Are 50% of Alien Abductees Homosexual?

[Keit]

However this Middle East destruction would not solve the problem of the non-semitic carrier of the bloodline. So here's a paranoid hypothesis :

There are couple of problems with this hypothesis:

Meanwhile a long term conditioning program would be conducted in order to devilize homosexuality (through churches, schools, main stream medias,...)

Thus those threatening people, having become homosexual, would generally be inhibited (feeling of guilt, inferiority,...), they could be monitored (implant ed during abduction) and in addition they would be harassed by the population all along their life. So their "rebelling" capacity would be dramatically reduced.

But what about "over-rebellion" that we see lately with "pride parades" and such? Sometimes it looks too agressive. Today it is actually accepted to be "rebellious" homosexual and share with the rest of the world your bed preferences.
But maybe you mean that their rebellious tendencies will be redirected toward this over occupation with body or self destruction (in case of feelings of inferiority) instead of using this tendency on soul development?

Furthermore they would be unable to bring their bloodline onto the next generation through a kind of psychological sterilization : homoexuality.

Why would they have any problem? What about fertilization?

p.s Just realised that I was thinking only about females. You right - it reduces their chances to spread the genes while they still have an option of adoption.

 

[anart]

But what about "over-rebellion" that we see lately with "pride parades" and such? Sometimes it looks too agressive.

Fwiw, the 'pride parade' phenomenon seems to be much more a mechanical reaction to the discrimination/abuse/bigotry that homosexuals have to live with every single day than any sort of rebellion. Not sure what you mean by 'too aggressive', but I have never seen a pride parade anywhere in the world turn violent - not on the homosexual's part at least. Perhaps you mean it was too aggressive for your own subjective sensibilities - that it makes you personally uncomfortable in some way?

Today it is actually accepted to be "rebellious" homosexual and share with the rest of the world your bed preferences.

I think this, again, is merely a mechanical reaction to being judged for one's 'bed preferences'. In a very real way, homosexuals are not allowed to keep their bed preferences to themselves in this society. Everyone is assumed to be straight, to have certain specific 'bed preferences' - if one is gay, they are labeled and classified as such and it affects all aspects of their life - through the internalization of society's negative classification. That is why so many homosexuals hide their sexuality.

I think this may be very similar to how certain Jews identify themselves solely by their faith - especially those that do so as a mechanical reaction to the discrimination they may have experienced for being Jewish (or that they may have been indoctrinated with by their parents/clergy) - the same goes for any group of people who are abused by a larger, more powerful group of people.

This tends to cause an 'over identification' much like Axel described that leads to all sorts of programs and buffers that can prevent one from 'waking up'. The fact of the matter is that it is ALL over identification - and is quite likely stimulated for the very specific reason of keeping people in their own internalized paddocks of identity. I could see how it might work very well as a strategy to undermine the potential of a certain group of people.

 

[Keit]

But what about "over-rebellion" that we see lately with "pride parades" and such? Sometimes it looks too agressive.

Fwiw, the 'pride parade' phenomenon seems to be much more a mechanical reaction to the discrimination/abuse/bigotry that homosexuals have to live with every single day than any sort of rebellion. Not sure what you mean by 'too aggressive', but I have never seen a pride parade anywhere in the world turn violent - not on the homosexual's part at least. Perhaps you mean it was too aggressive for your own subjective sensibilities - that it makes you personally uncomfortable in some way?

I guess in a way it does. At first I thought to bring an example that for people who just wish to live their life as they like and be accepted, they act in way too provocative (sexually expressive way) during those parades. As if they do make a big/primary issue from their bed preferences and want others to see it. But then I remembered Love Parade and how I didn't like it either. http://www.cassiopedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Love_Parade
So I guess I am uncomfortable with such behavior be it Pride or Love Parade.

I think this may be very similar to how certain Jews identify themselves solely by their faith - especially those that do so as a mechanical reaction to the discrimination they may have experienced for being Jewish (or that they may have been indoctrinated with by their parents/clergy) - the same goes for any group of people who are abused by a larger, more powerful group of people.

Yes, I agree. Lot of Israelis are over protective of the fact that they are Jews. And this constant and baseless fear of discrimination serve as a perfect excuse for their own mistakes. For example, if Israeli basketball team looses, fans say that judge was antisemitic.

This tends to cause an 'over identification' much like Axel described that leads to all sorts of programs and buffers that can prevent one from 'waking up'. The fact of the matter is that it is ALL over identification - and is quite likely stimulated for the very specific reason of keeping people in their own internalized paddocks of identity. I could see how it might work very well as a strategy to undermine the potential of a certain group of people.

Yes, I understand it. That's why I asked if when he talked about "rebelling capacity" he meant also that they are manipulated to redirect this rebelling capacity toward over occupation / identification with body.

 

[allen]

Fwiw, the 'pride parade' phenomenon seems to be much more a mechanical reaction to the discrimination/abuse/bigotry that homosexuals have to live with every single day than any sort of rebellion. Not sure what you mean by 'too aggressive', but I have never seen a pride parade anywhere in the world turn violent - not on the homosexual's part at least. Perhaps you mean it was too aggressive for your own subjective sensibilities - that it makes you personally uncomfortable in some way?

Which, of course, doesn't meant that it isn't a set up. Mechanical reactions can be predicted. It could very well be that all of the discrimination/abuse/bigotry that homosexuals have experienced was pushed in order to get them to the point of having "pride" parades, etc. You've got to admit that if it weren't a reaction against discrimination, gay pride parades would seem like a really strange idea.

We tend to think that bigotry against homosexuals is just something that happens in this country. Yet, as far as I know, it was no secret in the old west (speaking of cowboy days in the US) that the guys who wore red bandannas around their neck were gay. There have been a few books (aside from Brokeback Mountain) about gay relationships from that era. Also, I can't imagine that people in the 50's watching Liberace play piano or Gorgeous George wrestle really thought they were straight. Both of the them fell well outside the accepted norm of sexual roles. Yet, both were also accepted.

I think it is an important question to ask where the bigotry came from and what its purpose was. If gay pride parades are a purely mechanical reaction to that bigotry, what was the purpose behind the cause of the mechanical reaction?

 

[Z...]

diverging a little from homosexual abductees thread:

In chapter 6, Randle et al offer evidence they say refutes the “alien abduction” hypothesis: the similarities with fairy abduction, medieval incubi and succubae, demon contact, etc. As an explanation for the medieval phenomena, Randle suggests that the original accounts were the result of repressed sexual feelings of nuns and monks who, for example, blamed nocturnal emissions on semen-extracting demons. “[F]or the next three hundred years, thousands of men and women would be tortured and executed for reminding the church of sexual pleasure” (p. 109). In this way, a mundane psychological explanation (the sexual fantasies and rationalizations of repressed clergy members) starts the spread of tales of night-time sexual violations on behalf of imps and demons.

Well to anyone with at least few firing neurons this should be evidence that we are dealing with phenomena as old as human kind, but it is quite obvious Randle never did his homework properly, on the other hand dr. Karla Turner did, these quotes are taken from the end of her text Abductions in the Gingerbread House (can be found here http__www_reptilianagenda.com/research/r100799a.shtml):

A large part of the available UFO literature is closely linked with mysticism and the metaphysical. It deals with subjects like mental telepathy, automatic writing and invisible entities as well as phenomena like poltergeist [ghost] manifestation and 'possession.' Many of the UFO reports now being published in the popular press recount alleged incidents that are strikingly similar to demonic possession and psychic phenomena."
-Lynn E. Catoe, UFOs and Related Subjects: USGPO, 1969; prepared under AFOSR Project Order 67-0002 and 68-0003

"UFO behaviour is more akin to magic than to physics as we know it... the modern UFOnauts and the demons of past days are probably identical."
-Dr. Pierre Guerin, FSR Vol. 25, No. 1, p. 13-14

"The UFO manifestations seem to be, by and large, merely minor variations of the age-old demonological phenomenon..."
-John A. Keel, UFOs: Operation Trojan Horse, p. 299

"The 'medical examination' to which abductees are said to be subjected, often accompanied by sadistic sexual manipulation, is reminiscient of the medieval tales of encounters with demons. It makes no sense in a sophisticated or technical framework: any intelligent being equipped with the scientific marvels that UFOs possess would be in a position to achieve any of these alleged scientific objectives in a shorter time and with fewer risks."
-Dr. Jacques Vallee, Confrontations, p. 13

"The symbolic display seen by the abductees is identical to the type of initiation ritual or astral voyage that is imbedded in the [occult] traditions of every culture...the structure of abduction stories is identical to that of occult initiation rituals...the UFO beings of today belong to the same class of manifestation as the [occult] entities that were described in centuries past."
-Dr. Jacques Vallee citing the extensive research of Bertrand Meheust [Science-Fiction et Soucoupes Volantes (Paris, 1978); Soucoupes Volantes et Folklore (Paris, 1985)], in Confrontations, p. 146, 159-161

"[The occultist] is brought into intelligent communication with the spirits of the air, and can receive any knowledge which they possess, or any false impression they choose to impart...the demons seem permitted to do various wonders at their request."
-G.H. Pember, Earth's Earliest Ages and Their Connection with Modern Spiritualism and Theosophy (1876), p. 254

 

[Hildegarda]

A little more about sexuality:

Western culture tends to rigidly define one's sexuality, and views it as an IDENTITY rather than BEHAVIOR. This is a relatively recent phenomenon, stemming from a political discourse of the 18th and 19th century, according to Michel Foucault's 'History of Sexuality'.

Throughout the earlier history of humanity, homosexual behavior was viewed as more of an act and not an orientation, and often a transient
preference in one's life.

It is still so in many countries, notably in the Middle east. Even the mainstream religious traditions don't necessarily contradict that: the Koran's verses which are considered to be dealing with homosexuality are rather ambiguous and may refer just as well to sexual relationship between man and woman outside of marriage -- it is, in the end, the matter of interpretation.

There was a great article about this topic in the May issue of the Atlantic Monthly: 'The Kingdom in the closet' (//http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200705/gay-saudi-arabia; you need a subscription for access, unfortunately I only have a paper version). It goes to say that -- a paradox, really -- quite a few homosexual westerners find the 'don't ask - don't tell' life policy in Saudi Arabia provides for a more comfortable personal life than exists in their home countries. Sure, the Saudis feel tremendous guilt for their 'sins', but somehow without identification issues it doesn't carry as high of a psychological cost as one would expect. "A closet doesn't feel so lonely when so many others, gay and straight, are in it, too," -- the writer notes only half tongue-in-cheek.

I am not suggesting that one way is better than the other, just that there are many ways to view one's sexuality that are coexisting even now as we speak.

 

[Laura]

But what about "over-rebellion" that we see lately with "pride parades" and such? Sometimes it looks too agressive.

Fwiw, the 'pride parade' phenomenon seems to be much more a mechanical reaction to the discrimination/abuse/bigotry that homosexuals have to live with every single day than any sort of rebellion. Not sure what you mean by 'too aggressive', but I have never seen a pride parade anywhere in the world turn violent - not on the homosexual's part at least. Perhaps you mean it was too aggressive for your own subjective sensibilities - that it makes you personally uncomfortable in some way?

True. I think that most "well socialized" (slightly sarcastic) people in Western society are uncomfortable with blatant sexuality of any kind.

Today it is actually accepted to be "rebellious" homosexual and share with the rest of the world your bed preferences.

I think this, again, is merely a mechanical reaction to being judged for one's 'bed preferences'. In a very real way, homosexuals are not allowed to keep their bed preferences to themselves in this society.

Yes. No matter how you slice it, if a person "acts" at all effeminate (if a man) or masculine (if a women), this causes an attack reaction in the "herd" which seems to be designed to "flush out" the "queers" and force them to admit their "perversion" so that the herd can then justify their further abuse.

Everyone is assumed to be straight, to have certain specific 'bed preferences' - if one is gay, they are labeled and classified as such and it affects all aspects of their life - through the internalization of society's negative classification. That is why so many homosexuals hide their sexuality.

Yeah, true. Even though they are "prudish" about sex in general, Western culture is still driven by sex. You see it in advertisements, movies, clothing, etc. Everywhere you look, men are trying to be "hunky" to attract women and women are trying to be alluring to attract men. So, like I said, even with the parallel hypocritical prudishness (esp. U.S. culture), there is this blatant sexuality thing going on. So, homosexuals, in such an environment, must "hide" their preferences. They are not "allowed" to attract or allure their partners in a more or less socially accepted way as "straights" do.

The problem is, however, why is this even normal for straights? Why is "partnership" based on sex and not on a person's inner attributes?

I think this may be very similar to how certain Jews identify themselves solely by their faith - especially those that do so as a mechanical reaction to the discrimination they may have experienced for being Jewish (or that they may have been indoctrinated with by their parents/clergy) - the same goes for any group of people who are abused by a larger, more powerful group of people.

This tends to cause an 'over identification' much like Axel described that leads to all sorts of programs and buffers that can prevent one from 'waking up'. The fact of the matter is that it is ALL over identification - and is quite likely stimulated for the very specific reason of keeping people in their own internalized paddocks of identity. I could see how it might work very well as a strategy to undermine the potential of a certain group of people.

Yup. And this over-identification induces the "in your face sexual display" that really makes the hypocritical straights go nuts. It's like the "in your face" accusations of anti-Semitism. In the end, the result is that it induces anti-gay feelings in people who ordinarily would not have them as a "prudish" reaction to overt sexuality.

I think that part of the problem can be understood via Ponerology. There is a passage that gives a certain background to the problem:

In order to understand humanity, however, we must gain a primary understanding of mankind’s instinctive substratum and appreciate its salient role in the life of individuals and societies. This role easily escapes our notice, since our human species’ instinctive responses seem so self-evident and are so much taken for granted that it arouses insufficient interest. A psychologist, schooled in the observation of human beings, does not fully appreciate the role of this eternal phenomenon of nature until he has years of professional experience.

Man’s instinctive substratum has a slightly different biological structure than that of animals. Energetically speaking, it has become less dynamic and become more plastic, thereby giving up its job as the main dictator of behavior. It has become more receptive to the controls of reasoning, without, however, losing much of the rich specific contents of the human kind.

It is precisely this phylogenetically developed basis for our experience, and its emotional dynamism, that allow individuals to develop their feelings and social bounds, enabling us to intuit other people’s psychological state and individual or social psychological reality. It is thus possible to perceive and understand human customs and moral values. From infancy, this substratum stimulates various activities aiming at the development of the mind’s higher functions. In other words, our instinct is our first tutor, whom we carry inside all our lives. Proper child-rearing is thus not limited to teaching a young person to control the overly violent reactions of his instinctual emotionalism; it also ought to teach him to appreciate the wisdom of nature contained and speaking through his instinctive endowment

This substratum contains millions of years’ worth of bio-psychological development that was the product of species’ life conditions, so it neither is nor can be a perfect creation. Our well-known weaknesses of human nature and errors in the natural perception and comprehension of reality have thus been conditioned on that phylogenetic level for millennia.

The common substratum of psychology has made it possible for peoples throughout the centuries and civilizations to create concepts regarding human, social, and moral matters which share significant similarities. Inter-epochal and interracial variations in this area are less striking than those differentiating persons whose instinctual human substratum is normal from those who are carriers of an instinctual bio-psychological defect, though they are members of the same race and civilization. ...

And here, we do not include homosexuality, per se, as an "instictual bio-psychological defect. But hang on...

Man has lived in groups throughout his prehistory, so our species’ instinctual substratum was shaped in this tie, thus conditioning our emotions as regard the mining of existence. The need for an appropriate internal structure of commonality, and a striving to achieve a worthy role within that structure, are encoded at this very level. In the final analysis, our self-preservation instinct is rivaled by another feeling: the good of society demands that we make sacrifices, sometimes even the supreme sacrifice. ...

Our zeal to control anyone harmful to ourselves or our group is so primal in its near-reflex necessity as to leave no doubt that it is also encoded at the instinctual level. Our instinct, however, does not differentiate between behavior motivated by simple human failure and behavior performed by individuals with pathological aberrations. Quite the contrary: we instinctively tend to judge the latter more severely, harkening to nature’s striving to eliminate biologically or psychologically defective individuals. Our tendency to such evil generating error is thus conditioned at the instinctual level.

It is also at this level that differences begin to occur between normal individuals, influencing the formation of their characters, world-views, and attitudes. The primary differences are in the bio-psychical dynamism of this substratum; differences of content are secondary. For some people the sthenic instinct supersedes psychology; for others, it easily relinquishes control to reason. It also appears that some people have a somewhat richer and more subtle instinctual endowment than others.

Significant deficiencies in this heritage nevertheless occur in only a tiny percentage of the human population; and we perceive this to be qualitatively pathological.

Now, night before last I read an interesting thing in John Van Seters' "Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis". In a discussion of the various ancient texts which reveal to us the Mesopotamian traditions of Primeval History, he analyzes the various stories of antediluvian and post-diluvian worlds.

The oldest narrative presenting the creation and flood stories is Atrahasis . It tells how a group of "second level gods" revolted against the higher gods in order to escape from doing all the work. The "strike" was settled by means of the creation of human beings out of the flesh and blood of the ringleader of the strike. Part of the text is missing, and the next thing you read is an account of the world destroying flood. Apparently, this disaster was the last of three attempts to reduce or destroy the human population because the incredible increase in the population of human beings led to "too much noise" which disturbed the sleep of Enlil (the chief god).

Now, one specialist opines that the implication of the explanatory story is that, since humanity was created from the flesh and blood of a rebellious god, this quality of rebellion was said to have been passed on to humankind genetically and it was this rebellious quality that the "gods" sought to destroy.

Apparently, from the later parts of the text, before the flood, plagues were sent in an attempt to diminish the numbers of humans, but these didn't, apparently, kill enough of them fast enough. Next, famine is sent.

Anyway, the world destroying flood is inflicted on mankind and nearly ends the whole thing except for Atrahasis who is helped by Enki who felt sorry for humanity. Another part of the text is missing and the next thing you find is that Atrahasis and his family have been saved and Atrahasis and a goddess are obliged to create human beings somewhat differently. In short, the "bloodline" of the rebel god was almost completely destroyed and an order was sent down to create a more "malleable" human type who would work without rebelling.

The text is clear on this point: Enki and the mother goddess, Mami, must create, in addition to normal males and females, a third group of humans: childless women. They are also required to create "disease demons" to be responsible for infant mortality, religious orders for women who are not permitted to bear children (even though able). What is clear from the text is that all of these measures are intended to institute a kind of "birth control."

Now, certainly, this story is etiological in nature: an attempt to explain how things got to be the way they are. The discussion goes on to recount the main features of other, later, "flood stories", showing how they morphed and changed over time according to need.

We notice that the "third category" of humans that did not bear children were women. No mention of male responsibility for impregnation seems to have been part of the awareness of these people. I'll come back to that.

But, what is important here is an ACCEPTANCE of a "third category" of women, at least. The pairing off of men and women as the "only way things could be" did not seem to be a part of the ancient society.

Another thing that is implicit in this story is that this third category did NOT exist in the antediluvian world.

Now, let's take a look at a couple things the Cs said. And this is not referenced because it is considered to be "truth", but rather as a jumping off platform for thinking/research.

Q: (L) He lost me when he went off on his thing about women
and that souls reincarnated as only one sex. (J) No,
that's not so and I think switching sex has a lot to do
with homosexuality. (L) Yes. (T) But I do think that a
soul has a tendency to be more of one than the other.

A: No.

Q: (L) I think it ends up being balanced.

A: It is all just lessons.

Q: (J) Does the human state of sexuality, such as
homosexuality, have something to do with changing sexes
from one lifetime to another?

A: Sometimes.

Q: (L) Of all the modes of sexual expression, which one is
more likely to advance one to 4th density more rapidly?

A: Total celibacy.

Q: (D) Well then I'm okay! [laughter] (V) Can you explain why
total celibacy?

A: Because you are then "letting go" of the cravings for
physicality.

Q: (T) It is a 3rd density act which entices you to 3rd
density. (L) Okay, now, what is the second most likely
for advancement? [laughter] (D) We have me taken care of,
now we're going to get you taken care of! (J) In order of
importance... [laughter]

A: Does it matter?

Q: (D) It does to Laura, would you please answer?
(L) I suppose that everyone should get to the point that
they would simply desire to be totally celibate and
totally let go of all physical things and so forth, but,
we have left to us, at this point, heterosexuality,
homosexuality, bisexuality and multisexuality [laughter]
(D) We also have the ability to take pleasure in our
physical bodies in those forms of sexuality. We have the
ability to have pleasure in the flesh and they can't.
And, what I have read, is that they envy that. (L) Is
that true, that you envy our physicality?

A: No. Not in the least!

Q: (L) I have read that when you are at the higher spiritual
levels that you can do a spiritual merge which is better
than orgasm. Is that true?

A: Why do you need orgasm of any kind?

Q: (L) Well, it does seem to be like one of the penultimate
experiences of physicality. (T) That's exactly it...
it's physicality... (L) If that is so, isn't everything
that exists in the physical, 3rd density world, in some
way a reflection of experiences or states of being on
higher realms?

A: 3rd density as you experience it is an illusion you have
been fed to continue your imprisonment therein.

Q: (L) So, in other words, there is no cosmic orgasm that
keeps the worlds in existence as exemplified by the
eternally copulating Vishnu and Shiva?

A: That is Bull! [laughter]

Q: (L) Well, they teach this stuff in the Eastern religions
and they even have the idols sculpted in this posture...

A: That is a rationalization to continue the illusion.

Q: (L) So, in other words, the orgasmic experience is quite
literally a lure to keep us... (D) Controlled... (T) And
in the third level... (L) Is that true?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Here's another of the kid's questions: When and why
did homosexuality originate?

A: It originated when sexuality did.

Q: I have this book, this Marcia Schafer thing: "Confessions of an Intergalactic Anthropologist," and its a bunch of channelled stuff; one thing she says: "the snake is associated with the sign of wisdom and higher learning, and is often regarded quite highly in mystical circles." She had an interaction with a rattlesnake, for which she felt sympathy, and she also has sympathetic interactions with Lizzies. I would like to have a comment on the idea of the snake as a "sign of wisdom and higher learning." Does this, in fact, represent what the snake symbolizes?

A: Snake is/was reported in context of the viewpoint of the observer.

Q: Are you saying that when the observer's viewpoint is that the snake is a symbol of higher learning, maybe...

A: Maybe the observer was just "blown away" by the experience.

Q: Clarify, please.

A: If you were living in the desert, or jungle, about 7,000 years ago, as you measure time, would you not be impressed if these Reptoid "dudes" came down from the heavens in silvery objects and demonstrated techno-wonders from thousands of years in the future, and taught you calculus, geometry and astrophysics to boot?!?

Q: Is that, in fact, what happened?

A: Yup.

Q: Well, this is one of the problems I am dealing with in trying to write this history of mankind. As I understand it, or as I am trying to figure it out from the literature, prior to the 'Fall in Eden,' mankind lived in a 4th density state. Is that correct?

A: Semi/sort of.

Q: Please be more specific.

A: 4th density in another realm, such as time/space continuum, etc.

Q: Okay, so this realm changed, as a part of the cycle; various choices were made: the human race went through the door after the 'gold,' so to speak, and became aligned with the Lizzies after the 'female energy' consorted with the wrong side, so to speak. This is what you have said. This resulted in a number of effects: the breaking up of the DNA, the burning off of the first ten factors of DNA, the separation of the hemispheres of the brain...

A: Only reason for this: you play in the dirt, you're gonna get dirty.

Q: What was the motivating factor for playing in the dirt? What essential thing occurred? You said once that it was 'desire based imbalance.' What was it a desire for?

A: Increased physicality.

Q: What was the objective sought for in this desire for increased physicality?

A: Sensate.

Q: How was sensate experienced so that these beings had an idea that they could get more if they increased their physicality?

A: Not experienced, demonstrated.

Q: Demonstrated how, by who?

A: Do you not know?

Q: It was demonstrated by the Lizzies?

A: Basically.

Q: Demonstrated in what way? Did they say: 'here, try this!' Or did they demonstrate by showing or doing?
A: Closer to the latter.

Q: They were doing, experimenting, playing, and saying: 'look, we are doing this, it's so great, come here and try it?'

A: Not really. More like: "you could have this."

Q: What seemed to be so desirable about this increased physicality when they said 'you can have this?'

A: Use your imagination!

Q: Was there any understanding, or realization of any kind, that increased physicality could be like Osiris lured into his own coffin by Set? That they would then slam the lid shut and nail him in?

A: Obviously, such understanding was lacking.

Q: Sounds like a pretty naive bunch! Does the lack of this understanding reflect a lack of knowledge?

A: Of course. But more, it is desire getting in the way of...

Q: Okay. The 'Fall' occurred. It seems like, and some of the archaeological studies indicate, that for many thousands of years, there was a peaceful existence and a nice agrarian society where the goddess or female creative forces were worshipped. At least, this is what a lot of present-day books are proposing...

A: No. These events took place 309000 years ago, as you measure it. This is when the first prototype of what you call "modern man" was created. The controllers had the bodies ready, they just needed the right soul matrix to agree to "jump in."

Q: So, prior to this time, this prior Edenic state...

A: Was more like 4th density.

Q: But that implies that there was some level of physicality. Was there physicality in the sense of bodies that look like present-day humans?

A: Not quite.

Q: What did these pre-fall...

A: Cannot answer because it is too complex for you to understand.

Q: Does this mean that the are experienced... that the bodies we possibly would move into as 4th density beings, assuming that one does, would also be too complex for us to understand? You are saying that this 'sort of 4th density' pre-Fall state, in terms of the physical bodies, is too complex to understand. If going back to 4th density is anything like coming from 4th density, does that mean that what we would go back to is something that is too complex to understand? This variability of physicality that you have described?

A: Yes.

Q: So, was there any kind of worship of God, or religious activity in this pre-Fall state; this Edenic, 4th density state?

A: No need when one has a clue.

Q: What I am trying to get at here, what I am trying to understand, is the transition from the goddess worship to the god worship; the change from the understanding of cyclical time as expressed in the feminine cycles, and expressed as the goddess; to the concept of linear time, expressed as the masculine principle. It seems to me that these were stages of inversion of concepts which gradually led to the ideas that the Lizzies are imposing on us, and seem to have been working in this direction for millennia - the dominator experience which expresses as: believe in something outside yourself that will save you, otherwise you are damned because the world is gonna end, and you are going to get judged. This is the concept I am trying to deal with here. I am trying to understand what was worshipped. Okay, we had these guys; they fell from Eden, but they were still fairly close to the original concepts, in some terms. Once they jumped into the physical bodies, as you put it, what was their level of conceptualization regarding the universe? Did they still retain some understanding at that point?

A: Kind of like the understanding one has after severe head trauma, vis a vis your normal understanding in your current state.

Q: So, they were traumatized; they may have had bits and pieces of ideas and memories, but they may also have lost a great deal altogether. There may have even been a sort of "coma" state of mankind for many millennia. But, after they woke up, with the bits and pieces floating around in their heads, they may have begun to attempt to piece it all together. So, they started putting it all back together. What was the first thing they put together regarding the cosmos around them?

A: Sex.

Q: What did they decide about sex? I mean, sex was there. They were having sex. Is that it? Or, did they understand the cosmos as sex?

A: More like the former. After all, that is what got you guys in this mess in the first place! Just imagine the sales job if you can: "Look how much fun this is! Want to try it?!? Oops, sorry, we forgot to tell you, you cannot go back!"

Q: I really fail to understand - and I know it is a big issue that has been hinted at and alluded to, and outright claims have been made regarding sex in all religions and mythologies - but I fail to understand the mechanics of how this can be the engineering of a 'fall.' What, precisely, are the mechanics of it? What energy is generated? How is it generated? What is the conceptualization of the misuse of this energy, or the use of the energy?

A: It is simply the introduction of the concept of self-gratification of a physical sort.

Q: On many occasions you have said that the ideal thing is to have perfect balance of physicality and ethereality. This has been said on a number of occasions. Now, I don't understand how it can be that gratification of a physical body can be the mechanics by which one is entrapped? Is it not gratifying to look at something beautiful? Is it wrong, sinful, or a form of a fall, to look at beauty, to hear something beautiful such as music, or to touch something that is sensually delightful such as a piece of silk or the skin of a loved one? These various things that the human being derives pleasure from very often elevate them to a spiritual state.

A: Possession is the key.

Q: What do you mean?

A: In STS, you possess.

Q: That's what I am saying here...

A: If you move through the beautiful flowers, the silk, the skin of another, but do not seek to possess...

Q: It seems to me that it is possible to experience all of these things, including sex, without the need or desire to possess; only to give. In which case, I still don't understand how it can be a mechanism for a 'fall.'

A: If it is desired, then the mechanism is not to give. Do you eat a piece of chocolate cake because it is good to give to the stomach?

Q: Well, you could!

A: No, in STS, which is your realm do not forget, one gives because of the pleasant sensation which results.

Q: Could it not be said that, if everything that exists is part of God, including the flesh, that if one gives to the flesh, without being attached to the giving, that it could be considered a giving to the 'All?'

A: Explain the process.

Q: For example: there are some people who like to suffer, because they believe that the flesh is sinful. That is a big thing that the Lizzies have instituted. For centuries they have wanted people to suffer, and they have made this big deal about sex and anything that might be considered pleasant or desirable should be denied, and that a person should suffer, and revel in their suffering. And, actually, making a person...

A: If one seeks to suffer, they do so in expectation of future reward. They desire to possess something in the end.

Q: What I am saying is: if a person can simply BE, in the doing and being of who and what they are, in simplicity; to become involved in doing everything as a meditation, or as a consecration, whether they are walking down the street and being at one with the air, the sunshine, the birds and trees and other people; in this state of oneness, doesn't that constitute a giving to the universe as giving oneself up as a channel for the universe to experience all these things?

A: Not if one is "feeling this oneness."

Q: We are what we are. Nature is nature. Progression is progression. And if people would just relax and be who and what they are in honesty, and do what is according to their nature without violating the Free Will of others, that this is a more pure form of being than doing things out of any feeling of expectation, or desire; to just BE, not want... just BE?

A: Yes, but STS does not do that.

Q: (A) From which I draw conclusions: if there STS around us, we cannot just...

A: You are all STS. If you were not, you would not be where you are.

Q: (A) There are those who are happy in the STS mode; and there are those who are trying to get out of the STS mode...

A: STO candidate.

Q: (A) These STO candidates cannot just simply BE, even theoretically, because then, STS would eat them.
A: No.

Q: Why not?

A: STS does not eat according to protocol.

Q: What does that mean?

A: What do you suppose?

Q: I have no idea!

A: STS "eats" whatever it wants to, if it is able.

Q: That's what we said. If you are STO in an STS world, you are basically defenseless and they eat you.

A: No.

Q: Why? What makes STO unavailable or 'inedible?'

A: Frequency resonance not in sync.

Q: (A) But then, that would mean that all these people who are saying that we need just to love everything and everybody, are right. They just be, and love, don't do anything, just give everything to the Lizzies... they are right!

A: No, because motivation is STS.

Q: How is the motivation to love everything and everybody, and to just give, STS?

A: Feels good.

Q: So, they want to do it because it feels good?

A: Want is an STS concept.

Q: So, you seem to be suggesting that the real trick is to just become non-attached to anything and anybody, do nothing, and just dissolve into nothing? No thought, no want, no do, no be, no anything!

A: If you are STS, that does not fit, but, if you did exactly that, you would reincarnate in an STO realm, where such energy does fit.

Q: But, if you have become nothing, how do you reincarnate? And, when you say 'reincarnate,' that implies being in a body!

A: You do not become nothingness.

Q: But, being incarnated means being in a body?

A: No.

Q: You mean moving into a realm that does not necessarily mean being in a body?

A: Close. But 4th density is partially physical. Does not consume nor possess. ... You are confused because you seem to think you must be STO to be an STO candidate. You are STS, and you simply cannot be otherwise, until you either reincarnate or transform at realm border crossing. ...

Q: We are here, we are what we are, and until the realm border comes, we can't be anything else. (F) So, don't worry about being STS. That is what we all are. As long as we eat food, that's what we are. It's that simple. You can be moving toward STO, but you aren't there yet, and there is nothing wrong with that.
(A) We ask a question, and you answer this question, and this answer can be interpreted in different ways. I am not sure which way this answer was meant. The answer was: if you are STS, the answer does not fit. I mean, sitting and doing nothing. If you are STS that does not fit. But, if you do exactly that, you will reincarnate in an STO realm where such an energy does fit. There are several interpretations. One is that, if we do exactly that, we reincarnate in an STO realm where the energy does fit, and it would be just the right thing to do, because we WANT to be in an STO realm. So, one sure way to go to an STO realm is to sit under the tree and do nothing and contemplate your navel, but not having too much fun... eat nothing, desire nothing... typical Zen. There is another possible interpretation: if you would do exactly that, then you would reincarnate in an STO realm where such energy does fit, but there may be other STO realms that do NOT consist of such energies. So, maybe there is a way to another way to another STO realm, to which this energy does NOT go, but other ways would go. (L) And, there is another problem here: the very fact that one would do this is DESIRING to go to an STO realm! Which precludes the going. If you desire to be STO, you are screwed! (A) Not being, that is what some teachers teach. Nirvana. Is this something that is supposed to be the only way, and is it something that we are being encouraged to follow because it is no desire, no anything. Or, are there different STO realms?

A: Not different realms, as such, but different ways of getting there. Your respective developments have led you to where you are.

Now, I want to come back to the issue raised by Lobaczewski:

Our zeal to control anyone harmful to ourselves or our group is so primal in its near-reflex necessity as to leave no doubt that it is also encoded at the instinctual level. Our instinct, however, does not differentiate between behavior motivated by simple human failure and behavior performed by individuals with pathological aberrations. Quite the contrary: we instinctively tend to judge the latter more severely, harkening to nature’s striving to eliminate biologically or psychologically defective individuals. Our tendency to such evil generating error is thus conditioned at the instinctual level.

This leads us to the subject of sexual predation.

Perhaps the instinctive nature of the majority of human beings erroneously perceives harmless homosexuality as a manifestation of what they have always known, instinctively, to be a manifestation of humanity's predator: psychopathy?

Psychopaths manifest a form of homosexuality that is not true homosexuality as we think of it, and it is quite frightening. It also seems to be mainly a male thing which might be reflected in the Atrahasis where they refer to the "third category" as exclusively female. (Just a speculation here.)

Psychopathic homosexuality emerges from a mind-set that sees sex as a physical appetite like any other and will use whatever or whoever is present to satisfy those urges. The "partner" is never anything other than an object to be assimilated in some way.

In case most of you haven't noticed, or haven't been doing the research, again and again we find that people like Bush, Cheney, Rove, and so on - even if they live lives as heterosexuals - are, by nature this particular kind of homosexual, one that utilizes homosexuality as a means to dominate other men. My guess is that this was the real background to the much vaunted "Greek Pederasty". It wasn't about "loving little boys" it was about corrupting and controlling them a la Ponerology - they were objects, helpless and impressionable ones at that.

There is a close relationship between this type of psychopathic homosexuality and pedophilia because, as I said, it is about dominance, control, subjecting those weaker than oneself. It is this kind of homosexuality that has gotten the most press and is the reason that there is an almost knee-jerk reaction to homosexuality in general. If you are using someone else to make you feel good and what makes you feel good is dominance and control, whether you are homosexual or heterosexual, you are abusing the creative energy of sex.

We also notice that psychopathic homosexuality is also quite often connected to things like B & D and strange sexual practices that have nothing to do with love.

If ya'll haven't read it yet, you might want to read Anna Salter's book on Sexual Predators. You will be astonished and appalled at the amount of damage these individuals do in society.

Finally, there is a fundie type reactionary article I read the other day that emphasizes my point (the title of the piece is a dead giveaway!)

_http://www.newswithviews.com/West/marsha51.htm

PERVERTS & WEIRDOES, ALL OF THEM!

Whether or not the allegations against Sen. Larry Craig are true, the fact remains that any man who solicits anonymous sex in a public restroom, or a public park, or a "gay" bathhouse is a pervert. If Larry Craig did what he's being accused of, he's a perv.

Remember former New Jersey Governor, Jim McGreevy? While McGreevey was governor he had an affair with a male employee, which prompted his admission on national television that he was a "gay American." But long before his adulterous affair with a man came to light, McGreevey was cruising for sex at truck stops. Jim McGreevey is a perv.

Openly "gay" singer George Michael was arrested for "lewd conduct" in a public toilet in a Beverly Hills park. George Michael is a perv.

According to an ABC News report, "Public places like men's restrooms, in airports and train stations, truck stops, university libraries and parks, have long been places where gay and bisexual men, particularly those in the closet, congregate in order to meet for anonymous sex." The report goes on to describe how these guys make contact, "Tapping of the foot is pretty standard for men who cruise in toilets," said Keith Griffith, owner of Cruisingforsex.com [enter at your own risk], a Web site on which visitors post locations popular with men looking for anonymous sex." ...

Warning: These perverts just might decide to cruise a public restroom at your local Good Guys or your corner Taco Bell. As we just learned, even university libraries are not safe from sexual deviates. Better keep a close eye on the kids, moms and dads!

Image going to the john in an airport, only to discover a couple of homosexuals having sex in the stall next to you! The excuses offered for this detestable behavior are laughable. Gershen Kaufman, a professor emeritus of psychology at Michigan State University offers this doozy: "Cruisers are not sex offenders. They are deeply, deeply closeted. There is a lot of self-hatred and shame and they can't allow themselves to come to terms with their sexuality." I'm sorry, but I find his justification for their behavior disturbing. It's hard to pity perverts. Prof. Kaufman then asserts, "There is also the added element of danger and being discovered." What it's really all about is the element of danger. Pervs could care less about traumatizing kids – or offending adults. What they really want is to get away with it.

So the next time you take little Johnny to a public lavatory consider what could be lurking behind the closed door of the stall. Self-professed expert on cruising Keith Griffith informs us that cruisers "will usually go to the stall at the far end of the strip of toilets. They will see each other and usually decide to go someplace else. The vast majority have no interest in being seen. They may be meeting in public locations, but they will be as discreet as possible." Thank God for small favors!

People of faith should not accept the "to each his own" excuse liberals toss out to justify immoral behavior. Anyone who would cruise a public place to engage in anonymous sex is demented!

On a "Gay Life" poll conducted at gaylife.com [enter at your own risk], the question was asked of "gays": Do you have sex in public places?

Here are the results:
Always - 284
Almost always -188
Sometimes - 1292
Rarely - 990
Never - 1315

Only 32% of "gays" who took the poll said "Never."

What in this lifestyle encourages homosexuals to do these sorts of perverted things? For those who say that having sex with a faceless stranger in a public toilet isn't perverted, then what is?

Not only is anonymous sex perverted, it's dangerous, even suicidal! Cruisers have no way of knowing what kinds of diseases the person they're "accommodating" could be carrying.

Now, notice this: 1764 answered "always," "almost always," and "sometimes." BUT, 2305 gays answered this poll "rarely or never." That's more than 50%.

So, see how the thing is twisted so that the behavior of psychopathic sexual predators is used to slime all other homosexuals?

There is actually more "spin" being put on this story by the fundies, all designed to promote hate in the usual psychopathic way:

Regarding Sen. Craig's recklessness behavior, which is the point of this piece, some conservatives are arguing that Bill Clinton committed adultery, defiled the oval office, lied under oath and remained in office. They bring up the names of Sen. Ted Kennedy, Rep. Barney Frank, Rep. Gerry Studs and other devious Democrats who were involved in dastardly deeds yet refused to resign, and still represent the people. The public expects immoral behavior from liberals! Everyone knows that liberals have a different set of moral standards than conservatives do. For one thing, most liberals are secular humanists, hence they're not big on biblical morality. Liberals hold that the state has the right to force citizens to accept what is contrary to their religious conscience. (This includes the Christian belief that homosexuality is immoral.)

Now, Sen. Craig is supposedly a staunch conservative. As such, he believes what the majority of conservatives believe, which is that the family is the backbone of a healthy society. Conservatives hold that traditional (biblical) morality is the best protection against societal evils. And, "Conservatives believe that traditional morality serves as the best protection against the ills that plague society. The government should encourage policies that promote morality and discourage immorality. Personal freedom demands personal responsibility, and liberty is no excuse for irresponsible behavior."

In June 2007, Larry Craig pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct. He received a ten day suspended sentence, was fined $500 and was given one-year probation. Two months later he says he is innocent of the charges against him. From all the reports I've read, it would appear that Sen. Craig refuses to take personal responsibility for his actions. If the police report is correct, and there's no reason to believe it isn't, the man has shown irresponsible, even deviant, behavior. Therefore, Republican Senate leaders were forced to remove him as the ranking Republican on the Veterans Affairs Committee.

The fact seems to be, in a certain sense, that psychopathic homosexuality - sexual predation - is a "signal" to the instinctive substratum that something is very wrong, but, as Lobaczewski points out:

Our instinct, however, does not differentiate between behavior motivated by simple human failure and behavior performed by individuals with pathological aberrations.

It's a terrible mess we are in.

 

[Ruth]

The problem is, however, why is this even normal for straights? Why is "partnership" based on sex and not on a person's inner attributes?

Now here's a 'leap in the dark': Its programing to stop or hinder people from finding their 'soul mates' or perhaps as the Cs describe, 'polar opposites'. We're all supposed to be running around 'appreciating' sex rather than another person's inner attributes.

If people were allowed to get together who did appreciate another's inner attributes - even if this was only on a subconscious level; if they met, formed relationships and had children, that would put a real 'spanner in the works' for 4D STS...

Society had to be 'enginered' to stop what was normal. It was simply too risky for 4D STS to have a lot of 'soul aware' people (and their offspring) out and about, having children, increasing their number and awareness. This would be to potentially powerful STO and simply not 'entropic' enough for 4D STS's tastes.

Its the same reason why so many are easily 'distracted' by sex, a pretty face or what 'society' (their family) tells them they should do. Its quite a good form of control, really. Pretty much because people are in total denial about it.

 

[Laura]

The problem is, however, why is this even normal for straights? Why is "partnership" based on sex and not on a person's inner attributes?

Now here's a 'leap in the dark': Its programing to stop or hinder people from finding their 'soul mates' or perhaps as the Cs describe, 'polar opposites'. We're all supposed to be running around 'appreciating' sex rather than another person's inner attributes.

Possibly. But here's the clincher: what if your alleged "Polar Opposite" is of the same sex as yourself? Can you have a relationship without sex? (Assuming that your programming is toward one sex or the other - and here we need to consider that sexual orientation is programming for both homosexuals AND heterosexuals!)

In The Wave I wrote about love relationships, and what was in my mind was, of course, heterosexuals. But it could apply equally well to homosexuals.

Psychologist Barbara De Angelis writes:

Falling in love is a magical and powerful experience. Each kiss, each conversation, each moment in the beginning seems so right, so perfect. But soon attraction and infatuation become a "relationship," and we are brought down to earth with the challenging realities of sharing our life with another human being. And as those first enchanted weeks turn into months, one day we find ourselves asking: "Is this person right for me?" ...Since my first serious relationship at seventeen, and, until recently, I fell in love without giving serious consideration to whether the person was right for me, let alone whether they loved me enough. Someone showed up, and if he had something lovable about him, I would start a relationship. I'd convince myself he was "the one," only to find out that we were incompatible and watch the relationship fail. ...After too many heartbreaks, I was forced to face the sad truth: In spite of my experience, education, and my intense desire to be happy, I continually chose partners who were not right for me. I was falling in love with the wrong people for the wrong reasons.

Have you ever thought or said the following about one of your relationships?

How could I have been so blind? Why didn't I see what he/she was really like?

I felt so sure that, this time, it would work. Where did I go wrong?

He seemed so wonderful when we first met. I can't figure out why he changed into someone I can't stand.

All the signs were there from the beginning that she didn't feel the way I did. I guess I just ignored them and convinced myself things would get better.

We loved each other, but we couldn't agree on anything, and all we did was argue.

I was so sure he was different from the other men I'd been with. It took me almost two years to find out that I'd picked the same type of guy all over again! How could I have wasted so much time?

I remember feeling really in love with her at the time, but the truth is, I never told anyone we were together because I was embarrassed to admit I was even involved with a woman like that.

Everything about him seemed so perfect; I kept telling myself that I should be happy with him, but there just wasn't any chemistry. [De Angelis, Are You the One for Me?, 1992]

Such situations arise because of the "fairy tales" we are taught as children; the examples of "lying to ourselves" about our true feelings that are set because we are told and shown that rewards only come when we suppress our true feelings and follow the "rules." Dr. De Angelis continues:

Ask most people why they fell in love with their partners, past or present, and you'll probably hear answers like this:

I met Kathy at the gym where I work out. Something about the way she got so into that aerobics class and gave it so much energy really appealed to me.

All Kathy's boyfriend knows about her is that she has a lot of physical energy and he is programmed by his particular socio-cultural system to believe that physical energy is very good and will be rewarded. Thus, somebody who has a lot of physical energy is "lovable." He may also have had very positive experiences with someone in his childhood who had a lot of physical energy, and who regularly made him feel loved.

Donna was a bridesmaid at my cousin's wedding. She looked so beautiful in this pink strapless dress - I knew on the spot I was going to fall in love with her.

All Donna's boyfriend knows about her is that she looked good in pink chiffon. We might think that the color pink has powerful associations in his amygdala.

Jo Anne and I knew each other since we were kids. Everyone always said we'd probably get married when we grew up, and I guess I never even questioned it - it seemed like the right thing to do.

Jo Anne's husband has been so influenced by what his friends and family think that he doesn't even know why he loves her. We might think that "obedience to the family" has received some very positive reinforcement in his life. Conversely, thinking for himself may have received a great deal of negative reinforcement.

Alex and I were assigned to work together on a project in our office. I think it was watching him problem-solve - he is so creative - that attracted me to him.

Alex's girlfriend is enthralled with his business skills but has no idea what his emotional skills are. Creativity in solving problems may have been well rewarded in her home environment as a child. She may also have been exposed to highly creative "problem solvers" as male role models, receiving regular rewards from them. Thus, she associates these skills with love.

I've always been a sucker for music, so when I heard Frank play the guitar at a friend's house, I knew he was the one for me.

Frank's partner has fallen under a musical spell - she knows nothing about him except for the romantic personality she assumes all guitar players have. And why does she assume this? Because it is programmed into her!

This sounds terrible, but I always had this fantasy of a tall, dark-haired man with a mustache. Dennis looked exactly like that, and nothing else really mattered.

Dennis's girlfriend likes the way he looks - she is attracted to a fantasy, but doesn't know anything about the person underneath. And where did she get the fantasy? A program.

None of these people thought they were making the wrong decision. They all sincerely believed that they were making intelligent, sensible choices in their partners. But, the frightening truth is that many of them will discover in a month, or six months, or six years that they are in a relationship with the wrong person.

Most people put more time and effort into deciding what kind of car or video player to buy than they do into deciding whom to have a relationship with.

Love myths are beliefs many of us have about love and romance that actually prevent us from making intelligent love choices. ...Consciously and unconsciously, we base our decisions in relationships on these Love Myths. An example is: If I love my partner enough, it won't matter that:

he drinks
our sex life isn't great
she criticizes me all the time
we fight constantly over how to raise the children
he is a strict Catholic and I am Jewish
I'm not really sexually attracted to her
he doesn't have a job and hasn't worked in two years
she has a terrible temper and blows up all the time
he constantly flirts with other women
I don't get along with her children
he has a hard time telling me how he feels
his family doesn't accept me
I want children and he doesn't
she still hasn't gotten over her ex-boyfriend

Now, the interesting thing about all of the above is the fact that heterosexuals are also "programmed to select their love objects" at a very early stage of development. That brings us back to the issue of whether or not sexual orientation itself is also a "program." That is to say, one doesn't really have a choice, but also, except in rare cases, homosexuals aren't "born that way" necessarily.

We don't know enough about imprinting to be able to say a whole lot here; we can only speculate.

 

[Pierre]

We notice that the "third category" of humans that did not bear children were women. No mention of male responsibility for impregnation seems to have been part of the awareness of these people. I'll come back to that.

In our current society no law prevents an individual to maximize the dissemination of his gene. He can marry, have children, divorce, marry again and so on.

Psychopathy being carried by male chromosomes, we realize that the legal/social environment is perfectly settled to maximize the spreading of these psychopathic genes. In addition our society tends to promote this kind of behaviour, the myth of the alpha male dominating many females.

In addition, circumcisions made during early childhood is a powerful imprint allowing to materialize the psychopathic tendencies of some high psychopathy potential populations.

And the cultural environment praises the psychopathic traits (domination, power, competition, individualism, materialism,...)

At the other end of the scale stand the 6% of "anti/non psychopathic" potential individuals, STO candidates ?

While promoting the spreading of psychopathic genes (males having numerous children), triggering the psychopathic potential (circumcision) and praising the psychopathic values (competition, domination, ...), it might make sense to minimize the spreading of the anti/non psychopathic genes (sterilization through imprinted homosexuality) and to hinder the materialization of these "STO" potential/essence (homosexuality devilization leading to guild, suicide, depression,...)

 

[Zadius Sky]

Recently, I have managed to buy Randle's "The Abduction Enigma" at a local used bookstore.

This past weekend, I have finished reading Karla Turner's "Masquerade of Angels" and "Into the Fringe." Knowing that Karla was one of the individuals was taken apart by Randle in his "The Abduction Enigma," I went to look where she was mentioned and I have noticed how she was 'taken apart.' Randle has used Karla's dreams from her book "Into the Fringe" to support his theory that her alien abduction was only a 'dream.' He also talked about sleep paralysis as part of his 'theory.'

Here is an excerpt from the book where Randle made his point (p.140-1):

Episodes of sleep paralysis, which are often accompanied by the manifestation of some kind of creature, are sometimes incorporated into these fantasies. But rather than examine the established psychological literature, these tales are turned into reality by those who want to believe in alien abduction. There was nothing presented in any of the accounts, whether it was Barney and Betty Hill, Leah Haley, Karla Turner, or the Allagash four, to suggest the abductions were real events in the real world. The stories came out of dreams, discussed by those having them. The triggering mechanism that abduction investigators search for is provided in the interpretation of those dreams. Without the dreams in these cases, there would be no tales of abduction.

From reading Karla's "Into the Fringe," I do not think that she wanted to believe in alien abductions. However, Randle seems to have implied that she (as well other abductees) does believe in alien abductions when the 'dreams' started. Would that be considered as an exaggeration on Randle's part or an attack? Is Randle not aware of what's called 'soul abductions' which could be relating to 'dream' experiences? I am going to finish reading more of Karla's books before focusing fully on Randle's book.

Problem is, we don't know what the exact question was.

I was looking at specific part in the book where Randle has discussed homosexuality and, you're right, I did not see any list of questions was being used for interviews that Randle, et al has conducted. But, I think he should have included a sort of questionnaire in order for us as readers to understand what was being asked.

I would like to bring a full excerpt here. Below is from p. 99 - 101 of the book:

A very interesting fact about the interviews we conducted is that when the people were asked if it would be all right to talk about the personal and sexual aspects of their abductions, each and every one of them said yes. Some even commented that nothing could be more personal than the abduction itself, and if anything that they could add would help others, they wanted to share it.

On one occasion we were interviewing a male abductee on camera. Also present were about eight other members of an abduction support group
and the abduction researcher/hypnotherapist. The gentleman that we were interviewing was so open about his sexual preference, homosexuality, that the researcher who had been working with him for over two years was shocked. She was hearing things about his sexuality and sexual orientation of which she had no knowledge.

It seems that in the fervor to investigate the abduction phenomenon, the researchers have chosen to miss a very obvious point. It may be our very human and very prudish approach to sex that stops researchers from asking the direct questions concerning sex for the sake of sex. But miss it they do. Nearly every person that we interviewed was a long-term abductee who had been interviewed many times by many different people. We were told that the only interest other researchers had in the sexual aspect of abduction was in reproductive experiments. If any of the other researchers would have walked that highly personal path they might have found that a higher than average number of abductees were either homosexual, hypersexual, or asexual.

A very high percentage of both the male and female abductees that we interviewed openly stated a sexual preference of homosexuality or bisexuality. An equally high number were hypersexual and highly promiscuous in their human sex lives. Of the remaining abductees at least half of them claimed that they had no sex drive whatsoever. That leaves us with a low number of abductees who claim to have what would be considered a normal sex life. Of course, defining normal in any society would be a tough call.

None of the people who were interviewed said that the alien abduction had any affect on their sexual preference. All of the people who were interviewed said that it did have an impact on their ability, or their inability, to nurture human relationship.

Although they attempt to hide the explicit sexuality of the abductions in discussions of reproductive research and the gathering of genetic material, the fact is the sexuality is the main feature. When we look at these stories in an objective light, there is no reason for the alien beings to conduct their research in such a crude fashion. And once it has been conducted, there is no need to repeat it time and again.

Even Jacob's implication that it is the development of the hybrids that has necessitated the continued abduction and sexual aspects fails to make sense. In todays' world, genetic material recovered from just two adults would be enough to create hundreds, if not thousand of hybrids. All of it could be done outside the human body, in a laboratory.

It would seem that the recovery of more of these tales has a motivation other than hybrid creation or genetic manipulation. It would seem, from a psychological perspective, that these tales perform some other function. It is an interesting fact that nearly all of the women who report the missing fetus syndrome, or who have been implanted with what Jacobs has termed the extrauterine gestation device are postmenopausal, have had hysterectomies, or are unable to conceive children.

To understand these tales, it is necessary to look beyond the abduction phenomenon and try to understand them in the terms of a psychological problem. While it is quite true that not all abductees suffer from psychological problems, it is also true that many do. Research by several different investigators has suggested that as many as half of the abductees are homosexual, and while homosexuality is not a psychological problem, the influences and opinions of society can certainly create them. Beyond that, however, as many as 90 percent of the abductees have some kind of sexual dysfunction. Their tales of rape and sexual activity on board the UFO are evidences of these sexual problems.

The sexual component of alien abduction has been virtually ignored by abduction researchers. If they address it at all, it is to deny that it exists. But exist it does, as seen by the simple expedient of reviewing the literature and acknowledging that there is a sexual component to it. And by acknowledging that, we take additional steps to understanding exactly what is happening to those thousands who claim to have been abducted. Once again, the scientific and objective evidence leads down a path that does not end with alien creatures. Instead, it leads us to common human problems that are ignored by the researchers.

The very last paragraph made me a bit uneasy where he may be implying that the 'evidence' would lead to common human problems, not alien problems. If the evidence pointed out that it is a human problem, would the individuals be ignored as alien abductees? And, he also said that 90% of the abductees seemed to have 'sexual dysfunction.' would he have ignored those 90% as evidence of alien abductions if the individuals were 'discovered' to have some sort of 'sexual dysfunction'? What I mean to say is that if the abductees were discovered to be homosexuals or having some kind of 'sexual dysfunctions,' would he ignored them as real alien abductions and labeled them under "psychological problems?" I may be wrong in my initial look, but it seems to me, partly, that Randle, et al may be biased. osit.

And, while reading Karla's "Into the Fringe" and I came across a section below. I'm surprised that Randle did not include it or discussed about it in his 'study' of homosexual issue in his book. I thought it might be relevant here.

From p. 175-6 in "Into the Fringe":

(Budd) Hopkins had more to say, though. "A second thing that seems to be extremely important and new, to me," he went on, "is the sense that they seem to be very interested in human sexuality, and I don't mean just the reproductive mechanisms and ova and sperm, but actually the whole physical range of sexuality itself. They seem to be very curious about it, and they seem to want to sense intuitively or however, telepathically, what sexuality feels like, as well as how the plumbing works, so to speak."

Here again, I thought of James. When he had been approached at his parents' house by aliens who wanted him to mate with one of their females, he'd been able to refuse, at least as far as he has remembered. And at the time of the event, I wondered why, if the aliens needed his sperm, they didn't simply take it mechanically as I'd read about in several cases. It didn't really make sense to attempt impregnating one of the aliens, since abductees often reported seeing fetuses growing in artificial wombs or nurseries. And Casey, too, had been made to have sex with an alien female.

The alien interest in sex, according to Barbara, also involved cases where abductees found themselves irrationally and sexually obsessed with some highly unlikely person. This had happened to three people I knew, so I didn't doubt that in Barbara's wide range of contact she'd found other cases. She thought that such obsessions were deliberately manipulated to stir up strong emotions, which in turn were "taken" by the alien intelligence in control. I also knew of one book on the abductions of five women in which the investigator concluded that homosexuality was an important factor, a curiosity, to the abductors.

fwiw.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

And, while reading Karla's "Into the Fringe" and I came across a section below. I'm surprised that Randle did not include it or discussed about it in his 'study' of homosexual issue in his book. I thought it might be relevant here.

From p. 175-6 in "Into the Fringe":

(Budd) Hopkins had more to say, though. "A second thing that seems to be extremely important and new, to me," he went on, "is the sense that they seem to be very interested in human sexuality, and I don't mean just the reproductive mechanisms and ova and sperm, but actually the whole physical range of sexuality itself. They seem to be very curious about it, and they seem to want to sense intuitively or however, telepathically, what sexuality feels like, as well as how the plumbing works, so to speak."

Here again, I thought of James. When he had been approached at his parents' house by aliens who wanted him to mate with one of their females, he'd been able to refuse, at least as far as he has remembered. And at the time of the event, I wondered why, if the aliens needed his sperm, they didn't simply take it mechanically as I'd read about in several cases. It didn't really make sense to attempt impregnating one of the aliens, since abductees often reported seeing fetuses growing in artificial wombs or nurseries. And Casey, too, had been made to have sex with an alien female.

The alien interest in sex, according to Barbara, also involved cases where abductees found themselves irrationally and sexually obsessed with some highly unlikely person. This had happened to three people I knew, so I didn't doubt that in Barbara's wide range of contact she'd found other cases. She thought that such obsessions were deliberately manipulated to stir up strong emotions, which in turn were "taken" by the alien intelligence in control. I also knew of one book on the abductions of five women in which the investigator concluded that homosexuality was an important factor, a curiosity, to the abductors.

I think this is really important. It turns out that the very people who Randle et al "tear apart" have asked the same questions, and come up with plausible explanations. And yet, Randle implies that he and his co-writers are asking "new" questions.

 

[dantem]

Could it be related to the amount of emotional energy released by one individual? Homosexual could feel "threatened" just by doing sex alone, even if in a lonely place, and the amount of fear in their lives could double that of a "normal" one, socially speaking.

More than a "curiosity" it could be a matter of food here, whenever sex is experienced so badly.

 

[anart]

Could it be related to the amount of emotional energy released by one individual? Homosexual could feel "threatened" just by doing sex alone, even if in a lonely place, and the amount of fear in their lives could double that of a "normal" one, socially speaking.

More than a "curiosity" it could be a matter of food here, whenever sex is experienced so badly.

This may be the case in certain situations, but it might be important to remember that for a growing majority of homosexuals, sex is not experienced 'so badly' - that is, in part, the result of the entire 'gay pride' movement - the whole self-acceptance thing, despite the fact it's not really 'self-acceptance' as much as 'sexuality acceptance' which is a wholly different animal.

I'm assuming there is a bit of a language barrier, here since 'so badly' makes it sound a bit like it is an unpleasant experience, or a damaging experience, which it simply, at least in my personal experience, is not.

I would imagine that any matter of human sexual relations could be experienced 'badly' with lots of emotional baggage due to programming over what is right and what is wrong - so this line of thinking might have many more possibilities that are not wholly connected to homosexuality per se. fwiw

 

[Laura]

There may be a clue in the following as to why "homosexuals" are targeted.

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=3558.msg22820#msg22820

Second researcher wrote:

I think psychopathy is an X-linked gene and actually asked the question in a
sex and behavior course last spring.

Our study group determined that it was.

...I think there is also the issue of epigenetics.

Epigenetics is a process involving activation and inactivation of genes
based on environmental influences. Which gene is active when epigenetics is
taken into consideration is theorized to be affected by pre and peri-natal
environment AND events during critical developmental stages; think
abductions, wars, rapes, religious programming and rituals.

Genetics may - as I think - "marry with the soul" - but there may be some
flexibility in X linked genes for females. I don't see it as just a
'mutation', however. There seems to be something more. I don't like to
speculate about that because it is too weird.

For example: There is one species of voles that seems to indicate that
genetic tinkering and not random mutations are responsible for some
behavioral variation. The problem is the tinkering would have had to happen
before we - our current civilization, that is - had the knowledged and means
to do so according to standard theory. This makes a lot of scientists very
uncomfortable.

Voles are socially very similar to us in parental and mating behaviors. Also
the way Laura talks about the possibility of pheromones as a means for
differentiating psychopaths from normal people is not farfetched: prairie
voles use this method to differentiate a good parent from bad in their mate
selection!

Anyway, a female can have the super Selfish and the super Giving - (good
parent) genes at the same time! Epigenetics and recombination determines
which one is ruling the roost.

Males on the other hand can be influenced by epigenetics but whatever is X
linked is what he has to work with - that's it.

If the psychopath gene is on X we have a problem. I believe this to be the
case and we all agree we have a problem.

I looked at a study were some sociopathically linked traits are common to
males and their maternal uncles. Epigenetic effects on mental disorders
like schizophrenia are hotly debated in the research community but should
also be considered as part of this psychopathy business. Lobaczewski alludes
to this when he describes the levels of psychopathy and schizoidal
personality...

There is also the resistant personality type. What is it that makes some
people not succumb to psychopathic behavior despite exposure to abuse,
suffering and psychopathy throughout development?

We have speculated among ourselves that the difference may lie in the fact
that some individuals have souls and some don't. In terms of research, it
would be interesting to look for genetic similarities or differences between
such people. I know of a proposed study that was recently turned down for
funding that sought to research this very issue. Somebody doesn't want this
getting out there.

I think your post is timely because I was reading Controversy of Zion and
since I often mentally substitue "psychopaths" for "jews" I began thinking
about things you (Laura) covered in Secret History as well as a book I re-
read this summer called the iceman inheritance.

The data regarding jews and kazars seems so confusing because the issue goes
beyond Kazaria, and these footprints if you may, are distorted during times
of mass upheavals. Natural disasters, wars, or dark ages it seems, are
used by the psychopaths to reinvogorate themselves genetically. It even
seems to be conscious, which is a scary thought. It only makes sense to me
when looked at in terms of efforts against all odds to maintain a particular
genetic make up with 'jewishness' as the foil - the screen - the ideology
being used as the "excuse" - regardless of nationality.

This may have also happened during the exodus period, the babylonian
captivity, the roman period and now the ongoing facist period in the west.
An example of how this reinvigoration process works was a series of early
1990's articles about dwindling jewish cultural identity due to mixed
marriages in the US. These pieces were often juxtaposed with ads for jewish
singles events NYC.

Anyway, as we already know the most recent message they are broadcasting
seems to have upped the ante in order to preserve some "semitic" (read:
psychopathic) bloodlines and destroy others by playing on the fears left
over from the last persecution of the common jew - WW II.. The message is
that anti-semitism is on the rise and support of and moving to Isreal is the
best protection. This stuff is supposed to trigger mass movements of
those with the the diluted strain. As modern history demonstrates, the
social upheaval model that is used to trigger these mass movements drives
those with the strain into the arms of others with complementary strains to
result in a re-concentrain of genes.

It looks like psychopathic men (substitue this for jews), many descended
from the priestly caste of jews, were moving all over the old world, via this
process mentioned above. The latest concentration was on the eurasian
continent. They mated with the women they encountered from various ethnic
groups as they moved across the continent but did so in a manner that
indicated something - call it pheromones if you will - caused increased
matings with women carrying the psychopathic gene.

I also started thinking that some women for whatever reason may have had a
relative resistance to bearing genetically psychopathic children and it may
be indicated by high miscarriage rates; but then there is also the influence
of environment and culture that can make someone behave like a psychopath.

I started thinking about this because of what I know about Rh negs . I
don't think that this Rh gene has anything to do with psychopathy or
resistance to it BTW, since we don't really know what the Rh positive gene
does other than having something to do with ammonium clearing but that is
speculation. The process of it is what is interesting and may apply to a
psychopathy gene if such exisit as we think. There are, after all,
resisters to psychopathy in the population as we well know.

Before the advent of rhogam ( an anti anti-positive serum ) Rh neg women had
high miscarriage rates when the fetus was Rh positive. What this meant was
that the Rh trait was often passed on via the male. It is interesting though
that a proposed origin of the Rh gene is the black sea area, but it is
found today mostly in north western europeans AND north africans with a few
in east africa!! The highest concentration is in basques and people of the
pyrenees region. It is almost absent in asian and southern and western
africans.

Was there originally a similar issue for mating between those with
psychopathic genes and those more inclined to conscience? If so did some
genetic tweak (epigenetics) result in the capacity for more individuals to
carry this gene? Is the semitic gene itself a remnant of resistance to
breeding psychopaths but is now very diluted post-tweak?

If a there was a similar process with the psychopathy gene in that the
tweak occured in the females on the X-linked gene then the issue of
miscarriage would have been eliminated.

For the eastern european group many of these women that the elite
psychopatic 'semites' i.e aaronite line delibeately mated with were probably
kazar. Women from other groups too were probably forced by their families
into marriages in order to consolidate power or secure peace from the
dominant kahzars or others, groups who raped, pillaged and terrorised
people. From these activities Y chromosome data will show sephardic and
distant israelite genetic links in the modern ashkenazi males especially the
priestly line, while in mtDNA you find eastern kazar as well as other
european links.

The weird thing is that by jewish law these children would not be jewish
because jewishness is passed through the female line. Maybe something else
was being passed which the term 'jewishness' is used to mask and the poor
everyday jew pays the price of the psychopathic power elite's maneuvering,
all the while thinking that their suffering is because of their specialness
the elites tell them about. This is sort of what Reed proposed in C of Z.

This is anectdotal but I find it interesting that within the past two years
two females I know have converted to judiasm. It was the only way they could
marry their then boyfriends who were jewish. One did marry the guy and the
other one broke up with her boyfriend after being treated badly by the women
in the synagoge. The one that got married is diagnosed with a personality
disorder, has had years of abuse, by a drug addicted prostitute mother and
her johns. It was only when her mother died that she had a semblence of
freedom and managed to complete her degree (phi beta kappa). The woman is
now a school teacher- scary. For a long time I felt very sorry for her
because of her life experience until she almost got everyone fired from our
jobs in the lab due to her deceptions and manipulations for power for
herself.

I write about this because there must be something that involves genes and
social situation that perpetuate this craziness; this woman is teaching
elementary school kids! How many more like her in such positions?

This "something" seems to have been known throughout history by the elites
who perpetuate it. Occasionally the the questing type will stumble on it and
immediately get slammed for being crazy. It is that that some people must
dominate and control with no regard for others - the psychopath.

Semites but mainly the branch that became jews are used to keep it going - a
perfect corral for consolidation of the gene pool - after infiltration by
psychopaths early in their history (sarai and abraham situation, perhaps?)
and it has spread genetically and culturally ever since because they may
well have been the ones with a genetic ability to carry both this gene and
the means for resisting it. A cruel, cruel trick.

Whatever, the case, such strong strains of opposing forces within any given
group is bound to make them stand out or seem "special". If you want a more
potent psychopathic strain, a decline in the resistant strain and a steady
supply of the normal strain, you need females with the psychopathic strain
mated to males who already have it. So in reality we have three types of
humans not just two I think. It is the only way to keep the food supply
going (from normal people), get rid of the competition (resisters) and
consolidate their (the psychopaths') power. The sicko nazi experiments and
forced childbearing was along these lines probably because it wasn't
happening fast enough. Common people just don't always do things the way the
PTB wants unless forced via fear and terror. Maybe there is something to
the name AshkeNAZI and the current war on terror.

...In summary, I think epigenetics and human greed make men go out and conquer
while women become carriers who pass on the conquerer's X linked genes.
Women epigenetically manipulated to be the first carriers of the psycho gene
I think, but this first group also had carriers of the resistant gene.

God it's all a sicked mixed up and confusing game.

Now, there is something I forgot to mention from the "Prologue to History" book. It seems that later "national histories" that went back "to the beginning," started omitting the business about that special class of women who were barren or forbidden to have children.

What replaced it?

Well, the whole thing about kingship being "lowered from heaven." Van Seters points out that this new version of Stalinized history was obviously intended to promote the idea that kings ruled by divine right. In short, it was an explanation for the right of a certain class of people to make slaves of everyone else.

If you think about it, any and every group of people no matter for what they have assembled together to accomplish, following the lead of an ideology, there are going to be deviants that work their way in, gradually subvert the ideology, and turn the whole thing into something it was never intended to be. The same rules of Ponerology that apply to any other ideology must apply to the "Gay Pride" thing.

Anyway, imagine that some group of controllers wants to spread psychopathy in a population... it is carried on the X chromosome (i.e., by women on at least one of their X chromosomes). So, you would make those women off-limits who did NOT carry it on either chromosome by either making them virgin priestesses, damaging their ability to produce offspring, or subjecting them to programming rather like transmarginal inhibition at a pre-verbal stage of development so that you can be sure they would never (or hardly ever) have children.

Now, the following diagram is for an X linked recessive gene.

The rules for X linked recessive genes are:

* only males affected
* males transmit trait to all daughters (carriers) but no sons
* female carriers transmit trait to 50% of offspring


Here is a diagram of an X linked dominant gene.

The rules for X linked dominant are:

* Carriers are not possible
* Both sexes can be affected
* Males transmit to all daughters (never to sons)
* Females transmit to both sexes (50% of offspring are affected)

Lobaczewski suggests that psychopathy is a semi-dominating X linked gene. That might suggest that there are other factors that determine whether or not the trait manifests in the carrier female.

I'm not sure how all this fits together, I'm just tossing these data bits into the pot.