin, and Spanish was in a pitiable state.

V.'s English was formal, never Americanized; his dignity forbade slang or the vernacular, though
it amused him to have the vernacular explained. Deg was fond of H. L. Mencken and played loose
with the language when let off the field of science. "Sand-bag them," he remarked when V was
expostulating over the attempts of a panel of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science to get hold of his finalized paper without revealing to him their final replies to it.
"What does 'sand-bag' mean?" V asked. "It's what thugs use to hit people with from behind. Let
them have the paper; let them rewrite their papers; then withdraw your paper." Then he explained
how in some impolite poker games, if you have a good hand, you sometimes pass on it, enticing
the other players to bet on their own hands, then double their bets. That's sand-bagging, too.

V. wrote well, better than Deg, I think, although he denied it and had to make liberal use of
copy-editors. For he explained his every step carefully and was rarely abstract or harsh,
whereas Deg usually wrote condensedly, abstractly, and stridently.

Looking at V. in these first meetings in a more analytic way. Deg questioned whether a person so
physically modeled to the ideal expectation of a heroic figure could nevertheless be a genius
and not an actor, an honest victim and not a charlatan. Of what could V complain; he was famous;
his books sold by the tens of thousands; his messages had carried throughout the English-
speaking world, into several language-areas of the western world besides.

Deg flipped through the loose-leaf volumes as they talked. He could read fast and V. was
alternately suspicious and admiring of this facility. "I am a slow reader," he announced on
occasion. "Yes, but I don't have your memory," grumbled Deg. V. had a superb memory for details.
Deg gulped down batches of material, retained their forms, and excreted the details. This is
what happened when he read; the stuff was gobbled up by pre-existing forms.

Every detail of the volumes before them was remembered by V., though he could hardly have seen
most of it for some years. Every few pages contained another foolish review, comment or letter
by a scientist or historian or archaeologist. Just to be preserved and collected, side by side,
they damned themselves and each other as envious, illogical, irrelevant, ignorant, narrow, and

Why haven't you published this, it's great? he asked V. V. had strung together a large and
complicated story with only rare descriptions and without editorial comment; it was not
vainglorious or egotistic; the documents marched along by themselves, calling out their message
in turn. V. blew hot and cold on the idea of their publication. Mainly he feared legal action
were he to reprint letters several of which had come to him deviously. Of these Deg could not
feel sure, but he argued that persons in a public controversy in which their reputations were at
stake might publish private correspondence. A menacing letter from Professor Fred Whipple to the
Macmillan Company might be published, because it injured and defamed the author and was
associated with letters of the same type from other academicians. His publishers, Doubleday,
were unsure, said V.

In fact the volumes were not published until after his death. By then the whole Macmillan
archive of those years had been given to the New York Public Library and Warner Sizemore, who
knew the case as well as anyone alive, located them there, with all the papers that had been so
guarded for a few years. When Leroy Ellenberger reviewed them in 1983, he noted especially
Brett's account of the final interview with Velikovsky when the President of Macmillan informed
Velikovsky that Worlds in Collision could no longer be tolerated on the Macmillan list, but had
to be transferred out, and luckily Doubleday was ready to assume the risk. When asked how the
two versions of the meeting compared, Velikovsky's and Brett's, Ellenberger, who was by then
most sensitive to contradictions in the Velikovsky story, granted that substantially they
agreed, save that V had understandably portrayed himself as less shaken and more in command of
the situation than Brett had viewed him to be.

The materials that V. showed Deg were a sociologist's wishful dream. Deg decided immediately to
publish in the American Behavioral Scientist the story of science vs. scientism, as he put it.
He carried home the manuscripts and Worlds in Collision, which Velikovsky carefully autographed,
a little touch that Deg was unused to; books were books: he was never into first editions or
autographed copies, and in those days had to be reminded by his publishers that a page was
reserved for a dedication if he wished to use it.

The journalistic papers he hurried through and put aside. They would give an example here and
another there. Some readers no doubt would be astonished at the behavior of their sacred
scientists, but the case was mere basic social psychology. The scientists and their coterie of
publicists were behaving very much as might be expected in the face of disturbing theories, like
politicians, like administrators, bishops, and all other elites of organized networks.

He decided to take upon himself the most difficult task, the theoretical analysis of the system
that exuded injustice normally. The historical section would go to Stecchini and deal with
scientific precedents to V.'s catastrophism, an approach quite new to the discussions of a
decade earlier, and one which Stecchini, using the principle of contradictions, executed
beautifully, calling up Whiston, Boulanger, La Place and Kugler as unexpected witnesses on
behalf of the defendant. The straight history of the affair went to Ralph Juergens, who had been
introduced to Deg by V. as a mechanical engineer, much interested in electrical theory, who had
moved his family down from Ohio in order to be near to where V. was working; he was now a
scientific editor working in New York for McGraw Hill.

Juergens had published nothing; he knew the facts, however; he was a careful worker, Deg was
quick to note; he worked very hard; he held V.'s confidence (not easy to achieve) and won Deg's
sympathy and respect. No one else could have done the job without a year's study; even then it
would have had to be a historian of science, who would risk his career if he accepted the
challenge of the facts, or a publicist, such as Eric Larrabee, who would have produced a recital
much like Ralph's but probably too late for publication. As a matter of fact, his name came up
and V. reported that he had been under contract for years with Doubleday to do a book on the
controversy. No sooner had Deg's ABS decided to publish the story than V. got in touch with
Larrabee and prevailed upon him to sell the idea of an article to Harper's Magazine, which
Larrabee did, by virtue of an old connection there, and so wrote a piece that actually appeared
several weeks before the special issue of the ABS.

After examining the files on the case, Deg turned to reading Worlds in Collision, telling
himself that it might be wrong, harmful, mythical, distorted, and incompetent; still his
intuition was prompted by all that he had learned thus far: V. could not do a bad job on
anything. So he found the book was none of these things, and was not surprised. Then he worried
and never ceased to worry that his taking up the cause of V. came about because he thought V. to
be correct in his theories rather than because his rights were violated.

Worlds in Collision is a book in two parts, one on the Venus catastrophes, the second on the
Mars catastrophes. These conform to two sets of events that are claimed to have befallen the
world in the years around 1450 and 700 B. C., about seven hundred years apart. The planet Venus,
argued Velikovsky, began its career as a comet that probably exploded from the giant planet
Jupiter sometime, whether a few years or thousands of years before its disastrous encounters
with Earth. (V. never used B. C. preferring BCE, "Before the Common Era" or a simple negative
[as -1450], begrudging the calendar of world history to the Christians, which Deg agreed to in
principle but thought was only quibbling, given the huge contortions history has suffered.
Better he thought to settle on the year 2000 as the present, use B. P. back from this date, thus
to give us some standardization for a generation or so, or perhaps to settle upon 1919, the year
when the first association of the nations of all the world was formed, the League of Nations).

Flaming Venus passed with its huge cometary tail close by the Earth occasioning general disaster
by flood, fire, pestilence, electric shock, and fallouts of various materials, and incited a
horrendous fear that affected all areas of culture everywhere down to the present day. Mankind
lived virtually in a Venusian world for seven centuries, for other near passes occurred at 52-
year intervals, until the comet disturbed Mars, sent Mars to molest the Earth and Moon, and
brought a Martian period that endured for rather less than a century. All of this had severe and
prolonged after-affects geologically, biologically, and culturally.

V. endeavored to be exact, allowing the series of Mars incidents to occur between the years -776
and -687 on the basis of legends and historical-archaeological evidence from around the
Mediterranean and wherever else in the world it cropped up. For example, an incident of the year
-776 would be the founding of the Olympic Games, those sacred manifestations of aggressive
competitive sport that brought the Greek communities together and were said to have been founded
by Hercules, who has been identified by several scholars with the god Mars or Ares; an instance
of the year -687 would be the destruction by natural disaster of the army of the Assyrian
emperor Sennacherib while besieging Jerusalem.

Thus the bare plot. Its importance derives from the shock it gave to conventional natural
science and history, its extension of the use of legendary materials to reconstruct history, and
the excitement it caused among many people eager to escape the toils of modern science.

The most disturbing claim of Worlds in Collision was that the planet Venus as a comet approached
and devastated Earth. Several excellent writers, as I shall explain later, had claimed that
comets had devastated the Earth, and mathematical exercises on the putative effects of comets in
passages and collisions with Earth are conventionally acceptable. Not so planets, that are
believed to be fully and nicely bound to their present orbits. The sequence of thoughts occurred
to V: first, the Egyptian, accepted chronology is wrong and Moses preceded Akhnaton; next, at
the time of Exodus, there was heavy natural turbulence; third, the turbulence was incited from
the skies, and took numerous forms well recounted in legend and sacred scriptures; finally,
evidence came in rapidly from all parts of the world to support the idea that the planet Venus
was involved as prime cause. A mosaic of legends from the Near East, Greece, Italy, China, and
the Americas could be fashioned, and enough geological evidence might be assembled to tolerate
the suppositions of the legends.

V. was not as rooted in Newtonian and Darwinian prejudices as the typical Anglo-American
scholar. He could also contemplate ancient evidence without contempt. (A psychiatrist might
recall, "Ah yes, he loved and respected his father Simon who worked long for the revival of
Israel.") V. knew also that natural laws must rest upon evidence, not dogma; if evidence
contradicts the laws, the laws must change. The immensity of the topic; the difficulties in
finding and handling the data; the roundabout way in which the books were published; and many
other intervening and confusing variables concealed the essentially proper progression of V.'s
mind, which behaved in ways both psychologically understandable and logically proper. (Often,
private motives lead men scientifically astray; here, as sometimes happens, V.'s private motives
led him along the path to significant scientific theses and discoveries.)

To Deg's view, from the beginning, the ethical duty of science was clear. Confronted with V.'s
claims, the scientist should weigh the evidence, first, for the chronology, second for the
Exodus disasters, third for the exoterrestrial involvement, and finally for the identity of the
forces. In each case, there is, then, a probability, low or high, of validity. Actually the only
policy problem for science here is how much additional scientific energies should be directed at
the intriguing hypotheses. This implies the possibility of proving (disproving) them; and the
efforts required to raise the probabilities of valid answers to a respectable level.

In American politics and law, case after case had imprinted upon all concerned the notion of a
right to due process of law and to certain basic freedoms as distinct from the desirability or
correctness of a position.

There is a religious right, when forbidden by one's religion, to not salute the national flag;
there is a right to not confess to a criminal act. And so on.

Scientific behavior is not so clearly mannered. It is not governed by the coercive physical
force that gives more distinct form to the organs of the state. Also a general belief in
individualism among scientists, amounting to a kind of philosophical anarchism, makes each
scientist both judge and executor of his beliefs. Deg was enough of a philosopher and
practitioner of science to perceive a widespread belief, that a truth exists upon a subject and
that no consideration needs be given untruth or antitruth. There was, on the other hand, the
reputable principle that all scientific positions are basically hypothetical; nothing is proven
now and forever. And there was even the principle, espoused by many contemporaries, that there
are as many scientific truths as may be useful in solving a practical problem; in other words,
never mind the principle: perform the operation, and the principle, if the operation is
successful, will come trailing after.

But the vulgar and predominant belief is a belief in truth and antitruth, especially when
dealing with outsiders, and V., by this view, deserved no more than he received, there being
numbers of established truths violated by his assertions. He should have banked his receipts and
joined the outcaste company of the von Danikens.

However, according to the other views, all of which merge in this regard, nothing that V could
possibly say should deprive him of a hearing, save that he should present his views in a format
suitable for passing judgment upon them. Deg had to make up his mind whether the basic offering
was appropriate for judgment and whether a hearing was provided. Still he could not but feel
that the organization of science would fall apart if no advantage were given to the accepted
"truth," just as the state would become defenseless if everyone refused to serve in the armed
forces on constitutional grounds. What happens ordinarily, he observed often, is that the more
"obviously untrue" a proposition with its proof appear to be, the less due process of law is
used and needed in dealing with it. We have to reconcile ourselves to the "miscarriage of
justice", at least in science and probably in every area of conflict, the "Bill of Rights"
notwithstanding. If for no other reason, the burden of treating every statement with all the
respect due and owing to the best and most correct-seeming statements would be impossible for
the economy of science to bear.

In return, Deg told himself, we can ask for some minimal formatting of a case prior to
processing it through the reception system of science. This, it appeared to him, V. had done,
and much more, and some scientists had nevertheless pilloried him and ruined his chances of
obtaining scientific respectability -- not affirmative agreement, but just simple honest respect
for a remarkable job.

V. had approached the altars of science with the assiduous ritual of Aaron before the Holies of
Holies. And, when, like the drunken sons of Aaron, his books were struck by the Lord's Fire, he
was stunned. "What sacrilege have I committed?" he asked himself repeatedly. And the answer,
from all sides, if not from heaven, was "None." It is true that he had won literary fame and
supported his family meanwhile, a rare success among non-academic writers in America. So what?
Have the rich no right to complain? Who else can send the steak back to the kitchen?

The scene was familiar and the opportunity presented: the establishments of academia had
offended a man who was a fighter and had his evidence in hand. Something rare and good in the
history of science might be achieved. With the contaminants of politics and religion absent from
the mixture, and the publishers acting as catalysts, it was as clean a case of pure science in
action as one might ever hope to come upon.

The work on the special Velikovsky issue of the American Behavioral Scientist had been mostly
done when Deg addressed a letter to his Advisory Board explaining Velikovsky's position and
justifying a special issue in support of him.

March 8, 1963

To: ABS Advisory Board

Subject: Notes on several current matters

I. We plan to devote a major portion of our June issue [actually it came out in September] to a
topic called: "The Politics of Science: The Velikovsky Case." Immanuel Velikovsky, as you
probably know, is a highly controversial figure whose book Worlds in Collision incited the wrath
of a number of astronomers and geologists twelve years ago. Several other works dealt with
similar themes of prehistoric catastrophe, social upheavals, and the origins of myth. Another
book, somewhat distinct, is Oedipus and Akhnaton. I believe him to be a brilliant theorist and
am not persuaded that his criticisms of various astronomical principles are as wrong as Shapley
and others have made them out to be. The recent Venus probe has brought some surprising
information in accord with his views, for example. However, our main interest in the topic lies
in its relation to numbers 3, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, and 16 of the ABS program. A basic question
is the canons which science uses to appraise work that is offered. As we move into the
Velikovsky case, we observe that both the normal and the peculiar features of the criticism of
this work throw much light on the workings of the scientific establishment. Additionally the
evidence of boycott of a publisher in the case leads one into the question of the relation of
scientists to freedom of the press. The proposed would include first a history
of the Velikovsky case, a comparison of the case with various episodes in the history of science
by Stecchini, a content analysis of the reviews of Velikovsky's book, an article by Velikovsky
reciting ten important instances in which his theorizing led him to correct or at least now
respectable statements about natural events (this one to give a flavor of the substance of the
case), and an appraisal of the operations of the scientific establishment. We have abundant
material. We lack funds, as usual, for the kind of content analysis and investigation that
should be engaged in. If any of you can find a few dollars to lend to this enterprise, it will
be helpful in improving the product (especially in the reliability of coding the book reviews,
and increasing the number sampled from 100 up to 500)...

The "good will and advice" were there: as for the money, the Board knew Deg was bluffing: the
magazine would continue, one way or another.

Also, to attack frontally an array of scientists, Deg thought to assemble a special committee of
notables that would protect his flanks. He sent the manuscript of the ABS issue to his friends
Harold D. Lasswell, Hadley Cantril, and Luther Evans, all three well-known, distinguished and
innovative social scientists. He also contacted. at Velikovsky's suggestion, Salvador de
Madariaga, Moses Hadas, Horace Kallen, Harold Latham, R. H. Hillenkoetter, and Philip
Wittenberg. Madariaga and Hillenkoetter admired V. 's work: Hadas respected the learning
evidenced in it: Kallen was a grand liberal educator who had run interference for V. when V. was
trying to obtain a reading from Harlow Shapley; Latham had shepherded Worlds in Collision
through Macmillan; and Wittenberg was an expert on libel law. Deg also invited Harry H. Hess,
Chairman of the Geology Department a Princeton, who had given V. a forum, and was helpful on
several later occasions; V. counted him as a friend; Deg had met him and found him simpatico and
every inch what an Admiral in the U. S. Navy (Reserve) should be. He was a top leader in the
wartime and post-war revolution in oceanography. Hess replied by hand:

June 4, 1963, Washington. D. C.

Dear Editor de Grazia :

The manuscripts you sent me reached me at particularly bad time: Ph. D. exams, department
budget construction, a request to appear before a committee of congress and finally orders to
two weeks of active duty in the Navy starting yesterday. I have spent two days reading the
material and trying to analyze my own thoughts.

I can't urge you to publish it. Velikovsky is a friend of mine. You will reopen old wounds and
create more antagonism against him, though at the same time you will support his position and
bring out the injustices. I am not sure that this is a net gain.

Why were scientists outraged by Velikovsky's books? This is the question I have been asking
myself because I too felt a sense of outrage even though I have a kindly feeling towards him as
a friend. The reasons given by Stecchini are plausible and perhaps true with respect to some

The real reason is something much more fundamental -- at least the reason why I rebel is, and I
am a fairly good guinea pig example of an ordinary scientist.

I haven't time to write the essay that might be written to explain the phenomenon correctly.
Velikovsky is partly to blame because of the way he handles his data. This is no excuse for most
of those who criticize him. Nor is it an excuse for the manner in which they have treated him.

Thank you for sending me the manuscripts. I wish I could do more for you than I have.

Sincerely, H. H. Hess

Deg was not surprised nor did he feel Hess's refusal at all unworthy. Hess was not the Admiral
Nelson to violate Admiralty orders and take his fleet into battle: still, as Deg remarked to me,
we already had an admiral (referring to Admiral Hillenkoetter), we certainly could have used a
geologist on the team. Years later, Deg was able to persuade Hess to join the Board of Trustees
of a foundation for studies of catastrophe.

A problem of concern to me was that, in the years following, there was no evident opposition to
V., whether as to his treatment or his ideas, carried in the ABS files and the later book, The
Velikovsky Affair, and I badgered Deg on this point repeatedly. He puts up a kind of general
defense that has some merit: "Under the circumstances, we did what we could to excite an
opposition. We had no money to conduct research. Everyone was unpaid and working at other things
for a living. The issue on V. was itself only one of ten issues to appear that year, each on
different topics. Mainly the expressions of disagreement were directed at the substance of V.'s
theories, which were, strictly speaking, irrelevant to the discussion. Juergens went farther in
explaining these and defending them than I would have gone. It was like pulling teeth to get a
scientist to enter upon the politics and sociology or even the methodology of the case. One
received simply arguments on the stability of the solar system and the unreliability of legends
and ancient history." Deg talked on, as the tape spun on its roll: I wrote Otto Neugebauer, a
hostile critic of V. and renowned expert on Babylonian astronomy, but he did not reply for a
long time, for years. In fact, I met with Harold Lasswell, who was a psychologist, political
scientist and professor of Law at Yale: he was favorable to the issue, which he read, but
concerned that the bridge he perceived as building between the natural and human scientists
might be damaged. (There was then the well-publicized thesis of C. P. Snow, physicist and
novelist, who decried the existence of these two uncommunicative worlds.) I visited Freeman
Dyson, the mathematician, who was at the institute for Advanced Studies and had been President
of the Federation of American Scientists, of which I was member, and which was agitating

against the "Cold War." Dyson was lukewarm about the matter: he had been approached by V. some
time before, and had no desire to enter the lists; furthermore he found the scenario of V.'s
work unacceptable. There was none, it seemed, on the first call for debate, and very few ever,
who were ready to defend what had happened, as there was none ready to defend V.'s substantive
views on exoterrestrially-produced disasters. Worse, there was hardly a notable scientist of the
Establishment of physics, geology, astronomy who was willing publicly to acknowledge the
legitimacy of the discussion. I approached Tom Kuhn, a neighbor, who was beginning to win fame
as a historian of science. He shied away.

I will say more. You have been presenting my analogy of this case with cases in the law and
courts. Actually, this is only one side of the coin. Just as the law and courts are utterly
inadequate to their tasks when a society is failing, so too in science the reception system is
inadequate when the institutions and politics of science are failing to begin with. That is,
unless you have a liberal, open-minded republic of science, you'll have too many cases of
injustice in the reception system. I spent some time developing the problem of the institutions
that are needed in science as in politics to back up a proper reception system, but no one of
competence has come around to discuss the subject, which is as critical today as it was then.
Criminality in science, if I may use the word, or misbehavior, is common throughout the sciences
and ultimately its origins dissolve into the background of an illiberal, non-pragmatic,
materialistically competitive, and philosophically ignorant environment where scientists are
bred. I felt that Deg's tone was becoming strident. I still doubted that he had exhausted the
possibilities of a debate, and later on I will tell of other forensic episodes. He might have
talked to Dr. Normal Newell, of the New York Natural History Museum; Ted McNulty, one of his
aides and squash-playing friends had learned that Newell had something to say; he might at least
have tried to speak to the king-pin Harlow Shapely, who was old but still feisty: he might have
approached George Brett, President of Macmillan, to corroborate that he had "dumped" V. and
explain why.

Further, Deg might well have been more rigid, and might have excluded all substantive comment of
V.'s theories, admittedly to the point of losing some of the excitement of his story. It is true
however, that copies of the issue were sent to potential opponents among natural scientists,
inviting and expecting comment. There were none. Nor did the thousands of normal readers produce
from among their number calls or letters of protest.

Nor, with one or two exceptions, did any evidence appear for decades that would affect the
statements made on the affair by the three authors. In May of 1983, Leroy Ellenberger, told me
that he had found at least one bit of evidence in the Macmillan files giving scientists reason
to attack Macmillan for advertising the book as work in science. A regular catalogue of
Macmillan books in science carried Worlds in Collision as a possible supplementary reading in
general courses. This was a trifle, to be sure, but a red cloth is no trifle to a goaded bull.

Still the annoying question once more arises: why should not the book have been advertised as a
contribution to science, even if it were ultimately to go into oblivion with most other books
that tried to make contributions to science? so again I prodded Deg on the matter and this time
got what amounted to a lecture.

Formal law has the strongest means to avoid consideration of the merits of a case in judging
whether the case properly belongs in a certain court and has been properly heard in that court.
It insists that the accused be given his day in court, with defense lawyer, an unprejudiced jury
in most cases, and a full account of the testimony against him and the right to confront his
accusers. Formal law of course often falls short of its expectations.

Formal science has roughly similar rules for judging every work coming before it. The book is
the defendant, you might say. It should be penalized, that is, dismissed, reproached, vilified,
sentenced to non-reading and non-propagation only after it has had its day in court. And, it
should come up for a parole hearing almost on demand. This too, often does not happen. Anybody
but V would have taken his lumps --I would -- and cry all the way to the bank.

When the law or science does not live up to its rules, then one appeals to a higher court or
authority that created the institution in the first place. In the matter of a book, intelligent
readers form themselves into a kind of court of consensus on the matter. That is actually what
happened in the Velikovsky Affair, but still the court refused to remand the case for trial to
the numerous special fields. The closest thing to this was the AAAS panel a decade after my book
and two decades after the events.

Now when the court or scientific establishment finds the defendant 'crazy' or 'delinquent' or
'fraudulent' or 'concealing the truth' or 'non-co-operative', but there is still evidence that
the court or science is wrong, then the higher court -- that is, those institutions sponsoring
the establishment, including the reading public, may call the lower court to order, reprimand
it, force the remand for a re-hearing, or transfer the case to another jurisdiction.

In order to face down the court or science, the higher court or critics must look as far as
necessary into the facts of the case to determine whether the defendant is indeed frivolous,
delinquent, fraudulent, concealing the truth or non-cooperative. For these purposes, some degree
of substantive worthiness of the defendant must be present to justify the intervention. This was
indeed the situation here; the content and presentation of the theories were therefore
legitimately at issue and part of the presentation of his full legal case. We therefore had to
judge the defendant in a sense on his merits and let him speak briefly on his own behalf.

Scientists are understandably annoyed by ungovernable antics and criticism, none more than us
political scientists, who must suffer the most abusive, crazy and unscientific ideas and
behavior every day in the newspapers, in legislative halls, and in political meetings, indeed
wherever politics and public opinion generate, even at the dinner-table. They still must operate
a clean shop, a decent court, which in the end serves best themselves...

He had more to say, but this is more than enough for now.


by Alfred de Grazia



Deg found himself losing status in the eyes of his children, who had through their earlier
years seen and heard much of important personages, partly because all of them went through a
rebellious adolescence during years when he was respectful, helpful, and obviously orienting
his thoughts toward V., so that they found a weakness in their father -- his rare complaisance
-- and could, through being critical and slightly disdainful of V., get at him twice, directly
in himself and indirectly through rejection of V. It was not, as it had been put from time to
time at home, that he gave too much of his crowded time to his venerable friend. Indeed, the
children could have done well in their troubled group life at school by carrying the banner of
Velikovsky (and their father) for V. could easily be fit (no one knowing his character) into
the mold of anti-authoritarian ideas and leadership exceedingly popular among those in that
era, town, and age group.

On a summer day in 1963 Deg ushered his family of eight persons aboard the U. S. ocean liner
"Atlantic" bound for Lisbon, Naples and Genoa. The boat was a slow last effort of the
collapsing merchant marine but, he thought, just as several years earlier they had crossed the
American continent on a railroad train from California to Chicago, they ought to have the
experience of an ocean voyage. He then returned to Princeton and moved the family's possessions
and his office from Queenston Place to Linden Lane, from a large old house to a small old
house, aided by daughter Jessica's lovesick young boyfriend. His magazine was left in the
custody of Ted Gurr. Then he flew to Lisbon, joined his family on the boat, and all sailed for

Deg made final corrections to the ABS Velikovsky issue at Marjorie Ferguson's villa in Marina
di Massa, fuming at his four boys on the beach across the street who, instead of swimming out
to sea like little Shelleys, had transferred with insouciance from the pinball machines of
Princeton to soccer machines in Italy. "Dear Ted," he wrote,

You will be pleased to note that I have incorporated most of the suggested changes... I could
not accept the idea that the political network paragraphs were irrelevant and unnecessary.(
This referred to intimations that the furious attacks against Velikovsky were prompted in part
by frustrations of Shapley and other scientists at being attacked for "red" affiliations by Joe
McCarthy and his during these years.)

I felt forced to deal with them and did all I could to make them objective. What is 'innuendo',
after all, is a question of motive. There is no innuendo here therefore. If a trace of poison
is found in a deceased's blood, do you ban its reporting on grounds that it constitutes an
innuendo? Every generalization of science implies a stereotype, to take another case. Must we
then never generalize?

Later, Norman Storer and others picked up the theme, which social psychologists might best
appreciate, most historians of science being too narrowly educated for such subtleties, or too
constrained to deal with them.

By the way, Lucca Cavazzo [an Italian supporter of the ABS] and wife had a baby. He was dining
with me just before it happened. He calls his Federico Julio, two emperors yet! [Ted had begun
his family.]

Now the special issue of September 1963 appeared and before long was reprinted. The response
was strong, but within the ABS orbit was almost entirely of social scientists and humanists.
Prompted by free copies and alerted by word of mouth, natural scientists nevertheless played
deaf and dumb, and so did those dependent upon them directly.

In the files of Deg no new voice from a natural scientist comes forth amidst the many letters
of a type to warm the cockles of an editor's heart. The scientists simply stooped low to avoid
the flying bullets and returned the silent message, "Science is truth; truth is one; who defies
the truth is no scientist; whatever happens to him he deserves." A few ducked because they had
no recourse and feared the collective or public opinion of science, perhaps retaliation. It was
a small step, which the sociologically untrained scientific mind can easily take, from
witnessing a fellow supporting the case of Velikovsky to disdaining him erroneously for
supporting his theories. Some would have been just normally lazy. Dr. Robert Jastrow, Director
of the Institute for Space Studies, wrote Deg on October 20, 1980: "I had, of course, read your
earlier very fine pieces on Velikovsky and his theories and had drawn on them in preparing my
own article." But maybe this was later.

The New York Times ignored the American Behavioral Scientist and did not review the book when
it later appeared. A brave letter came from an editor of the Christian Science Monitor (This
newspaper, you may appreciate, is one of the world's finest, and has a disproportionate
scientific audience.) "May I say," wrote G. Wiley Mitchell to Deg, on December 12, 1966, "that
I have read your book through, consider it a real contribution and am very regretful that
neither my efforts, nor those of some of my colleagues who agree with me, have been successful
in getting my paper to publish a review. The Velikovsky smearers have been effective! (Mind
you, I am not at all sure I endorse his theories in toto. But I think his method is sound and
his theories are certainly no weaker than others that gain a hearing simply because they come
with the right 'credentials. ')"

An attorney at NASA (and I must point out that he was Dan, the son of David Arons, a Gimbel
Bros. executive and an acquaintance of V.) wrote happily to his father that he had "received a
call from Dr. Newell [head of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration] this morning
bright and early who told him that

.... he had read the articles in the American Behavioral Scientist which I sent him and was
'aghast at the inquisition' to which the Velikovsky books have been submitted.

He said he had noted some of the comments made back in the 50's but these articles place them
all in a pattern. He particularly noted a remark of Fred Whipple to the effect that scientists
ought to send back the postage paid postcards to publishers who use them to advertise such
books as Velikovsky's. Dr. Newell thought this was very 'vindictive' and 'uncalled-for. ' While
Velikovsky 'might be wrong' he is entitled to 'dispassionate review and criticism. ' Dr. Newell
said that he had already discussed this matter with some of the 'leading lights' at NASA
including Arnold Frutkin, Director of International Programs. He requested that he be permitted
to keep the copy he has and be provided with additional copies.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone here makes a statement on Velikovsky in the near future....

But of course, there were no actions taken. Involve NASA in such a demonstration? Impossible!

There was another case, which V. pinned his hopes upon for a time, pathetically, a President of
the grand University of Southern California, Murphy by name, who had indirectly voiced sympathy
for the Velikovsky problem and V. had barged in to suggest that he appoint a commission of
inquiry. The response: polite, and routinely cordial; but no interest, the matter being out of
bonds. No University was going to dirty its hands with the nitty-gritty of scientific
conflicts. If V. had been more of a sociologist, he could draw the appropriate parallels with
the Catholic Church at the time of Galileo, reluctantly drawn to support his enemies, a case V.
knew well -- up to a point.

There came Peter Tompkins to Princeton and Jill and Deg had him to lunch, along with their
neighbor, Thomas Kuhn. Peter had published the story of his wartime escapade in German-occupied
Rome, a feat which Deg, a few miles away at the time, thought to do but had not done, and Peter
had written The Eunuch and the Virgin, which Stecchini had shown to V. and which he had
rejected, even though Tompkins could throw light on two points of importance: the sexual
derivations from cosmic disaster (which V. had recognized) and the descent of great
bureaucratic institutions from the same obsessional terror (which Deg but not V. was attending
to). His Secrets of the Great Pyramid was ultimately to achieve fame. Tom Kuhn's book on
scientific revolutions was beginning to gather kudos for himself as a historian of science. Deg
had footnoted it in his study of the reception system, for old time's sake, since the book
hadn't come to hand until the manuscript was ready to print, and praised it in the ABS. Deg had
wondered why so little attention was paid to the materials of politics and sociology on
revolutions. When the ABS was publishing its Velikovsky Issue, Kuhn was publishing an essay on
the function of dogma in scientific research, in a book edited by A. C. Crombie; there he
argued that science is and must be dogmatic and the present balance between dogmatism and open-
mindedness appeared to be a healthy one.

Kuhn and Tompkins got into a bristling argument over parascience. They were such formidable-
looking men, especially at the moment. Deg felt embarrassed, as their host. Neither had the
energy to spare for Dr. V. Tompkins was rebuffed because of V.'s heavy anxiety over associating
with the scientific fringe, especially if sex reared its head. Tom volunteered no support, not
then, not later. The presence of the great Velikovsky archive went unnoticed by him, too. Deg
thought, well, Kuhn is in the grip of the Princetonian academia and is an historian of science,
a field of nitpickers, excepting a few like Kuhn, ignorant of the springs of human ingenuity,
clumsy handmaidens of the technical scientists.

Deg could see continually in science the ghosts of politics concealed by their shrouds. One of
his old-time acquaintances was Don Price, an epiphenomenal career man of the public service,
who launched from the pioneering Public Administration Clearing House alongside the University
of Chicago to Washington, to the headship of the John F. Kennedy Center at Harvard, to the
Presidency of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Deg wrote him concerning
the Velikovsky affair, seeking moral support. The answer: bland, perfectly unobjectionable,

Not having gotten his support for the report of 1963, Deg wrote Price again in 1966 asking him
to intervene to get a communication of V. into Science. He repeated the pledge and passed the
buck. Thus, on December 22, 1966, with "a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year" Price

I am glad of course to have the opportunity to read it and will forward it immediately to the
Editor of Science. It is the general policy of the Officers and Board of Directors of AAAS not
to interfere with the editorial judgment of the Editor and his editorial advisers. Since I
believe that the Editor should be aware of your opinion, and that of Mr. Wigner, I am sending a
copy of your letter as well as the note itself on to Dr. Abelson, and I am sure that they will
be useful to him.

For many years, Deg had preached that science could be regarded as a branch of administration
and administration, the huge corpus of civilized routines, as the outward expression of human
habits, largely unconscious, and therefore excusably termed obsessions.

Journal, Undated, Spring 1963

Science, and all that goes by the name in discourse and actions is almost entirely a process
of administering deductions in the name of an ideology. [Actually, this is a paraphrase of what
Deg had written for the Administrative Science Quarterly a decade earlier. I am trying to
exclude from this book whatever he has printed elsewhere, as I promised him, but I am like the
oaf who quit his job grading potatoes because all the choices between big and little made his
head hurt: at times I find such distinctions imperceptible.]

On December 9, 1966, not long after the publication of the Velikovsky Affair in book form, Dr.
Douglas Shanklin delivered an address on child-bed fever at the College of Medicine, University
of Florida, applying Deg's model of the reception system to J. P. Semmelweis and Oliver Wendell
Holmes. They had independently proposed infection as the source of the often fatal puerperal
fever, and are famous therefore. But Charles White of Manchester, England, had insisted upon
absolute cleanliness in the lying-in hospital in 1773 and Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen,
Scotland, stated the theory of infection in 1795. Holmes was an illustrious poet before he
published in 1843 his theory of infection as the source of the fever that killed so many women
in the hospitals of the nineteenth century; he did not hold an academic position at the time,
but later became Professor of Anatomy and Physiology at the Harvard Medical School. The
dogmatic opposition persisted until the science of bacteriology of the next generation
overwhelmed it. Holmes died at 85, highly regarded.

Semmelweis was a Hungarian Jew practicing medicine at the Maternity Department of the Vienna
General Hospital when, in 1847, he introduced the practice of washing hands with chlorinated
water before examining women in labor. Although the results were a five-fold decrease in the
mortality rate, he was attacked and forced out of his position, and took a new post in his
native Hungary. There he published a massive book on the etiology, concept, and prophylaxis of
childbed fever (1861). Four years later he cut himself during a post-mortem examination, became
infected, was mentally deranged, and died soon after, at 47 years.

Holmes' essay was well-written and without first-hand experience. Semmelweis' work was
intimidating, ponderously written and he was fully experienced. Holmes republished his own
essay a dozen years after its first publication in a medical journal, declaring: "When, by the
permission of providence, I held up to the professional public the damnable facts connected
with the conveyance of poison from one young mother's chamber to another, for doing which
humble office I desire to be thankful that I have lived, though nothing else should ever come
to my life, I had to hear the sneers of those whose position I had assailed, and, as I believe
have at last demolished, so that nothing but the ghosts of dead women stir among the ruins."

Semmelweis was persecuted for his heresy. Shanklin writes of Semmelweis' tragedy:

A few people acted with bold imagination and foresight, accepting the data at its face value
and effectively saving many lives... the overwhelming majority dealt either from a power base
or a dogmatic base, steeped in the irrational. The net effect for an interval was described in
the indeterminacy model. Truth was accepted here and rejected there and by gradual exchange
assimilation was finally achieved. Additional proofs with the evolution of a new technique
wrote the final chapter of the saga of Semmelweis.

It took about a century from White's obsessive insistence upon cleanliness in Manchester's
lying-in wards to consensus about a matter that should have been simple enough to grasp, if one
recalled that peasants used salt, alcohol, and herbs on wounds and they isolated persons
associated with plague by the most cruel means. That the use of hospitals for parturition
increased and that the doctors and their students increased their post-mortem dissections in
this environment escalated the puerperal fever mortality rate. These two "advances" confused
the issue, just as "advances" in agriculture, particularly in the U. S. A., have caused
devastation of the soil, water resource depletion, and new chemical diseases. In the middle of
advances, regressions are minimized or even denied scornfully. Obviously the scientific process
is largely understandable by sociological and psychological analysis.

Deg did not enjoy any illusion that there would be a direct rational line from publicizing V.'s
poor reception in the sciences to the acceptance of his views and their incorporation into
science. For one thing, he felt certain that if V.'s ideas, or anyone else's including his own,
would succeed, they had to be first disassembled, torn to shreds, and then reassembled by
thousands of people from the nearly unrecognizable shreds. Only much later might some
historians recognize the many truths and even the valid general theories in their work.

Nonetheless, the exposition of such large ideas and the controversy over them would perform the
first major task of any revolution, namely the refocusing of attention and the conditioning of
the minds of scientists and teachers to the new frame of thought. In these very days of the
1960's, the leaders of the movement for women's liberation were stressing "consciousness-
raising;" many blacks were doing the same by stressing "negritude" (as the French blacks called
it) and accusing pro-black liberal whites, "their best friends," of necessarily being racially
prejudiced; radical students caught on also to the effectiveness of "irrational," often
destructive, behavior as a way of getting the attention of the civil and educational

Adverse publicity is a shock to the generally sheltered scientists and effectively alters their
perceptions. The demoralization of a supreme power such as the scientific establishment with
its credo and foci can occur by the exposure of weaknesses among a few leaders and heroes and
proceed with the underlying economic forces that limit rewards and positions; demoralization
then moves to the rank-and-file individuals who pay less respect, work less hard, ask more
money and benefits, and pay attention to supernatural or heretical interests. In a democracy,
the withdrawal of any substantial amount of public support for the ideas and position of any
institution, including science, results in some demoralization. A perfectly normal remark, if
publicized, can invite latent opposition to take form. When the renowned astronomer and public
scientist par excellence, Harlow Shapley, declared "If Dr. Velikovsky is right, the rest of us
are crazy," what would appear to be a humorous truism set up, when publicized, a rallying point
for all who were even slightly concerned about this or that fallacy of science; what many
scientists believed to be only an absurd contrast gave to many a premonition that, yes, all
scientists are crazy.

Although Deg believed that he had substantially accounted for the scientific behavior witnessed
in the Velikovsky case, one of the most common questions asked of him in discussions and at
lectures over the following years was "Why did the scientists make such a fuss?" It did not
seem to matter that often the people assembled had come because they already knew the answer.
There would, of course, always be on hand for analysis new cases of idiotic name-calling and
denigration of V., but the causes agitating the scientists remained essentially the same:
dogmatism (fueled by the need for respect), expressions of power (agitated by personal
ambitions and feelings of insufficient influence), indeterminacy (the frustrated wish to know,
and the denial of confusion and uncertainty) and rationalism (narrowly defined, and therefore
inadequate against ideas of quantavolution, which seem so easy to refute and dismiss but turn
out to be remarkably rich and resilient).

Exposing the mental and social operations of science produced an effect almost entirely
favorable. Some addressed Deg for bringing justice to V. Others praised him for introducing the
issue of justice into the scientific process. Some others commented upon the novelty of the
approach. Mentions of unusual courage were frequent. Social scientists recognized the phenomena
of establishment defensiveness and crowd behavior; they expressed little surprise. The letters
of surprise came from persons who had undergone a conversion experience; they professed
humiliation and disenchantment because of scientific conduct. Several urged that Deg turn his
attention to cases which they believed to be similar. Deg objected, when I thought to print
some of the encomia that his magazine (1963) and book (1966) evoked, saying that rehearing old
praise can be bittersweet, to editors as to the aged of stage and screen. To most it is a bore,
old or new. Blurbs are the medium of exchange between producer, salesman, and customer. If it
is necessary, if it's never been printed, OK, let it be brief.

So this is brief -- but it's important, because it shows that the message was intelligible, and
got through in the larger intellectual world. A comparison may be pertinent: it was widely
believed that scientists took up their pens en masse to castigate Macmillan Company when it
published Worlds in Collision. In 1983, when Leroy Ellenberger delved into the appropriate
files he found only twenty-one of such letters.

The favorable correspondence received by Deg and the ABS in 1963 and 1966 exceeded the
unfavorable mail received by Macmillan Company in what the Company regarded as a massive
assault upon its integrity and its ability to do business with scientists. The gutless behavior
of well-intentioned institutions is proverbial; Senator Joe McCarthy and a few assistants
reduced the mammoth State Department and other agencies of the Federal Government to terrorized
submission around the same time.

Some figures in the forefront of scientific method in the social sciences, then or later,
responded to the issue forcibly, a "most interesting" from Herbert Simon; "used to very good
teaching purposes" from Bernard Barber; "both fascinating... and important... a splendid
account," from Hadley Cantril; "beautifully makes the point about the psychology of
scientists... grateful" from James C. Davies, a "signal service" from Arthur S. Miller; "a
superb example of the sociology of knowledge," from Wendell Bell; "sobering and helpful," from
Renato Tagiuri; "an outstanding contribution on so vital an issue... not only the matter of
methodology but also one of political toleration and scientific craftsmanship" from Ralph M.
Goldman; "fascinating... excellent..." from Wayne A. R. Leys; "splendid... outstanding...
personal congratulations" from George A. Lundberg; and a grumpy reassessment by Stuart Chase,
"I can see your point." Sociologist George Lundberg's letter to Deg pointed to a different type
of reception system problem in science, one in which he had once been personally involved:

The question has a great many aspects. In the first place, there is the problem all editors
face in discriminating between work of a crackpot and the work of a genius. As has often been
pointed out, they are hard to distinguish, especially on the more advanced levels. A very
different problem (not involved in the Velikovsky case) faces the conscientious editor when he
gets a paper the validity of which he does not question, but which, if published, will in the
editor's opinion give aid and comfort to a group hostile to a viewpoint which the editor
personally shares, on grounds reflecting the most creditable public spirit.

Lundberg also noted, "It appears that Velikovsky's ideas have been widely circulated in spite
of the hostility of the Establishment... Is it possible that the enormous growth in
communication technology has made it practically impossible to suppress new ideas for long?"

Stuart Dodd wrote from the University of Washington:

I think you have done a magnificent job of l'affaire Velikovsky in the September ABS. The
care with which you worked up and presented the complete case in the three articles, with
excellent refereeing throughout, was a historic achievement in challenging and improving
methodology in the Behavioral Sciences. I particularly admire the way you did not go into the
controversy of the correctness of Velikovsky's theories, leaving that to the specialists
concerned. Your editorial statement of the issues involving the mores of both the physical
scientists and the social scientists as scientists in accepting and sifting new scientific work
is a skillfully done job.

On the humanities side Mose Hadas, Horace Kallen, William T. Couch, Jacques Barzun, William
Sloane and August Heckscher wrote Deg supportively. Medicine, social work, psychiatry, and law
were among the fields of applied science reporting interest and conveying congratulations.
Several ABS readers arranged meetings for Dr. V. at their campuses. Articles based on the ABS
issue originated in Italy, England, Australia, and elsewhere during the 1960's. Reviews of the
book when it appeared two years later were favorable; however, no scientific journal dealing
with the natural sciences reviewed it. Ultimately, the book was republished in England, and
translated and published by Bertelsman-Goldman in Germany.

Deg introduced the second, English Edition of the Velikovsky Affair in 1977. Brain Moore, the
librarian of Hartlepool and a cosmic heretic, reviewed the work in the Society for
Interdisciplinary Studies Review, III: 2 (1978), 38. Crediting the book "a 'classic' in its
field" with "the renaissance of scholarly interest in Velikovsky" he quoted its preface:

We dedicate this book to people who are concerned about the ways in which scientists behave
and how science develops. It deals especially with the freedoms that scientists grant or
withhold from one another. The book is also for people who are interested in new theories of
cosmogony -- the causes of the skies, the earth, and humankind as we see them. It is, finally,
a book for people who are fascinated by human conflict, in this case a struggle among some of
the most educated, elevated, and civilized characters of our times.

The area to which the ABS addressed itself was apparently much in need of attention.
Sociologist Lundberg thought "that the AAAS, not to mention individual scientists and groups,
must now prepare a detailed answer," and he added, as did others, various matters of
investigation in the reception system of science. David Wallace wrote happily, "I hope you get

The American Political Science Review, which had carried negative reviews of, or ignored, Deg's
iconoclastic or deceptively simple works in political science sprang to attention with the
Velikovsky Affair. John Orbell opined that "it represents a most significant contribution to
the sociology of science." He applauded Deg's most valuable chapter on the scientific reception
system and concluded: "Behavioral scientists might be expected this time to have been on the
side of the angels; they were, after all, nearly alone among scientists in not having some
fundamental notions challenged by Velikovsky." Stecchini wrote to Deg, then in Italy, on Oct.
2, 1963: "There has just appeared a manifesto by [Robert Maynard] Hutchins and others of his
coterie on Science, Scientists, and Politics. It says in general what the ABS has said, but it
does not give any evidence. Hutchins begins by saying that in his experience the scientists are
the most unscrupulous and power-motivated members of the academic community. The concluding
paper by Lynn White, Jr. [historian of science] declares that scientists do not understand
philosophical issues and often have philosophical prejudices."

One sponsor of this manifesto was Harrison Brown, a renowned scientist whose reviews of V.'s
books were madly mediocre, which goes to say something of the significance of works of the
Hutchins kind that do not name names, and makes recommendations that are not specific. Deg
liked and admired Hutchins, even when strongly critical of him, ever since he had attended a
seminar of that handsome, brave, relatively intellectual, self-contained, and slightly phony
cavalier, then President of the University of Chicago.

There came shortly afterwards to Deg another letter from Albert Schenkman, Publisher of
Cambridge, Mass., breaking a lance against the ABS. Ted Gurr, minding the ABS, wished to
publish it and Deg replied "Dear Ted: It is cruel of you to hound me across the Big Pond with
Mr. Schenkman's letter with a request that I reply. He is in a state of awful confusion. Print
it if you will, with or without my comments," and he suggested that Gurr put the comments
alongside the appropriate paragraphs of the letter. Gurr did not print the comments.

Philip Converse, who at this writing is President of the American Political Science
Association, on Oct. 9, 1963 congratulated Deg on "a superb document." Unlike most, he had
followed the case from its inception in the early 1950's. Unlike most, too, he directed his
thoughts to measures of policy and control.

... In accordance with the principle of open public challenge and rebuttal, why not publicly
invite those of the principals on the other side (certainly Shapley, Gaposhkin, Harrison Brown,
perhaps Abelson, etc.) who are still active to respond to this issue in an ensuing number? I
assume they would be willing actually to read the whole issue before writing rejoinders. I
trust such an invitation could be handled without devolving into a Counter-Inquisition. That
is, the profound ignorance in some coupled with the arrogance of success, has had material
consequences for the development of the behavioral sciences, and I am sure leaves many social
scientists in a counter-inquisitional frame of mind. On the other hand, it is we who purport to
understand the psychology of the inquisition, and we contend among other things that they are
unlikely to. I think it is fair game to make the basic points and make them vigorously, while a
classic case is still fresh. Yet if our claimed perspective on such matters has any merit at
all, it should both permit us and require us to handle the matter with some noblesse oblige,
out of respect for the gross differences between the two camps in comprehended information
concerning these social and psychological processes. This is true not only because of the
negative consequences of the unfettered inquisition spirit, but also because of our beliefs
that the problems are principally system-level ones, not good-guys and bad-guys, and ones
moreover that social scientists have not to date resolved operationally themselves. So a
personal vote for increased discussion and allocation of resources toward remedy, but not the
pillory or the witch hunt.

Deg at Florence was sent a copy of the New York Times of August 16, 1963 about "the first
definitive list of books assembled for the White House Library," John F. Kennedy being
President and Jacqueline, his wife, being interested in such matters as the White House decor
and French poetry. Professor James Babb, librarian of Yale University, directed the task.
"Those on the arduous project included the best brains of the Library of Congress, the editor
of the Adams and Jefferson papers, members of the White House Fine Arts Advisory Committee and
a host of distinguished scholars, librarians, publishers and experts in many fields throughout
the nation." Deg's book, Public and Republic, was on the list, his father said, and in response
to a plea from the allegedly poverty-stricken White House for donations, his father had sent in
the autographed copy Deg had given him years before.

Deg examined the list and wrote a brief essay about it. In his usual way, he managed to scold
everybody, the pretentiousness of the scheme, the great works left out, the silly books
entered, the illiteracy of Presidents, and the antiquated view of the methodology of politics
and history evidenced by the list. Most pertinent here are his remarks on the treatment of
science in this super-list:

Nor do we understand why the natural sciences are excluded. Certainly there is room for some
principal articles and books. If readability is the criterion, they are as likely to be read as
several hundred other works in the collection. Besides the originals, there should be present
at least Sarton, Conant, Whitehead, and Santillana. It is as important that the mythical
President who reads should read science as that he should read "Little Women."

This is probably another aspect of the escapism which shuns the future. The immense and fertile
American planning community is scarcely heeded. The best predictions and estimates of what can
be done in the natural sciences in the next century are absent. The best proposals for the
control of war are not available. If indeed the President were to read randomly in this
collection, we should fear for the nation.

The tools with which an active presidential mind might work are not dominant here.

The incident displays Deg as something of a misanthrope, but what meaning has this word -- a
hater of one's fellow humans or, like Le Misanthrope of Moliere's drama, an idealist and severe
critic of others? It is clear that he was the latter; he had the two tell-tale signs of this
Misanthrope: he was a harsh judge of himself, subjecting himself to daily Augustinian
interrogations of his activities, his use of time, his ideas, his conduct towards others, his
intellectual and logical rigor, and his failures. Second, he had an inflated hope for others:
for educating the uneducable, giving to the undeserving, organizing the unorganizable, loving
the unlovable, bringing peace to the world; worse, he could see good in everyone: his
opponents, madmen, silly women, gangsters, wicked politicians. Even at the moment of judging
harshly, he was sympathizing secretly. One reason why he was attracted to V. was V.'s simple
unidimensional moral quality: there were enemies and friends; the friend of your enemy is your
enemy; the enemy of your enemy is your friend; the friend of your friend is your friend. The
fourth category -- the enemy of your friend is your enemy was not so well accepted by V., or to
most others who went so far as to accept the first three propositions. So it is not all simple,
but nothing is, and all generalizations are false to a degree.

Let us move to Deg's Journal.

Princeton, April 7, 1966
I was abruptly pulled out of the relaxation of homecoming when I visited Velikovsky. He was
haranguing me about Livio's misspelling of the Pharaoh's name and I was sipping tea and
listening respectfully but comfortably and even amusedly when the telephone rang and he
answered it. I could hear him asking who it was and then "jail," and "marijuana," and "most
regrettable," and "I am in full agreement," but then "I am not the man for you. I have here
with me Professor de Grazia, Professor Alfred De Grazia," and "Let me have him speak with
you... He is better qualified to deal with this subject."

He lumbered in and explained that a gentleman on the phone wished to have a Dr. Timothy Leary
introduced. This Dr. Leary had been sentenced to thirty years in prison for possessing
marijuana. He was a psychologist... I began to recall Leary... Harvard... experiments with
LSD... and reluctantly but with some interest I picked up the receiver and received an
invitation to come to Town Hall on Tuesday (this was Monday) at 8 p. m. and introduce Dr. Leary
to the audience. The caller, Mr. Bogart, stated that under the circumstances of the sentencing,
it would be helpful if Dr. Leary were not to go 'cold' on stage but be preceded by some
supportive words. I replied that I might do so but wished to look into the matter and call him
back the same afternoon. I hung up and V. said, "You should do it, Alfred, it is a very good
and useful thing to do." I felt that I should probably do it, but did not finally decide until
I had read a little of the background of the case and an article of alarmist nature in Life
magazine regarding LSD.

Sizemore joined us at V. 's and we examined some of the long-sought-for Macmillan
correspondence on V. 's case. Miraculously, after it had appeared first that Macmillan would
never let us see what they had in their files from the days of the crisis over the publication
of Worlds in Collision, and then later they said that they had destroyed the files, Sizemore
learned that the files had actually gone with many other files over to the New York Public
Library for some future literary historian. Well, history had already begun. Sizemore requested
the materials and they were brought up for him. He was not supposed to remove them, but he did
so temporarily, reproduced them by Xerox, and returned them immediately. So now we might read
the full texts of the letters of the scientists Shapley, McLaughlin and the rest to Macmillan,
the notes of Mr. Brett of Macmillan agitating the question of whether or not to ditch V. 's
book, and related letters and papers. We were now in position to back up what some people
regarded as exaggerated statements concerning the dispute with actual quotations corroborating
our charges.

The matter of introducing Leary bothered me a bit. V. and Jill both spoke of my acceptance as
an act of courage. So did Eddie [Deg's brother] when I called him that evening for information.
So also several others in the next day or two. I feel uneasy when people say I am generous,
kind, understanding or courageous. Partly I doubt that I am any of these things. Or if I think
I am, it is upon occasions when nobody in the world notices; but then when I act normally and
naturally, it seems to me, as in the case of Dr. Leary, I am explicitly informed of my virtues.
I have long been convinced intellectually of the absolute lack of coordination between good
deeds and rewards but their lack of coincidence in practice never ceases to bother me and
unsettle me. I don't know how to put it: it seems that I do praiseworthy things in quiet,
boldly, but when a public approves my conduct, far from plunging forward even more
enthusiastically, I tend to pull up a bit and examine my conduct: am I being rash; what am I
doing that is extraordinary? I almost never find that I am fully in accord with the applause.

Eddie told me on the telephone from Washington that Leary's case had several legal
possibilities, that it was worth trying in court. He urged me to talk to Allen Ginsberg about
Leary, since he recalled Ginsberg having an interest in the matter. He then spoke with A. G., I
believe, the next morning, for G. phoned me at my office, speaking unexpectedly in a smooth,
organized way, and we arranged to meet at the Faculty Club at 3: 45 that afternoon for the
first time.

At the appointed time, having speedily dispatched a batch of phone calls, letters, papers, and
other miscellany from the piles of homecoming mail, I was at the Faculty Club and Ginsberg came
in soon thereafter. The apparition is nothing to dismiss, especially if it occurs in the
framework of the old Federal architecture and furnishings of Washington Square North. He was
more completely uncouth than I thought possible. Full grown hair and beard flying in every
direction, disheveled attire of ditch, barn, and beach. He said Peter was parking the car and
would be in, so we began to talk while we waited and after twenty minutes Peter came in with
his tam, long red braids, and grimy gym suit and tennis shoes, bringing along also his brother.
By then Allen and I had come to terms and he could introduce Peter's brother nonchalantly as
"Julius, Peter's brother. We've taken him out of the insane asylum where he's been for thirteen
years. He's become our ward." Peter said, "Sit here, Julius!" and Julius staring far far out of
this world, sat straight and mechanical on a chair and said nothing nor scarcely moved a muscle
for the hour or more that we talked thereafter.

The trio was spectacularly disgusting. Several professors and the manager poked their heads
inquiringly our way and I gave them a polite "hello!" My own feeling was of warmth and
fondness. They were completely reversed characters. All the evil in them was in their
appearance, while inwardly they revealed a beauty and kindness that was holy. They are in the
great tradition of the blessed spirits -- the hermits who live in caves and on poles, the
beggars of St. Francis, Ginsberg is an man of surpassing intelligence, aside from all else, and
Peter a kind of saintly inquirer. They are not more celibates, or even better-than-ordinary
men. They stand on the other side of Evil, having passed through it or flown over it.

I invited them to the bar downstairs for a drink, but they took me instead to their party,
where they were tardy. Present when we arrived was the hostess, Miss Beach, daughter of the
first publisher of Joyce, a Frenchman who has just translated Ferlinghetti, a Solomon who had
just been freed from nine years in a mental hospital (this must be Allen's great early friend)
and a pretty young man who looks like Edgar Allen Poe and publishes Fuck you: a Magazine of the

I stayed for a while, then left despite their invitation to dinner, because I had to put down
some words for my Introduction. I signed into the Stanford hotel for the night, scribbled
hastily for half an hour and then walked to Town Hall (taking a cab the last couple of blocks,
since I turned E rather than W) and arrived a little late to spend time with Leary before the
address. It was as well for he was busy with the press and TV until the moment he had to
appear. He welcomed me and we went on stage to a house three-fourths filled. A young crowd, I
observed. My introduction went off well, and Leary's small strange eyes lit up warmly when I
finished and he shook my hand cordially. He rambled on nicely for over an hour under painful
white lights. They bothered me more than him but he had indicated he wished me to sit on stage
alongside the rostrum and I complied. (Now I must see what mode of exploitation there will be
of the films that were made. If I am on display I shall want to be sure of the context and

Leary's message was simple and harmless. He spoke of the levels of consciousness and asserted
that the deepest was provoked by LSD. He argued that the knowledge one gained thereby was to
the good (automatically, I suppose, as the naturalist fallacy has it that all fact and truth is
good and wreaks good, no matter the context or the controls). It wasn't much. Leary has been
the patient amicus adolescensis of boys and girls seeking self-awareness and thrills of
sensation, and is adulated for this and for his troubles and for his pursuit of a vague set of
psychological and theological ideas that hover in the experiences of drug-taking.

I bid him goodnight afterwards, ate a poor solitary meal at a late diner, and slept well,

Princeton, October 6, 1966 Bad headache. Hot flashes, apparent heart palpitations after lunch.

Query: alcohol? Alcohol plus fine crop of my garden mushrooms "coprinus" for dinner last
evening? barometric pressures possibly related to hurricane Inez? something more functionally
severe? Poor mood, anyhow, Louise S --- our house guest again. A beautiful woman, so well
turned out, and 52 years old. She had a torrid affair with a young Greek and spent weeks with
him on a primitive island in the Aegean this summer.

Walked with Franny [their shepherd dog] along the streets in the balmy night air. Stopped by
Velikovsky to give him an article on "Magnetic Pressures" that describes the newest successes
in building up tremendous magnetic charges. What artifice can do, nature may have done and may
do. Hence V. 's theories about the possible role of electromagnetic charges in cosmic events
and catastrophes may be supported or considered in new light.

He insisted I stay and despite my headache, we talked for nearly two hours. He had me read his
latest correspondence and advise him on letters to Sullivan of the NYT and others. We spoke of
his archives and I repeated my thoughts about a foundation to take over his home and archives.
He is very anxious about his many remaining tasks. Fifteen they were, he said. I said "I have
fifteen not counting you as a project." He joked about the peasant pushing the old ass and
saying, in response to a remark of a by-stander: "Between us we are 100 years old."

Deg's Journal, Princeton, October 9, 1966 It is as difficult to make a little change as a big
change in politics. Or is it? I sometimes think the former and usually act upon it. But I am a
radical by temper and I resent being involved in little changes when bigger ones are needed.

I wonder: can it be that in the measurement NOT of the difficulty of change, but whether the
changes brought are big or little, that the conservatism of a society should be determined?

Deg's Journal, Princeton, October 9, 1966, 11 P. M. At 9 am Edward de G. calls and we discuss
his problems in finishing "Congressional Liaison." At 10 V. calls and tells me we should
publish his Brown University speech and the accompanying talks of his critics, together with
the Neugebauer reviews and correspondence, as a book. I agree, but he takes a half-hour to
unload his early morning thoughts upon me. I should charge the old psychoanalyst a
psychiatrist's fee (professional discount, of course). At the end he says "I feel better now.
We have this straightened out. Now I will go back to the miserable German translation of my
book." I feel compassionate. At every turn of the road, a further obstacle to communicating
one's ideas arises -- when nothing else, there will always be the damnable errors of a typist,
a translator, or an editor. Deg's Journal, Princeton, 1967 The afternoon of Sunday, December
17, Jill and I bicycled down the hill to the Velikovsky house for a tea party, with Francesca,
our German Shepherd dog, loping along nicely beside us. When we arrived she insisted upon
coming in, or rather, behaved in such a confused fashion that we finally brought her in with
us, and she finally discovered her place under the grand piano, where she had lain on prior
occasions. Present were the Ralph Juergens, Dr. Kogan, Vielikovsky's son-in-law and a Professor
and Research Scientist from Israel, with whom I had met on his previous trips to the United
States. So were the Bigelows, he from the Institute for Advanced Study and she a psychologist.
I had not met them before although Velikovsky spoke of Bigelow from time to time. He is one of
the few natural scientists who has lent sympathy to Velikovsky in recent years. A newly met
acquaintance of Velikovsky, Spelman Waxman, was in the company with his wife. He is retired now
from the Center for Antibiotics Research, that he had established at Rutgers University on the
basis of the returns from his discovery of certain antibiotics, especially streptomyocin, for
which he had received the Nobel Prize some years ago. The Waxmans had scarcely heard of
Velikovsky. I had only vaguely recollected them as well. The Juergens didn't know the others.
The Bigelows did not either, so all in all, except for Velikovsky, who has a great memory for
everybody and everything, it was a typical gathering of specialized intellectuals who had heard
little or nothing of one another despite the feeling that some of those present had that they
might have met or that they were worthy of being known to others. Jill later told me that Mrs.
Waxman seemed offended when Jill did not recognize her name, and of course Mrs. Waxman and Dr.
Waxman were probably surprised when I asked him how he spelled it later on when he was asking
me to send him a copy of "The Velikovsky Affair" which I of course felt that he should have
known about, and I am far too aware of the networks of acquaintanceship in The Great Society to
expect anybody to know me before meeting, unless they come from certain circles the existence
of which I am well aware of. Under the circumstances, it is easy to see why there is so much
trouble in gathering together a public opinion among scientists except at the most superficial
level of the top associations and those who agitate among them and in the mass media, denoted
by prizes and the like.

I learned about Kogan's work in desalinization of sea water. He is now constructing a model in
Israel that is supposed to be a great improvement over existing distillation types that require
much expensive copper alloy tubing. His method is a kind of open channel way that cuts down a
considerable proportion of cost of the installation that comes from tubing. He has also worked
in physics and astronomy. He is a large man, wall-eyed, pleasant and highly intelligent,
persuaded, I believe, of the validity of Velikovsky's general theory. We discussed the force
fields that could have been operative during the encounter of Venus and Earth about 1500 B. C.
He explained in answer to my questioning that it might be possible to set up a model to
duplicate the forces involved, but it would be a very costly affair. Natural forces are not
easy to set up in a natural state. He felt that the force of electromagnetism exerted presently
among the planetary bodies and the sun might be enormously modified because its cube principle
follows gravitational force very quickly and provides a very different relationship between the
two bodies. Hence, one cannot say that the force between Earth and Venus would be negligible at
all. Furthermore, we could venture a number of different positions, charges, currents, axial
coordinates and the like that would determine a very wide range of possible forces between
Earth and Venus during the period in question. And of course the present slow retrograde motion
of Venus does not at all indicate what might have been the position and rotation of Venus at
the time of the encounter. Unless someone comes up with a brilliant scheme, it will be
difficult to reconstruct the historical incident with details more specific than those rather
general ones provided already by Velikovsky. (However, I feel that there is some possibility
that we might be able to use a more intensive and exhaustive scrutiny of ancient documents to
discover somewhat more details about the motions of the heavenly bodies during the encounter

Dr. Waxman is an old Russian Jew of about the same age as Velikovsky, and they were able to
recall passing by one another at different points in their early wandering lives. Dr. Waxman
began to recollect his experiences in the years following his discovery of antibiotics and his
naming of the field. I asked especially, "How long would you say it was from the time you made
your discovery until the time you finally had a full research institute set up and operative
with the people you wanted?" He replied, after much clarification of the question, partly
because he, like other natural scientists, do not think in sociological process terms, that ten
years was the period from the time that he made his discovery until the pharmaceutical industry
purchased rights to use them, to the payment of royalties back to the University, to the voting
by the Trustees of a new Center for Antibiotic Research at Rutgers to be set up by Dr. Waxman,
to the construction of the building and then the hiring of a first group of deliberately
temporary people who were space occupiers to prevent other ill-housed faculty of the University
from taking over Waxman's facilities before he had a chance to bring in the permanent first-
rate men that he was seeking. Finally, at the end of ten years the cycle concluded. I commented
that this was a very short cycle of this type. It had to do with the nature of the discovery,
of the fact that a market was present, and a few unique factors, including, of course, the
shrewdness of Dr. Waxman himself throughout the total operation. A much more thorough study of
this experience would be very worthwhile from the standpoint of the history of science and the
sociology of science, as well as comparable studies of other experiences.

The tea itself was only a small part of a rather elaborate Russian type of menu that Elisheva
Velikovsky provided --sweet pickled herring, cheeses, hams, several kinds of cake, and the
company enjoyed itself at table, Franny having lodged herself below the table and under the
feet of everyone, somewhat to the embarrassment of Jill who was never really embarrassed about
this sort of thing but thought that poor Elisheva had enough to do without concerning herself
with the physical presence of a large bitch. Numerous stories were recounted.. Velikovsky told
of the legend of Solomon in which was apparently involved a bit of radium that had been picked
up somewhere and was carried in a lead box and was used from time to time for performing
miracles, and finally after generations was exhausted. I thought the story showed very well the
terrific power of Velikovsky's mind in looking at stories and seeing beyond the simple words
facts at an entirely different level. He is unquestionably a great detective.

Juergens caught me aside as we were leaving the table and the dining room to show me a long
letter he had just received from John Lear, the Science Editor of the Saturday Review. In this
letter, Lear was defending himself against Juergens' assertion in his essay on the history of
the Velikovsky controversy that Lear and Stuart McClintock of Collier's Magazine had attempted
to go beyond Velikovsky's wishes in jazzing up and popularizing Worlds in Collision, something
that we have felt contributed to the original hostility to the Velikovsky book on the part of
the scientists. Nothing in my experience would make me surprised at a popular magazine's
handling of a scientific issue. It is almost impossible, given the rules of journalism, to do
justice by science. Among many other reasons, the journals themselves are unequipped to handle
distinctions between fact statements and scandalous exaggerations. However, in this letter,
Lear again said that he had a most difficult time in working with Velikovsky; he disputes that
there was ever any intention of serializing the book itself instead of condensing it (something
that Velikovsky himself later confirmed and said that he had misremembered this fact when he
looked up his agreement), and went on at great length quoting copiously from a letter written
by McClintock to him a few months before McClintock's death last year, in which McClintock gave
the most harrowing account of an evening spent at Velikovsky's home when he and Lear and later
he alone, after Lear went out to wait for him, had tried to escape the wrath of Velikovsky and
to appease him and at the same time to try to present an article that they thought would be
printed by the magazine. In fact, McClintock accused Velikovsky at one point in his ranting and
raving of bringing out a gun from the cabinet, putting it on the table and saying "Let this
settle the matter right now." McClintock wrote, if Lear is correct in having such a letter,
that he McClintock left the place shaking and with an eruption of the ulcers that he had
thought once cured and after a year felt poorly as a result of the meeting. I laughed rather
grimly when I heard the story. Of course one would have to check the reliability of both Lear
and McClintock in respect to the incident at which Mrs. Velikovsky was supposed to be present.
But again I would not put it past Velikovsky. I could see that a man coming out of a dozen
years of every day in the stacks all day long and with his whole life work and magnificent set
of theories at stake, and with all the driving power and determination that was required for
that effort, being confronted by what had to be a shallow, glancing misrepresentation of what
he was trying to say, and considering also the enormous domineering quality of Velikovsky and
of how he wants to control every single thing that has to do with himself, he would be most
intemperate, disagreeable and could even have pulled out the pistol. Juergens wondered whether
he should show the letter to Velikovsky or Mrs. Velikovsky. I said hold it another day or two
until I could look at it more thoroughly, and then we went into further conversation with the
group, the Waxmans having departed and Jill having gone onto the subject of forming a
foundation for the study of some of the theories in which Velikovsky was interested. He would
like me to organize it. I am thinking strongly of it but I would like a much more clear
definition of our respective roles.

I arranged to see Juergens several days later and did on Thursday afternoon. Then I read
through the letter again, we joked about it some more, and I said to Juergens that I saw no
reason why it should not be shown to Velikovsky. I believed it worked out all right because the
next day Velikovsky called me on another pretext and raised the subject again just to hear my
response. He didn't mind my treating it in a jocular way. And he certainly did not express the
right amount of indignation, I thought, at the fact that I appeared to believe the story. But
he denied it and said that he had never owned a pistol since he had one many years ago in
Russia or was it Israel. He weakened my belief in the letter a little, but it would seem hard
for McClintock to make up the story completely, so specific was it. He also claimed that Lear
was not there at all during the meeting.

Juergens and I then discussed the foundation, and he agreed completely with me that prior to
the establishment of the foundation it should be determined that it would carry a full range of
objective studies of the many types of problems in numerous disciplines that we had come upon
in the course of the Velikovsky experience. Furthermore, he agreed that we should ask for the
rights to almost all of the Velikovsky archive because it is from his voluminous notes and the
total collection of commentary that we could fashion many a first-rate hypothesis for our
colleagues to research, both in the history of science and the substantive areas of concern. I
am now drafting such a letter to Velikovsky explaining the conditions under which we would have
to work. It is impossible to be in any dependent position with respect to Velikovsky and get
out any kind of regular journal, or series of publications, or systematic argument in
opposition to his theories. I could not work otherwise; I would find, as would everyone else
concerned with the foundation and its publications, that he would gobble up all of our time
whether it was necessary or not in the affairs of the foundation and we would be able to do
nothing with our lives otherwise. The pretext I referred to above that Velikovsky called me
about had to do with Professor Neugebauer. Neugebauer had apparently accused me of "dishonesty"
in some letter to Delaplaine, a science writer, because I did not print or acknowledge a letter
that he had written me (the ABS) in 1963. But I don't recall having received such a letter
until 1965, at which time, O. N., probably feeling threatened by an imminent visit of
Velikovsky to Brown University, N's own school, sent me an explanation of why he had
distributed "only one hundred" copies of his review of Velikovsky's book containing a serious
error that would make Velikovsky appear foolish or treacherous with facts.

Every month of the decades of 60's and 70's there would be an alarm raised to rally to V.'s
cause, and the volunteer firemen would rush to the scene. For persistent devotion to duty over
the whole period Warner Sizemore gets the prize. He was out of Georgia originally, became a
Presbyterian minister, studied for his doctorate at Temple University. He never completed his
dissertation, which he might have written ten times over if he had not given so much time to
Velikovsky. Sizemore was an artist as well, a modest painter who would not stretch himself to
create. He devised, too, a method of reproducing in wood a painting, whether classical or
banal, and sold his productions at fairs in shopping centers and fairgrounds.

I must not give the impression that V. would not help his supporters. When it was sage to do
so, and would not compromise himself, he would write letters; since almost always the cosmic
heretics needed letters that would recommend them to academic foes of V. and cover up their
friendliness to V., there were not many of such letters. In Sizemore's case, V. guaranteed a
mortgage on a house in Trenton, so that Sizemore and his family might settle down. They did and
found their life-paths successfully.

The interventions of Sizemore on V.'s behalf were to be numbered in the hundreds. A minister of
the many, he became a minister of the one. Hardly a week would go by without some assistance.
He gave counsel, wrote letters to the media, made phone calls, solicited support, attended
every related public assembly, taped miles of discussions and lectures, gave his own funds to
publish the magazine Kronos, kept hostilities to a minimum, and maintained a good-natured
concern through thick and thin and down the years. He became Professor of Philosophy and
Theology at Glassboro State College and persuaded the authorities to authorize a Velikovsky
Center, which began to collect items of interest and which served as a background screen for
Kronos magazine. There was little gain here except the prestige of an academic address. V.
never did consign a copy of his archive to the "Center."

Friends like Sizemore come mostly in fairy tales and epic poetry. V. took him for granted, as
indeed he took everyone for granted who did not hold some prestigious place or manage a power
center. He bequeathed Sizemore nothing -- nor anything to anyone else except his wife, and then
by descent through her to his family. It is continuously remarkable how gratitude in life,
where it exists, is typically decapitated in the performance of a last testament. It was
disgraceful, after having taken up so much time over decades talking about making his archives
available and helping others carry on his work, that V. did nothing to that effect nor did his
wife and daughters, and in fact his books and materials and funds were held more tightly than
ever after his death. I have already said that V. undervalued what he received from others and
overvalued what he gave them. Lewis Greenberg, to take another case, had for a decade edited
Kronos without compensation (unless his profligate telephoning were to be counted as such) and
could only wrench a few articles out of V. and his heiresses. Very late, Jan Sammer, the
family's assistant, helped to pry loose some pieces. As we shall see, Mankind in Amnesia is not
much as a book, but would have appeared gracefully and appropriately as articles in Kronos.

Meanwhile Kronos was weakened by its top-heavy reliance upon Velikovsky's case. When the
magazine was very young, Deg had proposed, in a fateful meeting of several cosmic heretics in a
Chinese restaurant of Philadelphia, that the magazine "go public." It should define its mission
in general terms and seek a wider audience. Greenberg, whose paranoiac outlook he was the first
to confess, felt threatened and drew back. Deg, who should have pursued his aim more gently and
privately, let it drop, and hardly had personal contact with Greenberg in the years that

But this is true, that V. would have been outraged if any of his circle, and certainly Kronos,
would have essayed to count him as only a leading figure among cosmic heretics, other than as
their raison d'etre. Those who thought such "evils" were evicted, like the Talbotts, or dropped
out, like Stecchini and Bill Mullen. Only Deg, I must say, pushed over the years for an opening
up to the world, and only once did what seemed like an awful break occur, which lasted for a
couple of days. Then the British began to skirmish, and opened up frontally with the Glasgow
revisionism; Deg began circulating his own manuscripts and coining doubly heretical terms like
"revolutionary primevalogy;" and ultimately Kronos began to carry non-Velikovskian material and

Withal Deg could note with interest how in published articles of Kronos and the British Review
and wherever else a piece might appear, the writer would be sure to interject a mention or
quotation from V. in the first paragraphs, as over the years, in American political science
journals, one felt he must refer to the latest book of the "hit parade," one year being the
year to cite V. O. Key on political parties, next year David Truman on political processes,
then Robert Dahl on democratic theory, and so on, or, in a more stable setting, the communist
scientific writers who seem hardly able to put a pen to paper without promptly keying in a
reference to Marx or Engels, no matter what the subject and "the state of the art;" and the
Chinese for a while with Mao, and so on. The issue was not "giving credit where credit is due"
but of political-social game-playing. When a man writes much, he must ultimately mention
everything from sex to the weather, and every phrase can become Biblical in its marvelous
"perceptiveness" and "prophecy."

Deg was not of course alone in detecting this in-gathering effect of fame, as I discerned in
reading the Journal of Andr‚ Gide for 4 February, 1922:

Freud. Freudianism... For the last ten years, or fifteen, I have been indulging in it without
knowing it. Many an idea of mine, taken singly and set forth or developed at length in a thick
book, would have made a great hit -- if only it were the only child of my brain. I cannot
supply the initial outlay and the upkeep for each one of them nor even for any one in

"Here is something that, I fear, will bring grist to your mill," Riviere said to me the other
day, speaking of Freud's little book on sexual development. I should say!

It would be impossible to carry in any interesting manner an account of Deg's interventions on
V.'s behalf, just as it would be to list Sizemore's multitude of favors. Instances would
include: setting up with John Bell a meeting for V. to address at New York University (Mar. 1,
1968); offering to the President of the Franklin Institute of Philadelphia (Feb. 20, 1967) to
take the platform with V., if it was the presentation of "another side" that was truly wanted;
dealing with publishers (Dell, Feb 27, 1968, Simon and Schuster, et al..) to publish more of
V.'s rebuttals of the "establishment;" writing letters to the Editor of Newsweek (May 29, 1968)
and to other media directors; appearing on radio discussions; helping to arrange television
programs; addressing a "Social Order in Science Study Group" at the George Washington
University (Jan. 18, 1965), meanwhile conducting general research in the field and carrying on
another complicated life.

On occasion (rare because his obduracy was known) intimates remonstrated with Deg for spending
too much energy upon V. 's problems. His attitude was typical: give me a better cause in the
intellectual world, a more worthwhile victim; a better archive; most victims are dull, or
psychotic, or trivial... "Think of your own interests," they would say. But that only confused
Deg. He didn't feel actually that he was giving V. so much. His "own interests" were for
affection, good food, good company, sex, beauty, travel, and there seemed a good supply of all
these to be had. As for "other people's interests," he would gladly save the world and did make
a couple of literary stabs in that direction, nor was there any world movement worthwhile; he
tried to save higher education by starting a school. He jumped into the Vietnam vortex but
could do little. He took initiatives to advance his field of learning by inventing a
computerized information retrieval system. Other things as well, such as a stint to help erase
anti-semitic elements in the Catholic rite, offers to reorganize his New York University
department, etc. It was not so easy, I conclude, for him to have found a better cause. Recall
it was the "richness" of V.'s materials that attracted Deg, and allowed the science of
sociology and the history of science to progress.

Let me dip into his journal to see what was up otherwise. On March 8, 1968 is an entry that
combines food, presidential politics, Vietnam, economic development, the arts, and religion:

Lunched 1-3 pm with Rod Rockefeller at "Pireaus, My Love," rolled lamb and stuffed flounder in
a second floor saloon lined with portholes. Decided:

1) We might set up a company to study possibilities of large-scale condominium conversions of
slum properties. I'll form a committee.

2) It would be well to set up a committee of ten for Nelson R. for President among scholars and
from that I might send a larger mailing to the 15,000 political scientists of the country, and
then all the other fields.

3) IBEC would be interested in VN if United Fruit could come along and develop the economic
output of a new city. [Deg was pushing to create a new city in Vietnam.] We'll see what Julian
Turner [U. S. Army Colonel, formerly logistics chief in Vietnam] has to say next week when he
comes from Fort Lewis.

4) The fine arts corporation and antique properties holding corporation can be gotten to
whenever the means and times are right.

5) We'll try to get the National Council of Churches to do a practical and strong job of
handling its 3-year program on the social responsibilities of corporations.

I scarcely need say that none of this succeeded, but perhaps it goes to show how Greek cuisine
can help to vent hopeful dreams. Every now and then the two men would lunch together and
concoct schemes that didn't seem to go far beyond the lunch table. Deg stopped seeing Rod
without saying anything because when the big crunch descended with the school in Switzerland,
Rod gave a mere $100 to the cause. They were used to dividing their lunch bills; this Swiss
fare was too exotic for Rod to share.

The same night, he was writing a poem on the train:

How many Fridays we thanked for not being Mondays, wish we life away so. Draw back all those
weeks, dear breath, into the fresh lungs of youth and fill them with the best of life, skimmed
of complications, Humpty Dumpty splatted where he fell and tra la la la for him.

Just a dog lying in the sun Waters creeping up a beach A long walk to nowhere An enthusiastic
argument A book on the wide harmless world. No riotous shocks and jolts but sweet time, soft
time fall stilly, pass gently around our retracements drink long and cool wet and stretch these
cords from Monday to Friday. Will the little god to rest and give the big one a chance to work.

Some of the life he was leading in these years is reflected in the following letter from Naxos
to Dr. Zvi Rix of Jerusalem, dated July 19, 1976:

Dear Dr. Rix: Greetings! I hope my letter finds you well -- and not too impatient with your
friends and colleagues of the field of revolutionary primevalogy. I have settled down in Naxos
for a few weeks (until August 15), after visits in London, Amsterdam, Delft, Dusseldorf,
Dornach (the Rudolf Steiner Center), Athens, and Thera Santorini. On the 15th of August, I go
to Athens, the Dordogne (to spend two weeks around the caves and digs), Nice for the IX
International Congress of the Union of Pre-and Proto-Historical Sciences, and then probably
straight back to NYC and Princeton. I have been carrying your letter of April 2 (terrible!)
with me for months. Let me "respond" to it.

1) As I have said, you only need a) to be able to come and b) to find out whether I am here, to
come to Naxos as my guest any time.

2) If you ask him, Sizemore will probably duplicate for you a set of the Glassboro papers,
which I see are beginning to appear in Kronos.

3) Did I send you the "Jupiter and Saturn" piece? No! I have searched my folders here and,
alas, I must have given the copy I had carried with me for you to somebody in the English group
(I become generous and present-oriented under the influence of good company and whiskey). I
will send it to you when I return; it is only a brief piece with a well-phrased hypothetical

4) Did your piece not appear or is it not promised for publication in Kronos? (I have no copy
of the Birthday Symposium myself.)

5) Your "psycho-politics" was gratefully received and read by my seminar at NYU.

6) I wish it were as easy (cf. your compliment re my article on Michelson's Moonshine) to set
up our own elaborated time frame and scheme for myth analysis as it is to knock down those set
up by others.

7) The model for the new Holocene that I set up views it as an age of the "Unsettling of Heaven
and Birth of Man," the age of catastrophes, using Greco-Roman terminology: Urania, 14,000-
11,500 (BP 2000 AD); Lunia, 11,500-8000; Saturnia, 8000-5700; Jovea, 5700-4400; Mercuria 4400-
3450; Venusia, 3450-2750; Martia, 2750-1600; Solaria, 1600-0. The greatest catastrophes
occurred with the birth of the Moon from the Pacific Ocean ca 11500 for much crust was lost as
the larger element of outer planets (Uranus-Neptune, etc. possibly) passed closely and the
water canopies fell cataclysmically. The scheme appears too radical at first sight, but in
hundreds of pages of working back and forth logically and with the scraps of available
evidence, it seems to hold together. I propose it in order that we may begin to fit in all of
the scattered pieces of myth, evolution, paleontology, behavior. Whenever the exposition is
ready I shall send it to you.

7a) as for the dynamics of the birth of Homo Sapiens Schizotypicalis, I have at least a
pamphlet nearing reproduction on the subject and will send you that too. I shall try to find H.
Gunkel's book; thank you. 8) I do have access to the sourcebooks that Corliss is publishing on
ancient riddles and reports. I agree with you that St. Brendan-Quetzalcoatl follows a universal
pattern; the ultimate problem is to fix the first age (Urania?) of the practice of these rites
and to show how they emerged from the brain (double-brain?) of the new homo sapiens
schizotypicalis cum geo-celestial terrors.

In the sourcebooks that you mention (Corliss') did you remark upon the vitrified Scottish
forts? I am going into this matter now. This seems to be lightning, and on a grand scale, i. e.
the protracted withdrawal or rush of charge from the Earth via the most convenient modes of
exit towards an accumulated and approaching extraterrestrial charge (opposite). Hypothesis: at
a certain point in time (Mercuria?), thousands of points of Earth were mobilized to discharge
electricity (cf. my article on Troy IIg, which might be synchronized with the vitrification
found in many places). Query: does the Tower of Babel case belong here? Did the languages of
man disperse in shocked amnesiac behavior? Do the ziggurats and pyramids evidence Vitrification
or an intent to facilitate (ex post facto) future current-flows? (Troy IIg is in pyramid-
building times.) Note Mercurial qualities? When did Hermes flourish as a god? (under overall
aegis of Zeus, perhaps). If people on an eminence feel current starting to flow, they get out
before the heavy scorching from the heavier flow occurs. Are there vitrified eminences and
walls, mid-3rd millennium, in the ruins of your area ? Perhaps, and even probably, this
phenomenon, like quakes, flood fire, whirlwinds, occurs whenever a major extra-terrestrial
approach or major planet disruption occurs.

A young Dutch geologist, Poul Andriessen, is here in Naxos drawing samples for 40K-40A tests,
that he performs himself. We've spent many hours discussing the validity of the technique.
There are serious questions that he admits, although he defends the results of his other
radiochronometries. It is all so difficult, a seemingly endless set of important problems
concerning which one must make up his mind.

But enough for now. The sea is too rough for swimming -- or at least it is not inviting, so I
shall drive my motorcycle into town and see what the tavernas are offering by way of food and

With best wishes, I remain, sincerely, Alfred de Grazia
Then years later, he lies in Stylida with a broken leg (the motorcycle, of course):

June 7, 1978

Foot swollen and aching this morning. Big discussion with A. M. as to cause of this "relapse."
she saying my walking upon it caused it, I saying that it may be the normal effects of
stressing the foot in order to get the cartilage, foot bones, muscles, tendons articulating
properly. I confess, though, to a certain worry from the beginning of the case: that everything
inside was thoroughly disarranged, apart from the broken bones, and may be difficult to reorder
functionally. But, too, I took a long swim and that, plus walking, has markedly tightened the
muscles of the calf. Wouldn't the stretch pain the tendons?

Reading in Velikovsky's Peoples of the Sea to recheck whether he had separated sufficiently the
Egyptians' "Peoples of the Sea" from those "Peoples" alleged to be destructive elsewhere at the
same time, I find that he has not and I should one day pursue the idea that "Peoples" fiction
served to cover up the Martian catastrophes of the 8th and 7th century, 3-400 years before the
time of which Velikovsky writes.

But the force of his arguments makes me yearn to circularize a brief questionnaire among all
Egyptologists asking whether they have read the book and whether the hypothesis of Ramses III
being of the 4th century is at all useful or defensible. I believe that the results would be

Stylida evening 17 June 1978 A Swede dropped in unexpectedly. His friend is interested in
buying into my land. He stayed a few minutes and left. Ami rode into town with him and brought
back food and mail and news. Then we swam. I continued to hack my way with a hand ax down the
bluff and back up again, as I had begun the other day. It was easier, the footholes more
prominent. I slung a rope around the bush and dangled it down to steady me on the crawl up.

There were 30 pieces of mail of which 2 were for Ami, one rejecting "nicely" her second novel
(really the fourth she has written) and the other from a journalist who compares her in a
review with Anais Nin. I received a rejection of my elaborate request for a grant from the
National Endowment for the Humanities; for various reasons, I don't mind this. It's already an
article or two on the "Ballroom of the Unconscious." [It is carried in The Burning of Troy.] I
wanted the money to live on and to employ Ami who knows the literature so well, supposing that
other means of subsistence don't come in.

Of the force that moves this varied activity through the years, there is more than a hint in a
note of Deg's Journal, undated but apparently of 1973, the more interesting in view of the
massive narcissism that has been ascribed to V.

Ten years ago I was induced by L. Stecchini to gaze upon the writings of I. V., catalyzed by an
accidental reading of Oedipus and Akhnaton. This led up many different paths of philosophy and
science, which I would not have had the courage or confidence to undertake, if I had not been a
victim of the magnificent arrogance of R. M. Hutchins whose New Plan and own spirit of it had
pervaded the University of Chicago with an idea that man, even in this age of specialization
and seemingly endless data banks, could and must master a survey of all knowledge to be
educated. This happened twenty-four years beforehand.

But this would not have been enough if there had not been sixteen years before a narcissistic
bending of my character in infancy and childhood, a fierce desire to keep the world in all its
forms within me (to own the world) and a fierce competitiveness toward all others to enter it
upon my own terms.


by Alfred de Grazia



In the summer of 1971, Deg led a party of 300 persons, with many camp followers, up the Swiss
Alps to found a college and V. came later to teach. It did not take V. long to perceive that Deg
was continually in danger of falling victim to a human landslide that Deg's own explosive force
had set into motion. When it came to V.'s turn to speak to the representative assembly, a
beautiful contrivance of Deg which, like the French revolutionary assembly of 1789, had gone
wild, V. called up Freud's Totem and Taboo and gravely admonished the respectful group of the
danger that lay in killing their father. Deg felt embarrassed while dutifully thanking V. for
his remarks, for he was a staunch republican who had always disbelieved in patriarchal
leadership systems and because many of the college crowd would be all the more delighted if they
could rid themselves of their father as well as a leader, killing two birds with one stone.

"I, an octogenarian," said V., "stride with the young of mind. There is no cult of Velikovsky:
there is only the cult of scientific and historical truth. The youths sense this, and the
rebellion against the pseudoscience taught from the cathedrals of the universities is not for

V. to Princeton Graduate Forum (Oct. 18, 1972): "Nineteen years ago I called the young... to
look for new vistas, not to be afraid of calumny and name-calling. Today I repeat my call; it's
a new generation. I call you to cross the barriers between sciences... My work is not finished
... It is in your hands. It is up to you to decide if you wish to repeat what the authorities
told you or to become authorities yourselves --to grow and to be non-conformists and to take
abuse and to be exonerated some day. So be courageous and don't be afraid." If V. had been given
a son, he would have wanted him to be like the astronomer, Carl Sagan, but of course, in
agreement with his ideas. Being what he was and the times being what they were, he was probably
lucky to have no son. Rare these days is the child who adopts the father's views or even defends
him. When V. and Sagan were appearing on the same platform at a AAAS meeting in San Francisco, V
invited Sagan to his room, and there sought, if not to persuade him of his ideas, to influence
and neutralize him, perhaps in a way to hypnotize him. Sagan only redoubled his criticisms as a
result; the attempt to make a son of him back-fired. Sagan regularly lectured against Velikovsky
in his classes and published repeatedly his essay that was said to finish him off.

Still Sagan could invest himself with V.'s claims, and probably (though he would not meet with
me to talk about such matters) he was convinced that the father was well dead and gone and was
terrified at the feeling that V. now wished to be patriarch to him. Interviewed by Richard Baker
on BBC 4 (radio) "Start the Week," 30 March 1983, he was asked, along with other guests, "the
moment in your life that you've been most pleased about?" Sagan talked of the, "delightful
moments" when his predictions about planets were borne out by space vehicles on the spot.
Pressed for a "particular discovery," he replied "Well, the discovery that the surface of Venus
is extremely hot, about 380 deg-C, [Actually it is much higher] and produced by a massive
atmosphere Greenhouse Effect that keeps the heat in..." The second is a dubious theory, not at
all original with him.

That he could claim the first can most charitably be regarded as a slip of the tongue, such as
Sigmund Freud describes; inadvertent and often embarrassing utterances, they are usually
prompted by a strong suppressed desire of the speaker to make a point otherwise prohibited by
rules, morals, or truth. Sagan, one might surmise, let the claim slip out as an expression of
general megalomania, but the particular claim, out of all those he might have thought of,
strikes at V.'s well-established claim of predicting the high heat of Venus. There is here a
hint of psychological pressure working to take for his own specifically the property of the
father. V. was fixated on authority, the higher the better: he sought out acquaintances and
enemies on high levels. But he did not gather intelligent up-coming young people until late in
life; he has written a book on his conversations with Einstein, yet he would never have dreamed
of writing a book of his immensely richer conversations with Juergens about electricity and
Stecchini on ancient languages and the history of science. Why? Because they were unknown. His
idea of arrival was naive. The great ones would recognize him on the basis of his books. The
young would come along, following what their teachers say. Until late in life, he had no idea of
the striking fact of intellectual history, that most geniuses and heretics start out young.

At any given moment in time, Harvard University is likely to have a couple of pets of the
communists. It's a gimcrack impeccability. Harlow Shapely was one of these -- and, of course, a
great deal more, too much more, member and officer of dozens of scientific associations,
Director of the Lowell observatory, and more still. In poking about, Deg discovered that he had
even once invoked exoterrestrial forces to explain terrestrial phenomena.

Well, V. had thought, a man so broad in his interests and tastes would welcome a helping hand to
apply legends to astronomy. V. was anticommunist and had been so since the earliest successes of
the Russian Bolshevist movement had not gone so far as to efface anti-semitism in Russia. The
authoritarian aspects of communism, or statism in general, did not faze him. Principles of
government were foreign to him, a sharp contrast to Deg, who was continuously seeking better
designs for human institutions. To V., governments and men were bad or good. The Soviet leaders
were bad because they acted badly. Nor should persons be forgiven evil because of the pressure
of circumstances. How he would love to live quite without compromises!

The only dispute in connection with Deg's article on "The Reception System of Science" of the
ABS issue occurred over his mentioning V.'s "respect for authority." Deg told him of the
expression, "the Cabots speak only to the Lodges and the Lodges speak only to God." His response
was not to reform, but to try more of it: he writes Deg a few months later that he knows that he
is speaking like a Cabot but would Deg support him in his efforts to bring the prestigious
figure of Lord Bertrand Russell over to his side?

V. was on a collision course with himself. He practiced on Aristotle, Newton and Darwin,
numerous 19th century writers and then on current authorities, but impersonally and only with
the slightest irony, in a situation calling for broad sarcasm.

He thought of himself as an authority but did not realize that he was undermining present
authorities and that they would react as authorities invariably do, by putting him down. But,
then, he was a poor sociologist. Like many a psychoanalyst (and most scientists for that matter)
he barely realized that the field existed.

He was flabbergasted when his Worlds in Collision was attacked so vigorously and then each
succeeding book was treated the same, dismissed, or ignored. It was all the more shocking
because Worlds was a best-seller, which brought popular authority into play as well. Here both
V. and many of his followers showed themselves unwitting victims of the market place in ideas.
They did not suspect success. Deg whose life had begun early to forge a chain of successes, had
contempt for success. The concatenation of any man's successes was but a motley cluster of
medals on the breast of the generalissimo of a banana republic. V. was unhappy with the support
he received. It seemed that he would get agreement and aid from exactly those sources that he
did not himself respect while being rebuffed by those who should flock to his banner. One had to
be an anti-authoritarian to support him, but such were rarely to be found in physics, biology,
astronomy and geology. Passive anti-authoritarians, yes, often erupting in personal
eccentricity. Anthropology - but he knew little besides Freud's work on anthropology. Psychology
-- again the psychoanalytic approach, not tight empirical psychology.

So he got support from people who usually were just plain folks, intelligent (and therefore I
say rare) readers, and a great many confused believers, or at least people who V. at bottom
thought had no right to pass judgment on him. Like Moses, V spent a lot of private time
disliking his People. Like the barons of the Magna Carta, he wanted judgment by his peers,
meaning not the worthy or those not yet ennobled, but "the peers of the realm."

Perhaps Oedipus and Akhnaton should have been entitled "The Oedipus Complex Unmasked," or "The
Jews were First with God," V. enjoyed thinking about title and slogans. Deg and he would spent
some off-track moments in such half-serious play. V.'s titles were exceptionally effective:
Worlds in Collision, Ages in Chaos, Earth in Upheaval, and so were most of the titles of
sections of his works: thus in Oedipus and Akhnaton there were "The Sphinx," "The Seven-Gated
Thebes and the Hundred-Gated Thebes," "A Stranger on the Throne," "King living in Truth," "The
King's Mother and Wife," and so on.

When Deg, six years after they had met, presented him with The Torrid Love Affair of Moon and
Mars, he had to have explained to him the Hollywood Americanism of "Torrid Love Affair" and
liked the double entendre with the heat of a cosmic encounter, but then eventually preferred The
Disastrous Love Affair of Moon and Mars, which denoted, if not heat, a cosmic event and

Later on, still, he could let himself like Chaos and Creation, and even Homo Schizo, but would
not let himself contemplate Moses and His Electric God, but this was part of another matter, his
taboo of Moses.

"You will damage me with this book." he declared solemnly to Deg, Since Deg made no reference to
V.'s idea of Moses in God's Fire, which V. had not seen anyhow, and since V. had damaged the
reputation of thousands of scholars "in the line of duty," he must have been gripped by an
illusion that referred to an entirely personal problem of his own in regard to Moses. What could
it have been?

Martin Sieff, a Belfast Anglo-Irish-Jewish journalist and historian --one of the cosmic heretics
-- spoke out in 1981 about the taboo: "The role of Moses is strangely muted in Worlds in
Collision. Moses is mentioned only in connection with the voice of Yahweh at the flaming bush
and the trumpet blasts of Sinai." Further, "in Ages in Chaos, one major figure who is obvious in
his absence from the same historical canvas, is that same Moses."

Again significantly, the ideas behind -- not up front -- in Oedipus and Akhnaton were
instrumental in the creation of works. V. admitted, "This study carried me into the larger field
of Egyptian history and to the concept of Ages in Chaos, a reconstruction of 1200 years of
ancient history... More than eighteen years passed from the conception of the work and the first
draft of its re-writing and preparation for the printer."

Moses was taboo to V., a subject to be turned from and skirted around, except to show that Moses
came before Akhnaton and that Freud was fearful yet adulatory of Moses. Even while railing
against Freud's problem with his father, V. may have seen himself as Moses and son of Moses,
down the line of succession that began with Joshua. "Velikovsky," said Livio to Deg, as they
walked down the street after their first meeting with him, "will be the only man who can play
Moses when they make a movie of his book." And he guffawed in his basso profondo.

We have, that is, two plots in Oedipus and Akhnaton. One is the classic scientific method and
detective work. The other is the intensely private psychic world of a man whose biological
father was a strong and beloved figure, Simon, and whose intellectual father, Freud, had
weaknesses that must be exposed, offenses against his people for wishing to abandon them for the
gentile world and for taking away and making an Egyptian of their common ancestor, Moses.

Before coming to America, V. had, in one of his few published articles, reanalyzed the dreams of
Freud that were available and concluded that Freud was torn by a desire to assimilate to the
gentile world. V. would have none of this. While Freud would make the Jews into gentiles, V
would make the gentiles into Jews.

Here I would quote Martin Sieff who is talking about V.'s article "The Dreams Freud Dreamed"

Velikovsky was now using the psychoanalytic weapon his intellectual father had forged against
his own creator, against Freud himself... Velikovsky went further. The initial aim of his
research finally to emerge over twenty years later as Oedipus and Akhnaton, was to kill the
Freudian father dragon in its lair. Akhnaton, the first monotheist in history, stood revealed as
Oedipus. Freud's arch-saint turns out also to be his arch-sinner... Velikovsky dedicated Ages in
Chaos to his physical father, but sought to erase the name of Freud, his intellectual father,
with his Oedipus and Akhnaton.

At the same time, V. could not go to great lengths in redeeming Moses, the father, without
incurring the danger of displaying that he himself felt the strength and mission of Moses, and
that he resembled Michelangelo's "Moses" more than the other son Freud did, who went to Rome to
worship the statue. Worse yet, he, too, like Freud, would have to dispossess Moses if he wrote
about him, for how could a psychoanalyst have perceived Moses except as a hallucinator and
manipulator of crowds? And then what of Yahweh? Au revoir, Adonis.

That V. was not Moses, did not pretend to be, and even denied it by refusing the question of
"Who was Moses?" are not superfluous remarks. To many of his readers and followers he was a
Moses of modern science and history. To himself he was one who had all that Moses possessed
except the opportunity. Deg tended to agree and he had studied many men, but he was not the most
devout of followers. Aside from possessing his own conceits, he did not like Moses' theocracy,
nor his ambitions, nor his ruthlessness, nor his religious deception even if it was founded upon

V. differed from his secret idol by more than he himself realized and Deg liked him better for
it. If a friend, like Mel Tumin, professor of sociology at Princeton University, would say to
him, as he did on the train to New York one time, I can't stand him, he's an arrogant, egomaniac
bastard, Deg would grin tolerantly and say: "I understand what you mean, but he's not all that
bad, and where do you find such minds?"

Come to think of it, this was more or less what Einstein said to an antagonist, Bernard Cohen,
when asked about Velikovsky. Referring to Worlds in Collision, he laughed and said, "It's crazy,
but it's not bad." V. could be riled up invariably by the mention of this story, and he explains
carefully in Stargazers and Gravediggers how it was wrongly told and was used to destroy his
precious relationship with Einstein, and what he conceived to be Einstein's true view and mood,
and I agree with him, and so does Deg.

In this connection, a private note that Deg made in May of 1972 may be offered for what it is

I have been present on numerous occasions when V. was under pressure to be intellectually and
politically dishonest. I would say he passed practically all of these tests with flying colors.
The rare exceptions have practically all to do with pretending to have supporters among the
authorities who did not support him so strongly. Explain. When you compare his conduct with that
of scientists who had no reason to be unscrupulous, because they were already entrenched or in
process of achieving established rank, he stands out like a rose from a manure pile.

Because his manner and figure were impressive and imperative, V. seems to have encouraged
subconsciously the awesome stupidity of attacks upon himself. Opponents became reckless out of
threat, losing their capacity to reason precisely at the moment when they were being called upon
to be reasonable. This is a behavioral pattern that I take pride in having newly discovered,
because Deg nor anyone else to my knowledge has ever mentioned it. Let me give an example:

In Ages in Chaos, V. took away five centuries that did not belong to Egyptian history, whereas
in Peoples of the Sea V. took away three centuries that did belong to Egypt, at least according
to Deg, who was siding with the "Glasgow Revisionists." One could not follow this important
development from a reading of the great newspapers or the scholarly journals. The New York Times
did carry a review of the latter work, antagonistic as expected, but quite irrelevant to the
issue. Arthur Isenberg, an Israeli writer, addressed a reproach to the Times editor, containing
inter alia a neat statistical reprimand for Thomsen's snide remark about V. 's supposed
overdoing of "the first person perpendicular."

17 July 1977

The Editor, New York Times Book Review Section The New York Times 229 West 43rd street New
York, N. Y. 10036 (U. S. A.)

To the Editor: In his reply to his critics, Dietrick Thomsen is ever more unconvincing then in
his (highly!) original review of Dr. Velikovsky's "Peoples of the Sea". He begins by
patronizingly awarding unsolicited certificates to some of those who take Velikovsky's book more
seriously than he does: They are "fine and intelligent people, and they raise cogent points"
which --alas! -- "lack of space" prevents Thomsen from refuting. Next, he concedes that "in many
points" Velikovsky "may be correct", an acknowledgment which he repeats (in spite of space
limitations) a paragraph later. But then he dilutes the concession by means of a peculiar
definition of science as a "set of mind" which, he implies, Velikovsky does not exhibit. His
major objection it seems, is to the tone of Velikovsky's book --as if scientific theories should
be judged by connoisseurs of tone and style to determine their adequacy.

Tone apart, he faults Velikovsky for overdoing the use of the pronoun "I" (the "first person
perpendicular" as Thomsen quaintly calls it.). This prompted a little research on my own part,
with the following results:

No. of Times I is used in 100 Author Short Title consecutive pages

Darwin Origin of Species 153
Hoyle Nature of the Universe 116
Einstein Relativity 60
Eddington New Pathways in Science 191
Tinbergen Herring Gull's World 161
Von Frisch Bees, Their Vision, etc. 132
Velikovsky Peoples of the Sea 8

(total "I" count for the entire book, xvi-261 page: 32)
(My counting was done hurriedly: the actual figures are likely to be somewhat larger in all
cases: Thomsen is welcome to a recount.)

A grand egotist like V. rarely lets his third person slip uncontrolled into the first person,
whatever the provocation. In fact, he slips into the third person, as V. sometimes did, talking
of himself as "Velikovsky."

Later on, Thomsen, the reviewer, defended himself in a letter to Clark Whelton. He was furious
at the impossible task set for him by the Times, and for bizarre editorial cuts.

What I have tried to express here is that somehow the figure of V made people lose their senses
and self-control; rages collected and rushed about like the winds when released from the bag of

V. moved to Princeton from Upper Manhattan in 1952; Deg moved there from Stanford, California,
in 1957. Five blocks apart, it took five years to meet, a block a year, so to speak. Deg was
deeply involved in New York City and travelled sometimes to Washington. V. spent these years in
secluded study, with his wife and his daughter's family for company, his wife's musical ensemble
to listen to, several meetings with Harry H. Hess, and some conversations with Albert Einstein.
He did not attend conventions, or review other people's books; he did not join the network of
science, but then how could he? There was no science of neo-catastrophism. He might have joined
associations of ancient history, anthropology, philosophy and history of science, though; he did
not, wisely, for he was interested in a peculiar combination, unrecognizable, except in its bits
and pieces, in conventional programs of the associations. He was a special case; he would have
it no other way; he wanted to sit above all of them and receive their respect. But the ideas of
an authority and heretic may be contradictory. To be a heretic is to be opposed to established
authority. If V. could not be an authority, he would be a heretic. His true heroes were top
authorities; his professed heroes were heretics. There were three of these, he would say to Deg.

One was Diego Pirez, also known as Schlmo Molcho. A second was Giordano Bruno. A third was
Miguel Serveto (or Michael Servetus). Deg's heroes were many; he was more polytheistic, so to
speak, or even antireligious. They ranged from Jesus of Nazareth to Benjamin Franklin. They
would include in the Church-dominated Middle Ages William of Occam, for he was an empiricist,
nominalist, anti-Aristotelian libertarian who believed that words signified only real things and
events, who taught also that reason could only arrive at valid comment when talking of the real
world, not the divine, which only faith could attain (thus non-religious matters were freed from
church control). Occam's principle, Occam's Razor, prefers to cope with problem using the fewest
possible functions and terms, so therefore Deg would feel that his simple quantavolutionary
model, Solaria Binaria to begin with, and all that spewed therefrom, was in the great tradition
of the Razor.

But William was beset by the authorities, convicted of heresy, and so fled to the safety of the
Emperor's jurisdiction. His influence carried down the years, and of course all who were tinged
with his notions felt the hostility of authority, such as the Sorbonne Professor Jean Buridan
who around 1358 was drowned (not burned) and was celebrated by the allegory of "Buridan's Ass,"
that starved to death because it could not decide which of two bundles of wheat to eat; the same
Buridan, too, revived in the song of the student-brigand-poet FranHois Villon, who in turn
should have been "sanctified" as heretical hero by the student radicals of the 1960's, but was
somehow overlooked.

But Deg found heroes wherever he had gone throughout life, in India, Turkey, Italy, England,
Hawaii and so on -- never mind the war heroes who were glosses on the immense rainbow of heroes
--and heroines, because he found that heroism came more naturally and frequently to women.
Whenever one studies leadership -- the movement of events, whether political or intellectual,
one must first carefully dissever fame from achievement. He wrote about heroes in one of his
poems, contained in Passage of the Year, the poetry which he published in 1967, where he said

... I shall never
never understand
why famous names are worshipped
and writers wear their pens to nubbins on them.
When they are nothing
while the great ones bump
our elbows and disappear in the crowd.
"Wait!" "Hold on!"
I call after them
and they don't even turn around.
They are vanished, they are dust.
No cast of bronze contains them.

One of Deg's unsung heroes would have been the man whose name I forget (naturally), the English
amateur of eoliths whose protests, if harkened to rather than ridiculed, would have made the
Piltdown hoax impossible. But I would not detract one whit from V.'s heroes.

Schlmo Molcho was a Kabbalist and pseudo-messiah, a Catholic convert who reverted to Judaism.
Around 1529 he began to believe he was the Messiah, and Pope Clement VII granted him protection.
In 1531 he was denounced, tried and condemned to burn; he was saved by the Pope and another man
burned in his place. He began to counsel the Emperor Charles V but was denounced and burned at
the stake in 1532 after refusing to recant and reconvert to Christianity.

Miguel Serveto (Michael Servetus) was a true Renaissance figure who discovered the pulmonary
circulation system, was the originator of the science of comparative geography, and was a
defender of free thought and free speech. He intimated that Christ was only human, and in his
writings on Christianity preserved nothing that was merely traditional and dogmatic. Arrested in
Vienne, France, and condemned for heresy, he escaped but strangely entered Geneva, heading for
Italy, and was caught. All the Swiss protestant cantons were consulted and returned a
recommendation that he be punished for blasphemy. Calvin, however, hated him and insisted that
he be burned at the stake for heresy, for he refused to retract his dislocation of the elements
of the Trinity, his argument against the validity of infant baptism, and his denial of original
sin. He died on October 27, 1553.

Giordano Bruno began his career as Dominican philosopher but was accused of heresy. He managed
to teach at universities of several nations and wrote copiously in metaphysics, with excursions
into satire and poetry. Finally, after fifteen years of work and wandering, he came into Venice,
where he was seized, convicted of heresy, sent to Rome, and, after prolonged imprisonment,
burned at the stake in 1600. Intensely anti-dogmatic, he propounded the infinity of worlds, the
pantheism of matter, and the relativity of man's position in the universe.

V. seems to have put the cart before the horse: one did not need to be burned at the stake to be
a heretic or a hero. And a great many heretics of history escaped the fate intended for them.
Often there are ages where heretics are ignored and tolerated, as in North America and Western
Europe, when practically all forms of dissent, even against the heads of state and the forms of
government, except when expressed as deadly terrorism, escape severe physical sanctions. The
relativity of values and practices in the "advanced" democracies of today is such that almost no
definition of heresy is operative.

Notably, V.'s heretical heroes were long dead. He said once, in criticizing the magazine Pens‚e
and a foundation that were working to help him, and speaking to Milton, Rose, and Wolfe, that he
did not "wish, well, to carry the banners for all heretics." Waiting as he was for designation
to the top rank of authorities, he meant to be wary of association with any contemporary

Deg only half listened to V.'s litany of his heroes' lives and virtues. V. would never say what
really fascinated him in the human characters of these men. His was hardly the depth analysis
that one might expect from a psychoanalyst. Indeed -- and this must seem exceedingly strange to
those who did not know him -- he almost never analyzed public figures of even those who were in
controversy with him. He accepted them, as if they were rational creatures and their justness or
unjustness was simply a matter of fact. So it was almost always Deg who was suggesting and
proposing motivations and characteristics while V. seemed to regard his opponents (and friends)
as unidimensional, almost as automatons.

In this way, and others, V.'s mind and character were Mosaic and Old Testament. He did not even
consider himself a member of the British Society for Interdisciplinary Studies, founded to
pursue work very much along his lines. Nor did he regard his tamer organ, Kronos magazine, as
part of himself. He consented to lecture at Deg's college in the Valaisan Alps of Switzerland
one summer, but he would not go and return with the chartered aircraft carrying students and
faculty, so that Deg had to authorize expensive tickets by way of Swissair. (But possibly it was
not out of snobbery or comfort, but rather that the airline was Germany's Lufthansa.)

He was absolutely unwilling to give anyone the slightest authority over himself. He never worked
for anyone; he could barely tolerate cooperating with anyone. He had a striking inability to
identify with people. He did not like to be compared with anyone alive and once exploded
publicly in cutting anger when Professor Warwick, in an attempt at a supportive speech, not only
seemed to make light of his claims to discovery, but dared to compare his own treatment as a
doctoral student by V.'s foes of the Harvard Astronomy faculty with V.'s treatment by the same

This continual insistence upon treating any offensive or belittling gesture towards himself as a
major event, a casus belli, was the facade of his immense egocentrism, perhaps of the very
narcissism which, in psychoanalytic practice, he claimed, must be the first region of the
unconscious to be plumbed. Again one thinks of Moses, who looked upon all opposing thoughts and
practices as actions against Yahweh. But V. never called in God as lawgiver, witness, judge, or
executioner. He was all of these, or all of these except the last, which he left to his
supporters, and was so in the name of the rational authority of the system of science, an
abstract authority, not people so much as principles, not realistic principles, but ideal
principles. He expected nothing less than ideal justice.

The kind of offenses that were committed against him were commonplace in science, as in every
other field of human activity. But none dared tell him so for if such were proclaimed, the game
would be up and all the cosmic heretics of the Velikovsky camp would have to strike camp and
retire. Friends left him from time to time, tiring of the game. Even if one brought up an
equally nasty case, he would become suspicious that his own demand-level might be threatened.
This is certainly narcissistic behavior.

Often V. would protest that he had never behaved ad hominem towards his critics. How could they
be so personal, aggressive and vile? He said that they were incorrect, wrong, and at worst,
uniformitarian in their thinking. Hardly the invective of a mighty warrior -- which he was.

But there was many another to do this job for him, and no strong or foolish critic ever escaped
the lash of letters and articles from his supporters. This would be done at his urging or with
his blessing. They were usually appropriate, to the point, deserved -- but excessive. None could
recall an instance when V. pulled back the reins on his steeds. He usually was playing out the
reins, and slapping them; many could recall instances when V. felt that a case being made on his
behalf was not forceful enough.

But why did V. maintain personally so proper a language and bearing towards scientists and
publicists who were terming him a charlatan, a crackpot, a novice, and more? Partly, it was
strategy: to be above the battle, to be insulted without descending to their level of
retaliation. He was also restrained by his ultimate conservatism with regard to authority.
Authorities might, unfairly, unjustly, without provocation, drag him through the mire, but he
could not let himself do the same to them. He could unleash his minions to do so, however, and
they did.

This is an achievement of a great leader -- to be above the battle and yet direct it, to not
lose one's dignity in a thicket of passionate verbiage, to be excommunicated and martyred
without descending to the level of his opponents. At Lethbridge University, in the prairie of
the oil-rich province of Alberta, Canada, a conference on V.'s ideas was held in 1974 and Deg
flew in for the event. There turned up a local professor, a German named Muller, who came down
heavily upon V. in the local newspaper, and V. was outraged. He turned to his largest artillery
piece to blast Muller. He would not appear at the next meeting. "You can do it," he said to Deg
as he lay sulking in his tent like Achilles, "no one else is strong enough." So Deg departed
from the hotel room where V. and Elisheva rested, and, when the appropriate moment came, took
the floor, Muller at the rostrum, and denounced the newspaper article and impugned Muller's
general competence. Deg was not especially happy at becoming a petty hero. Muller was
unlikeable, true enough, and had the temerity to imply that V. was converting ethnic pride into
an historical reconstruction, the type of remark that Germans had been scrupulously and
correctly leaving non-Germans to make since World War II. Yet, when it appeared that Muller was
excessively disliked, and on his way to becoming a whipping-boy, Deg felt sorry for the person,
a feeling that returned a couple of years later when the same Muller was murdered by a jealous
colleague on a matter of adultery.

I doubt that Deg bothered to tell V. half the horror-stories he knew of recent academic and
publishing crimes, let alone the sixteenth century heretics. In one case -- it happened to be
his own -- Deg went off to World War II as a co-author and came back to find the book, half of
it his composition, published under a single name, this not his own. "Well I'll be damned!" he
said, when sent a copy of the book, and was soon busy with other matters, nor was his friendship
with his co-author more than temporarily bruised.

More annoying, Deg believed, was a case when his Politics for Better or Worse was published in
1973. Three young women instructors from different universities did a study of textbooks on

American politics to prove how demeaning were their authors toward women, how indifferent, how
ignorant. Then, at the last minute, Deg's book appeared on the market, was snatched up and
thrown into the bonfire in an appendix to the report that they caused to be distributed widely
at the national convention of the American Political Science Association. That is, they
flagrantly lied about, distorted, ignored or did not read the book which, had they known, he had
deliberately planned and executed as a radical exposure of the situation of women and of the
need for reforms leading to sexual equality. When he composed an indignant letter to the
culprits, weeks after the damage was done, he showed it to his learned daughters, Victoria and
Jessica. Their advice: don't get so excited, Daddy! ( How willing are children to sacrifice
their parents!) He wrote a note of gentle chiding and that was the last heard of the matter; not
one of the three responded. I wonder whether he should have introduced a thunderous denunciatory
resolution on the floor of the Convention. After all, his book might have sold tens of thousands
more of copies had it been properly contrasted with other textbooks.

V. could never understand that the crime against him was not horrendous nor uncommon. It was
remarkable in the evidence being so clear and the subject being in principle so important. It
was especially remarkable because he was his own biographer. Every slip of paper -- every insult
and complaint -- was treasured. Since he succeeded in finding a great audience, in publishing
his other works without difficulty, and in attracting to his areas of interest several dozen
excellent scholars (a most rare achievement for even the most famous and successful scientists)
he might just as well have been amused, scornful, and satisfied. Albert Einstein actually wrote
him just this, after reading an account of the insulting opposition to his work: "I would be
happy if you, too, could enjoy the whole episode from its humorous side."

That was asking too much, especially from V. For him only the respectful conversion of heads of
science would suffice. He respected authority and power: therefore only authority could
legitimately crown him. Crowds were fine, because they were pleasing in themselves but always,
too, they were used by him as a measure, such as of the pressure that his views must be exerting
on the experts and unbelievers. Crowds were not authoritative in themselves.

Deg often hinted, remonstrated, and harangued: "You must not pin your hopes on conversion of the
leaders," and would list the reasons why the leader would not budge, the "sunk costs" of their
lives, the unavailability of heavy sanctions against their retaining conventional views, etc.
and sometimes Deg would say: "Tell me if there is a single reason why an establishment leader
should side with you on any controversial point of yours. What's in it for him?" V. would rather
not answer. He realized that he could not say. "Because I am right," although that is what he
would have liked to say. This would betray narcissism.

For over thirty years, V. suffered this situation, in which he was inextricably trapped. Not in
full awareness, not as a strategy --because they could not be fully acknowledged as such -- he
adapted in several way to the implacability of the scholars.

He claimed the understanding and sympathy of the young; uncorrupted by old ideas, they would see
his ideas without prejudice or jealousy. Becoming a champion of youth did not come easily to
him, but it was an acceptable line of public argument, a stereotype of the culture. He was never
an active advocate of the young, certainly not during the critical years of student rebellions.

He diagnosed the problem of the established authorities as "collective amnesia." Again, this
argument came later. Deg does not recall V. having advanced it when in 1963 they had long
conversations on the motivations of his opponents, but the argument is prominent in Mankind in
Amnesia, posthumously published. As we shall see, the concept itself falls into doubt when it is
used without specific valid tests to label or unlabel the behavior of persons or groups.

He watched for, sought to encounter, and carefully tended any maverick from the respectable herd
of scientists. When he learned that an Australian astrophysicist, Bailey, had announced
calculations showing the sun to carry an immense electrical charge, V. corresponded with him,
and hosted him on a visit to Princeton; Bailey received acclaim from the heretic circle that he
could not receive from the scientific world. V. corresponded with and visited Claude Schaeffer
in Europe when he came to read Schaeffer's Stratigraphie Compar‚e, but, as in the case of
Bailey, there was a warmth of shared sentiments without noticeable movements of these men to the
Velikovsky camp. Trainor, Michelson, Santillana, Hadas, Kallen, M. Cook, Sagan, Einstein, Dyson,
Bigelow, Hess, Kaufman, and others were approached, responded in greater or lesser extent and
sympathy, then withdrew to their proper spheres.

Robert H. Pfeiffer, Harvard Semitic Scholar, appears to have accepted V.'s Ages in Chaos,
without carrying out substantial work that his approval might logically have entailed. There was
also in the seventies the category of scholars who were outside of academia, or young, or still
unfulfilled who had, like Deg, entered the full stream of V.'s work, men like Ransom, Milton,
Juergens, Cardona, Sieff, Greenberg, Dave Talbott, Reade, Crew, Rose, James, Lowery, and Gammon.
C. J. Ransom was, V. confided to several supporters, "for a while the only physicist who saw
something in my work and followed it."

The ideal supporter, to V.'s mind, would have been a fully accepting astronomer of renown, who
could announce the success of an indisputable test of a near-encounter of Venus and Earth 3500
years ago. Astrophysicist Robert Bass made an effective sally in the seventies. When two British
astronomers, Clube and Napier, entered wholesale upon V.'s terrain with a model of recent
cometary encounters, they hardly mentioned him. Yet they possessed foreknowledge of his work and
they could have used it legitimately as a foil, contrasting his planetary theory with their own
cometary theory, and accepting openly much of his historical and legendary reconstruction in
place of their own, which was weak. Once more we have an authority problem: though expecting a
spanking, they hoped to avoid a trouncing. They received two spankings, one conventional, the
other heretical; are two spanks less than one trounce?

Actually, when one goes to the heart of the matter, Deg was the only scholar of considerable
previous reputation who accepted most of Velikovsky's work in the natural and historical
sciences, absorbed it, and carried on with it. Most friendly or tolerant scholars of established
reputation acted like a trapeze artist who pauses for a moment on his swing to watch an
especially neat trick being executed by a tightrope walker in the next ring of the circus.


by Alfred de Grazia



For many years Velikovsky's books had been popular in Britain but his supporters were out of
touch. Recalling the early days. Librarian Brian Moore wrote:

The popular science writers occupy an important place in the communications system which
links the scientist and the public, and they have played a major role in propagating the
unfavorable image of Velikovsky. Having been officially declared a heretic by the scientific
Inquisition, Velikovsky has been handed over to the secular arm of the scientific popularisers
for public torment. Some readers may think this an extravagant metaphor, but any objective
examination of the available evidence on the "Affair" will lead to this conclusion. My own
interest in Velikovsky stemmed in part from the hysterical scientific reaction to his ideas --
a reaction unique in this century when books proposing unorthodox ideas swarm, are ignored and
sink without a trace.

I am led once more to remark upon how vulnerable the public opponents of quantavolution,
particularly of Velikovsky, are made by their arrogant certainty. A full generation of
repetitive experiences has hardly affected their effrontery nor hence mitigated their

I would point out a feature of the ridicule not elsewhere commented upon. The scientific
community will have its jokes: enough to say "Velikovsky" in a group of scientists and there
would arise that ineffable combination of good humor, snarls, titters, knowing glances, and
intellectual nudging that tie people together, like mention of a joke would other groups:
"Remember the story of Pat and Mike at the wake?" (laughter in the tavern) or "They're
reprinting the Bible in a plain wrapper for the Alabama schools," (giggles), or "Did you see
where Ronald Reagan has gotten the Nobel Peace Prize?" (laughter and snarls). There is comfort,
mutual solace, malice, subconscious fear, a bonding of spirits in possessing a few names to
which phrases and epithets can acceptably be applied.

In these times Deg visited England without knowing Brian Moore or the many others who came
together ultimately and with whom he later associated happily. He would visit old friends from
the Eighth Army of World War II like Rayburn Heycock of the BBC or of politics, like Michael
Fraser, and go about his business. In London on June 16, 1968, he is writing in his journal:

Russell Square is green in the cool of morning and the fountain may be heard to play now that
Sunday has stopped the motors. Four small boys have come out early to play a frightening game
with the taxicabs. They run out in front of them just as the signal light is about to turn
green. They put their faith in accurate timing of machines, just as their elders.

Last night I dreamed that Velikovsky died, and was much disturbed. I wept. I felt there was
terrible loss. He died suddenly, as an old man will. I confessed that I knew nothing, that I
could reconstruct nothing of his work. Just bits and pieces that meant nothing.

It must have come from my walk through the British Museum yesterday afternoon. I read so many
inscriptions, all flatly against his ideas of dates. One bore the suspicious rendering

that I have remarked before -- "Pharaoh 'A' name borne both by 'Q' in the 12th century and 'R'
of the sixth century." The same man with the centuries so wrong?

I searched for Greeks and Assyrians with horned helmets to correspond with those of the
'Peoples of the Sea' whom Velikovsky places with the fourth century Greeks and noticed several
features on statues and vases. Braids that look like horns, short plumes (?); Athena of
Pergamon with two horned projections towards the front of her helmet (baby wings out of a

The airplane ride from N. Y. had seemed short to me. Nothing had been fully solved by departure
time -- I left several highly important matters in the hands of other -- collecting my debt

from Simulmatics, the merger of our company PIT with "3is", the contract for my American
government textbooks, the fate on the exhibition to El Arish (permission for which has been
denied by Israel), John's case at court conveniently and perhaps forever postponed and summer
itinerary awry, my contract with Simon and Schuster for both "Republic in

Crisis" and "Velikovsky and his Critics" pending -- but in all cases the formula of the
execution is assigned to someone. [Little did he know, alas, that all would proceed according
to Murphy's Law: "If anything can go wrong, it will."]

The early 1970's witnessed the founding in England of the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies
(SIS), conceived by a gang of four, and on a Halloween night. The first issue of their Review,
later to be attractively printed, was in mimeography and, at that, barely readable, but its
contents were of excellent quality. The founders, and those who signed up, many of them
American, settled into a flexible oligarchy. The dominant members have been, on the whole,
Brian Moore, Malcolm Lowery, Peter James, Harold Tresman, Martin Sieff, Euan McKie, Ralph
Amelan, Geoffrey Gammon, John J. Bimson, Eric Crew, Hyam Maccoby, Michael Reade, Bernard
Newgrosh, and Bernard Prescott, with possibly others, but obviously enough in number to forbid
an easy sociometric diagram of the networks of cross-influencing, not to mention the
differentiation between those who were primarily organizers and those who were intellectual
contributors. With two exceptions, they never met or heard Velikovsky in person, although his
work inspired their organization: by contrast, all of the involved Americans knew him

The Constitution of the Society adopted in 1978 declared as its principal objectives:

(a) to promote a multi-disciplinary approach to scientific and scholarly problems and in
particular to promote the active consideration by scientists, scholars, and students of
alternatives to the theory of uniformity in astronomy and earth history:

(b) to promote a better understanding of the nature of the earth, the solar system and human
history, through the combined use of historical and contemporary evidence of all kinds, and to
encourage a continuous reassessment of the validity of the basic assumptions of the discipline
concerned by testing these against evidence;

(c) to promote better co-operation between workers in specialized fields of learning in the
belief that isolated study is sterile;

(d) to foster research among scientists and scholars towards achieving these aims.

It was not at all the American condition, where years before, following only upon occasional
bulletins that supporters of V. issued in the 1960's, there came Pens‚e, a production of the
young Talbott brothers, Stephen and David, whose enthusiasm for his work crystallized into a
conversion of their small magazine on human rights into a forum on the Velikovsky Affair, at
least for ten issues. Stephen Talbott was a brilliant editor and organizer, bent upon opening
the world to quantavolutionary ideas, but also to criticism of them. After spectacular
successes, Pens‚e collapsed under a load of debt and overwork. As it was ending, it promised to
broaden its interests beyond Velikovsky and to discuss ideas irreconcilable with his.

V. would have no part of this, and several of his Eastern supporters -- with Lewis Greenberg
and Warner Sizemore leading -- issued the first number of Kronos. Kronos became editorially the
child of Lewis Greenberg, a young art historian of the faculty of Moore College of Art in
Philadelphia. He recruited a group of convinced supporters of V. who contributed articles and
evaluations, and who, being the closest to a prestigious academic group that he could put
together, he should have called "Board of Advisors," but whom he called "Staff," and he set up
grades of Senior Editors, Associate Editors, Contributing Editors, and Staff, hoping to build a
respectable latticework of authority such as is conventional among scientific journals.

Financing, production, and management fell to Warner Sizemore, who, by virtue of his faculty
status at Glassboro State College, was enabled to establish an academic connection for the
journal, a public relations device of no small value for a new review with a disreputable and
controversial perspective in science. Kronos remained essentially and in many details under
V.'s thumb until his death, performing very much the function of Imago for Freud.

This is not to say that the directors of Kronos were uncritical; in the very first issue, Zvi
Rix ventured ominously upon weak points in an article upon the origins of anti-semitism and the
Ankh. They simply had to acknowledge V.'s power, his help, his thesaurus of notes and
materials, even on occasion his financial aid, and above all --what men such as Stecchini,
Motz, Jastrow, Sagan, Hadas, Gordon, and Deg, especially, had in their own way to bow to -- his
well-nigh complete erudition and orderly mental inventory on the matters at issue.

Early in 1976, Deg appeared at the British Library Association in London to speak to the
Society; first contact between the Americans and British was made. About a hundred persons were
present and Deg talked informally but to good effect on subjects both sociological and
quantavolutionary. Questions from the floor were numerous and only a sense of decorum brought
the meeting to close. Afterwards the ringleaders adjourned to an English approximation of a
caf‚ and carried on a conversation for hours.

The high competence of the British group was manifest; if they were strongest and at "state of
the art" level in history, they evidenced also in abundance the imprecisely defined general
background in the sciences and humanities which is so necessary in facing up to questions
excited from all quarters of knowledge when exoterrestrial encounters are at issue.

I wish that I might now introduce some of the many letters that the heretics exchanged over the
years: they would display the interweaving of ideas, the reportage, the delicate personal
relations, and the ramified research and life activities that inevitably and essentially occur
in an intellectual movement. Even a single instance -- a letter from Deg to Malcolm Lowery --
may lend the flavor of it all.

Naxos, July 16, 1976

Dear Malcolm:
Thank you so much for your letter and the transcript. It was excellent work and my best
compliment is to edit it immediately and return it to you. So here it is. I probably have been
imprudent in letting everything stand, as you hoped I might. But it is fair. I think, and
fairness is one up on prudence. I have made a number of technical corrections, clarified words,
and introduced a euphemism or two. I understand that you intend to split the presentation and
leave the operation to your discretion... Your article on Kugler was most intriguing. Have you
sent Stecchini a copy? (...) The material is rich and your commentaries and presentations of
the source matter referred to by Kugler valuable. I would expect the whole, amplified even to
the extent of a complete translation, would constitute a welcome book. Perhaps one for Kronos
Press... Was the Atlantis item really August '61, as you write? I'd like to see it: perhaps you
can confirm the citation next time around. The Tuareg are a mysterious people, you know, of
undefined race and origins. The Fabrizio Mori reports, if locatable, would be more valuable...
You do bring up surprises re Velikovsky. No, I've only heard of original work he's done in
electroencephalography, that he may have been the first to propound it. What you quote is
fascinating. It does relate to the suppression of instincts, of which I make much in the
transition from hominid to man... It gives us time to think, but heightens general anxiety at
not being able to respond. My general theory of the subject is being prepared for limited
distribution prior to the long haul on publishing the book, so I shall hope to send you a copy.
Meanwhile, I would suppose you could readily do the translation yourself. Rix has a lot of
trouble with English. (I try not to distinguish 'lower' from 'higher' species. In my present
lonely spot, I am compelled to admit the many superiorities of the ants)... I haven't received
the T. L. S. review of Velikovsky Reconsidered. I've gone through Temple's work on Sirius
hurriedly. He moves into his theme backwards -- first the Africans, then the Egyptians, then
spacemen. Dr. V. in his "Chronology and Astronomy" found Sirius (Sothis) a yardstick for
measuring the Venus-cycle. The one item (well-known) of the tribal recognition of the invisible
star goes along with other ancient knowledge of the skies that was lost and recently recaptured
by telescope (cf. my brief article -- Did I leave a copy with you? -- on the rings of Saturn
and bonds of Jupiter). Better eyes, magnifying atmosphere, closer proximity, ancient
telescopes? -- we'll have to make up our minds in the light of a total well-developed theory of
Revolutionary Primevalogy... I wish that we had transcripts of the many additional hours that
we spent in discussion. Which leads me to say how much I enjoyed the whole of my visit with you
all. I'm due to fly back in haste...

So went the messages, back and forth and around. In the States, Deg worked closely now with
Earl Milton of Lethbridge, Canada on Solaria Binaria. He saw Sizemore regularly in Princeton.
He visited with Velikovsky. Most of the American network communications in these days funneled
into Greenberg, with whom Deg had only an annual telephone conversation but about whom he
received information from Sizemore. Kronos magazine sponsored two meetings at a Motel in the
Princeton area; Sizemore exhausted himself to pull them off successfully. One was before V.
died in November, 1979, the second later on, and Elisheva dropped in upon it.

Deg missed both meeting for being abroad. The second was unexciting, save for wrangling between
Greenberg and Whelton. So far as I can understand the causes, there were none of substance.
Clark Whelton spoke up in general criticism of the proceedings as lackluster and Lewis
Greenberg tore into him from the Chair with ad personam indignation which was incomprehensible
unless, as I was told, "You know Lew..." Few friendly heretics -- never mind the unfriendly
larger participation -- had no occasion over the years to receive his uncomplimentary remarks
and the consoling words from others, "You know Lew..."

Greenberg's correspondence with the British was equally a mixture of rationality, abuse, and
threats, and since he never would fly, he did not appear in England and only Peter James had a
pleasant encounter with him. But that was once. When Greenberg invited James to become of the
"Staff" of Kronos, Peter accepted. He was almost bumped from it when he wrote an early piece of
criticism of V. and V., in a fit of anger, told Sizemore and Greenberg that they had to get rid
of him or else he would withdraw his support from Kronos. Then, according to Sizemore, V.
reconsidered, recalling no doubt his own reputation as a champion of freedom of speech and
press, and called up to withdraw his demand. Nevertheless, not too long afterwards, what V. had
wished came about, when Greenberg and James quarreled and James resigned, as will be explained

In the Spring of 1980 Deg reappeared in London to address the Society. By this time his agenda
was full of friends of catastrophist persuasion. The Velikovsky Affair had appeared in a
British edition in paperback with a new preface. Earl Milton was coming in from Alberta,
Canada, to speak, after which, with his wife Joan and his little son Davin, he was to join up
with Deg for a heavy workout on Solaria Binaria at the Island of Naxos on the Aegean Sea.

On Deg's list of telephone numbers in London for the occasion we find Peter James, his primary
host, informant, and contact man, a slender scintillating young and blonde man who seemed to be
everywhere and into everything in London, who lived on vegetables and beer in a collectivity,
and who had surpassed intellectually the university degree he was arranging to pick up. He
supplied Deg and Ami with an apartment, perfect in every regard save its price and lack of
telephone, of which the latter was the more serious. Hotel prices were prohibitive. Food was
expensive and as always bad, except in the oriental and European restaurants.

Luckily down the street was the Baeck Hebrew center, school and library, tended over by Hyam
Maccoby who took to reading Deg's Moses manuscript while Deg stuck heavy coins in unending
numbers into the hallway telephone. For, on the aforesaid phone list were all those he wished
he might see: Geoffrey Gammon, Malcolm Lowery, Brian Moore, Peter Warlow, Harold Tresman, John
Bimson, Martin Sieff, Eric Crew, Robert Temple, Fred Freeman, Redmond Mullin. Rayburn Heycock,
Margaret Willes, Nick Austin, and Cloe and Mike Fraser. There were thereupon added in a
confused network the names and numbers of all the people who were contacted in order to contact
others and the temporary, supplementary, changed disconnected and "try-him-at" numbers.

And on his "to-do" list for the two week were to write his paper for delivery to the Society,
to have his novel Ronald's Norm typed up and copied, to read the latest exchanges on Solaria
Binaria and discuss them with Milton, to discuss with Sphere Books the Velikovsky Affair and
his manuscripts (the same with Margaret Willes of Sidgwick and Jackson), to discuss
"Aphrodite's true identity" with James and explain the ideas of an Encyclopedia and the
possibility of a Quantavolution Institute, to open a bank account at Barclay's, to edit finally
and send Chaos and Creation to the Indian printers, to visit the headquarters of Amnesty
International, to visit the Temples in the countryside to see how their garden was growing and
where Robert's mind was in the aftermath of his book on the Sirius Mystery, to write his son
Chris in Rotterdam and send him some money, to meet Fred Freeman of Liverpool whose ideas on
independent welfare action and tax reforms were simpatico. And much more, but of course, much
was not done, bogged down in conflicts of time and logistical difficulties like the telephone
and vainly-searched-for typist.

When his plane took off from London, he entered some lines in his journal, captioned

Failures of a trip to England -- England in the Spring -- "Oh, to be in England when... "A book
yet to be published jests at my ability to concoct surprising numbers. Here are more [on time

Trying to find a good place to eat 12.5%
Discussing the food and service 12.0%
Writing the talk that should have been written beforehand 23.9%
Futile Communications with Publishers 4.0%
Walks and visits: external sociability 29.0%
Management and commuting 10.5%
Eyeball-to-eyeball discussion about quantavolution 5.6%
Listen to other perform and performing 8.0%
All others 9.4%

Adds to over 100% because of doing more than one thing at one time, e. g. "No, I think we
passed the restaurant; that was a good piece you did with O'Geoghan," or "Carter's foray into
Iran was foredoomed; why did Dayton [author of a magnificent book on ancient ceramics and
minerals] waste so much time decrying the mentality of archaeologists?" Now what more would I
have wanted to do? Talk to Bimson re opinion of natural disasters at Megiddo Dolby re ice ages
Moore re poetry Lowery re linguistics Sieff re... James re... etc. etc.

I am diverging and must return and repeat: the British and their magazine were more of a free
association and farther removed from V.'s hulking figure. Hence it would be more likely that
opposition should arise successfully there. First it happened when Euam Mackie, a proverbial
tall dour Scot, a Glasgow Museum curator and co-founder of SIS, began to place monuments that
were seemingly oriented to the present directions of the compass, such as Stonehenge, in the
period before the Venusian catastrophe of around -1450 BC when the Earth was said by the V.
scenario to have changed its axis of rotation and orbit, hence its orientations and its
calendar. Further, when Deg appeared in England in 1976 and presented his thesis of "the
Disastrous Love Affair of Moon and Mars," he found that the English view, led by Peter James,
rejected his, and V. 's, and Robert Graves' identification of Homer's Aphrodite with Moon,
insisting that the goddess stood for the planet Venus, not Moon. James published more
criticism, and Deg was given to understand that he had been worsted -- Rix, Cardona, Gordon and
others espoused the James thesis and Deg was driven back to the stack shelves. V. said to Deg
that he had more material for the defense somewhere in his files, but he never produced it.

But then the heavy onslaught came with the long-awaited publication of Peoples of the Sea and
Ramses II and His Times. After intimating dissent for some time, the British now mobilized at a
conference in Glasgow in April, 1978, and delivered a set of papers that confirmed V.'s worst
fears. The British -- or let me say, the historical fraction of the SIS elite -- while
affirming their support of V.'s reconstruction of Egyptian (and hence total Mediterranean and
Near East) chronology until the end of the 18th Dynasty said in effect "Stop! Disposing of 500
years is enough." The rest of the Egyptian historical sequence is in respectable order: Ramses
III was not 4th century, he was also moved back to the 8 th Century. The Hittites did have
their Empire before the Chaldeans and were not a side-show or a double for them. The end result
was to cut V.'s immense loaf in half and to reassure him that "Half a loaf is better than none
at all."

One might see the pattern emerging. By 1983, when Brian Moore had been elected President and
Peter James Editor, much more emphatically than in 1978, might it be said that the "essential
purpose" of the Society was "to promote active consideration by scientist, scholars and
students, of alternatives to the theory of uniformity in astronomy and Earth history." This
could only mean the general approach of revolutionary primevalogy and quantavolution. The lines
of advance would move outward from Velikovsky but SIS would deny that it "is committed to any
specific catastrophic theory." The Review would not become involved ad hominem and in
emotionally charged wrangling but "will concentrate on the real issues at stake, as for example
the occurrence of exoterrestrial catastrophes and the reconstruction of ancient chronology."
The "SIS Review offers the broadest spectrum of opinion and the most objective approach..."

By this time, however, signs of a wider movement were also emanating from its elder, Kronos,
triennially printed in America, and the younger Catastrophism and Ancient History, a biennial
magazine founded and published by Marvin Luckerman at Los Angles, California.

There was still no broad monthly of the type of Science 83 (an AAAS publication) which Deg had
been advocating on both sides of the ocean. He would have liked to see a published magazine
"Quanta" and an Encyclopedia of Quantavolution and Catastrophe, so he caused to be sent around
to hundreds of persons interested in the field a circular describing the projects as follows:


Project I. Quanta. A monthly magazine, large format dedicated to presenting to a wider public
all current news and developments in the sciences and the humanities related to the theory of
quantavolution: the theory that the major sources of change in the history of the world, both
in the natural sciences (all fields) and in the humanities (all fields) and including human
nature and behavior, have come from sudden, high-powered, and large-scale events.

It is an idea with a rich past, of famous writers, but, of writers whose works have long
submerged beneath the conventional tides of uniformitarian, evolutionary, and gradualist
thought. We must pull out and bring forward into contemporary review the greatest of these
ancient, medieval and early modern writings from all over the world, ranging through legend,
through religion, through literature, through science, in all their diversity and format, so
that once again they become part of our civilized heritage. Simultaneously, we must select,
from the enormous volume of indifferent but carefully prepared scientific and humanistic work
that is oblivious to the quantavolutionary idea, the remarkable findings, the nuggets, the
truths and reality that are buried there.

Finally. Quanta should publish the best of the new generation of writers who are ready to
tackle and overthrow old images of science and philosophy, the old idols of though, and to
discover in the world of nature and life, including human conduct and behavior, the validity of
the quantavolutionary vision of the world. Quanta will preach and practice objectivity.

We are presently in most disorderly state of publishing, whether of books or magazines. In this
confusion of the age, there must be a place for a modest but forthright publication, and that
is what Quanta seeks to be, that publishes for a certain critical mass of readers the facts,
theories and news about a general and liberal approach to the phenomena of geology, psychology,
astronomy, biology, and other science.

Project 2. The Encyclopedia of Quantavolution. A person who is interested in the
quantavolutionary modes of change in natural and life history is often frustrated when he
searches for information about a writer, a river, an animal, a myth, a phenomenon, a period of
time, a place, an excavation, a planet, a concept, or a philosophy; indeed, just about anything
that one looks up becomes a source of frustration. Why? Because practically every subject
treated in conventional reference books has been passed through two centuries of suppression of
the quantavolutionary, of the sudden, intense jumps that have been responsible for the largest
proportion of change in the universe.

What has been written has not been referred to and has been actively lost. Begin with the
letter "alpha", go to "Aaron", and proceed; every article has a missing slant, a missing
theory, absent evidence. But so much is left out, and so many useless things are included for
the quantavolutionary scholar, student, active reader, whatever the realm of inquiry, that
there is a pressing need for a new encyclopedia, so new indeed that one has to go back to the
Encyclopedia of Diderot in the Eighteen Century to conceive of such an innovation and advance
in the history of science and the humanities.

The present tight capital situation is not favorable to investments in publishing projects.
Orthodox foundation channels are clearly closed. Nevertheless, given that the shortage of
financial aid has not impeded thought and progress in quantavolution, the initiative and
participation of scores of competent scholars in all fields of learning can be counted on to
carry the project along. A cooperative organization, headed by an international editorial
committee, can produce alphabetically a series of fascicles that would in three years range
from A to Z. Then the total product would be bound in cloth and paper for public sale. During
the interim, individuals, libraries and institutions would subscribe to the fascicles to
provide operating capital, receiving in the end a sizable discount on the final Encyclopedia,
which would cost at present prices about $90.00.

The returns were not encouraging. It appeared that the costs of finding a sufficient market for
the magazine and encyclopedia would exceed the costs of production. That is, if a quarter of a
million dollars were to be spent in development and first publication, not counting contributed
and compensated time, at least that much money would be required to carry the message through
the dense thicket of mass book and magazine advertising. The competition among the National
Geographic magazine, Science 83, Discovery, Museum, Geo, Science Digest, the Smithsonian
Magazine, and other journals was so severe, their struggle for survival and expansion so
costly, that a small voice, no matter how sharply contrasting, would be overwhelmed. The
situation of an encyclopedia could be different. Here Deg discussed with Jeremiah Kaplan, an
acquaintance of some 35 years and Chairman of the Board of Macmillan Company, a possible
participation of Macmillan. Kaplan had put through the great International Encyclopedia of the
Social Sciences and was now directing the preparation of an Encyclopedia of Religion. The
question of the controversial nature of the Encyclopedia arose not directly but indirectly.
With Charley Smith, the appropriate Macmillan editor, they put together a scenario, a typical
setting for the use of the Encyclopedia.

A high school girl walks into her school library and asks the Librarian where she can find
material for a short theme on evolution. The librarian advises her to consult the Britannica
and the Encyclopedia of Quantavolution and Catastrophe. The "Ev" volume of the first is being
used by another student, so the girl studies the article on "Evolution" in the new
Encyclopedia, writes her paper, gets a failing grade from her teacher, complains, embroils the
librarian, and the librarian is told by the science teacher never to refer anyone to that book

The librarians, it is concluded, want or must buy encyclopedias that provide "unbiased"
conventional articles in the name of prominent authorities; there is only one truth in science.
Deg thanks his host for the fine lunch and walks out whistling upon windy Third Avenue thinking
"Macmillan has changed since 1950. The customers now exercise precensorship." He did not, of
course, agree, and could offer other scenarios -- but what was the use?

The great one-world society was a handicap for the movement. Creative workers were spread
around the world. Far from each other, their communications were poor, and relatively
expensive, given that at least half of them had disposable incomes at the official U. S. A.
poverty boundary; few were well-to-do. Deg made Peter James an offer of a subsistence and "pie
in the sky" if he would collaborate, but James was working and studying in a combination of a
job and studies designed to extract a higher degree from the University of London. Deg talked
also to Martin Sieff, who from time to time, like most Northern Irish, wondered whether he
should move out before he was blown out by a bomb. On May 18, 1981, he was writing to Sieff at
the "Belfast Telegraph":

Dear Martin, I do regret that I cannot plot some position for you that would enable you to
carry on your valuable work in quantavolution and history, both social and natural. We have, I
believe, the phenomenon of an emergent new general paradigm for science and philosophy, and you
should be on hand as parent and midwife (the parthenogenetic simile is not amiss in ancient
age-breaking and age-making, as you know).

We need to publish many books. We need a magazine building upon the extant ones -- Quanta, I
call it. We need an Encyclopedia of Quantavolution. We need an information storage and
retrieval system that is set for quick production and dissemination of old and new materials.
When done, our progress will be rapid, and we will generate a much larger supporting group from
scientists, public, and science reporters. I cannot be blamed if I see you highly productive
and influential in this state of affairs. Your journalistic experience adds to your potential.

Besides yourself are the others and I feel strongly sympathetic, too, towards James, Lowery,
and a dozen more.

But visions without resources may be blameworthy. The great research centers are situated where
costs of living are high and life complicated -- New York, Princeton, Washington, London,
Paris, Israel, Amsterdam, the hope for large donors or, these times, a university that would
accept a new institute in its budget, much less one such as ours in spirit. I tried indeed with
the University of Maryland, New York University, and elsewhere; the answer, even when friendly,
is "Bring in your own funds." Velikovsky's resources went into a family shop, supporting
additionally Jan [Sammer] and Richard [Heinberg] for the time being, whence all products carry
the brand name "made by Velikovsky." What Elisheva is doing is wonderful. Greenberg is
hopelessly guarded in his Kronos den. None, however, can say it is the beginning and end of
quantavolution in science, history and philosophy. So what can be done? We are frustrated. My
own income is cut deliberately to the subsistence level in order to pursue my studies,
precisely at the time in life when I could be enjoying the highest earnings. But if not
Quantavolution, then Kalos, the World Order movement, would occupy me ungainfully. Only a
bonanza of some type, whose chance is perhaps one in ten, would let us set up some type of
communal operation or institute on Quantavolution. A five year lease on an appropriate property
near a good library; subsistence for perhaps eight persons, about $20,000 for materials,
expenses, and initial publications: we are approaching $100,000 a year of minimal costs.
Sources of funds: grants, donations, side earnings, correspondence courses, conferences,
publications. Should you have any ideas, I would be eager to receive them. Meanwhile I shall
brood and watch, like a demiurge, grasp at whatever creativity I can, and pounce upon any
larger opportunity...

On Dec. 21, 1981, as it seems that Sieff may be enticed onto Yankee territory, Deg writes

Dear Martin: There is small occasion for cheering you on to these shores, except for my wish
that you might come and succeed and be nearby. Several major dailies have folded up recently.
The New York Daily News is on the block. There is a new market for papers and talents in
suburbia around the land, catering to shopping centers and a semi-literate public. Magazines
are plentiful, unprofitable and short-lived. The economy is in a recession, whose end I do not
see because it is shrouded in an apparently bottomless pit of world and domestic problems into
which politics refuses even to peer much less descend. Book publishing, too, is floundering in
the muck. Great talents, such as your own, are of little advantage; mediocrity, with unflagging
snuffling in all corners, would stand you better. I don't doubt that you'll get along; that
you'll be at home with your dreams, I doubt.

With all this, ought I to say, also, that the teaching field is in poor shape? The lower
schools are emptying and entering into their biggest crisis since the dawn of free schooling.
College and university budgets are all in poor shape. There are scores of applicants for every
small opening. That still does not mean that very fine candidates are being hired for the few
jobs available. Back to coda: you may find something, but you won't like it very much. May I
suggest this: If you come, come to stay; choose the spot where you want to live beyond all
other; once there take on any kind of work to make ends meet and begin the aforesaid snuffling
around; sooner or later, you'll find something better than most, which will give you a little
freedom and cash. If you don't have friends to begin with, you'll find them everywhere at about
the same level of intercourse. No matter whether Tampa or San Francisco, not any more. If we
had the kind of society we wished for, I wouldn't need to write this letter because there would
be a community of persons digging our sort of interest and you would make your way here
naturally, and there would be a place for you without saying. The University of Chicago was
that sort of area in the 1930's; almost everyone was a genius or considered himself such, and
most were broke, and most were into what they thought might be the new world.

Here in Trenton, I'm isolated in a way. I have to go long distances to see people and they to
see me. My little old house bears no resemblance to the fine and spacious house I once had in
Princeton. The Princeton libraries are only twenty-minutes drive from here, but you cannot
afford the car and gasoline, were you to crowd in with us. We'll probably be leaving for Greece
in March for several months, so there is a possibility of arranging for you to stay here while
we're gone. But I can see no advantage to this, since you'll be having to travel by train or by
car to wherever you might be needing to go to seek a position, or to get together with people.
No, it would make no sense to stay here unless I were here and then only for so long as a
couple of days for an exchange of views. Even for this, I'd try to find some friend around here
who could accommodate you comfortably while we visit together. I'll give you all the names I
can think of, with all the compliments to accompany them, anywhere in the country you may wish
to go. I'm not optimistic about this procedure, but I'll be glad to oblige. Do you remember how
costly it is to travel? And wherever you go, the way Americans live in their far-flung warrens,
you'll not be where you want to be even for the moment. The distances are an enemy, especially
for the poor. How, by the way, do you expect to get a job without a work visa? I think you have
to find an employer who will make a special request before coming. Or else, come, find a job,
return and be called back. Isn't that the way it works, unless you come as an independent
writer without a wage or salary paid you here. If I had even a little money to pay expenses, I
would invite you here to join in preparing the Encyclopedia of Quantavolution, a project that I
think would move our cause forward greatly and sooner or later pay off financially. My idea
would be to provide alphabetic fascicles every month or two until the job would be complete,
financing the venture largely from subscriptions to these (with a large discount on the
ultimate bound volumes), do it all in 2000 pages, all fields, half written by five editors (e.
g. besides myself and you, say Brian, Bimson, Milton, Lowery and other good colleagues who
might want to come aboard) and half by about 100 other contributors, taking three years in all,
appearing in three volumes in 2,000,000 words and selling at a low $89. I think Princeton would
be a good place to center it, but I wonder about Cambridge, Eng. (with occasional editorial
conferences in Naxos.) I would readily contemplate a move to Cambridge if there were a few
enthusiastic souls about and a minimal cooperation by the Cambridge Library authorities.
Couldn't we lease an old house big enough to barrack visitors for a reasonably small sum for
three years and have a go at it? The production should be done in-house on a word-processing
system that would provide print-out for the fascicles during the whole creative period and then
feed floppy discs to the automatic typesetter for the final production of the bound volumes. We
would attach a newsletter, perhaps the Newsletter of "Workshop," to the fascicles and when the
Encyclopedia comes out continue the publication of a wide-public magazine Quanta.

I was going into Manhattan today, but am glad that I changed my mind and could therefore get
this letter off to you, among other things. Holidays don't turn me on; I make my own, as often
as possible. Concluding, let me not give the impression that I have ceased to think about what
you might do and where, but give me feedback and encouragement and I'll do better next time.

Cordially yours, Alfred

Martin Sieff came like a whirlwind, and came again not much later, a short, dark counterpart of
Peter James, a comic book buff, friendly and grateful, darting brown eyes through heavy
glasses, missing nothing, spewing out accounts of college days at Oxford, the dire internal
politics of Israel, the latest bombing of his Belfast newspaper, the psychology of Velikovsky,
the girls of Long Island-Belfast-Jerusalem, the personalities of the cosmic heretics of
Britain, the confusion of the British Society for Interdisciplinary Studies (" Nothing at all
like the big way you do things here, no support..." "What do you mean? We are disaster-
stricken. Out of touch, nasty little arguments and all of that..." "Not really, I thought that
was us!" "Not so, I thought that was us!")

Martin wants to see Clark Whelton and he and Deg hear of Clark's longing for an Association
where we can all get together on a regular basis. Alas, Clark is assistant to Mayor Koch, on
24-hour alert; he is writing a novel; he is going through the trauma of kids readying for
college. How, when, with what means and who? Everyone looks blank and slightly pained. But the
outer world must have something in mind when they speak of the "underground" the "well-
organized tactics" of the catastrophists, the invariable sharp attacks greeting an offensive
remark about Velikovsky or against short chronology or for exoterrestrial eternal peace, as,
for instance the London Times Literary Supplement of 26 June 1967 murmuring about "a powerful
force in the underground of academe."

Not long afterwards, dodging about the streets of Belfast (he has spent most of his thirty
years in two civil emergencies, of Belfast and of Israel), Martin rifles a letter to Clark
Whelton at the Mayor's Office in New York, expressing fear of the collapse of the Society for
Interdisciplinary Studies journal.

Belfast, 9 August 1983 (...)

"There is only one solution that I can see -- the appointment of an Editor-in-Chief with full
authority over production, and over all SIS copy -- both Workshop and Review, able to appoint
and fire editorial staff at his discretion, responsible for deadlines, and responsible himself
directly to the SIS Chairman, creating a workable Publisher-Editor relationship. Should you
succeed in launching a U. S. version of the Society, this is the only way to get the thing
done. Government by committee is a wash out. As long as Lowery was on form it served as a
useful camouflage for him to operate under, while he actually put out a high quality product.
But once he pulled out, the wholes cumbersome system of referees and editorial committee
responsible in its turn to Council, another committee under a mini-Lowery in its turn, just
fell apart. Peter James is an outstanding scholar. But he doesn't know the meaning of the word
"deadline". Brian Moore put an immense amount of effort into the Review's production -- and had
nothing to show for it at the end of the day...

There was of course no money to pay an Editor. Sieff feared a collapse of the Society, and
could only pray that its membership would be patient with the leadership a little longer. [In a
letter to Deg later on he expresses surprise that the phoenix is arising from its ashes.]

And then horror of horrors, Martin announces re-re-revisionism of ancient Egyptian chronology:
I am becoming convinced that everything that happened in the Exodus and in the crisis of the
Ipuwer Papyrus may well have been at the end of the Old Kingdom. At this point Deg's mental
vision shutters down like a toad's eyelids. When the revolution comes, nothing is spared, and
then it feeds upon itself. No, you don't, Martin! That's too much!

Here is how Sieff declared the consensus again to Whelton: "Ages in Chaos, Vol. I still stands.
Minor corrections and improvements, yes" -- but the Hyksos are the Amalekites; El Amarna
tablets fall in the time of the prophet Elisha; Queen Hatshepsut of Egypt is the Queen of
Sheba; Thutmose III is biblical Shishak. "To which I will add the correlation -- Ramses III in
Jeroboam II's time; Merneptah kicked out by Azru = Uzziah/ Azariah; Ramses II = Late Bronze-
Iron interchange." In these words, 30 years after Ages in Chaos first appeared, Sieff is
pronouncing the validating results of thirty years' work, practically none of which was done by
anti-heretics, and which, whatever else happens, in cosmology and chronology, are sufficient to
bring the rewriting of much of ancient Egyptian, Hebrew, Syrian, Anatolian, Greek, and Roman
history. But Martin is part of "whatever else happens" and so are Peter James, David Rohl, John
Bimson, and Jim Clarke who are energetically taking V. apart and putting him together again.
The old chronology is gone but there is yet no tongue-in-groove replacement.

In April 1983, Deg and Ami, after two months in France to promote her just published novel, Le
Pigeon d'Argile, go to London from Paris and he speaks on Homo Schizo, on the gestalt of
creation that in short order makes a cultured person out of hominid. This time they have the
apartment (and telephone) of Stimson, Peter James' friend, with a monster bed embracing its
room, from which everything is reachable with levers and buttons and on which all is do-able,
apparently including dining, for there is no dining space.

There is a fine celebration after the meeting, proverbial homemade English pastry playing a
nostalgic part; drink flows freely and the survivors end up at the pub nearby. Deg meets Jill
Abery so can tell her that he admires her snippets on fossil assemblages and many other mini-
reviews of the quantavolutionary literature. Again he misses John Bimson and, too, Bernard
Newgrosh, the medical doctor who edits Workshop for the SIS.

He does a fast trip to Brian Moore's Cleveland haunts and the two of them ascend the
Observatory hill in Edinburgh to spend hours with Victor Clube and William Napier who have
published their Cosmic Serpent, which Deg had read, but they have not read Chaos and Creation
so he gives them that and they give him a reprint and all are full of talk and trying for a
common ground while sniffling about a bit doggishly. Clube and Napier call their
quantavolutionary scenario "the disintegrating comet theory." They set themselves to showing
that at great intervals of time the Solar System encounters galactic clouds of cometary
material and suffers heavy destruction from collisions. Residual comets accompany the Solar
System, and their periodic visitations, on rare occasion, end in disaster. Like many others
working on catastrophism, the two Edinburgh astronomers find themselves isolated, both because
of the extremity of their ideas and because they need much material from fields like mythology
and linguistics that they cannot grasp themselves nor command expert consultants to provide for
them. The crux of the matter is that, while both groups grant catastrophes in human times, the
Scottish astronomers want to read "comets" where the Deg-V. contingent read "planets" and they
bring out reams of calculations on Encke's Halley's and more to come, while Deg is confident by
now of Solaria Binaria and cannot wait for the book, which, if not calculation-full, is
calculation-proofed, and he feels good about some tag-wrestling matches to come, where with
much better historical reconstruction and with Milton at his side, well, we shall see, he
thought happily, as they stepped out upon the Observatory site overlooking beautifully the fine
somber city with the sea beyond, and they took their jovial leave.

Deg was pondering, wasn't this setting where Comyns Beaumont placed the world of the Bible and
was Edinburgh Jerusalem, and it was all transferred to the New Palestine after the comet
struck? Nonsense, of course -- to what lengths will not subconscious ethnocentricity lead one,
but how far and how near was Beaumont to William Blake the mystic poet and painter who
envisioned Jerusalem as England, pathetic genius, lost soul amidst the steam and soot of his

Time had come to leave England for New York, but two matters had to be settled. After much
thinking and talking, Deg decided he could entrust the manuscript of Solaria Binaria, which he
had been hoarding all the while, to Rosemary Burnard of the Society for composition on the IBM
type-setting machine that the Society had scraped up the funds to buy and use for its
publications. A type-font was chosen, the format designed. Within three months all would be
done and the pasted-up camera-ready copy would be sent to Milton and Deg for final correction
and printing. Not so: July stretched to January before the job was done. Shall I stop to
explain the six months delay, Deg's fortnightly fury, the sweet, bold abstracted character of
Rosemary, the trials of the intellectual underground in Britain, speaking of how things don't
get done and finally maybe do get done in the perennial bohemia of generation after generation
of the Western World intelligentsia? Of course not. I cannot allow myself a Proustian self-
indulgence in prose. If there is a page to spare, it must go to the heroic efforts of it seemed
everybody to penetrate the U. S. Immigration Service just enough to get Ami aboard a plane to
New York.

Excepting the several millions of Indians who already were on hand, the vast majority of
individuals (and I use this term significantly) who came to the shores of the New World were
driven away from their old haunts-by the Old World authorities, by famine, by failure of one
kind or another -- and half of them came within the past century. And they are coming now, in
vast numbers, such that the system of restraints has broken down, and the question now is how
to legitimize millions of persons as Americans without setting into motion a similar advent of
millions more. At work, of course, is the U. S. Immigration and Naturalization Service which,
you must understand, is separate and distinct from the Department of State, but shares this
with the Department of State: that they live a life out of Kafka's Castle, full of resounding
laws, rules and regulations, and of textbook principles of administration.

Now, as in Kafka's books, the people most removed from the intent of the laws are bedeviled by
them. So it is that an apolitical, well-behaved French writer, who is married to an American,
unrecognized for the troublemaker he is, can have more difficulty getting in and out of the
country than anyone of the mob of persons whom the agencies are instructed and exhorted to
screen, examine, and order into various categories. So it happened, that the aforesaid French
novelist, female, law-abiding, with a stamp on her passport letting her in but stuck with a
paper not letting her out beyond a certain time, can be prevented from coming in and must begin
at the beginning -- lines, forms, physical examinations, faceless officials, and time without
apparent end.

Here then enters Professor de Grazia, professionally, fully, skeptically, ironically,
indignantly aware of what imbecility ad infinitum bureaucracies historically display, whether
in science or in travel, yet who still imagines that a minor delay in the return of his wife,
for good reason (for the good of the U. S. A., too) will not cause much of a problem, if he
addresses the Immigration Service in London properly and in good time. One week of good time
goes by, and a second week. Ordinary communications, cables, phone calls are not enough.
Interchangeable faceless beings turn on and off. The system cannot cope with the request to
reenter; a ping-pong game is set up, with the US offices on the one side and on the other side
of the Big pond reluctantly striking the ball, after resting in-between shots.

I cannot be sure of what finally happened, except that at a certain point Deg stopped acting
like a proper ordinary citizen trying go get his wife back home and began acting like a
politician and a border-runner. Ultimately are mobilized the good offices of a U. S. Minister,
a Consul, a U. S. Senator, several U. S. lawyers, and a politically prominent British Lord,
coupled with a partially blocked presumptuous entry upon a British Airways plane with the
baggage flying solo, until somehow something cracks in the system at the New York Airport, and
the message gets through to the airline that if Anne-Marie de Grazia were to be aboard a
certain plane no objection to her coming home to America would be raised by the Inspector at
the immigration counter. Nor was there.


by Alfred de Grazia



As his last year begins, Dr Zvi Rix is writing to Deg from Rechovot, Israel. It is January 9,
1980 and he sends New Year's greetings, and hopes that they might meet before long. "I am very
cut off at the place where I am living now. This does not only concern libraries, but other
matters too..." for the mails are slow and books arrive late in the shops. He is in touch with
Christoph Marx. They travelled together to Glasgow... "He was quite obliging... So far I have
not formed a final opinion of him."

I would nominate Zvi Rix to be the hero of this chapter, but it is up to the reader to find his
own heroes in this book. Rix was a man who Velikovsky would have liked to write Mankind in
Amnesia in his place. He was a medical man, deep into psychiatry, and a refugee from Nazi
Germany. Deg knew him only through their correspondence. Deg was glad to get a description of
him from his widow, whom he met shortly afterwards at the home of Christoph Marx near Basle.
She wrote to Deg on January 23, 1981:

Dear Prof. de Grazia, My husband died very recently; as is customary for Jews, even not
practising religious commandments, we stay at home at least a week. In this time I went through
his many letters and found also yours.

I have the impression that you were very friendly and very much appreciating his work.
Therefore I write to you that I am very thankful to you. He was a very lonely man and every
encouragement was a help to him. Here he had nobody to talk to, I myself am much too obtuse to
understand half of what he was talking about and as he was also very shy he had no contacts;
besides that, his ideas were not exactly what people here would like to hear. It is a semi-
theocratic world. Ruled by a conglomeration of Zealots (...) they call themselves socialists or
rightwingers, its all the same. Our dreams went awry.

Yours very respectfully, Melitta Rix

Rix, whose scrambled writings are being kept by Christoph Marx, was hard in pursuit of evidence
that the cometary destruction of civilizations around 3500 years ago had warped the human mind
in the Near East, inciting human destructiveness, religious excesses, and sexual deviations.

Christoph Marx was a computer expert from Basle, and an amateur of Velikovsky's work and all
that it connected with. He circulated an invitation to whomever he knew to meet in Iceland, a
typical groping, logical yet mad, of cosmic heretics for a way of expressing themselves and
their message. Logical: let us assemble in Iceland between America and Europe, a
catastrophically threatened land even now, set athwart the great catastrophic Atlantic Rider;
mad: Marx was teetering on the edge of interdiction by everyone, the British, the Americans the
Europeans, Deg included, a heretic practically excommunicated from the heretics. The conference
did not materialize. Marx tried again in 1980, this in his home city, and found a few

The minimum consensus of all people positively involved with the work of Immanuel Velikovsky
may well be characterized as an interest in the true reconstruction of mankind's genetic
history, and thus also of geologic and, in part, cosmic history... Developing

Velikovsky's psychological inceptions, the goal -- of bringing home to collective consciousness
the realistic conception of the world, as opposed by the present mania holding sway over
cultural evolution -- would include nothing less than safeguarding mankind's life on earth,
imperiled by (1) by the acute danger of self-destruction, and (2) by not attempting to prepare
against some future chaos in the solar system. However, whether some of us are attributing such
healing powers to the recognition of true history, or whether others would simply consider it
as a value in itself, does not seem all-important: both parties will equally perform a
supporting function in repelling collective irrationality and fanaticism, the worst effects of
which are mass killings through war and murder. We know that Velikovsky comprehended his own
striving for the true picture of history in this perspective...

The consensus among cosmic heretics of which Marx spoke in his announcement did not really
exist; however, it is certain that V. 's unique and original way of searching for the roots of
anti-semitism was a revelation to many thousands of people who would otherwise have not even
considered the problem or would have lived with a few, often anti-semitic, stereotypes.
Measuring such influences is impossible, but, by any standard, V. was a great Jew who disabused
the minds of many incipient anti-semites. Deg's Journal Paris, August 19, 1968

V. keeps two secrets, or doctrines half-hidden. He has expressed himself to me so often that
the "secrets" are apparent. He would perhaps deny them. I am sure of them. He does not believe
in God. He is a Hebrew, therefore Israeli, imperialist. Both doctrines, if publicized or known,
would involve him in a whole new line of controversies, would make new enemies and unwanted new

Evidence, examples: Of 1: direct statements; writings; philosophy of psychoanalysis; his theory
of "great fear" as bringing religion; belief that Jews were even in Biblical times

Of 2: works of his life -- Zionism; gift of income from his property to Israel in June 67;
written works analysis; conversations; hatred of antizionism even at cost of other values (e.
g. El-Arish incident and Brandeis professor).

After a long trip following V.'s death, Deg returned to 78 Hartley Avenue( he could never
remember the house number, but would send his letters to 34 or 85 or another number, any
number, and V. was puzzled -- What significance could forgetting it have for Deg? "You can
address me just at Naxos, Greece and I get you alright at Hartley Avenue, Princeton!" "I have
gotten letters just to 'Princeton, NJ'" -- So there you are!) to see Elisheva. The parlor was
little changed. V.'s unimpressive chair stood facing the two stiff couches and the coffee table
between. Deg thought, "Should the chair be sat in, moved, replaced, bound across with a museum
belt, what?" It struck one with incompleteness, an uncertain quaver. He would slip some books
and papers upon it. Elisheva and her assistants Jan and Richard lined up with Deg on the
couches. Like a cordial committee they sat, drank tea, and reported to each other: health,
manuscripts in progress, people seen; and they passed papers and books around.

Thus went the meetings in the years thereafter. Sheva would at some point ask: "Did you see
Marx?" and Deg would say no or yes, and she would say "How can you see him when you know how
bad I feel about him," but she was curious nevertheless, while Deg tried to evade the subject
and one time she said "I will not speak to you again if you see Marx" and Deg threw his arms
around her jovially and said, I tell you what, if you don't see Greenberg, I won't see Marx,
and she was taken aback and all laughed because she had mixed feelings on that subject too and
knew that Greenberg was not his favorite among the cosmic heretics, but setting up proscription
lists in the Roman style was pointless.

It was on one of his earlier returns from abroad, in 1977, that Deg heard about Christoph Marx.
V. spoke of a visitor, almost in religious tones, who had lifted weighty burdens from his
shoulders, and would establish his rightful fame in Central Europe. He gave Deg a copy of a
well-executed chart of his reconstructed chronology of Egypt, in color, which Marx had drawn.
"Good, good," commented Deg, who was surprised, bemused, and skeptical at the same time.
"What's happened?" he asked Sizemore and others when he met them aside. They seemed confused
and uneasy.

What happened is this. A Christoph Marx had telephoned Velikovsky to pledge his allegiance to
his ideas and to offer support. There was much he could do: he could help with the translation
of V.'s books into German, working out of his more respectable (in V.'s eyes) Switzerland; he
could launch a campaign to bring the Germans to their senses, so that they would remember the
horrible Nazi past and thus cleanse themselves of the pest of comfortable oblivion, with its
eventual compulsion to repeat the past again; he could organize study circles to confront the
establishment with Velikovsky's ideas.

On April 14, 1977, V. wrote Marx, confirming in most cordial terms an invitation to visit. For
ten days, Marx settled into Princeton. Professor Lynn Rose, who V. said at various times would
be his literary executor, came down from Buffalo for some of the discussions. Marx departed on
Mayday. V. writes him: "Dear Marx: you left on Sunday, you called from home on Monday, and
today is Friday -- and very many things did happen in those few days... Earl Milton from
Lethbridge, Canada, is with us since yesterday and leaves tomorrow morning together with Alfred
de Grazia - who just now spent with us some time - and left copies of letters he wrote to Enc[
cyclopedia] Br[ itannica] and to NY Times. Sagan sent me a new book of his inscribed with all
good wishes and a day apart arrived the tape of this year's lecture on the yearly theme --
Venus and V. -- in which he indoctrinates future astronomers in their first year with derision
toward me and my work..."

Three days later V. is writing about turning over rights to the royalties from various foreign
translations to members of his family. He says he is turning over the management of worldwide
Spanish language rights to his recently acquired agents, Scott Meredith. He says "I
reconsidered and wish to suggest the following plan: your share is one eighth (12 1/ 2%); but
you retain countries not 'gifted' an additional 7 1/ 2% for work that furthers our goals -- at
our common discretion (such will be the case with Germany),..." V. writes also to Lynn Rose on
May 11 that "I let him [Marx] have broad powers to act, and have already the first report from
him. He will take over most of the European Continent for contracting my books with publishers,
and be a rather central figure in organizing groups of interdisciplinary synthesis, and in
opposition to the Establishment." He mentions other rights to be bestowed upon individuals and
adds "Christoph Marx will be in charge of these and many other activities."

On May 16, Marx replies that he will proceed as desired. He wonders whether the gifting of
"income" rather than "rights" is not the better procedure, and suggests that the literary
estate should be kept centralized and managed efficiently. His idea is of a Velikovsky
Institute, a foundation not-for-profit, with an office in Switzerland and another in America.

V. seems to be in a manic phase. He sends off sundry "Notes to my Collaborators," a newsletter
in fact. Inter alia he mentions lending Marx his unpublished manuscripts and writes that "I
gave him wide powers to represent me in academic contacts and arrange for the publication of
translations of my books"

In August, V. visited the office of Scott-Meredith Literary Agency in New York and met the head
of their foreign rights department, Mr. Vicinanza, who "showed great eagerness to represent me
on a broader basis." An offer was made to enter the greater European market. Vicinanza
estimated that $750,000.00 could be obtained in advances worldwide for Worlds in Collision in
18 months: so V. reported to Marx, adding, "Against such figures the offers made to you appear

A month later Marx reports to V. with several offers and expresses doubts (as did V.) about the
high figures. Marx would like to sign in the name of the "Velikovsky Institute." In any event,
he would like to draw upon the expected advances to begin microfilming and indexing V.'s

Then suddenly, V. telegraphs "Please don't sign agreement with Umschau. Wait my explanatory
letter. Greetings." Something has happened. There is a flurry of letters and telegram. In a
telegram, V. says that his books are being returned by the thousands due to the book Scientists
Confront Velikovsky (by Asimov, Sagan and others) and "other adverse publicity." Marx appeals
by telegram for confidence and trust, to no avail. They also talk on the telephone. Marx is
seeking to give "rational" answers to all objections, but says "I have legally signed the
agreement as your proxy within the frame of German and Swiss law. At this point I again wish to
thank you for the powers you have entrusted to me, which I consider as a wide obligation toward
you and your family."

I suspect that around this moment, Marx had been hit by the inevitable reaction to the Grand
Vision. V., always a procrastinator in decision-making, facing opposition from his family and
the lack of enthusiasm of friends such as Rose and Sizemore, could not overcome his profound
aversion to things German, including now spending resources "to help reeducate them." Marx
might as well proceed; V. would never have returned to the Great Vision; his idea of therapy
would have to be applied by others, if at all.

Marx has signed the contract on November 22; the Umschau Verlag signs on November 29. He
reports that he is putting the money in a special account in German Marks, which are moving
upwards against the dollar. He continues to report editorial activities.

Now young Jan Sammer, who has come from Canada to live and work with the Velikovsky's, writes
to Marx. Without expressing his authorization, he relates that V. is upset with the disapproved
signing, that Doubleday Company will probably insist upon 25% of the proceeds, that V. does not
favor the Velikovsky Institute idea, that Marx has "overstepped the powers that V. granted"
him, and that he could negotiate but not sign an agreement without the author's approval. Marx
is told to stay out of affairs in Holland. Marx replies both to Jan and to V., avoiding a

Jan writes again repeating himself more forcibly, adding a warning to Marx not to pretend to
represent V. in speaking to any scholars. He repeats words written earlier by Marx: "Umschau in
due course will wish to have proper signatures to the contract. You would have to empower me
accordingly." How, asks V., through Jan, can you now say you had power to sign.

Marx argues at length to this point: V. had orally and even in writing granted the power to
sign. Marx speaks of a further consideration being "my understanding of how distasteful Dr.
Velikovsky would regard a duty to sign a German contract personally." (Deg remembered that V.
had considered even not permitting his books to appear in German.) Marx states that V. had told
him not to worry about any claim of Doubleday to the subsidiary rights.

Finally on March 1, 1978, Mrs. Elisheva Velikovsky writes to Marx, repeating that Marx had
himself said that further empowering authority was needed, insisting that he not present
himself anymore as V.'s agent, and condemning the idea of an Institute. Marx rebuts this, and
indicates a desire to visit Princeton to settle matters.

The visit is declined by Mrs. V. Marx inquires about V.'s health. His letters continue to carry
news of books and meetings. Jan says in the middle of a letter May 17, regarding Marx's
expenses of purchasing books, that "in any case, they would have to be paid by you from the 7
1/ 2% designated for expenses connected with your efforts to arrange for translations." More
reports. V. telegraphs for an accounting twice in the same month, the second message being
misaddressed to "Immanuel Marx." And a third cable demands the transfer of funds to America.
Marx sidesteps these and writes of his work on the Dutch contract, which he had been called
away from, and of his dislike of entitling the German translation of The Velikovsky Affair
(Deg's Book) Immanuel Velikovsky, Die Theorie der Kosmischen Katastrophen, a publisher's
presumptuousness that one might find annoying.

On August 15 goes to Marx the first letter by V. in two years. It asks the transfer of money,
and that V. be informed of all negotiations from the beginning and that no contract be signed
without written approval; if not, any authority will be revoked. Marx on August 24 refuses the
"fundamental change," acknowledges the end of the agreement is inevitable therefore, and
suggests he be allowed his 20% of receipts from books signed up and be given all German
language rights. '.... Such German monies are not going toward an enrichment of myself.... no
other people in the world need your works as urgently than the German speaking peoples. ' On
September 5, V. signs a handwritten message, witnessed by his lawyer; it "terminates our
business relationship." Further, Marx is accused of having been in California and Washington,
D. C., "but did not give a ring to Princeton."

Marx retorted that he had too many rebuffs to continue telephoning. He protests that, in V.'s
name, the Kronos magazine group was denying him permission to publish in German various of its
articles. He also received in due course damning letters from Lynn Rose and Warner Sizemore.
Rose adds a postscript calling "a deliberate misrepresentation" a letter from Marx to the Times
which asserted that "Velikovsky saw the Holocaust in terms of collective amnesia."

Matters had been sliding into the hands of Robert Pinto, Velikovsky's attorney and, with V.'s
death, attorney for his Executor, Elisheva Velikovsky. The ensuing fol-de-rol among Estate,
Publishers and Marx went on and on and is of little interest here.

So a kind of love affair ended, brutally, with injury to all concerned. Sizemore wrote to Marx
April 3, 1980 that "the last year of Dr. Velikovsky's life was almost totally taken up with the
question of how to put a stop to your activities. He rued the day he ever met you." This may be
so, but is it rightfully so, and is it all? Velikovsky was not working well for years. Further
in the last week of his life, Deg had him smartly discussing substantive topics of
quantavolution. (Marx went unmentioned.) Yes, in a way, Marx was V.'s Waterloo, his last
grandiose effort to launch himself against an opposing world. He loved Marx for the vision,
even if Sheva and Warner and Rose and Deg and all the others could not share the vision nor
needed it. Deg had not yet met Marx. On May 9, 1980 Deg is writing to Mrs. Velikovsky:
Naxos, Kyklades, Greece, 9 May 1980

Dear Sheva: When I called to say 'good-bye' before going to Greece, you had already gone to
Israel. I hope that you enjoyed your visit and are well at home now. Ami and I spent a month
here and then three weeks in Western Europe, two in London. The Society held a day of meetings
on April 26. Talks were given by Dayton, Warlow, Milton, and myself -- I spoke on "Ten
Propositions concerning the Quantavolution of around 1450 BC," or something like that. About
150 persons were present. There seems to be a continuing high interest Immanuel's work.

C. Marx came from Switzerland for the occasion. Somehow he had learned of my coming and had
written Sizemore to pass along any messages via myself. Isn't that interesting --implying that
I was in contact with him. Furthermore, he had been sending to the British group letters
presenting his case to represent Velikovsky, including even Immanuel's will, which I therefore
had occasion to read, and which fortunately is simple and clear and free of any embarrassing

After my talk, which was the last, Marx introduced himself. I exchanged a few words with him.
As you say, he is disarmingly mild and inspires immediate sympathy, to the point of affection.
I advised him first (after commenting that he should not have tried to give an essay by himself
a ride on my book of the Velikovsky Affair without consulting me, by trying to put it in
through the publisher) that he was all wrong about you and that you had been kindly disposed
towards him in the beginning and that he should write you a letter of apology. Second, I
advised him not to perpetuate a controversy that would only damage him and cause everyone great
costs, and rather to put his case up for arbitration by three persons, not including myself, to
determine what, if anything, was and is due to him for his work and achievements. He didn't
seem to care for the advice, but my last words to him were to think it all over. Probably you
have heard that he is hoping to gather a conference in Reykjavik, Iceland, soon. I have no idea
who will come.

While in London, I stayed at an apartment only a few meters away from the Jewish Synagogue and
college where Hyam Maccoby works, and we had several meetings and a lunch at the best Jewish
restaurant in London, Ruben's. He read most of my book on Moses and His Electric God and found
it plausible and interesting. He knows the sources very well. I have heard nothing from Charles
Lieber in New York, who is supposed to be finding a publisher for the book.

We shall probably be leaving Naxos for Athens and New York at the end of June and thus be
mainly in Princeton during the summer. Is Richard still with you? -- I suppose so. Please give
him our regards -- also Ruth, and Warner when you see him. I look forward, then, to seeing you
again before too long. Best wishes meanwhile.

On May 11, Marx addresses Deg, expressing pleasure at their brief meeting:

14 years ago you pointed to the Velikovsky affair and its implications, and still good
scientific form seems to require that even Velikovsky's main theses together with the principal
view whether the reconstruction gives a true picture of mankind's past cannot be considered as
fact, from which to proceed to new work. In spite of all the experiences of these 14 years a
rather naive opinion also seems to persevere, that if only one persistently kept to so-called
scientific method, in the final analysis everything will turn out just fine. For the disastrous
non-success of Velikovsky's ideas in science a Scientific Mafia is found responsible, but
science itself, the field that many Velikovskians are employed in or would like to be part of
(if just for status only), and which from its beginning has allowed the most irrational large-
scale delusions to grow (Grosswahnbildungen I call them in German), is glorified by naming our
hero one of her greatest representatives. After I've seen science destroy the more important of
these delusions, such as ancient history or some myths of physics, by its own methods, perhaps
I'll be ready to call Velikovsky a scientist: until that time, which I don't really expect to
really come true, I prefer to know Velikovsky, along with Freud, as the brilliant analyst he
was; to withdraw him and his work from the clutch of science; and thus remain free to expose
science wherever necessary or as a whole as one of the great systems of thought (after
classical philosophy and religion) shielding the collective from its memories.

He complains of "the most unfortunate job Mrs. Velikovsky is doing in ordering an about-face of
her husband's approach to the Nazi Holocaust." He thanks Deg for suggesting arbitration and
will, he says, essay a move in that direction.
On June 4, Deg replies:

Dear Mr. Marx:

Thank you for your letter. The Breasted citation and pages are welcome. I will seek the
hieroglyphics, now. Concerning your last paragraph on the 'arbitration, ' I have already
written to Mrs. V. of my suggestions to you, so certainly you may refer to them if you wish. I
am glad that I was never part of your complicated and difficult relationship with the
Velikovsky's, else I would feel responsible at least in part and therefore more sad than I am.

Any impression that the whole story has been told would be incorrect. The major issue is hardly
reflected in it. The more one considers the affair, the more one senses an underlying tension.
Would it be the pronounced incapacity of either V. or Marx to work with others? Certainly Deg's
original skepticism of the relationship was based upon his acute awareness of V. 's tendencies
to call his troops forward, only to have them halt before commitment and forever be frozen
there. V. called himself a procrastinator.

But Marx was a patient and loyal and demonstrative person. He could have gone along
indefinitely and, given the neat bind trapping both parties, the relationship, hot or frozen,
would have persisted.

The crux was the holocaust. It was deeply disturbing. The matter could be put syllogistically:
Historic catastrophes resulted in severe collective amnesia; the world's peoples, having
suppressed their memories of catastrophe, are compelled psychologically to recreate the
conditions for reliving them; thus emerge warfare, massacre, self-destruction and the
destruction of others, man-made holocausts. Whereupon one reasons: the Germans, like all
peoples, have suppressed the memories of them; like all other peoples, they are prone to
recapitulate them and do so on occasion, as during the Nazi period.

Now the process implies a therapy. To cure the penchant for human destruction, the victims of
collective amnesia (practically everyone) must be led to confront and appreciate the extent to
which their minds contain the experience of past catastrophe and hence the seeds of future
ones; once this is done, the human will realize the meaning of his conduct and control it so as
to break the endless chain of disaster. What is good for all peoples must therefore be good for
the Germans. Hence any effort to cure the Germans of their collective amnesia is to be
commended and supported.

This, in brief and with such defects as I shall point out, was Velikovsky's social philosophy,
and this everyone who paid any attention to V. knew to be his philosophy, and Marx clearly saw
this, too, and was fully persuaded of it from his reading and from his early communications
with V. He was deadly serious about it.

Long before all of this, on December 18, 1963, we find V. writing to Dr. Zvi Rix in Jerusalem:
"I found two of your ideas magnificent, the hatred of the Jews because they claim of having the
upheaval made for their benefit (the Hyksos actually profited) and the words of the Gospels
about the fiery furnaces and Hitler's accomplishing such vision and doom (by expolarizing his
own hateful traits)." Again in a letter of January 7, 1964, he calls the idea "stupendous." He
"wished that somebody else should write "The Great Fear," because he is so busy, but suggests a
cooperative book, to which he might also contribute. Nothing came of this highly unusual
disposition to engage in collaborative work.

In 1947, V. journeyed to the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, to receive an
honorary doctorate. The Conference in which he starred was devoted to the topic of collective
amnesia. His own address was subtitled "The Submergence of Terrifying Events in the Racial
Memory and Their Later Emergence." There he commented that "the inability to accept the
catastrophic past is the source of man's aggression... Warfare has its origin in the same
terror." Leaders imitate what they perceive to be the gods in action. Nobel Peace Prizes have
been futile. Freud, V.'s predecessor, first developed the theory that each individual desires
subconsciously to repeat the catastrophe or trauma, which he believed to be the murder of the
father, the Oedipus Complex.

In place of collective amnesia from the murder of the father, V. substituted collective amnesia
from the trauma of natural disaster. His therapy, like Freud's, was to get the patient to
realize the origin of his trauma. With Freud, the aim was not to realize the primordial murder,
but to realize the oedipal complex operative in infancy. With V. it could not be this easy;
catastrophes do not occur with every generation; therefore natural and human history required
exposition in the light of catastrophism. Velikovsky accused many scientists of functional
blindness, psychic scatoma, which he would probably assign in large part to collective
functional amnesia of the anciently experienced disorders of the solar system. Thus, on
November 2, 1974, he was saying at a Philosophy of Science Conference at Notre-Dame:

Astronomers do not like interference from other sciences, and certainly not from what could be
called 'legends and old wives tales... ' The ancients tried desperately to tell us what was
going on... We wish not to know anything of this. We wish to believe we are living in a
peaceful world.

As a psychoanalyst, he was professionally unable then to accuse them of sin. They could not
help themselves. He could not denounce them even if they refused to see when the truth was
explained to them. He had simply to grant that their therapy was incomplete. The excesses of
their attacks upon the analyst were to be expected and treated by inducing self-understanding.

But he was personally involved, which is an impropriety, He became a kind of Catholic
psychiatrist, who has to tell his patients that they are sinners. Worse, since he is sinned
against, he became inevitably angry with the sinners. There was no "Forgive them, Father, for
they know not what they do." The German national case of psychic scatoma was, of course, much
more deadly than the case of the scientists.

V. writes, "You cannot put the human race on the couch." And then he looks at his own fate.
"Without preparation, without giving the patient a chance to prepare himself, you cannot slowly
release from his subconscious mind the necessary recognition of the traumatic past, and so, the
patient has experienced great paroxysms and has rebelled against my revelations." But now, by
patients, V. means specifically the scientific community that opposed his ideas, which like
humanity as a whole, rejects bringing to the surface memories of natural catastrophe.

Many of V.'s supporters agreed with these propositions, Christoph Marx certainly did, and some,
like Marx, wanted to devote themselves to its application. Not so Deg, who found both the
theory and the therapy grossly simplistic. Having spent most of his life in examining human
ideologies and devising techniques of changing, controlling, and accommodating them, Deg had
long since abandoned hope of finding a quick fix for human destructiveness.

V. hardly recognized in his psychological theory what was so obvious in his history and in the
reception of his book, that over all of history and today, the vast majority of humans and
their religions actually demands that we recognize, denominate, and respond in every sphere of
life to the occurrence of ancient catastrophes of fire flood, wind and earthquake.

Destructiveness seemed to Deg "normal," "intrinsically human," ineradicable without genetic
engineering and breeding. It could only, by known political means, be diverted, shaped, made to
play games with itself, rendered innocuous, and displaced in a hundred ways. Destructiveness
was neither more not less created by natural catastrophe than human nature in its other
behaviors, including an abstract active concern for the human race as a whole. Further there
was probably a genetic switch, prompted by catastrophe as were most mutations and primary
behaviors, that had changed a primate quickly into a human. These ideas were developing in his
mind throughout the seventies, as the theory of Homo Schizo.

When, after V.'s death, I passed along to Deg a copy of the posthumously edited work, Mankind
in Amnesia, that Jan had given to me, widely advertised as V.'s great testament, called by
himself his most important work, Deg was prepared to be disappointed. When I said "How did you
like it?" he said "Even more disappointing than I had expected it to be. Simplism is still the
hallmark of the theory. Systematic development is entirely absent. The evidence is second-hand
and commonsensical for the greater part. The recommendation for social therapy is nil."

Deg felt a deep chagrin. "The work is true only on the most general level, and therefore
unoperational and inoperative. It contains jottings and exclamations. It reads like a string of
notes. Its publication could only have been justified as 'notes and stories, ' or 'Velikovsky's
Lament. ' Dr. V.'s claim to be a 'citizen of the world' is unacceptable, unless any person's
declared wish that the world not be blown up by nuclear bombs makes the person a 'citizen of
the world'." Nor was V., in fact, for all his high qualities, ever such.

The work is too brief for its purported task. Still it wanders; it contains extraneous matter.
Too, the work had been long in the making; on July 2, 1967, V. had written Deg that he had
"decided to concentrate upon it," at the urging of his publisher. He concluded the same letter:
"Keep well, write again, and infuse yourself with impressions that will make out of you a
ringing advocate of a need to understand the racial hidden springs of hatred." No need for
exhortation: Deg had been such a resounding advocate since childhood.

In reading the new book, Deg had to reflect upon the fact that V. and he had never discussed
the work, whether because there was nothing to discuss or because V. wanted to talk of less
important matters or because Deg was uninterested in the theory beyond the basic fact, with
which he accredited V., the fact that ancient natural catastrophes have played a large role in
human and natural history. As much as he believed in the high value of introspection and of the
deep interplay of honest minds, Deg had long before meeting V. assigned only a limited
potential for good in a knowledge of true history.

"Psychological revelation" would help the world, commented Deg. "Philosophy and anthropology
well insist upon this point, but the means for such are not given by V. (see p. 207 of Mankind
and Amnesia) and therefore the statement will hardly perform the miracle. I can hardly believe
that he says psychology and sociology had nothing to say about the Jonestown (Guyana) massacre
and mass suicide, yet he does say so, whereas the dynamics of this event were crystal clear to
the ordinary social psychologist."

Where is his evidence of a 'racial inheritance' of an experienced fear, an attitude, no less.
This is a Lamarckian genetics that I cannot accept. I asked V. once, in the 1960's, for his
idea of what physiological process memories could use to ensconce themselves in the racial
soma, to which he gave no response. He didn't show me what, if anything, he was writing. I
would have been most critical. He read my Lethbridge lecture on fear and memory. I give him my
first sketch of Homo Schizo theory, but I doubt he paid any attention to it, although there I
made explicit the only dynamic by which Freud and Lamarck might be married, through
psychosomatism. Yet V., who was repelled by Jung's complaisance with the Nazis, would not admit
to being a Jungian. Moreover, his ethnocentrism is again apparent. He attributes significance
to the presence of the five-pointed star of Venus on the helmets of American, Soviet and
Chinese soldiers (only an American general officer is in fact authorized to wear the emblem),
but he does not mention the ubiquity of the Star of David in the ancient Israeli army (p. 201);
did V. or his editors delete the "Mogen David of ancient Israel or even of Israel of today"
that he had joined with the others in his Lethbridge lecture (p. 27 of Recollections of Fallen
Sky)? He indulges freely in anti-Arab statements (p. 150 et passim).

In his vagaries, he does not however mention any of his close associates; Stecchini is found in
a footnote (p. 67) also A. M. Paterson (p. 66), and the mention of Rose was a post-mortem
insertion. He mentions several correspondents; a temporary assistant, Cathy Guido; a New York
City teacher; a jail inmate; a man from Topeka, Kansas, writing on tornadoes, and a
conversation with St. Clair Drake, which meeting he placed in the Swiss Alps without
acknowledging that the two were there at Deg's invitation as part of a revolutionary experiment
in higher education aimed at diminishing destructiveness and creating a beneficent and
benevolent world order (p. 111). But the most striking omission in the rambling work is that it
sidles past the Nazi Holocaust. Of the purest, and best-documented case in history of the
working of his theory of aggression and amnesia, not a word is said! [Actually there were a
very few words alluding to the German case, and these were excised by Mrs. V. before

And Deg wanted to go on, but I stopped him. The question of anti-semitism interested me more,
so I got him into this track. In Deg's opinion anti-semites define Jews and Jews define anti-
semitism, both in their many forms.

As to how many types of Jews there are, I know of no classification. First you have to grade
Jewishness as a subjective feeling, an intensity, say of five grades. Then these are role-
operative, transactional, that is. If I feel somewhat Jewish, this is fully or moderately or
little sensed, depending upon whether I am transacting socially and psychologically in a
setting dominated by the perspective: much, some or little of my ordinary moderate Jewish
sentiment by the objectification of Jews that the gentile setting exudes. So at any point in
time or space, I am liable to be in any one of hundreds of states of Jewishness. Moreover, my
character possesses 'X' degree of stability, but is never so stable that my sense of Jewishness
cannot be stepped up or stepped down by my hormonal balance, or some other physiological or
sensory balance, as, for instance, when depressed, I may feel more Jewish, and so, too, when
manic, but less so in between. And of course, all that I say about my type and other type of
Jews are averages of quantities.

But now you must go farther. The historical knowledge and life experiences of Jews differ
greatly, hence the symbols and references to which we respond, which are so varied. The
physical signals of Jewishness are of course symbols, too. To some Jews I "look Jewish," to
others rather so, to some not at all, and so to gentiles. There is a Jewish look, which is a
combination of a culture-look and a genetic-look. It has a set of grades of attractiveness and
repulsion, one set among Jews, another among gentiles, depending of course upon which Jewish or
gentile culture and sub-culture you are using as the standard. And with all of these
possibilities the area of Jewishness and gentile-ness and their interrelations is most complex
and varied.

This very state of complexity, in which no Jewish race, or culture, or religion, or
nationality, or historicity, can be said to aggregate more than a small fraction of those who
think themselves some kind of Jew or are regarded as a Jew, fosters anti-semitism, because
among strongly authoritarian and dogmatic characters, perhaps 10% of any population, the
tolerance of ambiguity and variation is low. Objects and people must be pigeonholed; they
cannot help themselves; that's the way they are and they are eager for any distinction that
will discriminate, any line that can be drawn, "a drop of Jewish blood" or "a Jewish
grandparent," or, on the other hand (and this is often forgotten), sometimes, a thoroughly
rigid character will accept as such any person who says "I am a Jew" and then also any person
who says "I am not a Jew," like not questioning a person who says "I am a Chicago Cubs fan." or
"I am a Dallas Cowboys fan." Since the same authoritarian or discriminating character is also
inclined to penalize ambiguities, he is at one and the same time eager to define a Jew and to
penalize the Jews for being so difficult to define.

Velikovsky, I should say, and even more so Mrs. Velikovsky, perceived the world strongly as Jew
and gentile. Mrs. V. was a fine artist, a fully acculturated Judeo-Christian as a musician and
a sculptor, but voted the straight party line, so to speak, when it came to Jewishness on most
other matters, including holidays, diet, and intimacy. The big chasm in V.'s tradition of
Jewishness was opened up by modern western science; he lacked belief in the substance of
Judaism, whatever his participation in its rites and routines and despite his refusal to
discuss religious preference with any one.

The Velikovskys were among the "most Jewish Jews" whom Deg had known, even though he had from
childhood held Jews among his closest friends and, while he had something of the heart of a
Catholic and the culture of a Protestant, he had the mind of a Jew, a twentieth century
"assimilated" midwestern American Jew, that is. That was what his wife of thirty years was too,
except that she originated in New York. He was more a Jew than an Italian, although his descent
was purely Italian, even of certain Sicilians who had been the most nationalist of Italians,
but this line had practically stopped at birth with a father who was chauvinistically
determined upon the Americanization of everyone (except musicians, it sometimes seemed).

V. couldn't comprehend this very well. He tended to stereotypes and would conspire up an ethnic
image of everyone. When once he wrote to Matthew Harris of Doubleday Publishers, upon his own
insistence, a letter advancing a book scheme of Deg, he said, "You know, of course, who
Professor Alfred de Grazia is. He is fierce fighter for causes he thinks just; thus he fought
for my cause but occasionally we disagree. I would think that born in a different place and
time he would have become a Sicilian captain roaming the seas; then Medicean Florence put an
aura around him even before he first visited the country of his ancestors..."( Dec. 28, 1968).
Perhaps so, but Deg's great dream as a boy of the prairies was "riding off into the Golden

Stecchini was Italian by birth and upbringing, but that was not all of it. He had studied in
Germany for one of his several degrees and picked up another at Harvard. "Did you know that
Stecchini was of a Jewish father?" Deg asked V. one time, to observe his reaction. "No." "His
father was a prominent Italian anti-Fascist named Levi who had finally to flee the country. And
his mother was a countess." V. was surprised, and Deg was surprised at his surprise, for V. had
now known Stecchini for some years, and they had been together scores of hours.

V. was certainly able to work well with gentiles. With Freud, who was an assimilationist, there
had been concerns and crises over the role of gentiles in psychoanalytic circles; nothing could
be observed of a tension of conflict along such lines in V.'s circle, no more than there had
ever been in Deg's circles. Time after time, Deg was asked about V.'s religious beliefs by
members of an audience, but remarkably, there was no hint of antisemitism in the question, nor
did he ever perceive any among V.'s many acquaintances.

Deg surmised that Christoph Marx was a Jew for various reasons (despite his Christian name,
which was not heard in the Velikovsky household or correspondence) for V. had a tendency, in
matters familial and financial, to draw into Jewishness. Deliberately one day, when Elisheva
was remonstrating against Marx, Deg said he supposed that Immanuel thought he might have
confidence in a Jewish representative when dealing with Germans. She was astonished -- Marx
Jewish? -- not at all. Nor did Immanuel ever think so. Deg convinced her he was so, or perhaps
of Jewish and Christian parentage, and she said, "That must be it. They are the worst." And
then she telephoned Deg who had been laughing at her to say of course she didn't mean that,
meaning of course that she recalled that Deg's children were all of mixed Jewish-Christian
parentage. As it turned out, when Deg told him the story, Marx confirmed that he was not

When after V.'s death, Warner Sizemore (" to get money for the cause") ventured into Amway
consumer-business circles and into the formation of a "far-out" protestant church, he told Deg
how surprised he was at the manifestations of anti-semitism among folk in such circles. That's
to be expected, Deg advised, for the world of the aspiring small businessmen and
millennialists, with its rural, radical protestant, and poorer base, held large contingents of
anti-semites in America and Europe. Yet, also, this same base provided, at least among its more
educated elements, many enthusiastic readers of Worlds in Collision and Ages in Chaos. Since
the first Puritans, America has attracted the "true Israelites," the Christian who had been
persecuted by the Jews and Romans.


by Alfred de Grazia



When Deg was proofreading Chaos and Creation in 1981, he recalled a half-century earlier
overhearing Bob, his Scoutmaster, confide to a deacon of St. Chrysostom's Episcopal Church in
Chicago, "Sex rears its ugly head everywhere." The recollection was triggered because among
innumerable problems foreseen and unforeseen there occurred in remote India the castration of
Geb. As illustrated in the book (p. 125) Nut the Egyptian Sky Goddess reaches down to embrace
pronouncedly ithyphallic Geb the Earth God. But the printer's proof of the illustration that was
sent back by Popular Prakishan Pvt. Ltd. reached Deg sans phallus. I quote now Deg's admirably
restrained letter of January 29, 1981, p. 2, point 3:

I note that the phallus of the god of earth on figure 15a has been removed. This drawing is a
famous archaeological figure and should not be tampered with. Was the excision made for fear of
censorship or customs and prolonged controversy? I had no idea that there would be a problem. I
don't want to delay the books by even a day. But it takes two sexes to mate, even Sky and Earth
in mythology, so a semblance of masculinity has to be restored. I will be criticized as an
unreliable author by many people as matters stand (unless directly beneath the caption 15a on
page 125 there is printed in parentheses -- "Earth's exaggerated phallus has been removed-
reduced? - by the printer to conform to Indian government censorship regulations").

Back comes the reply of Mr. M. G. Shirali, Production Manager, dated February 2, p. 1:

Re: 'the mystery of the missing phallus' - figure 15a, page 125 - let me explain. You will
recall this drawing was traced out by our artist from the original Xeroxed sheet you had sent,
which you will remember, contained a lot of other things such as minute specks. This being
possibly photographed from a stone mural or some such thing. So while tracing out just bare out
lines, as you desired, this somehow just got lost in the maze of specks. Believe me, never for a
moment did we think of tampering with, nor was the excision made in deference to the customs,
nor for fear of censorship. Pure and simple it was an unintentional slip. Please accept my
sincere apology for the lapse on our side and also my thanks to you for pointing it out. And now
it has been 'arranged to be restored to the rightful place'!!!, as you will see when the final
proofs come to you.

The new proof returns. The phallus was restored-by half. Persisting, and because he fears that
the original has been mutilated beyond use, Deg writes on March 28,1981:

Enclosed is a copy of the famous Nut and Geb picture. It occurs to me that, without any
redrawing, a cut should be made of this as it is leaving the shading, which is from the original
papyrus, and thus the picture will not appear so prominent. I think this would indeed be an
improvement. It is, after all, only a detail in an immense work. To repeat, photograph the new
drawing exactly as it is here, and thus keep the shading in the final cut.

Indeed sex does pop out of all corners in the material of human history and is especially
illuminating in regard to catastrophic events. It remarkable how V. managed to suppress
sexuality from becoming a major theme of this circles. It would have been easy to follow a path
similar to the one of Wilhelm Reich who found in a kind of electromagnetic life force,
expressible in sexuality, the beginning of an answer to all things, including a kind of
communism for which he was evicted from the communist party in Germany.

Elsewhere, in The Burning of Troy and in related pages of the SISR, a story is told of how V.,
following Cicero, claimed the root of Venus to be the word venire, meaning 'to come', and
therefore the planet must be newly arrived, but Lowery, analyzing the words, finds them
unrelated, nor is this the first time Lowery and the tribe of linguists dashed cold water
against the heated claims of catastrophists. Christoph Marx and Deg independently found a subtle
connection that Lowery missed and I take leave to quote from a paper circulated by Marx dated
May 8, 1982:

Easy to see now how Venus from 'venire' is quite equal to Venus standing for 'love' because to
love -- if successful -- is the same as to come (as anybody past adolescence may experience).
The dream-like efficiency of the term 'ven' may easily be judged by those with the faculty of
imagination and an analytical turn of mind. To make visible the tradition of violence embedded
in the term I would only add the example of a French porno movie, in which 'to come' produces
"The End of the World" (the film title). It shows, of course, the love-making while the atomic
rockets are on their way, but only in the end we see how they were released in the first place.
Merrily, the president of the United States and the General Secretary in the Kremlin over the
Hot Line are exchanging their experiences while being serviced by their beautiful private
secretaries: the President of God's Own Country comes, and in his ecstasy hits the red button,
leaving mankind with a movie's length of final lovemaking = coming.

Etymology must begin with the study of Arno Schmidt and James Joyce who purposefully used and
analyzed etym addressing. Etymology is not at all the successful tool Lowery makes it out to be
when, e. g., he points to the reconstruction of the ancient Egyptian language: the decipherment
of the hieroglyphs was not an achievement of etymology, and whoever has read a translation, say,
of a literary text such as the Book of the Dead can not but agree that there is hardly anything
more senseless in the way of expensive books --understandable perhaps to the translator's
analyst, but certainly not the ancient author. Etymology for the present is not more than a
systematized part of established science, the mechanism for the continued repression of the

Electricity has in folklore been connected with sexuality, just as has the coinage and usage of
words. Jerry Ziegler, a physicist, in the 1970's circulated his work on ancient knowledge of
electrostatics and a copy come to Deg who got in touch with Ziegler and recommended his study to
V. who ignored it, but Deg began to develop it in a number of ways. This was not uncommon; V. 's
closest associates moved in their own way; Sizemore was aware of a world of marginal sciences
that he would not discuss with V.; so Stephanos, as will be seen; so Juergens who moved toward
it, because of V., first to be near him, then to be away from him; so Bill Mullen; and the
British heretics, so devoted yet so independent of thought.

Ziegler found many associations of ancient religion with electrical practices, and persuasively
in his YHWH informs us of what interested so persistently and for so long the ancient sects in
their mountaintop ceremonies. To be near to the gods, yes, but to be near the sources of
enhanced electrical stimulation, too. The people, led by priests, went up the mountains for
ecstatic purposes where religious rites and sexual experience were joined. Electrical discharge
was supposed to enhance the sexual libido.

Significantly, when in modern times there began many experiments with electricity, following the
invention of the Leyden Jar, the scientist Sigaud tried to pass an electric shock through a
company of grounded men, a trick that others had achieved, and when the attempt failed, he
suspected that one of the company was "less than a man," a eunuch or castrato, that is; but
then, as Heilbron's history tells the story, it developed that these, too, jumped where
discharge was passed, and were electrically conductive.

But Zvi Rix, of all the cosmic heretics, went farthest into the exploration of correlations
among ancient religious practices, sexuality, and commentary disasters. Marx took over his
manuscripts from his widow, but the task of disentangling them and reformulating them into
fairly conventional prose proved to be arduous.

When he was a boy, Deg believed that sex was a simple function: a male found a female, like an
arrow shot from a bow pierces the bulls-eye of a target. For the several years that he was
confined to autoeroticism, his fantasies and exercises, occurring privately, aimed at real
female acquaintances and attractive female images in equal proportions. By increments of
experience and learning, before he was forty, he could publish the article of a friend in
Psychology at the University of Minnesota, arguing that sample surveys might be improved if they
solicited information that would place the respondent on scales of masculinity-femininity,
allowing sex to be a finer variable, capable of more meaningful correlations with other
behavioral variables like "political candidate preferences."

By the time he was sixty, though still an active heterosexual, the image of the arrow and the
bulls-eye had resolved into the image of a fragmentation bomb, striking promiscuously and
erratically in all directions. Homo Schizo, it seemed, from his beginnings and forever after,
had lost, sexually as with all drives, close instinctual guidance and gained an uncontrollable
but vast world. The modern theory is that if you don't find indications of homosexuality in a
man and lesbianism in a women, you have an unusual person who is rigid and lacking in affect.

Roger Peyrefitte, a French writer, ex-diplomat and professed homosexual, discussed and wrote
about what he regarded as the homosexuality of Jesus and his apostles. He was challenged to a
duel by a fiery Spanish psychiatrist, but refused the test. The same understandably underground
theory was shared by V., but Deg was unimpressed, not needing V.'s innuendoes, meaningful glance
and obvious reluctance to say so, but still V. had to let the cat out of the bag, like "you
know, there is much to be said in this regard about Jesus." But Deg had no doubt that the
tradition went back to the nasty cirumstancs surrounding the trial of Jesus. I'm sure they
called him everything, he said, not disagreeing but not caring at the time to plumb V.'s data
base on the question. There was little Deg could not find a place for in his mind, ranging from
Jean Genet to Don Juan, and all the ambiguous feelings, attitudes and practices in between.

The closest V. comes to offering a theory of sexuality occurs in Mankind in Amnesia. There he
asserts that neurosis is based upon narcissism, ultimately, the autistic libido that has to be
located and treated first of all (p. 162). This done, the therapist must move to the treatment
of homosexual problems and then into alleviation of the Oedipus complex. The theory is rather
directly one of Freud's many, and V. generally arrived at these several stages quickly with his
psychiatric patients. Fifteen minutes is often enough, he said to Deg, to understand what is
going on with a patient. Repeated visits and phonecalls were to be expected, of course. V. was
remarkably prudish. Over the years, he gave Deg the impression which actually was obvious at
first but scarcely believable in a psychiatrist, that he operated on the idea that "men are men"
and "women are women," a simplistic notion. He seemed not to notice that several of his most
brilliant and active supporters might have been homosexuals of one kind or another. Fight off
the homosexual urge, he seemed to be saying, and stamp out the narcissism that stands beneath
it. Laius, father of Oedipus, had introduced, according to legend, the practice of "unnatural
love" (V.'s term) in Ancient Greece (which, insists V., is at the origin of the terrible curse
upon his house).

Onetime in America and once in England, Deg was asked with a certain wonder about homosexuals in
the movement. Their participation was not surprising, he answered; no movement is a rational and
random selection from the population, no more than the establishment it stems from; homosexuals
are more active in innovative and intellectual movements; all that we know of the sources of
creativity and cultural change would be contradicted if they were not. New movements, whether
scientific, cultural, political, religious, or social do not come from the average norms and
normals of a culture.

Deg ought to have explained fully, right out of his reading of Oedipus and Akhnaton, which so
impressed him. There, on pages 48 to 50, is told the story of Amenhotep III, father of Akhnaton,
and of the Roman Emperor Hadrian, and of the Greek's and Oriental's indulgence of homosexuality,
and the Hebrews' condemnation of it. In a delicate lacework of widesweeping history V. manages
the following pejoratives regarding homosexuality: "Greek love," "invert," "iniquity," "spoiled
by," "contemptible," "work their will (on Lot's guests)," "horrible retribution" (Laius'
descendant at Thebes): throughout the passage, luxury, splendor, power, idleness, extravagance,
high culture and civic freedom are dwelt upon as the ambiance of homosexual inversion. No
wonder, thinks the innocent reader, that Akhnaton was so queer. But Akhnaton is not the issue
here. Three features emerge from the passage: V. absolutely rejects homosexuality; homosexuality
is portrayed as an exotic and attractive luxury of high cultures; V. does not, here or
elsewhere, appear outwardly punitive to homosexuality.

Deg could name a half-dozen of his acquaintances, all of V. 's circle and on at least three
sides of any argument that came up --not a clique, that is -- who were homosexuals, but he never
thought of what might be the seductiveness of V. both at close hand and at a distance. For my
part, being more distant from the scene, I would guess that V. subtly presented the image which
homosexuals in those years (not the present liberationist gays) could best accommodate to: a
stern attitude exuding a luxuriant bath of guilt and a seeming tolerance, delicacy and
understanding precluding any but the most "delicious" punition, which was necessary for the
enjoyment of their homosexual feelings. (Nor to be fully aware, have we of Western culture quite
learned to enjoy heterosexuality without guilt and fear of punition.)

V. liked Nina, Deg's second wife, who was at the Swiss college on and off. Deg recalls an
especially vivid image of the two of them silhouetted in the sunshine and snow against the Alps
on the road to Haute-Nendez, talking volubly in Russian. Long after, Deg was reporting to him
that Nina had gone to Berlin to marry Peter Bockelmann -- a fine musicologist said Deg, and a
fine man. Whereupon V. began to speak of Tolstoi's "Kreutzer Sonata," a story in which a
husband, according to V., enjoys sexuality homosexually by turning his wife over to another man.
Deg was amused at this. He had been happy that she had found so good a friend after their
separation. What were V.'s motives for the story --his liking for Nina, his dislike of Germans,
his need to carry a dubious theory into every human relation, a jealousy of Deg's philandering,
a homosexual impulse of his own? That is to say, when it came to conjecturing and examing
motives, Deg was unwilling to let others escape. Or perhaps V. just had not gotten the story
straight; the couple separated, but they were still friends: it was a plot not to be found in
V.'s manual.

One of the sillier passages in V.'s Mankind in Amnesia propounds the idea that nations have a
masculine or feminine character, Germany and France being among his examples (pp. 140-2). This
kind of social psychology is not only unproductive, but also false (like Mussolini once in anger
calling the Germans a "nation of barbarians and pederasts") and only made Deg more irritated at
V.'s pretentiously published book.

For the infant college in the Alps, Deg had invented a concept which he called, "rapport
psychology" that was intended to be a form of group encounter usable for the "Kalotic" world
order. He wrote in the Bulletin of the School:

The basic rapport group usually consists of eight to fourteen members and the leader or
facilitator. The group uses verbal and non-verbal exercises and encounters, and typically has no
set agenda. It uses the feelings and interactions of group members as the focus of attention.
This allows for maximum of freedom for personal expression, the getting in touch with feelings,
and interpersonal communication. Emphasis is on open, honest and direct interactions among
members in an atmosphere that supports the dropping of defenses and social masks characteristic
of normal academic relationships. Rapport group members come to know themselves and each other
more quickly, deeply, and fully than is possible in the usual academic situations; ordinarily, a
strong feeling of group solidarity develops. The resulting climate of openness, risk-taking,
honesty, and trust displaces feelings of defensiveness, rigidity, and mistrust. Members can
identify and alter self-defeating attitudes and behavior patterns, and explore and adopt more
innovative and constructive ones. In the end, most members can experience daily life and work
more pleasurably than before, on campus and off.

Deg was trying to connect the personal to the universal without the usual intervening madness.
Amidst the continual hubbub of hand-to-hand struggle at the new school, he could not
operationalize the theory of the Rapport Center. He left it to the attention of his brother
Edward and B. J., a group leader whom Ed had recruited from his experience at the famed center
for group therapy at Esalen, and to the students, aged 18 to 28. At one moment in a group
session, on the way to the brave new world, two men decided that they would make love to each
other and went off, after which one, a virgin in such matters, "tossed his cookies" in a rush of
shame and disgust.

The word got to Deg and to V. as well, who accosted Deg on an alpine pathway and denounced such
conduct nor, said he, will I stay on these mountains with this going on. Deg solemnly and
reassuringly listened, and told Ed "What the hell happened there anyhow?" He didn't expect much
of an answer, nor got one. The Rapport Center remained popular and undirected to the new world
order, whence I remind my readers of two axioms: few truly wish and are psychically prepared to
address themselves to the necessary new world, and "bringing life into the classroom" is a
beloved pedagogical expression with absurd possibilities.

V. stuck it out on the mountains -- actually he enjoyed his stay -- but he could not help but
slip a reminder of the incident, camouflaged, into his notes and ultimately into Mankind in
Amnesia, where, in a diatribe against both the old and the new, he says( p. 185):

The rebellion of the young was full of hope -- the millennium was about to begin. The hair was
grown long. John the Baptist was imitated in appearance, but the rebellion was against
asceticism as well as against materialism; regulations were to be violated, young and not-so-
young flocked to 'rapport-psychology' which struck out Freud and the rest of the 'schools';
orgies were practiced as curriculum in some campus classrooms as the call came for tearing down
all inhibitions.

But V. did not pursue sexual investigations of Jung or Marx, contenting himself with stressing
the obvious resentment of Jung at being regarded as a son. Bronson Feldman, a Velikovsky
acquaintance and supporter, introduced sexual analysis to back up V.'s claims, but we must
remember how chary was V. to let anyone claim to represent his several views, with every
excellent reason. Feldman, who became understandably mad and confused when dealing with Central
European anti-semitism, added little to historical reconstruction.

He did point out, for instance, that V. had misstated a famous report of Freud's swooning in the
presence of Jung and others. V. forgot to mention that not only had Jung been defending the
efforts of Akhnaton to erase his father's memory but had just been hotly accused by Freud of the
great academic crime of non-citation of authority -- namely himself, Freud -- in his writings.
Thus Freud had taken two blows from his disciple and son, Jung, and probably a third unmentioned
blow, a Christian effort (at least a suspicion thereof) to bury a Jew's contribution to
knowledge; of this suspicion we have ample evidence, and of the fact, too, whether in Jung or in
Nazism, that the contributions of Heine, Mendelssohn, Einstein and many another Jew to German
high culture were buried. And, incidentally, Deg spoke in Politics for Better or Worse of the
recent era in America, "of those highly skilled and creative people who had built the arts and
sciences, half of them Jews," for he was irritated that in whatsoever history book or
sociological work on America no such statement, even the approximation of such a statement, is
to be found. But Jews are divided in their minds and amongst themselves whether to lay claim to
their achievements or to play them down to avoid envy and resentment.

The sexual verges upon the political, and the political, I must now make the point, verges upon
the sexual. I mentioned that V. was a prude -- or was he canny, realizing that scientists and
scholars are sexually repressed and in our civilization will not respect an authority who ties
in the sexual link too closely with the processes of the intellect? I would say V. was publicly
rather priggish, and privately more so. He did not like at all Stechini's introducing Peter
Tompkins to his circle, nor did Peter visit more than once, although a war hero, a man of some
fame then ( and more to come), of great personal attractiveness, and a potentially influential
supporter: why? Because Tompkins had written on cults and practices of eunuchs and virgins and
saw in the history of the planet Venus, which he credited to V., the mad unfolding of the human
mind into sexualized institutions.

With perhaps more reason, V was exceedingly wary of a "hippy bookman" in Manhattan, Theodore
Lazar, adorative of V.'s books, who wrote a pamphlet about Venusian-derived phallicism, the
commentary image as it entered so many ways into the brain and behavior of mankind. V. was
wrought up at Robert Stephanos, a Philadelphia school system psychologist, the most faithful,
pleasant and helpful of disciples, for pushing favorably the work of the New Yorker. And, later
on, he was angry to hear that Stephanos had been flirtatiously corresponding with a Southern
devotee and, not long afterwards, in a paranoiac mood, came to suspect that Stephanos might even
be purloining papers of his. You must remove him from the Board of Trustees of the Foundation
for Studies of Modern Science, he told Deg, the President, and others.

"Politics makes strange bedfellows," but so does science when it strikes out in new directions.
Whoever wants to sleep with the partner of his choice or to sleep alone must give up creative
dreams. V. sought hard to deny his bedfellows, but they were with him from the moment his book
struck a popular chord, attracting many who were looking for bedfellows. Not so strange, he or
his fellows, I hasten to stress. Just variegated.


by Alfred de Grazia



Great mysteries of existence such as human nature, divinity, time and governance are
intimidating. The ordinary person is content with a few slogans about them, a kind of
catechism, and to be allowed to make off with a piece of one of them -- so small as to be
indistinguishable, therefore safe to play with for life. There are also those few persons who,
emboldened by a successful encounter with a great mystery, become drunk with the genre and go
on a rampage, knocking over distinctions and laying claim to new territory extravagantly. You
can tell the type, if by no other sign, then by the way they have of looking upon the universe
as a cabbage patch and treating great historical figures as their neighbors.

One could see it long ago in Deg, who after taking the worst and the best of the army for four
years, came back finally and managed a Chicago election where, introducing his distinguished
professor Charles E. Merriam to a mass meeting (luckily the Fifth ward had the greatest
concentration of intellectuals in the world) he said enthusiastically that he had studied with
Merriam 'like Aristotle at the feet of Plato' and then was ribbed by friends and poignantly
embarrassed, so that as you see, even now he can remember to tell me about it.

Therefore it is no surprise that thirty five years later he can be treating Charles Darwin and
everyone else familiarly, even arrogantly, "What is your opinion of Darwin?" was, of course,
the question. The tape spun; Deg picked up his notes and spoke at the machine:

Charles Darwin was an apt hero for nineteenth century biology and the public and scientific
mentalities of the nineteenth century. He came from an expanding empire, did his "field work"
young; he lived for many years quietly, gestating his ideas; he published at the right moment
for coalescing the views of the scientific and cultural world; his theory of natural selection
was simple, vague, and in line with what the secular person thought was his own idea.

Now that his ideas are wearing out, the psychiatrists, methodologists, and philosophers have
picked him to pieces. He was an uncertain person, never a fully convinced Darwinist. In the
contemporary vein, R. C. Lewontin writes that "Darwin's work is filled with ambiguities,
contradictions, and theoretical revisions." Velikovsky once pointed out that if Darwin had
followed some of his own observations while on the voyage of the Beagle he would have become a
catastrophist. He almost became a Lamarckian at one point, so fetching is it when one's own
theory is indefinite, to imagine that the soma can be changed permanently by a forceful

"Darwin was ambitious, courted success and successful men, and cared for their approval:" again
these are Lewontin's words. So too was Velikovsky. In 1858, just before Darwin published the
Origin of Species by Natural Selection, he wrote that he did not yet feel set on the truth of
any point of his theory, and was in this state of mind when Alfred Wallace wrote from far away
to tell him about his own theory of natural selection.

When he consulted his friends, their solution was to hustle him into publishing his manuscripts
along with the essay of Wallace. What else could they do? Otherwise, Wallace would have
priority. As Darwin said, "All my originality, whatever it may amount to, will be smashed ...
It seems hard on me that I should be thus compelled to lose my priority of many years

But let us be clear...

Ignoring the machine, Deg produced a statement out of his drawer of epigrams; "I used to hate
epigrams," he said, but now I collect a few, "especially my own." He read: "Priority in science
is a political claim. It is of no interest to scientific advancement that A or B captured a
strong point first, so long as it was taken. A proposition is denuded of its generator. It ends
life as it began, in anonymity." He spoke feelingly, because a continual annoyance of a
generation of the Velikovsky affair was the bickering about claims and predictions.

The lead was unfortunately provided by Princeton physicist Valentine Bargmann and Columbia
astronomer Lloyd Motz when they assigned V. a priority on the heat of Venus and the radio
noises of Jupiter (upon his instigation) and recommended reading his work for further clues as
to what to expect. Such words from an astronomer and a physicist were naughty; they excited V.
and his followers and angered other scientists, all the more because they were involved
themselves in this racket.

The ideas of 'priority', 'prediction, ' and 'claim' are more political than scientific. The
word 'claim' connotes possessiveness -- not a happy human quality. V. liked the term; the press
liked it; ambitious scientists like it. and long years of struggle have gone on is such fields
as physics and psychology to try to assure people's claims to discovery, as if all of knowledge
is of little bits, ever-diminishing bits as well, that are owned by an individual forever.

Darwin need not have worried; his location, his friends, and the ample, ambiguous, diffident
qualities of his writing, pitched at the consensus of all-who-mattered, the 'happy few' of the
day, would assure his work 'priority. '

Velikovsky's work found no such consensus. Perhaps it deserved no such consensus. Perhaps it
earned at that point precisely what it deserved, and what Darwin's work deserved -- an
audience, a hearing, a turning of minds, a refurbishing of hypotheses, some of the patient,
indulgent, reflective, detailed processing that is supposed to characterize science but does
not markedly do so.

Deg's un-darwinian Homo Schizo was present for many years and began with the conviction that
man was essentially non-rational. When Deg first joined the faculty of Stanford University in
1952, he was working on the phrasing of Lasswell's law: political man displaces private motives
onto public objects and rationalizes them in terms of the public advantage. This conception had
burst upon political science in the 1930's, joined with pragmatism and neo-machiavellism, and
overran the 2300-year-old positions of rational-legal-institutional political science.

Deg radicalized the concept. He could not see anything extraordinary about Lasswell's political
man except in the intensity of his involvement with power. Too, he was critical of the notion
of rationalization, for since boyhood he had found everybody doing nothing but rationalization.
Therefore he suspected that reason and rationalism and rationality were really processes of
rationalization. When he came in the seventies to ponder the nature of man, he could now
perceive a brain structure and personality altogether of the schizoid type. His newer concept
was of instinct-delay, blocking, and displacement of the response to a stimulus, forcing
terrible self-reflection, and in the control of response to stimulus, forcing terrible self-
reflection, and in the control of these reflections -- the polyego -- there occurred the human
character. The essential polyego assured an eternal existential fear, whose high level, being
constant, goes generally unnoticed.

Homo sapiens, whom he finally termed homo sapiens schizotypus, is most rational when he is
acting (thinking being a form of acting) pragmatically, that is, calculating and adjusting to
the consequences of his behavior while transacting with an environment, both human and natural.
Logic, and hence science, and hence most of what is ordinarily called reason, develops as a
means of most efficiently connecting an entering stimulus with an effective response. In this
sense, man seemingly farthest removed from the animal kingdom, finds his triumph in emulating
instinctive response. He aims at reducing his high level of existential few by logical,
"rational", and scientific conduct.

But as the underlaid instinctual apparatus of the animal does not guarantee it against the
multiform assaults of nature, whether represented intraspecies or in the transaction with other
species and inorganic nature and whether uniformitarian or disastrous, so too man's efforts at
reconstructing and reinforcing his less genetic, delayed instinctual apparatus, are
continuously ineffective. All the achievements of the calculating and even scientific Homo
Schizo cannot win control over the self, others, and the natural world. As in the beginning and
even in the most rationalistic technical ages, Homo Schizo continues to rely upon the
organization of his far-flung displacements for adjustment and control of himself and the
world, so that religion, culture, and the arts are, if not preponderantly his road to
"happiness," most useful and welcome companions of pragmatic scientific conduct. Alone or
together, the sciences and the arts cannot create a creature other than Homo Schizo. Even if
they could, the monsters would be limited to some portion of their own envisioned ideal that
they could agree upon, and they would promptly regret having made such a substitute for the
unrealized larger portion of their ideal.

I should not try to explain the full theory here, not when two volumes about it are available
elsewhere. However, it is appropriate to comment that Deg began his development of the model of
Homo Schizo to test the Freud-V. theory that historical traumas produced a character who simply
had memory problems but was otherwise "rational" by nature. As I said, Deg was already
prejudiced against this idea, and it was no accident that he almost immediately placed the idea
of the intelligent evolving savage into a restricted enclosure. He searched instead for the
larger meaning of catastrophe, now quantavolution, that formed a different creature to begin
with. Primordial man was now catastrophized in two senses, first genetically and second in the
sense of reinforcement through repeated catastrophic experiences.

The latter, the reinforcement process, gave Deg no trouble; there was ample evidence of a "law"
operating whereby the intensity and duration of an experience (read "catastrophe") determined
and varied directly with the amnesia and compulsive sublimated recapitulations of the
experience. Further, therapy of such a condition (control over it, that is) was exceedingly
difficult, whether of the individual or of the collectivity.

More difficult was the establishment of the genetic basis of human nature. Here Deg found his
way, first by undermining the case for gradualist darwinian and anthropological evolution, and
second by discovering uniquely human variances in current research on the structure and
operation of the central nervous system. He came to attribute humanness to a brief glitch in
the stimulus-response system, which I mentioned above. How he visualized it becomes crudely
clear in a note from his files, entitled "Making a Chimp Talk: a Suggested Research Project on
a key element of Homo Schizo."


1. Homo Schizo theory says that mankind became human and is human today in connection with a
millisecond delay interfering with instinctive response.

2. The delay a) diffuses (displaces) percepts, concepts, and memories widely because of lack of
immediate response, b) forces the being to sense itself, that is, at least two selves, c)
activates existential fear mechanisms because of lack of control of a) and terror from lack of
control of b).

3. To tie itself (itselves) together, the being communicates with itself and the result of this
communication is inner language, the basis for external language.

4. External or social language occurs as the being continues its inner operations by external
means, employing whatever it can, such as gestures, utterances, and other signs and signals.

5. All of 1. to 4. above occurs with little relation to the size of the brain, with some
relation to hemispheric symmetry, and with relation to other possible delaying mechanisms. A
person can be raised to behave normally in speech and behavior with 1/ 10 of the brain matter
normally encased in the cranium provided that all elements of the brain are represented by
proportional fractions.

6. A chimpanzee brain is within the human functional limits so far as size is concerned. Its
vocal apparatus and other symbolizing mechanism are adequate. It is highly sociable animal, so
"presumably would like to communicate." Chimpanzees and other non-humans can learn many
isolated symbols... "but they show no unequivocal evidence of mastering the conversational,
semantic, or syntactic organization of language." (H. S. Terrace et al. 206 Science 23 Nov.

Thesis: Chimpanzees do not speak because they do not undergo an internal electro-mechanical
compulsion to speak.

Corollary: Chimpanzees would speak if their instinctive brain operations were continuously and
unconsciously blocked for milliseconds. [thus supplying the compulsion] Experiment Baby
chimpanzee Abel is subjected to partial commissurectomy; insulin injections to arrive at
constant 10% higher blood level; and background human videotape television plus human handling
as of normal babies of up to 26 months of age.

Hypothesis : Abel will at the age of 26 months emit 50% (rather than 20%) of the expansive
adjacent utterances of human infants of the same age (and proportionately more than chimpanzee
'Nein' of that age -- in the Terrace et al. experiment).

Corollary hypothesis: Availability of the conditioned animal will permit application of a full
range of tests of humanism, including intelligence, self-awareness, self-images, artistry,
aggressiveness, persistency (obsession) in task performances, memory and recall, with special
attention to the generation of the several components of schizotypicality, including various
tests of insanity.

Here I think that Deg is downright ignorant regarding the possibilities of Dr. Frankenstein's
experimentation with apes. The ape is a massive system of unique organic connections and
resultant behaviors: unless you get into the gene system and perform a systemic mutation there,
you will get nowhere by monkeying (excuse the expression) with the post-natal resultant. He
proposes to cause artificially a totally ramifying system of displacements, fear, and ego split
when all the settings of the ape's organism are deadset against alteration. The animal will
simply die. That is a much more logical and simple response than to undertake the enormous
burden of behaving like a human.

Deg's archive carries many another note of different kinds --sketches, designs, critiques. They
begin as a broadly spread-out and miscellaneous aggregate, and then come together as the book
is written, but many of them are locked out in the end. Here are three of the excluded ones,
let to view:

Deg's Journal, December 20, 1968

In pregnancy, especially during the last three months, when the placenta is largest, the
placenta manufactures a large amount of blood ceruloplasmin.

1. Ceruloplasmin alleviates many cases of schizophrenia 2. Women with schizophrenia are
alleviated towards end of pregnancy

3. Relapses and initiation into schizophrenia may occur following pregnancy, i. e. post-natal
schizophrenia is common.

4. Schizophrenia is 'split personality' disease traditionally, although Hoffer and Osmond deny
this definition, saying there are not two persons, despite hallucinations and feelings of
persecution. They are in a major sense right.

5. The correspondence of high C production with the period at which a woman faces the traumatic
need to split her baby from herself makes me think that the body protects itself (or the
'mind') from the effects of this traumatic experience by exuding into the blood a specific
defense against schizophrenia.

About this time there occur also various petulant scribbles on his readings viz.:

Glancing through The Scientific American's handsome volume on Human Variations and Origins, I
see many errors behind the skillful graphics. There is Eiseley's idiotic article on Lyell, for
example. The 'distinguished' academician knows much about his man's surface and nothing about
his dynamics, nor does he understand the real conflict between uniformitarian and catastrophic
evolution. Eiseley's reputation comes from a deadhead riding the commonplace, uttering mystic

Later in the book I see all manner of speculations treated as facts, simply because they come
from scientists. Man's spotty history is given a coherence by rhetoric, not data or even good

I see a picture. I read a caption. It shows an extremely tall negro and a short, chunky Eskimo.
The first's height is supposed to be an adaptation to heat, more surface per pound; the
latter's chunkiness is supposed to conserve heat. But whence the Swede? Whence the many fleshy
Africa Negroes? The Ibos, Pygmies, etc. Doesn't moisture and dryness of the air matter, etc.? I
have seen pictures of chunky short Indians of the Amazon and Orinoco tropical jungles.

The theory of evolution is full of hopeful guesses. I am working with a sample survey of
attitudes and experiences of the U. S. population right now. I am, as always, acutely impressed
by how the first relating of variables can mean nothing and always means nothing unless one is
satisfied that all the other factors are interpreted and counted. Women have the same accident
incidence as men: fine, but that's the end; afterwards all manner of crosscutting forces
changes the character of their accidents and incidence when compared in sub-groups.

The defensive scientist retorts irritably: 'But this is only popular science! We don't make
such errors in our real inside work. Nonsense. Every specialist is carried along on these so-
called popular currents, not to mention that he likes to call 'popular' anything that he
doesn't find agreeable or true. There is the beautiful image Merton and other students of
science, who are admirers of the image, employ: 'We are but pygmies, standing on the shoulders
of giants. ' We should also say, 'We are giants standing on the shoulders of pygmies, ' Or
better, 'We are monkeys, swinging carelessly along a dizzying network of vines mysteriously
placed and oriented.

' Sometime in 1970, Deg met biologist Dr. Karl Schildkraut of the Albert Einstein Medical
School through Dr. Annette Tobia. He was interested in Deg's University scheme and they talked
a couple of times about heredity. Perhaps these contacts brought about a note foreshadowing
some of his passages on evolution:

... Unless one resorts to an immense number of mutations (practically begging the question
whether uniformitarian or catastrophic), it impossible to conceive of the complex intra-
organism adjustments (changes) that must accompany an organic innovation, that is, 2n where n =
affected parts: if brain convolutes by mutation, then how many elements of the body must adapt
immediately ?

If all chromosomes and genes are linked, then there must be a chemical 'universal element, '
bringing about a total viable system change.

Note, too, the received evolutionary doctrine offers in evidence the numerous similarities of
all living cells. The same fact of universal similarity is applicable to the doctrine of
simultaneous systemic mutation, both regressive and progressive.

Deg sent an early version of the theory of Homo Schizo to Lawrence Zelic Freedman of the
Institute of Social and Behavioral Pathology at the University of Chicago at the suggestion of
Harold Lasswell. Freedman raised two issues with the theory, issues that Deg addressed in the
final work: Could man have been catastrophized other than by natural disaster and could a
catastrophe strike into the hominids en masse. Freedman wrote:

... The notion of contemporary man as a schizotypicalis is one which I find easy to accept, and
your adumbration of the contemporary social and psychological dilemmas of knowing --if not
understanding -- man, magnificently expressed... the elemental catastrophe of separation and
confrontation with hostile elements during the process of birth might be the individual
equivalent of the massive conformation with overwhelming stress which the model catastrophe
hypothesis demands.

Deg considered that human birth is not much more traumatic than anthropoid birth, hence, if it
has a greater psychic effect, that is because of a prior genetic constitution which has to be
explained. Freedman raised a second major issue: "the high probability that significant
elements in the general population would escape the pathogenic influences of the hypothesized

Deg worked out of his dilemma by devising a primordial scenario in which a radiation
turbulence, causing millions of mutations, altered the physiology of a given hominid such that
full schizophrenic behavior was promptly induced in its descendent and, by virtue of the
powerful capabilities of the individual, within a thousand years produced a multitude of
operative humans spread over a large territory. Alternatively, owing to a catastrophic
turbulence, a changed atmospheric constant might have constituted in effect a genetic change by
continuously, "ever after," conditioning a new hormonal state in a pre-potentiated hominid
species, in which event, the humanization process would have been speedier. That both
processes, genetic mutation and a changed critical gaseous constant, could operate
sympathetically was also foreseen.

Deg sent the same early booklet to his friend at the University of Haifa in Israel. Professor
Ernst Wreschner, who found the Homo Schizo theory especially vulnerable in regards to its
catastrophic scenario and the short time allowed for humanization:

I accept that Pleistocene upheavals, cosmic tektonic -- a combination of fire and water --
must have been for generations of homo erectus, Acheulean man, Ante-neanderthals, Neanderthals
as well as for some Cromagnon, and whatever names archaeologists give to them, an experience of
realities that were outside their powers of coping with mentally. It is feasible that by these
very experiences mechanisms could have been developed which enabled men to survive more or less
sane during times of the twilight of the gods. But I also believe that the very principle of
natural selection could and did cope with the possible influences of catastrophes or cosmic
radiation escalations. Either in the mutational sense or in the mentally adaptive or both.
Which would mean in biological and cultural fields. (...)

The postulation that catastrophes were always global and had overall consequences is untenable,
as is the date expounded for a decisive point in human history such as 13,000 B. C. (...) The
deep dualism in the human make up developed and existed in their "animal context" becoming
mentally or psychologically pronounced when selfawareness could fathom them. But this happened
in a process of culturisation and this forced men to deal with them, even without catastrophic
catalysts. (...) And language is also not a sudden creation. Many factors worked towards it,
biological (anatomical and cultural ones). Man is by nature an experimenter, based on the
mammalian trait of curiosity. It was 400,000 years ago that he experimented with fire and
limonite to get a result which was the red color mineral hematite. Many others after him,
either independently or by diffusion, hit on the same. Many thousands of years passed between
these experiments. And those with the developed brains put the red color to symbolic use, when
other beliefs needed a carrier for associations connected with life and death. Thus with the
first burials the red color in the form of ochre appears and afterwards red color symbolism in
many forms spread and you find it ever since in variegated ideational meanings, in burial
practices, myths, rituals, legends and ceremonials.

In reply, Deg seeks to explain their basically different ways of looking at human evolution:

25 December 1977 Dear Ernst: Don't look now, but it's Christmas Day, It's cold and rainy.
Saturn has come down with his disastrous reindeer from the North pole. I am hiding out, for a
couple of hours, nursing my cold, which is true, but also releasing my soul from the desperate
festivities, which I shall rejoin soon enough, and my appetite for turkey will be sated. I
shall try to behave with the appropriate jollity. I shall try not to be ironic, and not to make
too many anti-materialistic or even learned remarks. I have become incapable of joy "on order"
though I am quite eager for joy when I am in the mood. The holidays in our current world have
become twistings and turnings of human relations in an attempt to find some traditional form
that is quite alien to the form that they assume during the rest of the year. Ah, well, for the
moment it looks as if we might have peace in the Near East this next year, owing to that
remarkable Sadat who is neither Jew nor Christian, and probably not even a member of the CIA.

Both Kronos and the Review of the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies (England) have asked me
to publish my Homo Sapiens Schizotyicalis and I think it will be done. I am suggesting to them
that they ask you to prepare a commentary from your letters and other thoughts, if your time
permits, thinking that you will have half done the job already. Strangely, I think you have
understood my theory very well but you have not understood the weaknesses of your own
conventional flooring quite as well. If you will permit me to say so, I would assert that time
after time you (and that means a flock of learned gentry of evolutionary persuasion) will
employ sloganized concepts and terms to bridge whatever has to be crossed. Like the word "cope"
as "the principle of natural selection could and did cope with the possible influences of
catastrophes and cosmic radiation escalations." or employ the phrase "decisively influence" in
place of "created" to deal with the change in mind. That is, you have no mechanism for the
changes that occurred, but rather words that are accepted and unquestioned. And you say that
symbolism is created by the adequate faculties of man -- then and now -- to explaining things
rationally. But why does he have to explain? Why doesn't he just let the matter go by? None
demands that he explain, except himself, and this he does because he must control himself, and
thence the gods and others. That is, the reason for human reason is not reasonable, that is,
functional in the sense you put it, but he is compelled to a certain kind of reason by his very
being that has been changed, and the change is not reasonable but is simply the kind of change
that produced the new kind of being.

I have been reading the book by Walter Fairservis, called The Threshold of Civilization, as I
have thought about your letters, and I can see him to be unconsciously evading all of my major
points. He systemically lays out the division of societies into hunting gathering,
agricultural, and civilized (using useless terms), prettying up the old evolutionary sequence.
But how much hard evidence exists that hunting came before agriculture? I think that they came
together and that later on perhaps when a society became strikingly one or the other, secondary
differences occurred. To me, it seems logical that the earliest Homo Schizo went on for a
moment of time grabbing at all the bugs, carrion, and plants he would find, but discovering
right away that by escalated sign behavior and organization he could do immeasurably better
than before. That is, the gestalt of the certain permitted breakthroughs culturally along the
whole front of life. Think of what the Renaissance in Tuscany did with a few ideas; it
penetrated every shore of culture and did it within a few years. This was the Renaissance

From time to time, too, you mention long temporal periods as elapsing between events and I can
see that unless one frees himself mentally from the long-term evolutionary fame of mind, the
aggregate of events that I say happened almost simultaneously cannot by definition have
happened. So one must hypothesize the collapse of time, understand the dynamic that would then
be possible, and thereafter go back and look at time to see whether it is conceivable that we
are wrong in believing it to have been so stretched out. I realize that the odds seem
impossibly great against a short-time measuring rod. All I can say at this stage is that I have
spent some time with every method of measuring time that exists and in every case maybe found
some Achilles Heel. To give one instance, it is possible to make a case for Olduvai events to
have been contemporaneous with the destruction of the Cities of the Plain -- geophysically,
anthropologically and in legend. Not a good case, to be sure, but there has never been a study
with this hypothesis in mind. And what I have discovered is that the whole world of rocks,
skies, nature, and culture can be twisted into a short-term frame, hypothetically,
scientifically, to where a whole series of studies could without fantastic efforts give the
"yea" or "nay" to the general theories at stake...

Given so heretical an idea of man's origins and nature, we cannot expect less heresy in Deg's
religious views.

I think that Deg's troubles with religion and his carping at gods was because God is a Hero.
Deg did not like heroes, saying "Heroes are foreseeable accidents that befall a following." Let
us say that at the least he wanted a hero he should control, which is at least an ambivalence
if not a contradiction. This in turn had something to do with his early childhood, when there
was a benevolent, authoritative father and a brother older by a couple of years who was always
excelling, frustrating, lending help diffidently. Harold Lasswell in an impromptu speech at a
banquet one time, when both brothers were present, referred to 'Al' as generated out of
'sibling rivalry. ' I suppose that Deg had tried to manage Lasswell, that great god of many
social scientists, over the years and did the same with Velikovsky. There were other gods as
well, and probably he escaped being some great man's Boswell or Harry Hopkins because of his
persisting ambivalence or simple bivalence; it is not an uncommon trait, especially among
women, with whom Deg always felt at ease and in touch.

At one time he made the following note:

It should be an offense for anyone to speak in the name of gods, or to say that gods speak to
him, or to call upon gods to intervene in the world, or to treat anyone in the name of gods, or
to assign to gods human traits.

V. and Deg talked little about, and hardly searched for, religion and god. V. had no religion
and had never intended to possess one. Deg had no religion, always intended to discover one,
but seemed never fully to get down to the search; meanwhile he was forever peering into the
crevices where people kept their sacred idols and their firm or faltering notions, and he
acknowledged the value of religious discussions. V.'s indifference to religion annoyed him.
"God is an open question" was Deg's saying, and he stuck it into lectures and books and
conversation, meaning not only that God is in doubt but that God was in essence an Open

In November 1972, he makes a note to himself: "Reconcile V. 's intense jealousy of God as a
Jewish invention and V.'s expression to me of his belief in plural gods, and Yahweh as Saturn."
[ Actually V. thought Yahweh was Zeus, and Elohim was Saturn.] "I do reconcile them by saying
that V. changed too. His original belief changed even though the momentum of his original
routine drove him on. Compare him with the creationists, for example, Bass, Ransom, and others
not known except through writings (e. g. Donald Patten) who became quite good and imaginative
in scientific and humanistic work on a new secular plane." Here Deg is saying in effect that he
was sympathetic to and enjoyed the creationists, whereas V. thought that they were wasting
their time. Judaism was the tool of Zionism, so far as V. was concerned. It had little other
value but to claim additional authority for Isreal skywards as well as landwards. Martin Sieff,
studying V. from a distance, came to the same conclusions, which he expounded at an SIS

Velikovsky's life's record clearly identifies him as a Jewish cultural nationalist, his
youthful experience in the Moscow Free University, his great work in producing the Scripta
Universitatis in Jerusalem and in Berlin, his pioneering in the settlement of Palestine in the
1920's all fit firmly into this pattern. It is likely that he was early influenced by the
Russian Jewish Zionist writer Ahad Ha'am, who died in Tel Aviv in 1925, shortly after
Velikovsky himself had moved to Palestine. It is important to note here that such a cultural
nationalist identity stood very well clear of any religious commitment. Believers may search
Velikovsky's published works in vain for any mention or acknowledgment of God. The most they
will come up with is in the Theophany section of Worlds in Collision, a carefully oblique
reference which may be taken different ways, to "the great architect of the universe" This is
what makes the pseudo-scientific attacks on Velikovsky, by people who have not troubled to read
his books, so ironic. Velikovsky himself is in no sense a fundamentalist. His tampering with
the biblical texts as they stand and his antipathy to several of the major biblical heroes, as
well as major stands of the Hebraic religion, testify to that. Did Velikovsky believe in god?
In his very revealing 1967 interview with the Yale Scientific Magazine, one of the few
occasions when Velikovsky really lets has hair down, he stayed very well clear of this issue,
stating: "people are looking for something in my works, and they cannot find it." It is
doubtful, I would speculate, that Velikovsky was an agnostic, and I very much doubt that he was
an atheist. The sense of moral destiny, or right and wrong is too strong in his books for that.
At the same time, however, just as Freud quailed before Moses, Velikovsky gives us the imagery
of Ahab and Saul quaking before the prophets of God, and his sympathies are clearly with the
sinner kings.... Velikovsky kept some orthodox Jewish practices rigorously, but insisted that
he only did so for the sake of his wife. As they enjoyed 57 years of sympathetic accord in
their marriage, this may seem somewhat spurious rationalization... as George Orwell wrote of
Tolstoy, for both men, Freud and the later figure who was so influenced by him, their attitude
towards God was rather that of two birds in a cage, suspicious of God as posing a rivalry to
their own dominance. Psychoanalysis was God, cast for Freud in the image of Oedipus, and the
devil -- reflection of his own repressed frustrations. For Velikovsky, God was in the image of
the planet god that brought purpose and terror, judgment and fire, to the peoples of the earth.

Deg recollected, when he read a copy of Sieff's speech, a remark that V. had made at
Lethbridge. He found that it had been kept through several revisions that delayed its
publication for several years. "The noises caused by the folding and twisting of strata. Noises
of the screeching Earth described also by Hesiod -- the Israelites heard in them a voice giving
ethical commands." There can be little doubt on the matter. In this work, which Milton happily
entitled "Recollections of a Fallen Sky" (V. did not like the title, but Deg ran interference
for Milton on its behalf), V. speaks from his view of all manifestations of divinity, that they
are natural, material, and that they promote delusions.

His few passages on religion in the posthumously published Stargazers and Gravediggers are
scarcely revealing. He lumps together religious and scientific dogmatists; melodramatically, he
writes "were it possible to burn my books and their author publicly, then most probably the
councils of the church and of the scientific collegium would have fought for the privilege of
taking hold of me and would have dragged me, each out of the grasp of the other, to its own

In the same work, he declares that "to my way thinking, these books of the old Testament are of
human origin: though inspired, they are not infallible and must be handled in a scientific
manner as other literary documents of great antiquity." Well, one man's 'inspiration' is
another man's delusion.

His public stance on religion is disclosed in an interview for Science and Mechanics magazine
(July 1968) :

... I answered only once when a group from prison in Illinois wrote to me that this occupies
their minds very much and they debated and would like to know how I stand. To men in such a
distressful situation, I felt that I owed an answer and I wrote to them. But generally, I keep
such things to myself because it's just the same as asking whether William Conrad Roentgen, who
discovered X-rays, believed that X-rays were created by God or not. The problem is not whether
he was a churchgoer or an atheist; this is not the question at all. The fact is that he
discovered X-rays. Now you can approach it from the philosophical viewpoint and say "this is
the creation of the Lord," and you would be perfectly right. If you are a disbeliever and claim
that X-rays are the result of a soulless Nature, you are consequently correct. But you should
not confuse historical and scientific questions with theological considerations.

There was incidentally, little of moment in the letter to the prisoners. Try as he would, Deg
could not remember anything in it. When I checked with the Velikovsky Estate to verify the
letter, Sammer and Heinberg denied its existence. They agreed that it was written in longhand
and no copy was preserved. Possibly Deg remembered V. telling him what was in it, and there
being nothing tangible, forgot what it was. We can be sure that V. did not send the prisoners
to the Bible, and one of the most persistent and risible of canards raised against V.,
especially by the humanist movement, was that he was an anti-scientific Biblical revivalist.
Many scientists picked up this idea, too. That he was often used by evangelists cannot be
disputed, but in such cases Velikovsky was not a Velikovskian.

V. could not be pinned down on God (as Deg noted in 1972 "I am certain that he does not believe
in God.") but he would use the Hebrew Lord to belay others. The most revealing passages of V.
's view came at the end of Oedipus and Akhnaton at the expense of Freud, whose book on Moses
and Monotheism he denounced; Freud, he declared, had done his people a great disservice by
taking monotheism from them as an original invention (again the idea of a "claim"), making of
Moses an Egyptian, and of Yahwism a primitive cult; Freud, he actually wrote, was neurotic. His
anger at Freud overflowed onto Akhnaton so that this magnificent free-thinking Pharaoh, who
tried to liberate a great culture from priestly and traditional thralldom, became now
psychotic, deformed, a nudist, monolatrous (not monotheistic), incestuous, homosexual
(bisexual), a pacific bungler of his country's affairs, and, if not a wife-beater, a wife-
banisher. V. harbored the thought that Moses was not a monotheist, that true monotheism did not
come to the Jews until the time of Jeremiah, whom he regarded as the first to formulate the
idea. He never expressed himself publicly, for the same reason that he had criticized Freud for
publishing Moses and Monotheism. Too many Jews would be upset, he said onetime privately to
Wolfe, Milton, and Rose. He believed that late editors of the Bible and Jewish rulers had
refashioned Moses into a monotheist, and that not until a few years before the Babylonian
Captivity did the Jews become officially and fully committed as a group to monotheism.

V.'s secret can be deciphered in Worlds in Collision, however, where, although he mentions the
facts behind his theory, he gilds them by speaking of a striving to attain monotheism from the
time of Moses onwards. Like other honest scholars, and ordinary people too, V. could not
conceal his discoveries of "truth" even though he felt morally justified in doing so, and
actually believed, with some guilt feelings, that he had succeeded. Still, his attempts at
concealment had also a political angle, for he was enabled to deny that Akhnaton was a
monotheist, and to call him an idolator of the sun, while letting stand the convenient notion
that Moses, who came before Akhnaton in his reconstructed chronology, was monotheist.

The reader will readily recognize in the Illinois prisoner incident that V. had picked up the
typical American pose to avoid trouble: keep religion out of discussion -- separation of church
and state carried to ridiculous lengths. Elisheva was telling Deg proudly of V.'s position;
evidently she, too, not only used the excuse, but was self-congratulatory about it. She was
taken aback when Deg said that it was irresponsible: how can a person write so much about
religion, realizing full well that defenseless people are being affected by what he is saying,
and then shut up like a clam when the consequences of his statements are under inquiry? This is
especially the case in a free country, where unlike in police states, one loses little by

I agree, and it is proper to say that V. lacked original ideas about contemporary religion. He
was materialist. a Proto-marxist (rebuffed by persistent anti-semitism ), a Jewish nationalist
who had to reconcile himself to the powerful Judaic orthodoxy within the state of Israel and
within his family, an orthodox freudian believer that psychoanalysis can free the mind, a
believer in science as a realistic and rational ordering of the universe, and a shrewd evader
of religious controversy, which, if he had entered upon it, would have alienated half of his
public support.

Deg's position was quite different. He was pro-Jewish anti-Moses, even though a profound
sympathy for Moses is apparent in his book on God's Fire, and, I might add, he felt, too,
profound sympathy for Karl Marx as a mind bursting with social reality and grim wild hopes,
even while being a life-long antimarxist. He felt dreadfully sorry (remember what I said
earlier about his empathy with historical figures) for those Jews, often in the majority, who
tried to wrest human and civil rights from Moses-Aaron, Miriam, the Golden Calf worshippers,
the wanderers who heard "the call of Egypt." the Scouts, and the intercultural revelers of Beth

Deg's idea of religion could not develop fully until he had successfully framed the problem of
historical religions and satisfied himself of the essence of human nature. You have to find
these two keys to the history of religion and man. The first key he discovered by pursuing
man's interest in things sacred back as far as possible, back to humanization or creation it
seemed. It appeared that all gods were alike, that all men were religious even when atheist,
that all religions were alike, that all religions were psychologically at least polytheistic,
and that a succession of changing gods was a reflection of catastrophic cycles of nature and
culture. All religions were basically similar: they ritualized celestial and natural phenomena
in human terms; they sacrificed, they slaughtered people; and they secured and protected them.
Their historical behavior was basically schizoid.

There were two ways of finding the divine, both almost inaccessible to Homo Schizo; one was to
open up oneself to one's innermost depths in order to know whether some part of oneself is
divine. The other was to examine the universe outside to see whether the divine must exist
there and whether it is manifesting itself. This was a futuristic theology, to be sure. It was
anti-rationalistic, that is, anti-Aristotelian. If more words need be applied, it was a
phenomenological pragmatic, existential approach.

In 1965, there occurs a mention of the idea of entropy, and Deg's view of religion may be said
to have emerged from his reaction to this "law of nature."

The world of the second law thermodynamics -- the dying world -- is the product of a dying
mind. When the mind ceases to die and begins to live, the second law of thermodynamics will be
replaced by an equally valid and scientifically acceptable law of creative evolution or
creative condensation or creative intensification of specialized activity. [This ultimately
ended in the theory of theotropy thirteen years later.]

He remembers, of course, the aura of publicity that had attended the work of Norbert Wiener and
cybernetics, and a kind of gloominess associated with the notion of entropy, merged with the
character of Wiener who, he thought, might have committed suicide in Stockholm. Not long
afterwards he came upon a book of Melvin Cook in the New York University library stacks:
published in 1966, this difficult technical work on geophysics was by all odds the most
competent and confident assault upon the premises of long-time geochronometry to be found.
Cook's model of crashing ice caps and slitting continents set up the basis for Deg's geology.
The main problem was to reconcile his own exoterrestrial first causes with Cook's Earth-based
scenario. Beside this, Cook, in a few paragraphs on negative entropy, rendered Deg sensitive to
a possible place in theology for a new process. As the time approached to write The Divine
Succession, the negativism inherent in his destruction of history was unexpectedly counteracted
by a positivism from this source.

Deg's Journal, July 10, 1979

End of my generation begins. [I cannot deduce what he means by this.] NEW PROOF OF THE

If our model of the solar system is correct, with therefore a time 1 to 15 million years and if
the universe is large and populated as it presently seems to be, the manufacture of negative
entropic features of short duration should be occurring with much greater frequency than now
conceived (although if time is infinitely regressive then the speed of their creation is
inconsequential). However, in either case, the probability of say 1020 intelligent (negatively
entropic) worlds is very high. Now there is no reason to use mankind as the measure of the 1020
intelligent world. Whereupon I postulate an X number of worlds where the creative dynamics of
negative entropy produce beings of such intelligence and power that they may be called 'gods. '
If these are defined as 'beings with n times the intelligence and power of mankind (and they
may be aggregates as well as individuals), one of them may be considered to be of such
Intelligence as well as individuals), one of them may be considered to be of such Intelligence
and Power that it may establish control over the universal process. In that case, we have the
traditional concept of god exercised in new form of proof of omniscience and omnipotence --
that is, one who is created by the universe working towards that goal (by its essence) and who
ultimately turns around and controls the Universe. If the chances of such a One having
appeared. If the chances of such a One having appeared are low, and such a One surviving
temporally in addition to all his other powers (i. e. 'God is external') sets up a chance that
One existed but no longer does, then the Universe may still go on and on in the expectation
that sooner or later it will create its eternal, omniscient and omnipotent master, where upon
truly he universe will be intelligently (as vs. the present chaos) ordered and in which the
far-flung parts will be compelled to cooperate.

However, ideas were converging from all quarters. The theories of Homo Schizo and Divine
Succession went along together and interlocked without difficulty or even awareness.

September 9, 1972

I am going to Princeton today, expect to see Velikovsky. Have continued to probe his work
though I have a mountain of tasks before me for the Fall. Am continuously tempted to rewrite
his theories in my own language, to test them, to add to them if they test out, to explain
their importance, and to put them into a logical psychological historical framework that cannot
be ignored. I am scarcely prepared for the task, in time, resources, information, so keep
nibbling at the edges (one would hope like the Martian rats that destroyed the army of
Sennacherib, according to the Egyptians).

At this moment, am reading the scarifying Babylonian poem to Ishtar (W. in C. p. 200). I note
the line 'O furious Ishtar, summoner of armies, ' that concludes the poem. Again this works two
ways: Ishtar causes the people to wander and fight: V. says catastrophes engender migrations,
flight, armies clashing in the dark. Agreed. Many corresponding events in Greece, Near East,
etc. ca. 1500 and 8th-7th century.

But comes another reason for the armies and the clashes. When people are fearful, they
assemble. In numbers there is strength and comfort. They do not disperse as 'logic' would tell
them to. Any combat officer will tell you how difficult it is to get men to scatter for cover
when under attack; they want to huddle together, even though the collective 'good' lies in
spreading out.

The rationalization of huddling; the assembly of armies, the summoning, is that the enemy is
One, its intentions are unknown, the collective judgment of the tribe or people is needed (the
greater the roll-call the better, the more secure the judgment) and the enemy may be the
friend, who, it is desperately hoped, will be impressed by one's forces or lead one's forces
against our enemies, indeed, demand to lead them. "I am your god, your leader. Why are you not
gathered to greet me. Why do you run away; your running is suspicious. I demand that you
assemble for My Coming!" All of this is not withstanding that in some places and areas people
would in fact scatter to the caves and clefts, as the premonition of disaster came to them.(
cf. W. in C. 212-3).

Deg's Journal, Oct. 10, 1972 I showed Sebastian several pages of V. dealing with ancient China.
He was moderately impressed. I asked about Tao. Sebastian holds the unconventional belief that
the Chinese notion of 'heaven' is animated. It is a Being. I have that hook to hold on to. What
set me to thinking was this: Tao seems like a refutation of catastrophism; no bloody gods. But
in the beginning it relates the stories of heavenly conflicts. I was baffled. Tao seems so
benign, calm, apathetic. Then the thought came: but perhaps Tao became Chinese
uniformitarianism! Centuries ahead of the West. Perhaps Tao came to soothe mind and restore
calm to the heavens. Really it wasn't long after Mars-Ares-Huizilopochtli-Nergal that Plato
clamored for laws vs. disbelievers in celestial harmony. But now see: the West remained
unsettled of mind. The gods did not go away carrying catastrophic theory with them. Humanists,
historians and scientists interrupted the movement towards uniformity and celestial serenity
until the 19th century and then the latter triumphed for only a century. Is it that Judaic
Christianity carried the Bible, whose catastrophism would not be denied or effaced, right down
through the centuries in the face of all amnesiac needs in religion, society, and science? Is
this why the Western world (including the Muslim) has been so turbulent and aggressive? What is
behind Tao? Do we now have a third amnesiac development out of catastrophe: Greek pantheons,
Judaic chosen tribe and monotheism, and Tao calm reflectiveness?

Deg's Journal, New York City, 1 A. M., 24, 1973 Just awakened by a call from Jack Martin,
Baptist Missionary in Bangkok, regarding Paul. You cannot give up hope for man or woman,
knowing that, if you do, the next moment will bring you a person who will reveal that you are

If one has stood amidst a burning city, been shaken in an earthquake, or watched the throes of
death, or looked down yawning chasms or into the ocean depths, or heard artillery shells scream
and strike, each 'with my name written on it, '--then one can better ponder the awful
predicament of our ancestors who over thousands of years suffered disaster manifold and many
times over. They cannot be gainsaid their fears and plaints, and the qualities of their gods,
those deeply involved companions of humans who became ever more human as they took the gods
into themselves and ever more diabolic as they sought to master the games of the gods.

The gods have retired into new forms. But they still operate through the busy humans whom the
poet Rilke called 'the bees of the invisible. ' They are everywhere and scarcely as remote as
our scientific texts would have us believe. They are in astrology, in fortune-telling, in
magic. They fly to the scenes of disaster. They augment the forces of authority. They heal and
console. They scare. They make anxious. They set the rituals for many as they have done since
the age of Ouranos.

They assume their own negations: for they argue with themselves in Natural Law, in Bureaucracy,
in Dogmatic Materialism, in Reified Words, in Mummified Heroes, in Time and Worlds without end.
They let themselves be molded into One, and the One obliges his necessities by becoming Many,
Beyond all, they stand at ease waiting for Armageddon and the Day of Judgment. Then they will
don their armor and rally their hosts.

The gods have retired, yes, but it still takes rare courage to contemplate all of their
continuing manifestations and to resist the invention of their negations. There is yet nowhere
else to go. And few who would follow.

By skating along on the ice of the cerebral cortex, mathematical astrophysics or another such
exercise may sublimate the gods. Dumb bestiality may be equally functional in sublimating them.
We think that of all ways of facing them, the best is to look at them everywhere, contemplate
their every manifestation, anticipate their reappearance, but do no more. If there is any
question of human madness, it is erased when one pretends to be divine. Our human destiny is an
open question. We deny our humanity if we try to close it. We belittle ourselves if we plead
with the gods to answer it at any cost. Here we shall have to leave the matter rest.

Deg's Journal, Stylida, Naxos, July 3, 1978 The Old Testament of the Bible has been much on my
mind this summer, because of my study of Moses and the Exodus, because of several interesting
articles dealing with it by Sizemore, Greenberg, et al. that have come to hand, and because Ami
reveals herself in a new light as once a child who has remembered prodigious amounts of the
Bible from the nuns' school in Mulhouse that she attended.

I have come to look upon the Old Testament as a great mountain range that has yet to be
explored in regards to its effects upon the human mind, history, education, and anti-semitism,
politics and society in general. Just as there is no good book on the Jews -- sociological
psychological, and behavioral -- so there is none on the Bible. The early scientific
rationalists of the Enlightenment (and their socialist successors) thought that merely to
expose the Bible as a typical unscientific and superstitious document would be enough to put it
onto the shelves of dead religions, anthropology, myth. They treated it as a discrete entity
that could be taken off like a suit of clothes.

What did our homo schizo Deg do socially with his polyego while inventing it? Personal affairs
were not easy with him over much of the seventies. The daughters peeled off the family stalk
into Bryn Mawr, Smith, and the University of Chicago. The four boys broke off prematurely. They
split in every direction. Only Carl went through a university, held on at the Peabody School of
Johns Hopkins University by a devotion to music and a character too irritable to knock about
abroad. He did spend a while on Naxos, composing extemporaneously at all hours on a piano in
the middle of the OldMarket section. The others went here and there in the world: wherever the
newspapers were speaking of "endless Summer," of places where the action was, of Denver,
Bangkok, Florence, Amsterdam, Australia, Cuba, Morocco, Istanbul and San Francisco, word would
also come from them.

Jill decided upon a separation or, perhaps more accurately, redefined her relationship with Deg
around 1970 and Deg came thereafter as a visitor to Linden Lane in Princeton and then to his
mother, on which occasions he would also see Velikovsky and Sebastian and maybe Tom and Rosalyn
Frelinghuysen. The split was not abrupt or devastating; it was a drifting away that he felt
less distressing because he was immersed in tides of preoccupation. It was like a pattern that
stretched until unrecognizable, and then tore, or like the string tricks people do with their
fingers, when with a single movement of the fingers the strings slip into a new form.

Following upon his relatively flushed income of the sixties, when what he wanted to do
coincided with what agencies with money wanted him todo -- investment brokers, publishers, Bill
Baroody's American Enterprise Institute, the war establishment -- his finances fell into poor
shape during the seventies. Despite ordinary and extraordinary family expense, and his
contributions to his mother's welfare, he took leave from his University and spent all of his
savings and gave his library to the Alpine college. He gave up trying to publish his works on
world government in America and published them in Bombay, where his friend, Dr. Rashmi Mayur,
was building an Institute. Deg was insisting that a Kalotic World Order movement should come
out of Bombay or Istanbul, not the United States.

He stayed at Washington Square when in New York, became intimate friends with Nina Mavridis who
lived in his building, he taught his courses, wrote steadily, and put together the college in
Switzerland with the help of several students. Nina was generous, but could hold her
professorship at La Guardia College for only a year. They married after a time but separated
after several years of being together, and she moved to Berlin. He moved from Washington Square
Village to 110 Bleecker Street, where he spent little time. He stayed with Dick Cornuelle, he
moved into Ken Olson's loft in Little Italy, and he visited happily with Donna Welensky for a

In Europe he lived in Switzerland and in Naxos. He was close to many people during the
seventies. Although a gypsy he gave the impression of being fixed somewhere and of soberly
pursuing a reasonable plan -- people knew not exactly where -- except that the where was not
where they were. One month he would be in Vietnam, then he would be staying for a week at a
little hotel in Sion where the barmaid and he became fast friends and at odd hours he would
tell her of many things and she would tell him of her Algerian mother and what the people of
Valais were like and how they regarded her. Then he would be in Naxos, buildings without the
means to build, fixing with crude tools, and writing. Friendship would be struck up with those
who came by his isolated place and people would come from town and he would go to town. Sandy
came from Australia and might even have swum from there, a blond eel, and he heard of culture
and society "Down Under," and they traveled together to America; he laughed to watch her
tapdance. Sigrid Schwartz came from the Black Forest with her little boy who carved the surface
of his marble table with a neolithic flint while Sigrid told of her mother who asked to be
carried to the grave with a jazz band playing "The Saints Come Marching Home," and so it was
done. He spent a good deal of time underwater in a diving mask and knew the bottom like his own
land, and could pluck a bit of pottery out of its rock fastenings any time and give it to a
pleased Hamburgian, Londoner, or Trondheimer.

Wherever he went in the world, he never truly wandered, but was always bent upon something to
do with study, business, politics, education, and everything else seemed to be related. He was
sometimes impatient, pressed by perceived obligations, but never at odds with himself. And
wherever he went, half of his baggage consisted of folders, full of reprints, chapters in
progress, manuscripts, proofs, correspondence and notes, never less than thirty pounds of
these, including the folders that dealt with the job he was on. Hence he was never bored, nor
even idle when he wanted to be idle, for he could hardly wait for the day to dawn in New York,
London, Tokyo, Saigon, Bangkok, Bombay, Cochin, or Paris so that he could write and read in
order to write.

Many were the occasions, though, when the needed piece of paper had been left behind or a
needed book was on a faraway shelf. Nor could he half control the crazy-quilt appearance of his
work in progress, paper of different sizes and quality made in different countries; handwriting
altered by different writing surfaces, some on vehicles in motion; writing in pencils and pens
of blue, black, red and green.

His psychological counterpart, Jean-Yves Beigbeder, would turn up or he would find Jean in
Paris or at Nevis in the West Indies, and they would celebrate life and make great plans, until
one day Jean slipped into the sea from a stalled motorboat off St. Kitts to swim ashore for
help and was lost into the night and forever. So he had many friends, good friends, he thought,
most of them going unnamed, like Carl Stover, Rashmi Mayur, Kevin Cleary and his gang who hated
their enemies more than they loved him and wounded the college, Jay Hall, Barbara Schmidt,
Christine Ressa, Peter and Annette Tobia, Charles Billings, Carl Martinson, Phil Jacob, Ken
Olson, Levi Fournier, Dick Cornuelle, Jay Hall, Savvas Camvissis, Stephanie Neuman. Even to
mention them is not fair to his wishes, for he will complain bitterly that each person means
everything to him when they are together so that he cannot stand seeing them on a list, where
they may seem like numbers of the days on the calendar of a long-gone year, deprived of all the
riches that they presented to each day.

Life carved its channel more narrowly after Anne Marie Hueber came upon the Naxos scene. They
lived in comfortable poverty, traveling irregularly and eccentrically, along the path of
Washington, New York, London Paris, Alsace, Florence, Athens, and Naxos. Great energy now went
into the Quantavolution Series, while she wrote her novels and lent him a hand.

All this I wanted to say, though briefly; creativity is always in context -- whether Marco polo
in his vast Asia or Immanuel Kant in his little garden -- and I fear not so much being
irrelevant as that I will convey neither the context nor the created substance, whether in
themselves or as they meshed together. Whatever he was up to and wherever he was, by the late
sixties, Deg, like many another but in his personal style, was radicalized. He not longer
believed in small solutions -- whether laissez-faire in economics, gradualism in politics, or
incrementalism in biological and cultural development. Pursuant to many early signs,
holospheric quantavolution took possession of him.


by Alfred de Grazia



Deg's Journal, November 24, 1967

Rereading carefully V.'s Earth in Upheaval, I read the sections on the age of waterfalls this
morning and, as I poured coffee beans into the coffee grinder just now I wondered at the
marvelous parallelisms or analogies of force -- an old observation of course -- cascades great
and small, all the same --what makes them "different"? Man's size? -- which separates
everything in the world into big and small? Time is such too. Easy to see and believe the
existence of gods who pour Victoria Falls as I pour coffee beans.

Think if all the world would be reduced to the same proportion, Would we then get a marvelous
set of insights into hitherto baffling problems ? Would suddenly the rich world become dross
and dull?

Another entry, several days later :

Velikovsky came by for a few minutes, left a couple of items, and loped off saying "I have left
too much for the last mile." Too many interruptions, many of his own causing: too many
projects, too. At least he has gotten reliable Juergens to edit his "Ten Trials" for
publication [it never happened].

We talked of Livio Stecchini who is working on ancient measures and geography. His writing may
never see the light. Why? "He cannot bring things to fruition," I said. "The idea is hard,"
said V., the inception." I added "The conception." "The conception is a pleasure, the birth is
painful," said V. and he left it at that. He went to the library. He loves it and works
unceasingly and effectively there. The sky in Princeton is low and the air smells of snow.
Scholar's weather.

Velikovsky's Earth in Upheaval assembles "the testimony of stone and bone." "Wherever we
investigate the geological and paleontological records of this earth we find signs of
catastrophes and upheavals, old and recent." It gives an old-fashioned sense of the geology of
the last century, before jargon swamped its literature. The feeling is deceptive. The plain
speech was deliberate, both because little technical language was required to make his case and
because his large audience could not be embraced if jargon intervened between the writer and
reader. He also avoided exoterrestrialism, so as to show that you do not need to introduce
comets in order to prove that catastrophes had befallen earth. However, he allowed many
implications to be drawn from geological data pointing to astronomical reorientation of the
Earth. And in his conclusion, he made the point forcefully that "The earth repeatedly went
through cataclysmic events on a global scale, that the cause of these events was an
extraterrestrial agent."

He did not deal with electrical phenomena, a strange omission for one who preached an
electrified cosmos. (It entered into a supplementary paper that was printed with the book
itself.) That much material on electricity could have been considered was shown by William
Corliss, who began compiling it during the 1970's; and by V.'s friends, especially Ralph
Juergens in the 1960's then too Eric Crew in England, Milton, and Deg.

Nor did V. take a radical position on geochronometry. He refused close combat with the giant,
Time. To defeat macrochronic arguments he carried forward the order of catastrophic topics,
still valid, with new evidence from biostratigraphy. Although he advanced catastrophic evidence
into prehistorical and even historical times, he hardly advanced the theory and methodology of
time determination. He did not attack the long-time conventional view of Earth history. The
best work on short-time geology or microchronism was done by Melvin Cook. V. rejected
continental drift and his arguments against Darwinism were those well-elaborated by
creationists and scientists of "saltationist" persuasion long before.

Nonetheless, the work has solid merits; Harry H. Hess knew it well; he could find no falsehood
or factual errors in it, only a theory which he could not accept or announce ex cathedra; and
he recommended the book to his students in geology at Princeton. There was much to be learned
from it that a student could otherwise obtain from no single source. It was controversial; the
geologists dismissed not only its style but also its catastrophist ideas. V.'s scheme to make
headway among geologists by presenting a "clean" book, without assistance from legend or
astronomy, failed. Yet, today, after 27 years, his book can hardly be called controversial. It
is advanced, not avant-garde.

Still it is more complete, logical, exact, clear, and secular than any other work in geology
that considers catastrophism. The comparable next best work, privately published and quite
unknown, was completed at the same time by geologists Allan Kelly and Frank Dachille. That is:
Target Earth: The Role of Large Meteors in Earth Science. Also more daring and provocative, and
also highly professional in method, is geophysicist Melvin Cook's work that I already
mentioned, Prehistory and Earth Models, published obscurely in England a decade later, which
employed purely terrestrial forces in explaining Earth's features. Both books are superior in
method to Velikovsksy's book, more complex and more original. Both books. I hardly need add,
are practically unknown and not cited among geologists and general scientists; indeed, they
were not common currency among cosmic heretics because V. neglected to admit them.

When a true believer is excommunicated or goes apostate from a charismatic cult he is, if let
go scot-free, inclined to start his own cult, and in science or art, there is every reason to
wish the apostate or excommunicant well. Robert Stephanos left V.'s circle and found a new
interest, another cosmic heretic, by then deceased.

William Comyns Beaumont is hardly known today but was a top-ranking English editor and a
brilliant catastrophist. His work turned ever more to the -- quite mad -- idea that the
Egyptian dynasties up to the 13th century B. C. ruled in South Wales and that Jerusalem was
originally located in Edinburgh; this plunged him into obscurity, even among catastrophists !
Stephanos resurrected Beaumont, located what was left of his materials, and formed a committee
to promote his work. He prepared a list of his ideas, culled from Riddle of the Earth (1925),
The Mysterious Comet (1932), and The Riddle of Prehistoric Britain (1946); he sent them to Deg
who verified the list. Beaumont, on evidence not at all execrable, positioned Atlantis on the
British platform and accepted what the Egyptian priests told Solon, that their ancestors had
been at battle with his Athenian forebears when the great Island sank amidst frightful tumult.

Here were Beaumont's more "reasonable" propositions: 1. The geology of the world's surface is
largely catastrophic. 2. The catastrophe was caused by a cometary collision. 3. All geological
formations were shifted as result. 4. Cosmic lightning played a major role. 5. Hydrocarbons
were present in cometary tails. 6. Ancient chronology was several hundred years too old. 7. The
Ancient calendars had to be revised because of the catastrophe.

8. Many species were extinguished catastrophically. 9. Religion was born in cometary worship
and tied to phallic forms because of the shape of comets.

10. Fear of cometary collisions is inherited by mankind. 11. Vermin were deposited by comets,
which also provoked plagues.

12. Deities from Egypt, Greece, Meso-America, and elsewhere were identified with planets.

13. Pyramids were both astronomical observatories and "air-raid shelters" for nobility and
kings. 14. Planet Saturn, as a comet, caused the Noachian Deluge.

15. The Atlantis date (ca 9500 B. C.) given by Plato had to be shortened.

16. Extensive legendary evidence pictures the "hairy," "bearded," "blazing star" symbolizing

17. Stonehenge, Avebury Circle and similar monuments were astronomical instruments.

18. Central American legends (and cultures) were contemporaneous with those of the Old World.

19. The intercalary "five evil days" were cursed because they coincided with a world disaster
and the ending of an age.

20. The serpent, dragon, winged-globe, caduceus, and other ancient symbols are traceable to
cometary catastrophes.

21. Religious festival are dated by cometary catastrophes. 22. Cometary conflagrations are the
origin of coal deposits. 23. The ancients had a true 360 day year. 24. The planet Venus
underwent great changes in color, diameter, figure, and orbit in the time of Ogyges.

25. Quetzalcoatl (Coculkan-Hurakan) commemorated the cometary dragon for the Meso-Americans.

One significant thesis that V. could not have gotten from Beaumont was that the disturbing
comet was Venus, although both identified Quetzalcoatl with the comet.

The list appears to be defensible by the criteria of quantavolution. But once one goes into the
books behind the list one enters a jungle of brilliant entangled foliage. Beaumont find
innumerable bewildering geographical, geological, theological, and historical analogies between
the regions of Great Britain and the Near East, particularly Palestine, such that the history
of the two can be merged into one from the time of the Golden Age of Saturn until the Emperor
Constantine (312 A. D.) of the Roman Empire. "The history of the Old Testament is the history
of Atlantis," he writes. "Constantine (" born in York") had definite motive for transferring
the arena of Jewish history and that of Christ to another region altogether." (Britain: Key to
World History) Obviously, to enter Beaumont's world is a pleasure allowed to few.

The reader may have noted that most of the theses occur in Velikovsky's, and also de Grazia's
books. It is easy enough to explain the similarities in the case of de Grazia for he drew
heavily upon Velikovsky, and cites all of his sources. It is not so easy to explain the
parallels between Velikovsky and Beaumont. Velikovsky never mentioned or cited Beaumont. Could
Velikovsky have read and forgotten Beaumont's books? His method of proof is entirely different;
practically everything -- style, format, language, method, and evidence -- is different; only
the conclusions are the same. And I should stress that when Deg came into possession of the
Beaumont materials, he found them mostly unusable for methodological and theoretical reasons;
Beaumont's stress upon Thoth, however, helped convince Deg that a catastrophic age ought to be
assigned to the god Hermes and the Planet Mercury.

Moreover, with regard to both Velikovsky and de Grazia, too many of Beaumont's conclusions are
the same as theirs to explain them as sheer coincidence. I guess that either in the 1920's or
1930's when V. was in Palestine, the books, published in England and dealing with matters of
interest to the Near East, made an appearance in the bookstores and were seen by V.

A second possibility is that during the 1940's V. met with the books at the Columbia University
Library where he spent thousands of hours in research on his own books. The Columbia University
Library possessed of Beaumont's relevant works only The Riddle of Prehistoric Britain which was
published in 1946, By this time Worlds in Collision had been written. V.'s library time during
which he achieved his major beliefs relating history and geology to exoterrestrialism had been
spent in the Columbia University Libraries.

However, a note exists in his archive, mentioning having read Beaumont's 1932 book; the note
dismisses the work. Yet V. expresses his wonder whether Beaumont had gotten his (V. 's) ideas
by telepathy. V.'s memory was prodigious. Could there have been a 'Bridie Murphy Effect? ' This
case, it will be recalled, involved a Colorado woman whose accounts of "another life" in
Ireland were substantiated by investigations of her "home family and neighborhood" in Ireland;
it developed that she had been unwittingly retailing material conveyed to her by her Irish
nurse in early childhood and duly registered in her memory.

V. had an unusual interest in mnemonic phenomena. One time Deg was visited by a nurse from
India accompanied by a high official of the Indian Foreign Ministry. She possessed a rare
factual and numerological memory. Given any long set of numbers, she could recall them and
reorder them. She could also do tricks such as supplying a person's year of birth, knowing the
day and month. When younger, she had possessed only an ordinary mind, then had global amnesia
following her mother's death, and afterwards had been led slowly by her father to relearn
everything. Despite her prodigious abilities, she was a modest person of ordinary intelligence.

V. came to meet her and a seance was held. Deg's term for the type was "idiot savant." V. did
not use the term, and he was unusually taciturn, leaving Deg wondering whether V.'s mind
possessed a similar competency.

V. one day confides in Deg that he has discovered in the course of his research certain
geographical locations where oil and gas were exuding in ancient times. It might be profitable
to explore there. They talk again and again about the information, and Deg draws up an
agreement which they both sign. If they can interest an oil company in purchasing their
knowledge, they will divide the proceeds. V. chooses a location. It turns our to be in Turkey.
Deg buys maps of oil concessions and wells for the area and finds that the spot mentioned
stands seemingly outside the boundaries of existing rights to drill, although quite surrounded
by concessions. Better Turkey than Syria, certainly, they think. However, Deg knows the
problems of Turkey, political and bureaucratic, the tangle of laws, the high cost of
concessions. All that they have to sell is a dozen words. Given away without guarantees, and
the project explodes. So Deg talks to friends, and telephones to experts. He speaks to his
friend Robin Farkas, who is Treasurer of Alexander's Department Stores and who has friends
engaged in oil speculations. The situation is ridiculous: there is no way to proceed, except by
trusting strangers; give them the information and if they can persuade the most appropriate
corporation or government agency to spend half-a-million dollars drilling, and if they strike
oil they might be counted on someday to compensate the "owner" of the magic words. V. writes
Deg, who is somewhere is the Near East, on August 12, 1968:

Dear Alfred:

Enclosed is the contract [for a book, never signed]... Ralph left on a cross-country trip...

As to oil in Italy, I shall write you separately but I would also like to know how would you
like to proceed if we come to an agreement as I hope we will...[ Is] the Italian monopoly
holding oil company entitled also to off-shore exploration and exploitation?...

And what is new concerning Turkey?... a concession there? In the matters of Cosmos and Chronos
[etc.]... I assume you have received my former letter (or letters), last to Samos.

I wish to think that you have achieved many goals during his trip as also piece of mind and
serenity that usually eludes very active minds -- though you may be an exception.

I look forward to a letter from you and shall answer speedily. With warm regards.

Yours, Immanuel

Deg is nonplussed, and heavily occupied. He cannot figure out an easy way to get in and out of
an oil arrangement. He had the same kind of difficulty once before when he wished to engage the
Xerox corporation in a system of information retrieval. There seemed to be no assured way of
handing over useful knowledge. Perhaps it would be best to publish the information for the
benefit to all those interests that might want to scramble to profit from it. Or give it to a
friendly government, or to a friendly corporate officer. Or hire someone to run around among
the oil companies and venture to the historical locations; such a person would need funds, must
be made a partner, and had to be trustworthy.

Nothing more was done, and the several indications of petroleum rest in their ancient sources.
In recent years, oil explorers have come to hire dowsers, several of whom claim to be able to
sense oil locations simply from maps. Deg asked an Exxon official whether the company might not
profitably set up or contract for an office, which for a million dollars could carefully read
every ancient document that exists to discover relevant references. After all, to dig a hole
costs half a million dollars. Deg wrote a memo about it. The idea seemed to Exxon rather odd.
(They hadn't yet heard about dowsing.) So Deg quit trying to sell information from ancient

By 1970 there are intimations that Deg would be moving into the field of geology. Typically, he
notes some striking fact and then reviews his life experience to weigh its significance. Then
he moves out in a number of forays, both intellectual and operational, some of which lead
nowhere, others foolish, still others abandoned midway, one or two coming to a conclusion. But
meanwhile, like a beaver's dam, the sticks begin to make a frame, the holes are plugged up, the
waters are stemmed and a structure manifest itself. Folders begin to collect notes and ideas.
Years may pass, during which time little that is directly relevant and purposeful happens in
the field, for he is occupied with other writing, or with education, politics, war, and
personal concerns. Still, a cluster of opinions begin to form and he is infected by the
specific ambition. He has fantasies of a message to be conveyed with fierce logic and
compelling force but is already telling himself in a small closet of the mind that he must be
respectful and persuasive. Then he foresees an opening of Time and feels inspired to create a
book. He recorders his ideas and notes in a dozen successive outline; several introductions
appear and vanish; meanwhile he writes one after another the chapters. A bad chapter is washed
out. A bulky chapter is broken into two, and a section of it is floated into a new position
somewhere else. The writing is heavy labor and becomes increasingly furious and fluent. What
ends up as The Lately Tortured Earth, written in seven months of 1982, began as a note on
strange ashes, following a reading of passages from Schliemann's report of his discovery of

Deg's Journal, Stylida, July 7, 1970

Early in World war II, the Germans air-bombed Rotterdam as a terrible 'object-lesson' to the
Dutch to obtain their surrender. Then late in World War II, the British and Americans bombed
Hamburg, Dresden, and other cities, using many thousands of incendiary missiles. In no case,
despite high buildings, much wood construction, and inflammable objects, did the immense fire
leave thick layers of ashes.

How do we explain, then, the heavy compressed layers of ashes that cover so many ancient
cities. I cannot go along with the many experts who casually assigning these remains to an
invasion, the loss of a battle, or accidents. They are really "playing with fire." Schliemann's
pretty little story of his discovery of "the treasure of Priam" is a case in point. He implies
that somebody carrying a large casket of good objects and other precious goods had to abandon
it suddenly during the final stage of the siege because he or they were pursued hotly. Over a
copper shield "lay a stratum of red and calcined ruins, from 4 3/ 4 to 5 1/ 4 feet thick, as
hard as stone." He nevertheless could extricate the shield and the casket of articles
associated with it by employing 'a large knife. '

He [Schliemann] writes, "It is probable that some member of the family of Priam hurriedly
packed the Treasure into the chest and carried it off without having time to pull out the key
[whose wooden handle was gone]; that when he reached the wall, however, the hand of an enemy or
the fire overtook him, and he was obliged to abandon the chest, which was immediately covered
to a height of from 5 to 6 feet with the red ashes and stones of the adjoining palace." How
remarkable that this kind of reading of the ruins has prevailed to this day! And I have noted
others from stories of the Near East, Etruria, and Meso-America.

All references to ash layers in ancient times need to be collected. The levels should be
recorded, along with the normal data on what is above, below, and the site location. Of course,
C. Schaeffer has done something like this in the Middle East and Velikovsky had added some
other reports. A special study, however, is lacking. It should also be noted that the original
layer must invariably have been much thicker than the final layer as discovered by
archaeologists. This was mentioned by Nicola Rilli in his book on Etruria; yet he persisted in
speaking of a Ligurian invasion and other mishaps, not associating the ashes with natural
catastrophes or the deluge that he believes overcame Tyrrhenian civilization. The Pompeiian,
Herculaneum, Krakatoan ashes should also be measured.

Ultimately, we should sample the ashes to determine whether their origins were local or
distant, terrestrial or celestial (this may be possible now that we are beginning to know the
geological composition of Moon's surface and perhaps soon of Venus and Mars; they must, or
course, be dissimilar; if similar, we may be stuck).

In 1973 he goes to work seriously on the case of the Trojan ashes. The literature of what he
calls paleocalcinology is nil. He prepares a memorandum and sends it to several experts, asking
them for citations and an opinion about the possible sources of the heavy calcinated debris of
the "Burnt City" of Schliemann. They give him other names, until he has a score of informants,
practically all of whom are curious and helpful insofar as they have something to offer.

Graig C. Chandler, Director of Forest Fire and Atmospheric Sciences Research for the Federal
government, wrote him a letter that might serve as a model of scientific altruism. I quote it
at length, for that reason alone, even though its contents are in themselves fascinating:

Dear Dr. Grazia:

Forgive me for taking a whole month to "reflect briefly" on your letter of February 8. The
delay is even less excusable since I have come up relatively blank on the citations you
requested. I do however have a contact who I know is quite interested, and deeply involved in
archaeological investigations of past natural fire history.

You should contact: Dr. Edwin V. Komarek, Sr. Tall Timbers Research Station Route I, Box 160
Tallahassee, Florida 32301

All the half dozen references I have been able to unearth that deal directly with prehistoric
charcoal and ash deposits stem from Ed Komarek, so you will undoubtedly get them, and more,
directly from him.

I found your manuscript fascinating. However, there are some points you should understand
before going too far with a theory that credits wood fuels, either forest stands or urban
constructions, as a source for 15 to 20 feet of ash fall.

A natural forest can easily meet or exceed the 200 ton biomass figure quoted by Kelly and
Danchille. However, in a living forest, only the material less then one-half inch or so in
diameter is ever consumed by fire, regardless of the fire's intensity. This practically never
exceeds 30 tons per acre unless the fire has been preceded by some other catastrophic event
such as massive insect kill, logging, or exceptional weather anomaly.

The "ash" residue from the complete combustion of wood ranges from 0.1 percent for white pine
to 2.2 percent for western hemlock. Actual residues from naturally occurring fire are much
higher, ranging from about 10 percent in low intensity fires down to the proximate analysis
value in firestorms. Thus, there would be less than 3 tons per acre of "ashes" produced by the
burning of the densest forest. This is an amount about 10 times as great as the fertilizer you
spread on your lawn in the spring.

There is an abundance of practical experience on distribution of ash from large forest fires.
The Peshtigo Fire of 1871 burned more than 300,000 acres completely surrounding the town of
Peshtigo, Wisconsin. Contemporary accounts mention "ashes piled nearly an inch deep in the
streets." I have been in several forest fire where newspaper accounts played up "ashes falling
like rain." In every instance with which I am personally familiar, the resulting deposit could
be measured in millimeters.

Cities, of course, have much heavier fuel loadings than do forest. But again, ash residue from
the burning of a city is measured in inches, rather than feet. The accounts from the 1906 San
Francisco earthquake and fire are good evidence on this point.

In firestorms, forest or city, there are no ashes left. Firestorm winds scour the burned area

Although it is completely out of my field, I would theorize that the only possible way in which
a deposit of wood ash many feet thick could be produced in a single event would be to
mechanically reduce the wood to rubble (earthquake), cover it with an inert material at high
temperature so that the combustion could not occur (volcanic ash fall), and reduce the wood to
charcoal and "ash" through distillation. I have never seen "red ashes of wood" in natural
fires, and the term spunds much more like a distillation residue than a combustion residue.

I hope the above discussion is helpful. Please don't hesitate to write if I can be of further
Deg's exchange with Ed Komarek may also be worth quotation:

Dear Dr. Komarek:

In an endeavor to pursue a number of baffling contradictions in ancient and pre-historical
times, involving the life and death of ancient settlements and the development of various human
traits and customs, I have come upon indications of huge conflagrations involving layers of ash
deposits that to my mind could never have originated, as the archaeological community tends to
believe, from the ravages inflicted upon the settlements by conquerors with torch in hand.
Several Strata of the city of Troy (Hisarlik) in ancient Anatolia give evidence of inordinate
destruction, sometimes by earthquakes, sometimes by both. Yet there appears to be no great
volcano that might have exploded or collapsed nearby. Although perhaps none has done so, it
appears to me that a chemical examination of these beds of ashes of the different centers of
exploration in Asia Minor and the Middle East might tell us whether hand-set flames, volcanic
fall-out or some other less familiar element may have been involved.

May I ask about the nature of your studies and work in this field, and whether you could put me
on to some literature in it, and further whether you know others besides ourselves who might be
interested in it? I would be most obliged for your advice.

April 29, 1974 Dear Prof. de Grazia: I am much interested in some of the comments you make. If
the sample of the ash could be examined under an electron scanning microscope we might be able
to tell a little bit about where it came from. In fact, if you could ship me a small package of
it, I will certainly put it under an electron scanning microscope and see what I can determine.

Under separate cover I am sending you several of our publications, particularly one in
connection with particulates from forest and grassland fires. With this technique it might be
possible to pinpoint what type of ash you have found. Of course many of these early cities had
a tremendous amount of woodwork inside of them and of course, these would burn even inside of
stone buildings. We certainly should be able to tell the difference between volcanic
particulate matter and that from wood or grass.

[He goes on to describe the work he has been doing on natural fires and the origin of cereals
in Anatolia, and expresses interest in the continuation of the Trojan project.]

May 28, 1974

Dear Mr. Komarek:
Thanks for your letter of April 29 and for the many materials that arrived subsequently. I have
been having a field day with them.

The enclosed paper on "Calcination in Pre-historic and Ancient Times" carries some of the logic
that has led me to my present interest in the testing of ashes (and, I may add, mega-lightning
or Jovian lightning, which, I think, may have been almost qualitatively different and/ or
vastly more frequent and destructive at some periods than during recent times).

I wish that I had samples of ancient settlement ashes to forward to you so that the testing
might begin. But I am afraid that their collection awaits a field expedition of some
complexity. I am going to Greece and Turkey this summer, leaving June 23, and may be able to
arrange some permissions and even to scrounge some samples. I am seeking support for the
research as well, although I fear that the novelty of the approach, its threat to conventional
theories, and the fact that my qualifications for the work, whatever the distinction I may hold
in other fields, are not specific to the problem, will all handicap my efforts. Apropos of
this, may I say, in asking for help, that you will give aid and consultation in the analysis of
the obtained material?

Thank you again. Incidentally, I note that we did not miss one another by much at the
University of Chicago. I began my studies there in 1935 with $50 that my father borrowed for me
and a trumpet that sounded a lot better to people then it would now....

On Naxos, Deg had met Professor Georg Keller, geologist of the University of Freiburg, and
sought his advice as well. Keller knew Aegean geology and assured Deg that there were no
volcanos near Troy, neither now or anciently. He doubted any possible source of ash from Thera
or elsewhere. Ash falls are not uniform, even on a small island like Kos, where in one place he
found 40 cm of Thera ash while in many other cuts on the island nothing at all was visible.

Deg's Journal, June 3, 1973

Everything is understandable when it is simple and it is simple when only or two things happen
to it at given time -- and the longer the time without their changing the even more simple is
the scheme.

Thus the mechanics of the earth seem understandable when a presumed history's is said to permit
only a couple of motions and even these are under severe constraints.

However, when in fact, the real history of earth is shown to have involved large changes in not
only a couple but in many motions, then an exact explanation of what happened may be
impossible, especially so since no reliable observers reported most the events.

One reason why uniformitarianism evolved rapidly and persisted is that it created a simplistic
history, evening out things over time and subjecting them "normal" changes.

One reason why there are so many theories explaining natural history is that each man can
barely cope with possible effects of his one favorable type of motion and change.

He ruminated about oil, about tectonism, about the Thera explosion of 3,000 years ago, about
the earthquakes that long ago shook the now seemingly stable earth beneath Athens. Here he is
at New York University, noting a meeting with Professor Charmatz of the geology faculty on
Oct., 9, 1973:

Deg's Journal

Lunch with Prof. Charmatz of the Geology Department. Nina came along we ate at the Faculty
Club. I worked to minimize threat, arrogance, conviction re our subject, the question of how
ashes of ancient times are laid down and composed, in relation to Velikovsky's theories. I
needed all grace and tact to do so, for young Charmatz was ready to lecture me on my foolish
dilettantism. I could see; he was nervous and prepared to give and receive aggression. He had
hardly ordered lunch before he blurted out that V. cited sources that could only be found in
some exotic library, that one good guess did not make a theory right (he cited the surface heat
of Venus), and that V. was an astrologer. I let it all go by with sympathetic murmurs and a
soupHon of rebuttal. Then he smoothened out, and began to talk to the point.

As usual, what seems simple is difficult to bring about in experimental science. I did discover
that no sure blocks confront a set of distinctions among ash -- heaps of varying chemistry,
origins, duration, quantity. A crucial test is possible. We need an interdisciplinary team --
archaeologists, chemists, geologists, zoologists, geographer, engineer, mythographer, and maybe
even a social theorist or methodologist. Then we need to find sites around the world where
these ancient ashes lay, analyze them, and try to explain their presence in depths varying up
to an original 12 feet. Charmatz became quite involved and is willing to go along with me into
the possibility of such a project. When he loosened up, he began to release particular
information of much value. We talked also of magnetism, of what is to be found in the bottoms
of old lakes, and of petroleum. He declared that all (' not one exception, ' at my prompting)
petroleum had been found in sedimentary rocks from ancient seas. 'But not all sedimentary
strata have oil? ' No 'And if we found one non-sedimentary pocket of oil, the theory would be
blasted? ' 'Probably. ' 'Tell me: is it possible that only in sedimentary rocks where oil has
been found can oil collect? Or are there other formations that could hold oil over time? ' He
seemed puzzled by this query. I repeated it twice more, in between answers that were not
direct. I still do not know the answer, but it may be important. For if oil can only be held in
one kind of rock pouch, then it is indefensible logically to claim that the oil and the rock
are generically related. If all my pockets have holes in them except one and my money can be
kept only there, it is incorrect to reason that this pocket coined the money or witnessed its

How helpful it is when scholars of different fields come together on a problem. That is what a
university community should be. There is so little of it, however.

P. S. He began to ponder the fact that oil would decompose everywhere; that ashes would
decompose, geology cannot tell.

Now again he is searching for anomalies in archaeological reports of ancient times, and writes
in his Journal of January 21, 1973:

I am dismayed by the material that I must digest. This morning I scanned Chronologies in Old
World Archaeology. a fat little encyclopedia edited by Robert W. Ehrich. I search for evidence
of clear breaks between cultures. The authors do not give them. They classify but do not
explain a multitude of changes in strata and objects. In a couple of instances 'sudden'
stoppages are mentioned. Done in 1965, none mentions Velikovsky, one mentions Schaeffer (he
could hardly miss him since Schaeffer appeared in 1948 and the author is specialized in
Northern Syria and Northern Mesopotamia.)

All are using R-C dating (adjusted) and grumbling about it. It is difficult to say whether the
dates given reflect a sampling of possibilities, e. g.:

If all the dates are put into a frequency table, would gaps show up and would these point to a
destruction over part or whole areas? Is this statistically inferable?

Look up possible catalogue of all R-C and P-A dates for the world and make a frequency table
from them. If there is

1) any consistency of cluster or gaps? 2) any consistency in parts of the world; i. e. axis
tilt or even another disaster would hit certain parts of the world worse than others.

Later, the whole picture could be slid into a true chronological space.

All dates seem to be later than 10,000 B. C.

Then he is in Athens and has looked up Professor G. Marinos of the University of Athens Geology

Dear Professor Marinos:

The Doxiades Organization informed me that you were supervising the analysis of the core
drillings being made at a number of sites in Athens in connection with the proposed subway

I am interested in any evidences that your drillings may show of levels of calcination in the
historical and pre historical stratigraphy of the area. By calcination I mean burnt debris, ash
coverings, and earth subjected to heavy thermal stress. At the same time I would be interested
in concurrent evidence of flooding on a large scale, associated with or independent of the

Professor Marinos is happy to oblige and introduces him to the engineer who is drilling beneath
the city. The engineer takes Deg on a tour of the drilling sites, and shows him profiles of
many cores. The drilling is too crude to tell him what he wants to know: what comes up is an
already infinitely fractured Athens schist; no way of showing thin or scattered ashes. Athens
must have shaken a great deal in ancient time, he thinks, but no indications of flooding or ash
falls. Could the surface of Attica have been shaken, washed away and blown away? Possibly. The
Acropolis was originally part of a larger mass, according to Plato, and to have been well-

He sails for Naxos, whence he writes to his old friend, Richard C. Cornuelle, in Manhattan:

... I have nearly concluded that the ocean basins were created about 15,000 years ago, and
promptly filled with the waters of heaven. And I bought a beach ball, painted it white, and,
with much effort and complication, finally succeeded yesterday in drawing upon it in crayon, a
map of the all-land (Pangea) earth, the old poles, the old ice caps, and the fractures that
split and drove apart the continents by an expansion of the globe. I had hoped to sketch the
book this summer but the problems have come so hot and heavy that maybe another six months will
be needed just to outline the work so that people like you can look at it and see that I'm not
all that crazy.

There's a good little foreign crowed here this summer, writers, artists, sculptors, teachers,
drifters, even two (not one) belly dancers (American). Wish you might visit. Can give you the
absolutely isolated stone cottage away from town where you can dwell stark naked on the land
and in the sea. Or send someone you love.

I meant to go to Turkey to get a sample of Trojan ashes, but the crisis, the out-of-pocket
expenses, and other risk of the adventure made me put the trip aside and I may get a friend to
do the job in the fall or come back in the spring, hopefully with a small grant in hand, to do
it myself....

It is clear that Deg was working to explain global morphology by earth expansion. He had yet to
achieve the idea that a lunar eruption from the Earth would cause the oceanic fracturing and
rafting of continents, and explain many other mysteries at the same time.

Deg's Journal, Naxos, August 15, 1974

New war crisis. Turks are going too far. People around me disturbed. How do I proceed with my
strange far-away thoughts and study? Met with Gerhardt Rosler for two hours today, three hours
yesterday. He wants to talk politics, I geology. We talk mostly geology.

Today we figured out together the parallel faults between Paros and Naxos. May be important.
Whole strait between may have collapsed recently. Very 'recent' fault, 'fresh, ' according to

Stylida is an everyday sight, by geological standards. The area is not such as to excite the
torpid theoretical tempers of geologists. If I can say something about recent changes here, it
will show that one can go anywhere in the world with the aid of catastrophic theory, properly
framed, and find 'potential support, ' at a minimum.

Gerhardt dug up a note he made on a broadcast in Germany when he was a high school student. It
said x m 3 of hydrogen per second struck the earth. Where did it go? Hydrogen is not part of
the atmosphere. Does it combine with O to drop into the ocean as H2O?

He had made some rough calculations. It is enough to account for all the oceans at 2 x 10 25
grams, we discovered, if E = 4.6 b. y. old Cf this with canopy theory. This held rings derived
aboriginally, therefore there is no need for the continuous flow.

But if hydrogen and oxygen met in a different gravitational situation -- when Earth was in
Uranus-Gigans [later designated by Deg as Super-Uranus] complex and orbit -- they could compose
the rings. Then, relieved from Uranus-Gigans, the rings fell and the stored H2O deposits with
them. Now, since then, water would be building up with them directly! Is this so? Continental
shelves -- have they been filling and dropping ?

Back in America to teach for the Fall Semester, on November 11, 1974 he telephones Dorothy
Vitaliano, who, with her husband Charles, worked as a geological team. Indiana University press
had recently published her Legends of the Earth, the aim of which was to establish
uniformitarian interpretations of both catastrophic folklore and of geological sites assertedly
catastrophic. Her book's sales were disappointing. It is not so easy to sell anti-
quantavolution books; although well-received by editors and professors, they lack an
enthusiastic audience.

As an example of her method, she presents an Arancanian Indian legend according to which in
ancestral times two serpents made the sea rise. Earthquake and volcanism were followed by a
universal flood. The survivors took refuge on a mountaintop which floated up close to the sun.
Ever thereafter, the Indians repeated their climb up the mountains, carrying bowls (to protect
their heads from the sun, they say), whenever an earth-quake occurs. There must have been
numerous similar earthquakes and tsunamis, claims Vitaliano, to perpetuate the legend and its
associated behavior.

The myth and associated actions are, in fact, rather clear examples of universal responses to a
universal flood, preceded by violent quakes and volcanism. The "Sun" was probably Saturn gone
nova (the infant Horus and Jupiter). The twin serpents were twin comets either from a second
confused catastrophe or debris from the nova. The bowls are means as protection from fall-out
of all kinds. The continual repetition of the behavior is a form of compulsion, whether it
occurs during "normal disasters" or in celebration of the anniversaries of the primordial
disaster. The concept of illud tempus (the First Great Day, so to speak) that Mircea Eliade,
the famed comparative ethnologist of the University of Chicago, employs, explains the psychic
nature of such events. Deg's Homo Schizo I transfers the concept from a solely psychic complex
to a complex based upon primeval experience.

Now, at this point in time, Deg and the Vitalianos' should have gotten together to discuss
their findings and differences. Not at all. Scientific development seems at times to proceed as
a series of missed encounters and perpetuated misunderstandings. A small problem in business --
say a sentence in an annual report -- as Deg could observe among his friends in government and
corporations, will arouse a rich system of conference telephoning, airplane rides, Xerox
fireworks, and overnight express mail. Not that the scientists need to have agreed, but they
might have erased 50% of the differences and retire, both enlightened.

Often impatient of delays, and often pushing things to conclusion --conscious of the defects in
scientific and intellectual business:

Talk about Pop and Mom grocery stores! The intelligentsia is driven to work at the lowest
support level of technology and economy. And is brainwashed besides to accept its lowly status.
There is a mythical complex of incompetence and insufficiency which are inextricably
rationalized and justified as a single process usually called creative or scientific, and
worshipped as a whole. Yet how can you be sure that they would not waste the technology if you
gave it to them. Every other occupation does, the military, the bureaucracy, the corporations,
everybody except Mom and Pop. There's the paradox: the least efficient is the most efficient,
the least costly is the most effective. We can't all be Mom and Pop, but everything else is
worse in its own way!

The Vitalianos were part of the Thera volcano study group, a combined geological-archaeological
effort at understanding the explosion that tore apart a thriving island in the Aegean. The
peculiar shape of the remaining land excited suspicions as to its history but no historical
reference to it occurs. At first, therefore, modern volcanologists assigned it an old age. Then
Spiridon Marinatos excavated cultural remains of the Bronze Ages; finally a town of Late Minoan
Age was uncovered, Akrotiri.

The geologists followed Marinatos in assigning the destruction to about 1500 B. C. and tying it
into both the Exodus and the sinking of Atlantis. Eddie Schorr, a graduate student of the
University of Cincinnati, working for Velikovsky, showed (contra-Velikovsky and all concerned)
that the event could not be of 1500 B. C., but rather must have occurred around 1100 B. C. or
later, and also that it could not be Atlantis. Deg adopted Schorr's view, even though he would
have liked to see it dated at 1500 B. C., when there was a felt need to discover universal
destruction surrounding the major Venus disaster. The others went merrily along writing books
and articles to profit from the glamorous Atlantis and Exodus connections, which I think shows
how readily 'hard' scientists will buy meretricious goods. V. was silent, though his voice,
correcting his error and endorsing Schorr, would have carried weight. Schorr should have been
granted his doctorate promptly upon the publication of this brief piece and his two articles
disposing of the Greek Dark Ages (hence 500 years of supposed time) that appeared at the same

Such was not to be. Indeed, he published the articles under the pseudonym of Isaac Isaacson, so
fearful was he of being evicted from the Ph. D. program of his University. V. was disposed to
support his fear; movements are made of martyrs.

Deg could not figure out how justified was their fear, but was concerned with the self-
destructive aspects of it. V. had paranoiac tendencies which fueled even stronger and similar
suspicions on Schorr's part. Good for one another intellectually, they were bad for each other
emotionally. Schorr was highly regarded at Cincinnati. Yet he finally left the University and
retired to his family's business in Houston. His research continued privately, and he remained
in touch with several other heretics if only through letters that are extremely long,
brilliantly correct on Aegean history, and malevolently critical of practically everyone,
including his correspondents.

In one of these letters to Greenberg he attacked Deg's articles on Troy first for not crediting
him enough for his advice and counsel (in what name he should have received credit was not made
clear), secondly, for small errors that could and should have been corrected in a letter to Deg
or to the publishing magazine, Kronos. Greenberg passed the letter to Deg saying, you see, here
is what I have to deal with (for the rest of the letter was furious on other matters as well),
or perhaps he was saying, see here, I am not the worst of the Furies. Efforts were made by
Elisheva and others, following V.'s death, to consolidate Schorr's unpublished work on the Dark
Ages into V.'s lean manuscript on the subject, to no avail.

Deg offered to speak to the Cincinnati authorities on Schorr's behalf, but he was warned
against doing so; the prophecy went on to fulfill itself. I cannot say, however, that word of
the pseudonymous scholar did not leak to the Cincinnati network, for Deg told his daughter, Dr.
Catherine Vanderpool, who dwelled in association with the Athens terminus of the network, of
Eddie's predicament; and when Eddie put Deg in touch with Professor Cadogan of the University
of Cincinnati, surely he must have been tempting, or even admitting, self-disclosure.

Deg, we recall, was on the trail of Trojan ashes. One day he was working at the library of the
American school of Classical Studies in Athens, and found in one of the volumes a remarkable
sentence to the effect that samples from numerous levels of Trojan debris had been collected by
Blegen's team in the 1930's. Yes -- Jerry Sperling, a visiting scholar from Cincinnati told
him, who had worked on Troy and was at the Library at the same moment -- this showed the
thoroughness of Blegen; no, he said, I do not know what they are or where they are.

Deg had friendly access to James Caskey, head of the archaeology department at Cincinnati,
through Cathy's father-in-law, Professor Eugene Vanderpool, a friend, and highly reputed as the
"Grand Old man" of the School of Athens. Yes, the samples were in bags still, and were about to
be analyzed by a geologist, Professor Bullard. So said Caskey. And Deg spoke to Caskey of his
interest in the calcinology of the debris.

On September 18, 1974, Deg called Reuben G. Bullard who, it developed, had left the University
to join the faculty of the Cincinnati Bible Seminary. Deg found him well-disposed and even
willing to undertake the work from his new position. The sample were contained in about 400
cloth bags in the attic of McMicken Hall. Deg wrote to Caskey and meanwhile reported to his
friend Bruce Mainwaring, another cosmic heretic who also on occasion dug into his purse to help
move along a publication, "very enthusiastic about your idea for an 'ash' project... and hoping
to try to organize a program which embodies some of Eddie's ideas as well..."

Then Caskey decides the same action should be taken; he writes Deg:

3 Nov. 74
Dear Professor de Grazia,

Thank you for your letter of October 22. I am interested in the project, but must ask for a bit
of time to inform myself further. It was a shock to me to hear that Bullard is no longer at the
university. I shall be leaving Greece soon but shall be in Cincinnati only shortly before the
Christmas holidays. Therefore I'll take up the question -- as soon as possible --after the
opening of the winter quarter in January. It is important. My colleagues and I shall give it
careful and serious consideration.

With apologies for the delay and, again, thanks, I am Yours Sincerely, John L. Caskey

There is no recognition, here or otherwise, that Deg might render theoretical or operational
assistance. Deg sent a copy of his manuscript on paleocalcinology and Trojan ashes to George
Rapp, whom Dorothy Vitaliano had recommended as having had an interest in Trojan geology. Deg
now applies to the National Science Foundation and is turned down. Time passes. On May 12,
1976, Deg called George Rapp, who is at the University of Minnesota in Duluth, and notes down
the substance of their discussion:

Conversation with Prof. George Rapp
Department of Geology
University of Minnesota at Duluth

1200 hrs. May 12, 1976

Has rec'd NEH and NSF grants to study the 350 sample bags from Troy. Is applying a range of
chemical analyses to all bags. Has found some pollen and wood that can be 14C analysed. No
reports yet and possibly for another year or two. (Students asst is going away for summer on
job.) He is expecting to look at the terrain himself in December. No signs of vitrification in
the samples. Visual inspection cannot often reveal ashes, but he will know whether there has
been fall-out from volcanism or local incineration from torch or accident.

I asked him about the scottish vitrified forts. He never heard of them. I described the
findings of a century ago and said that the theory called for brush or log fires set outside
the walls to harden them. He questioned the temperatures, as did I. 1000 degrees needed well
focused,[ sic] as is done in ceramic baking (with help of venting.) When I told him that the
fusing had entered a couple of feet into the crevices, he dismissed any brush fire. So one more
important detail is cleared away. The vitrified towers are definitely of unusual origin. I
asked him whether the soil of Hisarlik contained the same kind of ferruginous clay that we were
talking about and he said he did not know but would look see when he visited the site. (He had
been there before but had not noticed.) He said that the vitrification would be noticed by the
archaeologists at Troy but none mentioned it. I am not so sure they didn't. What was the
calcination if not vitrification? But the copper and lead deposits would have performed the
same lightning attractive functions as the ferruginous clay. Hislarlik is a lonely tell and
promontory, also attractive.

I told Rapp that I would rap with him come fall to see if anything new had happened. He said he
doubts if anything new will have happened. He said he doubts that he will ever have final
On June 15, 1977 Eugene Vanderpool writes to Deg:

Dear Al,

Here is Caskey's reply about the Troy samples, written from Kea. About the Thera conference
sponsored by Galaopoulos and scheduled for July, I am told by Jerry Sperling that it has been
postponed until next year. He heard this from George Rapp.

All well in Pikermi, Yours, Gene

J. L. Caskey to E. Vanderpool June 14, 1977 Work on the Troy samples is proceeding, very
thorough, under George Rapp of University of Minnesota at Duluth, progress satisfactory. I am
told. The results are to be put together in 1978, with the plan that they be submitted then as
a supplementary Monograph in the Cincinnati TROY-Series (Princeton U. Press) [actually the
results were published in 1982] Slow, but I trust worth the time and effort (and money).

If you are in touch, tell Prof. De G. I'll try to write to him one day but am not sure just
when. I haven't got the facts, and probably could not understand them if I had. Nothing
definite has been reported yet, in any case.

In 1982 the report finally appears, dedicated to Caskey who had deceased, extravagantly
published by the Princeton University Press, and offered at a price of $52.00. Deg who has been
following closely its production calls his friend Jerry Sherwood of the Press. She invites him
to sit down in their offices and go through the book. He is disappointed. There are no findings
of consequence from tests of the debris. The only organic elements of significance are from the
straw used in making bricks. There is no indication that any of Deg's hypotheses was
considered, even if to refute them.

What could be concluded from this study that occupied several years and cost a hundred thousand
dollars? Either nothing unusual had occurred beyond the man-caused or accidental burning and
earthquakes, or the proper tests were not employed, or the samples were defective to begin
with. Schliemann's burnt City remained a mystery, so far as Deg was concerned.

Only some of the samples were used. He argues that the remainder stand for future
investigation. Regardless of the sinister hypotheses of strange fall-outs or electrical-thermal
emanations from underground, there are other more conventional hypotheses that would be worth
further study. An outside team, say, such as Blumer of Woods Hole Oceanographic Center led when
he was alive, might be asked to evaluate the samples on a much wider range of tests, seeking
gases, polycyclic hydrocarbons, lightning residues, and volcanic tephra.

On the one hand this may seem to be the suggestion of a crank who is never satisfied by proofs
against his pet theory; on the other hand this may be one of those cases (so well-known in the
record of the U. S. Food and Drug Administration, for instance) where decades of one-sided
proof turn out to be bad and new theories and tests bring about retraction of the "proofs" and
significant new discoveries.

At Chapel Hill, North Carolina, Deg was visiting fire-dance expert and archaeoastronomer
Elizabeth Chesley-Baity, and paid a courtesy call to the Political Science department.
Professor Andrew Scott was cued in to Deg's quantavolution and suggested he get in touch with
his relative, John William Firor by name, who was Director of the National Center for
Atmospheric Research. An exchange of letters followed. One notes that the inquiry strikes into
two lines of study: the possibly catastrophic origins of mankind and geophysical catastrophism.
Firor's letter stuck in Deg's mind as he wrote the chapters on exoterrestrialism and the
atmosphere in Lately Tortured Earth.

June 3, 1976

Dear Dr. Firor:

As I was explaining my present studies in the origins of human nature to Andy Scott recently,
he came up with the suggestion that I address you on one type of problem which I've
encountered. In my scenario of practically instant creation of the psychocultural human from a
closely similar homo sapiens anatomy, I have had to set up models of genetic change, cultural
traumas, and atmosphere change (plus combinations). In the atmospheric context, one major
question is whether there occurred a radical change in some atmospheric constant, which then
assumed a uniformitarian guise and which is not observable presently therefore, but yet is
producing distinctively human behavior.

For instance, what are the limitations (low-high) of the gases and particles or combinations
thereof that an essentially human physical type can absorb or endure without expiring and
secondly what mental and anatomical operations would be continuously altered by the different
possible mixes?

High altitude deoxygenation, nitrogen bends, oxygen poisoning, carbon monoxide poisoning, x-ray
and ultra-violet effects are some cases of relevance. I wonder whether certain gases can affect
the endocrines continuously; I postulate this because a constant heightening of endocrinal
output will result in pathological exaggerations of typical behavior.

Among the hypothetical constructs for abrupt change in atmospheric constants might be included
increase or decrease in oxygen; CO2; ambiant ionization; x-ray; solar particles; heavy
volcanism and gases over centuries. I have not mentioned changes in barometric or in atmosphere
mass weight, nor of the effects of high, heavy ice-water rings or canopies that were removed in
a series of cataclysms. The chain of causation may be complex, e. g., a life span increase
(decrease) brought on by changed gas mixture promotes longer training and group memory and

Perhaps I haven't provided enough detail even to permit considering the subject. If so, please
tell me. If this suggests to you some ideas of studies that you would care to relate to me, I
would be most grateful. I call my field revolutionary primevalogy; the atmosphere which may be
the most delicate of all ecological factors, is part of it.

8 July 1976 Dear Professor de Grazia: I have given considerable though to your June 3 letter
asking whether there has occurred any radical change in some atmospheric constant. There are
three areas that I can comment on: atmospheric composition, climate, and ultraviolet radiation.

The present notions concerning atmospheric composition do not suggest that there have been
sudden changes. Those who have thought about the history of the atmosphere take as a starting
point a gradually cooling earth which has exhaled a good deal of carbon dioxide. In this
situation, some sort of primitive plant life begins and the plants themselves begin to produce
oxygen. When the oxygen content reaches some particular level, then animal life becomes
possible and it too begins its long evolutionary chain. I am not an authority in this area, but
my reading tells me that no one has yet proposed any cataclysmic changes in composition. There
is some notion that we have reached an oxygen content which is self-regulating, that if plants
produce enough oxygen that the atmospheric content tends to increase, the likelihood of
lightning -- starting forest fires and other events would increase enough to burn up the extra
oxygen and bring it back up to its regulated level. I do not know how accepted this notion is,
but if anything, it works against what you are looking for, that is a sudden change.

There are sudden changes known in the dust content of the atmosphere as a result of major
volcanic eruptions. When the Agung Volcano erupted in the early 60s, it's well established that
the dust in the stratosphere went all over the world and stratospheric temperatures changed for
a year or two afterwards as the dust only gradually washed out. However, no ground-level
effects of this process were measured and, hence, nothing that might easily fit into impacting
a Homo sapiens anatomy.

The climate does change. The northern hemisphere warned up between 1890 and 1950 and has cooled
off since that time by a similar amount. The changes are larger in some parts of the northern
hemisphere than in others. This particular change is not particularly large and perhaps not
cataclysmic enough for what you are looking for. There are suggestions, however, in the
paleoclimate record that larger changes have occurred more rapidly. Around 500 B. C.,
evidently, in the space of a day, or a month, or a year (after this long a time, it's hard to
tell the difference) the climate of Europe cooled strikingly, clogging certain well-known
mountain passes with snow, changing the dates of which harbors were free of ice, and producing
dramatic effects on the trade arrangements, travel patterns and so forth of the time. There are
other tantalizing bits of evidence of sudden changes in climate -- a rodent in Canada found
frozen in thousands-of-year-old ice-covered terrain. Climate change and climate theory is a
very active area of study just now and I would suspect a rapid accumulation of new information
in this area in the next few years.

Finally, ultraviolet light. Recently, we have found that a sudden stream of fast particles from
the sun on one occasion struck the high atmosphere of the earth, produced nitrogen compounds
that in turn destroyed some of the ozone and suddenly admitted more ultraviolet light to the
surface than before. The effect went away fairly quickly as the ozone layer healed itself and
indeed the effect was rather small. But it suggests that if during the changing patterns of the
earth's magnetic field there occurred a moment when there was no general field of the earth,
hence, no magnetosphere to protect us from solar particles, we might have an era in which the
atmosphere would have much less ozone and, hence, the ultraviolet radiation at the surface
would be considerably larger than today. It is hard to say how rapidly such a situation might
begin. I suppose one could also not rule out the possibility of a major and sustained emission
of particles from the sun which would begin essentially instantaneously and diminish the ozone
layer for weeks or months, but we have never observed that much solar activity. Very recently
you may have seen an article in Science magazine written by a scientist here at NCAR in which
he pulled together many lines of evidence to indicate that during a 70-year period in the late
17th century, the sun seemed to be free of sun spots and the character of solar activity was
very different from anything we have known in modern times. This fact at least holds out the
possibility that sustained changes in solar activity was very different from anything we have
known in modern times. This fact at least holds out the possibility that sustained changes in
solar activity can occur and I would suppose if they can occur negatively, that is the
vanishing of sun spots of solar activity, one might have eras of higher than normal solar
activity. The carbon-14 record, which was used in the Science article as corroborating
evidence, suggests that the changes in cosmic rays producing carbon-14 and controlled by the
sun were of the same relative size of that occurring during the sun-spot-free period in the
17th century.

I hope these rather crude thoughts are some help to you in thinking about revolutionary

Sincerely Yours, John W. Firor

The ancient Roman Encyclopedist Pliny mentions that the Etruscan city of Volsinium had been
destroyed long before him by a thunderbolt from the sky. None paid serious attention to the
remark, except the cosmic heretics. Deg, who had campaigned during the War in the region, would
have liked to investigate Pliny's claim, a pleasant location for a critical test of the
veracity of legend and the activity of Zeus the Thunderbolter or another god.

After he had become aquainted with an authoritative figure of Italian geology, Professor Piero
Leonardi of the University of Ferrara and the Academia Nazionale dei Lincei, he wrote Leonardi
about Bolsena and received a disappointingly assured reply:

10 March 1977

... I read with interest what you said in your letter about the Lake of Bolsena and the
publications of your friend Juergens on the possible attribution of the craters and 'sinuous
rilles' of the Moon and Mars to enormous electrical discharges, but I must confess to you that
the arguments of your friend do not convince me, for a complex of considerations shared by
almost all planetologists. I am sending you separately a work of mine on the origin of the
'sinuous rilles' in which you can discern my opinion on the matter...

He voices, too, his opinion that meteoroid impacts and volcanism can account for the craters.

So far as concerns the Lake of Bolsena, one is dealing undoubtedly with a normal volcanic
structure, and I do not believe at all that its origin can be attributed to extratellurian

He goes on to address himself to a query of Deg concerning a nineteenth century report of human
bones and pottery found in Pliocene deposits and deposited at the Museum in Florence, and says
that the report was probably made before proper stratigraphy was carried on, thus permitting a
mixture of materials of different epochs.

Naturally Deg was not satisfied. Comyns Beaumont had written many year earlier of the erratic
nature of volcanic eruptions and suspected that meteors and volcanos transacted
electromagnetically. Stephanos found a striking instance of this reported by the noted
oceanographer Beebe on the ship "Arcturus" approaching a volcano at Albermarle Sound. In one
day, two brilliant meteors came out of the sky and shot into the crater of the volcano. Noting
that Flaugergue's Comet preceded the frightful New Madrid, Missouri, earthquake in 1811-1812,
Deg figured that a correlation between comets and meteors on the one side and volcanos and
earthquakes on the other side might well be significantly positive.

Deg is also corresponding with Professor Ernst Wreschner at this time, inquiring whether he has
news of the discoveries at Ebla. Wreschner on March 30, 1977 responds:

... On the Italian digs and tablets. There are two possibilities for the destruction of the
town, 1) A natural catastrophe, 2) A man-made one. The time: ca 2200 B. C. I do not think that
a natural catastrophe destroyed the town and left the tablets intact. The short-lived semitic
(Jewish?) Kingdom of Eber had powerful neighbors in what is now Iraq. The time is also known as
the beginning of the Hittite expansion...

Other cosmic heretics are alert to the fate of Ebla. Its destruction occurs in Deg's Mercurian
period, a highly electrical period. The nations are in turmoil; the natural forces of the Earth
-- volcanic, seismic, aquatic, atmospheric -- respond to exoterrestrial forces, attributed
often to the planet Mercury and his identities as Thoth, Hermes, et al. Deg laid down the
challenge: that no exceptions will be found to the catastrophic destruction of settlements of
this period. Concurrently, radar engineer M. M. Mandelkehr published his first study, this "An
Integrated Model for an Earthwide Event at 2300 B. C." that extended Schaeffer's Near East
investigations to demonstrate on all continents "a global catastrophe caused by an
extraterrestrial body." He worked quite alone, contentedly so, apparently; Deg and Sizemore
visited him on one occasion, inasmuch as he lived not far from Trenton. Philip Clapham made his
debut as a cosmic heretic in 1983 with two articles in Catastrophism and Ancient History on
Ebla, fitting it into the catastrophic chronology of the Near East.

One of the most promising ventures of the mid-seventies was the little magazine that Hans
Kloosterman, a Dutch geologist, put out from Rio de Janeiro. The Catastrophist Geologist went
on for two years and subsided, but not before it had brought to light materials of German and
Russian catastrophists quite unknown to the English-speaking heretics, and of a high degree of
sophistication. Noteworthy especially was Otto Schindewolf, a paleontologist who had begun his
publications in 1950. He favored the hypothesis that fluctuations in high-energy cosmic
radiation caused the periodic extermination of most species. He contributed the essential
concept of anastrophism, the positive side of catastrophism, attributing the birth as well as
the death of species to radiation disasters.

Deg heard first from Kloosterman in May of 1977 and replied to congratulate him. He absorbed
material from at least half of the contents of the journal into Lately Tortured Earth.
Kloosterman removed himself a priori from an association with Velikovsky, a step sincerely
taken which would perhaps help to bring a new line of contributors to the field; however, it
also put him out of touch with devotees of Velikovsky and actually incited antagonism to his
work. He knew that catastrophists were few, without realizing perhaps how very few. He and Deg
never met, and Deg would get snippets of news about him from Dutch heretics. The journal, which
could have matched Kronos and SISR had it continued, brought in professional geologists, an
element conspicuously absent in quantavolutionary circles.

What Deg meant by ideological features of geology and science generally was amply explained in
a note later on:

As I moved from the theory of human behavior into the study of Nature, my intellectual baggage
included the concept of a "scientific fiction" which had given me good use for many years and
which may be hypothesized when encountering phenomena that are unproven or lead too far afield
to explain, yet are needed to move ahead with an exposition.

I discovered surprisingly that most natural scientists are not skeptical about some major
guiding concepts, conceding to them the 'hardness' of reality (reality itself being a fiction
of undeniable universal utility). Several scientific fictions can be named, however, that may
be losing some of their utility and therefore should when employed should be watched for what
they are doing to one's mind and the facts being ordered.

Practical fictions of Science:
a) the Ice Ages
b) Natural Selection
c) Continental Drift
d) "In the Beginning," "primordial melt," the primitive solar system," "as the Earth was being
formed," "illud tempus."

Such a fiction includes:
a) the indexing function
b) the classifying of material
c) an explanation of phenomena
d) defense mechanism phenomena
e) license to work (freedom)
f) acceptance (reward)
g) allows one to conjecture freely

All may have in common defense mechanisms vs. catastrophism.

May be analyze with similar concepts articles in Nature before 1970 and several Sci.
encyclopedias' usages of these terms.

Cf. Hans Vaihinger Philosophy of 'As If' When no longer functional, these may and should be
reviewed to pass muster.

All the while the cosmic heretics were sure that the planets and the Moon would display
catastrophic effects along with the Earth. Planetary and satellite geology was carried on
actively in the pages of Pens‚e and subsequent media of the heretics. The high heat of Venus
was the central topic of the debate, but V. kept extending his list of claims to other planets
and the Moon.

For instance, in a letter to H. H. Hess, July 2, 1969, he wrote:

Some nine thousand years ago water was showered on Earth and Moon alike (deluge). But on the
Moon all of it dissociated, hydrogen escaping; the rocks will be found rich in oxygen,
chlorine, sulfur and iron.

Velikovsky had not then or later a fixed idea of when the Noachian Flood, which he is talking
about, occurred. Here it was 9000 B. P. Sometimes he said 4000 B. P., at other times 6000 B.
P., and it was this last date that Deg also chose when the time came to postulate a
catastrophic calendar.

Unlike V. and other heretics, Deg accepted the theory of "continental drift" that triumphed in
geology during the postwar generation. He went far beyond it, pulling the Moon from the Earth
at the beginning of the continental movements, in proposing that then the drift was a rapid
"trot," assigning the total quantavolution to a large passing sky body which he called Uranus

24 December 1981

A Merry Christmas and Happy New year to SIS and yourself! The Editor, SISR Dear Sir.

Dr. Peter Smith's "Open Earth" (V SISR I 1980-I 30-2) is not open enough to some tastes. If, as
he rightly says, "The only certainties are that our sphere of ignorance is huge...," then he
should let some quantavolutionary theory squeeze through along with the gang of speculations
about continental drift. I do not call if "drift" but "rafting." (See Chaos and Creation, 155)
In fact, I considered calling it a "trot." Its course has followed a negative exponential curve
since its catastrophic beginning. The simplest explanation of the mosaic of jostling crustal
pieces is an initial set of heavy shocks from a passing body that wrenched away half of the
crust, cracking the remainder and sending it sliding hither and yon toward the great basin
exposed by the lost material.

For the moment, geophysicists are enchanted by the shivers of movement and the designation of
the creeping pieces as major and minor plates. I have seen the most marvelous reconstructions
of the Earth going back "half a billion" years; one is published by a University of Chicago
paleographic project under Alfred Ziegler. In my view, the original plate until a few millennia
ago was the whole earth covering the globe. What we can chart now are the millimeters of creep
of the long uniformitarian tail of the exponential curve of decline from the original
precipitous outburst of crust.

To accomplish their uniformitarian infinitesimalism, most geophysicists have taken refuge in
billions of years; thus can the curve be smoothened out. This imaginary flat curve they then
prove by elaborating geological and radiometric tests of time, the very foundations of which
were destroyed by quantavolutions. But, too, tests of time aside, if Dr. Smith would provide us
with a single study proving subduction of frozen mantle back into the molten depths -- carrying
with it light crystal material or, worse, where is all the stuff dumped along the shores? -- or
if he can supply any other type of hard proof that the continental plates move under an Earth
power that is sui generis and not originally extra-terrestrial, we should be most obliged.

On the other hand, I do not intend to support Dr. Velikovsky's view of continental drift, which
was always to my mind a non-view, "fence-straddling" (to allow an American political
expression). As he says, "My position on continental drift was (and is ) intermediary
between..." Between what -- an orange and a banana? Maybe he did not want to hurt Harry Hess'
feelings, Hess having fathered the plate theory, for Hess was one of the few establishment
leaders who treated him with a full hearing. Had Wegener's life not been cut short, he might
finally have come upon the best explanation of continental drift, for he already had unblinded
himself of major geological theses and had the basic components of continental rafting
mechanisms in mind.

I hope that Dr. Smith's youthful journal, which you advertise, will open up to articles
employing condensed time scales and depicting external forces playing upon the terrestrial

Sincerely yours, Alfred de Grazia

Deg's theory of recent lunar fission began in long fits of staring at the physiography of the
globe. He was attracted by Carey's advocacy of a considerable global expansion as the basis for
the globe-girdling fractures, but then put off by M. Cook's comments that the heat of such an
expansion would have dissolved the Earth. Still, invoking exoterrestrieal help, he worked up
first an expansion model, as is related in his letter to Cornuelle of August 1, 1974; then,
after a year of worrying that expansion great or small could not explain the actual disposition
of the continents, he decided upon an explosion-expansion model. Only Milton actively endorsed
the concept. The cosmic heretics, who could visualize Venus flying by the Earth 3500 years ago,
balked at picturing the crust of the Earth exploding into space to form the Moon a few
thousands years earlier. But Deg found that the model, proposed in Chaos and Creation, of a
binary solar system, recently disintegrating, could accommodate lunar fission along with every
major features and dynamic of the natural and biological sciences, together with the earliest
grand legendary themes of mankind.

When he finally got down to writing at length about geology in The Lately Tortured Earth, the
work came easily. It was simply a matter of taking up in turn the elements of the biosphere,
lithosphere and hydrosphere and applying to them all the material that he could gather about
exoterrestrial forces playing upon the Earth. The more he wrote, the better he felt about the
possibility of adapting conventional gradualism to quantavolution.

It seemed to him that the scientific fields were still far behind, needlessly so, even when
they were boldly led. After he had completed the book and sent it off to India for production,
he became aware that a striking conference had been held at the resort town of Snowbird, Utah
on October 19-22, 1981. Sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences and the Lunar and
Planetary Institute, and funded liberally by several foundations and institutions, scores of
experts gathered to report upon their separately supported and conducted researches in
"Geological Implications of Impacts of Large Asteroids and Comets on the Earth." Deg was of
course unknown and uninvited; he recognized having met personally only one of the participants!
Their papers were published a year later by the Geological Society of America.

The conference would have been a practical impossibility a generation earlier. It displayed
contemporary geology doing what it could do best, technical variations on a theme: given
unmistakable traces of the occurrence of certain meteoritic falls, how might these be
distinguished and measured, what excavations could they have caused, what chemicals could have
been scattered about, what animals and planets would have died -- all of this tightly bound up
with uniformitarian experience and highly mathematicized. One searches hopelessly in the volume
for an enlarged philosophical and cosmogonical inquiry.

Many topics went unaddressed, among them the possibility that important exoterrestrial
transactions of the Earth involved pass-bys of large bodies without impacting; that planets
might have played a role in cosmic disasters; that the measures of time employed might not be
infallible; that the Earth's tortured crustal morphology might in its most general features be
an exoterrestrial effect; and that heavy fall-outs of non-exotic material such as water and
gravel might have occurred. When Deg examined the papers, he felt keenly the ambivalence and
loneliness of a front-runner in the course of thought. The elation of being far ahead was
countered by the fear of being disoriented and by the longing to be moving forward amidst a
body of kindred spirits.


by Alfred de Grazia



In his journal of January 12, 1968, Deg writes of a conversation with Professor Lloyd Motz of
Columbia University, the same who had called the attention of scientists to Velikovsky's
successful predictions of Jupiter's radio noises and Venus' high heat:

Motz turned out to be a cheerful sort, full of admiration for Velikovsky, but of course
entirely convinced that the laws of gravitation and thermodynamics are much more positive proof
against Velikovsky than are some historical events of which Velikovsky may have proof positive.

Motz is going, obviously, by deduction from laws that he regards as immutable. He feels simply
that, whatever the historical evidence may be, it would be impossible for enough energy to the
generated on Jupiter to launch Venus by eruption into the heavens. He wonders whether there
might not be some third body that had appeared in space and constituted a counter force that
have drawn off or helped draw off Venus from Jupiter or whether Venus had come from somewhere
else in space. I pointed out that Velikovsky is firm at this time that Venus must have come out
of Jupiter by eruption (But not volcanic eruption -- rather from disequilibrium owing to
Saturn) and that we have no knowledge of a strange third body that may have been in space at
that time within the planetary system, else we might have heard the name given this body in the
records of the times. Still it is worth keeping an eye out for such an intruder. Motz says the
same problem besets those who think of quasars as a high-intensity explosion, an eruption from
larger bodies. Where can the energy come from, he says, and how could it gather together?

With Director of Antiquities Spiridon Marinatos in 1968, Deg met astronomer Constantinos
Chassapis who had studied the Orphic Hymns and derived certain conclusions about Greek
astronomy in the second millennium B. C. The Hymns, he asserted, had originated between -1841
and -1382, but probably in the 17th century. They showed the Greeks to understand
heliocentricity and the sphericity and rotation of the Earth, and spoke of the attraction of
the Sun as the source of orbital movement, and named the planets, the seasons, the atmosphere,
and the ether beyond. Their calendar was of twelve lunar months; they identified Saturn with
time; and they referred to a universal law that regulated the universe and stabilized the

Stecchini, Santillana, and Von Dechend, among historians of science known to Deg, were quite
persuaded of the advanced state of the most ancient known science, so Deg was rather more
impressed by the indications of modernity in Orphism, which Chassapis was exhibiting at the
same time. If the hymns had originated so early, though, they went to prove a uniformitarian
history of the heavens. Incompetent to challenge Chassapis' readings, Deg could but question
the definitiveness of the poetic lines, which seemed indeed vague, and the technique of
retrojecting the present celestial motions unjustifiably.

The Orphic Hymns, Chassapis also maintained, evidenced an early knowledge to lenses. This, too,
rankled with Deg. He had worried over a mention of a lens-like object found in Ninevah's
earliest levels, and had discussed the general question with Stecchini. If the Bronze Age
peoples had been able to magnify the stars, meteors, planets, sun and moon, they might also
have derived proportions and distances among the planets, this making Jupiter the King and
Saturn the retired king. Too they might thus have perceived the rings of Saturn and bands of
Jupiter. They might then for religious reasons, and because humans are anxious animals, have
created a body of legends ascribing to the heavenly bodies the various adventures, including
approaches to the Earth, that the revolutionaries said were historical occurrences.

Stecchini believed that the ancients had lenses, or at least would have built concave disks of
copper alloys polished to a high reflectivity. He wavered often in his basic position about
cosmic encounters. Always quite happy to play the game of catastrophic models, he might still
be readily influenced by Santillana or another colleague to believe that other solutions might
be found in the messages sent down through the ages by the earliest voices.

Deg, on the other hand, even when he postulated ancient telescopes, could not explain away the
concordance among ancient voices; did they have telescopes everywhere? Moreover the explosive
speech of the modern skies and terrestrial crust were seeming to make a point. Not until 1980
did a space vehicle confirm the great and incessant electrical discharges of Jupiter, but then
he had for fifteen years been persuaded that the legendary electrical behavior was real, and on
a much large scale than anything that might be observed today. The same concordance on many
other matters was consistent, too, with ancient legend. If the ancients had telescopes, they
would have previewed the catastrophes but could only have modestly exaggerated them in their

A possibility existed, he thought, that the theocratic elites, here and there, using
telescopes, would purvey to the masses distorted history, where legends survive and where are
perpetuated some happenings and forecasts; but there would be no compelling reason for widely
divergent cultures to achieve consensus on these. Why, let us ask, would the priests of the
Jupiter (Yahweh, Zeus) age, using telescopes upon calm heavens, invent catastrophic heavens of
the time of the birth of Jupiter, and of the earlier times of Saturn?

For that matter, the great telescopes of the past century have not induced uniformitarian
astronomers to alter their dogma of a calm celestial history. However, they have made an
increasing number of observers proto-catastrophists. So telescopes, even if the ancients
possessed them, could not impress catastrophes upon men who had not experienced such. If Venus
simply seemed big and beautiful enlarged 50 times, why would men go berserk, catatonic,
orgiastic at her regular, safe, distant approach? Fossil telescopes could not affect
quantavolutionary theory. They might even support the notion of cultural hologenesis that Deg

The great Book of Venus was of course Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision. In Deg's long
acquaintanceship with the book there developed practically no significant errors of astronomy
or geology, errors or omission of sources, or misreporting of legends. There is some
exaggeration and "purple prose", as in the title that suggests explosive impacts between the
planets Venus, Mars, Earth, and Moon, which he does not claim in the book itself. The style is
less timid, hesitant, than might be deemed appropriate. There are hints of arrogance as he
warns of the dire fate awaiting the theses of Darwin and Newton (less unseemly today than in
1950, however). There are no appeals to religion, only rare confusions of "ought" and "must"
with the factual "is". A certain repetitiveness occurs that may be impossible to avoid, but
which nevertheless tends to overstress and amplify some catastrophic occurrences. He avoids
scientific and pseudoscientific jargon and the coinage of terms.

I cannot here defend all of this, of which the first statement is already shocking: that "there
are practically no errors of astronomy?" How can a book that enraged many astronomers commit no
errors of astronomy? Apart from the main reasons, which are sociological and psychological,
there occur two substantive reasons: Velikovsky established his natural history by assertions
of fact; certain events either happened or did not happen and we weigh the evidence tending to
the one and the other to arrive at a judgment about planetary behavior. Second, after this is
done, Velikovsky asks how can the laws of astronomy permit such happenings. He understands the
laws. But when the behavior of the heavens does not conform to the demands of the laws, he
offers briefly some ideas as to what may improve the laws, such as the introduction of a larger
measure of electrical transactions into solar system behavior. He reasons the same in respect
to geology.

In legendary matters, he follows Euphemeris the Sicilian (fl. 300 B. C.) who established the
scientific canon that a myth is to be explained by natural causes. And when Dorothy Vitaliano
years later attacked Velikovsky while espousing euphemerism herself, she failed to realize that
she was merely reducing Velikovsky, not supplanting his method, which was the same as her own.

By the standards that Cook, Bruce, Juergens, Milton and Deg came to set for sky-body conduct,
Velikovsky was actually conservative and conciliatory to the establishment. He was heretical
but not a full-scale quantavolutionary. Deg came to feel almost perfunctory when he argued for
the middle-road quantavolutionaries like Velikovsky.

If a mini-microphone had been implanted in one of Deg's large ears, we would be entertained by
a litany of quantavolution over the years, emerging from an analysis of his stream of discourse
whenever the subject occurred, whether it would be in Greece, Manhattan, or Washington,
Princeton, London, Thailand, or India. What happens is this: most educated people are unaware
of the case for quantavolution; the subject is perennially interesting; it is impossible to
state or argue a full case; certain sloganized propositions are proven over time to have an
enlightening and convincing effect; these slogans are packaged and delivered in personal and
group conversations, with a couple left out where unnecessary or deemed inappropriate.

I have not had the advantage of an elaborate study, but I notice the frequency of these
statements, prefaced by something like: "more has happened to change the world by catastrophe
than by gradual evolution."

Religions are obsessed with primeval disasters."
"Mankind has always been fearful of the skies, such that terrible events must have happened
"Venus is hellishly hot and locked to the Earth."
"Mercury now is believed to have been recently relocated."
"Cosmic disasters destroy time measurements."
"Big changes in the biosphere are connected with general catastrophes."
"Ancient legends from around the world confirm each other."
"The surfaces of Earth and its neighbors have been torn up recently."
"The world is electrified from universe to atom with potentials that can overwhelm
gravitational forces when exercised."
"You can't determine what happened in natural history by natural processes nowadays."
"Science is as non-rational as any other kind of behavior.

And other such simplicities occur more or less frequently. Whether tossed out in defense or in
exposition, the expressions collide with a variety of phrases with which the well-educated
person is equipped, such as:

Gravitation accounts for the solar system."
"All methods of chronology give very old ages."
"The solar system has been functioning as it is for billions of years."
"You can't trust legends: they say everything and nothing."
"Evolution is a fact: it look millions of years to change the horse's foot to a hoof."
"The oldest features on Earth are hundreds of millions of years old."
"No imaginable force can move the Earth without exploding it."
"Venus' thick clouds work to make it like a greenhouse."
"First came myths, then religion, then magic, then rational science."
"Any local disaster can be exaggerated to huge proportions.

After the clash of these sets of slogans is amplified somewhat, the discussion is usually
turned off or diverted. Book reviews and scientific table-talk infrequently go even as far.
Once in a while a foray in strength is launched by one or the other side. Even so, rational
discussion or exposition does not ensue, but rather an elaboration of one of these slogans with
the citation of authorities, or with dogmas more elegantly stated.

Rarely does the exposition break out of the brush into the clearing. It would not be an
exaggeration to state that in the two decades about which this book talks, no more than a dozen
public presentations have occurred in which a systematic attempt has been made by a practiced
and specialized scientist in the face of opposition to destroy and bury one or another facet of
quantavolution, such as the capacity of moving the Earth without destroying it.

If this condition appears incredible, it is because so few people understand the sociology of
scientific communication, or human discourse of any kind. Scientists can answer questions that
they pose for themselves, and spend most of their time doing so, and encourage their "stooges"
to ask these questions; but they cannot well answer questions that are asked by others, true
others, who come out of a different mentality and have different purposes in mind.

Take an example from Deg's experience in these years from a quite distant field, political
science, where in parts of three different books he proposed a single equal tax on every living
soul: that the annual budget be divided by the population to figure the tax of each one. The
shocks, reverberations, incomprehension, suspicions, reservations, indignation and flustered
unmediated ejaculations assailing the idea make it practically impossible to present or
discuss, even to the point of starting up research in the subject. Yet when he captured an
honors seminar at New York University and forced the students to expel all their preconceptions
and prejudices, and to dig up fresh facts, the single equal tax was not only understood by the
small group, but was also preferred by them, as one after another of the terms were defined,
the data researched, a sample of people interrogated, and the idea drafted into the common and
understandable form of a legislative bill.

On the proposition: "Venus is a young planet," first reactions tend to be equally obstreperous
and incredulous. The attack builds up rapidly:

The solar system is very old and stable, Venus included."
"The heat of Venus is an effect of its great cloud banks."
"A planet cannot be moved by any force without exploding."
"No force capable of moving a planet exists actively or potentially."
"Existing records reveal at least 4000 years of Venus observations."
"Bode's law of planetary spacing forbids its moving from elsewhere or being elsewhere."
"Planets cannot move from ellipses to circles, and to move they must take up elliptical orbits
for a time.

Against these, the quantavolutionary argument, as it was developed by Velikovsky and his
friends, asserts:

The arrangement of the solar system is only stable by our recent historical observations."

"Venus is an exceptional planet in its dense atmosphere and with its great heat of 900 degrees
"The heat of Venus is an interior heat moving upwards to the surface and into the clouds."

"The hot planet Jupiter could have contained Venus, expelled it by fission (nova), and given it
its great heat."

"Venus rotates retrogradely, unlike the other planets."

"Venus is locked to the Earth (not to the 10 4 times larger Sun's tidal force) in two ways:
each inferior conjunction (243.16 days) finds it presenting the same hemisphere to Earth; and
its axis of rotation is perpendicular (within one degree) to the Earth's orbital plane (even
while 3 degrees off its own orbital plane)."

"The postulation of historically active electrical forces allows a planet-sized body to move
orbitally, axially, and rotationally without destruction, as an effect of the distribution of
charges throughout the solar system and of the near passage of a large body."

"Sacred and secular legends from around the world allude to the deviant behavior of Venus in
vicinity of Earth."

"The Venusian atmosphere, compared with the Earth's, contains 300 to 500 times more Argon-36, a
gas thought to have been dissipated from the planets shortly after they were formed."

"Venus practically lacks a magnetic field, it being 10 -4 of Earth's."

"Venus possesses a comet-like blowing away from the Sun that is much longer than the Earth's
relative to their respective magnetosphere radii."

"The Venusian surface is heavily featured, despite its great eroding heat and eroding wind
turbulence, but has no ocean basins."

"Fires seem to be burning on the surface of Venus, which may be caused by burning methane or

"Chemical composition of the clouds indicates no hydrocarbons (or components) yet, but the
question is not closed." "Slight indications are present that Venus may be cooling off.

The idea of a double sun, the system of Solaria Binaria, as Deg named it, came with shocking
suddenness. It was a monster that came leaping at him even before he had a name for it, and
before he conceived of a dynamic for it. On April 28, 1963, shortly after becoming concerned
with cosmogony, his journal reads:

Discussions with Velikovsky and Livio have not cleared up the phenomenon of the similar planes
of the planets in solar revolution (maximum of 7% off) or even of why they rotate. Velikovsky
and Stecchini are not very concerned, since Velikovsky's theories hold anyway. But I wonder
whether the nebular hypothesis that has the sun throwing off the planets in an initial series
of explosions is true and ask:

Could the Sun have cast off the planets at different times, or more importantly, could the
planets be created on their common plane by the pull between the Sun and a second sun or planet
revolving around and near (a twin). Then from time to time a planet would be released from one
or the other...

While the people of his camp were arguing with conventional scientists over the origins of the
heat of Venus and the chronology of Egypt, he took the time to wander about the cosmogonical
fields and ponder what his friends might have known better than he, that is that changed
motions of large celestial bodies signified not aberrations but somewhere back in time a
basically different order.

The old order must have functioned on some basic principle, probably a simple principle. What
could it have been? He knew next to nothing about formal astronomy or palaeontology or
chemistry. What he was picking up might be scornfully and legitimately called static, a buzzing
of voices, weak signals from many directions, from alleys and haunted houses of science,
disreputable astrologies, occult references, stern and orgiastic religious cults and sects,
ancient poetry, restless cemeteries of legends, the rage for science fiction, anomalies,
contradictions overlooked and brushed aside.

Probably if he had not experienced the hubbub of politics and warfare, where all is said and
done and almost nothing is true, he would have avoided all of this, shut his eyes, clapped his
hands over his ears. Even earlier, the presumptuous liberal education at the University of
Chicago, which combined in a nettlesome but hardfast marriage with skeptical sociological
pragmatism, had irrevocably attuned him to ideological quarrels.

Perhaps, too, had he not been pummeled by contradictory and obstreperous personalities among
his friends and family, his neighborhood and his schools, he would have been quick to settle
upon a regular line of thought. And, to be sure, the din was pierced by his immoderate
ambition, which clamored louder than all else for solutions. He did not wait upon his betters.

He asked himself what he could contribute, and in line with his character it had to be "the
bigger, the better." It had to avoid competition with superior heretics, not to mention
superior conventional scholars, whenever there appeared a well-worn path --solar chemistry,
celestial mechanics, the fossil record, and so on. His head contained a large quantity of
whispers and scratches telling him what to avoid and what might be chosen. He disagreed with
most of Teilhard de Chardin's work, for instance but in reading The Appearance of Man, he
caught a fine phrase that would describe his own mental set: "On the cosmic scale (as all
modern Physics teaches us) only the fantastic has a chance of being true." Chardin followed
this course by continuing as a Catholic priest; Deg followed it more specifically.

It was strange that an old, different order of the heavens did not suggest itself much earlier.
However, going through the hundreds of titles that Earl Milton and he had compiled for the
research on Solaria Binaria, Deg could find no statement that the solar system had been
anything but a great sun which had cast off its planets in its early history. The history had
been stretched greatly over the past century, from some millions of years to several billion
years. A rotating hot ball of gases, interrupted by its own violence, perhaps, had operated as
a centrifuge. An alternative theory had predicted a passing body which by gravitational
attraction had pulled off the planets and gone its own way.

Perhaps somewhere in the literature, as there always seems to be precedents, an obscure passage
or writing would suggest that the Sun had a companion that had withered away, or, who knows,
even Jupiter may have somewhere been called such a companion. If so, it remained hidden to
contemporary discussion.

How did it happen that a few minds adventured in new directions? Let us extract some of the
ideas that seem to have influenced the turning of thought.

Legends were gaining respect. After two centuries of general neglect, the idea of Giambattista
Vico that behind legends stood a substantial truth began once more to pick up support. It is
not without significance that Giorgio Tagliacozzo, an economist and employee of the Voice of
America conceived a lush Tree of Knowledge whose fruit was of all the sciences and schools of
philosophy and brought it to Deg publication in the 1950's. Then Tagliacozzo went on a one-man
crusade to resurrect the figure of Vico and Deg became the recipient of a continuous flow of
material, which, however irrelevant to Solaria Binaria, carried a message of the validity of
ancient materials. There were others to come, the historians of science, Stecchini, de
Santillana, von Dechend, and of course V.

But, going back, too, some twenty-five years, there were the anthropologists and sociologists
whom Deg knew at Chicago, who respected the customs and ideas of so-called primitive peoples.
By his simple and radical logic, it seemed always that if these people were so smart about the
present, what they said about the past could not be more stupid than what the great religions
said. And, if the two -- the "civilized" and "primitive" -- agreed that a great god blew a
great wind over the Earth, burned it and flooded it, here might be the beginning of a
historical truth. Perhaps this was not all so easy. The anthropologists hardly went farther.
Nor did the historians of religion: Mircea Eliade went a great distance to establish the
obsession of peoples everywhere with their traumatic beginnings, and the beginnings generally
correlated; Eliade just failed to take the step, enveloped as he was in the uniformitarian song
of science, to say that these earliest peoples spoke some universal truths.

Nor was it a simple matter to detour around Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, and other psycho-
historians. Freud had his own basis for reality, a primeval cultural event establishing the
oedipal complex, guilt, obsession, recapitulation and, for the cosmogonies and catastrophes,
nothing but uniformitarian principles. Jung had archetypes, primeval to be sure, cosmic also,
but purely psychic in origin.

Velikovsky's was a different story. He generated a formidable sometimes caricatured obsession
out of ancient catastrophes, and, further, had attached to the beliefs-cum-faith of mankind an
original series of skies that carried two explosive bodies the Sun, Jupiter and Saturn, then
later Venus that looked like a Sun in its approaches to Earth.

To my mind, there is but little doubt that if Velikovsky had been able to focus upon the
general cosmological problem of the solar system, in the last decades of his life, he would
have provided an ingenious explanation of the behavior of Saturn and Jupiter within a dynamic
system. He understood that Jupiter's behavior was akin to a "dark star" it being "cold" (i. e.
non-luminous) but with turbulent gases, and suggested that it sends out radio noises; his
unpublished talk on the subject preceded by less than a year the actual announcement of the
detection of the radio signals by Burke and Franklin (1955). In the same paper containing the
bold surmise, he had been arguing on the solar system and, just before mentioning Jupiter's
radio noises, he had used the analogy of a close binary or double star to illustrate the
presence of electromagnetic effects between stars. He had also brought forward late studies
demonstrating a correlation between the positions of the planets and electrical effect detected
upon Earth.

He had argued in Pens‚e and in conversations that Saturn must have gone nova to eject immense
waters some of which flooded the Earth during the Noachian Deluge. Then X-ray emissions were
discovered to emanate from Saturn, a possible sign of recent nova. On 4 November 1976, Milton
was asking Deg's advice about mentioning this in a Foreword to Recollections of a Fallen Sky.
"Ransom suggests that I not draw attention to this claim until Sagan et al. make some claims
about Saturn's heat, magnetosphere, and X-ray emission. The point is relevant to Velikovsky's
talks, but Ransom may be right, 'don't give them any points to avoid, let them commit
themselves first. '"

In no case, however, did Velikovsky venture the concept of the solar system having a full
binary history. In several passages here and there he broaches the idea that Jupiter and Saturn
may have encountered the solar system and wreaked havoc from a distance, and he appears to have
favored the idea that collisions between Jupiter and Saturn may have caused the Deluge and
later on made Venus erupt from Jupiter. It was difficult to try to discuss such matters with
him, and when, in his last years, Deg mentioned to him working upon a theory of Solaria Binaria
he let the subject pass like a report on the local weather.

Meanwhile, most cosmic heretics who followed Velikovsky were devising schemes by which the
major encounters among the planets occurred incidental to their clustering as satellites around
the two giant planets, a kind of independent Olympian system interacting at a great distance
from the Sun. They believed that the present solar system was occasioned by the forcible
ejection of the planets into their present positions in consequence of disruptive encounters of
Saturn and Jupiter, after which these large planets spaced out. What may exist in the way of
specific scenarios for these occurrences rests still in private files unpublished. When Deg and
then Deg and Milton came out with the model of Solaria Binaria in detail, they met with an
initial refusal within V.'s circle to consider it; it was lamented that these two had "made up
their minds;" the existence of Ouranos as a sky god was denied and other key assertions were

The respect and patience of Ralph Juergens towards Velikovsky assumed proverbial proportions.
Juergens devoted most of his professional life to establishing a fully electrical theory of the
solar system, including especially the explanation of solar radiance as the reflection of an
accumulation and dissipation of electric charge from the galaxies. When Deg asked Velikovsky,
more than once, whether he could accept Juergens' theory, he would reply with a definite
negative. He adhered to internal thermo-nuclear fusion as the secret of the Sun's radiation.
Because Deg respected Juergens, and then came upon Melvin Cook and then Bruce and Milton, he
was never of this opinion. And now, looking backwards, one must wonder whether Velikovsky
should have spent with Juergens the many hours that he spent instead, and writes a book about,
with Einstein.

In introducing a posthumous paper of Juergens, a "pioneer in the study of electric stars," in
1982, Milton comments that Juergens perceived the astronomical bodies as inherently charged
objects immersed in a universe which could be described as an electrified fabric.

"The Sun," writes Juergens, "is the anode end of a cathodeless discharge extending from the
perimeter of the solar system." The solar photosphere is comparable to the "tufted anode glow"
in an electric discharge tube. The Sun gathers electrons from galactic bodies and plasma, and
sends out an ion current, the solar wind, to the galaxy.

Juergens dismissed the thermonuclear explanation of the Sun's heat in favor of a galaxy-solar
electric exchange. The thermonuclear theory, recently developed, sought to explain the Sun's
properties of luminosity, temperature and stability by its essential chemical composition, mass
and size, assuming that the Sun and its behavior are effects of the conditions in galactic
space, not in its interior. So, much of his time went into seeking ways of detecting and
measuring the suspected inflow, capable of reflecting a continuous output of electrical power
amounting to 4 x 10 26 watts, or 6.5 x 10 7 watts per square meter; this, it happens, registers
0.137 watts per square centimeter at the Earth's position in space. The searched-for input must
amount to 4 x 10 26 watts as well.

Now whereas scientists have for a long time accepted the invisible source of power known as
gravitation, they have largely ignored and disdained the possibility of an invisible source
known as electrical discharge in a gas. "Electric discharge is a known and observable
phenomenon, yet we might live immersed in a cosmic discharge and know nothing its existence."

V. A. Bailey of Australia published in Nature (1961) his calculations, based on the data of
Pioneer space probes, that the Sun must possess a net negative charge with the potential of the
order of 10 19 volts. Bailey visited Princeton to meet V. and there Juergens and Deg became
acquainted with him as well.

V. was always excited by indications of unforeseen electrical forces playing about the
universe. Still he never accepted Juergens' theory, possibly, as he told Deg, because the
thermonuclear theory seemed solid to him, and it is indeed regarded as fact by physicists,
astronomers, science publicists, and of course the educated public. Since V. never read or
discussed Deg's theory of Solaria Binaria, which accepted Juergens' theory and satisfied so
many requirements of V.'s own reading of natural and astronomical history, it can be surmised
that Juergens' theory was not working for him, V., and should be tolerated because of the
usefulness of Juergen's ideas and work, whether as an ever-respectful historian of the V.
Affair or as indefatigable discoverer of electrical forces and effects on Earth, Moon. Mars,
Venus, and in planetary encounters. Long after Juergens pulled up stakes from the Princeton
area to find a new life in Flagstaff, Arizona, partly to be "his own man," V. tried to coax him
into returning to collaborate on one or another of his books.

Juergens persisted in developing his theory, while repeatedly coming to V.'s aid in the
astrophysical exchanges in which V. engaged. Never was the issue of the origins and prior shape
of the solar system introduced to systematic discussion. V. generally reacted negatively, even
harshly, when material which he objected to or deemed irrelevant sought its way into the
magazine Pens‚e. Ultimately the magazine was discontinued in part because of a disagreement
between V. and the Talbott brothers on the question of broadening the magazine's scope.
However, he behaved gently towards Juergen's material, and Juergens' ideas did receive their
initial publication in Pens‚e where Deg could study them, along with the rebuttal of them by
Princeton Physicist Martin Kruskal, to learn something about the Sun. The date was 1972.
Juergens had already moved from Hightstown, New Jersey, to Flagstaff, Arizona.

Deg was by now knocking the planets around like billiard balls, looking for the right pockets.
He came to realize in the legendary succession of Greek gods, which might be afforded backup
from divine successions in other parts of the world, a possible sequence of real cosmic events.
His basic god became Ouranos (Uranus), generally ignored by V. and the other heretics. And,
reading in the century-old esoteric papers of Isaac Vail, and elsewhere, he found an original
divine Heaven, which eventually produced a Sun-like figure which was still called by the name
of Heaven. Thence the succession, of events took shape: Ouranos-Heaven, Ouranos-Sun, Kronos
(Saturn) Sun, Zeus (Jupiter) Sun, and the antics of the Olympian family of planets -- Earth,
Ares (Mars), Hermes (Mercury), Apollo, Poseidon (Neptune), Uranus-Minor and Venus. Each and
every one of these had been a principal in catastrophes upon Earth, and victim of catastrophes

Deg thought that these might be interacting meaningfully and in a series or succession, ending
at the beginning of the present historical period, when Greek philosophy was born, which could
be regarded as the Solarian Age. From that time onwards, the Sun (and Moon) seem to have been
the dominating bodies of the sky and no intruder -- planetary, cometary, or meteoroidal --
appears to have played a major role in the sight of mankind, excepting always in the beliefs of
astrologers that carry down to us their fossil memories.

Deg speculated as follows: there were three legendary Fathers --Ouranos, Kronos, and Zeus.
Hence only these three major bodies had to be accounted for as the basis of the earlier solar
system. But, since Zeus was the son of Kronos, and Kronos was the Son of Ouranos, only one body
had to be accounted for, that is, Ouranos. Now, since Ouranos was originally a thick cloud
enveloping the Earth when mankind's legends began and was the first subject of creation
legends, this canopy-sky must have been an atmosphere thicker than any in historical
experience, thicker even than those provoked by known catastrophes such as the temporary
darknesses of Exodus and other legendary or pre-historic episodes and the recent volcanic
explosion of Krakatoa. But finally Ouranos emerged and exposed himself, enveloped in clouds. To
some, he was the Cosmic Egg.

The birth of Kronos and his revolt against his father was readily pictured as successive
explosions of a super-Uranus and the establishment of the new body, Kronos. The birth of Zeus
out of Saturn was analogous. The planetary children of Zeus, of different mothers, remained
under his nudging regime until the settled skies eroded his rule and, indeed, all planetary
rulership, except in myth and astrology.

Deg imagined that electricity might do what seemed impossible for gravitation, although he
clung to both powers until Earl Milton persuaded him that all the problems could be solved
without gravitation, letting Deg cling only to the inertia which he had cherished all along as
the vital element in "gravitational" behavior. In 1976, he was in touch with Milton, who was
coaxing a key paper from V. for his book, Recollections of a Fallen Sky. He was also in
correspondence with Juergens, and he told both of them what he was up to in Chaos and Creation.
Both were sympathetic.

On April 22, 1976 he wrote to Milton a memorandum of "Alternate scenarios for the shift of
planets, including Earth, from a proposed binary system to the unitary solar system." He
conceived of the planetary system as strung out between Sun and Super-Uranus and rotating
around the common electrical axis while the axis, carrying the whole set, wheeled in revolution
around the Sun. He is becoming enthusiastic:

I am beginning to feel my oats, Earl. I can visualize as neat and elegant a model as anyone
might wish, replete with formulas. What great blooper have I made, cher colleague? Are you
still holding to your generous offer to collaborate? Is scenario II our preferred kick-off? We
are having a thunderstorm with lightning. Perhaps Jupiter knows!

Further exchanges took place: then came a week's discussions in New York in 1977, ten days
together in Washington, D. C. in early 1978, the same in Princeton in early Fall of 1978, the
months on the lonely promontory at Stylida, Naxos, by the Aegean Sea in the Spring of 1980,
where most of Solaria Binaria was written in its final from. On May 26 1980, Deg notes in his
journal 'Finished 1st draft of chaps II and III of Solaria Binaria with Earl Milton 1230 hours.
' He tells how they would discuss heatedly from early morning until early afternoon, sometimes
arguing stridently, their voices echoing over the rocks of Stylida, putting their only
competitors, the crows and seagulls, to flight. Afternoons and evenings they would write in
their separate rooms. In the early summer of 1981 they met again in Princeton and New York, and
again in late 1981, spending a strenuous ten days at Edward de Grazia's beach house at
Rehoboth, Delaware to complete a manuscript of the full work. Leroy Ellenberger, not far away,
called repeatedly but was not invited to come, for a visitor would have disrupted the
relentless pace through the manuscript. (This incident may have triggered Leroy's animosity,
who before had been deferential and complaisant.) Pages of notes and reprints lay in piles
about the large room, on the floor, the chairs, the tables. Upstairs Ami worked quietly at her
novel. Outside the low sun beat weakly upon the great beach and roaring waves. They drove to
Annapolis to visit St. John's College where Bill Mullen and Joe de Grazia were now teaching.
Deg and Ami dropped Milton off at the Washington Airport amidst a howling blizzard for his long
flight back to Alberta.

The notes and manuscripts had traversed the continent and the Atlantic Ocean several times,
punctuated by messages and phone calls, and by "Did you receive....?" letters, with chapters
and cassettes chasing the men like heat-homing missiles. By the Spring of 1982 the book was
completed and stood in line for publication.

So ambitious a work should have been created under ideal conditions, with at least a solid year
of side-by-side collaboration and next to a giant library. If they had waited for this setting,
the book would never have been written. Milton had been troubled by asthma most of his life. He
was placed under great pressure in the writing of Solaria Binaria. The discussions were heated,
the environment often strange, yet he was less troubled by poor health when they were exerting
themselves upon their creation to the point of exhaustion. Milton worked steadily over the
years to make a respected place for V. and quantavolution in Canadian thought. He was a popular
teacher and, at some risks to his career, he systematically introduced the new ideas into his
courses. Canadian higher education employs outside evaluators whose word goes far on matters of
curriculum and promotion. He was able successfully to fight off professional criticism of his
innovations in teaching and writing, and ultimately achieved an influential role as spokesman
for quantavolution.

He was a principal agent in persuading his faculty to offer an honorary doctorate to V., the
only one ever given him, and within a decade he was once more agitating at the University for
the same honor on behalf of Deg. He held meetings, journeyed to contact potential supporters,
wrote reviews, spoke on the radio, and was an organizer of the Canadian Society for
Interdisciplinary Studies. He was the principal Canadian representative in England and the
United States. Only Irving Wolfe, at the University of Montreal, and Dwardu Cardona, living in
Vancouver, approached him in effectiveness and productivity. Two papers of Milton, written at
the turn of the decade, one erasing gravitation as a necessary concept in celestial mechanics,
the second dealing with Earth-Venus close transactions, are among the classic expositions of
astronomical quantavolution.

Ralph Juergens was struck down by a heart attack in 1979, a few weeks after Stecchini expired,
and a few weeks before V. died. He was gearing up to participate in the writing of Solaria
Binaria. I doubt that the final manuscript would have been much changed if Juergens had taken
an active hand. Milton thinks not. He had gone over the general theory with him, and Juergens
had received in 1976 and 1977 Deg's skeleton of the book and chapters from Chaos and Creation.
In Juergens' home, Deg's accumulated manuscripts were used as a raised seating facility for
Milton's little son Davin, when they were visiting.

Afterwards Milton examined Juergens' rigorously organized archive of materials and manuscripts;
Solaria Binaria would have been improved, but no contradiction would have ensued, given
Juergens' outlook. Deg and Milton dedicated the work to Juergens, for his electromagnetic
theory was deeply implicated in it. To the dedication the ancient fragment 64 of Heraclitus was
appended: "Lighting steers the universe." Deg wrote a poem to his memory and sent it to his
widow. It was printed in The Burning of Troy, along with an oratorio to Stecchini and a
memorial to V. On December 8, 1980, Deg writes to Milton:

My Chaos and Creation is due for March 1 publication, already outdated in certain respects by
what you and I are doing in Solaria Binaria. It makes me uncomfortable to know this, but then
it helps to recall that Galileo had already committed worse "crimes" in science and philosophy
by the time he was brought to trial for heliocentrism. It will bring pleasure to admit errors
in Chaos and Creation if the truth is measured by what appears in Solaria Binaria.

I don't think that we need to fear competent appraisal and criticism. Apathy is a more real
problem. Physicists and astronomers are ordinarily paid to go about their work without making
waves. They are not philosophers, or even interested in philosophy. Nor are they competent in
more than their specialized areas; it doesn't pay them to be so. That is why remarks like, "It
isn't physics," or "If that's astronomy, then I'm King Tut," often carry weight. Phrases like
these are the shock troops of reaction in science. If they fail, then somebody -- hopefully
someone else -- is awaited, to bring up the heavy artillery. But then maybe the heavy artillery
is not there; maybe it is rusted from disease; or maybe there is mutiny among the cannoneers.
We shall see.

In 1979 he was beginning a friendship with geology Professor Frank Dachille at Pennsylvania
State University to whom he sent Chaos and Creation, and who engaged himself in the new

Dachille wrote to Deg:

... In the earlier letter I indicated that I have browsed through your mss; since then I have
read it completely through, but not with hypercritical attention. I expect to read it again,
but I doubt this will be done before we leave for Africa. Frankly, I am quite shaken and taken
by the intensive physical processes described, generally fitting well the human recordings of
the time. However, I still feel that I would have to understand the processes analytically
before I could accept them without reservation. Shaken, too, I was by the views that the Moon
was not always up there; also Venus. So, I went back to Velikovsky, am now reading Worlds in
Collision -- really the first time. My first contact with V. was in a magazine article about
1950, when I browsed through Worlds in Collision, but was turned away by what I felt was his
cavalier treatment of I. Donnelly, and the too easy flip-flopping of planets. Kelly and I were
already working on Target: Earth -- that is, I was going over his original manuscript, started
by him about 1947 or so. I was deeply involved trying to quantify the mechanics of the
collision process, including axis change, orbit changes, figure of rotation, inertial response
of water, slippage of shells, atmosphere... My contributions were just intended as suggestions
to Kelly, but he asked me to come aboard as co-author. I think you can identify my work by the
diagrams, calculations, chemistry, white bills, dry points, epilogue. In all this time, while I
was, or we were aware of V., his work did not contribute to ours in any way. I did feel however
that his work strongly supported Kelly's historical presentation, that is, the ancient records
were, in fact, describing horrendous events touched off by what Kelly called Cosmic Collisions.
As I said before, I quantified the collisions, based on impact processes, and found that sub-
planetary, or small asteroid bodies would be necessary agents. I did not consider electric
fields between bodies at a distance. To me the very clear evidence of impacts on the moon
provided the simplest, continuous, mechanically sufficient process or mechanism -- collisions
involving objects up to 600 miles in diameter. Combining the size-frequency distribution of
collisions with the erratic records in the geologic and evolutionary columns, I found support
for the impact processes; it was not necessary to involve planetary approaches.

However, after reading your book, and going into V., I think that occasional close passages of
large (but not quite planetary) bodies will have left their marks on the Earth. So, it appears
to me now, massive collisions by the hundreds of thousands have forged the earth in its ca 4 1/
2 BY history; by the tens or hundreds close passes by generally larger bodies will also have
left their marks. As you know, Kelly has been suggesting close passes as a process operative on
the geology of Mars, perhaps even Venus. It seems that Bob Stephanos has a fly-by process.
Beaumont too. And, of course, Donnelly. It was Donnelly's work (Ragnarok, Atlantis) that got me
thinking in this area, plus my activity as an amateur astronomer.... thinking about electrical
charging of the "spheres." I do not know enough EM theory at this time to quantify the mutual
interactions of two oppositely or identically charged planetary bodies. Then there is the
problem of conservation of momentum and the scale of energies involved. The energy in the
earth's magnetic field is many, many orders of magnitude less than that of its rotation and
orbiting. How a flip-flop can be affected by magnetic or electric coupling I cannot understand
at this time.

Well, you can see that I am thinking along with you. The Cosmic Collision, in all its variants,
must be of utmost importance in the history of the earth and life. Last winter term I
introduced the subject to my students in the Geology of the Solar System. The coming winter
term I intend to intensify my presentation...
On August 3, Deg replied from Naxos:

Dear Frank,
Thanks for the excerpts and clippings. Io is full of surprises. Purely sulphur volcanoes,
someone writes now. But note the pulsing electric arc between Jupiter and Io. It compares with
my postulated arc between the Sun and its binary partner, Super-uranus.

Your work on collision-electricity interests me. Also sphere-charging, and passby-electricity.
Regarding the last, you should certainly know Ralph Juergens. Eric Crew has done some thinking,
and an article on the funneling effect in meteoroid and lighting strikes. I hope to get a
chance to read your full articles when they are available. I can give you the Juergens and Crew
stuff when I return. Juergens, you know, would say, in reply to your query as to how a million
craters could strike the moon in a few thousand years, that a great many of these are the marks
of lightning bolts, not of meteoroid falls. Further I imagine that after the major passbys, and
a couple of collisions (" Apollo") and fissions (novas) as conceived in Chaos and Creation, the
space would be jammed with a great many millions of pieces of debris. Ovenden sees the asteroid
belt as remnants of an exploded planet many times the size of Earth, not too many millions of
years ago. I call it Apollo, set it in human times, and can readily imagine the debris of
Apollo and its Destroyer. We have a big gap to close between our solar system time scales; if
you grant the conceivability of what I say in my chapter on the subject, I'd like very much to
discuss with you the seemingly impossible obstacles to it. I guess you won't see Olduvai
George; there's a fine place (the African Rift) to test the theories of chronology given the
hominid and hominid finds on various levels...

It is depressing to many to think that the planets may have once undergone displacement; it is
much more depressing to think that they may have changed motions recently. Of course we must
admit that displacements must have occurred to bring the planets into existence, and to place
them where they are now. But very few astronomers and philosophers have let the planets shift
thereafter, and practically none allowed this within the time span allotted to mankind.

Malcolm Lowery, in a letter to the London Times Literary Supplement August 27, 1976, named
several latter-day movers.

In 1960 W. H. MacCrea -- then president of the Royal Astronomical Society -- calculated that no
planet could have formed inside the orbit of Jupiter. In 1965 T. Gold concluded that the planet
Mercury could not have been in its present orbit for more than 400,000 years, as it is still
rotating with respect to the sun. J. G. Hill's 1969 model indicated that Jupiter and Saturn
were originally the outermost planets to form, and that Uranus, Neptune and Pluto were
displaced into their present orbits by planetary encounters.

Robert Bass in 1974 exposed the prevailing common misunderstanding of the mathematics
describing planetary stability, even when based upon present recorded behaviors, such that
planetary orbits could not be proven stable for more than a few centuries or millennia. W. M.
Smart, wrote Bass, "demonstrated unquestionably that the interval of assured reliability of the
La Place-Lagrange perturbation equations is at most some interval 'small' relative to 300
years; Prof. W. M. Smart's exact words are 'one or two centuries."

Bass went on to apply to astronomers the kind of pragmatic critique that impresses experts in
propaganda analysis: "... Whenever these authoritative statements about time intervals of
validity have been made, they are without exception accompanied by words like 'supposed, '
'appeared, ' 'hope, ' 'seems' 'might, ' and 'think, ' revealing clearly that the writer was
relying on his personal intuition rather than quantitative evidence."

Bass repeated his findings at a Glasgow (Scotland) conference held by the S. I. S. in April
1978, where there appeared to speak also Astronomy Professor A. E. Roy. Roy agreed with Bass,
saying that "even under Newton's law of gravitation, we have not changed by more than 1 or 2
percent over a period of more than, say, 50,000 years." This figure allows humanly witnessed
perturbations, but is not enough for the wilder of the cosmic heretics, who want to bring
changing planetary orbits within memory of myth-making man and even historical mankind.

Thus it occurred that when Melvin Cook, Ralph Juergens, Earl Milton, Eric Crew, Deg and others
-- and V. in principle -- wanted to move the planets more, and recently, they turned to
electromagnetics, and Bass once more, now in 1978, applauded their heretical stance, affirming
that "if planets approached closely, there would be electrostatic and electromagnetic
interactions not predicted on the basis of orthodox theory."

This was not enough. The solar system had to operate as a electromagnetic system, and, though
Bass produced an awareness of the sources of such theory, in Juergens and Cook, it was Milton
who, with Deg cheering from the sidelines, took the fatal leap onto the plane of non-
gravitational fully electromagnetic operation of the solar system.

In a paper circulated in 1979, called "10 -36 =0" to connote the vastly superior forces at the
disposal of electricity by contrast with gravitation, Milton wrote that the phenomenon of
gravitation implies "an interaction of slightly unequal strong electrical repulsions between
distantly separable objects (or centers) that yield a weak net attraction." Thus masses vary
when determined gravitationally insofar as they represent an electrical transaction between two
bodies of unequal negative charges. In close encounter masses undergo polarization and transact
strongly as dipolar bodies. Rapid and forceful exchange of charge then occurs which can modify
motions significantly and suddenly. Hence the absolute level of electric charge on a body is
indeterminate, as is, for example, absolute motion under relativity theory.

Deg's image of the whole solar system as consisting of bodies lined up between Super-Uranus and
Sun within a tube of gases and rotating with the gases around a discharging electrical current,
with the whole system falling apart recently into its present configuration, proved to be just
the mechanism to display a non-gravitational system, and Deg, who had never quite understood
gravitational mechanics in the first place was happy to observe his model work nicely within
the systems of permissions and restraints belonging to electromagnetic theory. He was doubly
pleased because he had been so fond of Juergens and found Milton so congenial: one should not
dismiss compatibility in scientific achievement; any scientific (or social group) manager will
be glad to elaborate the proposition: compatibility is as important as computability. An
eloquent instance of this proposition suffuses James Watson's autobiographical account of the
construction of the DNA molecule in his book, The Double Helix (1968).

V. was the Great Hostess, in the earlier time, of this whole business; he took no active part
at all in it, and the heretics dutifully thanked him at every opportunity in their writings. It
will be remembered that Juergens left the Princeton area in flight from the domineering
proximity of V. Milton was too far away to be captured intellectually, though he was
continually active in defending V.'s views. What Deg received from V. in the theory of Solaria
Binaria was nil; all he got from V. was the useful dogma that electricity had been neglected by
scientists and was an essential factor in cosmic encounters. Whether V. discussed much of
importance with Einstein will not be known until the manuscript devoted to this subject is made
available. My hunch is that Einstein retarded V.'s growth in electromagnetics just as V.
retarded the growth of some heretics in this regard.

V. made no attempt to relate his work to that of Charles E. R. Bruce of the Electrical Research
Association of England, whose seminal work of 1944 on electrical discharges in astrophysics had
been the basis for correspondence initiated by Juergens in 1965, and whose work was introduced
by Juergens in Pens‚e in 1973. Bruce was a cosmic heretic whose ideas made little or no
impression upon British astronomy. They were carried into the British quantavolutionary circle
by Eric Crew when it was organized. To this day his one hundred and more articles and notes
have not been published in assembled form. Milton caught on to Bruce in the early seventies,
Deg after his meeting with Crew in London in 1976.

Bruce observed the first identity between the velocity of propagation of a solar prominence and
an electrical discharge in 1941, when at a lecture he heard of Evershed's photograph of a solar
prominence that had reached a height of a million miles in an hour. He writes, "I thought, 'If
that isn't about 3 x 107 cm sec-1, I'll eat my hat. ' It was, as a little mental arithmetic,
confirmed on an envelope when the lights went up, established -- and I was in business as an
astrophysicist." He thereupon published privately A New Approach in Astrophysics and Cosmogony,
copies of which several cosmic heretics came ultimately to possess. Galaxies were seen by him
to be structurally determined as electrical fields. Magnetic fields spring up around cosmic
flares and bolts. In cosmic discharges, matter aggregates along the discharge channel, and in
this process of electrical breakdown "one can forget about the force of gravitation, as every
arc welder knows." This discovery Bruce attributed to Bellaschi of the American Westinghouse
Company in 1937. Jets and balls of hot gases are formed in the process. Bruce also applied the
notion of pinched-off discharges under extreme pressures to the extinction of novas. Juergens
and Milton pushed Bruce's electrical interactions between stars and atmospheres into stellar
interiors, the greatest step in obviating the need for gravitational theory.

V. lacked the capacity to give and take; he would disrupt any on-going thought processes to
call all hands to shoo the chickens out of his backyard. Those heretics, like Rose and Vaughan,
who opted to exercise their intellects in his garden, found themselves becoming over-
specialized in certain crops, interpreting Venus tablets and calculating conceivable orbits
under conventional restraints. This is only to say that such heretics became unfortunately
limited despite their eminent suitability for larger tasks; they were also diligently occupied,
as was the solaria binaria trio, in developing the larger network of heretics and playing
firemen for V.'s fires (some of which were arson).

The progress of quantavolution in the astrosphere required an electrical model. Fortunately it
could profit from a considerable advance along the whole front of electromagnetic studies which
was occurring in conventional science, as well as from the work of the heretics themselves. But
one ought not forget that the theory of quantavolution in the atmosphere was sustained too by
heavy inputs from faraway field: myth analysis, paleontology, and critical geochronology.

Deg's assurances that the fossil voices of myth and legend were speaking truths of the skies
kept the theory from flying off to join the conventional dogma that change could only happen
hundreds of millions of year ago. They also blocked the hopeful theory that comets and meteors
could take the place of the planets.

In paleontology we have this remarkable logical position, perhaps exposed for the first time by
Professor Roy in explaining why astronomers should prefer a longer rather than a shorter period
of celestial stability:

Most celestial mechanics -- orthodox and informed -- would say that we suspect (it's probably
no more than a hunch) that the solar system is stable over hundreds if not thousands of
millions of years, but we cannot prove it by the methods of celestial mechanics that are
available to us today. We have to go to geophysical, astrophysical and selenological evidence -
-and there, of course, we are again on ground which has been disputed by those who advocate the
very short time scale. The fossil record would appear to have been laid down in the rocks over
the past two thousand million years, and in those fossils we have very complicated animals. If
the orbit of the Earth had changed drastically in that time, then conditions on the orbit of
the Earth would, it seems to me, have been such that those creatures could not have existed. In
addition, one could say that, even if the orbit of the Earth had not changed in that time, but
the Sun's output of radiation had changed dramatically, then again the fossil record as we know
it could appear to be 4 1/ 2 thousand million years; similar methods appear to make the oldest
lunar samples of that order of magnitude in age. Theories of the energy output of the Sun make
it appear, from a consideration of the helium/ hydrogen ratio, that the Sun has been operating
with much the same output as it does today for something like five thousand million years. And
so on..

What Roy is saying here is that, for no other reason, a long term stability of the solar system
is acceptable because it has taken so long, according to the fossil record, to evolve life and
its peculiar, complex structures. Further the rocks are datable by radiochronometry and the Sun
is datable by its self-burnup rate. This is nice: here we have the queen of sciences, to which
the other sciences had looked for their assurance, abandoning its throne and asking for refuge
among the fossils of the rocks and the furnaces of the Sun.

Effectively, however, the quantavolutionists had spotted this cross disciplinary mutual rescue
society, and had begun to launch assaults against the positions of the other disciplines as
well. Juergens had fully disestablished the thermonuclear theory of the Sun, so far as some
heretics were concerned, and substituted (with Cook) a galactic electric-collecting model.

So far as the fossil record is concerned, Bass in 1978 accords Cook the honor of having
achieved the main victory over radiochronometry. (The old catastrophists, such as Price and V.,
had done the job on conventional stratigraphy and erosional gradualism in geology.) In a
footnote that should be a placard Bass writes:

... If I believed those long-term radioactive dates in the fossil record and elsewhere, I
probably would also believe that the Earth has not changed its position for thousands of
millions of years. However, in another book, Prehistory and Earth Models (London, Marx Parrish,
1966), Dr. Cook has had the audacity and temerity to take on the entire historical, geological
and geophysical establishments, and has reviewed in great depth and detail every radioactive
dating method, short-term and long-term. After several years making up my mind, I have come to
the conclusion that Melvin Cook is right and has established that there are enormous and
inescapable fallacies in the uranium, thorium and lead dating methods; and I don't think it can
be maintained that the surface features of the Earth have been in their present form for more
than 30,000 years.

Deg had supported Juergens in several works, and had relied heavily upon Cook in attacking the
full range of dating tests offered in support of great ages of time. I have not yet introduced
the several other contributors to the demolition of time measures. They appeared in the pages
of Pens‚e, the Creation Research Society Quarterly and the SISR for the most part. The attack
requires hundreds, not a dozen, writers, however. But still there must be a elite, leaders of
the republic of science, like Robert Bass. Everyone got a lift in spirits with his appearance
upon the scene, a stocky dark man, bespectacled, a convert to Mormonism it appeared, with a
weakness for women which, Deg reflected, was in keeping with history and not incompatible with
his experiences of Mormon friends who came out of the West to the University of Chicago in the
1930's. Bass was associated with Brigham Young University, where, paradoxically, catastrophists
were unwelcome in the sciences; a story goes that Bass forgot to sign and return his contract,
lost his tenure, and, in order to retrieve it, was asked to agree to submit to pre-censorship
of his publications, which he refused. Bass was covered with the medals of scholarships and
degrees and when he showed up, it was like a troop pinned down by continuous fire greeting a
marksman with just the right gun.

Bass took aim at the brain center of the opposition, the reliability of planetary motions, and
fired. The shot was on target. Blasted was the astrophysics of orderliness. His troops cheered.
The opposing line continued firm; hardly a surrender or desertion. It seemed that the facing
army lacked a brain center. It operated just as well by rote.


by Alfred de Grazia



Deg's Journal, Naxos, July 3, 1973

The animation of the night skies is both poetic and heuristic. Each meaning enhances the other
and creates a third set of meanings that are beliefs. These beliefs join the stream of myth,
color, and shape it, change its direction somewhat, make its fundamentals more difficult to
understand. Cosmopoeia is the imagined form of stars, a guide for students and navigators by sea
and land, the astrologer's subject of story, the marking of the passage of bodies and the
occasion for anniversaries of related events, be they births, deaths, or disasters. All of these
functions are important to humanity. But that they flourish should not be pretext for
diminishing or denying the occurrence and greater importance of erratic for diminishing or
denying the occurrence and greater importance of erratic and special heavenly changes.

Similarly, the world as we see it in the "normal" processes of constancy and incremental change
is a true and real world. The tides flow, the sea suddenly beats the shore, the rains wash down
soil and the winds abrade rocks. This everyday vision lulls us into somnolence about natural
forces, or when aroused, to a discrete excitement about tornados, volcanoes and earthquakes.
Like the animation of the skies, the ordinary experience of nature is a reality that is also a
screen and a censor, concealing and prohibiting the colossal, historical and potential behavior
of nature.

As it is with the skies and earth, so it is with life. The recent fixation of species, based
ultimately upon an operational definition involving interreproducibility, gives a truth that
must always have been real: gradual changes occur; species can develop in isolation, by
occasional mutation. But all the time that biology can beg, borrow, or steal is not nearly
enough to present us with the fantastically organized and behaving conglomeration of animals and
plants of 1973. The validity of received evolutionary theory must become minor, while the
heavier reality of catastrophic change and origin of species by potentiation comes forward.

It was inevitable that Deg should end up in defiance of billions of years of time. He could
hardly lie on a beach unless he was exhausted from swimming and diving. He knew and disliked the
stereotype of the American as restless and impatient, so he cultivated various devices and
appearances that would let him seem to be casual and unconcerned with waiting upon the world.
Since he was raised without the time-consuming liturgies of religion, religious routines were
not a common means for stopping his time or feeling it. Sports, smoking, drinking, eating time.
More than all of this, he played games against time. He wanted quick results in everything he
did; but the world is not constructed to provide results, much less to provide them quickly.

The same urge to quick results inclines one toward intellectualism, because so much can be
solved in the mind and the world of the imagination can be rich and malleable; fat gobs of time
can be reduced to frizzled specks, and one can leap over far spaces and epochs. However,
intellectualism is also opposed to both physiological and mental time-control in that it forces
one to be physically inactive over long stretches of time; research and writing are termite
mounds of time and a single footnote, a single bad line, can drive one to despair.

Sometimes I think that Deg was one of Alfred Adler's pure compensatory characters, who set
himself very often to do precisely what he was unfit to do because of his unfitness. If under
such circumstances he was not destroyed by the contradiction, it was because he often escaped
into the activities already noted but also into sex, travel, brief adventures, commitments to
thing extraneous. Most of all, and too important to call an escape, was his taking on two or
more large tasks at the same time, so that while to the outside world he appeared to be
proceeding carefully along one line, at a measured pace, he was in fact speeding along other
lines and then doubling back to the first line of engagement.

Paradoxically, the intellectual who is so fretful of time's arrow hastens but to sit and stare
upon dead written pages, to pitch his nervous system and organs upon his several moving digits,
gaze at the stars, watch the rats run, listen, observe, and discuss only that world that his
mind will accept for consideration -- all of this consuming such enormous amounts of time that
those who in turn observe the intellectual cannot be blamed for thinking him mad for his
dissociation and hatred of reality, his obsession, his wrestling with details, his fear and
guarding of his own thoughts, his ruthless hunting down of words and meanings, amounting in the
end to the squandering of the very object of his anxiety, time itself, time in the thousands of
hours of which every minute, he insists, counts dear, and if this lunacy is not sufficiently
oxymoronic, the time-saving time-waster can dedicate himself to time-studies.

Perhaps one-fourth of all Deg's work on quantavolution over the year dealt with time. Perhaps a
quarter of the three thousand pages that he wrote were concerned with or governed by
calculations of time. Before he had entered the field he had been possessed by problems of time
and had written but not finished what was supposed to be a lengthy philosophical and
psychological poem on the subject. By virtue of the tricks I have already alluded to, he would
escape the psychiatrist's verdict of obsession, but in fact he was obsessed and his impatient
and striving character often led to pitched battles against time; it was the most uncontrollable
element in life.

He beat time as a child by being precocious, stripping off three years of schooling, and he
became the youngest member of his graduating class at the University. But then time reacted
smartly at war and he felt the full poignant irony of "Hurry up and wait" the life of the
soldier. He nosed his jeep into many destroyed towns where clocks were stopped; hanging crazily,
sober and still, or startled faces starting from the rubble -- they were all wrong. Are all
clocks wrong? Madness about time was a disease of the poets, literati and humanists; turn to
scientists, and 99 out of 100 are perfectly satisfied that they are measuring an absolute, an
ever-so-old process; they are like the bureaucrat who is content to keep the entrepreneur
waiting, because his check comes in regularly no matter what, while for the businessman time is
money. For these scientists, there was something called the relativity of time, which was
reserved for their Sunday outings.

All of this joins in with Deg's anti-authoritarianism and republicanism (which goes back to
sibling rivalry) and gave him his ideological stance confronting time . If authorities would say
time was long, well then he would be pleased to discover time to be short, and thus more
containable and controllable. There was a contradiction here, however, but it can be explained
away. Deg had always been a darwinian, but might this not have been because Darwin was anti-
authoritarian, anti-theologian, too, while trying to be nice to the traditional believers? Deg
was exactly like this, against the scriptures as authority, against church authority as such,
but then respectful and even loving towards the many "nice" and "gentle" believers he met. How
could he join the theologians, the short-time creationists? Well, he didn't really. He found
them to be the most active critics of macrochronism. They were experienced microchronists, who
knew the history of the defeat of microchronism well because it was their history.

The problems of time came in two batches. First there was the historical batch, epitomized in
V.'s Ages in Chaos. Second, there was the geological batch, which could also be epitomized in V.
's Earth in Upheaval. Let us see what V. did with time in both regards.

V. aligned and connected Jewish and Egyptian history which had hitherto gone along on separate
tracks. The alignment settled upon the Exodus at about 1450 B. C., the Biblical date tied it
into the end of the 13th Dynasty of the Middle Kingdom of Egypt with Hyksos invaders as the
Amalekite enemies of the Biblical Hebrews. He begins the splendid 18th Dynasty of Egypt at the
time of Saul and David. King Solomon he places alongside Queen Hatshepsut of Egypt, and has her,
as Queen of Sheba, visiting his court. And so on.

The reconstruction attempted in his volumes on later time, as I have already indicated, fell
victim to the scholars of the "British Connection."

Dropping by 500 years the accepted chronology of Egypt after the Exodus, and holding the Exodus
at -1450 meant that all dates elsewhere, whether of the Near East, Greece, or finally Italy,
which had been set by coordination with Egyptian artefacts and occurrences, required resetting
by 500 years as well. In Greece, a gap which had been closed only by creating a barbaric "five
hundred years of the Dark Ages," was promptly nominated for elimination. A grateful rush of
scholars to profit from the new chronology did not occur; the Greek scholars were frozen to
their Positions until the Egyptologists (all 30 of them) would admit the loss of the five
centuries. Then they would follow suit. Similar scientific lags continued in the other ages
affected by V. 's reconstruction of Egyptian chronology.

When did the mistaken chronology begin? V. traced the major error to Manetho of the third
century, B. C. as reported and adopted later by scholars. Manetho was eager to prove to the
Greeks and Asians the superior antiquity of Egyptian civilization. Berosus followed suit,
exaggerating for his Assyro-Babylonian country by tens of thousands of years. Eratosthenes, soon
afterwards, took up the cudgels for his Greek compatriots and moved Greek dates backwards by
approximately the length of the "Dark Age." The motive of ethnocentrism thus played a large part
in the beginnings of modern chronology, as it did in V.'s stupendous reconstruction itself. But
it was not at all clear that the ancient chronographers following Manetho were wrong, for their
errors were covered up by a heavy burden of refinements and rationalizations up to the present
time. If V. had written nothing else in his life he would have deserved the highest accolades
for his essay on "Astronomy and Chronology."

Soon after his first attack upon Egyptian chronology was published, V. sent a copy to Etienne
Drioton, Director General of the Service for Antiquities of Egypt and received shortly one of
the most nearly prefect replies an author could wish for, and, for that reason alone, as a model
for my readers, I reprint it here. (My translation is from the French original.)

Cairo, May 29, 1952 Dear Doctor,

You were kind to have had me sent your beautiful book, Ages in Chaos, which I received this
morning, and which I have read nearly in entirely, so exciting and interesting is it. You have
certainly jostled -- and with what vigor! -- many historical tenets of ours which we regarded as
firmly established. But you do it with a total absence of prejudice and with an impartial and
complete documentation, which is most sympathetic. Your conclusions might be argued at every
step: whether they are allowed or not, they will have posed anew the problems and compelled a
fundamental discussion of them in the light of your new hypotheses. Your beautiful book will
have been, in every way, very useful to science.

I thank you warmly for having sent it to me and I pray you accept, Dear Doctor, the assurance of
my sentiments of cordial devotion.

Etienne Drioton

V. received few such letters concerning Age in Chaos. Actually, a number of archaeological
discoveries were made in the years following Ages in Chaos which tended to corroborate V. 's
reconstruction of time. One of the most important of his priorities for testing was at the town
of El-Arish, between Egypt and Israel, where he believed might be uncovered the capital of the
Hyksos, Avaris, and, if so, then there might be demonstrated the further correspondence of
Biblical and Egyptian history in revealing that the city fell to a join Egyptian-Judean army,
one led by an Egyptian Prince (Ahmose?) and the other by King Saul. This excavation has not been

V. paid attention closely to developments in carbondating, for here was one of the places which
he thought might give him a quick and decisive victory. He corresponded with experts, beginning
with Libby, founder of the C14 system of dating. His pathetic and persistent efforts to achieve
a dating of 18th dynasty objects were put into a manuscript called "Ash," selections from which
were published in 1974. To Libby he writes (October 7, 1953), "I also assume that if analyses of
organic objects dating from the time of Hatshepsut, Thutmose II, III, or Amenhotep II, Akhnaton
were made, the results will indicate a reduction by as much as 500 years from the conventional
figures; and over 650 years for objects of Seti or Ramses II or Merneptah." At the same time, he
suggests the dating of Pleistocene fossil beds and petroleum deposits, predicting a late date.
Libby was unhelpful, but said petroleum datings by Cl4 had shown "great antiquity."

Now V. begins a circuit of frustration. Finally a German admirer, Ilse Fuhr, who was later to
publish a fine work dealing with comets in early times, with courage and persistence obtained 25
grams of three different bits of wood from the tomb of Tutankhamen. V. was delighted and
expected the results to show -820, not the conventional -1350. In another letter he did worry
over the effects of original atmospheric contamination of the samples owing to a catastrophe.
The University of Pennsylvania laboratory performed the tests and came up on the middle, between
the conventional and heretical dating. Bruce Mainwaring had used his strong ties with the
University to help arrange the tests.

Seven years later the British Museum tested reed and palm nut kernels of Tutankhamen's tomb and
emerged with dates of about 846 and 899 B. C., both of which dates were never published and then
seemingly lost or misplaced them. Other dates of the 18th Dynasty appeared in time, not so
definite and reliable as to dismiss V.'s claims, but not such as to please him.

By this time, Deg had read Melvin Cook's article of 1970 in which, retrocalculating the Cl4 in
the atmosphere, using the rates of Libby, Cook figured that the atmosphere would have had to
have been constituted (or reconstituted) some 13,000 years ago. Deg's deduction was that a
series of catastrophes would have created the same effect. Further, Deg observed increasingly
wild fluctuations as well as a secular swing of the C14 dates from "known" dating and
bristlecone pine dates as time marched backwards, and, without straining the discrepancies
overly much, he could conclude that carbonating would be both invalid and unreliable before 3000
years ago, which ushered in the Venusian Age (in his terminology). Deg was further impressed by
the studies of John Lynde Anderson and George Spangler, which he read in 1974, not long after
their publication, that challenged the very constancy of the radiocarbon component of the
atmosphere. Thenceforth he paid small heed to earlier radiocarbon readings, whether they seemed
to support or oppose his theories. On the other hand, V. who had expected salvation in Cl4,
could not readily denounce the system afterwards, and played on occasion the game of using Cl4
dates when convenient to do so, nor did he ever renounce Cl4 in principle.

To this day, Deg has not been able to understand how V., having succeeded in restructuring the
chronology of Egypt to the end of the 18th Dynasty, could then have made further drastic changes
needlessly, displacing forwards the great Kings Ramses II and III. Deg had so much confidence in
V.'s ability and so little knowledge of later Egyptian history that he accepted the new
chronology in toto as it came to him by word of mouth, by hasty readings of manuscript pages,
and by the published volume of Peoples of the Sea when it appeared in 1977, after many years in
manuscript and printer' proofs. Very soon thereafter doubts were heard coming out of the
"British Connection," from persons whom Deg had come to respect. None of the Americans around
V., nor V. himself, had met any of the British and were inclined to put on airs or to rant
against them.

Deg did not try to follow the controversy, which was based upon close historical analysis. He
thought to wait until the dust would settle. He was made uneasy by a lurking contradiction in V.
's position. The great catastrophist seemed to be putting aside catastrophism in ordering the
centuries. In early 1972, William Mullen had written in Pens‚e that

Two assumptions from Worlds in Collision are taken as fundamental: first that no chronology
using retrograde calculation of the positions of heavenly bodies is reliable earlier than -687;
second, that the principle clue for synchronizing histories of ancient nations should be the
break caused in all of them by the catastrophic events.

The second point is at issue here. Deg agreed with Mullen. For example, he made the following
note :

It is interesting that in one of his articles Isaacson, doubtful perhaps of the strong basis for
celestial connection, ventures that V.'s reconstruction of chronology can be separated from
catastrophism. This I think not to be so. First, V. would never had revised chronology so boldly
if he had not discovered the key to chronology in two parallel accounts of the same disaster --
one in the papyrus Ipuwer at the end of the Middle Bronze Age of Egypt, the other in Exodus.
Second, the evidence of catastrophe is what explains the end of the Mycenaean civilization and
ties it directly into the Archaic Greek culture that succeeds it, both in the 8th-7th centuries,
and then ties both of these into the Biblical accounts and many other accounts of the same
disaster at the same time. In short, it is catastrophic theory that sired the revised chronology
of V. and if the genius of that reconstruction is extraordinary, it is the effect of hereditary
genius, a "fall-out" of genius from a single elemental key idea, as Juergens has written. I say
this while reminding myself that the Exodus disaster was the key, but the motive came in the
desire to reverse the order of Moses and Akhnaton: to recapture Moses and monotheism for Israel.
Not that V. cared for monotheism in itself. But since the world regarded it as an invention of
paramount importance, he was ready to fight for it.

Not until 22 December 1981, do we find Deg at the denouement of his doubts; writing to Derek
Shelley-Pearce (S. I. S.) in England, Deg says:

The Glasgow Chronology is in full swing, it appears, with John Bimson (SISR 5: 1) and Martin
Sieff (Workshop 4: 2) pushing it mightily. And the readers, no doubt, a bit giddy.(....)

I am glad to see that Claude Schaeffer's work has come into its own with Geoffrey Gammon's
article in SISR 4: 4. It is one of only several general studies of value in cultural
quantavolution. Gammon approached two points that he might have developed more fully. First, the
best benchmarks of past ages are catastrophes: cultural quantavolutions coincide with natural
quantavolutions. For a century scholars have been playing at quantavolutionary theory
unwittingly by using catastrophic age-breakers. It reminds me of how some early geologists tried
to dismiss the word "strata" because that implied discontinuities, and discontinuities implied
you know what... The other point to stress is that the end of so many settlements around -1200
(conventional dating) indicates that this date actually falls between -780 and -680, that is,
the Martian period. Gammon seems to shunt aside this evidence when, with his mind perhaps upon
Egypt, he says, regarding the destructions that ended the Late Bronze Age, "the evidence that
these may have been due to natural causes rather than the agency of man remains scanty." (p.

Perhaps Velikovsky did the same, in order to progress with his idea of further shortening
Egyptian chronology; that is, he abandoned his fix on the Martian episodes. To me, the term
"Peoples of the Sea" is a euphemism for the Martian-Moon-Venus disturbances, a kind of
reductionism. Wars, movements of people, and social turmoil are expectable in natural disasters
and are a concomitant and effect of them. To show that they happened certainly does not prove
that extraterrestrial events and general catastrophes did not happen, but the contrary. Applying
the term "Peoples of the Sea" to a construction of a fourth century Ramses III is already a
warning sign of trouble ahead; one cannot move Martian events to the fourth century; one may not
give Ramses III a special "Peoples of the Sea" of his own. The Glasgow chronology may find its
clincher by research of Martian period disasters in Egypt, possibly finding the evidence around
the time of Merneptah or Ramses III (...)

He goes on to write:

As Sieff says, "By placing the 19th Dynasty so late, Velikovsky ironically obscured the cause
for these destructions which he himself had found." The reasons why he did so are also obscure.
Granted that my offhand remarks should carry little weight, surely some scholar who understood
the catastrophe-culture-history interfaces must have read and disputed this part of the
reconstruction of history. When Velikovsky was writing this book with the others still to
appear, was he by-passing his own catastrophic benchmarks to complete a descriptive history
postulated on different grounds? When the Glasgow Chronology began to surface after his relevant
book, soon two books, were in print, I heard recriminations and ducked out. I should have given
more attention to this breakup of the consensus around him, but there were too many intimations
of the "Love me, love my dog." kind, for which science has no place. I am going to have trouble
with this matter when I come to it in the course of writing "The Cosmic Heretics."

There were to be four volumes of Ages in Chaos. The first scored a large success with a group of
competent heretics. The second and third volumes, not treating of catastrophe, but of chronology
and archaeology, failed to persuade most of the heretics and their dates were soon replaced by a
new reconstruction that tied into the first volume very well.

The reviews in the orthodox media were bad, usually attacking V. for the wrong reasons. The
fourth volume was held up indefinitely by Elisheva and her daughters. Deg advised that it be
printed, even if it held a basic flaw, because V., though increasingly doubtful, intended that
it be ultimately published, and because V., though increasingly doubtful, intended that it be
ultimately published, and because V., even when he was wrong, was more instructive than most
people when right.

None, among the anti-heretics, seemed to notice that V. 's supporters, supposedly so slavish,
had quickly and thoroughly analysed and rejected two thirds of his general theory of Egyptian
chronology. Indeed the opponents would still proceed as before, talking of his cult and his
claque. There was restraint among the heretics in attacking V.'s newer books, and Kronos hardly
attended to them at all. Evidently, the heretics could also ignore books that they didn't like.
Or is this what one ought to do with books that are neither catastrophic nor correct?

For a catastrophist to limit his concerns is difficult. Once you have the planets misbehaving,
you must acknowledge that it may have been their wont in earlier times as well. V. decided that
he had better investigate the earthly effects of prior cosmic disasters; if prehistoric
catastrophes could be demonstrated to have occurred, then historical ones might become more
believable. So he wrote Earth in Upheaval. V. did not set up a timetable of catastrophes.
However, he adduced more evidence that the -1450 to -687 periods suffered grand natural
disasters, and he introduced doubts ranging backwards. He paid little attention to the
burgeoning science of radiochronometry aside from carbonating, nor did he ever exert his powers
in this area. To strengthen the case for late catastrophism, he brought forward instead the
studies of others on glacial melting rates, sudden ocean level drops, very recent alpine
orogeny, rapidly drying lakes, waterfall cutbacks, late fossil assemblages, surprisingly recent
Cl4 datings, the simultaneous devastations of civilization (using Schaeffer), excavations of
warm-weather life forms and human settlements in impossibly cold zones of today, Indian
traditions of orogeny and other quantavolutionary events, changes in magnetic orientations, and
the large-scale ash levels on ocean bottoms.

He did not know Otto Schindewolf's work, then appearing, which tied the great periods of
biosphere destruction to cosmic events and consequent radiation storms. He followed Dunbar's
Historical Geology in examples of very early disastrous effects. He advanced the idea that coal
was formed from biosphere masses propelled and dumped by huge tidal waves, without specifying
which waves and when, and used Heribert Nilsson's studies of German coals to prove his case. He
relied heavily, too, upon the early English catastrophists. He used also the work of American

In a few lines, he expressed his feeling that the uneven lengths given to the ages were
"basically wrong;" The remark is strange, cryptic, confused. He "does not suggest either a
lengthening or a shortening of the estimated age of the earth or the universe," and then adds
irrelevantly and naively that a religious mind should not be upset by great ages. It was all
rather humanistic and old-fashioned.

Deg found that the accretion of evidence of catastrophes was much easier than the application of
a time scale to them. V. had not set himself to demolishing the new techniques of
radiochronometry, possibly because he believed them valid, possibly, too, because he felt that
he could obtain the right to his catastrophes down to Noah (6000-9000 years ago) without
contending with radiochronometry, which does not begin to operate, except for Cl4 and certain
tests still in the realm of the exotic, until 100,000 years back. Also V. had done practically
all of his writing before the issues of radiochronometry came forward, before several of his
supporters engaged in its study on their own accord, and before the creationists had worked to
discredit it.

Deg set himself two tasks. One was to set up a model of past catastrophes, hence of the ages.
The second was to classify and survey all existing techniques of measuring geological time, and
to state the grounds for believing them invalid. He had always to bear in mind that one of them
-- he ultimately included over fifty measures -- might be valid, even if grossly valid, and
thereupon would seriously damage his model of natural history and at the worst render the model
only an intriguing metaphor. He was surprised repeatedly as he went from one test to another to
discover that none existed without a flaw or a question, either of which might be fatal to its
validity or reliability.

His major teacher was a man he had not met, Melvin Cook, who went on a rampage among the
uranium-lead, potassium-argon, and other tests, pointing out inconsistencies, contradictions,
incompatibilities, and arbitrary assumptions. Cook was not an exoterrestrialist. His attacks are
almost all from the materials of geology and chemistry. His exoterrestrialism, such as it is,
comes in estimating intakes and outputs of gaseous elements from the earth's atmosphere.

Perhaps the valuable critics of radiochronometry number no more than a score. Deg could name a
half-dozen besides Cook whose work he regarded as heroic and essential to establishing and
maintaining his perilous stance. I mentioned Anderson and Spangler on Cl4. There was reliable
Juergens who showed theoretically that the electrical environment could effect enormous changes
in radiation rates, such as to annihilate time. There was N. J. G. Sykes who, in a simple test
published in the S. I. S. R., gave grounds for believing that a changing magnetic field would
augment or diminish radioactive decay rates. Then, too, there came Roy Mckinnon, also writing in
the S. I. S. R, and Thomas G. Barnes, writing in 1977 on the recent origin and decay of the
earth's magnetic field.

R. V. Gentry and his team repeatedly showed, to everyone's astonishment, that extremely short-
lived polonium halos occur in the absence of parent uranium, evidencing that the host rock was
formed very quickly. Coal was examined that seemed to have formed in days instead of millions of

Deg began to treat the longer-range radioclocks as he did radiocarbon dating, an indicator at
best of relative time, and vulnerable to the kind of electro-chemical turbulence that is
inherent in natural catastrophes that begin with disorders in the sky. Essentially this freed
him to consider together all factors that could have left some indicator of time upon or around
a specimen rock or site. Since no technique appeared by itself to be a tamper-proof,
independently set, and auto-operative clock, every technique or test had to take its place in
the group of indicators of time, some of which were carried into the setting to measure its time
and others of which were inherent in the geology and circumstance of the setting. All too often,
geophysicists came to believe that there is scientific validity in what is a purely
administrative and industrial axiom --that tools and products should be standardized in as few
forms as possible -- and therefore they assumed that there must be some true superiority in a
tool like potassium 40-argon 40 radiochronometry because it can physically be applied to any
strange igneous (and now metamorphic) rock that is carried into the laboratory.

Deg came to rely, too, upon some very general ideas in concluding that the time of the world and
of the ages may have been very short. These had an air of philosophy or, worse, homespun
reasoning about them that is infuriating to technicians intercepted on their way to their
laboratories and machines. For example, Woodmorappe's painstaking survey, published in the
Creation Research Quarterly, of the successive occurrences of the earth's several eras, as
denoted by its surface rocks, shows a preponderance of discontinuities through the series of
eras. Also, the macrogeography of the Earth seems to call for a giant micro-chronic integrated

Inevitably, then, the mind was jostled to close up time radically in the period between hominid
and man in the face of evidence that the hominids were human-like, and very little time was
required to achieve a culture. Thus, microchronism lent itself to Deg's theory of Homo Schizo.

Then, upon arriving at the notion that the earth had been recently ravaged, Deg began to wonder
how the earth could have survived for very long if it had begun to suffer one after another
disaster through four billion years; this led two ways; first, to shorten time in order to admit
the fact that the earth still exists and has a biosphere even if, like the old grey mare of the
song, "she ain't what she used to be," and, second, to postulate, even then, some backward limit
in earth history to a beginning of the period of disasters, and thereupon he asked himself what
might have been the first great catastrophe to threaten the world, and what started it -- giving
him Super-Uranus, and a binary system in throes of disintegration, a baseline of perhaps 14,000
years for the first great destruction, and an initial electrical explosion arising naturally
from a pre-existing electromagnetic system.

When Milton and he sat down to discuss the system before the age of catastrophes (now compressed
into the Holocene of 14,000 years), they found no need in their binary system, with its highly
productive, enormous, magnetic tube, for more than a million years to accomplish all that was
new under the sun. Their model of the solar system probably included errors of great magnitude;
it might have major system failures; and it might even be basically wrong: both he and Milton
freely acknowledged this; but they were ready to race it against any other model in the field.

Having spent much of his life in building (not inheriting) a science, that of the study of
political behavior, Deg did not take kindly to inference or statements that he did not know what
science was all about. He replied sarcastically on occasion that indeed he did know what science
was about and it was up to no good.

When Chaos and Creation appeared, he sent a copy of it to the University of California
physicist, Walter Alvarez, in appreciation of the study his team had published, exhibiting the
existence of an iridium layer that might have fallen out from a meteoroid explosion,
contributing to the demise of the dinosaurs. He took the occasion to ask "whether you remain
convinced of the validity of radiometric dating, granted the possibility of catastrophic
radiation and heavy subterranean heating."

Alvarez replied, "In answer to your question: I consider radiometric dating to be an excellent
tool that gives reliable dates. The systematics are well understood in all except the current
frontier areas, and serious practitioners are well aware of the possible sources of problems and
how to avoid them."

From which answer, we may all take heart. In accepting kindly the book, Alvarez wrote "It helped
me appreciate clearly the difference between the basically anti-scientific, Velikovskian
approach and the way a scientist would seek to understand nature." Need I say more?


by Alfred de Grazia



For a decade from the appearance of Worlds in Collision, no quantavolutionary circle existed in
the world. V.'s correspondence with his readers was voluminous. Immanuel and Elisheva were
socially active for several years, but no scholar who could be said to be of catastrophist
persuasion was a frequent correspondent or friend. In July 1956, Claude Schaeffer, author of
the monumental comparative study of archaeological levels of destruction wrote Velikovsky his
appreciation of receiving from him a copy of Earth in Upheaval. V. had used Schaeffer's work in
preparing the book. In 1957, Immanuel and Elisheva visited with the Schaeffers for a week at
Lake Lucerne, in Switzerland. Schaeffer did not agree with any part of Velikovsky's ideas
except what Schaeffer himself had printed before V.'s work had appeared, that periods of sudden
destruction had befallen Bronze Age Civilizations.

Two decades later, Deg and Anne-Marie Hueber visited Schaeffer at his home near Paris. Deg
wanted to update Schaeffer's inventory of sites, and they had corresponded briefly on the
matter. Schaeffer had offered Deg the materials of his files about which he had written to V.
many years before. Then he had spoken of "new confirmations of the reality of these crises on a
continental scale which I have tried to analyze. I would be glad if I could write now
immediately the contemplated second edition of Stratigraphie Compar‚e in two volumes, for with
the new confirmations these Crises could no longer be questioned... so striking are proofs and
so accurate the dates established by the new discoveries..." V. had not told Deg of his
correspondence or of Schaeffer's intention of moving forward. V. had passed up a rare chance at
statistically demonstrating his theses. Nor had he exhorted others to undertake work with
Schaeffer. Deg had to suggest the idea to Schaeffer as if Schaeffer had never been aware of the
possibility. Schaeffer was ready to collaborate. It was clear to both men that V.'s
reconstructed chronology was not be at issue. Their aim was to confirm the ubiquity and
internal cohesion of Schaeffer's set of catastrophes. Deg was made aware of Schaeffer's doubts
of V. 's chronology, especially that coming after the 18th Dynasty of Egypt, doubts that were
even stronger with Madame Schaeffer, who at one moment was with the group and at the next was
out of the room tending to her visiting family. Deg conveyed his belief that the catastrophic
sequence of Schaefer could slip forward nicely, using the same intervals, to fit the scale that
he had drawn back to the neolithic age, which included V.'s fifteenth and eight century
disasters. Thus Schaeffer's sequence could serve both the conventional and the
quantavolutionary calendar.

Deg sought funds for the research from the American Geographical society, without success. [The
proposal is carried in The Burning of Troy.] He tried to reach Schaeffer in Paris in 1983.
Schaeffer had just died.

With the appearance of Stargazers and Gravediggers in 1983, a reader might see how barren was
Velikovsky's personal and scholarly life during the 1950's of the very people who were capable
of or were independently pursuing studies in quantavolution. The characters in the book are
mostly his opponents; few friends and supporters appear. The only persons of catastrophist
persuasion mentioned were Alan Kelly (but on nothing to do with his catastrophism) and Claude
Schaeffer. Alan Kelly, and Frank Dachille who was his collaborator in Target Earth (1953),
lived far apart and they worked alone.

In American biology, Goldschmidt and Simpson knew there had been quantum jumps in paleontology
and presumably their students acquired some inkling of the anomalies. In circles espousing
Biblical literalism, the work of Price and others was discussed. There must have been other
catastrophist scientists of the 1950's in America and England, but to this day Deg has not been
able to name any. The existence of perhaps half a million readers of V. 's books meant little
so far as research and writing were concerned. Some bootleg teaching of catastrophism was
occurring, especially among fundamentalist Christians. In Germany there were Schindewolf and
Nilssen in paleontology, as I noted elsewhere in these pages.

Significant differences came with the sixties. The civil engineer Ralph Juergens left his
business in the Midwest and moved to Hightstown, near Princeton, so as to be near Velikovsky
and to use the libraries of the University. Warner Sizemore, a minister and graduate student of
philosophy appeared on the scene at the same time. Stecchini, historian of science and
unemployed professor, was already there, indulged by his wife Catherine, a star teacher of
young writers at Princeton High school. While teaching at the University of Chicago in 1950,
Stecchini had signed a letter of protest to Macmillan against the treatment given Velikovsky's

When Deg met V. and decided to publish his story, there was none else in sight. They thought of
Eric Larrabee, but none would be paid to write, and Larrabee was busy with unrelated affairs.
Since Deg could not do the whole job himself, Velikovsky recommended Juergens, then working for
McGraw-Hill as a scientific editor, and Deg and V. persuaded Stecchini to do an historical
portion. Thus, all the effective resources of V. amounted to three men who could and would
write about his case in depth. This was the first time any cooperative group had engaged itself
in the study of V.'s problems. It was also the first time that V. realized the values and
capacities of voluntarism in America. He was, however, cunning about the media. For instance,
as soon as the American Behavioral Scientist was in the mill, V. could persuade Larrabee to
write an article for Harper's Magazine. Larrabee was spurred into action and the article came
out two months before he ABS issue appeared.

V. was inspired and a new outlook, that of a movement, of helpers, even of collaborators,
dawned upon him. Before then he had been a lone wolf in his field of study. Now he had friends
who talked his language. Sizemore began to organize locally and to suggest that others organize
in other places clubs or study circles under the name of "Cosmos and Chronos." V. referred
often to these ghost legions. Sometimes they sprang to life to extend invitations to V. to
speak at various places, or they were used as a letterhead denomination when rebuking critics.
It was, for example, on 'Cosmos and Chronos' stationery that the Philadelphia disciple and high
school teacher of psychology, Robert Stephanos, addressed the Franklin Society in seeking to
arrange a lecture invitation to Velikovsky. When the Society reconsidered and hastily closed
its gates to V., it brought a certain public disgrace upon itself.

Inspired though he was by his association with new and competent men, V. himself could not be
organized by them; he could seek only to determine all of their activity, without becoming
controlled by them. Time and time again, spurts of organization occurred, with excellent
initial results, but thereafter the efforts would slump and expire. The most successful
organizing and activity was done out of his reach, in Canada, England, and in Oregon, He was
too immense to allow himself even to be the leader; for a leader implies followers who are
assigned responsibilities, are allowed judgment, employ initiative, and can be trusted. V.
allowed none of these. There was to be no control over this leader; he was superman, distinct
from the following, distinct even from a field of science for he refused to call it by a name,
such as catastrophism. He would deny such allegations and not even perceive the distinctions.
Nor would others, because it was unbelievable. It was nonetheless true of him. Among the types
of activists of a movement there may be distinguished: the theorist, the researcher, the
publicist, the agitator, the organizer, and the fund-raiser. A movement is oligarchic to the
degree that the functions are concentrated in a few hands; it is bureaucratic to the degree to
which the oligarchy assigns and restricts these tasks to specialists; it is democratic to the
degree to which anyone can do whatever one pleases. Pens‚e was an oligarchy, Kronos developed
beyond oligarchy into autocracy. The S. I. S. was an oligarchy with high turnover and open
access. The cosmic heretics as a total aggregate were anarchic, and formed and transformed
plastically, so that one could perceive the aforesaid stable organizations, then glimpse pairs,
trios, bands, circles, and groups in process of becoming (such as C. Marx's small Basel group
that embraced Professor Gunnar Heinsohn of the University of Bremen, and Milton Zysman's
Toronto band, and Luckerman's small Los Angeles operation). The attentive public shaped itself
over the period into ad hoc opponents and task forces (such as the AAAS panel), into members,
supportive audiences, subscribers, book buyers, gossipers, fund-donors, materials-copiers-and-
circulators --reflections indeed of the several functions, anarchically undertaken.

An instance of the highest type of voluntarism came with Alice Miller, a San Francisco
librarian, who put to herself uninvited and uncompensated the task of indexing intensively the
works of V., and V. made the necessary arrangements to publish the book. The few scholars who
obtained this work could now search to their heart's content for the fullest play and nuances
of ideas (where such fullness existed) and for contradictions and errors. The first operation
to be performed in serious criticism in as index; the memory of a reading or two rarely sets up
written material adequately for analysis. Would that every high school student who today is
being hastily introduced to a computer would be instructed in the philosophical logic
underlying the indexing of content. Deg longed for an Alice Miller for his Q Series; his
indexes were inadequate, even more than V. 's, because his work contained a larger proportion
of abstract materials, which are harder to index. He found, for instance, that searching for
"monotheism" in V. 's own indexes was useless; in Alice Miller's the idea came forth nicely,
even beyond what V. might have wished to expose.

We return to Deg's favorite pastime of counting, listing, and categorizing, and to his figures
of the numbers involved. They are impressive for they may be exponential. Despite the
casualties, the deaths, the desertions, the languishing, and the waywardness, and counting
parallel little groupings and isolated active scholars, by the end of the decade of the sixties
there were perhaps thirty true scientific catastrophists who had come up by the non-
establishment route into the field of quantavolution, and by the end of another decade, there
were fifty more creative workers in the field. Shadowing these, watching intently, and
supporting them were several hundreds of others, close in.

Shadowing the cosmic heretics, too, were a new group, union-card holders of the establishment,
who are distinguished most readily by their denial that they are or ever were sympathetic to
Velikovsky or any other quantavolutionist, or that they have ever sought or do now seek any
ties with cosmic heretics. And these were equal and greater in numbers, carrying out the
revolution by partial incorporation, the process whereby a revolutionary movements, as it
advances, meets an opposition that has already been infected by and has adopted in part the
principles of the revolution. It is at this point that most successful movements subside or are
destroyed; their heirs are their enemies.

As one can see, if workers number, say, 15 in 1 decade, 30 in another, and 80 in the next, a
doubling process may be occurring, against all predictions that might be based upon resources
available, unchanged state of the opposition, and so on. At this rate, with 150 to 200 in the
80's and 400 in the 90's taken with the activists who lend support to their views, the
quantavolution viewpoint should enter the millennium primed for a large role in scientific
thought. At the same time, it should be borne in mind, there will be attrition and desertions,
doubling, and trebling the numbers of quantavolutionists outside of (but beginning to merge
with) the establishment. But the threat of nuclear warfare to all civilization overshadows
projections of science. One is tempted, in all of this speculation, to recite Keynes' ironic
words, not about short-term economic policy but about short-sighted world politics: "In the
long term, we'll all be dead."

Be it admitted that Deg, publishing a special issue of the American Behavioral Scientist, had a
perfect subject and extraordinary materials in the Velikovsky affair. But why should he stick
with Velikovsky? Let Velikovsky say his piece and then be done with it. What of next month's
issue of the magazine, and the month after? The journal needed continuous attention. What of
the state of political science, and of higher education, if which he had always been so
critical? What of the state of the nation, ibid? What of his family staggering into adolescence
in the disturbed and unruly Princeton atmosphere? What of his meager fortune, skating on a thin
monthly bank balance and a home mortgage? And his friends, the women and men who had been no
more conversant with Velikovsky than he himself? And his book contracts: especially the
American Way of Government, a good textbook in need of revision, whose care would lift his
finances from year to year and carry his name around to hundreds of college communities. And
the radical book on behalf of congressional supremacy that he was writing?

What of his reputation, that, in line with the customary in academic careers, should now begin
to rise to a peak, abetted by the constant "mending of fences" and "nursing of the
constituency" ordinarily pursued among scholars in his circumstances? Or should he not now
throw in his fortunes with a political party, Democrat or Republican, it mattered not, for in
both he had "friends in high places." Close friends welcomed his participation in Barry
Goldwater's camp and in Hubert Humphrey's; this would appear strange unless one understood that
subjectively Deg was confident that he was his own man, and that he could find equal
opportunities in both camps to exercise his skills and ideals, which, to put them in several
words, were: decentralization, basic income guarantees, voluntarism, legislative rule at home,
and representative government for the world. The American party system, however, no wise shared
his bent for change.

In all of this and through it all, why did Deg continue to involve himself with Velikovsky's
problems? Did not he have enough problems of his own -- larger and more serious and worse? Did
he not have as grand and earth-shaking ideas himself? Most of all, if he was to spend a great
deal of time in promoting somebody, and it was not to be "the next President of the United
States" then why didn't he build up his own reputation?

He had had mean reviewers, scornful ones, too. His books had not sold very well, he had not yet
won any considerable prize, no Pulitzer, no National Book Award. Still he could drum up
audiences at colleges around the world. Bill Baroody wished that he might tour the country on
behalf of the reconceptualized American Enterprise Institute, addressing public issues and
garnering funds in the end. He was in mind as a political campaign manager here and there in
the nation. He was offered the job of heading the social sciences division of UNESCO in Paris
(and refused). Why should he waste his time on a political campaign in science, especially one
that had already been victorious in principle (Jastrow, Polanyi, Sagan, Motz, Neugebauer,
Kurtz, Hadas, and dozens of other personages had sooner or later pronounced themselves against
the ill treatment of Velikovsky). Did not Elisheva insist to the end that he had opened up the
final phase of Velikovsky's public appreciation? Was the establishment of the motions of Venus
so important? Or the evidence of ancient catastrophes on Earth? Or the likelihood of collective
amnesia, a common enough idea of wise men of all ages? Must the world of science sign line by
line in agreement with Velikovsky's book --the ultimate wish of a cult? No, none of this was so
important. Well, what then? Was he sexually deprived? Did he identify Velikovsky with his own
father? Many more motives offer themselves. Can one ever know? Why bother to ask, too? Yet it
is a question that was asked at scores of lectures, receptions, meeting, and in personal
discussions, a question that came out of the interest that people felt in their own motives,
out of curiosity about what might be construed as altruism or some other form of abnormal
behavior. It's Alfred's halva, Nina would say, meaning the joke about the man who loved sweet
"Turkish Delight" and would turn the conversation to it at the slightest cue.

Deg behaved as he did partly because he had enjoyed enough successes in other matters and
success bored him. Deg did not attend to promoting his academic career because he was already a
tenured professor, "heavily published" as they say, and where was there anything further to be
gained; universities and colleges seemed ready to succumb to stupidity or insane revolts, but
not to total self-evaluation and reform. They were, with governmental help, becoming ever more
bureaucratized and inane.

Besides he found self-promotion an embarrassment, all the more as he watched his acquaintances
climb the rows of ladders inclined against decrepit edifices where committees and trustees held
sway, and important research was kept in a corner like a bastard. He was not adverse to fame.
To the contrary, he expected it to be "handed to him on a silver platter," to use one of his
mother's expressions. Subjectively, he desired glory; objectively, externally, he had to scorn
it. He was having his last words on Congress and the executive force, an appeal for the
preservation of republican government that went against every major political and economic
interest in America (and that communists and socialist when in power also and even more
rampantly suppressed). He was, as I said, uninspired by the political movements of the moment,
and even more so as they developed through the sixties and seventies of the century. The
kindling problems of his family would burst into flame but he had no intention of becoming
party to a decade of adolescent rebellion of the kind that ruins the best years of many
Americans' lives. Besides, did he not have such splendid plans for going en masse to Europe for
a year to teach the children foreign languages and escape the menacing youth and drug culture
of Princeton?

But look particularly to the controversy surrounding the Velikovsky matter: was it not
exciting? The ideas at stake were of the highest order. Not only in sociology: for what
sociology is more important than the sociology of knowledge (Sozialwissenschaft) that he had
cut his eyes teeth on with Mannheim, Wirth, Shils, and Leites, and which was really the theme
underlying his first book, Public and Republic, where ideas of representation were shown to be
unconsciously operative and externally effective over hundreds of years and many different
political generations? Also there was excitement in the substance of this strange new kind of
science. Scattered about but eager to stay in touch were dozens of intelligent people
interested in one or more of the hundred fields upon which quantavolution impinged. More
exciting and elevating than yachting, the horseraces, gambling, cocktail parties, tourist
travel, religious routines, better than the eviscerated or wrongheaded politics of the times.
In the final analysis it was the unlimited firing of sky rockets in all directions that held
Deg to the course of quantavolution and bound him to his friend Velikovsky.

There was the intransigent personality of Velikovsky. Even some opponents, Robert Jastrow,
Walter Sullivan and Motz, for instance, found him fascinating. He was always there, the tallest
mountain in Princeton and anywhere else, so far as Deg could observe. A series of entries from
Deg's Journal, most of them from the year 1968, show what I mean. But first a letter from
Velikovsky to Deg, before the ABS issue of September 1963 had made its impact, to show that V.
had no intention of letting his new friend escape his camp by crossing the ocean:

August 16, 1963 Dear Professor de Grazia:

It was very good to have a letter from you in Paris. I like to hear that you may come to the
States in October. No old castles here, no ancient arenas, but you will be most certainly
engaged in some skirmishes in the tournament for which the scene is being set. Larrabee's
article produced certain effect (I assume it was mailed to you) and the foundations of the
establishment are being loosened. (...) A few papers started to comment on the issue, one or
two colleges invited me to speak before their students, much discussions going on without
reaching the printed page, and I am emerging from the "shadow of darkness." (...)

I wish I could bring to our side a few prominent scholars and scientists. I write to de
Madariaga about Lord Russell whom he knows. You may say again, 'Cabot', but visualize the
effect on the closed scientific ring of one such renegade.

I wish to think that Mrs. de Grazia and your children are enjoying their many new impressions,
and the old villa makes them feel that theirs is part of an old heritage. Turgeniev wrote
someplace that two urges live in a human soul -- a striving for far away lands and a longing
for the homeland and home. Mrs. Velikovsky joins me in wishing all of you good health and
animated months ahead.

Cordially Yours, Immanuel Velikovsky

PS The mail brings an envelope with copies of letters received by Harper's. Menzel of Harvard
Observatory writes a 17 pages letter, unfair, emotional: he exposes himself to embarrassing
statements of fact. A battle of letters started. At the present, the response runs 50% against
50%. Therefore any articulate supporter -- or opponent -- should enter the fracas, the earlier
the better. Mobilize your friends! -- I. V.

A year later, Deg was not only still in the camp, no matter where he was, but he was suffering
privately the annoyances of the camp. His journal of September 1st, 1964 from London is
relevant. He is on his way to the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, to lecture on American
politics and will from there go to Marina di Massa where his daughter Catherine will be wedded
to the best-looking boy on the beach, Dante Matelli.

Left for London at 10 AM. On way to airport penciled a crude note to Velikovsky, finally
telling him bluntly of my feelings towards him. I said, "Dear Immanuel, I am writing this on
the bus to the plane. Last night I went again over the letters and material for Rabinovitch, to
the detriment of many pressing affairs. I finally decided to send out nothing at the moment.

"You will receive the page proofs on the Margolis critique. Please make only absolutely
necessary corrections (I do not care if you offer to pay for them.) Issue is already late.

Please do not call my office or the printers. Your inability to let go of anything will be the
ruin of our friendship and of the magazine. Sincerely, Alfred".

I handed the letter to a passenger agent just before stepping aboard the PanAm Clipper. It
culminated a day of annoyance and desperation that began when I courteously called Velikovsky
to say goodbye. To those who know him well, the history of the next 24 hours was to be clear.
He wanted to rewrite letters, call lawyers, discuss imbroglios, in short, utterly and without
conscience disrupt my carefully measured out and urgent last hours before departure. And worse,
he succeeded.

This hardly matters. The friendship, the campaign, continues, and V. is still the mastermind.
When Deg goes abroad in 1966, V. has ideas of how he should spend his time in Israel and Egypt:

Feb. 14, 1966
Dear Mrs. de Grazia: Please do not send this letter to Alfred if he already left Italy. Im.

Dear Alfred:

I received your note written before leaving for airport. Should you visit Jerusalem you may
wish to give personal regards to President Zaluccan Shazar -- our friend, especially of
Elisheva, of many years. He will be glad to hear that Elsheva is active as sculptor and as a
chamber-musician (as good as ever); and Elisheva wishes him to know of the change in the
attitude of the scientific world to my book with many discoveries of the Space Age; the fact
that I am invited to speak at Yale, Princeton, Duke, Pittsburgh, Wisconsin, Oberlin, Brandeis,
etc., is an indication.

I wish you good weather (pleasant driving, good new friends, and many invigorating experience).

Regards from Elisheva and my regards for Paul and John. Yours, Immanuel.

[P. S.] It would be good if at the Cairo Museum you could obtain some organic object of the
time of Ramses II or Ramses II (or of both) for radiocarbon test( better seed, mummy swathing,
leather, papyrus, linen -- and not wood, if possible) at the lab of the University of
Pennsylvania (Dr. Elizabeth Ralph.) To apply to Dr. Isnander Hanna (Director at the Lab at the
Museum). The material needs to be sent from museum to museum with all the precautions. By far
better not to mention my name.

If any difficulty, I shall try to obtain the samples by asking Dr. Ralph to write to Dr. Hanna.

Deg's Journal, January 18, 1967

Phoned Velikovsky tonight. Elisheva came on the wire too, at his request. I told them what I
was doing to institute a Foundation. He was quite subdued. He is not used to having anything
taken out of his hands. Both were happy, I could tell, at the thought of something they had
talked so much about moving so quickly to a climax.

Anti-Velikovskianism's first line of defense is the impossibility of his theories. Then, I
suppose, if proved right, it will be said that he was a simple scribe: he read an inscription
which told what happened. That position will not endure, either, for he worked in a superhuman
way to piece together the shattered mosaic.

Deg's Journal, November 15, 1967 9 P. M.

Immanuel called met at twilight to tell me Stephanos had called his attention to the Nov. 3
issue of Science magazine wherein Professor R. Eshleman of Stanford University, Electrical
Engineer and Co-Director of the Stanford Center for Radar Astronomy had raised briefly the
question whether the baffling puzzle of Venus being 'locked-in' to Earth might be answered by
the Velikovskian hypothesis of an historical collision of the two bodies. A year ago Science
refused to accept an advertisement for one of his books. "who knows, Alfred, whether the Nobel
prize, which has had a poor record very often, might not come." I said, "Immanuel, your
biography is your triumph. You do not need these foolish prizes."

Deg's Journal, 1/ 4/ 68 [Providence]

At 2: 30 I left the ribald company of Mike N., N., Jim Kane, Al Saglio, Tom Yatman, and Edwin
Safford at the Spaghetti House to visit Prof. Otto Neugebauer at Brown University. His office
is in an old red brick house next to the new Library and has an entrancing scholarly air to it,
closed into the basement, holding several tables, everything with a century old appearance that
I too should find a perfect atmosphere for quiet study and work. O. N. was somewhat suspicious
of me, as well he might be, knowing that I sponsored a special defense of Velikovsky's work.
However, like most true intellectuals, once engaged, his defenses were down and he spoke
vociferously, indignantly, said he couldn't waste time on the foolishness and trickery of V.
but proceeded to amplify at great length, his little blue eyes peering directly into mine and
his slight but determined German voice carrying effectively, even colloquially, his arguments.
He disputed hotly the idea that there had been or was any conspiracy against V., (I stated that
I too disagreed with V. on this point), and he felt that V. was employing the tools of
propaganda and sophistry against him and others. Who can deny this, too? But there seemed to be
little reason to go into the political aspects of the controversy, inasmuch as O. N. could not
know, more than V., the dynamics of this process, and I essayed questioning him upon several
critical issues concerning Babylonian tablets. He declared twice that he had "no investment" in
the words of the tablets and could take or refuse any interpretation, depending only upon its
truth. They were only a minor interest with him, not even "minor," less than minor.

He said he had not read Stecchini's interpretations of Kugler's work (and declared offhandedly
but vigorously that much had been learned since Kugler's time anyhow). He declared that the
observations in the Venusian tablets of Ammizaduga came from erroneous reportings of lunar
movements that, in turn, had been used by the Babylonians to measure the movement of Venus. An
amateur, he said, would transfer his ignorance of the ancient reports into a wrong
interpretation that it was Venus, not the Moon, that was moving erratically. He declared
emphatically that from their beginnings around 700 B. C. there were no unexplainable
irregularities. (He kept reasserting, and I had to stave off as not relevant to the argument,
which was the empirical facts re the tablets, that the whole V. thesis was mechanically
impossible, that any 10-year old schoolboy would know how the Earth would be destroyed by
anything approaching a collision with Venus, and so forth). He said further that there was
little or no reporting of any planetary behavior in a scientific way priot to about 700 B. C. (
I didn't press for the exact date) that, for instance, there was no reporting of Saturn before
400 B. C. Earlier records are largely the oracles which deal with sun, moon, and a bright star
(which could have been Venus, since it is the brightest and hence would oppose V.'s theories of
the non-existence of Venus before ca. 1500 B. C. ) He asserted further that Egyptian chronology
was perfectly established, on the basis of the Egyptian lunar calendar (based on a thirty-year
cycle) that carried back to the very earliest times. He claimed that the whole V. affair showed
the basically anti-intellectual atmosphere of the population.

I asked whether it did not show also the failing of the establishment of science to perceive
its "public problems," and offered the opinion that if he, and others such as Harrison Brown,
had dealt with V.'s work more seriously, there would have been no prolonged vicious aftermath,
to which he grudgingly acceded.

Then he added that there should not be such an accent on "going to the moon" so that billions
were being largely wasted, for which sums the whole of Mesopotamia could be dug up down to its
virgin soil. Then said he, we should have all of these problem solved. To which I agreed.

I asked whether someone should not set forth the thirty or sixty principal factual theses of V.
and find specialists on each topic to criticize V. He had mixed feelings about the idea (first
taking it personally, of course, "I don't have time for that!") holding that V.'s ideas were
too vague to discuss, that this would prove that the "conspiracy" actually did exist: that
there would be too few to undertake the job in certain areas (such as his own of Assyriology
and Babylonia); but that it might be a proper way to get to the heart of the matter. He was, on
the whole, quite negative re the general problem and hostile to V. As I was leaving, he said:
"I just received a letter from Chandrasekhar of the University of Chicago. He is the physicist.
He asks whether we shouldn't do something about the Yale Scientific Magazine issue of V. I
replied that there was no use to it."

I walked out into the winter snow-threatening afternoon and down the streets of exquisite old
structures of Providence's East Side to Mike's house, thinking of what I had learned and of the
beauties of this old part of town.

1. N [eugebauer] is convinced V. plays a tricky game: "He couldn't answer my colleague's
questions at a Brown University meeting, but said he would reply to them the next day. Then he
didn't appear."

2. He believes V. to be a foolish and wicked amateur. 3. His direct assertions concerning the
Venusian tablets should be worked into a direct encounter with V.'s words (...)

4. N appeared uncertain about Kugler, and unconvincingly dismissed him.

5. N is persuaded that V. is arguing in a great circle, using established theories as grounds
for criticizing deviations and unknowns and for proving the deviations accord with his
theories, then destroying the established framework without perceiving that his interpretation
of the deviations is itself dependent upon and sponsored by the established theories. N. did
not say so, but this kind of problem is fundamental to all theoretical change: man is dependent
for what he sees on what he has been taught to perceive, so how can be prove wrong what he has
been taught, if his new vision is wholly dependent upon being preceded by the old one ?

6. I feel the need to organize an 'Anti-Velikovsky' symposium where highly reputed scholars are
asked to address themselves to a meaningful segment of a carefully prepared set of questions
that test the whole fabric of V.'s theories. Logically V. cannot dispute this procedure. It
would, I think, cause him to be angry with me. So be it.

Deg's Journal, January 20,1968

I have been visiting with Velikovsky once or twice a week since November, and have reread Earth
in Upheaval and Ages in Chaos. Since I have been heavily occupied with the theory of activities
of the federal government, the American Government text revision, a plan for a business company
should I decide to leave the academic world, and so forth, I indicated to V. ten days ago that
I could not organize the magazine that we had always talked of publishing. Then, for some
reason, a week ago, I thought "We must start a foundation for V. and his work." I asked Richard
Kramer to initiate the papers for organization of a corporation not-for-profit in N. J...
settled on PO Box 294 and my home as the address, and decided to ask Juergens, Stecchini,
Kramer, and Herb Neuman to join me in the first Board of Directors. I called each man to invite
them aboard and received their prompt acceptances.

Deg's Journal, March 2, 1968

This morning I am resolving to withdraw myself as much as possible from Immanuel's campaign for
honors and recognition. A full eight hours went to him yesterday; it is too much, considering
what I must, do for my own work. In its way, it deserves the same kind of attention V. gives to
his and I give to his. My intellectual children may be scrawnier but I cannot turn them out to
starve in the cold. I give up lectures that, just like his, might explain my ideas and bring me
income, as for example one that I turned down today for $100 and expenses before an audience of
civil service officials in Washington. My ideas go undefended, many aspects of them go
unexpressed. I do not give them the tender, fierce, loving care that every man's respectable
notions deserve. Let's see whether I can behave by this resolve.

Deg's Journal, March 3, 1968

March is come cold and blustering. Jill and I rode our bikes to Mom's where Ed and his young
friend, Margaret C... were visiting. We arrived frozen. M. C. has just returned from 2 weeks in
Boston, under the tutelage of a Yoga guru. I say to Ed, in greeting, 'Ah, here is the "slim,
elegant Sicilian!" ', quoting Norman Mailer's autobiographical novella of the "March on the
Pentagon" that is printed in the current Harper's Magazine. [Edward organized the legal defense
of the arrested protesters.]

Jill says, of Margaret, 'Girls who have had trouble with their fathers work it off well. Girls
who have had difficulties with their mothers do not. ' She cites Jung on the point. And we
string out many examples. It is probably true, even as an unrefined statement. I ruminate: so
important, so simple are basic truths. What conceals it and them? Great truths and discoveries
are not hidden by their complexity but by jamming of our ideological cognitive, and perceptive

Velikovsky, the other night, quoted me Butterfield's comment that the very young can understand
principles of science and nature that have baffled the greatest minds of history. I think V.,
who is in essence a philosophical realist, uses this idea in only a limited way. He means that
the young haven't had their tender minds distorted by unfact. It is more importantly to be
understood that the mind is structured in each generation to receive some truths and reject
others, or better, some half-truths. Both V. and perhaps Butterfield unjustifiably abstract the
mind from its context. It has, for instance, been pointed out by numerous defenders of
classicism, such as neo-Thomists, that we believe the ancients foolish or unperceptive of truth
because of our partial and current truth-idolatry; freed from contemporary ideology, we can
understand truth as the ancients discovered it and agree with them.

Deg's Journal, April 30, 1968 A. M., en route to NYC

Half of this past warm flowering weekend in Princeton has been spent with Velikovsky or on
matters related to him. We spent Saturday afternoon going over materials that might be suited
for the proposed book "V. and his Critics" that I am discussing with Kluger of Simon and
Schuster. We spoke also of the foundation for Studies in Modern Science, which I have
organized. He named eight major problems that are critical to his theories, and I am taking
them into consideration in the memorandum which I am preparing on the program of the
Foundation. Bob Stephanos called me on Friday night upon my return from NY to tell me that Mr.
Mainwaring of Philadelphia, an admirer of V., intended to help financially. Both V. and I had
written letters to M., who runs a family manufacturing firm and is, I hear, a person of some
intellectual stature. V. was naturally pleased. He talked on and on, I edging him back to a
subject from time to time.

Sunday evening, V seized the initiative and called Prof. Philip Hammond of Brandeis U. to ask
about his possible interest in excavating at El Arish for signs of the siege of the Hyksos
fortress by the allied armies of Saul and Thutmose, about 1050 B. C. in V.'s chronology. The
digging would be a crucial test of the V. theory of ancient history. Hammond, who had given
indications of sympathy years ago, appeared enthusiastic. He offered to go El Arish with two
assistants if we could organize the expedition.

After learning this from V., I called David Dietz to ask whether he would still be interested
in taking part in the expedition. He was. Yesterday, Monday, I asked Harry Hess of Princeton
University Geological Department to serve on the Board of Trustees of the Foundation. After
some demurral (later, V. would be mystified by his hesitation since 'Hess definitely agreed to
join. ' but I was not mystified.) Poor Hess who is one of the busiest man alive with his Space
Board, Mohole and other activities, couldn't take the leap into the cold water without
encouragement. So I purred gently, sympathetically, and finally he said with a hopeless smile
"Aw hell, OK, put me on"! (...)

Deg's Journal, May, 1968

N [ina] and I met at the Museum of Modern Art at six yesterday after discussion with Kluger, of
Simon and Schuster. A surrealist exhibition was on. Max Ernst, Nadelman, Matisse, Ram bear up
very well. Picasso rarely becomes human enough to excite me. His lines are cold and cruel. De
Chirico's colors seem shabby now. It was a brave moment and said a lot.

We drank beer and ate cheese and crackers in the garden of the Museum, which filled with grey
rosy lights as the sun set. Rodin's Balzac, seen from above, is stern and emotionally stirring.
A Picasso She-goat is my great love.

Back at Washington Square, N. prepared a light supper at her place and accompanied me to my
work. I talked to Velikovsky at length, recounting my conversation with Richard Kluger and
explaining my plans and hopes for the expedition. As usual, he was difficult to converse with
but excited more than I've ever felt him to be before. I told him that I thought we should film
the El Arish episode from beginning to end. and he was fully agreed. I wonder, or course,
continuously, whether we shall find what we are after beneath the town -- the siege evidence
and artifacts of Saul's army, the Egyptians, the Hyksos.

I hung up the phone and went to work sorting out materials to be used in my Reader on American
Government N. said "Velikovsky can never finish his work." "Nor can I!" I replied. "He has
thirteen books to go, when we last counted them. I am as badly off." She asked me what I had to
finish: "You have done so much." "Not at all," I said, impatiently. "We do not measure
ourselves by other men, but by an absolute criterion of what we might conceivably do." And then
I ticked off what I imagined I might yet do:

the publication of my collected papers of the past the American Government books another book
of poetry several novels, mostly autobiographical a philosophy of science "the new political

and whatever would intervene, such as the El Arish story and the government operations study,
and who knows what else: editing the Velikovsky and His Critics book, for example (...)

I spoke to Sebastian about other matters on the telephone during the day. We are concerned
about the troubles that Eddie is having over the custody of the children in divorcing Ellen

Bus told me of a quarrel between Renzo Sereno and his wife one time over a lady, possibly a
mistress, of Renzo. "The only reason you like her is because she thinks you're great," declared
the wife. Bus and I breathed reverently over this gem for a minute of ATT long-distance time
and charges. What has come over womankind? What do they imagine to be the foundation for a
man's love and devotion, even charm, even presence? After a day of labor selecting readings for
my American Government Reader in the company of Eric Weise and John Appel, I entrained for
Princeton, snoozing aboard, and arriving happily into the fresh air of the countryside. John,
Carl, and Chris were all in excellent mood, the one fixing things on the old Cadillac, Carl
playing his Beethoven pieces, and Chris shooting baskets. Mom came to dinner, bringing some
freshly picked and cooked wild cardoons.

At nine I biked to Velikovsky's home, Francie loping alongside and for two hours, while she
stretched comfortably in the middle of his parlor, we talked and argued over who should do what
about books, magazines, and the ever-growing prospect of the expedition to El Arish. Prof.
Philip Hammond caught me by telephone soon after I arrived from N. Y. C. to reaffirm his
interest. I asked him whether he would, in addition to his usual excavation reports, accept co-
authoring of a popular book on El Arish that I was proposing to Simon and Schuster and he
accepted promptly. I like the sound of him, though we have not yet met.

V. was difficult. He holds out things and then pulls them back. He wants to do too much
himself. I try to take responsibilities off his shoulders and he fights to keep them and even
to take new ones. He wishes to discuss every small decision, to control every document. He is
elated over our plans but becomes more demanding and even a little more paranoid as events
speed up. He has a poor sense of organization and scheduling where other human beings are
involved. His own immense mental world can grab and hold everything and shake it out in
marvelous patterns, but the world of affairs has its own ruthless laws, that treat all men
equally, and that make their own patterns.

Now came time for the Foundation to form and the incorporators met to elect themselves and
additional members to the Board of Trustees, and to transact business. R. P. Kramer, L.
Stecchini, R. Juergens and Deg coopted Horace Kallen, Harry H. Hess, A. Bruce Mainwaring, John
Holbrook Jr., Robert C. Stephanos, and Warner Sizemore. The date was June 2, 1968, a day that
would not go down in history. Deg was chosen President and other preliminaries were disposed
of. Then the ill-fated excursion to El Arish, where the capital of the Hyksos supposedly lay
buried, was taken up. Everyone knew already that Mainwaring and Holbrook had put up some funds,
that a Dr. Hammond had been approached to lead the group, and a contract had been drawn up. Deg
set forth a budget, even the minimal costs of which were well beyond the pledged resources of
group. Besides the preliminary soundings at El Arish, papers on the "hydrocarbons" of Venus and
its temperature changes were to be commissioned, a publication was to be prepared, preparations
to receive and use V.'s archives were in order, a magazine was to be inaugurated, and besides
there were provisions for work on collective amnesia, dating systems, magnetic polarity,
evolutionary theory, the psychology of catastrophe, electromagnetic cosmic models, and the
reception system of science. A happy set of prospects indeed, every one of which the foundation
was to fail to inaugurate, much less carry on to any extent. The case of El Arish will suffice
as an exemplum horribilis.

In June, A. Biran of the Israeli Department of Antiquities wrote to Deg saying:

Indeed there is much interest in the archaeology and history of the area but unfortunately it
is not always possible to satisfy this curiosity. Even I with all my interest and curiosity
have not yet been either to Kadesh Barbea, Mons Cassius, or Qantara...

July found Deg in Naxos, ready to go to Israel if needed, and John Holbrook had gone to Israel
to seek permission to begin a site survey at El Arish. Deg is getting a variety of inputs from
his assistant:

July 10, 1968 ...

I spoke with Velikovsky today. He told me that Holbrook had arrived here yesterday. A copy of
all the correspondence is on its way to us. The gist of it is that Holbrook saw Biran and
Dotan, the chief archaeologist, and that the Israelis would like to see more solid support from
Americans. Biran said that FOSMOS seems a bit fly-by-night to them. Another problem is that
they don't want to grant foreigners the right to dig in occupied territory. But apparently they
have softened a little, and if they could see something more established in support of the dig,
well then... So Holbrook is going to ask somebody at Yale about it, a Professor Popo.

I read your report of the Natural Museum with interest. I will probably get to the Met sometime
this week. The figure you described on the one vase are usually interpreted as Amazons, and I
am going to compare the costumes with those of the Busiris vase, out of curiosity. I think
there is also a book on Greek arms, with should have something in it about helmets.

I am sure you are enjoying Greece -- it's so wild, beautiful, clean and clear...

Meanwhile John Holbrook is grinding his gears in Israel and is addressing a set of marvelously
detailed letters to V., a copy of which he then sent to Deg.

Holbrook writes to V. on July 10, 1968:

Now I am in a bit of a quandry. First, I have no reason to doubt Biran's word that the military
situation in the Sinai area prohibits any extended work at El Arish at this time. Second,
although I shall certainly see Dothan when he returns from the field at the end of the week, I
cannot pledge the support of the foundation to the extent of $50,000. Although we have great
hopes for it, the treasury of the foundation is still a bit empty. That being the case, I can
only explore the possibility of organizing an expedition to El Arish at some indefinite time in
the future (when military situation permits) on the most tentative basis. Much will depend upon
what I learn from Dothan. At the very least, I hope that I shall be able to get a look at the
site before I leave.

One other matter deserves mention. There is no way of telling the extent to which opposition to
your work played a role in the rejection of our proposal. There were other reasons for
rejecting it. Latter Holbrook ventures an opinion on the actual site: Quite frankly, although I
am sure that a complete archaeological survey of the Wadi El Arish and its vicinity might be
extremely useful, I am willing to bet that the first trench which is dug in the area which I
have described above, the northern quarter of town, will not be found empty or unrewarding.

Little could be done with the El Arish party, upon which V. had set the highest priority (and
did for the rest of his life and rightly so, says Deg). The failure was bad enough, but to Deg
the most disagreeable part of the episode was the way in which V. began to find grounds for
opposing Hammond after he had agreed on his competence and leadership qualities, and had
invited him to lead the operation. V. soon convinced himself, and then Holbrook, that Hammond
was pro-Arab and would be persona non grata to the Israeli authorities, until they were
actually approaching the Israeli saying in effect "We know how you must feel about Hammond, but
we are aware of this situation and are taking care of it," whereupon the Israeli, in the case
of President Shazar, said, "What are you talking about, who is Hammond?"

Deg's Journal, October 20,1968

Velikovsky and I talked for the first time in a week yesterday afternoon and again last night.
He leaves for a grand lecture tour of Texas today. We have counseled him not to go to
California to talk, a little later on, because he would become tired and he absolutely should
finish Peoples of the Sea. He continues to add new data to the work, which is slender still
though, like a stick of dynamite.

We argued over the final contract details of Velikovsky and His Critics, which I am not keen to
do anyway, given my poor financial state and other projects of greater personal importance. He
wanted us to guarantee mutually that we would not submit the final manuscript without his
approval, in effect. It is of course a perilous idea, for he hangs onto everything and cannot
suffer any criticism. I drew up an appropriate missive, but added words to the effect that we
would also be jointly responsible if Simon & Schuster publishers sought damages from us for
non-delivery of the manuscript. As I suspected, he balked, and talked of legal formalism. I
laughed and expostulated "But you want everything, complete authority and no responsibility!"
It is the same with the Foundation we are creating: he wants it to follow his every wish, but
does not think that he should be identified with it.

He then said, "All right, Alfred, we will agree just among ourselves, without a paper. You will
not submit it without my approval."

"O. K." And then we went on to argue over the student strike movement, which he fears will
undermine authority and disrupt education. "A tiny minority has no right to interfere with the
majority who want to study." I told him that minorities are the media of change in any field. I
asked whether, if the French students had not rioted in May, there ever would have been the
Faure reforms of last week, "No matter!" He would change his mind. I can always win a argument
with him on politics, by citing his own case and the history of modern Israel. On these two
great contradictions of order, stability, and authority, much of his life is built; they make
all of his defenses of authority and majorities vulnerable.

"What do you think of Onassis?" I asked to change the subject. "Who?" Onassis, and Jackie
Kennedy. "Oh! I tell you that I think it is a second assassination of Kennedy." Beautiful, I
thought, either way. His idea is the same as that of all the maudlin sentimentalists, Kennedy-
dead worshippers, the sanctimonious, the suttee-ists. My way, it is revenge for a not too great
love, followed by the maddening experience of suffering all of this cant and sick reverence.
All of these mass-media addicts were hoping she would end up with a crew-cut college sophomore
from Princeton. So she picks the ugly old Greek pirate, and I am personally pleased. The
Hollywood and Madison Avenue brainwashed crowds have their fairy tale exploded once again. I
know that people live off of these fairy tales; that is what makes valid history and rational
politics impossible for them. Perhaps I should feel sorry for the great boobery, but I am
diabolically pleased with Jackie's revenge upon them. And upon JFK too, with his harrowing
political life and difficult character and mistresses. What is there to insult in his memory, I
ask myself, and what business is it of old ladies and shopgirls to define her husband.
"Onassis, I don't know the gentleman. Probably they like each other. I wish them happiness."

We returned to majorities and here is how he defined the Jewish majority in Palestine. "Over
history, the dead of the Jews are a majority in that country. They live in that tradition
wherever they are," Voting the dead to make a majority, like the Confederate southerners do, or
the bosses of "rotten boroughs" in the northern cities. Grussgott! What would V. say to these
majorities and so many others that are alive, as well. But Israel is the id‚e fixe; facts are
the dependent variable. Indeed, as I have known for as long as I have known him, the id‚e fixe,
the highly conventional, traditional literal interpretation of and respect for the Biblical
passages: from this conservative position spewed forth in all directions the most radical

Deg's Journal, October 25, 1968

Reflecting upon the failure of our infant foundation to launch an archaeological expedition at
El Arish last summer, I think it may be well to set down my view, which contrasts somwhat with
that of Velikovsky and Holbrook. V. was too willing to accept rumors about Prof. Philip Hammond
and placed too strong a weight upon adverse facts. V. had no right, as I told him bluntly, to
destroy Hammond's possible role as leader of the expedition on grounds that Hammond was pro-
Arab and that he had a mistress who would accompany him. Holbrook, whom I regard highly and
even warmly, with all his youthful arrogance, was too ready to accept V.'s evaluations and then
afterwards the position expressed by the Israeli authorities, to wit, that we could not afford
to support the diggings and that the political situation was dangerous. I felt that we had gone
so far in our adventure that we ought to have let Hammond himself battle with the Israeli. He
might, I think, have outfaced them and dragged in his crew and equipment over their grumpy
dispositions. I doubt that we would have uncovered anything of great significance in a few
weeks, but we would have planted our flag. We would have moved on from there.

Deg's Journal, November 2, 1968

Met with Velikovsky this afternoon. He is back from a triumphal tour of lectures in Texas. We
argued over plans for the foundation. Juergens was present. I asked him pointblank to pull out
any materials he might have that others had sent him and might be used as articles for the
proposed journal. He did so. [There was almost nothing.] I asked him also to pull together all
his address lists and to let us place a man in his house to built up a list of friends with
whom we might communicate. He agreed. I was most pleased. I borrowed V. 's manuscript on
Peoples of the Sea to read again, and left with everyone in cordial spirits. What a difficult
man but what an enormous grasp of everything, intellectually and physically!

I must set some probability theorist to work on some of V. 's proofs. They are strong as they
stand in their conventional historiographical form. But an application of mathematics would do
much more, e. g. the chances that the Greek letter on the backs of Ramses III's tiles might be
some 'flowing' or shorthand hieroglyphics.

The Foundation spent the fall of the year, following the El Arish fiasco, in some small
constructive matters and in self-destructive self-appraisals prompted by V.'s misgivings, Ralph
Juergens addressed the Board of Trustees extensively on November 13, writing inter alia:

1. ... He [Velikovsky] is concerned that funds collected, as it were, in his name, as gifts
intended to further his own researches, will be diverted to other purposes. Among such other
purposes he includes such FOSMOS projects as the Institute in Connecticut, the journal
Cosmology (...) To the doctor's way of thinking, only two projects thus far discussed would be
legitimate applications of such donated funds: a) the El Arish dig, and b) the hiring of
Princeton graduate students to carry out library and/ or laboratory research under his

2. Dr. Velikovsky is aware of our plans to launch a direct-mail campaign early in January and
he is offended at not having been consulted in the preparation of mailing pieces. (...) He
insists, at the very least, that literature sent out make absolutely clear to the reader that
he is not the power behind the foundation and that he will not be a recipient, direct or
indirect, of any funds collected by the foundation.(...)

It seems to me... that some rather fundamental misunderstandings remain to be cleared up, not
only between Dr. Velikovsky and the Board of Directors, but perhaps also among members of the
Board. In the first place, there is confusion as to the purposes of the foundation. It may be
that Dr. Velikovsky has never seen a copy of our by-laws, which seem to make the point that the
foundation is to serve as a clearinghouse for a variety of information, not all of it
necessarily related in any obvious way to Dr. Velikovsky's work. This would appear to leave us
free to tread ways not yet probed by the Doctor. And of course we thus face the danger of
becoming what Dr. Velikovsky would call a clearinghouse for cranks. But our statement of
purpose at least broadens our horizons to the extent that we cannot think of our organization
as a 'Velikovsky' foundation.

Or can we? The confusion seem rooted in the fact that we members of the Board, almost to a man,
have been brought together through our common desire to see his work get a fair hearing. Do we
really intend to operate a "Velikovsky" foundation in spite of our more abstractly stated
purpose? If so, we must accept certain consequences, e. g., foregoing a tax-exempt status and
placing absolute veto-power -- quite properly --in the hands of the Doctor. If not, I suggest
that we make haste to disillusion ourselves and Dr. Velikovsky.

On November 22, Deg writes a harsh letter to V.:

November 22, 1968

Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky
78 Hartley Avenue
Princeton, New Jersey 08540

Dear Immanuel,

As you have no doubt expected, your succession of favorable and unfavorable comments concerning
the progress of the Foundation has created a crisis of morale among the Trustees. For years you
longed for just such an organization to dedicate itself to the testing and propagation of your
theories, and now that we have constructed it you are undermining it.

You trust nobody, delegate nothing, and have, partly therefore, no capacity for administration.
You also do not wish anyone to speak in your name but wish help to drift down like manna to
dispose of as you desire. Actually, we shall be trying to do both things -- administration and
help in spite of you, if you do not disrupt the process.

The Board of Trustees has unanimously pledged itself to an independent course. Whatever the
Board of Trustees believes to be useful to the advancement of science, it will seek to foster.
It cannot bargain with anybody. If it chooses to do one thing rather than another, it does so,
not out of friendship to you but out of respect for the work that you and others like you have

In order to make demands of others, both inside and outside of the Foundation, I have to make
demands of you. You should cease making accusations against the Board, even if only among the
inner circle. You should cease bargaining over your Archive and the materials that you do not
intend to personally use, and let the Foundation work with a copy of them as soon as it can
arrange to do so. You should accept what we can offer you (or reject it) in good spirits,
knowing that we are doing our best in a complicated setting over which we do not have complete
control and that some times we must obtain indirectly what we cannot gain directly.

The men on the Board are your friends. If you have better ones, let them step forward and we
shall welcome them. The men on the Board are not the best scientists in the world and, if you
know better ones, we shall welcome them too. The Board has to finance the Foundation's
activities in whatever ways it deems appropriate. If you have the names of persons who, you
believe, might contribute to its work, we shall be happy to receive them. If you wish to
reserve the names of certain individuals or groups for your personal solicitations, please let
us have their names and we shall not approach them, whether in your name or in the name of the
Foundation. If you disagree with the policies of the Foundation, we would value your opinions.
But you cannot have a veto over anything that the Foundation does.

If you do not wish to relate to the Foundation in all of these ways and want to dissociate
yourself from the Foundation, I believe that you should do so, either by a personal
advertisement in a journal or by letter to all those of your acquaintances who matter. I shall
then put a resolution to the Board to the effect that the Foundation will go ahead with its
philosophy and plans. If the vote is positive, we shall go ahead with its philosophy and plans.
If the vote is positive, we shall go ahead; if not, we shall dissolve the Foundation, an action
which will disappoint me and give me immense relief at the same time. Of course, if you do not
desire to take any such measures, I would assume that you are basically pleased with our work
and will work in tandem with us.

With warm personal regards, as always, Sincerely, Alfred de Grazia

V., Deg learned from Elisheva and Ruth, was upset. Then he proceeded to put some of the blame
upon Juergens, where it most certainly did not belong.

Dear Ralph:

Yesterday morning, as you know, I received a rude letter from de Grazia with unfounded
accusations and it shocked me. Suspecting some provocation, I called you. You disclosed to me
that already on November 13 you have sent a memo to him and to the members of the Board of
FOSMOS. Next I was surprised to read the memo and its content being your interpretation of a
discussion we had at one of our meetings. I wonder why you have not checked with me on the
correct presentation of my views or at least mailed me a copy of the memo. Giving it yesterday
to me, you gave me also a covering letter. Your intent was good -- you must have suffered
observing that I am under wrong impression based on oral declarations made to me, whereas the
Board assumes a different policy; and it is good that you brought the situation into the open.

Your memo, however, is full of inexactitudes; knowing you for pedantically accurate, I wonder
at your rendition of our conversation. The only explanation I would know, is psychological:
your opposition to the idea of the Foundation --or only to the dichotomy (you use the term
'duplicity'), and that can be a subconscious urge during your writing. (...)

The sentence in your memo that obviously outraged de Grazia who repeats it is "veto power."
Nothing of the kind was spoken between us or between anybody else. There is a wide gulf between
a "veto power" and being kept in the darkness, as several instances in this letter testify.
(...) If time permits, I shall also put in writing what I exactly expect from the Foundation.
As to yourself, you know how I value you; you are also at this time the closest. To you I
always opened all my files. I wish you would be the one to organize my archive. I never
promised Alfred anything concerning the disposition of it, though we discussed its lodging at
Princeton University. Most offensive to me is his reference to my "bargaining" I never
responded to his many approaches...

Juergens then writes to Deg and passes along a never-sent but typed letter to Deg from V. with
the hand-written notation "This transcript of a letter drafted was not mailed nor typed -- it
dates from probably 1967. I. V. November 26, 1968."

Dear Alfred:

Yesterday evening when I was already preparing for sleep I had your telephone call. Elisheva
listened too. You told us of your plan to incorporate a foundation for studies in modern
science. At your last visit about a week ago you first mentioned of some step taken by a
partner of yours to charter a search along the lines pioneered in my books, thus to exploit
possibilities now neglected because of the inertia or ever opposition of scientific groups or
the entire scientific establishment to new approaches and especially those embodied in my work.
You told me yesterday of the founding committee that you intend to convoke in a few days -- two
names out of the business world, unknown to me, but also Livio and Ralph, and a few more. You
indicated that I should at some point assume honorary presidency of the new venture. A new
publication should be one of the projected activities. Organizing of my archive, another

I was through with my sleep at 3 a. m. when Elisheva that did not yet fall asleep came to
discuss the project. Her thoughts and mine (crystallized by the sleep) were very similar.

The positive in your plan needs not be recapitulated by me for you. But here are the adverse

For over a quarter century, since 1939, when I came to this country and dedicated my time to
research in ancient history, I carried the material load of existence and study and writing
with their concurrent expenses entirely by myself. This, at the end, gave me great satisfaction
since alone and a stranger in the land facing since 1950 the concerted opposition of faculties,
scientific societies, and scientific publications, I now find myself in a changing climate,
even though animosity in some circles, or among some individual is even more vitriolic than
before, but this can be recognized as defense mechanism.

Should your Foundation and money drives be instituted, the following will occur:

1. My adversaries who tried to present me as a charlatan but could not point to any unproper
action on my part, would be supplied with ammunition -- a money collection [sentence

2. Scientific organization like American Philosophical Society or scientific publications, like
Science of AAAS show recently some change of heart; this mimosa-like attitude would be very
sensitive to any activities [sentence unfinished]

3. Also many of my friends and followers would experience some shock if they should feel that a
monetary pursuit under whatever guise accompanies my work and I would feel embarrassed.

4. I am most averse, even afraid of being made affiliated with other, so numerous,
unorthodoxies. Through these years I am under an incessant barrage of such proposals to study
the works of others, and in some instances what is known as lunatic fringe. The Yale Scientific
issue caused a flow of letters to the editors from various individuals with appeals to have
their theories given similar handing to that given to mine. I found often in letters given
claims that the writer is in the possession [of ways] to prove me right (as if I failed in
this) or to improve my work by modifying it.

There are, no question, other worthy unorthodoxies. But I wish to continue my progress not
burdened with the defense of others, like say, the organon theory of the late W. Reich. A
foundation for studies in new [word missing] cannot close door to new ideas; I, however, cannot
and wish not to become a pope all malcontent.

5. Organizations, like foundations, from the start or after a while, institute salaries, incur
liabilities, oblige itself [sic] for grants etc., and should the organization be intimately
connected with my name, it may disband under conditions of insolvency, after a promising start,
causing an irreparable damage to my cause.

6. The small organization of Cosmos and Chronos groups is given to my close supervision and I
fell quite comfortable in separating my scholarly pursuits from the work assigned to Cosmos and
Chronos extending it to [sentence unfinished].

I know that S. Freud and to even greater extent C. Jung made use of donations, usually by their
ex-patients, to establish schools of their respective modes of psychoanalysis or for publishing
magazines. But their activities were not in the form of solicitation of funds.

In the morning after your call I drafted this letter to let you know how I feel.

Deg's Journal, November, 30 1968

Yesterday was one of those fine mornings when most things seems to go wrong, but I didn't much
mind. The mail brought a batch of documents from Ralph Juergens -- the gist of which was that
Velikovsky was deeply perturbed by my ascerbic letter to him of ten days ago. V. had promptly
asked to see Ralph's memo describing V.'s thoughts. Then V. wrote a letter indirectly answering
mine, and implying that Ralph has misstated his position, etc. V. added a newly typed version
of a letter that he said he had once written me but never mailed, full of forebodings
concerning my establishment of the foundation, together with a letter from Arens of Gimbel's of
Philadelphia, also full of doubts about the wisdom of proceeding with a foundation. All of this
was to justify V. in the face of my attack. I know V.'s pattern of responses so well now that I
could tell there was nothing new about the whole business. He writes everything down to have it
on paper for some future strategm. He warns against everything to be ready to be proven a
prophet should things go badly. He cannot let go of any power over things or people, but plays
upon every means of entrapping and embroiling them, sucking them in and pushing them off as he
feels the one way or the other in his succession of mobilizing-for-action and trust-nobody

I phoned him and visited him in the afternoon. I brought him the copy of Etruscan Tombs at
Sesto Fiorentino which Prof. Nicola Rilli had inscribed to him, and he surlily carped at every
point of Rilli's development that I brought out. 'Very risky, ' 'I don't think much of him from
what you tell me. ' 'He does not seem to be a scholar. ' 'He has very little evidence for what
he is saying. ' We finally got to the sensitive subjects of the flurry of documents. He claims
his position has never changed. I said, 'Very well, you need not have anything to do with the
Foundation, but if you wish to write articles for it or refer people to it, or receive support
from it, you are welcome. ' He agreed. (He will of course not keep his agreement, but will
intervene at every opportunity.) I offered also to turn the Foundation over to him completely
and let him designate someone to carry it on, but he refused that. I said, 'Please name those
men and foundations whom you do now wish us to approach for support. ' He would not do that. I
promised that his name would not be used in support of the Foundation, which satisfied him. I
know what he would like to see happen: the Foundation helping him in every possible way, but he
criticizing it constantly for its faults. And provided it does not demoralize others, I do not
mind. I have from my first meeting with him concluded that I should do what I thought he
basically would want and weather as best as possible the glooms, the negativism, the wounded
shouts, the suspicions, and the ingratitude.

We drank a glass of dry white wine (the Israeli wines are becoming excellent), and he showed me
a few late letters, as he usually does. With some emotion he declared that, for all I have done
for him he was going to give me sooner or later the whole history of the case -- the reception
of his ideas by science and the public. I didn't fell as grateful as I should, for I need
nothing so little as another pile of documents and a book to write, though it be the richest
such case archive in history, and I thanked him. I prepared to leave, bidding Elisheva goodbye,
and he stepped into the next room to get something. When he came out. I stepped close to him
and said 'You know, there is nothing that you can do that will drive me away. ' He said 'I will
read you a line of poetry that you wrote' and quoted "the most opposed I will most believing
be." 'Not a bad line, ' I said, smiling, and bid them goodbye again.

Deg's Journal, December 1, 1968

The Foundation Trustees met today and perused the volume of recent correspondence relating Dr.
V. to FOSMOS. They agreed that his conduct was sick. Still Juergens and Stephanos are under his
thumb. I pointed this out and questioned whether the Foundation should not slow down its
program for a year until everyone clarified their position, especially Dr. V. But we decided to
move ahead anyhow, and suffer V.'s conduct as well as possible.

The more I think of his behavior, the more indignant I become. Every kind of evidence comes out
in his letters, actions, and the experiences of others. Today he told Juergens that the
Foundation should get another box number, because he wishes to go ahead with his absurd,
presumptions, and self-glorifying Cosmos and Chronos 'Clubs' (of which, in truth, none exist).
Day before yesterday, he tried to buy my loyalty by the gift of his papers and documents on how
science received his work. 'only for you, not for the Foundation. ' A great collection, but I
wish it for others to use, not myself. He is incredibly obtuse on some matters, I try to love
him for his faults, but they are too numerous and large to embrace.

On Dec. I, the Board of Trustees met in Princeton at Deg's home, without the important presence
of Mainwaring and Holbrook. Nor were Kallen and Hess, who played no part in these proceedings
anyhow, present. Juergens carried a new letter from V, to the Board, divorcing himself from the
Foundation, which, as he asserts, he had never been married to in the first place but with
which he is hoping for good relations nevertheless.

I repeat the following from the Minutes of the Meeting:

An extensive discussion developed around the subject of the Foundation's relations with Dr.
Velikovsky. Juergens reported that Dr. Velikovsky was of the opinion that FOSMOS' aims and
activity were to deal only with such work as concerned him directly and as he might approve,
and that FOSMOS was changing its direction since its inception.

The President moved that, after examining the record, the Board resolve that the Foundation had
not deviated from its original aims, which remain unchanged and are reflected in the following
description offered by Stecchini, plus the subjects of 'Communications of Science' and 'Science
of Science':

The Foundation is concerned with conducting and aiding in the investigation of theories A. That
the geophysical and astronomical history of the planet Earth has been characterized by sudden

B. That these changes have taken place in historical times and, as such are documented by
historical records, archaeological findings, mythological traditions, religious practices, and
scriptures; and

D. That these changes have affected the human psyche and Affect contemporary social behavior.

Afterward, Deg addresses V. once more, to tell him that the Foundation agreed with him and had
always pursued the course that he now was advocating.

And then Deg receives a rather surprising letter from Stephanos who now becomes the instrument
of V. in a new way; he lists his benefactions from V. as if he were under hypnosis, and

... I must state that I find your letter to him [Velikovsky] misdirected (it should, perhaps,
have been addressed to another), and in its tone, totally unjust and unwarranted. I believe it
could be damaging to the interest we all claim to share, the acceptance of Dr. Velikovsky's
work, and capable of great personal harm to him and to his good name.

Since I was privileged to receive a copy of that letter (...) I want and do here deny its
content as my experiences allow, and respectfully request, as a member of the Board, that you
write a retraction to Dr. Velikovsky as soon as possible...

Deg replies to him:

Dear Bob: I am afraid that your letter to me of December 5 and the circumstances of its
preparation tend to confirm the contents of my letter of November 22 to Dr. Velikovsky.

It also indicates that Dr. Velikovsky should probably not have circulated a personal letter.
But thank you for your concern. I am sure that all will end well. Sincerely yours, Alfred de

It did end well enough, except for poor Stephanos. The Foundation moved along cautiously, doing
only small projects such as disseminating materials on the Velikovsky Affair, supporting Eddie
Schorr's work on the Greek Dark Ages, and soliciting memberships. It was disturbed by a new
attitude that V. had taken toward Stephanos, hitherto his most faithful and welcome disciple.
He seemed to believe that Stephanos had encouraged persons from the lunatic fringe to become
followers of V. and was giving them inside information of V.'s activities and archives. V.
wished to dissociate himself from Stephanos and expected the Foundation to do so, too. Sizemore
stuck up for Stephanos in private conversation with Deg, who sensed no great loss should
Stephanos resign. Then he saw Sizemore's point -- Stephanos should not be sacrificed to V. --
and did nothing. Stephanos resigned anyhow. By the following Spring, Deg was withdrawing, too,
as this Journal entry of April 19 seems to indicate.

On occasion Dr. V and I have discussed a biography in dialogue form. But the three occasions on
which we went to work with a tape recorder were disappointing to me. He becomes stiff, even
more aware of his role and audience, and though I try to break through with my informal
comment, he remains fixed like a peasant before a camera.

I have not seem him in several weeks. My own problems with women and children are many and my
book Kalos cries for completion. Immanuel's magnificent self-centering is not consoling or even
rational, under the circumstance. I have ceased completely to work on FOSMOS, in part because
of the foregoing, but also because the members of the Board were not up to editing a Bulletin,
or raising funds. Bill Dix [Director of the Princeton University Libraries] told me, too, that
the Velikovsky's during V.'s illness of December, had sought to give (with tax deductions well
in mind) V.'s archive to Princeton University. Yet FOSMOS was to have been the beneficiary.

Holbrook took over active management of the Foundation, working out of his new office in
Washington. He did not succeed in developing it well, and, by general agreement, it was
dissolved several years later.

V. was doing well enough as his own majordomo as we discover when we read Deg's Journal of
October 7, 1972 in Princeton:

I borrowed Jill's bicycle and rode it to the Velikovsky's. Francie, whose memory of me hardly
dims with my long absence, loped alongside. Velikovsky was issuing directions to a University
representative on how to set up the stage for a forthcoming lecture to the Graduate School
Residence Hall Club. He spared the man no detail, prescribing publicity releases, and his
desire to have his full first name spelled out rather than I. Velikovsky (is there a wish here
to conceal the I, egoist, or the normal desire to spread out one's own name, as he said?). He
requested that all his books and even a copy of Pens‚e dedicated to his work be on sale at the
University Store beforehand; asked that two parking spaces be kept for his car and that of his
daughter; wondered, since the British Broadcasting Company would be video-taping the show,
whether the President of Princeton might not come if invited; denied a suggestion that a local
radio station broadcast the speech but insisted that provisions for a televised relay into an
adjoining hall be provided for people who could not crowd into the banquet hall. He stipulated
that some announcements reach New York and Philadelphia so that disciples might come from those
places to hear him. The young bald impresario left the Presence dizzy with details V. is many
things but he is also a master impresario. He has had to be; his overwhelming need to be
recognized for what he is can only be satisfied by mobs of admirers under instructions which,
given his detachment from the Establishment machinery, only he can provide, or by some
wonderful stroke of recognition, a great prize like the Nobel Prize, the Fermi Prize, or an
invitation from a head of state to deliver a series of lectures. I believe that he would then
retire from his promotional labors and give himself over to finishing several important books.

I thought so yesterday as I watched him masterfully, but yet exhaustingly, promoting himself
and his work, and later privately conveyed this thought to Sheva, when he had gone up to nap.
For when the door closed on the graduate club representatives, he sat back, listened to me for
a few minutes, ate an apple, and began to doze. I enjoyed the chance to talk to Sheva; she can
tell me less flamboyantly all that has happened on their trips and where all the characters of
the drama of recognition are at the moment -- Mullen and Schorr and Bucaloe and so on. I
borrowed a book and biked home to Mom. After dinner, Immanuel called to apologize for falling
away from our conversation and I assured him that I was delighted that he could sleep well and
hoped that he would always behave in exactly the same way. I had mentioned to him that I
contemplated a little book of forays into myth, science and our adventures over the past decade
of our friendship; he wondered how I could write it without his archives. I can imagine how I
might, but if he would dig into them a little, my work would be greatly improved; I did not,
however, suggest that he give me materials. I shall show him the when it is
sufficiently elaborated. Then, if he wishes, he may find some material that would help me.

Deg is living in New York City, and only visits Princeton on occasion now.

Deg's Journal, October 23, 1972

I telephoned Velikovsky at 10 PM to see how he was. He was well. We talked of the book I
intended to write. When I said that I was investigating Hermes he warned me against starting to
repeat his work of 20 years. I guess he'd like me to ask for his files and then trap me into an
endless affair. I said, don't worry: I have only in mind making several penetrations in depth,
at widespread points, to show the method that should be followed to mine the ore. He said that
he couldn't "approve" my book unless he read it. Of course. And no doubt there are some bouts
ahead. In general, he likes the idea that I will write the book.

Then I gave him some firm advice. I said "you must finish Peoples of the Sea and the Ramses II
volume promptly and publish them. You must not lecture and run around. Ten people can go around
lecturing about you but only you can finish these books. Furthermore, you must not work on the
Einstein book, or Stargazers and Gravediggers, or Ash. These can be finished by someone else.
You must write something, if only 30 pages, on your theories of what happened in the skies
before Venus in 1500 B. C." He agreed, "You are right!" He added, however, that he must write
his autobiography because nobody knows him really or how he did his work. He only let out a few
facts here and there. Alright, I responded, add that to your required list, following the ante-
Venusian article. But that's all. "You're right!" he said again, with unusual accord. And so we
left the matter, saying good-night. P. S. V. told me that Harlow Shapley had just died at a
nursing home in Colorado. After reading the extensive obituary in the New York Times, V.
concludes that Shapley, always a great self-promoter, had seen to it that the Times possessed
his own account of his life. Thus Shapley hurls his last insult to V. from the grave.

Again on November 9. Deg exhorts him:

Had long telephone conversation with Velikovsky. He was in a grim mood, I tried to cheer him
up. I also read him the list of chapter titles for my projected book. He said a few approving
things but generally he was critical, full of admonitions. careful of his own sources of
information, making no generous or even modest offer of assistance, wondering how I could have
any new idea (though he did not say this explicitly) when he had them all, and in some manner
had published them all.

I don't know how he expects ever to encourage serious efforts to follow or parallel him. He
beseeches this from the world but then denies in advance that they can either be original or

I tell him to move rapidly on his theory of the pre-1500 catastrophes -- to publish at least a
synopsis of it, lest he accuse even his supporters of plagiarizing him. All I know of this work
are a few remarks of John Holbrook relating essentially the truth of the Greek theogony --
Uranus, Chronos (Saturn) Jupiter.

I am telling V. that if he doesn't do something soon here instead of parading around the
country he will become a successor instead of a predecessor of someone else, Further, his
predecessor will probably do a poor job because V. has withheld his information and assistance.

And he is concerned whether V. will be elected to greatness:

Deg's Journal, November 72

I. V. is running for election. The office he wishes to achieve is premier of 20th Century
Science. I believe that he has as good a chance as anyone up to this time of winning the

However, I am not a campaign manager. And though an election in science is unfortunately like a
political election -- in that a campaign biography should be written that will show the
candidate in gorgeous lights -- I feel I must pass up the chance to win glory as a publicist.
My interest in biography is as Conant [President of Harvard University and chemist] once put
it: to find the full meaning of science through its means of creation.

Immanuel V. as I see and know him is here, and you must understand to begin with the fact that
no person can fully know another one.

Problems of health depressed V.:

Deg's Journal, December 22, 1972

Called V. He is gloomy, The doctors told him that he must go away to rest. His days are full of
calls, visits, correspondence --too much to handle; his writing lags. I invited him and
Elisheva to New York for a day of rest and walking around the museums. Maybe. I also suggested
he might go to Yucatan and see the ruins there. He doesn't "want to be carried around by the
tour buses." "Let the buses go without you. Stay at hotels. Then provide and make your own
daytime itinerary." He wondered when I would be in Princeton. I didn't know, I told him I would
think of what he should do and would call him back .

The "Apollo" Program suffers severe cutbacks;

Deg's Journal, December 23, 1972

Called Stecchini. He is feeling better after a gradual six months' recovery from an old back
injury. He said V. may be depressed by the closing down of the Apollo Moon project which,
whatever its premises and procedures, had brought forward some support of his views. The signs
of volcanic activity are still being reported, though their time of occurrence is naturally
placed conveniently far away -- 100,00 years, 500,000 years, their freshness suggesting
"recency," but recency being defined arbitrarily on the lengthy geographical scale. If 100,000,
why not 3000? No answer. No question, in fact, by anybody, save the Velikovskians. Cape
Canaveral (Kennedy) is already being dismantled. The scientific community did not rise to the
occasion, said S. "I didn't rise, either," I said. "It was a great waste of world resources."
He half agreed.

Deg worries both about V.'s health and his attitude towards a friend:

Deg's Journal, December 26, 1972

Called V. again yesterday. He is more cheerful, but says his diabetes is moderate, not light.
He is grumpy over the stricter diet he must follow. He asked me about all my children and I
recited their whereabouts and conditions of life. He asked whether he could help me. I should
have said, "Yes, let me read your pre-Venus notes and correspondence." I didn't. He wouldn't;
not now. He would ask me to show that him all of my ideas. I would do so, but he might well not
reciprocate and even though his materials must be better than mine on the whole, he might very
well absorb them and simply look the gate on me by putting me onto this or that matter
stretching on endlessly. He cannot help himself. He is authoritarian. And he finds it difficult
to think that anyone in the world but himself can supply anything but a few details nor indeed
should until he has breathed his last word. This kind of game seems bizarre between friends,
but the reason I am perhaps vulnerable to shock by its exposition. As certainly as the sun
shines (sic!) he would reject my work repeatedly, absorb all that he had not known, and accuse
me in the end of plagiarism.

V. begins to exhibit alarming symptoms:

Deg's Journal, February 10, 1973

Velikovsky Visit - V. not well at all. Extremely nervous, thin, paranoid cryptic references,
taciturn jerky movements from time to time. Is diabetic. Asked him whether 10 years of good
work might reconstruct 10,000-600 B. C. He didn't have an opinion. He said he doesn't know
whether deluge was 4000 or 9000 BCE. Deg's Journal, February 1973 Called Velikovsky at 5 P. M.
Says he is felling better, but is having troubles with "people." Has matter of importance
(ominous tone) to talk over with me. If I want to hear it, I must come to Princeton tonight. I
tell him it is difficult. Won't tomorrow night do. Maybe. "Who is it?" I ask. "Can't I help."
"You come." etc. All remote, intimations of disaster, confusion of personal and the world and
of all past with the present. I try to talk of article about Mars. 'The author believes in all
miracles except yours. ' He's not sure he read it. But uninterested really. He is involved in
his personal huge caravan of suspicions, lawsuits on his house in Israel (so Ruth tells me to
make clear his references), forebodings of catastrophes, possible suicidal impulses (my enemies
wanted their martyr; now they have it.) Nina hands me a note as she overhears me. "Do not try
to get abstract conversation. He is trying to talk about himself." But he is uncommunicative.
Finally, I leave it that I may come tonight or in the next couple of days. He is reluctant to
close but finally I end the call.

Called Ruth Sharon. Father not feeling well. Diabetes out of control. She tells me not to go to
Princeton. He will be better and there is nothing I can do. I tell her I fear he will regress
irretrievably. She cannot answer to that. She says he may even resent me later if see him in
weakness. I tell her I am more concerned with whether he will be helped now if his situation is
serious. Maybe she and her mother cannot suffice to pull him out. I ask her to call her mother
and if they want me to come to call me.

8. p. m. Ruth calls me back. She has talked to her mother but her father hung onto another
phone throughout the conversation. She says, however, that he was feeling a little better and
was thinking of driving out to purchase several articles. So I should call and give my regrets
for not coming.

8.15 I called V. Sheva came on the extension phone. I said I had not finished my proofs that
had to go to India and asked him to excuse me if I did not come this night. He assented. I said
further that I did not wish to see him before I could show him an outline of my work on pre-
history. He replied that he would have no time to read it, for he was so behind in his reading.
Sheva interrupted gracefully to say that it was short piece and I hastily agreed, saying that
it was only a page or so. He said nothing then; I uttered a few additional inanities and hung
up with the promise to see him soon. He sounded at a bit stronger of voice.

V. then recovers:

Deg's Journal, April 4, 1973

I phoned V. this morning and found him much improved since my last call before leaving the
country. Three weeks in the hospital had somehow restored him. I said, "Life without a
telephone to bother you was good for you." "No I had telephone. I took my calls."

Anyway, he is better and will drive perhaps to Youngstown, Ohio, for a speech next week. He is
working of Ramses II again. He is pleased that Carl Sagan is writing an article for Pens‚e on
Venus. He agrees that I shouldn't bother with book reviews for Pens‚e but should present a
significant paper. Maybe I shall get down to preparing one.

He is hopeful. He speaks of Particular tasks. He has even begun rearranging some files. It is a
great relief.

Bill Mullen is getting ready to move from Princeton University to a new appointment at Boston
University. He is glad to be away from V.'s moods. He writes to Deg:

August 12, 1974 ...

The summer has been curiously unproductive and jammed as far as Velikovsky is concerned. He has
spent virtually all his hours talking about what he is not accomplishing and bewailing the
magnitude of the battle against his enemies on all sides. I've contributed only bits of help
here and there, otherwise being forced to concentrate on preparation of this fall's course.
Eddie [Shorr] has been of tremendous help, spending day after day in the library going through
The People of the Sea with a fine-tooth comb. But here too the result has not been of the kind
to cheer Velikovsky up since Eddie has found many minor errors which need correction. Nothing
that shakes the reconstruction, just a lot more nitpicking work that really has to be done if
the book is to be spared the dismissals by Egyptologists on the grounds of inaccuracy which are
feared. In short, be thankful for the serenity of Naxos. Al, since little would have been
gained by being close to Princeton this particular summer (...)

But V. reorganizes his forces and this time calls upon Irving Wolfe, who graciously responds by
addressing Mullen, C. J. Ransom, Juergens, Rose, Steve Talbott and Milton:

Dear Alfred, I visited Velikovsky last week, along with Lynn Rose and Earl Milton. We discussed
several matters with him, among which were

- the number of books he's working on at once - his archives and related issues - he wants
people to submit and keep submitting articles on or arising from his work to scientific
journals, whether they will be accepted or not -- setting up a Newsletter, about which several
steps are being taken -- public recognition for advance claims and theories.

You will be familiar with most of these matters already, but I've drawn your attention to them
because I think we need to get a number of people thinking about them and coming up with
solutions because Velikovsky can use help in all these areas.

With regard to the last item above, here is an example -- the recent discovery of substantial
quantities of argon and neon on Mars seem to puzzle scientists, as an article in Science, June
21, 1975 indicates. Yet Velikovsky predicted argon and neon on Mars as far back as 1946. Key
scientists must be given the facts -- dates of original advance claims, letters, confirmations,
etc. -- and urged to write the major scientific journals. Velikovsky feels he's too busy to do
this himself each time, and so I've offered to handle it for him, telling him, telling him
that, wherever a case like this arises, he's to send the relevant document to me and I'll
compose a covering letter and send it all out to the right people.

This is where I need your help -- I want to make up a master list of key people, perhaps
divided into two or three categories, to whom such things can be sent as each occasion

Deg could imagine the huddle at 78 Hartley Avenue, planning the counterpropaganda campaign, the
"truth squads" as the Republicans and Democrats had come to call their counterpropaganda teams.
Next year, Wolfe was calling for an "alarm system" which he had worked out with Milton in
Canada. It was to be a network, highly sophisticated, with members divided into generalists and
specialists, with squad leaders who would call upon their assignees to respond to the alarm.
Wolfe had been called by V. to activate the system, as he had promised the year before, and V.
nominated as a test alarm the publication by Doubleday of Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered,
which should exercise the network to produce reviews, letters, and public discussion.

This meant helping the Talbotts who were otherwise blacklisted by V. and several of his circle.
"Regardless of what any of us feel about the Talbotts," wrote Wolfe, "I agreed because
Velikovsky asked." (Actually, I doubt that Wolfe ever felt antagonistic towards the Talbotts
himself; the plea was for others.) "He (V.) may feel that he wants to aid the success of that
book because it will affect his own case." So the Talbotts and the inner circle were
momentarily in bed together again, an event that had not occurred since the Talbotts' Pens‚e
had collapsed. The results were not remarkable, and after a time they got out of bed.

There came a lull in attempts at general organization; V. continued to turn his attention and
the minds of his several collaborating followers to the AAAS affair, a story to be told later.
It is noteworthy how much time was taken up with all the maneuvering, research, writing, and
wrangling connected with a single sitting of an AAAS panel in San Francisco, much of five years
of V.'s time and of the time of several others, the time too of Elisheva, but who counted that?
-- more hundreds of hours blanked out; there the tragedy is marked, for she was a sculptress
and musician of consequence.

She never complained, so I am reporting Deg's complaints on her behalf, unsolicited. Moses
would have been pleased with her self-sacrifice; Deg was no Mosaist. When she lay dying after a
long illness, and he had not seen her for months, he thought to write a poem for her.

Then came the infatuation of V. with Christoph Marx, and following upon Marx' return to
Switzerland, V. addressed Lynn Rose, who was perhaps feeling both grumpy about the affair and
pleased that suddenly V.'s attention was turned elsewhere. However, V. was writing in a
euphoric mood, and one could see the alarm bells ringing around the world.

The letter to Lynn Rose is dated May 11, 1977, and I summarize it. Marx was to be "a central
figure" on the European continent: Isenberg sends a paper he gave to a conference of science
editors and V. urges him to send it to the major hostile magazines --Nature, Science, New
Scientist and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, "as coming from the convention" ... A
letter from Langenbach, a supporting attorney working in the Harvard scene... A call to William
Safire of the New York Times, a self-designated "great fan" to get advice... An announcement
that Juergens has resigned his engineering job and would probably now work for him, V... A hope
to teach a course in Egyptology at Princeton University... A report of Deg's taking issue with
Lustig of the Encyclopedia Britanica Yearbook... Last minute changes to the English edition of
Ramses II... A carpenter-mason is building a room for guests and Elisheva's music... A letter
from the widow of maligned Harvard supporter, Professor Pfeiffer... Mainwaring will be sending
a complete file of all C14 communications with the British Museum and the University of
Pennsylvania museum... A conversation with Holbrook, once more in Washington... A gift of Czech
rights to Jan Sammer who helped so well with Ramses II... Some minor foreign rights also to his
early copy editor Marion Kuhn, now ailing... Reporting plans to sponsor publication of Alice
Miller's Index to his works... Detailing the distribution of 1000 free copies of Kronos to
College libraries, financed by Jerry Rosenthal... Denouncing Steve Talbott for recommending in
a pamphlet that all subscribe to The Zetetic Scholar which has recently defamed V's Urges that
the five former associate editors of the now defunct Pens‚e "should make a common statement and
try to teach the subscribers of Network (Talbott's serial pamphlet), deluded into believing
that the Network is an organ to defend and protect my work... Dr. Gowans of the University of
Victoria "comes back to the fold" after consorting with the likes of Dietrich Muller of
Lethbridge... An exchange of letters with Jacques Barzun... Reports that Peoples of the Sea
just released had already outsold Earth in Upheaval (11 printings since 1955) and Oedipus and
Akhnaton (12 printings since 1960)... He resists Doubleday's efforts at putting Peoples into a
book club as an alternate selection... Ramses II is to be delayed once more, this time by the
publishers... He is happy that his British publishers, Sidgwick and Jackson, have given full
prominence to his Peoples while somewhere in the nether pages "Patrick Moore is modestly
displayed for his '1978 Yearbook of Astronomy, ' and has to take this pecking order, he being
the author of 'Do you speak Venusian? ' presenting me as a King of Fools"... More letter
exchanges... He doesn't want Rose to be distracted from their plan to write together "The Grand
Ballroom" dealing with the AAAS affair which was already the subject of several books and many
articles... ".... The hammer of the builder sounds like a song... do you know that my real
vocation is in architecture, and the years that I visited the Library on 42nd street, I
regularly visited also the room with architectural journals, watching for a chance to compete
for a plan and construct a public building?"... "Keep well, act strong, Lynn."

V. was obviously in fine fettle. The Mastermind was back. He had a great deal going for him on
two continents now, it seemed.

The euphoria subsided. The resistance to all of his ideas continued unabated. It seems that he
could say nothing that would be right in the eyes of his opponents. His growing disenchantment
with Christoph Marx was not compensated by new faces. (New ideas were out of the question;
proofs were wanted, and defense.) He had now close to himself principally Greenberg and
Sizemore; for them Kronos was not fun and games anymore. On June 3, 1979, Sizemore writes Deg,
"This issue is going through hell -- trying to get V.'s approval on Lew's article about the
latest probes."

By now I believe that you and I Know enough of the principal characters here to venture a more
fundamental answer to the question which I dealt with unsatisfactorily at the beginning of the
chapter: why did Deg stick with V.? It appears that the two men were close to each other even
when separated and out of touch. I conclude that there was a familial relationship being
reenacted between V. and Deg. It was not father to son, but older to younger brother. In
significant ways V. was of the character of Deg's older brother Sebastian, and Deg was relating
to him as he had to his brother throughout life but especially from two years to twenty years
of age.

It was as Lasswell somehow discovered, a sibling rivalry between Deg and Sebastian, more
intensely activating for the younger than the elder. No matter what Sebastian did, he couldn't
put down his younger brother; and his younger brother, while trying to outdo him, was
absolutely fond of him and set him up as a model for others, to be surpassed only by himself,
and he was determined all the while that none was going to put down Sebastian so that there was
a strong protective impulse going incongruously upwards --material and demanding -- rather than
downwards as one might expect.

V. had two older brothers, neither of whom he saw after 1921 and with whom communication was
rare, if only because the "Iron Curtain" barred East from West and he said once to Deg,
speaking of his scientist brother, Alexander, I would not want to jeopardize his position over
there by reintroducing myself into his life.

And Sebastian and V. were of the same rawboned, tall and handsome physique, unlike Deg's more
compacted from and features, both were umbrageous, too Both felt that Deg could do anything he
set his hand to, but that he was always off on some wild goose chase when you needed him.

There were of course differences. However the song goes: "I want a girl -- just like the girl -
- who married dear old Dad," no girl is ever quite like mother: and so with siblings, no two
sibling relationships are quite a like. The major differences were two: like Deg, V. was
fantasmogenic: he day-dreamed much and often and duelled with the universe of nature and men in
his mind. Sebastian was not a dreamer. And, further, V. was there, in place, at home; for
seventeen years Deg knew where to find him at Hartley Street whose number he could never
remember, and that he would be welcomed like a brother, which, no offense intended, he could
not always count on from Sebastian.

I think that the crux of the relationship, that which proved its psychogenesis, was the fact
that Deg, unlike so many of the cosmic heretics, could be constantly critical of V. without
risk to his affection for V. Then, too, while V. would never let Deg take away his toys, nor
admit that he was equal, he would not stop him, short of outright usurpation of his position
and place, which Deg in any event would never wish to do. Indeed, one of Deg's main virtues and
weaknesses in human affairs, if it can be called that, was that he would often win a contest,
but could never administer the coup de grace, Neither V. nor Sebastian lacked this capacity
except in the case of their younger brother. Sebastian never became friendly with V. but
supported him quietly, just as he never committed himself to Deg's efforts on behalf to V. nor
to Deg's quantavolutionary ideas. He engaged himself mildly one time in their futile effort to
obtain an honorary doctorate for V. at Rutgers University. Another time, when Deg was abroad,
Sebastian perhaps prompted by his wife Lucia, thought of getting V. and Elisheva together with
the Director of the Institute for Advanced Study, Carl Kaysen, Ambassador George Kennan, and
their wives. Perhaps V. should be invited to join the Institute (which would in fact have been
an ideal place for him and ideally in keeping, too, with the Institute's professed aims).
Elisheva and Immanuel were irritatingly preoccupied with the menu for dinner, however, and
settled finally for a visit during the cocktail hour, which went off nicely.

Deg's communication lines generally thinned out in the years 1976 to 1983. Even his lateral
communications in quantavolution dwindled as he pressed to break through with the several large
studies underway. Here he is writing from Naxos to Professor Ernst Wreschner in Haifa on
December 21, 1976:

I am returning from three weeks in Mexico as a guest of the government. I attended the
inauguration of Jose Portillo as President, gave a paper at a special conference on the 400th
anniversary of Jean Bodin's Six Books of the Republic (author of my least favorite doctrine --
absolute sovereignty), and visited a number of Olmec, Maya and Aztec ruins and sites. It has
been a good trip and I found a considerable interest in translating my political works and even
some surprised involvement in my questions about mythology and catastrophes. I did not find the
lost tribes of Israel but perhaps learned something of pre-"Atlantean" survivals. I also had a
car wreck (I was not driving), had my wallet stolen by a large fat Indian lady with an
overpowering smell that put me to sleep on the bus alongside her, and then later on my little
camera as well -- before I could turn around, the pickpocket had dived into the marketplace
mass.) C'est la vie.

With luck, by late spring I shall have a general manuscript ready on the holocene destructions
and human development and will send you a copy. I hope that my present letter finds Ella and
yourself very well and in good spirits. I have resigned all teaching at NYU and am now free to
give my time to research and perhaps sometime to a visit to Israel, unless you meanwhile visit
here. (...)

Deg showed his materials on Homo Schizo to Harold Lasswell who approved their significance. Deg
wished he might get the famed polymath involved in seeking the origins of the human mind, even
in contemplating quantavolution, for Lasswell was as much a fantasmogene as Deg. But not long
afterwards, Harold Lasswell climbed into the bathtub of his apartment overlooking Lincoln
Center, suffered a stroke, and spent two helpless days in the tub before his apartment was
entered. His friends rallied around and attended the cheerful but addlepated great man until he
died. Deg hoped he had not been unkindly critical when they had last been sitting at Lasswell's
place, drinking whisky and looking down upon Manhattan, for he had been suddenly seized with
impatience when Harold spoke of a great new understanding overcoming the medical profession
owing (by inference ) partly to the introduction of techniques for better human relations in
complex technical situations (in which he was playing a part, as always) inasmuch as Deg felt
like raging -- not only against the system of medical care, but also against the world at large
for its frightful bungling.

When I went back in time for Lasswellian material related to quantavolution and the heretics,
the latest was from November 4, 1972, when Deg's Journal reads:

I met Harold Lasswell at the University Club 7 and after two Scotches and 'what have you been
up to' and 'what are families and friends doing, ' we taxied to Washington Square, where Nina
prepared dinner. She pulled out all the stops of her culinary organ and enthralled Harold with
poached whitefish and freshly made mayonnaise, stewed hare, spinach and egg salad, Port-Salut,
stewed pears in brandy, and a variety of wines and cognac. We talked until after midnight.

He is looking as he has for thirty years. Still grey and pink, still ranging all over the world
and talking upon every subject; the chasms of unintelligibility when he swings into Lasswellian
sentences from time to time still enchant me. It was Nina's first exposure to them and she
couldn't decode them.

He described his unexpected walk many years ago up a set of 18-inch spikes hammered into the
walls of Santa Sophia in Istanbul. He had a hangover from a night of drinking sweet Turkish
liquor and could barely save himself from nausea, vertigo and panic. How I know the feeling. He
talked too of a ride in a military plane from Paris to Vienna after World War II, where he sat
on a metal bucket seat with two other men and watched a cargo of coffins creep through their
bonds toward the freedom amidships.

We talked of economists and he expressed his pleasure that the social sciences were being
recognized for Nobel Prizes, particularly Ken Arrow and Samuelson, but his subtle manner of
speaking, which one must watch carefully, indicated he was a little hurt that he who had
achieved so much for the social sciences had not been recognized with such a prize. I agreed
with him, without mentioning the matter; what a corrupting influence the Nobel Prizes are; they
pretended to omniscience, in whose name, on what grounds; what presumptuousness.

He is now working on a Policy Sciences Center, promotes a world university, heads a Rand
Corporation Board, etc. He was delighted with my stories of the University in Switzerland and
would have gone the whole evening on the subject. His mentioning Arrow and Samuelson came when
I reflected upon the betrayal of human economics by the economists. I explained my struggle
with Scott-Foresman over publishing a chapter on economic policy and especially on a guaranteed
income. Harold says that A. & S. and others just published a statement indicating their
adherence to such in principle. I should use it to back up my attack on the subject.

I mentioned my advice to Velikovsky to publish now instead of awaiting the 'no mistake'
nirvana; H. L., who feels a certain competition, insisted that I was right, that V. wanted to
be God, that it was unscientific, that no man could expect his work to stand free of error
indefinitely, that the courage to err was the glory of a true scientist.

Lasswell spoke of a book called Chariots of the Gods by a Swiss, who apparently believed in the
depositing of inventions upon Earth by superterrestrial beings. I thought this was a modern
version of the gods of the Greeks descending at will upon earth bringing discoveries as well as
evil. I added that I am pursuing a theory that the flowering of certain early metal ages came
in consequence of the showering of metals upon earth from comets and meteorites.

Probably I should add a chapter to my book on the descent of the Metals. If the metals are
heavy, they should have sunk to the core of the Earth's molten mass, never to surface again.
Why should in theory the earth's crust contain them? For none says that the turbulence of the
crust descends to greater depth.

Before our last cognacs had been finished, we spoke of the family system, Nina presenting the
nostalgic view of the extended family, Harold asserting that the blood family has little to
offer any longer, while admitting her argument. He described his early family -- he an only
child, but with numerous relatives, now scattered from the Midwest to California and Florida,
those graveyards of American families. I had been urging him earlier to write his
Autobiography; he is silent about his past to an abnormal degree. He is noncommittal. Perhaps
he prefers to remain a Great Man of Mysterious Origins. Very well, but a good autobiography is
worth more than a large question mark.

Washington, 1979 In Memoriam HAROLD D. LASSWELL (1902-1978)

Harold! Greetings! Snifting bubbles, are you, this season, in the land of the tall drinks? Are
they pouring you doubles?

Come back to Chicago, Vienna, Nanking. Sounding like we know it all, in tones serene as your
very own, We slump in low divans and hunch over brown tables Spilling smoothly the news about
how you walked upon the Earth once.

Welcome back to Washington, New York and New Haven; your train is set to run on time. You said
straight what you saw Without hee-haws, oinks, or meows No winks, curtsies, or knotted fists No
cow-eyes, or stony gaze. Viel Blitzen, kein Donor, No "Ho-ho-ho."

Pleasant, agreeable Hero of our times, "if-then" propositions cornucopiously emitted. Two
pounds of value-sharing for all men alive. Mix one pound of deference, a dash of income, well-
being and safety added to taste, Be generous with enlightenment.

Now that you're not in it. More Seasoning is needed. some of the gusto is gone. In-put, out-go.

Hearing the world's secrets and ours nevermore, You heard them all, and those to come that we
must explicate ourselves.

Thanks for configurating the North pole under your gray hair, behind your glasses, in your
midnight coat. You gloves are too thin. Come home again, if you get the chance The New Year is

So long, Saturn!

Deg's Journal, November 18, 1980

It's cold outside. I received a letter from Gilbert Davidowitz' sister telling me that my
letter to him arrived but that he had died 'of a heart attack' last July. Poor lonely mad
scholar. He was only fortyish. He must have committed suicide. Never an academic appointment.
Nothing published. Brilliant worker in the origins of languages. I immediately wrote Charles
Lee [Director of the State Archives of South Carolina, one time President of the American
Society of Archivists] who will be startled to hear from me after 38 years, explaining my
memorandum on the archives of the dying and their total loss to our culture. I feel extra sad
about Gilbert, because he was so alone and so incapacitated for everything except the history
of languages. But what a fine capacity. If he might only have known when dying how I like and
admired him. He must have known. But he needed just then to be told so.


by Alfred de Grazia



The asininity of the attacks by the science media and conventional scientists upon Velikovsky
was consistent with book reviewing and editorial practices generally. Sympathizers of V. had an
ample data bank from 1963 onwards from which to demonstrate that V. 's critics were brash,
dogmatic, imitative, narrow, selective, unprepared, precipitous, vulnerable, incomplete,
pretentious, possessed, unversed, unserious, unselfcritical, prejudiced, unsystematic, inexact,
unphilosophical, ideologically scatomatized, vague and irrelevant -- to say the least. Yet
withal Velikovsky was said to have been "buried" not once but repeatedly, and all of his
supporters with him.

In a field so broad, hundreds of major statements and thousands of details offered in over a
thousand published pages somehow emerged unscathed. Several scores of statements were indicted
for ambiguity or rendered more doubtful. What everyone knew ahead of time could be reasserted:
the prevailing theory of celestial mechanics would only make nonsense out of data presented. In
addition, planet Venus probably lacks massive clouds of hydrocarbon; if so, either such clouds
were never there or they burned off over time, the latter being V.'s second line of defense.

All in all, this was so small a bag that V., when it came time to write his address to the San
Francisco AAAS meeting, ended it with the words, "None of my critics can erase the
magnetosphere, nobody can stop the noises of Jupiter, nobody can cool off Venus and nobody can
change a single sentence in my books." He knew that last expression was bravado, but he felt
like sticking it in, so unsuccessful did he consider his opposition to have been. He asked
Deg's opinion: should it stay? Deg was happy for the swashbuckling septuagenarian. Besides
there was enough truth in it to let it go as the last firecracker of a speech that crackled
throughout; why not? Fling it in their teeth. And so it stands. Since effectively it says
nothing and says all, who can object to it?

I have given much thought to what kind of review might be tendered V.'s books, such that his
supporters could not assail on substantial or moral grounds but would not please them. I
consulted Professor Joseph Grace, a historian of science, and he kindly wrote a review for our
pages, holding to a 700 word limit, such as is common.

Velikovsky is a highly skilled and erudite scholar, who works comfortably in several major
fields of science and the humanities. He has a style, an attack, that is primarily humanistic.
By this I mean to exclude social science, which today has a format often resembling natural
science, complete with jargon. He writes more like Ignatius Donnelly, a predecessor of a
century ago, whose style is even more pleasurable. There can be only mild objections to such a
style, considering the undefined and exotic, even occult nature of some of the areas he must
venture into and the non-existence of a scientific language covering so broad an area. Of
course, we would lose much in clarity and orderly communication if our students were to adopt
it in all manner of writing.

Velikovsky sees prehistory and protohistory as frequented by stupendous natural catastrophes
that call into question the stability of the solar system over long time periods, and therefore
the gradualism of darwinism in biology. His evidence is limited and fragmentary, much of it
anomalies that puzzle historians both human and natural. Most of his evidence must, and does
also, serve conventional approaches, our received knowledge, although he insists upon viewing
it as catastrophic.

His most radical hypotheses, which he expresses far too confidently, propose drastic erratic
movements and changes of planets, particularly the Earth, Mars and Venus, not to mention the
lunar satellite and the giant planets Jupiter and Saturn. The mechanics, even the electro-
mechanics of such allegedly historical events are, if conceivable, quite unknown and

Here and there in his works one finds nuggets of valuable ore, some in history, some in legend,
some natural history. One finds these days a plenitude of studies of meteorites and comets, a
few of which he cites. One finds, too, many goods works on historical and stratigraphic
chronology, chronometry, and it takes more than innuendo to shake the solid foundations of
radiochronometry. One must be impressed, on the other hand, by Velikovsky's ability to discover
anomalies and contradictions, especially in Ancient History. He may well be on the right track
in discovering continuities between Pharaoh Akhnaton and Oedipus, and concordances between the
Biblical Amalekites and the Hyksos conquerors of Egypt, and even is stressing a baffling
absence of archeological material to fill in centuries of assigned time in Egypt, Greece, and

The reader will find many entertaining and suggestive pages as well. As for his general ideas,
practically none of them can be fitted into contemporary scientific theory. The more heretical
a theory, the more hard evidence must be found to support it, and Velikovsky's ideas of an
electrically run universe, which he never develops, and his claims of planetary aberrations in
early times to which he gives a great deal of attention, are, to put it mildly, bizarre; there
exists, that is, no astrophysical theory to support them.

I would not recommend his books to anyone. Their pretensions will enrage the learned and
confound the ordinary reader. Every age has books like them. I can mention Donnelly and Mesmer
in the nineteenth century, and George M. Price and C. Beaumont in this century, but there were
many more, which are best forgotten. The genre is well known to science and historians of the
most ancient times, and one can judge the future of the books by what has happened to their

The fact that a great many people read such works tells us little about their value as science
or literature. No doubt, in time, such scientists as can be spared from other tasks or are
involved with his specific hypotheses will build up what would amount to a total assessment. It
is certainly too early to assert, as Prof. A. de. Grazia did after only a dozen years, that he
is one of the great cosmogonists of the century.

What can be said for this review is that it gives a general impression of what is talked about
in the books and how, and it does not challenge their right to be published, nor dismiss them
as anti-scientific, nor berate the author. When researching on the Velikovsky Affair, Deg
stimulated V. 's interest in the techniques of suppression, putting into a framework the host
of items which protruded from V.'s archives. Deg told V. of a favorite old book, Henry
Thouless' Straight and Crooked Thinking and explained how it might be applied to V. 's
experience. V. was excited by the idea and prepared a handwritten list of "70 ways of
suppressing a theory," which the two men discussed. The list that follows is largely in V.'s
words and idiom. It was not included in the published work. Each item is based upon one or more
concrete instances that can be documented and dated. Later on V. wished to engage Lynn Rose in
fleshing out and publishing the list.

Actions of Established Scientists and Cohorts Aimed at I. Velikovsky and his Book Worlds in
Collision (1950)

1. Refusal to read or examine the manuscript. 2. Charging it was not presented to specialists
before publication.

3. Refusal to help with inexpensive tests through established facilities.

4. Accusation that work was not offered for testing. 5. Assertion that work has been disproved
by tests. 6. Efforts to discourage printing. 7. Demands for censorship. 8. Engaging in
censorship. 9. Boycott of the book. 10. Boycott of all textbooks of the work's publisher. 11.
Threats of reprisal against publisher by not offering manuscripts or withdrawing books.

12. Threat against associated publishers without text books.

13. Appeals to the scientific community. 14. Efforts to influence reviewers in advance. 15.
Appeals to mobilize hostile reviewers. 16. Efforts to suppress favorable reviewers. 17. Efforts
to supplant regular reviewers with volunteer authoritative writers as reviewers.

18. Checking the allegiance of scientists and officials of scientific organizations.

19. Firing of unaligned scientists and officials. 20. Punishment of book editors and firing.
21. Demand that there be a public recantation by publishers.

22. Refusal to print author's papers about his books in scientific magazines.

23. Return of supplementary papers unceremoniously without reading.

24. Refusal to reprint answers to distortion of facts of reviews.

25. Misquotation from the book, and quotations out of context.

26. Copying of wrong figures into a quotation used in the book.

27. No correction of erroneous statements in reviews by anybody in the scientific community.

28. Use of knowingly false argument. 29. Dogmatic statements and accusations. 30. Setting up
and knocking down "strawmen." 31. Dishonest rejoinders. 32. Defamation and discrediting abuse.
33. Promotion of antagonistic critics. 34. Appeal to religious feelings. 35. Guilt by
association. 36. Treating work by association with other ridiculed or denounced books.

37. Use of fallacious statistical method to decide whether a genius or crank wrote book.

38. Writing reviews and criticisms without reading the book.

39. Copying from other reviews (even of those who had not read it themselves).

40. Innuendoes that unneeded counterarguments abound.

41. Refusal by scientific periodicals to advertise the work.

42. Warnings against readers' inability to judge work. 43. Assuring the reading (and book-
buying) public the book is dull and worthless.

44. Accusing author of using methods not actually used.

45. Denials of acts of suppression, compounding perjury.

46. Omission of credit or of footnoting the work when offering "new" theories elsewhere that
are contained in the book.

47. Refusal to give credit for discoveries confirmed ultimately in tests.

48. Refusal of information to author. 49. Refusal to engage in communication with author or

50. Suppression of news of disputes or debates won by author.

51. Deprecating value of crucial tests favoring author's theories.

52. Concocting stories that "1000 wrong predictions" were in book.

53. Defamation in letters and intimidation of potential support.

54. Use of great names (e. g. Nobel Prize winners) for defamation.

55. Whispering campaign; private letters. 56. Intimidation of students, both undergraduates and

57. Elimination of the name of the heretic from books of reference.

58. Removal of the book from libraries. 59. Demands to place the book on the Register of
Forbidden Books.

60. Pressure on scientific supporters by bribing with better jobs to abstain.

61. Grants given to disprove the book (no grants ever given to "prove").

62. Efforts, include fabrication, to show misuse of sources by author.

63. Damaging statements put in the mouth of deceased persons of influence.

64. Heaping of accusations without substantiation in quantities making any response impossible
in the same media.

65. Insinuations of profiteering and other ignoble motives for writing the work.

66. Attempts at organizing character assassination and special meetings to dispose of the

67. Dissemination of selected damaging reviews. 68. Offering the readers arguments from
specialized fields that they are unable to verify.

69. Generalization and complete disapproval on grounds of a single alleged error. 70.
Accusation of lack of sources by misrepresenting the term "collective amnesia."

A service to the history and science of science would occur in the expansion and testing of the
list. Deg wished that he might complete the list concerning V., then move to other cases in
science, and then to all occupations to display the universal prevalence of misdemeanor, not so
much to scandalize, nor to stop it all (an impossibility), as to expose to light the epidemic

When asked to place them into categories (for Deg was distressed by their stringing out
aimlessly) V. divided them into: suppression of publication; punishment and rewards;
examination of the theories refused; ostracism of a nonconformist; rewriting of history and
scientific finds; control of criticism; unfair criticism; and unfair criticism continued by
unfair rejoinders. Deg in his turn divided them into logical errors, moral offenses (cheating
and dishonesty); factual errors; illegitimate demands; hyperbole; personal abuse; mat