Is there something about us the Lizzies/grays are jealous of?

[Russ]

I mean, to be mindful of yourself. To not run before you can walk, so to speak. To ignore what we are doing on our most simple and fundamental levels, is to bring all sorts of complexities out of the woodwork, such as scratching an eye and making it worse. You could say that it is simple to ignore what is happening, but if "by the fruits you shall know them" is true, we can see that STS usually end up making things more complex for themeselves than they need to be - an "unproductive" complexity.

Its what can get us into so much trouble, to ignore simplicity. I mean *internally*. We *start* out very simple, we are conscious, which is very simple, probably the most simple you can get, it even comes before 1+1. "Before" anything, there is simplicity.

For example, consider a lot of new age sites which have a little bit of truth which is mixed with a lot of lies. Its simple to ask if any of it is actually proven to yourself - to ask if you are believing something which has no basis in fact. Its far more complex to start believing it - to leave out the "first" and most simple stage of discernment (ie. is this TRUE?) - than to get into complex discussions/arguments with people about things which aren't necessarily true - jumping the gun into complexity, spawned from a lack of simple "inner" observation.

Speaking of details, one way to use simplification as a tool of deception is to leave the vital "details" out.

Simple phrases don't do any good at deception when there is no threat, its the threat to themselves that causes STS to believe something, to bypass the simple question of what is true. For example there are many religious phrases which contain a threat, "Do X or Y will happen to you". Why should anyone believe that there is, for example, Hell, all we have to go on is people telling us, and how can we trust them until we see it for ourselves? Its just wrong from the get go, from the very start, a very important and simple step has been overlooked - "why should I believe this?".

"To me it seems “obvious” that it doesn’t.
I think discernment, needed to discover the simplicity inside a complex context is difficult and requires a lot of knowledge as well as experience.

Well, I don't think thats necessarily specific to STS or STO. They both do it, but at different levels. Its where its done which is important imo. I was talking about losing sight of what is simple - simplicity is "within" us, so to lose sight of it is to never get to the bottom of a complex problem, but just to go around in circles. Its like arguing over a fictional story, where the writer left out some details - theres no need for the argument because its never going to be proven who is right. So I think the STS thing to do would be argue until you run out of energy, but the STO thing to do would be to accept that there are many possibilities, and that arguing one over the other is pointless.

It appears that the Reptilian doctrine is along the lines of: “We rule, you obey/die!” which is comparable to the Bush doctrine: “You are either with us or against us.” …not much discernment there.

Creativity requires to think original thoughts and I find this to be “obviously” more complex than mechanically following programming, void of thinking.

But look at what lengths the lizzies go through, ie. time travelling etc. They wouldn't have to do that if their doctrine wasn't, “We rule, you obey/die!”. But more than that, if you look at the ratio of complexity to creation, and compare STS and STO, you can see that STS seems to prefer straight out complexity over creation (ie. doesnt care how much creativity there is, as long as theres complexity).

 

[Fifth Way]

I was talking about losing sight of what is simple - simplicity is "within" us, so to lose sight of it is to never get to the bottom of a complex problem

I absolutely agree on this point!

What I meant to express was that “NOT losing sight of what is simple” is in fact not simple. It needs discernment, knowledge and experience possibly a certain level of intelligence - or at lease very good intuition.

In our case in this thread for example one has to DICSERN between the two words “complex/complexity” and “complicated/complication” I think you both meant the latter in the below quotes:

…think they use complexity when they need to distort, confuse, and bury in a pile of rubbish what is actually simple and straight forward.

… we can see that STS usually end up making things more complex for themeselves …./…Its far more complex to start believing it …/…than to get into complex discussions/arguments with people about things which aren't necessarily true…

I also believe “levels” of complexity are relative. A gun for example, may be a complex machine for a Native American Indian around 1820 while not for the gunsmith. But even though the Indian wouldn’t be able to build one its quite simple for somebody else to point the thing at him and pull the trigger. A simple act which could have made the life for his tribe, that just lost it’s best hunter right before winter, enormously complicated.

Or Bush: I don’t think he is a complex guy. Neither do I think it was complex nor complicated for his reptilian handlers to “run” him and his bodies. But he/they certainly made life on this planet way more “complicated” for a lot of people - if not all!

What I am getting at is this:

But look at what lengths the lizzies go through, ie. time travelling etc.

Once you have technology you don’t need to go through any length at all. To the contrary, once you know how to go back in forth through time it’s the easiest thing in the world to confuse the hell out of people, who don’t know anything about it.

But more than that, if you look at the ratio of complexity to creation, and compare STS and STO, you can see that STS seems to prefer straight out complexity over creation (ie. doesnt care how much creativity there is, as long as theres complexity).

Maybe you are using the phrase “you can see that” here, as other people sometimes use the phrase “obvious”. Because I cannot see that at all. How exactly does one look at “ratio of complexity to creation, and compare STS and STO”?

My bottom line is: I believe it to be harder to move towards the light than to let yourself get sucked into the black whole.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Russ, from what you're saying (and please correct me if I'm wrong) I get the impression that you're saying that STS likes to take the "easy way out" in order to accomplish a "complex reality". What I mean is, the "easy thing to do" is to skip all the necessary preliminary requirements and knowledge, and just attempt to jump head first into the complex reality and assume you know how it works right away. Of course this is wishful thinking because you cannot do something without first knowing the necessary preliminaries. So basically this is trying to get free lunch - you want the lunch, which is a true understanding or a true ability, but you don't wanna know how to cook it (bother putting in any effort and try to figure out how it really works), because cooking is hard. So you try to do it the easy way of course, pretend!

In other words, that is basically trying to submit the universe to the simplicity of our assumptions, instead of submitting ourselves to the complexities of the universe. But what is more complicated, our assumptions about how things are, or how things really are? I think it actually varies from case to case. However, regardless of whether a certain reality is more complicated than assumptions, or our assumptions happen to be more complicated than a particular reality, I think STS is not so much worried about how complicated the reality is per se, but whether that reality is comfortable for them. If it isn't, then STS will instead make up its own assumptions of how that aprticular aspect of reality "reality works", EVEN if those assumptions are more complicated and elaborate than the objective reality itself, osit. The bottom line is that those assumptions are more "comfortable" for the STS being or group in question, not that they are "more simple", since I don't think that's always the case.

So following my own train of thought here, it seems to me that questioning reality is not necessarily more difficult than making up your own, since sometimes the complexity of your own can be greater than the real thing, or so I think. For example, faced with a "simple" reality of our government being a bunch of lying psychopaths, many people will go to great lengths to come up with very elaborate plausible assumptions to explain away what they are presented with. However, as I see it, the question rests in the "comfort" - whether a particular reality is comfortable enough to accept, or not. Interestingly, STO "prefers" objective reality in all cases! So does it mean that to STO all objective reality is comfortable? Strangely enough, I think the answer is, in fact, yes! The immediately obvious answer seems to actually be no, and that STO looks at objective reality regardless of whether it is comfortable or not, since its aim is to serve others, and it cannot accomplish this aim with subjective false realities! So regardless of whether a particular objective reality is comfortable or not, STO must face it in order to better serve all.

I think this is true, but I also think that this answer applies more to "STO candidates", who are still mechanical in part, than to a purely STO being. Because, and I'm gonna make a hypothesis here, I think that a truly conscious being free of all mechanicalness is literally fully comfortable in objective reality, and it no longer needs to make "sacrifices" as we do here, there is never a time where that being has to "swallow its pride" and in spite of certain uncomfortable pain continue looking at reality as it is. In other words, what we're "sacrificing" here is our mechanical selves, because we are defying them when we look at objective reality that makes those selves uncomfortable. This could of course be entirely wrong, it's just an idea. The reason I say this is, certain realities are "uncomfortable to face" only because they are uncomfortable to our predator mind, to our mechanical self, our ego, etc. If you remove all those entropic parts entirely from our being, I think that whatever is left, could probably be fully and totally comfortable in objective reality, ALL objective reality without exception. Of course there is also the "uncomfort" that comes purely from empathy, not from any prejudices or mechanicalness that we have. But I think that if you separate it from all the mechanical parts, than pure empathy will only prompt further research into understanding objective reality, in order to be able to DO something for someone, to actually help, osit. So "empathy", in my understanding, is that one potential "discomfort" that is actually a truth-prompting discomfort, as opposed to the STS/mechanical discomforts that prompt seclusion/turning away/ignoring reality.

The C's say "learning is fun", yet apparently it's not always fun for STS, when subjective reality is preferable to learning objective. But perhaps it IS always fun for STO? I mean, even with this group here, a lot of us are having difficulty with all sorts of learning for many reasons, and our programs and little "i"'s more often than not have to be dragged kicking and screaming. But would we do it if it did not bring us an "inner joy" at a higher level? I think that's the STO level, the creative level, the level of BEing and DOing, and so, if at some point in time that level is all that is left, then "fun" and "joy" could practically define our state the entire time - but again, the "higher level fun" and "higher level joy", not as they are defined here on Earth. So even in spite of empathic pain of someone's misery, we still can have a greater sense of "joy", because we have the knowledge with which we can help the person in pain in one way or another. Sometimes maybe not to remove the pain but to help the person understand why there is pain and what lessons can be learned from it, etc, each case being different.

Anyways, this also seems to be reconcilable with the idea that STO is "service to self through others". STS seeks the "joy" that is entirely selfish and conditional. STO also seeks joy and happiness, but the happiness is unconditional, there is no "if I have this I'll be happy" anymore, but just the pure joy of wanting/needing/having absolutely nothing, and just creatively exploring the universe with no anticipation, and sharing all you learn with all who ask, with no reservation or anticipation of any sort of return whatsoever. I think the only "lack of joy" is purely from empathy, but it is not exactly "lack of joy" since it's on a different level than the joy an STO being experiences in general just from Being. So empathy could be what gives it that creative will to want nothing, but at the same time, do all it can to help everyone who asks.

Interestingly enough, if you take empathy away from an STO being, I wonder if said being will still be STO? The C's said their purpose is also to advance, they just do it through the process of helping everyone else do the same. But the ultimate question, in my mind, is why? Why help others? And I always seem to just go back to empathy. But of course I can ask that same question about STS - why serve self? Why serve anyone? Why DO anything AT ALL? What is it that prompts any being to DO anything, why not just think nothing, do nothing, do not move, etc? Obviously there is a "drive" that motivates STS, and one that motivates STO, to do what they do. But where does it come from? If empathy is what drives STO, where does that come from? And if self-love (self-empathy.. psychopathy.. hmm?) is what drives STS, where does that come from? It seems it's either love for self above others, or love for all. Are there beings that love nothing, love no one, do nothing, etc? Or does such a being simply become a "dream in the past"?

Anyways, just some thoughts I had, I could certainly be wrong.

 

[Laura]

This does seem to inply that true empathy is something that the Organic Portals and STS puppets do not possess except in facsimile and copying other real humans around them. For exapmle are you the kind person who would stand by if a puppy were being killed in front of you and laugh or stop the violence because it hurts you to witness it?

Being empathic makes it damn near impossible to hurt others, as this hurt is also felt by the self.....so by hurting others you are only hurting yourself.....and if you are an STS type controller who never wants to get hurt or feel pain in the self, then why would you wilingly do something that you know would hurt yourself.

This may be a leap but Im guessing those who are sensitive to others feelings, those who don't just say they are.....but over a long period of time show themselves to be empathic in the way they relate to others, they are the ones on a more STO wavelength than those who don't show empathy towards others.

I think that it is easy to get misled by thinking about empathy as something one feels for PHYSICAL pain only. But let me try to explain what I have observed over these past few years since the concept of OP came up.

First, let's get it completely clear here that an OP is quite different from a psychopath. Notice what the C's have said:

13 July 2002

Q: Based on what Mouravieff has said, it seems to be so that any efforts to try to raise the consciousness of such individuals is doomed to fail.
A: Pretty much. Most of them are very efficient machines. The ones that you have identified as psychopaths are "failures." The best ones cannot be discerned except by long and careful observation.

So, a psychopath is a "failure," or a "defective" OP. That means that even the ordinary OP has stuff that a psychopath does not have.

What is the chief characteristic of the psychopath? A STUNNING absence of conscience.

That suggests that an OP has at least a rudimentary conscience. And conscience is related to the ability to love. So we might think that an OP can love in a certain way, possibly like a dog: as the C's said, Dogs feel "need" as love.

The C's also once said:

Be careful not to read incorrect mechanical approaches as
defective characteristics or personality or nature. It is
important to differentiate between that which is
alterable, curable, or can be helped, with that which is
incurable, unalterable, and cannot be helped.

Big clue there: what is alterable, curable or can be helped vs that which is incurable, unalterable and cannot be helped.

Now, there are a few people I have interacted with over long periods that I give a high probability to being OPs. What did I notice about them? The two main things I have noticed is that yes, they do seem to have a sort of "empathy" that is strictly physical based. Quite often, they are people who are fixated on "saving stray animals," or "hugging trees" etc. What is strikingly different about these people is they are unable to feel empathy for un-seeable psychic or psychological pain. They simply have no ability to conceptualize the suffering of another if it is not right out in front of them. They will cringe and weep and cry over the death or suffering of a body, but will not think twice about saying or doing something that is totally psychologically crushing to another human being.

The other thing is their total inability to learn something and transfer that learning to another situation, similar or otherwise. They learn by rote, by specific situation, and then with the context changes even slightly, they make the same dynamical errors as though there was no similarity between the one situation and the other. Unless the situations are identical, they don't seem to be able to draw comparisons.

Both of these things: inability to conceptualize and empathize with psychic suffering and inability to transfer learning, seem to relate to higher, abstract thinking as well as being able to put oneself in another's shoes in a more "imaginative" way. It's easy enough, when you see a burn victim, for your skin to "feel" it and your stomach to knot up with "kinship suffering," but when you hear about how a husband walked out on his wife on their anniversary, it takes some imagination to "get" that the wife suffered very cruelly.

Now sure, such things can be "learned" by rote. OPs can learn that most people think that when a husband abandons his wife on an anniversary, birthday, or other "significant" time, it is supposed to be a "special kind of suffering," but if you observe carefully, you will notice that this learning cannot be transferred to other specific situations.

Also, it seems that the individuals that I think are very likely OPs are VERY sympathetic to animals - sometimes moreso than to humans.

So, just some observations.

 

[Fifth Way]

First of all ScioAgapeOmnis, thanks for that great stream of conscience! I think I pretty much agree with everything you said.

It seems it's either love for self above others, or love for all.

I guess it comes back of being connected to the divine source which is connected to everything = you love all = STO, or you are disconnect from the devine source, which means disconnected from everything. Ergo, you only CAN love yourself =STS.

Regarding why love or do anything?

Because it's intersting???

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

The other thing is their total inability to learn something and transfer that learning to another situation, similar or otherwise. They learn by rote, by specific situation, and then with the context changes even slightly, they make the same dynamical errors as though there was no similarity between the one situation and the other. Unless the situations are identical, they don't seem to be able to draw comparisons.

You mean like if presented with evidence about the correlation of Nazi Germany and present day US, they say something irrelevant like "well that was back in 1930's, now it's 2005, duh!" - and that's supposed to prove that what is happening now is totally different and incomparable. Somehow something that actually makes no difference at all in terms of the dynamic seems to make all the difference in the world to them, and that reason was enough for them to reach and firmly stick to their conclusion. That was actually an example of what someone said to me in a conversation today, among other things. Another funny thing the person said is that people today learned their lesson, the lesson being Nazi Germany, so they won't repeat that again. The irony of it all, the person who said this is an example of exactly the kind of people that did NOT learn any lesson at all and would extremely easily and most likely repeat the exact same mistake, over and over and over ad nauseum, as they have throughout all of human history! But that fact was lost on the person.

Now it doesn't mean the individual was an OP of course, but it seemed that he happened to share that particular characteristic that makes it very difficult to have a reasonable discussion. Also that individual exhibits total lack of empathy for people "out there" around the world, but that same person CRIES at emotional moments in movies. This has always confused the hell out of me. Even I don't cry so easily on emotional movies as the person in question, so I always thought he was more "sensitive" than I. He's also much more mathematically logical, so I always figured him to be much smarter. And actually, this high mathematical knowledge and other similar mechanical knowledge is what makes me so confused when the same person exhibits such ignorance in matters that require what you call "abstract reasoning" and recognizing similarity in dynamics. On the one hand he's very smart, on another he seems to be very ignorant. And I am left with a certain cognitive dissonance - part of me is telling me that he's smart so it must be ME who is ignorant, I must be the one seeing something wrong, I'm the fool. Yet another part of me is convinced that all the evidence, common sense, and reason says I'm right. Of course I have no "hard proof".

But psychopath he's not, as he does exhibit conscience and empathy without it being an act (he cries when he watches movies and nobody is around). Anyways, I don't want to play "spot an OP", as I can easily be wrong, but bottom line is, some people do tend to exhibit this "lack" of a certain type of thinking, even if they might be genius at an entirely different type of thinking. And it's very easy to get into a cognitive dissonance situation where your mind has trouble accepting both realities - it's hard to accept that one person can be both, a genius in one type of logic, and an idiot in a different kind. At least I found this a constant issue with me and certain people, which has a similar effect on me that a psychopath does, I get really confused and dumbed down, I cannot critically think, my mind is hopelessly "out of it" while in a conversation with such an individual.

Maybe this awareness, and acknowledging this possibility that the same person can be extremely good at one type of reasoning, and entirely incapable of another, will help me keep my mental faculties intact during a conversation.

Just some thoughts, thanks for the insights and food for thought guys.

Oh and that person is not sympathetic towards animals, in fact, he doesn't like or care for them at all - just a sidenote. Dunno if it suggests anything though, it's still an issue I don't understand very well, but am beginning to get some idea of. :)

 

[anart]

"The other thing is their total inability to learn something and transfer that learning to another situation, similar or otherwise. They learn by rote, by specific situation, and then with the context changes even slightly, they make the same dynamical errors as though there was no similarity between the one situation and the other. Unless the situations are identical, they don't seem to be able to draw comparisons." -

Just a comment that this was evidenced over and over again by a likely psychopath I was acquainted with.

Also, about... "Also, it seems that the individuals that I think are very likely OPs are VERY sympathetic to animals - sometimes moreso than to humans. " -

Tread lightly on that one. I could easily be accused of being VERY sympathetic to animals, almost empathic really - although I am the same with humans as well. Because animals have no choice and must depend on the kindness of flawed humanity to not be abused or neglected, I have a special soft place in my heart for them, much like children. I do acknowledge that my viewpoint is tainted by the ridiculous amount of emotional and physical damage that has been inflicted on me by human beings - which has resulted, of late, in my preference for animal companionship as opposed to human. In my odd little life, I can feel empathy for all life forms, even plants - although to maintain my sanity, I tend to shut down most of that psychic input - it can make a person insane to feel all of that (hint - I may be insane) - but it is the way I am put together, I suppose.
Basically, I'm simply pointing out that overly sympathetic behavior toward animals is not necessarily indicative of an OP - it may just be a slightly crazy person who can't turn off the emotional input coming from our furry, feathered (and even scaley) friends. Of course, all of the behavior traits of OPs could be attributed to other causes, as we know, and only long observation can really give you a clue as to what might be going on; however, in my experience, the whole 'not learning from your mistakes' issue is a major red flag.

 

[atreides]

I don't think love of, relating to, animals is indicative of an OP.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

I don't think love of, relating to, animals is indicative of an OP.

Well some people tend to exhibit love and empathy, but somehow it is very limited, maybe to only their family and friends, etc. Maybe it's similarly that some people only love THEIR animals, or empathise only with those animals in their immediate vicinity, but not someone else's animals, or animals that are not right in front of them? So perhaps it's not love that is indicative but a certain limited kind of love? My understanding is that a true psychopath does not love anything or anyone, not even his family or friends - loves only in terms of possession perhaps. But perhaps an OP does indeed have empathy, but in a very limited and shallow sense? And perhaps a disproportionate preoccupation with a certain "group" over everyone else, or a certain species, can be indicative of inactive "higher centeres" - either because they're not there, or they're simply suppressed. Like a lot of people only support and love those of "their religion" or "their race", etc. I think a lot of that is not because they are OP's, but perhaps similarly to how many people exhibit psychopathic traits without actually being psychopaths, this is also similar in the sense that people exhibit the traits of OP's because of being influenced by their existance in society, but not being OPs themselves. So if you hang out with people with no "higher centers" you might start to mimic them and shut yours off as well to an extent.

I remember Laura was talking with the C's in a session about something like this, where some people exhibit STO but in a limited sense, and they identify with a certain group of people as part of "self", and so as part of serving self, they also serve that group (be it family, or religious, or racial group, etc). I can't find the exact session at the moment, but I know it's there! So the group becomes like the "expanded self", and perhaps one way to see STO is that self becomes expanded to everyone, so "service to self through others" is more like service to self, only that others are "self" too.

I'll find it later, bit pressed for time at the moment. Also I'm thinking about how this might connect to the idea that OP's are a bridge between 2nd and 3rd density, in terms of where they "stand". But I can't come up with a coherent thought on the matter, I just feel like there's a connection so I'll leave it as food for thought for now.

 

[Justin]

"The other thing is their total inability to learn something and transfer that learning to another situation, similar or otherwise. They learn by rote, by specific situation, and then with the context changes even slightly, they make the same dynamical errors as though there was no similarity between the one situation and the other. Unless the situations are identical, they don't seem to be able to draw comparisons." -

I have known a few people that exhibit these traits exactly. Now that I have learned more about this I'm seeing things in a completely different way.

 

[anart]

Actually, the quote attributed to me, I quoted from Laura, so it's actually Laura's. I was reading through this and thought, "wow, I must have really been coherent that day to write that.....(lol)" At any rate, the information quoted is a keystone attribute to watch out for as far as psychopathic behavior and occasional OP behavior is concerned. Humans can display this behavior if they're being manipulated as well, but once they've broken free of the manipulation, it stops. At least, that has been my experience.
Also, on the point by ScioAgapeOmnis...
'My understanding is that a true psychopath does not love anything or anyone, not even his family or friends - loves only in terms of possession perhaps.'

This is what we can conclude based on behavior, but make no mistake that the psychopath can and will convince you that they love very deeply. Actually, as far as they are concerned, they very well might believe that they do, since they have no real idea what it means to love deeply. Their feelings of desire/want and possession are 'love' for them and they don't know that there is another 'love' that exists - it is as if they have a bicycle and swear to you that they can go faster than anyone has ever imagined on it, since they don't know that motorcycles exist. Also, everytime they say that they love you so deeply, or they are so moved by you, it is a normal person's reaction that they mean by those words what the normal person means by those words - thus the trap. Only long observation and a hard won ability to push away the 'benefit of the doubt' and 'wishful thinking' mechanisms can allow someone involved with a psychopath to glimpse that something is just not right. Hopefully, the prey (normal person) in this situation can then stay focused on that without the psychopath becoming aware, because once they are aware, they will move heaven and earth to convince you that you're wrong and if you aren't strong enough, you will be convinced. I was, and the battle basically started all over until I finally broke free - and I ain't no dummy (despite my goofiness) . These creatures are simply unmatched when it comes to emotional manipulation. If I had not lived with one, I'm sure that I would read this and think, "I'd recognize it. I may be tricked for a little while, but there's no way I'd fall in love with one, I would know." Trust me. It is highly likely that you wouldn't, although, I could be wrong.

 

[anart]

Also, from 04/28/96 -
"Q: (L) Okay, if a person were, say, a robot person, when a person becomes a robot person, what happens to the soul of the robot person?
A: Same process.
Q: (L) As what?
A: Death.
Q: (L) So, a person can die and leave their body, their body can be taken over and reanimated and controlled to function a and do a lot of things for a long time. Meanwhile, the original soul has completely departed to 5th density ready to recycle?
A: Yes, but body is replaced, not reanimated."

I have wondered how many of these little lovelies are around these days and how much of the behavior I might attribute to a likely OP or psychopath, might in fact be due to the presence of a 'robotoid'. It starts to make one wonder just who the heck is real around here? =)
Really, though, would the emotional learning ability of this type of creature be completely limited to the things they had learned or known before they died? It's just one more thing that I'd like to know a bit more about.

 

[GTB]

Yall speak as if you don't think you are STS. You speak as if you are special. You are STS. Everytime you consume or feast, which most do 3 times a day, what are you eating? Yes you are eating other beings, although you don't realize it whatsoever. Yes they are 1st and 2nd density beings, but how do you think they perceive us? What if they had an internet forum talking about the evil STS humans?

Here is the deal...

Lizzies are 4th density, there mathimatics/knowledge make us look like ants. There is really not even a comparison. They are not jealous of us LOL they implemented jealousy upon us for control, hence the mark of cain stated above. They feed off our negative emotions which is what jealousy causes. Are you jealous of cows before you take a bite out of one? No, you go MMMMMM, chomp chomp chomp. That is just how it is, deal with it, learn EVERYTHING you can, and we as a soul unit my thrive.

 

[Lucy]

Anart, you may be involved in an overlapping conversation on different parts of this forum right now. BTW- thanks for Hint-Hint, Georgie ain't leaving? http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=264.msg1038#msg1038

I've put these 'pieces' together......

Also, from 04/28/96 -
"Q: (L) Okay, if a person were, say, a robot person, when a person becomes a robot person, what happens to the soul of the robot person?
A: Same process.
Q: (L) As what?
A: Death.
Q: (L) So, a person can die and leave their body, their body can be taken over and reanimated and controlled to function a and do a lot of things for a long time. Meanwhile, the original soul has completely departed to 5th density ready to recycle?
A: Yes, but body is replaced, not reanimated."

Kind of interesting/scary to put the above session together with this at
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=264.msg1046#msg1046 which mentions, "many ways to die!"

Well, not to make it more depressing, but here's what the C's said on 23 October 2004

Q: (J) Will there be another terrorist attack in the US soon?

A: Bush does not need one, so no.

Q: (J) Will Bush continue on as President?

A: Until he dies.

Q: (J) Will he be assassinated?

A: Not likely.

Q: (H) Will he try to become a permanent leader, a Furher?

A: Will try.

Q: (H) Is he sick and will he die from his illness?

A: No...

Q: [Discussion about him being made sick or dying from other reasons.]

A: There are many ways to die.

We came back to the subject almost a year later on 20 October 2005:

Q: (J) Some people said Katrina was the product of HAARP heating up the waters in the Gulf.
A: We’ve already dealt with HAARP and weather. Read transcripts.
Q: (W) (Quoting transcripts) “HAARP has nothing to do with the weather or EM associated with same.” (H) Which suggests that there is EM associated with the weather. There could be some EM stuff associated with the weather that isn’t part of HAARP. (L) 4th density. (J) Were any of the storms manufactured from 3rd density or was it a natural storm?
A: Mfg in 3D? No. As we have said… 4D battles represent as weather. But the “veil” is thinning.
Q: (R) So if there is more weather it is due to more battles, and it being thinner. (J) Possibly. The thinning of the veil creates more natural… (L) Or unnatural, depending upon how you look at it. (S) So, I have a few questions. In the last session the C’s had said that 47% of Americans think that the government was complicit in 911. They also said that 12% of Americans can actually think. So, assuming that the 12% that can think are part of the 47% who think the American government was complicit in 911, that would give 35% would think the government is complicit not because they think but because they have been programmed to think it. If that is the case, then why are these people being programmed to be suspicious or against the Bush government?
A: They are not being programmed to be suspicious of Bush et al, the contrary.
Q: (L) In other words, it is the ones who think that Bush is not complicit that are being programmed. The ones who don’t think it, even if they’re part of that 35%, they’ve simply never been programmed. (R) Those who are programmed are programmed to not be suspicious. (A) You can be suspicious, but that doesn’t necessarily mean you can think. (L) The ones who are not suspicious are the ones being programmed, but it doesn’t mean… OPs can just be OPs. They don’t have to be bad or evil, they’re just the ones who, nobody’s gotten to them, there’s been no opportunity…maybe they’re just people who don’t want to watch television so much. Or they are contrary in a certain way. They see that there is a group of people who are suspicious and they follow along with them rather than following along with the ones who are not suspicious. (S) They also said that Bush “will try” to become a fuehrer, that he’ll continue on as president until he dies. Does that mean that someone will… Bush will be tossed out and someone else will move in and become fuehrer?
A: Warm water. It would not serve your best interests to know this.

Well, you can say that again.

Gives me gooseflesh!

Lucy

 

[anart]

Ahhh - 'there are many ways to die' - so his physical body does expire, but 'someone else will move in and become fuehrer'? A real robotoid as PoTUS --- sheesh.......

I wonder if a complete mental breakdown could be considered 'death' - he would be destroyed and removed from office that way as well..........I think I'm grasping for any possibility other than the very very gruesome one that Lucy brought up.