
What Does the
All-seeing Eye See?
by E. Scott Ryan, MPS


As one looks at the all-seeing
eye on America's dollar bill,
in attempting to answer the
question as to "What Does the All-
Seeing Eye See?," one first has to ques-
tion any one's answer, even one's own,
that tries to own one's answer as the one
and only answer. In trying to answer
the most visible question of all, that of
the most visible symbol of the all-seeing
eye on the dollar, I've encountered two
very different kinds of answers, both of
which share something in common...in
sharing the hidden perspective of the
occult .

The first answer is one that hides from
itself in referring to the all-seeing eye as
somehow symbolizing a hidden God-
like power that looks out and sees an all
that is nothing in the fear of seeing any
spiritual or metaphysical reality

The second answer, one that is far
more widespread and not afraid to
speak out, sees an occult symbol, a Ma-
sonic symbol in particular, that symbol-
izes all that is sinister to the extent of
identifying the all-seeing eye as the eye
of Lucifer. One of the ways in which it
supports its claim is to assert that the
Latin above the pyramid, ANNUIT
COEPTIS, translates to "He has
favored our undertakings, " and that
He cannot refer to God, which would
read in Latin DEUS COEPTIS, so,
therefore, it must refer to that other well
known spiritual counterpart. . . Satan.

I'm trying to get to the core of any
question, particularly one that appears
to hide its own answer from itself, or
one whose hidden meaning is answered
by others who are quick to provide their
own answers to questions that evoke
different answers, one has to try to be as
objective as possible. That objectivity,
however, is easier said than done, when
the object to be examined is not a scien-
tific one requiring an exacting measure-
ment that limits intervening variables,
but, rather, a symbolic one requiring an
intervening scrutiny that exacts unlim-
iting metaphysical variables.

Some may dismiss any idea of
metaphysical symbolism as being un-
real; but one cannot dismiss the symbol
of the all-seeing eye as being quite real
in the millions of daily currency trans-
actions, wherein the all-seeing eye is
both seen and unseen in seeing what
remains hidden.

The occult meaning, therefore, the
hidden meaning of this most visible of
American symbols needs further
scrutiny in order to bring something of
the essence of what's meant by America
out of hiding. In so doing, in attempt-
ing to become a metaphysical detective
as to the hidden meaning of an impor-
tant American symbol, I hesitate in ap-
plying the analytic method in which
I've been trained as a researcher. Ac-
cording to the scientific research
method, one must not only clear one's
mind of any preconceptions, described
in Latin as "tabula rasa," in mentally
assuming a blank slate, but one must
also keep oneself, one's personal self,
out of the picture, lest one's disputa-
tious person get in the way of an indis-
putable finding of one truth for all per-
sons.

While these analytic caveats are fine in
general, there are specific exceptions,
specifically the metaphysical, wherein
keeping one's self out of the question
and answer can be disputed. Accord-
ingly, I've resolved that dispute by al-
lowing me to introduce myself to you,
in the hope that my personal motivation
can contribute to rather than interfere
with the metaphysical investigation.

Since the all-seeing eye is purported to
be a Masonic symbol, by both friends
and foes of Freemasonry alike, I de-
cided to join the Freemasons in order to
find out more about them. In this re-
spect, I should mention that I was not
only raised outside of Masonry as a
Catholic but, also, educated by Jesuits
who have a long history of providing
superior education along with that of
countering the Protestant Reformation
and occasionally attacking Freema-
sonry.

In the course of investigating Freema-
sonry, I've encountered a majority of
very fine individuals with only a very
few that I'd describe as less than fine,
just as one will find good and bad
people in just about any church, syn-
agogue, or temple. What I found that
was most distinct, however, was an
aversion to political and religious dog-
matism under the all-seeing eye of a
God of spiritual freedom.

That distinction was one that, in my
personal opinion, motivated those Ma-
sons who, along with like-minded
others, were instrumental in affixing
the symbol of the all-seeing eye on the
American dollar. They introduced a
non-absolutist system of constitutional
government based upon checks and
balances that allowed for an evolving
sense of freedom based upon a higher
spiritual conception of man.

In the all-seeing eye, one can see an
age old symbolism and new age ecu-
menism wherein " my God is better
than your God" is seen quite otherwise
. . .in seeing more wisely as to the other.
It sees that my God and your God is our
God. . .in seeing that God is not only
one but that God's oneness includes
rather than excludes. . .such that one
God is never one's God, alone, over
others, but, always and in all ways, one
God with others. . .in the universal
spiritual insight of including any other
as one another in the sight of God.

- Beyond that of the watchful eye of
Jahweh, the Hebrew God, and the open
eye of Osiris, the chief Egyptian deity,
both of whom are represented and both
of whom, I believe, are meant to be one
and the same, it presents a living God of
interactive can be chosen by everyone
in one's choosing and being chosen by
one God.

  The original intent of that godly
choice, however, that of universal spir-
itual chosenness, in the unity of all men
choosing one God soon became an
ethnocentric and religiocentric intent.
In that self-serving intent in choosing
one God for oneself, one God became
one's God, only, in one group being
chosen over and above others. The uni-
versal spiritual choice inherent in one
God for all men, in seeing the Father-
hood of God and Brotherhood of Man,
became a very different kind of choice,
one that I describe as chosinness - a sin-
ful choice - in seeing one God as one's
God in order to exclude, in the name of
God, rather than to include...as one
God for all mankind is intended to in-
clude all kinds of men and women.

The metastasis of chosenness into
chosinness explains not only much re-
ligious criminality, which I describe as
the Theology of Crime, among Christi-
ans, Muslims and Jews from the Inqui-
sitions (Protestant and Catholic) to the
Islamic Jihad, to the Nazi-like Kach-
ups who settled their godly dispute with
Prime Minister Rabin with the godless
point of an assassin's gun . . . in catch-
ing up to Nazi-like hate in word and
deed; but it applies to much secular
criminality, as well, in turning good into
evil.

Nazi criminality, in particular, as the
prototype of ethnic cleansing was based
upon a "chosin" distortion of chosen-
ness in criminally choosing themselves
as a chosen Master Race. Their secular
belief system was based upon a belief of
their own in their own transcendence in
their adaptation of chosenness into their
own chosinness. . .in one group tran-
scendence without the Transcendent.
of one God.

While there are many examples of
what's been commonly referred to as
neo-Nazi criminality in skinhead, far-
rightist Ku Klux Klan, Christian Iden-
tity and militia violence, these various
manifestations of mindless violence
should not be mistaken for the quite
mindful criminality of the essential
Nazi ideology. Even recent so-called
neo-Nazi violence against foreigners,
not only in Germany, but in many
countries to include the United States,
should not be equated with the ideologi-
cal utilization of chosenness for the pur-
pose of the ideology of chosinness that
constitutes the real ideological core of
Nazi and Nazi-like criminality.

Obviousiy, some neo-Nazis may
indeed be NAZIS, but most of them
think they're something that they
haven't even thought about. The over-
whelming majority of neo-Nazis are
quite unreal NAZIS,-ideologically, in
most of them not really knowing much
about Nazism. . .or much about any-
thing else that's real. . .in thinking that
they know something about what they
know nothing about.

There are real NAZIS, however, in al-
most every country, and while they are
rarely if ever seen among neo-Nazis the
all-seeing eye sees that there are many
more of them than others can or would
like to see. Unlike the mindless neo-
Nazi, whose mindlessness is seen by all,
the real Nazi is of a quite different
mind, in minding well how to behave.
He knows quite well that whether he' s a
well settled banker in Frankfurt, Lon-
don, Paris or New York or a Settler on
the West Bank, his eventual success in
undermining his respective govern-
ments in Germany, England, France,
the United States, or in Israel, will be in
minding well how to behave, in know-
ing quite well that his real criminal
cause will fare less than well in being
seen among the mindless ne'er do wells
of the criminal neo-Nazis.

It's significant to note that while the
Hitlerian Nazi criminality regarded
anyone who wasn't like them in blood
and culture as inferior, it regarded the
Jew as the special enemy, the Chosen
People who had to be finally destroyed
in a Final Solution. Therefore, while it's
quite true that the Nazis killed untold
millions of people, to include three mil-
lion non-Jewish Poles along with three
million Jewish Poles, it's also quite true
that the Jews were special victims in a
very special kind of Holocaust.

History is replete with examples of
group massacres, to include recent ex-
amples in Africa and Bosnia, but the
Nazi Holocaust -employed--an--espe-
cially powerful -primeval dimension of
transcendent evil. . . in choosing the
original transcendent power of chosen-
ness for themselves...over others rather
than with others. In so choosing chosen-
ness for themselves alone, they choose
to use virtue to produce vice...in choos-
ing the good as bad and the bad as
good. . .in choosing evil. . .which is
literally defined in itself by inverting the
spelling of the word live to EVIL.

They choose a transcendent spiritual
dimension in and of and for themselves
that was other than that of one tran-
scendent God. . . in order to transcend
themselves in a secular Godlike Master
Race...in choosing transcendence
without the Transcendent. . .God. They
choose their own group good for them-
selves in place of any divine universal
good in a process that has been theo-
logically defined as Satanic...when man
puts himself in God's place in destroy-
ing man in a way that mankind had
never been destroyed before.

It's right to say Never Again, but it's
also easy, too easy, to say it, when that
never again is a recurrent Ever Again in
recurring ethnic cleansings.

The Hitlerism refrain of "Ein yolk,
Ein Reich, Ein Fuehrer" (one people,
one realm, one leader) was the ultimate
secular version of ethnic cleansing that
proceeded from their secular version of
chosenness: it was a transcendent secu-
lar cleansing wherein the transcendent
religious concept of a Chosen People be-
came that of a "Chosin People - a
People of Sin, " when a new Chosen
People, the Master Race, appropriated
chosenness to themselves in eliminating
Jews, in particular. as "chosin."

I've spent many years observing the
Nazi mind, and, always, while it's
rarely stated it's always there...chosen-
ness . There' s a special regard for
chosenness for one's self in one's group,
with a general disregard for others, but
with a special disregard for the Jew not
for being Semitic, as Arabs are also
Semitic, or non-Aryan, or foreign, or
cosmopolitan, communist, or capitaling
either an internationalist or an Israeli
nationalist, or for any other typical
stereotype, but above and beyond all
else.. .for being atypically CHOSEN.

Any stereotype is any one type that
blends two different perspectives into
one image, in a stereo process, into
something new...one that either
changes a substance for the better, as in
a better stereo sound, for example, or
else it changes it for the worse...as in
any group stereotype that distorts or
denigrates individual reality.

The stereotypic Pole, for example, is
typically regarded by one who thinks
he's a member of the Master Race as
inferior to a true Aryan; but a Jew is
atypically disregarded for representing
to others what one wants to present to
oneself. . .Chosenness. That concept,
that internalization of chosenness for
oneself in one's group and the externali-
zation of chosinness for some other self
in some other group, is central to all
that's wrong. . .not only criminally but
spiritually. . .in the ancient and modern
history of the group dogmatism of re-
ligious and secular chosenness.

I can see in this chosenness - chosin-
ness dynamic what can be seen with the
insight of the one all-seeing eye of one
God for all mankind. That insight is
one that sees inside the very special evil
dimension of Nazi and Nazi-like crimi-
nality. . .in its chosenness/chosinness. .
.in not only the nature and extent of
their crimes against humanity, but in
their special method of application. .
.the Holocaust. . .that was like no other
criminality.

One can see even further with the all-
seeing eye in warning all of us to be
aware of not only what we see as bad in
others but, also, to be wary of what we
see as good in ourselves. Even the ulti-
mate good of our freedom, as good as it
was originally intended to be, can be-
come metastasized into something else .
. just as the good intent of the original
virtuous choice of chosenness was
metastasized into an evil--choice- the
sinful choice of chosinness.

While the choice of freedom can be
seen as simple enough, its implication is
beyond the simple mindedness of the
traditional thinking that freedom makes
you free. Freedom, whether in America
or elsewhere, was born as a result of
struggle, in choosing to struggle against
absolute power. The repertoire of my
freedom is better than your freedom, or
that my country is the freest country in
the world, as many Americans are fond
of saying, is seen by the all-seeing eye as
being blind to the real meaning of free-
dom. . .for freedom is not free to choose
to stay the same, in having to continu-
ally choose to evolve in its "chosen"
freedom or devolve into a "chosin"
freedom that sins against itself.

Everyone and anyone can fight for or
against freedom, and even those heavy
fought for freedom can fight against
freedom. . .in fighting against their own
and others freedom in what I describe
as "The Lutheran Dilemma. " That
dilemma is one represented by Martin
Luther, and one that applies to every-
one, as one who fought for Lutheran
freedom in fighting against the Papacy,
but, also, as one who fought against his
own Lutheran freedom, in fighting for
the German landowning establishment
against those German peasants who
fought to establish more Lutheran-like
freedom for themselves.

Freedom, therefore, can never be as-
sumed to be free, in an assumption of
freedom that's based more on ass than
umption, in the paradox of the
Lutheran Dilemma for Lutherans and
non-Lutherans alike. . . in taking one's
freedom in taking others freedom away.

In seeing ahead into the 21st Century
with the far sight as well as the insight
of the all-seeing eye, we can see that
freedom cannot be divorced from
economics. While China assumes that it
can trade in freedom for free trade
economics, America assumes that its
freedom can be as free as its economics
in the free trade-in of its freedoms.

If one cannot control one' s own
economics, than one cannot see one's
freedom, in any way other than in
being owned. . .in being bought and
sold by others. Further, and this can be
seen most of all in America, if one can-
not control crime, than one's freedom
can only be seen as that of being free to
be victimized. . .which is no freedom at
all.

The reality of freedom in the changing
reality of a one world freedom is that
the world's more one, but not more
free. . .is more one world economics,
everywhere, and less of one's freedom,
anywhere. Everyone knows that Com-
munism has failed, but not everyone
knows that the failures of capitalism
could also fail freedom.

The all-seeing eye can see the effect of
one-world processes on the substance of
everyone's freedom. . .in one's freedom
to be unfree in one freedom. . . one
economic freedom for those with capi-
tal.

The all-seeing eye can also see that
we're leaving our valuable heritage of
freedom behind in conformity to any
one and all conformity. . .most particu-
larly that of a supposedly correct all-
American correctness for correctmg all
Americans...in correcting freedom with
correctness .

The Orwellian prospect of thought
crimes - of a modern Big Brother and
postmodern Big Brotherhood correcting
our thoughts to the extent of what we
love or hate has become a reality in hate
crimes. According to our hate-haters,
who love to hate hate in hating every
hate except their own, criminal of-
fenders are to be punished not only for
bad behavior (which they should be)
but for bad thoughts (which they
shouldn't be).

These hateful hate laws that legally
protect a growing assortment of sensi-
bilities are just one odious example of a
foreboding process for freedom . . . one
that freely unfrees us in supposedly pro-
tecting our freedom by correcting our
freedom, by correcting our freedom to
think in any way other than in the cor-
rected way of correctness.

The all-seeing eye sees that our free-
dom is becoming more victimized and
the correct rather than the correctness
response is to see what to stand against
as incorrect, so that our freedom will
not be victimized in freely victimizing
ourselves. If we do not see how to stand
up for our independence, in allowing
our freedom to depend on one-world
economics or any one correctness . . .be
it political, racial, sexual religious or
secular. . .our freedom wili declare itself
to be dependent on something other than
the Declaration of Independence.

The all-seeing eye sees all of what all-
American freedom can be, in continu-
ing to evolve away from any absolute,
even absolute freedom, in seeing how
one can continue to remain free of any
old or new denial of the fact that free-
dom is never free.

It sees that one's freedom has to be
continually chosen by and for everyone
or else that choice can disappear in one
freedom...wherein everyone is unfree in
one freedom to conform to everyone
else's freedom.

One can choose, incorrectly, in choos-
ing correctness, in choosing to be free to
be unfree in one freedom, in losing
one's freedom to be correct or incorrect
to the contrary. One can also choose
correctly, however, in choosing to see
what the one all-seeing eye sees...in
seeing the one choice of Never Again
choosing the Ever Again of any one
chosinness over everyone's chosenness.
. .in freedom.
