"Signs of the Times" has received the following two emails this week. They raise similar issues, pointing out what the writers see as a difference between the writings on the Cassiopaea site and the tone of the Signs of the Times pages. For a longer look at the issue of "politics", please see the article "Splitting Realities".

GZ writes:

I have problems with your news coverage. I agree with your general point of view that a serious escalation of "control" is taking place right before our eyes and all around us. I disagree with the pure "black vs. white" depictions and especially the easy epithets such as "Bush Reich". The problems we face are as serious as you say, but in many cases they are subtler and more difficult to tease out of the gray areas. I don't think you will get very far with the pre-formed conclusion to every story: America = bad; Israel=bad; France/Russia/whoever=good. This, more than anything else, speaks of an underdeveloped ability to think through or discern.

This puzzles me because you and Laura have amply demonstrated these capabilities in your other work. So I have to wonder what is going on at "Cassiopaea". Have you assembled a team of little pit bulls or what?

Don't misunderstand; I agree that something very serious is materializing out of the 4-D ether. I just think it needs to be met with the same level of sophistication with which it is being applied.

So, summing up, I am worried about a certain schizoid behavior of "Cassiopaea". For me, it requires almost a schizoid mentality to read the pages. On the one hand, it's like sipping ambrosia. On the other, I have to be ready to sustain having an ill-tempered little kid slapping me around.

I wouldn't want you to intepret my remarks as going for "sweetness and light" vs. hard truth. There is not much sweetness and light in the ambrosia part. But there is great insight and wisdom, in my opinion.

Again, these remarks are offered in friendship. I want you to succeed in your aims. And I hope I don't offend you and cause you to "go away" (i.e., go silent). That happens all too often when I speak frankly; it's not what I want and I'm getting tired of it. :-) It's fine to just tell me you disagree and we'll drop the matter.

Best wishes
G.

M-L K writes:

Dear Laura and Ark,

Your material is fascinating!

HOWEVER, "Signs of the Times" doesn't quite seem in synch with the rest of your pages.

Unfortunately, "Signs of the Times"... besides slamming President Bush and his Administration, quotes EIR (Lyndon LaRouche) rather liberally...

The above urls will take you to Mr. Lyndon LaRouche, a Man of many masks and a Felon with unquenchable Presidential aspirations.

BTW Lyndon is also a favorite of Mr. Rense, and I've noticed that your "Signs of the Times" could be a mirror for Jeff's own site.
Sincerely,

M-L K

(AKA "Illiterate- Bushite" AKA Recipient of the US Senatorial Medal of Freedom, etc.etc)

Ah, yes. On the one hand, info on the site that people can agree with. On the other, nasty name-calling. Ambrosia versus the bitter truth.

Let us be clear here. We are under no illusions that the Russians or the French are the "good" guys as Mr. GZ is worried. However, at the moment, Mr. Bush and his group are holding themselves above international law and are quite explicit that those who do not recognise the US imperium are going to pay. Much evidence suggests the complicity of members of the Bush administration in the attack on the WTC, and even if this were not the case, they have certainly used this tragedy to justify the implementation of draconian measures that have nothing to do with "fighting terrorism". Why exactly they are doing this is the real subject of "Signs", not the political infighting between governments as they each use their power to jockey for position.

But within the world as we live it, we do believe that it is better to live under a mutually agreed upon rule of law than to impose one's will upon others. As the entire world rose to denounce the preparations for war in Iraq by the Bush administration, and as countries such as France and Russia used their power to attempt to avoid such a war, we encouraged this movement against Bush's plans. Not because we were under any illusions about the governments of these countries, but because the positions they were taking reflected our own stance. To accept this war was to offer our free will over to the centre of STS forces in the world today. We refuse to do this. We stand for Truth against Lies, not with France and Russia against the US.

It is true that at times the language we use gets colourful as an expression of our reaction to the outrageous character of the events on this planet. Bush, the little, tin-pot dictator strutting his "right stuff" and puffing out his chest John Wayne style in military garb, ran scurrying behind the skirts of his Daddy to avoid military service during the war in Vietnam. He did this not out of moral outrage that his country was killing tens of thousands of people or that the war in Vietnam was being carried out for American imperial interests, but because he could get an easy way out and avoid any possibility of putting his life in danger. But getting into the reserves wasn't enough. He was AWOL for the second year of his service. That he now play G.I. Joe for the evening news is an insult to all those who didn't have an out, who put their lives on the line. His actions deserve ridicule because this ridicule punctures the mask, the illusion Bush and his image-makers are working to construct.

Furthermore, Bush was not elected but was selected for the Presidency by a Supreme Court of right-wing, fundamentalist Christian justices, some of whom were very close to Bush's campaign. This is why we use the term "Bush Reich". The parallels to Nazi Germany and Hitler are alarming. These are the "Signs of the Times". If you do not see it yet, you are missing a fundamental point of the "teachings" on this site. If you think you can separate the writings on the site from "Signs", then you do not understand the writings on the site.

Unfortunately, while the outrageous, horrifying, and rather surrealist nature of the world seems evident to us, it is obvious that this is not the case for the majority of people with whom we share the planet, especially citizens of the United States. Many prefer the "ambrosia" of "spiritual" work, up to and including recognition that something is amiss on the Big Blue Marble, but they remain unwilling to receive the shocks of the true character of this "something amiss", of the real causes and the vehicle of its implementation. We recognize that having been raised to believe that their country was the motor force for good, for progress, for democracy, for the liberation of the world's peoples and their economies, it is difficult for Americans to be confronted with the fact that all this is a lie, and that, to the contrary, the United States of America is the bastion of reaction, oppression, and, dare we say it, "Evil" in the world. It is too much of a shock. They would rather blame someone else than look in the mirror. Admitting to one's own responsibility is a giant step, and it might even be a form of death.

It seems to be true that many people understand at perhaps an unconsicous level that if they were to begin to really objectively look and See, and then accept the reality of this world for what it is, their existing positions in it would become untenable, some very serious and fundamental changes would have to be made, and some rather well-fed sacred cows put out to pasture. For many, this unconscious awareness provokes an equally unconscious "rejection" of anyone or anything that presents this objective view of the world in which they live. We have all been led to believe that this world is a nice flower and not a spade, and of course anyone who tries to "call a spade a spade" is unwelcome, since flowers are nicer than spades, right?

How much more comfortable for an American to believe the "enemy" is the New World Order and the United Nations, or Saddam Hussein or Yassar Arafat.

Mr. GZ above suggests there is more to be teased out of the "gray areas" than our black and white depictions are able to do. Unfortunately, he did not include any examples of this in his message. New data is always welcome, and if Mr. GZ can help us come to a better understanding of the world, we would be happy to share this with our readers, just so long as focusing on the "gray areas" does not amount to "sitting on the fence", allowing him to sidestep taking the action necessitated by his discoveries.

As for the comments from the writer of the second message, it may well be that Mr. Larouche is a felon. That would put him on a par with Elliot Abrams who works in the White House…except that Abrams got an official pardon from Shrub's Daddy. Abrams was convicted of witholding information on the Iran-Contra scandal from Congress. He was also active in arming the Contra's and other "anti-communist" terrorists in Latin America, forces that were responsible for the massacre of thousands of peasants in Salavador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua. We doubt Mr. Larouche's crimes are of this order...although we could be wrong.

However, it isn't likely that anyone here will be voting for Larouche in the next election. Nevertheless, discrediting anything published under either his by-line or that of the EIR a priori is to fall into an error of dismissing the message because of a dislike of the messenger. Let's look at this idea. Looking at its opposite, we do not accept the information that we receive from the Cassiopaeans because it comes from the Cassiopaeans. We use it as the jumping off point for our own research, seeking to learn from it. This learning may happen in any number of ways: something can be verified or not, but we may discover that the real lesson in a piece of information is a greater understanding of the assumption in our question, that is, in better understanding a blindness within ourselves.

In the same way, we do not discredit information because it comes from a source with a different point of view on the world than our own. Given our outlook, that would severely limit what we read or listened to! We have to take each piece of information as it comes, judge it on its own terms, comparing it to the the available data. Certainly, the provenance will be a factor. Information coming out of the White House will be looked at differently than something from the C's. But nothing is rejected or accepted automatically.

This requires discernment. It requires a continual reading of everything in the environment and a refusal to accept anything at face value. But we can understand how such an attitude is difficult for someone who wishes to support the Bush administration where the consistent torrent of lies demands that everything be taken at face value. Jeff Rense also has the "nasty habit" of publishing articles that report that the emperor has no clothes. Thankfully there are still people in the US who are willing to do so.

One of the great lies promugated is that "spiritual work" is somehow not "of" this world. True, as one develops the ability to see the machinations within which we are caught, one develops a great desire to no longer be entwined within their snares. But the work of the spirit, of growing the soul, is the work of raising the veil on the Truth of this realm. This Truth is shocking. What could be a greater shock for a patriotic American than to realize that his country is the neighborhood bully on the block. That the USA is moreover the vessel by which the aims of 4D STS to control this world after the coming catastrophe are being realised, or, to put it in Biblical terms that Mr. Bush himself would undertstand, that the USA is the anti-Christ, that has to be a shocker. Once this "Good News" is delivered, one can either ignore it, refuse the shock and remain asleep, or one can begin the long process of waking up and searching out all of the shocks necessary to ensure it happens. So while the Bush Reich is the tool used by 4D STS to implement their plans, it is also the means of awakening for those who choose to awaken.

To think that one can be in agreement with the writings on the Cassiopaea site while at the same time supporting the Bush administration is to understand nothing of the writings...unless one has made the conscious choice to walk the path of annihilation.

Signs of the Times is not "out of synch" with the rest of the site, it is an example of the art of objective seeing that is required in order to understand the deeper meaning of the teachings of the Cassiopaea website. For the reader it can provoke the first shock of awakening on the path to understanding the true meaning of seeing.

Check out the Signs of the Times Archives

Send your comments and article suggestions to us.

You are visitor number .