Discernment Or
Machiavelli and the ET's

Laura Knight-Jadczyk

We received the following letter from a reader. It is a bit long, but worth reading in its entirety in light of the issues it raises which are dealt with in a general way with the commentary that follows.

Dear Laura,

Last night late, still pondering how to sum up my initial impressions of Anna Hayes' work, I took home and read a printout of Anna Hayes' response to David Icke's and Dan Winter's apparent (I have not read these) disparagements of her work.

Anna's response was dated 05/29/00. The printout was website: www.greatdreams.com/anna2.htm

I have no right or desire to be judgmental of anyone, enjoying as I do the great diversity of Life and the great disparity of perspectives/ perceptions. (On this subject, I liked Anna Hayes' comment to Icke and Winters, "...too bad, we could have learned much from discovering where our respective knowings fit together into the big picture.") I do have impressions and opinions.

I first found Anna Hayes through an email that a friend sent that contained Anna's comments on what Anna perceived to be the dangers of monoatomic gold. I was impressed with her apparent knowledgeableness on the subject and searched further to see what else she "knew" about. This led to the Anna Hayes' website, which was (I understand) set up not by Anna but by a supporter.

At this website, I linked with three radio conversations between Anna and Jeff Rense. In these conversations she seemed very humble and very knowledgeable about certain matters (matters I did not have enough knowledge about to be able to "judge" if she was making "reasonable sense"). She did not proselytize or say that her information was the only way to Truth. I was by now even more impressed. That night, 9/8, I ordered her first two books (which have not yet arrived, guess being printed in October; my check has not yet been cashed).

And I read more of the limited material available at her website (she says she has not had time to prepare more to be posted at the website, as her workshops and work to help stabilize the planet's grid against problems expected in about 2003, and ? maybe before, are her top priorities). This material, as I recall, included information on scalar waves. And what I read so confused me (term upon term, with hardly a word or concept I recognized to get a foothold on--I concluded I was either utterly stupid in the face of Advanced Intellect or that this Teacher did not understand the basic teaching principle that "Showing off what you know is not important; it is not what the Teacher knows that is important; it is instead how well that material is imparted so that the Student can know it: what does the Student end up knowing?")--that I wrote to Ark to ask for his impression of the material.

I figured that her material should at least make rudimentary sense to a highly-trained, bright physicist who was also open-minded to this kind of material--in short, the material had to make some sense to a person like Ark, even if it was "gobbledy-gook" to me.

As I recall, Ark's comment after reading was something along the lines of, "How can someone expressing herself like this be called a teacher?"


[Note: theThe actual exchange referenced by the correspondent was published in the Wave Series and is as follows:

A Shaman is, as Eliade describes, a Technician of Ecstasy. This is an essential qualification and/or result of contact with the Divine. More than that, in order to be in direct contact with the Divine, the human being must be able to "see the unseen." This Seeing is the capacity of human beings to enlarge their perceptual field until they are capable of assessing not only outer appearances, but also the essence of everything in order to access the level of being that enables them make choices that are capable of initiating a new causal series.

Of course, problems arise when an individual attempts to be a Shaman without knowledge. A recent correspondent sent us some information about a popular channeled source that claims to be teaching a new perspective on physics.

Dear Ark and Laura,
I don't know much about Scalar Waves, certainly not enough to know whether or not the site below's information on Scalar Waves is useful, but I pass the information along to you. I have heard Anna Hayes speak on the Jeff Rense radio show, and she made a good impression as an apparently calm and knowledgeable person.

Ark went to the site in question and began to read. After a period of study, he responded as follows:

Hi ____,
While reading:

"Dimensions are interwoven layers of scalar waves that serve to direct the flow of consciousness/energy into multiple patterns of refraction through which the hologram of matter density, linear time and manifest objectification of reality can be experienced. Dimensions exist in precise relationship to each other creating a 90-degree difference in Angular Rotation of Particle Spin between dimensional bands. Scalar Waves are points of Standing Waves, composed of quantities of consciousness, that emanate out of fixed points of vibration which form ultra-micro-particle units called Partiki, Partika and Particum. Scalar Waves exist within a fixed Scalar Field that forms the Universal Unified Field of consciousness/energy. Fixed scalar waves appear to move due to a perpetual action of internal fission and fusion, through which series of scalar standing wave points 'flash on and off' creating perpetual rhythms of motion called 'flash-line sequences' through which continual manifestation and de-manifestation of matter occurs."

I can't help thinking that it is a pity that a person that evidently knows nothing about waves, dimensions, particle spin etc. chooses to "TEACH" others on these subjects. But, on the other hand, creating more confusion is what the Lizzies must have on their mind. And they seem to be successful.

On the other hand, we are in a Free Will Universe - it is up to each person to choose the path and the "teacher." Thanks for the link - it helps me.

As it happened, the response was also sent (by the correspondent asking Ark to look into it) to a promoter of the above channeling who then wrote to Ark:

One doesn't need to know anything on a specific topic when the information isn't coming from oneself but from a higher source.
Love, Light, and Joy
Dee Finney

Note added: It is extremely interesting to discover that Dee Finney, the author of the above declaration about Anna Hayes, has now included her (and Cassiopaea, by the way) in her "history of cults." It is extremely strange how so many who have promoted real cults, then turn around and "expose" them. Sounds like COINTELPRO, eh?

Aside from the fact that actually reading that nonsense is an energy drain, such a perspective does NOT resonate with the Cassiopaean information in which independent study and gaining of knowledge is urged as the only means by which we can be protected from being led into "traps." Ark replied:

Sure, but to check whether the information comes from a higher source or lower source, it is always necessary first to check whether the information makes any sense or is just a mumbo-jumbo. There are lot of dead dudes and other entities that are more than ready to pour all kinds of nonsense into our heads.

Real research is ALWAYS necessary. How else can we know we are not being disinformed?

You must never RELY on what the entities tell you. You always have to check and keep critical! Unless you WANT to live in an illusion. Many people do.

Anyone can be a channel. It takes knowledge and WILL to be able to CHOOSE who or WHAT one will channel.


Laura here: What we see in the Anna Hayes problem is this: if she had a broad knowledge base and/ or a network where she could research the information given to her, she would not have a problem with discernment.

Of course, she doesn't THINK she has a problem with discernment. She claims that she relies on her "organic memory" as the yardstick by which to measure the information she "receives." Yet our research has shown us how cunningly even THAT can be manipulated.

Again, the only hope we see for obviating the direct manipulation of our minds is via a research network. We have to find the "reading error" of our instrument, and then we have to re-tune them or make corrections via a network.

When we consider the following claim:

One doesn't need to know anything on a specific topic when the information isn't coming from oneself but from a higher source.

Aside from the fact that the above is a jaw-droppingly arrogant statement, we actually are at the "heart" of the problem. If there is not a broad knowledge base - what is known in esoteric studies as "the vessel" - there is no possibility of "real knowledge" being received from "higher sources." The Sufis say: the water takes on the color of the cup. If the individual is ignorant, has not made long and concerted efforts to separate truth from lies, obejectivity from subjectivity, then what they "receive" will be colored by this lack, this ignorance, this subjectivity, these lies.

As we have said repeatedly - and the Cassiopaeans state repeatedly - independent study and gaining of knowledge is the ONLY way to develop discernment. As Ark has said:

Real research is ALWAYS necessary. How else can we know we are not being disinformed?

This is the meaning of the parable of the wine bottles:

Luke - 5:36 And he spake also a parable unto them; No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old. 5:37 And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish. 5:38 But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved. 5:39 No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.


Now back to the email from our reader]

I pulled back, realizing that here again was a test of discernment: don't get your hopes up too high, don't anticipate, don't indulge in wishful thinking that this might be a reliable source of information, rely only on your personal Intuition, what is "right" to your own powers of discernment.

Later, after reading on the Keylontic Egroups site, I was ashamed of myself for letting an email therein, allegedly on someone's personal life, color my opinion: someone, allegedly a hacker or "reptilian" spreader of disinformation who used another member's name, wrote a mean email along the lines of (all in caps, as I recall), "You people are so full of it. You know the real reason Anna has canceled the rest of her UK trip. It's not because her guidance called her home to work because there is some cosmic disturbance she needs to help Earth with. It is because she has dropped her long-time partner and taken up with another man."

To the egroup's credit, no one, no matter how dismayed about this possibility, said anything, and the post was removed. I have no idea if the "accusation" is true and agree that Anna's personal life is none of my business, although if true, the way one conducts one's personal life can say something about a person's impeccability (at least as "judged" by observers).

Anyway, by this time, you, Laura, had had a chance to consider some of Anna's work, and as I recall, you were at first concerned then intrigued that Anna might be on to something, then concerned again by her "fight fire with fire" comments. (I too have heard that "What we resist, persists," although I have also sometimes wondered if this advice is a way to render ourselves passive and allowing of unbalanced negativity, although "allowing" can be good, too.)

And now last night, I have read the material I mentioned at the start of this long email, and I am impressed again.

Some impressions:

--She seems genuinely humble in tone and in words ("I am very humbled and appreciative to know these teachings and remember who I am." And my paraphrase: "It is not me that is important. The knowledge is.")

--She seems highly knowledgeable about something. Just because I don't understand advanced calculus does not mean advanced calculus does not exist (this latter seems to have been at least in part the mindset of the Inquisition), so my confusion is not necessarily a sign that the material is false. Her system seems to have cohesion to her and to some of her advanced students. If it is delusion, it seems to be consistent and cohesive delusional material that apparently makes "sense" eventually, if you are willing to study hard, according to advanced students who speak up on the Keylontic Science egroups listing. (But how I wish some of the terms did not seem so "silly" to me. I feel like yelling, "language-centrically,": "Speak English, for gosh sake! Translate the Egyptian or inter-dimensionals' language into something I can understand, I beg, if only for the sake of the beginning student.")

In these quotations from the website mentioned at the beginning of this email, Anna speaks for herself:

--"I show the scary stuff, but I also show solutions." (Page 3 of 29)

--"...attempting to pidgeonhole me into a reptilian category...If we were on the reptilian team, we wouldn't be teaching people how to reclaim their personal power...how to be immune to this reptilian manipulation."

--"I am supposedly a reptilian disinformant because I shared my knowledge of Mr. Icke's being set up to be used for potential disinformation." (Page 4 of 29)

--"I am a member of the council of pro-human inter-dimensionals."

--"You consider yourself qualified to invalidate these teachings....Personally I have no attachment to whether you are willing to expand beyond the limited views you now...defend." (Page 8 of 29)

--"...reclaim the freedom that remembering offers."

--"...Mr. Icke is more interested in defending [his] paradigms than in broadening [his] view and expanding [his] understanding--fine, OK with me. I was simply offering options you have yet to [discover]."

--"Reptilian disinformation? You are judging something you know little about. ...Too bad, we could have learned much from discovering where our respective knowings fit together into the big picture." --(Page 9 of 29)

--"Presently, the priority has been to assist in planetary grid mechanics that will help avert a potential earth-changes mess in 2003" [the Wave arrives "early?!"], "that would result via Illuminati manipulation, if intervention by pro-human visitors had not been orchestrated." [The workshops are apparently the second, next priority.]

--"No one is going to 'save the world' but its inhabitants themselves....I can't waste my energies in trying to convince them of what they do not want to learn...my energies are being directed into facing the big issues at hand and helping to offer solutions. As priorities allow, I will offer more information on the Web for people who desire to explore...

--Mr. Icke and Mr. Winter, we ALL have more to learn...too bad you think you know enough about everything to discount valid information that others may have..."

--[Why this] "competition over who knows more rather than cooperation to discern more...

--Mr. Winter asks Ms. Hayes if she has ever considered that she is also being set up and manipulated to provide disinformation? "Of couse, I have examined that possibility in regard to my visitor contact. The difference here is that I REMEMBER the rest of it...I remember where I was and who I was before adopting this incarnation, I remember the motivation...and vividly remember the many AWFUL times when incarnates of the Emerald Order...were literally exterminated on this planet and their teachings of freedom destroyed....I remembered these things before any contact with visitors in this lifetime, and I remember the last time I fully incarnated here to continue assisting with the return of this information to the planet.

--If what the Guardian Alliance Emerald Order taught me was different from my ORGANIC memory, I would have doubted them and trusted my own memory. But everything they have ever taught me fits in with what I remember as a person and as a soul...

--We are introducing healing technologies for the DNA that people can learn to do themselves, bio-field protection mechanics people can learn, and a paradigm of comprehending inter-dimensional reality that far exceeds in detail and coherent content anything else that is presently available in the public arena. And you are now suggesting that THIS is reptilian dis-information? What in YOUR OWN information on DNA [etc.] can be proven as free from reptilian distortion?..." --(Page 1 or 2 of 29)

--"Others are too busy chasing lizards to know about these programs."

--"My job is not about changing people's minds. It is about sharing information as honestly as I can so they may have a greater knowledge base from which to assimilate their opinions....I offer solutions as well as pointing out problems." (Page 16 of 29)

And this, Laura, is the point to which I have gotten in the 29-page printout. (There were many more "good" quotations I could have included here.) As you can see, I have waffled from "impressed" to "embarrassed I fell for it" back to "impressed" again.

I am working to discern more clearly and to be always in alignment with the Truth as best I can discern it, and to serve the highest good of all beingness. I will read further into Anna Hayes' work and into your work. May All That Is bless you. We sure do.

The only sensation I received from the Anna Hayes' quotes above was insufferable arrogance thinly disguised as humility. Abyssal ignorance and pathetic gullibility are also evident. Of course, when you consider who she was debating, it's hard not to be on her side in the discussion! But perhaps that is intentional. After all, the REAL manipulation seems to be to manipulate one group to believe one things, another to believe another, and set them against each other. Without REAL RESEARCH, this property of disinformation cannot be exposed!

Nevertheless, for a long time we have been deluged with letters from readers asking for opinions on the opinions and/or teachings of many other "sources." This tendency of the human being to be "insured" or "underwritten" regarding any choices he or she may make is one of the fundamental reasons that "channelling" has such great currency in the present time. We want to know, in advance of doing anything, whether it is going to increase our success in life or not.

This is due to a fundamental condition of our reality. This condition seems to be a sort of "randomness" or lack of control of our lives. Our observations of reality tell us that there is "something out there" that we need to know about because having this key can "make or break" us.

What it amounts to is, in short, precisely what Aldous Huxley remarked:

The ultimate object of MAGIC in all ages was, and IS, control of the forces of life.

In researching this matter, I have found the writings of Michael Topper to be very helpful, even if they are couched in terms difficult for the average person. I have included some of his ideas in the following commentary, though expressed in seriously modified terminology! Even if I slip up now and again and produce complicated sentences, I am a great believer in subjects and verbs being easy to identify!

We consult the channeler because we are anxious. And, we are anxious because we realize, from our observations, that at any moment, this "randomness" which manifests as destruction, will fall upon us either physically or psychically. It would be oh so helpful if we could see the future in advance, be informed of the respective consequences in the choices confronting us in every moment

Money is a metaphor for energy in our world, and just as we want to put our money in the bank that is FDIC insured, so that we will have it when we want or need it, so would we like to know that our psychic energy is similarly protected for use in this world or the next. If we invest our time and faith in this or that practice, belief, system or "spiritual enhancement technique," we want to be sure that our committments are the "right ones."

The channeler becomes the "salesman" for the Investment Scheme, and we want to know, damn it!, that our money is going to grow; that our ship is going to come in; and that we are NOT going to find that we have placed all our holdings in a basket of eggs that gets made into an omelette for someone else to eat!

The myriad channeled voices of recent years present an avalanche of prediction, advice on principle and particulars, and an encyclopaedic series of explanations of planes, states, levels and dimensions of reality which introduce whole worlds of further questions of purpose and consequence.

We aren't supposed to pay attention to the fact that, in this barrage of channeled material, we end up having to face a whole different set of choices than if we just simply were making direct choices about our lives with NO channeled input! Because, just as in life, where we must make decisions about whether we should do this or that, now we face decisions about whether we should follow this teaching or that one! Because, the fact is, in channeled material, we come face to face with not only contradictions, but collisions of material that end up forcing us to choose!

Not only that, but it seems that, at the "higher" levels of consciousness , there still seems to be contention or discrepancy regarding that which is perceived or known in these supposedly greater and more comprehensive Domains of Knowing!

Those of you who have scanned more than one of these sources in print, or compared notes with "live" sessions attended, are bound to notice (if minimally conscious) that, beneath the general agreement as to the existence of higher states and planes, of different orders of knowledge and action, there are enormous numbers of divergences ranging from minor variations to glaring contradictions.

This ought to give us pause to consider. If the so-called "higher realms" are as confusing as the lower realms that we already know are confusing, then what's the point in trying to access them or even "ascend" to them?

This is explained in one such source. Cosmic Revelation "channeled" by Virginia Essene and Ann Valentin, as the condition of confusion resulting from the urgent/unprecedented need of the higher dimensions to disseminate changing patterns of information belonging to "revamped educational programs," brought about by this "critical epoch of transition."

In other words, if we take this view seriously, that the reams and reams of channeled material coming to the umpteen sources who have been "contacted" by playfully putting an aluminum pyramid on their heads, are being poured out on the planet in this day and time, then that means that the higher realms lack patience - which I always thought was one of the highest virtues!

So many of the sources say - or at least imply - that they have been waiting for us poor humans to "get a clue," and since we aren't doing too well on our own, they just HAVE to intrude with the necessary information whenever they find somebody who has achieved the minimal level of meditative or "remembering" achievement. (Don't unfocus your eyes while watching the news or you may be the next "contactee!)

It is further explained to us that much of the confusion results from the fact that the information is transmitted "down" through a "spiritual hierarchy" of "inner plane" beings, aliens, or whatever. So, even though the original information may be formulated at the highest levels, it must pass through these relays, and a consequence of this is that it gets "reformulated" according to the relative understanding of the various planes from which it is extruded into our reality. A final distortion, generally considered to be the most significant, is the level and attunement of the channeler.

The end result is, however, that we now have a neat explanation that the "positive information" is several steps removed from the originating intention. It is also mentioned, very often, that the information emanates in its highest form from levels of creative intelligence that are basically non-verbal. Supposedly, these processes are not directly translatable into 3rd density understanding.

In other words: it's not any more informative or reliable than any exchange of information between any human beings on the mundane level.

In this way, we have a convenient explanation as to why there is such a plethora of different explanations and views of reality and how we may underwrite our choices in order to insure ourselves against the possibilities of random (or even deliberate), destruction that basically contradicts its intrinsic value.

However, to be fair, some "channeling" DOES seem to promote the actual personal progress of the channeler in gaining direct access to the planes, states, phenomena and degrees of mind-body integration described. But for the most part, there is a curious dissociation between the person of the channeler and the content of the communication. What this means is that there is a substitution of the description for the result.

According to most of the channeled sources, our job is to make a massive effort to collate the welter of incoming data, organize it into a coherent corpus of principles, premises and usable esoteric knowledge. We are supposed to invoke the cooperation of other "initiated teachers" in this density, and exhort them to coordinate with us in uncovering the "threads of similarity" and ignoring the discrepancies.

When we do this, however, in the proper scientific manner, something unexpected happens.

The first thing we find is that we must establish a "yardstick" if we are going to begin to "measure." To measure one channeled source against another amounts to "begging the question." We end up defining X in terms of Y and Y in terms of X.

If we're going to establish a standard, it should be identifiable with external, MATERIAL source verification since that is, in the end, the ONLY "insurance" we can have.

"A religion that contradicts science and science that contradicts religion must be equally false."

In other words, to find the standard, we must look for the merging of the two. It should also help us to understand better the patterns beyond physical focus. In other words, the teaching should be examined in terms of the Hermetic maxim: as above, so below.

One thing we need to look for is The uniform quality, consistency and integrity that reflects a single, underlying principle.

For example: the Seth Material introduced into channeling language the concept of probability. Prior to this, the idea was exclusively a phenomenon of physics occurring only at the Heisenberg-indeterminacy level, describing "position and velocity of electrons."

This concept, introduced by Heisenberg (around 1927) and applied by Seth to esoterica, enabled humanity to become free of its fixation upon rigid causal conditioning and deterministic hypotheses of action.

The Seth discussions of multidimensionality and the branching probable paths of consciousness were examples of the marriage of science and mysticism. The Seth material expressed, in metaphysical terms, the very same discoveries that were being made in science, (Wheeler's Many Worlds Theory came out in 1957) only its application was in the dynamics of consciousness.

In other words, the Seth Material was the NEXT STEP in terms of spiritual progress and development.

Of course, after Jane Roberts brought Seth to us, every other source in the world jumped on the "probability" and "multidimensional" bandwagon with endless variations and permutations of their respective versions of the ideas, most of them falling abysmally short of the quality, coherence and consistency of Seth.

One thing we can note about the Seth Material was the high level of skepticism of the channel herself. Jane Roberts was a one-woman hawk of vigilance in a way which most modern band-wagon channelers manifestly aren't. We are certain that Jane must be spinning in her grave to hear such things as "One doesn't need to know anything on a specific topic when the information isn't coming from oneself but from a higher source."

Basically, she believed NOTHING from her source. In fact, she wasn't even ASKED by her source to believe or DO anything.

Continuing to look for those sources that express a "meeting of science and spirit," we next find the Ra Material or The Law of One. Again, we note that there is a high consistency here between the information and the current understanding of the material world in terms of fundamental energies of polarity. In this great step forward, we learned that, just as the material world manifests from a careful balance of forces, so is this the case in the alleged "higher realms." In other words, contrary to the many sugary pronouncements that one must be "good" to ascend, Ra informs us that all is not necessarily "good" in the Realms of the Higher Dimensions.

And, again, we have the way in which the source was channeled. The Ra Material was conscientiously culled from the cooperative, carefully coordinated interaction of a minimum of three participating personalities, i.e., Don Elkins, Carla Rueckert, and James Allen McCarty.

And again, after Elkins, Rueckert and McCarty brought Ra to us, every other source in the world jumped on the "densities" and "STS vs. STO polarity" bandwagon with endless variations and permutations of their respective versions of the ideas, most of them falling abysmally short of the quality, coherence and consistency of Ra.

As a general rule, my position is that folks have to make their own choices about these things. Until they have been "burned," they cannot know that the stove is hot in a real way. For me to suggest that the stove is hot, that they might get burned, would be useless. They would still have no real concept nor would they learn the "clues" about hot stoves that would help them to identify future hot stoves. They would be in a position of reliance on an outside source to constantly have to tell them which stove is hot and which one is not. And that is not the point. The point is for everyone to learn about hot stoves for themselves, for their own future protection. And the only way to do that is to get burned at least ONCE!

And this is as true for the channels who are deceived by either their own illusions or their sources (an ever-growing multitude) and those who follow them.

In William Bramley's book: The Gods of Eden, it is noted that "War can be its own valuable commodity," and that "War can be an effective tool for maintaining social and political control over a large population."

It is in this sense that we must understand the confusion of channeled information in the present day. It is a MEANS OF CONTROL.

How can this be? you ask, when these sources are giving us such good information and it is very often the SAME information that YOU are giving. Consider the following:

"In the sixteenth century, Italy consisted of numerous independent principalities which were often at war with one another. When a prince conquered a neighboring city, he would sometimes breed internal conflicts among the vnquished citizens. This was an effective way to maintain political control over the people because the endless squabbling prevented the vanquished people from engaging in unified action against the conqueror. It did not greatly matter over what issues the people bickered so long as they valiantly struggled against one another and not against the conquering prince." [Bramley, 1989]

This is, of course, pure Machiavelli.

Okay, you say, let's stop squabbling and all work together.

But, there is something else about Machiavelli that is important: Machiavelli saw religion and its teachings of faith, hope, charity, love, humility and patience under suffering as factors that render men weak and cause them to care less about worldly and political things, and thus they will turn political power over to wicked men who are not influenced by such ideals.

There is a deep truth here that applies to us all at many levels. And, clearly, somebody realized this early on and our "standard religions" as well as many of the modern day channeled messages are the result of this drive to render us not only powerless, but blind and apathetic to real threats, and ever on the march against chimerical threats that have no basis in reality.

Another of Machiavelli's ideas is that a religion is good only if it supports the state or a "hierarchy" and contributes to hierarchical ends. By using religion, one can give "divine sanction" to instructions which people would otherwise have no reason to obey. Therefore, we can see that any form of "hierarchy" is rooted in control of others.

Still another teaching of Machiavelli is: The leader must APPEAR to be religious, even though he does not believe in nor practice religion.

Machiavelli writes:

"To see and hear [the Prince], he should seem to be all mercy, faith, integrity, humanity, and religion... for men in general judge more by the eyes than by the heads, for everyone can see but very few have to feel... Let a prince therefore aim at conquering and maintaining the state, and the means will always be judged honourable and praised by everyone, for the vulgar is always taken in by appearances." [The Prince]

Another precept of a successful domination of humanity is:

"Love is held by a chain of obligation which, men being selfish, is broken whenever it serves their purpose; but fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails." [The Prince]

Thus we see that "fear" or "guilt" will, in some sense, predominate, even if it is expressed subtly.

Power and authority can be most easily obtained where people obey because they believe that obedience is morally appropriate. Machiavelli taught that authority is preferable to coercion because coercion is a terribly inefficient method to compel obedience. It requires enormous resources to "hold a gun" against the heads of the masses. Because, in the end, raw power is inadequate in holding a whole population in line by the use of force.

Therefore, an astute prince would harness the power of emotions and manage the passions rather than guide men through reason. The prince must make use of the human passions of love, hate, fear, desire for glory and power, and even boredom.

Think about all of this for a moment.

What system is in place today that fits all of the above criteria for domination and control? Take your time. Think carefully and objectively. No rush here!

I have been working for many years, digging into studies of ancient man that few people - other than professional scholars - know exist, much less have the desire or patience to examine. Not being constrained by any "formal program" of study, I have been more or less free to include any and all material that strikes me as important. I have gone through literally thousands of books on archaeology, paleontology, sociology, psychology, history, language, religion, mythology, physics, chemistry, and on and on and on.

I have read volumes that are considered "accepted" and those that are "fringe." In selecting what I read, I have realized fully that, very often, it is the gifted amateur who is not obligated to write for his supper who comes up with the most innovative and insightful ideas. But, at the same time, I appreciate the rigor of directed studies and the constraints of academia. It is a delicate middle ground to tread, but provides marvelous balance.

Out of all of this study and work and thinking, there is a singular problem that emerges as being the turning point on which all of the ideas that presently dominate our world view revolve: Monotheism - the "Dominator mode" of the "One God," over and against all other "gods," who establishes a "covenant" with his people, whether they enter into this covenant by being circumcised or baptized, or just "born again in their hearts."

How did this come to be?

Bramley writes:

"Much of the Old Testament is devoted to describing the origins and early history of the Hebrew people. According the the Bible, the Hebrews descended from a clan which lived in the Sumerian city of Ur around 2000 to 1500 B.C. The clan was befriended and ruled by a personality named Jehovah. The Bible claims that Jehovah was God. ...Jehovah was clearly an important character [in the Bible]. Who was he? Was Jehovah God, as the Bible alleges? Was he a myth, as skeptics with secular orientaion would have us believe? Jehovah appears to have been neither.

"The name Jehovah comes from the Hebrew word 'Yahweh,' meaning 'he that is' or 'the self-evident.' This appellation conveys the idea that the Biblical Jehovah was a pure spiritual being; a true Supreme Being, if you will. But was he?

"Old Testament descriptions of Jehovah have provided a field day for UFO writers, and for good reason. Jehovah travelled through the sky in what appears to have been a noisy, smoking aircraft." [See: Genesis 19:16-19, 20:18; Exodus 13:21-22, 14:24, 40:34-38, and Numbers 19:1-23, for examples.]

"The ancient Hebrew eyewitnesses responsible for the descriptions were not able to get a closer look at Jehovah. The Bible points out that no one was permitted to approach Jehovah's mountaintop landing sites except Moses and a few select leaders. Jehovah had threatened to kill anyone else who tried.(Well, that's a "loving god" for you!) The early bible therefore contains only descriptions of Jehovah as eyewitnesses saw him from a distance. It was not until much later that one of the Bible's most famous prophets, Ezekiel, was able to get a closer look and describe Jehovah in greater detail. Ezekiel's description is probably the most often-quoted Biblical passage in UFO literature. [See Ezekiel 1:1-25]

"The first portion of Ezekiel's vision resembles earlier Biblical descriptions of Jehovah: a moving fiery object in the sky emitting smoke. As the object moved closer, Ezekiel was able to observe that the thing was made of metal. Out of the metal object emerged several human-like creatures, apparently wearing metal boots and ornamented helmets. their 'wings' appeared to be retractable engines which emitted a rumbling sound and helped the creatures to fly. Their heads were covered by glass or something transparent that reflected the sky above. They appeared to be in some sort of circular vehicle or a vehicle with wheels.

"We can safely conclude from the [passage in Ezekiel] that 'Jehovah' was not a Supreme Being. He appears to have been a succession of Custodial management teams operating over a time span of many human generations. To enforce human obedience, those teams used their aircraft to perpetrate the lie that they were 'God.'

"The Custodial teams known as 'Jehovah' helped the Brotherhood of the Snake embark on a program of conquest to spread the new 'one God' religion. Moses, the man chosen to command the Hebrew tribes on their exodus out of Egypt to the Promised Land, was a high-ranking member of the Brotherhood. One hint of this fact comes from the Bible itself in which we are told how Moses was raised as a child: 'And moses became learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds.' [Acts 7:20-22 quoted by Bramley]

"Egyptian historian and High Priest, Manetho (c. 300 B.C.), states that Moses had received much of his education in the Brotherhood under Akhenaton, the very pharaoh who pioneered monotheism." [Bramley, 1989]

The idea of monotheism being a limitation didn't make a huge impact on me at the time, but it was waiting in the back of my mind to leap out into awareness when, a couple of years later, I read the following written by Regina Schwartz, a principle investigator at the Park Ridge Center, and Director of the Chicago Institute of Religion, Ethics, and Violence, in her book The Curse of Cain:

"Many of us imagine that the secular world has freed us from the encumbrances of religion, the rule of one deity and the authority of his priesthood, but the myth of monotheism continues to foster our central notions of collective identity.

" As a cultural formation, monotheism is strikingly tenacious. Its tenet - one god establishes one people under God - has been translated from the sphere of the sacred to nationalism, and thence to other collective identities.

" Most historians of nationalism concede that the concentration of power in an omnipotent sovereign was far too useful to divest at the birth of modern nationalism, and so allegiance to a sovereign deity in order to forge a singular identity became, in secular terms, allegiance to a sovereign nation to forge a national identity. That issued in such ironies as the following rhetoric from one of the architects of (secular) German nationalism: 'He who does not love the fatherland which he can see, how can he love the heavenly Jerusalem which he does not see?'

"In other words, the injunction of Romans 13:1: 'Let every person be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God' - has been farther reaching than Paul could have ever imagined.

"In our nation's infancy, John Cotton advised John Winthrop of the Plymouth Colony that a 'distinction which is put between the Laws of God and the laws of men becomes a snare... surely there is no human law that tendeth to common good but the same is a law of God.' And this has endured. [...]

"Monotheism is a myth that grounds particular identity in universal transcendence. And monotheism is a myth that forges identity antithetically - agains the Other.

"Monotheism would make an ontological claim that only one god exists. Monolatry or henotheism would better describe the kind of exclusive allegiance to one deity (from a field of many) that we find in [the Bible]. [Schwartz, 1997]

As Machiavelli points out, collective identity is linked to exclusive worship.

But, what is the underlying principle, the abstract idea, the "form" from which monolatry is drawn? Ms. Schwartz writes:

"Why is claiming a distinctive collective identity important enough to spawn violence?

"I found an answer to this question in a principle of scarcity that pervades most thinking about identity. When everything is in short supply, it must all be competed for - land, prosperity, power, favor, even identity itself.

"In many biblical narratives, the one God is not imagined as infinitely giving, but strangely withholding. Everyone does not receive divine blessings, some are cursed - with dearth and with death - as though there were a cosmic shortage of prosperity. [...]

"Scarcity is encoded in the Bible as a principle of Oneness (one land, one people, one nation) and in monotheistic thinking (one Deity), it becomes a demand of exclusive allegiance that threatens with the violence of exclusion.

"[The origins of violence] are located in identity formation, arguing that imagining identity as an act of distinguishing and separating from others, of boundary making and line drawing, is the most frequent and fundamental act of violence we commit.

"Violence is not only what we do to the Other; it is prior to that. Violence is the very construction of the Other.

"This process is tricky: on the one hand, the activity of people defining themselves as a group is negative, they ARE by virtue of who they are not.

"On the other hand, those outsiders - so needed for the very self-definition of those inside the group - are also regarded as a threat to them. Ironically, the Outsider is believed to threaten the boundaries that are drawn to exclude him, the boundaries his very existence maintains.

"Outside by definition, but always threatening to get in, the Other is poised in a delicate balance that is always off balance because fear and aggression continually weight the scales.

"Identity forged against the Other inspires perpetual policing of its fragile borders. History has shown that in the name of our identities - religious, ethnic, national, racial, gender - we commit and suffer the most horrific atrocities. ...Acts of identity formation are themselves acts of violence." [Schwartz, 1997]

What is it that generally makes others "other?"

Their worship of "foreign gods." Their allegiance. Their free will to do or be something else!

What was it that this Yahweh/Jehovah wanted to get clear from the very beginning with his "chosen people?"

That exclusion of worship of any other god at all was the fundamental and primary basis on which the covenant was based. Curiously, this was expressed in terms that made it equivalent to sexual infidelity!

"I am a jealous God, you will have none but me!"

Of course, this was immediately translated to the ownership of women and their demotion to mere chattel, but that is another issue we will deal at another time.

What is important here is that the Others against whom Israel's identity is forged are abhorrent in the extreme, and vast numbers of them are obliterated, while in the "New Covenant" of Christianity, they are offered the choice of being obliterated or converted!

"Kill them All, God will know his own."

Now, what is the foundation of the "covenant" that Yahweh/Jehovah made with Israel?

Well, the rules of a covenant, including the one between the Jews and their god, are pretty explicit in ancient Mideastern archaeology. Foremost among these rules is the demand for the vassal's complete loyalty to the overlord. Then, there are the "blessings and curses." The overlord promises blessings in return for the vassal's loyalty, and threatens complete annihilation should the vassal fail to fulfill the stipulations.

Again, this doesn't sound like a Free Will choice; it sounds like an ultimatum!

It also sounds like pure Machiavelli.

"Historically, such treaties were made with a vanquished people by their conqueror. The treaty gave the conqueror the option of letting the vanquished people live, and in turn, they could choose to be subjected to the stipulations of the treaty instead of having obliteration chosen for them. [...]

"The covenant at Sinai is given amid a huge display of such terrible power, with the full fanfare of fire, brimstone, thunder, and lightning... 'Moses spoke and God answered him with peals of thunder' (Ex 19:19)

'I am Oz, the great and powerful. Who are you?' 'I am Dorothy, the meek and weak,' begins the parody of the Sinai theophany that exposes God as an inept hot-air ballonist from Kansas. Toto pulls back the curtain of the holy of holies, and we see the all too human wizard from Kansas generating his own mysterium tremendum at a microphone.

"We are, then, the heirs of a long tradition in which monotheism is regarded as the great achievement of 'Judeo-Christian' thought...

"Monotheism is entangled with particularism, with the assertion that this God and not any other gods must be worshipped, a particularism so virulent that it reduces all other gods to idols and so violent that it reduces all other worshippers to abominations...

"The danger of a universal monotheism is asserting that its truth is THE Truth, its system of knowledge is THE System of knowledge, its ethics THE Ethics - not because, as in particularism, any other option must be rejected, but because there is simply no other option...

"[This] presupposes a kind of metaphysical scarcity. They imagine hoarding belief, hoarding allegiance, and even hoarding identity. Because there is a finite supply - of whatever - it must be either contained in the whole or protected as a part. Whether small or large, limited supplies suggest boundaries.

"In this remarkable myth, the division of people into peoples is not in their interests, but in the interest of maintaining the power of a tyrannical, threatened deity jealously guarding his domain." [Schwartz, 1997]

Okay. We can definitely see Machiavelli at work here. Using linear time as his chief weapon, I might add.

And, it is pretty clear from the analysis of Ms. Schwartz, that we DO need to take a serious look at this Monolatry business, but this is really difficult because most of the people of Western culture have been so brainwashed with the Judaeo-Christian idealogy, that breaking free of it is an almost impossible task!

But, just suppose, for a moment, that there is an "Ultimate Agenda" behind all of this Machiavellian manipulation down through the Millennia. What could it possibly be?


A:. Here is something for you to digest: Why is it that your scientists have overlooked the obvious when they insist that alien beings cannot travel to earth from a distant system???

Q: And what is this obvious thing?

A: Even if speed of light travel, or "faster," were not possible, and it is, of course, there is no reason why an alien race could not construct a space "ark," living for many generations on it. They could travel great distances through time and space, looking for a suitable world for conquest. Upon finding such, they could then install this ark in a distant orbit, build bases upon various solid planes in that solar system, and proceed to patiently manipulate the chosen civilizations to develop a suitable technological infrastructure. And then, after the instituting of a long, slow, and grand mind programming project, simply step in and take it over once the situation was suitable.

Q: Is this, in fact, what has happened, or is happening?

A: It could well be, and maybe now it is the time for you to learn about the details.

Q: Well, would such a race be 3rd or 4th density in orientation?

A: Why not elements of both?

Q: What is the most likely place that such a race would have originated from?

A: Oh, maybe Orion, for example?

Q: Okay. If such a race did, in fact, travel to this location in space/time, how many generations have come and gone on their space ark during this period of travel, assuming, of course, that such a thing has happened?

A: Maybe 12.

Q: Okay, that implies that they have rather extended life spans...

A: Yes...

Q: Assuming this to be the case, what are their lifespans?

A: 2,000 of your years. When in space, that is...

Q: And what is the span when on terra firma?

A: 800 years.

Q: Well, has it not occurred to them that staying in space might not be better?

A: No. Planets are much more "comfortable."

Q: Okay... imagining that such a group has traveled here...

A: We told you of upcoming conflicts... Maybe we meant the same as your Bible, and other references. Speak of... The "final" battle between "good and evil..." Sounds a bit cosmic, when you think of it, does it not?

Q: Does this mean that there is more than one group that has traveled here in their space arks?

A: Could well be another approaching, as well as "reinforcements" for either/or, as well as non-involved, but interested observers of various types who appreciate history from the sidelines.

Q: Okay, what racial types are we talking about relating to these hypothetical aliens?

A: Three basic constructs. Nordic, Reptilian, and Grays. Many variations of type 3, and 3 variations of type 1 and 2.

Q: Well, what racial types are the 'good guys?'

A: Nordics, in affiliation with 6th density "guides."

Q: And that's the only good guys?

A: That's all you need.

Q: Wonderful! So, if it is a Grey or Lizzie, you know they aren't the nice guys. But, if it is tall and blond, you need to ask questions!

A: All is subjective when it comes to nice and not nice. Some on 2nd density would think of you as "not nice," to say the least!!!

Q: Well, we better get moving! We don't have time to mess around!

A: You will proceed as needed, you cannot force these events or alter the Grand Destiny.

Q: I do NOT like the sound of that! I want to go home!

A: The alternative is less appetising.

Q: Sure! I don't want to be lunch!

A: Reincarnation on a 3rd density earth as a "cave person" amidst rubble and a glowing red sky, as the perpetual cold wind whistles...

Q: Why is the sky glowing red?

A: Contemplate.

Q: Of course! Comet dust! Sure, everybody knows THAT!

Here we have ended with an End of the World scenario too! Or is it? What's the story here? Can this be real? Can ANY of it be real, and how to tell the lies from the truth? Ark provided the answer:

Real research is ALWAYS necessary. How else can we know we are not being disinformed?

You must never RELY on what the entities tell you. You always have to check and keep critical! Unless you WANT to live in an illusion.

Now, what pulls all of this together - Jehovah/Yahweh and the Guardian Alliance, and a host of other channeled sources that decry science and research and checking sources?

Just suppose these 4th density aliens do, in fact, exist. Then, let's suppose that they do, in fact, have the ability to manipulate space/time? In our introduction, Ark proposes the following:

"Suppose our civilization were to advance to the point where everyone can communicate with themselves in the past; they have a computer with a special program and peripheral device that does this. It becomes the latest fad: everyone is communicating with themselves in the past to warn of dangers or upcoming calamities or bad choices, or to give lottery numbers or winning horses. But, what is seen as a "bad choice" or "calamity" for one, could be seen to be a "good event" or "benefit" to someone else!

"So, the next step would be that "hackers" would begin to break into the systems and send false communications into the past to deliberately create bad choices and calamities for some in order to produce benefits for themselves or others.

"Then, the first individual would see that false information has been sent and would go into their system and go back even earlier to warn themselves that false information was going to be sent back by an "imposter" and how to tell that it was false.

"Then the hacker would see this, and go back in time to an even earlier moment and give false information that someone was going to send false information (that was really true) that false information (that was really false) was going to be sent, thereby confusing the issue.

"This process could go on endlessly with constant and repeated communications into the past, one contradicting the other, one signal cancelling out the other, with the result that it would be exactly the same as if there were NO communication into the past!

"There is, also, the very interesting possiblity that the above scenario IS exactly what is taking place in our world.

"It is also possible that, whenever a civilization comes to the point that it can manipulate the past and thereby change the present, it would most probably destroy itself, and probably its "branch" of the universe, unless there comes a cataclysmic event before this happens which would act as a kind of "control system" or way of reducing the technological possibilities to zero again, thus obviating the potentials of universal chaos. In this way, cataclysmic events could be a sort of preventive or pre-emptive strike against such manipulations, and may, in fact, be the result of engineered actions of benevolent selves in the future who see the dangers of communicating with ourselves in the past!

"So, the probability is this: if there IS communication from the future, it MAY, in fact, be constantly received by each and every one of us as an ongoing barrage of lies mixed with truth. Thus, the problem becomes more than just "tuning" to a narrow band signal, because clearly the hackers can imitate the signal and have become VERY clever in delivering their lies disguised as "warm and fuzzy" truths; the problem becomes an altogether different proposition of believing nothing and ACTING as though EVERYTHING is misleading, gathering data from all quarters, and then making the most INFORMED choice possible with full realization that it may be in error!

"What is important here is this: we can't prevent hackers from hacking. But, what we can do is make every effort to prevent them from hacking into OUR systems by erecting barriers of knowledge and awareness. Hackers are always looking for an "easy hack," (except for those few who really LIKE a challenge), and will back away as you make your system more and more secure.

"How do you make your computer (or yourself) immune to hackers?

"It is never 100% secure, but if all preventative measures are taken, and we constantly observe for the signs of hackers - system disruption, loss of "memory," or energy, damaged files, things that don't "fit," that are "out of context," - we can reduce the possiblity of hacking. But, we can only do this if we are aware of hackers; if we know that they will attempt to break into our system in the guise of a "normal" file, or even an operating system or program that promises to "organize" our data for greater efficiency and ease of function or "user friendliness," while at the same time, acting as a massive drain on our energy and resources - RAM and hard drive.

"And of course, there are viruses. Whenever we insert a floppy disk or CD into our computer, we risk infection by virii which can, slowly or rapidly, distort or destroy all the information on our computer, prevent any peripheral functions, and even "wipe" the hard disk of all files to replace them with endless replications of the viral nonsense.

"The human analogy to this is the many religions and "belief" systems that have been "programmed" into our cultures, and our very lives, via endless "Prophet/God" programs, replacing, bit by bit, our own thinking with the "dogma and doctrines of the faith." [Jadczyk, 1999]

The specific thing I want to highlight in the above scenario is the idea of "religion," specifically Monotheism/Monolatry, being a program that is infects our "system" with a particularly difficult-to-discern virus. In our speculative scenario, just imagine someone with space/time manipulation capabilities sending a projection into the past - let's call this projection Jehovah - and inspiring another guy - let's call him Moses - to insitute a belief system that has far reaching consequences into the future that branches off from that "decision" on the World Tree. Even though it was a product of manipulation, because it affects everything forward from that point, like a domino effect, it will be perceived as real and valid by all those who have taken this option of belief, because, in fact, it will be real.

But, there we have an interesting way out: the option of choice. Does it then follow that, if we decline to believe it, if we choose, individually and collectively, to reject the control mechanism, that we can change the future from this point on?

Of course, if we decline to believe it, then we may stimulate our "time travelling Machiavelli" to go back and diddle with the past again... and again... and again. Zoroaster, Jesus, Mohammed, and on and on - an endless shell game of divinities; now you see it, now you don't. All leading to what?

Well, it's an interesting problem. How in the world can we hope to win such a game, played by GameMasters who are clearly so much more powerful than we are?

Or are they?


Bramley, William, The Gods of Eden; New York, Avon Books; 1989

Gardner, Laurence, Bloodline of the Holy Grail; Rockport, Element, 1996

Machiavelli, The Prince

Schwartz, Regina, The Curse of Cain: The Violent Legacy of Monotheism; Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1997


You are visitor number .