Oaths of Initiation: Behold a Pale Horse pp. 104-107

The main problem with the previous chapter was that Cooper tried to cram too much into it. Any society that he ever heard about was pushed into his vast web. It doesn't even make a compelling conspiracy theory at that point because it says nothing. A conspiracy theory, according to my research for my dissertation, needs a cover-up; and with the number of secret societies that Cooper names, there isn't room for one. The Vatican isn't a secret society, and neither is the CFR, the Tri-Laterals, or the attendees of the Bilderberg Meeting. These are just the groups, according to Cooper, that are supposed to be in charge. I'm not interested in those.

What I'm interested in, and what I think is more important is the ground-level workers. A conspiracy, by definition (not a "conspiracy theory") needs more than one person. I've often pondered how recruitment works. Who guards the Ice Wall in the Flat Earth conspiracy theory? Someone needs to. I've mentioned this before in the "Silent Weapons..." chapter, where it seemed like this question was going to be answered. Instead, he didn't, and in this chapter, he is claiming that he has, in his hands, the oath that initiates take.

The chapter is titled, "Oath of Initiation of an Unidentified Secret Order from A Mother Who States that her Son Took This Oath (and Who Must Remain Unidentified) and Congressional Record - House 1913, p. 3216 (furnished by Dr. Rob Brown)"

This oath is the chapter--there's nothing else here aside from Cooper's introduction to it. 

He begins Author's Note: The Author (Cooper) makes no claims whatsoever regarding this oath. It wa handed to me by a woman who claimed that her son took this oath. Another source, Dr. Ron Brown, independent of and not known by the first, furnished a copy of the Congressional Record of the House of Representatives dates February 15, 1913, where the same oath is entered as purported to be of the Knights of Columbus." 

Let's be clear if Cooper is telling the truth, he's doing the right thing. He's testing the anonymous source by finding another copy of it from a different source. That's properly skeptical. I would prefer a little more detail on how Cooper received the first version, but I have to take the good stuff where I can get it. The story of the son is a dead end. The other story though, we can work with. 

Cooper writes that this one came from the Congressional Record, and he gives a specific date for that record. This is good because it lets us know where to find it, but almost right away we should not be doubting its existence. Conspiracy theorists are rarely this specific when they are ignorant of the facts. Luckily, and I don't know if this would have been true in Cooper's time, the congressional record is searchable and behold, to my surprise (I know I said I shouldn't doubt it, but there's a dubious name attached to this and I still doubted) here it is. Scroll down to page 3216 and the oath is right there. 

Is this proof of the conspiracy? No. Why? Because like all conspiracy theories who have actual documents, this is devoid of context. 

The congressional record possesses this oath because Eugene Bonniwell complained that Thomas Butler, who had defeated him in the congressional election used the oath to slander Bonniwell. Bonniwell sent a letter to Champ Clark, the speaker of the House informing Congress of the fake oath so that they would nullify the election and probably seat Bonniwell. This is not how the election system works though (and as we have learned in recent memory) the best that Bonniwell could have gotten (depending on state laws) was another election campaign.

The oath claims that the adherent will, "when opportunity presents, make and wage relentless war, secretly and openly against all heretics, Protestants and Masons, as I am directed to do to extirpate them from the face of the whole Earth; and that I will spare neither age, sex, or condition, and that will hang burn, waste, boil, flay, strangle, and bury alive these infamous heretics;..."

Such a person who adheres to this oath is no true American which is precisely why Butler used the oath as slander against Bonniwell, claiming that Bonniwell took this oath. It's important to note that anti-Catholic sentiment has always existed in the United States and that various periods of history have seen flare-ups of this xenophobia. Butler, a Quaker, was merely exploiting anti-Catholic sentiment when Italian immigration was at a high point. Like all anti-immigration movements the people that know the least often believe the worst. 

In short, this oath is merely a failed candidate whining about losing an election. 

The oath is a fake. Let's trace its origin: Butler supporters did not invent the oath. They've taken it from a book by Charles Didier, "The Subterranean Rome." This book, while having an ominous title, is a novel. I found this while tracking down the Congressional Record (I was very stupid in my initial search) which sourced the Oath in this book. I don't speak French well, in fact, I know very few words and phrases in the language, so I cannot find the original text. Using control+F and searching for key phrases, I found some passages (via Bing Chat translate) that sound like an oath, but nothing concrete. 

The other issue with this oath is that Cooper is claiming that Dr. Ron Brown found this in the congressional record while the other source (which I am not linking to avoid giving them any kind of traffic bump) claims that it was torn out of the record. Ron Brown is not the Senator who died in a plane crash in the 90s, he wasn't a doctor of anything. I do not know who this person is. I'm curious how Cooper came about it. I doubt he's read the Congressional record from 1913, though I suppose it is possible. 

Ultimately, his own words will work against him, "Because of the impeccably correct and difficult level of English used, the obvious expert knowledge of religious terminology and form, and the content and format of the oath, I consider it highly unlikely that it is a forgery. You must be the ultimate judge of its authenticity."

It's not a difficult level of English, and it does not possess an expert knowledge of religious terminology. I've never taken an oath that long so the format of it is not anything I'm familiar with, but I've read oaths in fictional works and this seems like the format you would use. I suppose that to a non-expert it seems like it's high level but I cannot agree with Cooper's estimation. The only thing I am sure of is that he didn't make this up on his own, which differs greatly from his first chapter.