| | | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 | Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans?
| Eileen
User ID: 4454
7/26/2005 4:54 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
"I: No, it is very different, yet complementary.
Much more emphasis on how we create our personal reality. Nothing about STS/STO. And, re the negative 4D feeders on fear--Seth states categorically that there are no demons except those of our own creation."
E: Thanks for the website, yet again. I look forward to reading over it when Iīm done with the Ra stuff.
I have to admit, it has been my belief for quite some time that we create our own demons--how else can we explain the actions of some? It is hard for me to believe that with as many people as are on this planet that the majority have not learned many life lessons before this time, and donīt yet understand the concepts of love and light.
These, are our demons! I wonīt name any names :) |
| Vincent Bridges
User ID: 152
7/26/2005 5:16 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
Here´s the problem with making predictions. The future (and the present for that matter) is not "set"--it´s a jumble of probabilities. Those kids were alive, in another probability. Everything you can imagine plays itself out in one probability or another. Apparently, we were
aligned with the probability where the mom drowned her kids. The C´s were aligned with a different probability.
V: Excuse me, but what a load of BS! The Cs were asked about what was happening in this reality, not some alternative world. They were specific, and they were wrong. The children, in our reality, were already dead. So how come the Cs didnīt know that?
The C´s said there are no lies, only interpretations. I would read this as, our interpretation of the reality we are personally experiencing. This is what "creates" our experience.
This is actually very good news. Change your interpretation to one that you prefer, and experience it accordingly. That´s "playing the game" as we were meant to. But where does this leave the "objective reality" that Laura refers to so frequently?
V: Lauraīs objective reality is one just as you describe: She has her interpretation of the facts, one she prefers, and she is acting as if that is reality. I would prefer a reality in which mothers donīt kill their children... Laura prefers one where she is the exalted one, and beyond all human constraints... neither of these is true, no matter how hard we might like it to be.
Sorry Infintea, but you seem to be a true believer looking for a creed to believe in...
VB |
| Vincent Bridges
User ID: 152
7/26/2005 5:18 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
Woah, this is still going on? Man i thought I would google a friend´s name to see if he´s around... But all this bickering is still happening.
crazyiness.
Does anyone from Matrisohka hang out here? I have not checked it out in years.
-shedt/shawn
Hi ya Shawn! How ya been? Many ex-matrioshka types seem to lurk here... Who you looking for?
VB |
| Eileen
User ID: 4454
7/26/2005 5:27 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
V: "I would prefer a reality in which mothers don´t kill their children..."
Vincent, I couldnīt agree more. Until we live in an age where there are no more senseless killings (and Iīm sorry, but all killing is really senseless), then we will continue to have mothers who kill their children, and fathers who abuse and molest. There will continue to be Ted Bundys, and others like him. These people arenīt being controled by 4th density STS beings, but rather are the demons we ourselves have created.
I also agree that it would seem that L does manipulate the entire experience to fit her ideas of reality or maybe what SHE thinks reality should be.
Iīve been reading over the Ra material, and it is so absolutely different from what she has "channelled." In her stuff, there is no mention of love at all, and Iīm sorry, but I really feel that this is a very important concept for us to know and express in order to evolve.
I think at one point I even read in the Wave stuff that in order to evolve we must remove ourselves completely--not care about anyone or anything. Now Iīm sorry, but that sounds more STS then STO. We do need to care about others and love others, and it is not a violation of their free will if they choose not to accept that care and love.
Just ranting. |
| Vincent Bridges
User ID: 152
7/26/2005 5:31 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
V: "I would prefer a reality in which mothers don´t kill their children..."
Vincent, I couldn´t agree more. Until we live in an age where there are no more senseless killings (and I´m sorry, but all killing is really senseless), then we will continue to have mothers who kill their children, and fathers who abuse and molest. There will continue to be Ted Bundys, and others like him. These people aren´t being controled by 4th density STS beings, but rather are the demons we ourselves have created.
V: Yep, and wishing it away, or giving it a different interpretation is just laziness...
I also agree that it would seem that L does manipulate the entire experience to fit her ideas of reality or maybe what SHE thinks reality should be.
I´ve been reading over the Ra material, and it is so absolutely different from what she has "channelled." In her stuff, there is no mention of love at all, and I´m sorry, but I really feel that this is a very important concept for us to know and express in order to evolve.
I think at one point I even read in the Wave stuff that in order to evolve we must remove ourselves completely--not care about anyone or anything. Now I´m sorry, but that sounds more STS then STO. We do need to care about others and love others, and it is not a violation of their free will if they choose not to accept that care and love.
V: Compassion is not in the Cs glossary...! The weak get eaten by the strong, as I quoted from one of LKJīs posts to Cass Chat... And guess which the Cs are?
VB |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 8422
7/26/2005 5:37 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
Iīm doing great! I forget half the names lol. What ever happened to Fred? Wyzard? etc etc |
| Eileen
User ID: 4454
7/26/2005 5:43 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
V: Compassion is not in the Cs glossary...! The weak get eaten by the strong, as I quoted from one of LKJ´s posts to Cass Chat... And guess which the Cs are?
Gee, let me think, um, um...
kind of sounds a little Darwinian doesnīt it? Suvival of the fittest and all that! No compassion, no helping others by our example, no caring, as long as I get where I want to go, and Iīll step on as many bodies as is needed to reach the top!
I guess we need to know and understand these things in order to make informed decisions in our lives. I donīt have to like it though.
Eileen |
| Vincent Bridges
User ID: 152
7/26/2005 5:45 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
I´m doing great! I forget half the names lol. What ever happened to Fred? Wyzard? etc etc
V: Fredīs around; even lurking on this forum sometimes... Wyz is still Wyz, and the M-list still exists though it is rarely used these days. Care to share a few LKJ horror stories?
VB |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 8422
7/26/2005 5:56 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
I personally donīt have any. I just find it funny that all this crap is still going on.
Well, I donīt know if funny is the approriate word.
Anyways I have somethings to take care of but Iīll check this forum out again later.
-Shawn/shedt
admin@flowingthoughts.com |
| Vincent Bridges
User ID: 152
7/26/2005 6:04 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
Well, I don´t know if funny is the approriate word.
V: Yep, it is rather sad... I thought things would stop back in 2002, but they just continued with their campaign of harassment and libel, and to boot, they pulled off a massive scam and are now pretending that nothing happened. Naturally, I had to put my comments into the mix...
VB |
| Infinitea
User ID: 889
7/26/2005 6:21 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
V: Laura´s objective reality is one just as you describe: She has her interpretation of the facts, one she prefers, and she is acting as if that is reality. I would prefer a reality in which mothers don´t kill their children...
I: Well, most donīt. That incident was very disturbing to me, too.
V: Laura prefers one where she is the exalted one, and beyond all human constraints... neither of these is true, no matter how hard we might like it to be.
I: I think Laura is a lot more conflicted about her path and her actions than she lets on. I sense much fear behond all that hubris.
V: Sorry Infintea, but you seem to be a true believer looking for a creed to believe in...
I: Well, Vincent, it seems to me that you know little or nothing of quantum physics or even plain old metaphysics--surprising in one who has been on the path so long. Have you really never encountered the probabilities concept before?? |
| Infinitea
User ID: 889
7/26/2005 7:02 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
Here you are, VB--Metaphysics 101...
[link to everythingforever.com]
Hugh Everett III and the Many Worlds Theory
The Macrocosm of Many Worlds
Our known universe is defined by two transformations. In the first all the strange and chaotic futures we might imagine do not happen because of natureīs consistent laws and forces. Primarily gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force, and the weak force, remove from possibility all of what we would think of as weird or irregular events. The forces of nature create a wonderfully predictable world where the sun rises and sets each day.
However, if we think about it, we can reason that there must be many other unique morning and evenings that donīt happen here in our own world, and all are reasonably as possible as the one world we experience. Why donīt they exist? Do they exist elsewhere? If we utilize the same laws and forces of nature, we can conceive of many other paths of time, or many tomorrows, all happening in other worlds.
Each one of us who has ever contemplated the universe has at one time wondered why our one world would exist when all the others as equally possible never made it to the party. It is when we study quantum mechanics that we find nature acknowledging all those other worlds that are equal in possibility to our own.
The other possibilities had not been visible within the more mechanistic Newtonian and Relativistic world views. Newton viewed the world as if it was like a giant machine, such as a clock with gears that produce a single precise outcome. And Einstein viewed the world as a solid existence, an undivided path from past to future. But what is imagined as possible by science, beyond the one world we experience, increased significantly after we discovered that all the small particles that collectively construct our world, travel through space as probability waves. Instead of solid motion from point A to point B, like a thrown baseball, particles transfer into a world of probability. Within each wave are an infinite number of positions a traveling particle moves through, and until the particle interacts with something else and then takes a physical position in reality again, the particle is said to not have a single or definite position. Rather the one particle becomes a blaze of paths we describe in science as a quantum wave of probability.
Of course when scientists first explored the atomic world they naturally expected to find individual particles moving through space just like larger objects. They expected electrons would orbit the heavy proton nucleus just as smaller planets orbit the sun. But instead, they discovered that atomic particles virtually transform from solidity to probability in order to travel from one place to another.
We began to understand the strange way that everything tiny travels from place to place when Werner Heisenberg discovered at the beginning of this century that we can never know both the momentum and position of matter or light particles. Heisenberg, Erwin Shrodinger, and Paul Dirac, with later help from others including Albert Einstein, were eventually led to formulate quantum mechanics, beginning a revolution in Physics that has completely changed the way we see the unfolding of the future, and even the past. Quantum theory explains that until we actually observe the past, the world is in a state of simultaneity where the finite events we assume are always finite are still blended together with all the other possible worlds we havenīt observed and wonīt observe. In other words, until we observe a particular past, the past remains fused together and so part of the infinite.
This aspect of the universe was first presented as science in a journal paper written by Hugh Everett III, who was at the time a student of John Archibald Wheeler, a renowned American physicist and longtime Professor at Princeton. In recognizing that each particle of the subatomic realm travels as a wave, simultaneity would apply to every possible outcome of each quantum event. Everett considered that the universe is not limited to the one reality we observe, and instead that all the other possible worlds branch away from every possible particle event and thus many other worlds or branches of time exist just as real as ours does.
No idea expresses the quantum world more vividly than Shrodingerīs cat. To illustrate the absurd multiplicity of quantum theory the physicist Erwin Shrodinger created a vivid thought experiment, where he places his cat within a delicately rigged box. Inside the box is a radioactive atom that has a fifty percent chance of decaying. If the atom should decay it will expel an electron particle that will register on a Geiger counter, also inside the box, and the machinery will then break a glass vile of cyanide gas, killing the cat.
The life or death of the cat is used only to dramatize the multiple states of a quantum wave. We know from quantum mechanics that until we observe the atom by opening the box, it remains in a wave-like state. Being a wave it exists in multiple states so it has decayed in one world and remained stable in another. It essentially exists in both states simultaneously. Since the state of the atom is a blur of probability, as odd as it seems, the state of the measurement device also becomes a wave of probability, existing in multiple states at once, which further means the wave is even extended to the cat. The cat itself becomes a wave of probability both alive and dead.
Of course the state of the cat can be interpreted in one of two ways, both of which define reality in dramatic fashions. We can be conservative and say the decaying particle existing as a wave is not real, meaning that it has neither decayed nor remained stable until we open the door of the box, but this then means that the cat is neither dead or alive. Being conservative means saying the cat somehow doesnīt really exist until we observe it.
If we donīt try to avoid the fact that two realities are obviously existing simultaneously, then we say the particle has decayed in one reality, and remained stable in the other reality, so that two conflicting realities exist, but neither is connected to our observer standing outside the box. Only when we open the box to observe the dead or alive cat, do we find ourselves in one of the two realities.
In one choice we try to say that the cat is neither dead or alive and so is not real, existing only as probability until we look inside the box, although then we must wonder about the experience of the cat inside the box. With the second choice we say the experiment has created at least two cats, one is dead and one is alive, and each exists in separate worlds. As we open the box we connect through our interaction or observation with one of those realities.
In either case what is suddenly being defined as we open the box is not necessarily only the future. After all it is what has happened in the past that is collapsing into a single reality as we open the box to observe the condition of the cat.
In the first interpretation if we insist on avoiding the profound but obvious conclusion that before we observe the cat there are at least two worlds just on the other side of the closed door, then we destroy the chain of cause and effect, and we loose all sense of the world being solidly real, then we egocentrically resolve that we ourselves create reality as we observe events. All this without yet resolving the problem of what the cat observes from within the box. And if we are arrogant enough to say that the cats observations arenīt as real as our own, claiming that it takes a human observer to create reality, which is a claim that your cat at home doesnīt exist when no one is observing it, we then place the person making that claim in the box and start over.
Clearly, the only sound alternative is the second interpretation, where both outcomes are real, and we become a part of one of them. But then as we study this more carefully, it is not simply the space inside of the box that is splitting into two realities. The outside world as we open the door to observe the cat, and so we ourselves, split into two principle realities. In one we exist observing the cat alive and in another we also exist observing the cat as dead. We donīt simply find ourselves in one of the realities, we exist in both as time itself branches.
So we are given a choice. We can either sacrifice reality as we know it for a hollow probable world, or accept reality as much grander than even an imaginative person is normally comfortable with. This may be why, after Heisenberg first developed the uncertainty principle, that it wasnīt until 1957, some fifty years later, that Everett developed the first formal theory that began to describe many other worlds. His doctorate thesis on the subject was dubbed the Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum theory and has been considered a valid scientific theory ever since.
The Second transformation
The first transformation eliminates all the weird or abstract worlds we might find in a science fiction movie. It cuts down infinite possibilities to a specific set of worlds, a set that is defined by the laws and forces of nature. This leaves us with what we would normally imagine as possible. The second transformation then is when that group of many possible worlds is transformed into the single world we live in.
Primarily, it is the speed of light and four forces which define the wave of many worlds, and as time passes, enough particle waves collapse to create a single defined reality, and that is the world in which we live. What then are we to think then of all the other possible outcomes which represent the paths of space-time we do not experience.
If you were to peer into these parallel worlds you would see yourself move in every possible direction. Your arm will raise and lower, your legs will move one way and the other. In the next few moments you will sit up, stand up, lay down, and stretch from head to toe. Each other world is only slightly different than the next possibility, each having only an infinitely small difference. If we were somehow aware of all the other branches of time, almost instantly oneīs surroundings would burst into a solid blur of mass and energy. Looking back in time we would see a dense wave of all the many worlds formed since the Big Bang.
Some scientists shrug at this, and continue to believe there is something that makes quantum reality only work at the micro level. And since it is not easy to prove otherwise by scientific testing the absolute truth of either hypothesis, the result has been that science itself is in limbo waiting for more evidence. Itīs almost as if science has developed a phobia, avoiding what is simple and even sensible.
The consequences of the quantum wave is indeed very profound and has already made a tremendous impact upon society. In addition to television shows and movies where characters cross over into parallel worlds, physicists have been given the chance to act as philosophers, debating over the structure of reality and the role of the observer. What is agreed to be certain is that the universe is not a single solid world of moving objects, there are many worlds that at least exist as potential, and we, rather than simply observe an external reality, to some degree partake in its creation simply by opening our eyes. |
| anders
User ID: 3846
7/26/2005 7:03 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
I´ve been reading over the Ra material, and it is so absolutely different from what she has "channelled." In her stuff, there is no mention of love at all, and I´m sorry, but I really feel that this is a very important concept for us to know and express in order to evolve.
I think at one point I even read in the Wave stuff that in order to evolve we must remove ourselves completely--not care about anyone or anything. Now I´m sorry, but that sounds more STS then STO. We do need to care about others and love others, and it is not a violation of their free will if they choose not to accept that care and love.
Have a look at the Anab stuff that OPie and I posted. He points out at length what is missing from Lauraīs Cs ... the guy is sharp and IMHO does an outstanding job of analysis... |
| anders
User ID: 3846
7/26/2005 7:05 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
V: Compassion is not in the Cs glossary...! The weak get eaten by the strong, as I quoted from one of LKJ´s posts to Cass Chat... And guess which the Cs are?
Lauraīs Cs say īPity those who pity...ī |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 889
7/26/2005 10:10 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
Laura´s Cs say ´Pity those who pity...´
Pity is a form of judgment--"oh poor you."
IT IS SEPARATIVE. oops caps lock off.
Compassion is a joining, "feeling with" rather
than "feeling for." |
| Infinitea
User ID: 889
7/26/2005 10:58 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
I was browsing some earlier pages of the thread, looking for the Abu stuff, and found this, on page 16 I think. I had missed it previously. I think itīs very relevant to what weīre talking about now, re the importance of heart-centered consciousness.
Anonymous Coward wrote:
Laura has a mind like a steel trap, literally. If you follow the material where she attempts to take it then you will likely suffer the same fate. For the most part the ´heart and soul´ of the material completely eludes her and the rest of the "core" group. They worship intellect and aspire to "high mind" as the ultimate goal but fail to grasp that consciousness is not limited to mind-stuff, nor does the truth to which they aspire depend upon mental complexity for its existence or our individual realization of it.
Having said that, their shortcomings need not limit you or I as the readers of the material. I personally find the material channelled in the "Wave" series to be among the best of the best that anyone lookiong to ´pierce the veil´ might study and contemplate, but I also submit that it will require an wholistic mind/body/and Soul consciousness to grasp the true depth and breadth of what is actually being offered. Awareness is truly key as the C´s have often stated but awareness is a "soul" thing, not just a mind thing.
One might say the Laura and co. are among the "I think therefore I am" crowd, where as others such as myself are of the "I am therefore I think" ilk and will naturally view the material from quite a different perspective and I feel a much less limited one. My efforts to discuss this with with "LArk" and co resulted in some nasty attacks, especially from Ark and my pompt ousting from the discussion group. This was fine with me because being a part of their elitist group was never of any interest to me anyway and my liberation from the "matrix" was in no way dependent upon these would-be saviors of minkind. Put simply, they are greatly blinded by their own arrogance, as we all are from time to time, but hopefully not to such an extreme. I do admire their devotion and intellectual prowess but like I said... Beware the "steel trap".
You just don´t get to the heart and soul of a matter without heart n´ soul as your guide. They will tell you that "feeling" is nothing more than limited emotion which offers little or nothing of value but I submit that without liberating our ability to truly feel with the whole of our being we will have no means of even approaching the infinite let alone experiencing or understanding its/our mysteries. The mind(universal or otherwise is but an instrument of the infinite intelligence which fills all that is, not the source. Yes, it must be de-programmed for the "way" to be open but not at the expense of Soul which is the wholistic and "Balanced" unity of all that is. This is what we all are if we can only come to realize it... each of us the living breathing truth which we seek externally until a moment of self-realization gives us the most valuable knowledge of all. Mental/Intellectual-realization is but a limitation of this, not the be all and end all. This is something the mind-cults fail to grasp and as such lead many a seeker to the greatest and most complex of all traps.
As the C´s commented on the meaning behind the touching of both shoulders with the blade of the sword in the ´knighting´ ritual... it symbolizes breaking open the limitations of the body. Funny how this is achieved by symbolically cutting off the head, don´t you think? |
| anders
User ID: 178
7/26/2005 11:03 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
Pity is a form of judgment--"oh poor you."
IT IS SEPARATIVE. oops caps lock off.
Compassion is a joining, "feeling with" rather
than "feeling for."
thatīs not my interpretation
go see how laura interprets it |
| anders
User ID: 178
7/26/2005 11:06 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
notice the twists
05-03-97
Q: One of the things I have learned is that these individuals seem to attach via some sort of psychic hook that enters through our reactions of pity. Can you comment on the nature of pity?
A: Pity those who pity.
Q: But, the ones who are being pitied, who generate sensations of pity, do not really pity anybody but themselves.
A: Yes...?
Q: Then, is it true as my son said, when you give pity, when you send love and light to those in darkness, or those who complain and want to be "saved" without effort on their own part, when you are kind in the face of abuse and manipulation, that you essentially are giving power to their further disintegration, or contraction into self- ishness? That you are powering their descent into STS?
A: You know the answer! |
| )()()()(*_*)()()()(
User ID: 596
7/26/2005 11:08 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
Laura´s Cs say ´Pity those who pity...´
Pity is a form of judgment--"oh poor you."
IT IS SEPARATIVE. oops caps lock off.
......
If one pities those who pity, then they are caught in an infinite cycle, because they are pitying themselves and on and on, round and round it goes in a circle.
The solution/warning: do not "pity".
OSIT  |
| anders
User ID: 178
7/26/2005 11:10 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
now hereīs the full version in context, missing from the first session laura highlighted
5-03-97
Q: Reading through the session of May 23, last year, when Tom was also here, and the issue of his being in OīBrien was addressed, you asked who had begged him to stay there, then there was a remark about an EM vector. The way I understood it is that a person can be an EM vector. Is that possible?
A: Vector means focuser of direction.
Q: Could that mean that EM waves can be vectored by a human being simply by their presence? I also noticed that several of us have been involved with persons and relationships that seem designed to confuse, defuse, and otherwise distort our learning, as well as drain our energy. Basically, keeping us so stressed that we cannot fulfill our potential. Is there some significance to this observation?
A: That is elementary, my dear Knight!
Q: One of the things I have learned is that these individuals seem to attach via some sort of psychic hook that enters through our reactions of pity. Can you comment on the nature of pity?
A: Pity those who pity.
Q: But, the ones who are being pitied, who generate sensations of pity, do not really pity anybody but themselves.
A: Yes...?
Q: Then, is it true as my son said, when you give pity, when you send love and light to those in darkness, or those who complain and want to be "saved" without effort on their own part, when you are kind in the face of abuse and manipulation, that you essentially are giving power to their further disintegration, or contraction into self- ishness? That you are powering their descent into STS?
A: You know the answer!
Q: Yes. I have seen it over and over again. Were the individuals in our lives selected for the extremely subtle nature of their abilities to evoke pity, or were we programmed to respond to pity so that we were blind to something that was obvious to other people?
A: Neither. You were selected to interact with those who would trigger a hypnotic response that would ultimately lead to a drain of energy.
Q: (L) What is the purpose of this draining of energy?
A: What do you think?
Q: (T) So you canīt concentrate or do anything. You canīt get anywhere with anything.
A: Or, at least not the important things.
Q: (T) [...] Is it the area or the person?
A: Both. One is wrapped within the other.
Q: (L) Why is it that it seems to be one of the primary things about us that prevents us from acting against such situations, is our fear of hurting another person? [...] Why are we so afraid of hurting someoneīs feelings if they are hurting us?
A: Not correct concept. You do not need to "act against them," you need to act in favor of your destiny.
Q: But, when you do that, these persons make you so completely miserable that there seems to be no other choice but a parting of the ways.
A: Yes, but that is not "acting against." Quite the contrary. In fact, remember, it takes two to tango, and if you are both tangoing when the dance hall bursts into flames, you both get burned!!!
Q: Why is it that when one tries to extricate from such a "tango," why is there is such violent resistance to letting you go when it is obvious, clearly obvious, that they do not have any feeling for you as a human being?
A: It is not "they." We are talking about conduits of attack. |
| anders
User ID: 178
7/26/2005 11:11 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
itīs going back to the eugenic pornography of organic portals again... |
| Anders (BBM)
User ID: 178
7/26/2005 11:15 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
And here is a third version!!!
Please NOTE WELL how Laura has CHANGED THINGS! to suit her purposes/agenda...
So now we begin to understand the special traps set up for these Wanderers wherein human agents are used to manipulate and control them. If they cannot be corrupted directly, the strategy is to corrupt those around them - including family, friends, spouses and associates of all kinds. While I would never claim to be one of these "Wanderers," even if the profile does fit (since I am not inclined to "true believership" in anything), there was a curious exchange with the Cassiopaeans at one session which included another individual who also fits this profile that gives some clues as to how this occurs:
05-03-97
Q: (L) Reading through the session of May 23, last year, when TK was also here, and the issue of his living in isolation from the rest of the world was addressed, you asked who had begged him to stay there even though he wanted to move to a place where he could have more contact with other people and more opportunities for growth and stimulation. The answer to this question was that it was his wife who insisted on remaining even though it was clear that he was unhappy in the environment. Then you (The Cassiopaeans) made a remark about an EM vector. The way I understood it is that you were saying that a person can be an EM vector. Is that possible?
A: Vector means focuser of direction.
Q: So his wife is the one who controls the focus of his direction. But how? Could that mean that EM waves can be vectored by a human being simply by their presence and that these EM waves are part of the control system that manipulates people? Can it be that such "agents" are used as EM vectors in the sense that they emanate a special frequency that literally affects the mind in terms of shutting down clarity, or even actually transmitting pre-coded thought loops?
A: Precisely.
Q: My God! I also noticed that several of us have been involved with persons and relationships that seem designed to confuse, defuse, and otherwise distort our learning, as well as drain our energy. Basically, keeping us so stressed that we cannot fulfill our potential. Is there some significance to this observation?
A: That is elementary, my dear Knight!
Q: One of the things I have learned is that these individuals seem to attach via some sort of psychic hook that enters through our reactions of pity. Can you comment on the nature of pity?
A: Pity those who pity.
Q: But, the ones who are being pitied, who generate sensations of pity, do not really pity anybody but themselves.
A: Yes...?
Q: Then, is it true as my son said, when you give pity, when you send love and light to those in darkness, or those who complain and want to be "saved" without effort on their own part, when you are kind in the face of abuse and manipulation, that you essentially are giving them power to further their disintegration, or contraction into self- ishness? That you are powering their descent into STS?
A: You know the answer!
Q: My God! Yes. I have seen it over and over again. Were the individuals in our lives selected for the extremely subtle nature of their abilities to evoke pity, or were we programmed to respond to pity so that we were blind to something that wa |
| Eileen
User ID: 4454
7/26/2005 11:18 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
Anon, you said, "Compassion is a joining, "feeling with" rather than "feeling for."
You are so right here. As an empath, I understand and support this point of view totally. There are those who I pity--very seldom though. Most times, I feel their hurt, and understand it. This is a heart of compassion. If you cannot understand the walk in someone elseīs shoes, then you have no business trying them on. Trying on the shoes is pity. Walking in them is compassion.
Eileen |
| Anders (BBM)
User ID: 178
7/26/2005 11:23 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
Eileen/Anon
What do you make of the changes above that I have highlighted? can you see them?
What do you make of organic portals? |
| ))))))*-*((((((
User ID: 596
7/26/2005 11:26 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
Mark Simpson
Joseph Turner
Tommy, "Sheena"...
Candleabra, Tank, Filing Cabinet, Persian Rug & a small Chihuahua |
| Anders (BBM)
User ID: 178
7/26/2005 11:29 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
12217
wow
thanks for the  |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 596
7/26/2005 11:29 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
Oops... Elizabeth Benett, Michael Spencer/Thompson |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 596
7/26/2005 11:31 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
Your welcome for the
Do tell me, Mr Rowland - what keeps you awake at these early hours? |
| Anders (BBM)
User ID: 178
7/26/2005 11:32 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
If one pities those who pity, then they are caught in an infinite cycle, because they are pitying themselves and on and on, round and round it goes in a circle.
The solution/warning: do not "pity".
OSIT
Bullshit.
You can pity those starving in a village in Africa - you ASSume they pity themselves - that is an ASSumption, and not necessarily true.
If I want to pity or ***feel compassion*** for someone I will damn well do as I please.
pity
· n. (pl. pities)
1 the feeling of sorrow and compassion caused by the sufferings of others.
2 a cause for regret or disappointment: what a pity.
· v. (pities, pitied) feel pity for.
PHRASES for pitys sake informal used to express impatience or make an urgent appeal. mores the pity informal used to express regret.
DERIVATIVES pitying adj. pityingly adv.
ORIGIN ME: from OFr. pite compassion, from L. pietas piety. |
| Anders (BBM)
User ID: 178
7/26/2005 11:34 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
12217
Idiots like you, the Laura brainwashed.
Don´t you have some grapes to stamp on or something over at the Chateau?
You give your location away when you say the early hours.
You really MUST try harder. |
| | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 | |
|
