Daily Archives: September 3, 2007

Masters Of Deception And The End Game Hive Mind

borg3

Raiders News Network | Aug 22, 2007

by Mack White

Sixty-four years ago this month, six million Americans became unwitting subjects in an experiment in psychological warfare.

It was the night before Halloween, 1938. At 8 p.m. CST, the Mercury Radio on the Air began broadcasting Orson Welles’ radio adaptation of H. G. Wells’ War of the Worlds. As is now well known, the story was presented as if it were breaking news, with bulletins so realistic that an estimated one million people believed the world was actually under attack by Martians. Of that number, thousands succumbed to outright panic, not waiting to hear Welles’ explanation at the end of the program that it had all been a Halloween prank, but fleeing into the night to escape the alien invaders.

Later, psychologist Hadley Cantril conducted a study of the effects of the broadcast and published his findings in a book, The Invasion from Mars: A Study in the Psychology of Panic. This study explored the power of broadcast media, particularly as it relates to the suggestibility of human beings under the influence of fear. Cantril was affiliated with Princeton University’s Radio Research Project, which was funded in 1937 by the Rockefeller Foundation. Also affiliated with the Project was Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member and Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) executive Frank Stanton, whose network had broadcast the program. Stanton would later go on to head the news division of CBS, and in time would become president of the network, as well as chairman of the board of the RAND Corporation, the influential think tank which has done groundbreaking research on, among other things, mass brainwashing.

Two years later, with Rockefeller Foundation money, Cantril established the Office of Public Opinion Research (OPOR), also at Princeton. Among the studies conducted by the OPOR was an analysis of the effectiveness of “psycho-political operations” (propaganda, in plain English) of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the forerunner of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Then, during World War II, Cantril÷and Rockefeller money÷assisted CFR member and CBS reporter Edward R. Murrow in setting up the Princeton Listening Center, the purpose of which was to study Nazi radio propaganda with the object of applying Nazi techniques to OSS propaganda. Out of this project came a new government agency, the Foreign Broadcast Intelligence Service (FBIS). The FBIS eventually became the United States Information Agency (USIA), which is the propaganda arm of the National Security Council.

Thus, by the end of the 1940s, the basic research had been done and the propaganda apparatus of the national security state had been set up–just in time for the Dawn of Television …

Experiments conducted by researcher Herbert Krugman reveal that, when a person watches television, brain activity switches from the left to the right hemisphere. The left hemisphere is the seat of logical thought. Here, information is broken down into its component parts and critically analyzed. The right brain, however, treats incoming data uncritically, processing information in wholes, leading to emotional, rather than logical, responses. The shift from left to right brain activity also causes the release of endorphins, the body’s own natural opiates–thus, it is possible to become physically addicted to watching television, a hypothesis borne out by numerous studies which have shown that very few people are able to kick the television habit.

This numbing of the brain’s cognitive function is compounded by another shift which occurs in the brain when we watch television. Activity in the higher brain regions (such as the neo-cortex) is diminished, while activity in the lower brain regions (such as the limbic system) increases. The latter, commonly referred to as the reptile brain, is associated with more primitive mental functions, such as the “fight or flight” response. The reptile brain is unable to distinguish between reality and the simulated reality of television. To the reptile brain, if it looks real, it is real. Thus, though we know on a conscious level it is “only a film,” on a conscious level we do not–the heart beats faster, for instance, while we watch a suspenseful scene. Similarly, we know the commercial is trying to manipulate us, but on an unconscious level the commercial nonetheless succeeds in, say, making us feel inadequate until we buy whatever thing is being advertised–and the effect is all the more powerful because it is unconscious, operating on the deepest level of human response. The reptile brain makes it possible for us to survive as biological beings, but it also leaves us vulnerable to the manipulations of television programmers.

It is not just commercials that manipulate us. On television news as well, image and sound are as carefully selected and edited to influence human thought and behavior as in any commercial. The news anchors and reporters themselves are chosen for their physical attractiveness–a factor which, as numerous psychological studies have shown, contributes to our perception of a person’s trustworthiness. Under these conditions, then, the viewer easily forgets–if, indeed, the viewer ever knew in the first place–that the worldview presented on the evening news is a contrivance of the network owners–owners such as General Electric (NBC) and Westinghouse (CBS), both major defense contractors. By molding our perception of the world, they mold our opinions. This distortion of reality is determined as much by what is left out of the evening news as what is included–as a glance at Project Censored’s yearly list of top 25 censored news stories will reveal. If it’s not on television, it never happened. Out of sight, out of mind.

Under the guise of journalistic objectivity, news programs subtly play on our emotions–chiefly fear. Network news divisions, for instance, frequently congratulate themselves on the great service they provide humanity by bringing such spectacles as the September 11 terror attacks into our living rooms. We have heard this falsehood so often, we have come to accept it as self-evident truth. However, the motivation for live coverage of traumatic news events is not altruistic, but rather to be found in the central focus of Cantril’s War of the Worlds research–the manipulation of the public through fear.

There is another way in which we are manipulated by television news. Human beings are prone to model the behaviors they see around them, and avoid those which might invite ridicule or censure, and in the hypnotic state induced by television, this effect is particularly pronounced. For instance, a lift of the eyebrow from Peter Jennings tells us precisely what he is thinking–and by extension what we should think. In this way, opinions not sanctioned by the corporate media can be made to seem disreputable, while sanctioned opinions are made to seem the very essence of civilized thought. And should your thinking stray into unsanctioned territory despite the trusted anchor’s example, a poll can be produced which shows that most persons do not think that way–and you don’t want to be different do you? Thus, the mental wanderer is brought back into the fold.

This process is also at work in programs ostensibly produced for entertainment. The “logic” works like this: Archie Bunker is an idiot, Archie Bunker is against gun control, therefore idiots are against gun control. Never mind the complexities of the issue. Never mind the fact that the true purpose of the Second Amendment is not to protect the rights of deer hunters, but to protect the citizenry against a tyrannical government (an argument you will never hear voiced on any television program). Monkey see, monkey do–or, in this case, monkey not do.

Notice, too, the way in which television programs depict conspiracy researchers or anti-New World Order activists. On situation comedies, they are buffoons. On dramatic programs, they are dangerous fanatics. This imprints on the mind of the viewer the attitude that questioning the official line or holding “anti-government” opinions is crazy, therefore not to be emulated.

Another way in which entertainment programs mold opinion can be found in the occasional television movie, which “sensitively” deals with some “social” issue. A bad behavior is spotlighted–“hate” crimes, for instance–in such a way that it appears to be a far more rampant problem than it may actually be, so terrible in fact that the “only” cure for it is more laws and government “protection.” Never mind that laws may already exist to cover these crimes–the law against murder, for instance. Once we have seen the well-publicized murder of the young gay man Matthew Shepherd dramatized in not one, but two, television movies in all its heartrending horror, nothing will do but we pass a law making the very thought behind the crime illegal.

People will also model behaviors from popular entertainment which are not only dangerous to their health and could land them in jail, but also contribute to social chaos. While this may seem to be simply a matter of the producers giving the audience what it wants, or the artist holding a mirror up to society, it is in fact intended to influence behavior.

Consider the way many films glorify drug abuse. When a popular star playing a sympathetic character in a mainstream R-rated film uses hard drugs with no apparent health or legal consequences (John Travolta’s use of heroin in Pulp Fiction, for instance–an R-rated film produced for theatrical release, which now has found a permanent home on television, via cable and video players), a certain percentage of people–particularly the impressionable young–will perceive hard drug use as the epitome of anti-Establishment cool and will model that behavior, contributing to an increase in drug abuse. And who benefits?

As has been well documented by Gary Webb in his award-winning series for the San Jose Mercury New, former Los Angeles narcotics detective Michael Ruppert, and many other researchers and whistleblowers–the CIA is the main purveyor of hard drugs in this country. The CIA also has its hand in the “prison-industrial complex.” Wackenhut Corporation, the largest owner of private prisons, has on its board of directors many former CIA employees, and is very likely a CIA front. Thus, films which glorify drug abuse may be seen as recruitment ads for the slave labor-based private prison system. Also, the social chaos and inflated crime rate which result from the contrived drug problem contributes to the demand from a frightened society for more prisons, more laws, and the further erosion of civil liberties. This effect is further heightened by television news segments and documentaries which focus on drug abuse and other crimes, thus giving the public the misperception that crime is even higher than it really is.

There is another socially debilitating process at work in what passes for entertainment on television these days. Over the years, there has been a steady increase in adult subject matter on programs presented during family viewing hours. For instance, it is common for today’s prime-time situation comedies to make jokes about such matters as masturbation (Seinfeld once devoted an entire episode to the topic), or for daytime talk shows such as Jerry Springer’s to showcase such topics as bestiality. Even worse are the “reality” programs currently in vogue. Each new offering in this genre seems to hit a new low. MTV, for instance, recently subjected a couple to a Candid Camera-style prank in which, after winning a trip to Las Vegas, they entered their hotel room to find an actor made up as a mutilated corpse in the bathtub. Naturally, they were traumatized by the experience and sued the network. Or, consider a new show on British television in which contestants compete to see who can infect each other with the most diseases–venereal diseases included.

It would appear, at the very least, that these programs serve as a shill operation to strengthen the argument for censorship. There may also be an even darker motive. These programs contribute to the general coarsening of society we see all around us–the decline in manners and common human decency and the acceptance of cruelty for its own sake as a legitimate form of entertainment. Ultimately, this has the effect of debasing human beings into savages, brutes–the better to herd them into global slavery.

For the first decade or so after the Dawn of Television, there were only a handful of channels in each market–one for each of the three major networks and maybe one or two independents. Later, with the advent of cable and more channels, the population pie began to be sliced into finer pieces–or “niche markets.” This development has often been described as representing a growing diversity of choices, but in reality it is a fine-tuning of the process of mass manipulation, a honing-in on particular segments of the population, not only to sell them specifically-targeted consumer products but to influence their thinking in ways advantageous to the globalist agenda.

One of these “target audiences” is that portion of the population which, after years of blatant government cover-up in areas such as UFOs and the assassination of John F. Kennedy, maintains a cynicism toward the official line, despite the best efforts of television programmers to depict conspiracy research in a negative light. How to reach this vast, disenfranchised target audience and co-opt their thinking? One way is to put documentaries before them which mix of fact with disinformation, thereby confusing them. Another is to take the X Files approach.

The heroes of X Files are investigators in a fictitious paranormal department of the FBI whose adventures sometimes take them into parapolitical territory. On the surface this sounds good. However, whatever good X Files might accomplish by touching on such matters as MK-ULTRA or the JFK assassination is cancelled out by associating them with bug-eyed aliens and ghosts. Also, on X Files, the truth is always depicted as “out there” somewhere–in the stars, or some other dimension, never in brainwashing centers such as the RAND Corporation or its London counterpart, the Tavistock Institute. This has the effect of obscuring the truth, making it seem impossibly out-of-reach, and associating reasonable lines of political inquiry with the fantastic and other-wordly.

Not that there is no connection between the parapolitical and the paranormal. There is undoubtedly a cover-up at work with regard to UFOs, but if we accept uncritically the notion that UFOs are anything other than terrestrial in origin, we are falling headfirst into a carefully-set trap. To its credit, X Files has dealt with the idea that extraterrestrials might be a clever hoax by the government, but never decisively. The labyrinthine plots of the show somehow manage to leave the viewer wondering if perhaps the hoax idea is itself a hoax put out there to cover up the existence of extraterrestrials. This is hardly helpful to a true understanding of UFOs and associated phenomena, such as alien abductions and cattle mutilations.

Extraterrestrials have been a staple of popular entertainment since The War of the Worlds (both the novel and its radio adaptation). They have been depicted as invaders and benefactors, but rarely have they been unequivocally depicted as a hoax. There was an episode of Outer Limits which depicted a group of scientists staging a mock alien invasion to frighten the world’s population into uniting as one–but, again, such examples are rare. Even in UFO documentaries on the Discovery Channel, the possibility of a terrestrial origin for the phenomenon is conspicuous by its lack of mention.

UFO researcher Jacques Vallee, the real-life model for the French scientist in Stephen Spielberg’s Close Encounters of the Third Kind, attempted to interest Spielberg in a terrestrial explanation for the phenomenon. In an interview on Conspire.com, Vallee said, “I argued with him that the subject was even more interesting if it wasn’t extraterrestrials. If it was real, physical, but not ET. So he said, ‘You’re probably right, but that’s not what the public is expecting–this is Hollywood and I want to give people something that’s close to what they expect.'”

How convenient that what Spielberg says the people expect is also what the Pentagon wants them to believe.

In Messengers of Deception, Vallee tracks the history of a wartime British Intelligence unit devoted to psychological operations. Code-named (interestingly) the “Martians,” it specialized in manufacturing and distributing false intelligence to confuse the enemy. Among its activities were the creation of phantom armies with inflatable tanks, simulations of the sounds of military ships maneuvering in the fog, and forged letters to lovers from phantom soldiers attached to phantom regiments.

Vallee suggests that deception operations of this kind may have extended beyond World War II, and that much of the “evidence” for “flying saucers” is no more real than the inflatable tanks of World War II. He writes: “The close association of many UFO sightings with advanced military hardware (test sites like the New Mexico proving grounds, missile silos of the northern plains, naval construction sites like the major nuclear facility at Pascagoula and the bizarre love affairs … between contactee groups, occult sects, and extremist political factions, are utterly clear signals that we must exercise extreme caution.”

Many people find it fantastic that the government would perpetrate such a hoax, while at the same time having no difficulty entertaining the notion that extraterrestrials are regularly traveling light years to this planet to kidnap people out of their beds and subject them to anal probes.

The military routinely puts out disinformation to obscure its activities, and this has certainly been the case with UFOs. Consider Paul Bennewitz, the UFO enthusiast who began studying strange lights that would appear nightly over the Manzano Test Range outside Albuquerque. When the Air Force learned about his study, ufologist William Moore (by his own admission) was recruited to feed him forged military documents describing a threat from extraterrestrials. The effect was to confuse Bennewitz–even making him paranoid enough to be hospitalized–and discredit his research. Evidently, those strange lights belonged to the Air Force, which does not like outsiders inquiring into its affairs.

What the Air Force did to Bennewitz, it also does on a mass scale–and popular entertainment has been complicit in this process. Whether or not the filmmakers themselves are consciously aware of this agenda does not matter. The notion that extraterrestrials might visit this planet is so much a part of popular culture and modern mythology that it hardly needs assistance from the military to propagate itself.

It has the effect not only of obscuring what is really going on at research facilities such as Area 51, but of tainting UFO research in general as “kooky”–and does the job so thoroughly that one need only say “UFO” in the same breath with “JFK” to discredit research in that area as well. It also may, in the end, serve the same purpose as depicted in that Outer Limits episode–to unite the world’s population against a perceived common threat, thus offering the pretext for one-world government.

The following quotes demonstrate that the idea has at least occurred to world leaders:

“In our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget how much unites all the members of humanity. Perhaps we need some outside, universal threat to make us realize this common bond. I occasionally think how quickly our differences would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world.”

– President Ronald Reagan, speaking in 1987 to the United Nations.

“The nations of the world will have to unite, for the next war will be an interplanetary war. The nations of the earth must someday make a common front against attack by people from other planets.”

– General Douglas MacArthur, 1955

“Some one remarked that the best way to unite all the nations on this globe would be an attack from some other planet. In the face of such an alien enemy, people would respond with a sense of their unity of interest and purpose.”

-John Dewey, Professor of Philosophy at Columbia University, speaking at a conference sponsored by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1917

And where was this “alien threat” motif given birth? Again, we find the answer in popular entertainment, and again the earliest source is The War of the Worlds–both Wells’ and Welles’ versions.

Perhaps it is no coincidence that H. G. Wells was a founding member of the Round Table, the think tank that gave birth to the Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA) and its American cousin, the CFR. Perhaps Wells intentionally introduced the motif as a meme which might prove useful later in establishing the “world social democracy” he described in his 1939 book The New World Order. Perhaps, too, another purpose of the Orson Welles broadcast was to test of the public’s willingness to believe in extraterrestrials.

At any rate, it proved a popular motif, and paved the way for countless movies and television programs to come, and has often proven a handy device for promoting the New World Order, whether the extraterrestrials are invaders or–in films like The Day the Earth Stood Still–benefactors who have come to Earth to warn us to mend our ways and unite as one, or be blown to bits.

We see the globalist agenda at work in Star Trek and its spin-offs as well. Over the years, many a television viewer’s mind has been imprinted with the idea that centralized government is the solution for our problems. Never mind the complexities of the issue–never mind the fact that, in the real world, centralization of power leads to tyranny. The reptile brain, hypnotized by the flickering television screen, has seen Captain Kirk and his culturally diverse crew demonstrate time and again that the United Federation of Planets is a good thing. Therefore, it must be so.

It remains to be seen whether the Masters of Deception will, like those scientists in The Outer Limits, stage an invasion from space with anti-gravity machines and holograms, but, if they do, it will surely be broadcast on television, so that anyone out of range of that light show in the sky, will be able to see it, and all with eyes to see will believe. It will be War of the Worlds on a grand scale.

Jack Kerouac once noted, while walking down a residential street at night, glancing into living rooms lit by the gray glare of television sets, that we have become a world of people “thinking the same thoughts at the same time.”

Every day, millions upon millions of human beings sit down at the same time to watch the same football game, the same mini-series, the same newscast. And where might all this shared experience and uniformity of thought be taking us?

A recent report co-sponsored by the U.S. National Science Foundation and the Commerce Department calls for a broad-based research program to find ways to use nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology, and cognitive sciences, to achieve telepathy, machine-to-human communication, amplified sensory experience, enhanced intellectual capacity, and mass participation in a “hive mind.” Quoting the report: “With knowledge no longer encapsulated in individuals, the distinction between individuals and the entirety of humanity would blur. Think Vulcan mind-meld. We would perhaps become more of a hive mind–an enormous, single, intelligent entity.”

There is no doubt that we have been brought closer to the “hive mind” by the mass media. For, what is the shared experience of television but a type of “Vulcan mind-meld”? (Note the terminology borrowed from Star Trek, no doubt to make the concept more familiar and palatable. If Spock does it, it must be okay.)

This government report would have us believe that the hive mind will be for our good–a wonderful leap in evolution. It is nothing of the kind. For one thing, if the government is behind it, you may rest assured it is not for our good. For another, common sense should tell us that blurring the line “between individuals and the entirety of humanity” means mass conformity, the death of human individuality. Make no mistake about it–if humanity is to become a hive, there will be at the center of that hive a Queen Bee, whom all the lesser “insects” will serve. This is not evolution–this is devolution. Worse, it is the ultimate slavery–the slavery of the mind.

And it is a horror first unleashed in 1938 when one million people responded as one–as a hive–to Orson Welles’ Halloween prank.

In a sense, those people who fled the Martians that night were right to be afraid. They were indeed under attack. But they were wrong about who was attacking them. It was something far worse than Martians. Had they only known the true nature of the danger facing them, perhaps they would have gone to the nearest radio station with torches in hand like the villagers in those old Frankenstein movies and burned it to the ground, or at least commandeered the new technology and turned it towards another use–the liberation of humanity, instead of its enslavement.

Poll: 89% SAY DIANA WAS MURDERED

I know, I know. Who gives a damn what I think? Well.. me for one, and probably a few thousand others who regularly visit this blog. Now, onto it…

. . .

Five things William and Harry must do to gain my respect and admiration

1. Renounce their ill-gotten wealth, titles, orders, any pretension to “royalty” and live as ordinary working citizens for the rest of their lives

2. Renounce all ties to Freemasonry and any other elite secret societies

3. Work for the abolition of the monarchy

4. Work for the dismantling of the New World Order and the Big Brother police state. Work for British sovereignty, full reinstitution of constitutional freedoms and for an end to British involvement in the current war and associated war crimes

5. Work to expose the assassination of their own mother

Once they have at least started on all the above, they will have not only impressed me, but they will also have done their mother’s memory a great service and shown her supreme honor — which they have so far failed miserably to do.

But the reality is, they will most likely never do ANY of these things, so it should be assumed that they will continue to bow to elite pressure to suppress the truth and promote the official story about their mother’s death, regardless of the fact that she was murdered by their own family. Therefore, they are stinking little spoiled Illuminati brats who deserve nothing but utter contempt from the general public until and unless they grow some balls and stand up against the establishment as their mother tried to do.

Screw royalty! It is the most degenerate form of existence on planet Earth. If you believe otherwise, you are nothing but an ignorant fool.

PW

. . .

diana_murder

QUESTIONS: From the Daily Express of July 10

Daily Express | Sep 1,2007

By Richard Palmer

MILLIONS believe Princess Diana was murdered and remain deeply sceptical of the official line that her death was an accident.

A Daily Express readers’ poll found 89 per cent think it was murder. And one in four of those questioned in a Channel 4 News and ICM survey agreed. Another poll by YouGov found 43 per cent think Diana’s death was suspicious.

The findings will come as a blow to the Royal Family and its advisers, who hoped yesterday’s service would draw a line under controversies surrounding Diana. An inquest, scheduled to start on October 2 and last up to six months at the High Court in London, is expected to examine much of the evidence surrounding claims that the Princess was assassinated.

But even if that manages to solve the many unanswered questions, yesterday’s polls show the Royal Family still faces serious problems. The YouGov poll found public respect for the Royals had slipped below 50 per cent for the first time to 49 per cent, while a similar survey for the BBC Ten O’Clock News showed 56 per cent thought they were out of touch with the public.

Buckingham Palace refused to panic. “We never discuss polls,” a spokeswoman said yesterday.

Aides dismissed the message of the surveys. “I could quote you a poll that shows 78 per cent think the Royal Family is in touch with public feeling,” said one courtier. “We still do our own polling.”

But behind the scenes courtiers recognise the need for the monarchy to update itself constantly.

Alarm bells will be ringing. Only six per cent of those interviewed by YouGov said their opinion of the Royal Family had improved over the past 10 years, while 25 per cent said it had declined.

And despite efforts by the Royals to move on, the survey showed that Diana still has a special place in the British public’s hearts.

Some 82 per cent of respondents believed she had a “remarkable ability” to connect, and 80 per cent thought she “genuinely cared about people who were ill, disabled or disadvantaged in some way”.

An overwhelming 89 per cent remember exactly where they were when they heard of her death.

Conspiracy theories have been fostered by a series of unanswered questions. The coroner presiding over the inquest into Diana’s death has listed 20 issues he will explore.

Lord Justice Scott Baker said he wanted to deal with allegations that the Princess was murdered in a criminal conspiracy. The hearings will examine whether Diana feared for her life, whether she was pregnant and whether chauffeur Henri Paul was drunk or on drugs. They include many issues highlighted in a Daily Express crusade for the truth.

Other questions to be addressed include whether a Fiat Uno or flashing light contributed to the crash. The coroner wants to tackle such issues so that he can either confirm or allay the public’s suspicions amid claims that Diana and Dodi were murdered by British agents because the couple were set to get engaged.

The Devil worshippers of Iraq

 yezidi

Red Ice Creations | Aug 22, 2007

By Sean Thomas

I’m in a community hall, on the outskirts of Celle, a north German town. On the walls are pictures of dark blue peacocks. Sitting at various tables around the room are dozens of Devil worshippers. At least, that’s what some people call them.

Though we don’t know it yet, right now several suicide bombs are going off near Mosul in Iraq, killing maybe 400. The victims belong to the same faith as those gathered here today.

They are Yezidi. And I’m here to unearth the reality of their fascinating religion. Why do they have such troubled relations with outsiders? Do they really worship the Devil?

The Yezidi of Celle are one of the largest groups of their sect outside the homeland of Kurdish Iraq. There may be 7,000 in this small town. Yezidi across the world number between 400,000 and 800,000.

Today the Yezidi in Celle don’t seem keen to talk. I’m not surprised: I have been warned about their wariness of strangers, born of centuries of appalling persecution.

Eventually a dark, thickset man turns to me. He points to one of the peacocks on the wall: “That is Melek Taus, the peacock angel. We worship him.” He sips his tea, and adds: “Ours is the oldest religion in the world. Older than Islam; older than Christianity.”

After this cryptic statement he returns to his friends.

Luckily there is another Yezidi organisation in Celle that is said to be more forthcoming. On the way to meet its spokesman, I go through the bizarre beliefs of the Yezidi.

It’s an impressive list. The Yezidi honour sacred trees. Women must not cut their hair. Marriage is forbidden in April. They refuse to eat lettuce, pumpkins, and gazelles. They avoid wearing dark blue because it is “too holy”.

They are divided strictly into castes, who cannot marry each other. The upper castes are polygamous. Anyone of the faith who marries a non-Yezidi risks ostracism, or worse. Some weeks ago a young girl was stoned to death by her Yezidi menfolk in Iraq; she had fallen in love with a Muslim and was trying to convert. The sickening murder was filmed, and posted on the internet, adding to the Yezidis’ unhappy reputation.

Yezidism is syncretistic: it combines elements of many faiths. Like Hindus, they believe in reincarnation. Like ancient Mithraists, they sacrifice bulls. They practise baptism, like Christians. When they pray they face the sun, like Zoroastrians. They profess to revile Islam, but there are strong links with Sufism, the mystical branch of Islam.

It’s a remarkably confusing picture. And I still haven’t got an answer to the main question: do they worship “Satan”?

In the centre of town I am greeted by Halil Savucu, a westernised spokesman for the Yezidi. Also with us is Uta Tolle, a German scholar of Yezidism.

In Halil’s Mercedes we drive into the suburbs. On the way, the two of them give me their view of the faith. “Yezidi is oral, not literary,” says Uta. “This is why it is sometimes hard to pin down precise beliefs. There are religious texts, like the Black Book, but they are not crucial. The faith is really handed down by kawwas, sort of musical preachers.”

And who is Melek Taus? Halil looks slightly uncomfortable: “We believe he is a proud angel, who rebelled and was thrown into Hell by God. He stayed there 40,000 years, until his tears quenched the fires of the underworld. Now he is reconciled to God.”

But is he good or evil? “He is both. Like fire. Flames can cook but they can also burn. The world is good and bad.”

For a Yezidi to say they worship the Devil is understandably difficult. It is their reputation as infidels – as genuine “devil worshippers” – that has led to their fierce persecution over time, especially by Muslims. Saddam Hussein intensified this suppression.

But some Yezidi do claim that Melek Taus is “the Devil”. One hereditary leader of the Yezidi, Mir Hazem, said in 2005: “I cannot say this word [Devil] out loud because it is sacred. It’s the chief of angels. We believe in the chief of angels.”

There are further indications that Melek Taus is “the Devil”. The parallels between the story of the peacock angel’s rebellion, and the story of Lucifer, cast into Hell by the Christian God, are surely too close to be coincidence. The very word “Melek” is cognate with “Moloch”, the name of a Biblical demon – who demanded human sacrifice.

The avian imagery of Melek Taus also indicates a demonic aspect. The Yezidi come from Kurdistan, the ancient lands of Sumeria and Assyria. Sumerian gods were often cruel, and equipped with beaks and wings. Birdlike. Three thousand years ago the Assyrians worshipped flying demons, spirits of the desert wind. One was the scaly-winged demon featured in The Exorcist: Pazuzu.

The Yezidi reverence for birds – and snakes – might also be extremely old. Excavations at ancient Catalhoyuk, in Turkey, show that the people there revered bird-gods as long ago as 7000BC. Even older is Gobekli Tepe, a megalithic site near Sanliurfa, in Kurdish Turkey (Sanliurfa was once a stronghold of Yezidism). The extraordinary temple of Gobekli boasts carvings of winged birdmen, and images of buzzards and serpents.

Taking all this evidence into account, a fair guess is that Yezidism is a form of bird-worship, that could date back 6,000 years or more. Over the centuries, new and powerful creeds, such as Islam and Christianity, have swept through Yezidi Kurdistan, threatening the older faith. But, like a species that survives by blending into the landscape, Yezidism has adapted by incorporating aspects of rival religions.

We’ve reached Halil’s house. “Look at this,” he says, showing me a picture of the peacock angel, and a copper sanjak – another representation of Melek Taus. When I have taken some photos, we all sit down to spaghetti bolognaise, with Halil’s wife and their chatty kids. It suddenly seems a long way from the weirdness of Devil-worship, and the violence of the Middle East.

“We Yezidi are not saints,” says Halil, “but we are a peaceful people. All we want is tolerance. We do not worship evil, we just see that the world contains good as well as bad. Darkness as well as light.”

His words are timely. While we eat our pasta, the news comes through from Iraq of the bloody slaughter of Yezidi near Mosul. Halil is deeply distraught. “I feel absolute shock and horror, I feel sick to my stomach. All Yezidi are my family. But we are so alone in the world. We need friends. Many Yezidi would like to leave Iraq, but no one will give us visas.”

He sighs, and adds: “The Yezidi have been persecuted for thousands of years, we are used to it. But we thought the new Iraq would protect minorities. We thought that things would get better when the Americans came…” And then he turns, and stares at the serene blue image, of the great peacock angel.