Libel and Defamation Against SOTT, Cass, LKJ, QFG, etc

[Guardian]

Ok, I just made a small change to the page and it saved. Perhaps someone with a bit more skill at being subtle than I should make some careful edits to the page about Laura?

 

[combsbt]

Ok, I just made a small change to the page and it saved. Perhaps someone with a bit more skill at being subtle than I should make some careful edits to the page about Laura?

Well it seems your small changes met some resistance. "Tyrannis" has changed them all back, and added extra content, citing the fundraiser and more on the paleo diet (of course both supposedly indicative of some nefarious intent)

Edit: Just noticed that if you aren't a registered user it just lists your IP. It appears the first subtle change was different from the second two subtle changes. Don't know if that was all you or someone else joined in. Nonetheless they all got reverted. Also the "Talk" links are closed for those posts, don't know if that's a result of being a non-registered contributor or if they disabled it on purpose.

 

[Laura]

That's okay - with the fundraiser, we'll be paying our attys to get subpoenas for online defamation identities and they are all going to be sued in one suit as a conspiracy/gang. Best thing to do is get screen shots of everything and domain and server information. Even if they have managed to hide their identities and use servers out of legal reach, we can have them totally blocked in the U.S. and EU as criminal enterprises. No telling how much justice money can buy.

 

[Chu]

I am not sure whether this has already been posted, but here it is FWIW. I checked on "Jean"'s ridiculous forum to see what they were up to. He still has a handful of members, probably some of them his other "identities".

Yesterday they posted a forum post written by a woman, here: _http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=14674&hilit=jadczyk

This is the post she wrote:

The Cassiopaea site, driven primarily by the work of Laura Knight-Jadczyk and her husband Ark Jadczyk, has come up quite a few times here on RI. I can understand that, since at least superficially their ideas are somewhat consonant with the prevailing winds on this board, to mix my metaphors. Yet I want to explain why I think most of you would do well to steer clear of the site and its related sites, and more specifically steer clear of Laura, Ark, and their followers.

Some may speculate that it's because of their anti-Semitism. First let me say that my association with the group ended about a year before I read an article by Laura that was posted on Rense--something like, "Moving Companies, the Mossad, and 9/11." The article's implicit anti-Semitism shocked me, actually.

When I was a part of the group, there was none of that. In fact, at one point, Laura claimed to be reincarnated from a Jewish person killed in the Holocaust. Her article was posted about the time that Rense really started firing up anti-Semitic rhetoric, and after I read Laura's article in disbelief, I don't think I was ever a visitor to Rense again.

(Aside: There was a time when you could go there for some really interesting information. I remember in particular an eye-opening article written by a Hurricane Andrew survivor posted years before Katrina, which, if it had been widely read and acted upon, might have prevented the horrible treatment of Katrina survivors; there was some really valuable UFO stuff, chemtrail info, paranormal musings... it was fun for a while, but after that Laura article came out, it really hit me that Rense had changed forever and the party was over.)

So yeah, obviously, a possible anti-Semitic viewpoint is an important reason to be wary of the Cassiopaea sites, but actually that's not why I'm concerned. What concerns me is Laura's incredible ability to explain everything so darn reasonably, to so smoothly bait the hook, cast perfectly, and reel you in, to create a such a fascinating, immersive environment for the susceptible... and I think that many on RI would be susceptible. Damn if it doesn't seem a bit like an ARG, and I'm afraid I may have given her the idea.

Certainly, after I discussed gaming in a post to her mailing list (years ago, understand, and in relation to underhanded tactics I suspected was going on outside the group), she got heavily into game theory. Probably coincidental, but if Laura and the group put together a rabbit hole based on some of my ideas, even if they were just a teeny little part of the inspiration, I feel remorse. Of course, I'm quite sure Laura and the gang wouldn't even remember me, so I'm probably wildly over-dramatizing there.

Nevertheless, I do have personal experience with Laura et al--met them, broke bread with them, rubbed elbows with them online for a year or so and for a week in person. It was... an experience. And I'm glad I was able to deprogram myself before I divorced my husband and moved off to France to join their "school," which may well have happened had I not snapped out of it. And it was reading an article about how cults work that did it.

I'm not saying it's a cult... I don't know. But I do know that there are many similarities between how cults work and how the Cassiopaea group worked. I'll tell my tale, which believe it or not is as brief as I could make it, and see what you think.

This is going back a few years, now, and my memory is awful--and I've consciously avoided thinking about the whole thing so as not to fall back into the trap. So I apologize for an vagueness in my telling, and please feel free to ask for clarification and I'll try my best. I kind of feel stupid--"like anyone cares, girl!" but maybe it'd be helpful to someone. Sorry if I'm just being long-winded and self-important.

At any rate...

Right after 9/11, I really hit the Web looking for answers in a way I never had before. I don't remember exactly what led me to their site (which even for the time was pretty primitive in design), but it was one of the few that proposed that the events of 9/11 weren't exactly what they seemed. Add to that the fact that I had been seriously interested in the concept of alien abduction, the paranormal, parapolitics, and was also something of a spiritual seeker, and you might understand how the site initially attracted me.

What really hooked me, though, was the profile about her, published in the St. Petersburg daily newspaper and written by a Pulitzer Prize winner. It gave legitimacy to her claims in a way I'd never seen before... it took a rigorously intuitive approach, you might say.

At that time, Laura had what was basically her autobiography on the site, in addition to a wealth of articles on subjects varying from the well-trod to the esoteric, and a book-length work called The Wave Series, I think. I was so intrigued that I read the articles and her autobiography for days on end. Her reputed life story was like a conspiriti-paranormal soap opera. While I remained skeptical (in the true sense of the word) I was also fascinated.

The group had set up a mailing list, which had at that time two tiers--one for newbies and one for the initiated (and I don't use that word idly). The newbies could discuss the material at the site and Laura's husband, Ark, would occasionally answer questions. Then if you had read the Wave Series, you could petition to be granted entrance into the "higher up" mailing list.

So I read it. If it'd been printed, it would've been hundreds of pages, I'm sure. Now, Laura is a brilliant autodidact. She's also extremely prolific.
If she in fact is writing the material herself, she's on a par with Thomas Aquinas (or Steven King) in terms of sheer volume. The Wave Series basically followed her on her intellectual journeys, sometimes touching on some of the material in her autobiography as it related to theories on archaeology, anthropology, quantum physics, morality, ethics, Sufism, conspiracy, Fulcanelli, Oak Island, Rosslyn, holy bloodlines, reincarnation, channeling, lizard people, etc. At no time did she claim THIS IS THE TRUTH AND YE WHO CHOOSE TO DISBELIEVE WILL BE BANISHED TO HELL! Instead, she always presented it as, "Look, this is what I've discovered and here is all the evidence I have at this time to explain it, and these are my conclusions."

In other words, it was right up my alley at the time. I can't emphasize this enough, because it may explain what came next.

Her writing drew me in. As I was reading this incredibly dense and complex material, I'd sometimes internally argue with it, sometimes openly scoff, and sometimes a light-bulb would go on over my head. I was pointed in some very interesting directions. I was immersed in Laura, in other words, so I became highly motivated to join this inner circle mailing list.

You had to literally petition to get in, by writing sort of an essay, as I remember, about the material and what you hoped to accomplish by joining the mailing list. Guess whatever I wrote impressed Ark enough, because I was admitted. I forget how many members there were... like any mailing list, there were many lurkers and a handful of regular contributors. But it was such an intellectually stimulating group of folks--everyone putting forward theories, putting pieces of puzzles together, sharing odd experiences, and sharing personal triumphs and tragedies.

And Laura was a regular contributor, several posts a day, it seemed. She'd post material that would eventually end up in some public post on the website, but as she was working out her ideas. It was sort of like joining a Beatles fan club and having John Lennon send you his sketches and drafts of his lyrics. She was a celebrity of sorts, and her personality was incredibly forceful.

Maybe you can see where this is going...

So, it sounds like paradise (or it did to me at the time), but this paradise had its serpent, too, in the form of (and I may have the name wrong) an author by the name of Jay Wiedner (?) who she claimed was harassing her. Seems he'd been in on the whole channeling thing right from the start--he used to hypnotize her to get her in the proper frame of mind to channel. Does the site now mention that she did this through a Ouija board? According to her, this guy was probably CO-INTEL and tried to control the whole experience and use the information obtained for his own purposes.

He eventually (again, allegedly, from her POV) took "the transcripts"--that is, after a session, which was tape recorded, Laura or one of her friends would listen to it and transcribe it. There were, predictably, hundreds of pages of material. He claimed, as I recall, that they belonged to him since it was all his idea, or some such, I don't know. Lawsuits ensued, I believe. Mudslinging was the norm between these two... he eventually put up a parody site with much scatological humor at her expense, nicely setting up an "enemy" for us.

Always, he'd float the accusation that Laura led a cult, and much time on the mailing list was devoted to "proving" that it *wasn't* a cult.

There was another enemy, someone named Frank in the transcripts, who stabbed Laura in the back somehow. In fact, after a while, at least half of her voluminous posts to the mailing list involved describing how these insidious CO-INTEL ops were trying to bring her and Ark down, man. It really created an oppositional environment.

Every once in a while, someone would question something Laura had written, and that member of the group became the target of so much... I'd say "anger" but it was more bloodless than that... "excoriation." The hapless questioner would try to defend him/herself with logic and by quoting various posts that flew back and forth, trying to show that what he/she was accused of wasn't so. Eventually, that questioner would be banned from the list, and after banned, would be subject to much ridicule and scorn from Laura as well as other members of the group.

The posts from Laura, Ark, and everyone else created such heavy traffic that I'd be reading and contributing for hours each day. Sometimes I'd correspond with Laura herself, which was a thrill. I offered to do things for her and "the cause" that were within my professional area of relative expertise. I was immersed, and because it was so immersive, I rarely had time to read anything else or to get an outside perspective on things.

Again, you can probably see what's coming... but wait, there's more.

So, about a year of this goes by. I'm really into the group. Then, Laura announces that there's to be a conference of sorts and that any of the list members could come. She wasn't charging for it--on the contrary, she was able to arrange for very favorable rates at a hotel close to her house in Florida. Since I'd grown up around there and hadn't been back since childhood, since I hadn't been on a vacation in ages, since I wanted to do something that seemed important, I went. Yep, I went and met Laura and Ark in person, as well as a few other heavy contributers to the mailing list and some of the chief "lieutenants." I'd say there were about 20 of us in all.

We shot the breeze, had group discussions, lounged around the pool, and Laura conducted a hypnotic past life regression with a member of the group. That was the first time I'd ever seen that kind of thing--I'd read about it, of course, since hypnotism was one way Laura had made money at one time. (You're probably rolling your eyes even now... but she had a way of explaining it, believe me, so that she was one of the good guys; and it was at her site that I first read about Greenbaum and implanted screen memories, etc., which would make it seem that she was promoting herself as an ethical hypnotist somehow... you had to be there.) Others gave presentations--*I* even gave a presentation, although it was pretty short.

We went to her house and shot the breeze some more. One guy had built an orgone weather-buster kind of thing--I forget what it was called--and supposedly called a storm down us one afternoon. To be sure, there was a terrible storm after he set it up, and in watching the weather reports, it *did* seem to center on the general area... but as I pointed out at the time, bad storms had been predicted that morning, hours before he even set up the device. I got a lot of stares for that.

The conference was held about the time that Laura had begun pushing this model of behavior based on some Christian writer's work. I can't remember the details... it involved something like "A" behaviors and "B" behaviors, and that "A" behaviors were affirmational and energy-creating, while "B" behaviors were negative and energy-draining. Terms like "emotional vampire" and "service to self (STS)" began to be thrown around. My comment about the storm was taken as an example of "B" behavior, STS behavior that should be immediately rooted out from oneself.

So despite the fact that much of her work was built upon questioning authority, and the group constantly trumpeted this quality as "proof" that it wasn't a cult, apparently questioning Laura's authority was frowned upon at best.

All of this jargon arose partially from research Laura and the group had been conducting on psychopathy (based on works I've seen cited here at RI). There was this other idea, something about certain kinds of people--psychopaths--being "portals" for evil which resides somewhere *else*... I can't remember much here, it was towards the end for me... but the upshot was that if someone around you began to behave in a certain way, you were obliged to separate yourself from that person or you ran the risk of getting sucked in or becoming a portal yourself... something like that. It was heavily implied that most of our mates, those who weren't also in the group, were portals, and that we'd be much better off by separating ourselves from them...

...and if we were good students, and did these things, we might get to go live with Laura and Ark in France, where we could all study together--because putting our minds together made us so much more powerful--and do what we could to combat the gathering evil around us...

...oh, and BTW, we've set up this fund for donations, and isn't the information you get from us worth $20, $50, $100 a month?... and we'll email you personally to bug you about it if you don't donate...

Listen, I was raised an agnostic. I was always a skeptic--in the old sense, in that I didn't believe that I'd ever be able to know the truth, in that I doubted Truth and even "myself" existed in any objectively verifiable way--in that I wondered if "objective verification" itself was an illusion. I was always one to question authority, a quality that attracted me to Cassiopaea in the first place. I was a smart cookie, too--educated, widely read, up on pop culture as well as the world of ideas, politically aware. I was about the last person you'd expect to be in a cult.

But when I returned from the conference, and was seriously considering divorce, I felt an emotional upheaval. Away from Laura and the group, I felt a split between my old self and the self I was becoming. I was at a crossroads, for sure. I began some serious introspection, and, as was customary with the group, I brought up my doubts and feelings on the list. For instance, I mentioned observing some behavior in the group at the conference that contradicted what they thought was happening. It was minor--the group prided itself on egalitarianism between the sexes and believed in the necessity for mingling--but socially, I noticed that when we were all gathered together in the conference room initially, it was pretty much the men on one side and the women on the other side of the room, with some back and forth, but physically there was a divide.

Well, this public observation meant apparently that I was an emotional vampire, and Laura herself posted that I needed to get in line tout de suite or I would bring the whole group down, somehow. I apparently needed to cultivate more "A" behavior if I wanted her and the group's approbation.

Funnily enough, someone had made yet another accusation of the group being a cult, and someone posted information about cults as a way of proving that we weren't a cult. (Plus there was always the "That's ridiculous--how can you have a cult over the internet?" argument.) Ironically, though, as I read it, it hit me that that's EXACTLY what was going on--or what was probably about to go on, unless I got out.

So I got out.

So in retrospect, what the H-E-double toothpicks was going on? I don't have any answers, to this day. Was it a conscious effort to create a cult? Was it a case of Laura and/or Ark being "handled"? Were they victims of Bluebird or the like? Was it just some well-meaning folks who got carried away?

I don't know. What I've come up with is that the situation at least mimicked cult programming processes. But, I mean, it's no Scientology. It's certainly no Heaven's Gate.

The moral of the story is, I guess, be aware that what might look appealing from the outside might not be so appealing when you're on the inside.

I don't know who she is, since I wasn't in the group at the time. Of course, on "Jean"'s forum that constitutes "proof" that we are a cult. Go figure!

 

[Windmill knight]

I love this part:

So yeah, obviously, a possible anti-Semitic viewpoint is an important reason to be wary of the Cassiopaea sites, but actually that's not why I'm concerned. What concerns me is Laura's incredible ability to explain everything so darn reasonably, to so smoothly bait the hook, cast perfectly, and reel you in, to create a such a fascinating, immersive environment for the susceptible... and I think that many on RI would be susceptible. Damn if it doesn't seem a bit like an ARG, and I'm afraid I may have given her the idea.

In other words, Laura is evil because she uses reason to convince people! Beware!

 

[Kaigen]

I love this part:

So yeah, obviously, a possible anti-Semitic viewpoint is an important reason to be wary of the Cassiopaea sites, but actually that's not why I'm concerned. What concerns me is Laura's incredible ability to explain everything so darn reasonably, to so smoothly bait the hook, cast perfectly, and reel you in, to create a such a fascinating, immersive environment for the susceptible... and I think that many on RI would be susceptible. Damn if it doesn't seem a bit like an ARG, and I'm afraid I may have given her the idea.

In other words, Laura is evil because she uses reason to convince people! Beware!

Great, where is the Like button!?

 

[SeekinTruth]

I love this part:

So yeah, obviously, a possible anti-Semitic viewpoint is an important reason to be wary of the Cassiopaea sites, but actually that's not why I'm concerned. What concerns me is Laura's incredible ability to explain everything so darn reasonably, to so smoothly bait the hook, cast perfectly, and reel you in, to create a such a fascinating, immersive environment for the susceptible... and I think that many on RI would be susceptible. Damn if it doesn't seem a bit like an ARG, and I'm afraid I may have given her the idea.

In other words, Laura is evil because she uses reason to convince people! Beware!

Great, where is the Like button!?

 

[Gawan]

I love this part:

So yeah, obviously, a possible anti-Semitic viewpoint is an important reason to be wary of the Cassiopaea sites, but actually that's not why I'm concerned. What concerns me is Laura's incredible ability to explain everything so darn reasonably, to so smoothly bait the hook, cast perfectly, and reel you in, to create a such a fascinating, immersive environment for the susceptible... and I think that many on RI would be susceptible. Damn if it doesn't seem a bit like an ARG, and I'm afraid I may have given her the idea.

In other words, Laura is evil because she uses reason to convince people! Beware!

Great, where is the Like button!?

Definitely and using facts (what she couldn't present herself)…

The conference was held about the time that Laura had begun pushing this model of behavior based on some Christian writer's work. I can't remember the details... it involved something like "A" behaviors and "B" behaviors, and that "A" behaviors were affirmational and energy-creating, while "B" behaviors were negative and energy-draining. Terms like "emotional vampire" and "service to self (STS)" began to be thrown around. My comment about the storm was taken as an example of "B" behavior, STS behavior that should be immediately rooted out from oneself.

Oh, well… if all her memory works like that about Mouravieff.

 

[Laura]

This gal has been discussed in the mod's forum so I'll just repost what I wrote there about her here:

PoB, the only one who fits that description is Kelly Knuth. She was a real misfit... some exchanges from her following the NPR conference that she references which, by the way, was like two days, NOT a week.

All of the following was part of group discussion.

on 8/2/02 4:43 PM, Henry See at hsee@sympatico.ca wrote:

> > If you think about the predator's mind and the way men
> > and women usually act when they are in groups, and compare that with the
> > relations that were established this past week, we see that we are usually
> > in contact with each other through the many little selves, doing the posing
> > and the primping, and the building little movies we show to one another to
> > make an impression.

Hi Henry--yes, I see what you mean. I like the idea of "movies we show to
one another"; it makes sense to me.

> > There wasn't any of that in NPR.
(This next part isn't directed to Henry specifically)

I'd like to say that the male/female group interactions were completely
different from the norm (whatever that might be!) in NPR, and on the whole
they probably were. But three times I noticed the men gathering over here in
one corner and the women gathering over there in another corner, once in the
hotel conference room, once poolside, and once standing around outside the
rooms. Just from overhearing little snippets of the conversations, the men
were discussing intellectual issues from their intellectual centers and the
women discussing intellectual issues from their emotional centers--exactly
as you'd probably see in any gathering of intelligent men and women.

When this was pointed out once, one of the men got very defensive. "Well,
it's not like we were hanging around talking about cars and baseball and
chicks," he declared (with some heat, I felt).

"That's good, I guess," I responded with a shrug and a smile. But even if
their discussion wasn't about typical guy stuff, the pattern of interaction
was typical guy stuff. (And girl stuff, now that I'm thinking about it
more).


> > How many of us felt that for the first
> > time, we were able to be ourselves, without the shadow play. Only when we
> > are really ourselves can we then be there for someone else. So all those
> > other things that happen between men and women are the matrix instructions,
> > and they keep us apart because they keep us separate from ourselves.

Henry, it was obvious to me that you really embraced this idea at the
conference. It was wonderful to watch you open yourself to yourself and
others, especially women. While I wasn't keeping tabs on you every moment,
the times I did take notice it was as if I was watching a time-lapse film of
a flower growing. The growth aspect--amazing in such a short time--was
clear.

(The rest of this email isn't directed at Henry specifically).

How many of the men at the conference felt themselves opening in this way
with the women? How many men opened this way with other men? I'm curious,
because while I did interact with men at the conference, there were only a
few with whom I sensed any kind of emotional opening. I did feel a bond of
sorts with everyone there--maybe camaraderie is the best word to describe
it. But I felt a deeper bond with only a few. Perhaps I wasn't opening
myself enough...

******************************

Another observation, if I may: Few people asked me questions, other than
your basic "how are you doing?" or "how did you sleep?" or "are you going
for breakfast?"

I guess I'm kind of socially inept. But generally, when I'm with people, I
get curious about who they really are. I ask questions and try to *see*
them. Of course, this is a good thing for shy people to do, because you
become less worried about what you're saying and more focused upon the other
person/people in the conversation.

Perhaps at the conference, as at any friendly gathering, it was assumed that
I'd just jump in there and declare "This is what I think! This is who I am!"
It didn't occur to people to *ask.*

Tell me folks: when you see someone standing alone, obviously uncomfortable,
what do you usually think about that person?

When you saw *me* standing alone, obviously uncomfortable, what did you
think? Or did anyone even *notice* me? Was anyone even slightly interested
in that spiky haired, chunky, zitty woman with the red glasses?

At the beginning I felt that no one was. In fact, I'm still wondering. Yes,
people opened to me, and I opened to them, but it felt as if it was solely
upon my initiative. If I hadn't approached them and engaged them in
conversation, asked them questions, and deliberately said "I'd like to share
this with you," I don't think many people would have said much of anything
to me. I had to impose myself upon others, rather than relying on their free
will choice of getting to know me. I forced them to get to know me.

I don't understand this. In some senses, yes, I want an invitation. I want
someone to show me that they are interested in me and what I have to say by
ASKING me. I'm not talking about all the time here--just once in a while
would be nice.

When you ask questions of someone (and really want to know the answers), it
shows you value that person and his or her opinions/feelings/thoughts. It
expresses a desire to break through the B. S. of those self-directed movies
we show each other to impress each other. It signals a choice to try to
break down the separations between us.

I ask. You answer. You ask. I answer. It's an even exchange. It's sharing an
intimacy. It's a circuit of great energy. To me, it's a beautiful thing.

I don't think this is "poor pitiful little girl" Kelly talking. I don't
think my observations are a result of selective memory; I think in
actuality, few people asked me questions other than fairly superficial
stuff. (Many thanks to the few who did seem to want to know more!)

So what's the deal here? What am I missing? Or what are other people
missing? Am I supposed to just jump in there, obviating your free will, and
say "This is who I am! This is what I think!" If so, why is that? I don't
get it.

We've all met some boor who just talks about him/herself. How do you avoid
becoming that if you are constantly having to say "This is who I am! This is
what I think!" without some indication the person really wants that
information?

Again, I'm probably missing the big picture. Please fill me in, if so. And
any of you who did interact with me, it would be a huge favor to me if you'd
remember our conversations and give me your impressions, positive and
negative. Think, too, about your part in the conversation and the
impressions you had of yourself. I feel like perhaps I'm losing touch with
the reality of what happened, if indeed I ever was in touch with it. I don't
know if I'm running some sort of cunning "let's isolate Kelly even more!"
program, or if I'm revealing something important about the way people behave
with one another in 3d. Or maybe it's this unconscious "PAY ATTENTION TO ME,
DAMMIT!" 400 pound gorilla inside at work.

Help!
<kellyk>

I addressed her issues in a series of posts as follows:

On 4 Aug 2002, at 11:56, Kelly Knuth wrote:

> > Tell me folks: when you see someone standing alone, obviously uncomfortable,
> > what do you usually think about that person?

I USED to think that I ought to go over and engage that person and "draw them
out." But after many years of paying attention to such things, I began to
realize that the "shy person" is very often utilizing a manipulation to get
attention without honest ASKING.

> >
> > When you saw *me* standing alone, obviously uncomfortable, what did you
> > think? Or did anyone even *notice* me? Was anyone even slightly interested
> > in that spiky haired, chunky, zitty woman with the red glasses?

Yes. I noticed. And I wondered when you would ASK.

> >
> > At the beginning I felt that no one was. In fact, I'm still wondering. Yes,
> > people opened to me, and I opened to them, but it felt as if it was solely upon
> > my initiative. If I hadn't approached them and engaged them in conversation,
> > asked them questions, and deliberately said "I'd like to share this with you," I
> > don't think many people would have said much of anything to me.

That's the way it is supposed to be. You have to ask, not manipulate by
"showing your shyness and aloneness."


> >I had to impose
> > myself upon others, rather than relying on their free will choice of getting to
> > know me. I forced them to get to know me.

I think you have a distorted view of this. In actual fact, you IMPOSED your
shyness on others with the subconscious intent of manipulating responses to
it... a sort of "feeding on others energy of concern and attention" without any
effort on YOUR part. When you finally ASKED honestly for attention - this was
a giving of yourself, not a "forcing."

> >
> > I don't understand this. In some senses, yes, I want an invitation. I want
> > someone to show me that they are interested in me and what I have to say by
> > ASKING me. I'm not talking about all the time here--just once in a while would
> > be nice.

Did you ever think about the fact that you have just described yourself as
manipulating others to give to you without any honest effort on your part? You
want others to ask you first due to your posture, pose, shyness, or whatever
you want to call it? What is wrong with being HONEST about your own needs for
attention? What about OTHERS? This is what I noticed over the years about
"shy" people. It's all about THEM and it NEVER occurs to them that the efforts
of others to interact and engage and ASK may be a costly function - taking a
risk... So shy people want everybody else to take the risk and they take none,
is that it?

> >
> > When you ask questions of someone (and really want to know the answers), it
> > shows you value that person and his or her opinions/feelings/thoughts.

Yes indeed. So why is everyone else supposed to show Kelly that they value
her, and Kelly is not supposed to show anyone else that she values them?

> > It
> > expresses a desire to break through the B. S. of those self-directed movies we
> > show each other to impress each other. It signals a choice to try to break down
> > the separations between us.

Yes indeed. So why does Kelly see the need for others to do this, but seeks to
take none of that burden of asking herself... "self-directed moves we show to
impress each other" or manipulate each other - like shyness that is supposed to
"bait" others to do what needs to be done on both sides of an interaction...

> >
> > I ask. You answer. You ask. I answer. It's an even exchange. It's sharing an
> > intimacy. It's a circuit of great energy. To me, it's a beautiful thing.

Absolutely.

> >
> > I don't think this is "poor pitiful little girl" Kelly talking. I don't
> > think my observations are a result of selective memory; I think in
> > actuality, few people asked me questions other than fairly superficial
> > stuff. (Many thanks to the few who did seem to want to know more!)

See above. Why should the burden be on others to feed one person? All of
those who were interacting were being honest, asking and giving. Perhaps the
interactions with Kelly were restricted because Kelly was doing the "shyness"
thing which is a manipulation that is instinctively sensed.


> > So what's the deal here? What am I missing? Or what are other people
> > missing? Am I supposed to just jump in there, obviating your free will, and say
> > "This is who I am! This is what I think!" If so, why is that? I don't get it.

What's wrong with that? It's honest, isn't it? Why do you see it as violating
Free Will to ask?

Of course. Fear of rejection. Because fear of rejection is so strong, you
have learned to get energy in other ways. It's "safer." Less "risky." Better
to let everybody else take risks while Kelly gets energy the "safe way." There
are always a few in any group who are so prone to being manipulated - who are
such "bleeding hearts" that they will respond to this manipulation and will
rush over and throw their arms around poor, shy Kelly...

See?

> >
> > We've all met some boor who just talks about him/herself. How do you avoid
> > becoming that if you are constantly having to say "This is who I am! This is
> > what I think!" without some indication the person really wants that information?

You ASK. It's that simple. And in such exchanges, when manipulation is not
present or sensed, a different dynamic takes place than what you obviously
experienced.

You make the gesture, you ask, you broach the subject, all the while knowing
that there MAY be rejection, and there may be that glorious acceptance. But no
guts, no glory. No pain, no gain. No risk, no success.


> > Again, I'm probably missing the big picture. Please fill me in, if so. And
> > any of you who did interact with me, it would be a huge favor to me if you'd
> > remember our conversations and give me your impressions, positive and negative.

See above.

> > Think, too, about your part in the conversation and the impressions you had of
> > yourself. I feel like perhaps I'm losing touch with the reality of what
> > happened, if indeed I ever was in touch with it. I don't know if I'm running
> > some sort of cunning "let's isolate Kelly even more!" program, or if I'm
> > revealing something important about the way people behave with one another in
> > 3d. Or maybe it's this unconscious "PAY ATTENTION TO ME, DAMMIT!" 400 pound
> > gorilla inside at work.

Seems to be the latter. And by asking, you have taken the risk. I am giving
my impressions and what I see/saw.

Did it ever occur to you that it would be perceived as insulting to me and
others for you to just dramatically disappear on the first day? And how many
people bought into the "poor Kelly has socialization issues" and all went out
of their way to "help" Kelly - by this major manipulation?

The info that "Kelly has shyness issues" raced around the group... and it was a
sort of "feeding frenzy." And you notice that the only REAL exchange you and I
had was when you came to me and honestly ASKED me something.

I don't play "shyness" games. Honest interactions - taking risks - having the
internal stamina to hold one's self-esteem in the face of rejection - is like
being able to stand the heat of the kitchen. If you want to produce wonderful
things out of your own internal creativity - bread from the oven, so to say -
the heat just comes with the territory.

L

On 4 Aug 2002, at 11:56, Kelly Knuth wrote:

> > I don't understand this. In some senses, yes, I want an invitation. I want
> > someone to show me that they are interested in me and what I have to say by
> > ASKING me. I'm not talking about all the time here--just once in a while would
> > be nice.

How do we know when our giving is violating another's free will? Well, we DO
have a little bit of a clue in many ancient teachings about "asking." The
stories say: "ask and you shall receive." But, if you study this idea, you find
that what they really say is "ask and keep on asking, and it shall be given
you; seek and keep on seeking, and you shall find; knock and keep on knocking,
and the door will be opened to you."

There are a number of Jesus' parables that illustrate this point, particularly
the "Friend at Midnight," found in the Gospel of Luke, chapter 11, vs.5-13.

The same teaching is standard procedure among the yogis of India and Tibet. A
sufficient effort must be made by the supplicant before a response is made. In
some cases, it takes YEARS of asking!

So, a good general rule to follow is that TRUE asking is accompanied by sincere
effort on the part of the one asking, and they must have done all that is in
their power to achieve that for which they are asking.

And so we began to learn that sometimes, "Serving Others," in the human sense
of the word, is merely the serving of the STS part of the person, the 3rd
density aspect of the flesh, and is NOT true STO in the sense of achieving
higher balance.

L

On 4 Aug 2002, at 11:56, Kelly Knuth wrote:

> > Tell me folks: when you see someone standing alone, obviously uncomfortable,
> > what do you usually think about that person?

Don Juan said: "They took over because we are food for them, and they squeeze
us mercilessly because we are their sustenance. Just as we rear chickens in
chicken coops, the predators rear us in human coops. Therefore, their food is
always available to them.' And how did Don Juan say they can do this and get
away with it? Because they "gave us their mind."

What is this Predator's mind that don Juan talks about?

When you put the various pieces of the puzzle together, what you find is that
the Predator's Mind, the "hypnosis" that Gurdjieff talked about, the Matrix
Control System interface with our bio-cosmic computers, our bodies, is our DNA
which is controlled and restricted by the generation of specific brain
chemicals via the control of our emotions. This is what determines the way our
brains and nervous systems are set up, which includes certain early periods of
Imprinting, which establishes our circuitry and thinking processes at an age
and under conditions over which we have no control. And once those circuits
are set up in a certain way, they can almost never be changed without a major
melt-down, and they determine forever after how all incoming information is
categorized. Indeed, we all have "reptilian" DNA. But we also have avian DNA.
In fact, we are a veritable smorgasbord of DNA from all that exists around us.
Nevertheless, something is going on that puts the reptilian DNA in control, and
it is in that context that Don Juan means that the "Predator gave us his mind."

And that these Control Programs, these chemicals of "feeding," can be and ARE
stimulated and perpetuated through our interactions with other human beings,
most especially those closest to us, is a cold, hard fact of science.

About 50 percent of the consciousness of the All consists of the thought of NOT
creating, NON-being. In the emergence of this thought, necessitated by the
definition of "All," which includes ALL, including the thought of non-being,
Service to Self becomes the pathway to "sleeping matter" with which the
creative Spiritual half plays. This means that in the cycling of consciousness,
some matter is "spiritualized" and some consciousness is "matterized."

Consciousnesses that follow the path of STS and does not choose to
"spiritualize," have chosen to be "matterized" - it's a choice, and its free
will, and does not require our forgiveness or our judgment that it is "wrong"
or that it needs to be fixed in that other person. However, as we already have
seen, that "matterizing" consciousness tends to be moving in the direction of
the "black hole" thought center. And it is this "predator's mind" that teaches
a form of "love" that is based on the STS principles of deception,
manipulation, control, and subsumation to a single individual so as to fulfill
the function of the black hole reflection of regeneration of primal matter. And
that is our problem. When we "dance" with it, there is the danger of our being
"matterized" also. We lose virtue in such interactions.... and I use the term
in its original sense.

Those folks who choose the path of "matterizing" of consciousness become less
and less conscious of WHAT IS and more and more focused on their "wishful
thinking" and "warping of reality" around their own ideas. And as we have
learned from Jesus, Gurdjieff and the Gnostic Sufis, Castaneda, and the
Cassiopaeans, the rules of this World in which we live were set up and are
controlled by this STS hierarchy and have been for a very long time. Each and
every time the revelation of this Control System is attempted, the Matrix goes
into overdrive to destroy it. And it is clear that this is the present
situation.

On 4 Aug 2002, at 11:56, Kelly Knuth wrote:

> > Just from overhearing little snippets of the conversations, the men
> > were discussing intellectual issues from their intellectual centers and the
> > women discussing intellectual issues from their emotional centers--exactly as
> > you'd probably see in any gathering of intelligent men and women.
> >
> > When this was pointed out once, one of the men got very defensive. "Well,
> > it's not like we were hanging around talking about cars and baseball and
> > chicks," he declared (with some heat, I felt).
> >
> > "That's good, I guess," I responded with a shrug and a smile. But even if
> > their discussion wasn't about typical guy stuff, the pattern of interaction was
> > typical guy stuff. (And girl stuff, now that I'm thinking about it more).

[more commentary from the Adventures series]

Where Frank was concerned, I admitted him into my life out of courtesy and
compassion. He was so desperately lonely and "different" and in need of help,
companionship, acceptance and true self-esteem. He used all the words at his
command to produce the belief in me that he was an empathic soul, striving for
resonance with other souls. He was very interested in me and my life, and I
perceived this as part of his seeking of "resonance."

At first, all of his questions about me and my experiences seemed to be sincere
interest, and I answered them and "indulged his need" for information. It is
also true that, at the beginning I experienced surges of uneasy suspicion.
Very often, his questions were entirely too personal, too probing, too "hungry"
for information that was private. But I was trying to be polite, to
accommodate him in a courteous way, and I discarded these suspicions.

Frank made detailed inquiries about my thoughts, my health, my life, my state
of affairs. It was as if he were conducting an in-depth interview with an
important person. No one in my experience had ever been really interested in
what I thought about anything, nor had they made me feel that anything about my
life was important, and so I answered the questions about my thoughts, and soon
found myself answering all the other questions as well.

The skill of guileless cross-examination is the chief tool of the Feminine
Vampire, because information is power; when you have information about people,
you have a means of exploiting them, which is, after all, the primary objective
of the vampire.

I didn't realize that my answers were like "money in the bank" to Frank -
hoarded, to be used later for manipulation.

On 4 Aug 2002, at 11:56, Kelly Knuth wrote:

> > I don't understand this. In some senses, yes, I want an invitation. I want
> > someone to show me that they are interested in me and what I have to say by
> > ASKING me. I'm not talking about all the time here--just once in a while would
> > be nice.

There is, of course, in any such person, some sort of vestigial soul. It may
be a soul that is "growing" and which will, at some point in the future -
perhaps another lifetime - begin the process of "spiritualizaton" of its matter
environment. On the other hand, it may be a soul that is "diminishing," or in
the process of matterization, compaction, or subsumation of consciousness to
the STS hierarchy. It's really hard to tell. My guess - and it's only a guess
- is that at this point in history, the types of souls that will be incarnated
are not so much the immature kind as they are those that are potentially at the
point where this all-important choice is being made - to choose the wishful
thinking, STS path of ultimate matter, or to choose the STO path of
spiritualizing matter.

The STS choice is, essentially, the default choice of this density. And, by
being the choice that is presented as "natural" by the Controllers of the
Matrix, it is generally the "easiest." It is the "path of least resistance,"
most especially in terms of giving ourselves up to our emotions or
"intelligence of the heart," as it is being promoted nowadays. It is also,
very often, the "obvious" choice, or the "sensible" choice or even the
"logical" choice. This "obviousness" and "sensibleness" and "logicalness" are,
of course, based on the rules of the Matrix that dominate our reality.

On 4 Aug 2002, at 11:56, Kelly Knuth wrote:

> > I don't understand this. In some senses, yes, I want an invitation. I want
> > someone to show me that they are interested in me and what I have to say by
> > ASKING me. I'm not talking about all the time here--just once in a while would
> > be nice.
> >

The STO choices, on the other hand, are far more difficult to see, and thus,
more challenging to make and follow. Thus it seems that one of the symptoms
of those who consistently make STS choices, is that they develop a kind of
semantic aphasia. They may be able to grasp a certain, limited, literal
meaning of a word or a concept, but they are simply unable to think any higher
than that. I have observed certain people who certainly had the intellectual
capacity to do so, but they didn't have the "drive." This is the result of the
fact that as the STS mind is fed, the person becomes less and less able to
grasp the deeper meanings of things, the hidden reality that is exemplified by
the alchemist Fulcanelli in his exposition on cabala, or the "language of the
birds." At the same time, those who are making the STO choices become more and
more able to reach into these higher realms of pure thought.

What seems apparent to me is that this is not just a single choice, it is a
daily choice, a moment by moment choice and that once an individual "wins" just
one little battle against the mechanical nature of the STS reality and default
choices, and moves even momentarily into that STO realm, it strengthens the
ability, however incrementally, to make the next STO choice that is presented.
And, for the most part, these choices have to do not only with seeing what IS,
but in choosing how to respond to it: creatively or destructively, with truth
or wishful thinking and narcissistic personal opinions.

Thus it is that a person who chooses to understand Castaneda's term "systematic
harassment" in a materialistic way, as opposed to the deeper perception of the
Theological reality behind it and the example he gave, has effectively made the
choice for the default mode of STS understanding or what is "obvious, sensible
and logical," based on the rules of the Matrix reality language structure.
Such choices of perception, made over and over again, result in a sort of
"hardening of the categories," or being matterized. We will look at very
specific examples of this process further on, but for now, the point is that as
long as there is life, there is hope, and even if the surface appearance of the
events would suggest that I had been victimized by a conscious psychopath in my
interactions with Frank, I tend to think that we ought to give a certain amount
of the "benefit of the doubt," within limitations, to anyone we encounter.
There may, indeed, have been some part of him that was truly asking, and I was
giving to that part as well as the part that was manipulating.

In a very real sense, the psychic vampire, or the STS feeding machine, is very
well described in terms of criminal psychology. The chief traits of the
criminal personality are weakness, immaturity and self-delusion mixed with a
strong desire to deceive other people. The "weakness" is an important factor
because it seems to be the root of the inability to "think higher" beyond the
Matrix reality. Such thinking requires great effort of a certain kind, and many
individuals simply do not want to do it. It's "too much like work." Even people
who can do enormous physical work, do not seem to have the ability to
understand what work is truly valuable. They may spend days, weeks, months,
looking up endless words and permutations in dictionaries, but the ability to
push into the deeper reality, that comes from a certain strength of the soul,
is simply not in them.

Such individuals have amazing skills at self-justification and rationalization
for what they do. They are also masters at appealing to the sympathies and
emotional triggers of other people. They also, most definitely, have a well-
developed ability to shut off what they do not want to see or admit to. They
are generally cowards, but with a twist: their greatest fear is that others
will see them as weak, so they create a persona of bombastic strength and power
that simply does not exist.

Criminals are also hypersensitive to what is said to THEM, and will become
angry all out of proportion when they perceive that they are being "put down,"
but are also completely insensitive to the feelings of others to whom they may
address great cruelty. Of course, when someone can be used by them, they take
great pains to pretend sympathy.

In the words of one criminologist, the criminal mind suffers from a series of
"faulty blocking mechanisms." In other words, in the terms of the C's and the
STS reality: Wishful Thinking. They are blind and deaf to anything that
contradicts their view of themselves and the world. They literally SEE things
differently.

Now, it is obvious that we are all in this condition to one extent or another.
And it is this very wishful thinking that keeps us in the Matrix. As strange as
it may seem, studying the criminal mind has the same effect on us that the
ghosts of Christmas had on Ebenezer Scrooge - it makes us more aware of the
reality we ignore.

Vampires that are not fully formed may desperately try to cover up the growing
vampire seed within by "doing good deeds." This isn't done consciously, mind
you. At this point, the narcissistic view of the self is so powerful that
looking in the mirror and seeing the true emptiness of the soul is impossible.
Such an event would result in the total melt-down of the entire personality
structure, and the subconscious defense mechanisms won't allow that.

Rather than facing and dealing with the real issues, acknowledgement of the
darkness within, acknowledging mistakes and lies and manipulations of others,
being truly sorry, and truly asking for help such people desperately seek to
eradicate what they subconsciously suspect about themselves in any way they
can. The chief method is by "doing good deeds" through projecting the darkness
in their own soul onto someone else.

Of course, that is just the psychological "real reason," and not the
Theological reason. The archetypal forces will use this mode of behavior -
will stimulate such thinking - in order to accomplish their own goals. The
individual will be persuaded in their own mind that, by following a certain
course of action, they can - little by little -eradicate the dreaded shadow
that haunts their mind. And of course, it is "out there." But this then
becomes the tool of the "head vampire" at the top of the food pyramid, to both
enhance feeding potentials, as well as to destroy any threat to the status quo.

Vampire lore tells us that holding up a mirror to a literal vampire is a
dangerous task. In psychological terms, holding up a mirror to a person in
whom the vampire archetype is active is also problematical at best. It is at
such a moment that the individual can make one of three choices: denial,
growth, or despair. In criminal psychology terms, they have the choice to
continue their criminal behavior with the strong likelihood of ultimate
destruction; to radically change; or just commit suicide and get it over with.
The individual who chooses to not change and grow, to not acknowledge the
emptiness of the soul, effectively chooses to become a full vampire. Such a
person has no capacity for true human compassion, but they have endless "forms"
that they may take on to pursue the goal of obliterating the threat to their
survival as a vampire.

Such a person, faced with such a revelation about themselves are most often
completely unable to give up their illusory perfection. They MUST believe that
they are the fake self, because in the deepest recesses of their subconscious
minds, they feel that they are nothing at all. And in the Theological reality,
that is what they are making true. By being controlled by this psychological
program, they utilize their energy to manifest that archetype.

The Matrix supports such behavior. The illusion, the wishful thinking reality
in which such a person lives, consists of a firm conviction that they are,
indeed, of the light - a higher spiritual being - and that they must destroy
that which has mirrored back to them the horrible truth of their lies and
imperfection - a truth that is backed up by evidence and witnesses. They
galvanize all their energy to strike and destroy; to "banish the darkness," so
that they can live in the everlasting light that is promised them for their
"service."

The pernicious vampire who has had a glimpse of himself and his emptiness, and
has projected this emptiness onto another, knows instinctively that he needs to
utilize his "other forms" to survive and ultimately destroy the threat to his
being. These "other forms" can consist in what may seem, initially, to be
"changes" in behavior. This manifests, again, in the psychological belief of
the individual that by "doing good deeds" he can vanquish the vampire "out
there." He will "do favors for others," believing that this is a good,
compensatory deed that will earn him salvation. But in his heart of hearts, he
knows that the person he is doing the favor for is someone he has wronged. In
fact, he believes that by doing something for someone he has wronged without
confessing that wrong, or even acknowledging it, that it is all that much more
a "good deed."

The pernicious vampire will give time and energy to a group or a cause that
that he really holds in contempt. He will do things for people he secretly
disdains, and he will do it all the more sweetly if he thinks it will
strengthen his chances for survival. Such a vampire who has gone deeper under
cover will patronize people who he is really, secretly, exploiting. And he
will most certainly proclaim that he is a follower of beliefs that he secretly
desecrates, and his actions will most ultimately demonstrate that he is not
truly an advocate of such ideas in his soul.

In some cases, when the darkness in a single person becomes too great to bear,
he or she will project it onto a whole group of human beings. They will then
go and seek out a group of neighbors and friends with similar darknesses that
they want to unload, and they form an agreement about what group they want to
project their multiplied lawlessness and iniquity onto. In this way, they
don't have to hide their darkness because they can join together in a public
orgy of projection. They believe that if they can destroy whomever they have
collectively projected their darkness onto, that they will be collectively
"purged" and will all be fresh and new and perfect together. The only problem
is: in such a dynamic, the individual and collective darkness only grows in
this miasma of vampiric revelry. And as it grows, they must project more and
more to cleanse themselves. And what they do not realize is that they are,
step by incremental step, killing their own souls. Because by feeding the
vampire inside the self, that vampire archetype grows stronger and stronger,
and this is a manifestation of the eating of the soul of the infected victim by
the hyperdimensional vampires, and thus represents the Theological reality.

Of course, as noted already, this is an incremental process.

When a con-artist deliberately deceives someone, he keeps his human feelings
separate - compartmentalized. He may be, essentially, two people: a human being
to his wife and family and friends, and a criminal to his victims. All
psychological studies show that if he continues on such a path long enough, he
ultimately becomes less and less human with everyone. Like Dr. Jekyll and Mr.
Hyde, each time the STS behavior or wishful thinking is indulged, each time it
is not resisted and overcome, it becomes stronger and stronger. And its
ultimate objective is to destroy its victim who, in the throes of his own
destruction, reaches out to try to save himself by destroying others.

In the most mundane sense, this manifests in our "real world" as people who
have no manners, who have no class, who have no nobility of soul and who are
incapable of recognizing it, nor do they understand that they don't have it.
They then attempt to compensate for their lack by declaring it to be of no
value, therefore not having it does not diminish their value within the
structure of their wishful thinking. In addition, because it is something not
possessed, they must attack it and those who possess it.

On 4 Aug 2002, at 11:56, Kelly Knuth wrote:

> > I feel like perhaps I'm losing touch with
> > the reality of what happened, if indeed I ever was in touch with it. I don't
> > know if I'm running some sort of cunning "let's isolate Kelly even more!"
> > program, or if I'm revealing something important about the way people behave
> > with one another in 3d. Or maybe it's this unconscious "PAY ATTENTION TO ME,
> > DAMMIT!" 400 pound gorilla inside at work.


You will see that in life you get back exactly what you put in. Your life is
the mirror of what you are, it is your image. You are passive, blind,
demanding. You take all, you accept all, without ever feeling indebted. Your
attitude towards the world and towards life is the attitude of one who has the
right to demand and take. Of one who doesn't need to pay or gain. You believe
that all things are due to you, only because it's you! All your blindness is
there. It doesn't catch your attention. It is however what, in you, separates
a world from another.

You have no measure to measure yourself up. You live only between 'I like it'
and 'I don't like it'. Which means that you have appreciation only for
yourself. You do not allow for anything above you - theoretically or logically
maybe, but not in reality. This is why you are demanding and keep on thinking
that everything should be cheap, and you can afford to pay for anything you
want. You don't recognize anything above yourself, or outside yourself or
inside yourself. This is why, I repeat, you have no measure and live only to
satisfy your whims.

Yes, your 'self appreciation' makes you blind! It is the biggest obstacle to a
new life. One has to be able to pass this obstacle, this threshold, before one
can go further. It is the test that separates the 'chaff' from the 'wheat' in
people. No matter how intelligent, how endowed, how brilliant a man is, if he
doesn't change his opinion about himself, he will be lost for inner
development, for the work based on self-knowledge, for a real evolution. He
will stay as he is all his life. The first demand, the first condition, the
first test for he who wants to work on himself is to change his appreciation of
himself. He cannot just imagine, or simply believe or think, but actually
*see* things in himself that he did not see before, really see them. Never
will his opinion about himself change as long as he will not see inside
himself. And in order to see, he has to learn to see: it is the first
initiation of man into self-knowledge.

Before anything else, he has to know what to look for. Once he knows it, he
has to make efforts, focus his attention, look constantly, with tenacity. By
maintaining his attention on it, by not forgetting about looking, one day he
may see. If he sees once, he can see a second time, and if this is repeated he
cannot ignore seeing. This is the state to look for in our observation; it is
from this that the true desire, the desire to evolve, will be born; from cold
we're becoming hot, vibrating; we will be deeply touched by our reality.

Today we have only the illusion of what we are. We overestimate ourselves. We
do not respect ourselves. To respect myself, I have to have recognized in me a
part which is higher than the other parts, and to which I show respect by the
attitude I have towards it. In this way I will respect myself. And my
relationships with others will be ruled by the same respect.

We have to understand that all other measuring units, talent, erudition,
culture, genius, are changing units, units of detail. The only true measure,
never changing, objective, the only real one, it is the measure of inner
vision. 'I' see - 'I' see myself - and you have measured. With a higher, real
part, you have measured a lower one, also real. And this measure, defining by
itself the respective roles of each part, will bring you to self-respect. But
you will see it is not easy. And it is not a bargain. One has to pay a lot.
For the bad payers, the lazy, the losers, no chance. One must pay, pay a lot,
pay immediately and pay in advance. Pay from oneself. With sincere efforts,
wholeheartedly, without expectations.

The more you will be willing to pay without reticence, without cheating,
without falsity, the more you will receive. And from then on, you will meet
your true nature. And you will see all the tricks, all the dishonesty it goes
to in order to avoid paying cash. Because you have to pay with all the
gratuitous theories, all the deeply rooted convictions, all the prejudice, all
conventions, all 'I like it' and 'I don't like it'. Without bargaining,
honestly, not just make believe. Trying to see while using fake money.

Try for a moment to accept the idea that you are not what you think you are,
that you overestimate yourself, therefore that you lie to yourself. That you
lie to yourself always, every moment, all day long, your whole life. That the
lie rules you to the extent that you cannot control it anymore. You are its
victim. You lie everywhere. Your relationships with others, lies. The
education you' re giving, your petty conventions, lies. our learning, lies.
Your theories, your art, lies. Your social life, your family life, all lies.
And what you think of yourself, lies too.

But you don't stop from what you're doing or from what you're saying, because
you believe in you. You have to stop inside and observe. Observe without
prejudice. While accepting for a time this idea of lies. And if you observe
in this manner, paying of yourself, without self-pity, by giving all your false
riches for one moment of reality, maybe someday you'll see all of a sudden
something you have never saw in you before. You will see you are someone else
from what you thought you are. You will see that you are two. One that is
not, but takes the place and play the other's role. And the one that is, but
so weak, so inconsistent, that just brought forth it disappears immediately.
It cannot stand the lies. The smallest lie kills it. It doesn't fight, it
does not resist, it is vanquished in advance.

Learn to look until you have observed the difference between your two natures,
until you have seen the lies, the impostor in you. When you will see your two
natures, that day, in you, the truth will be born. [Intro to a meeting from
September, 1941: Premiere Initiation, par G.I. Gurdjieff Question de Gurdjieff
(no 50) ed. Albin Michel, 1989, p.34-35]

on 8/4/02 1:33 PM, Laura Knight-Jadczyk at lark2@ozline.net wrote:

> > And the one that is, but
> > so weak, so inconsistent, that just brought forth it disappears immediately.
> > It cannot stand the lies. The smallest lie kills it. It doesn't fight, it
> > does not resist, it is vanquished in advance.
Okay, thanks Laura for the tough talk. I asked for it. I'll be thinking
about all this for some time to come, I'm sure. I don't know if I'll be able
to take it, but at least I asked. I may not be as brave as the others on the
list, but I do admire those who are.

<kellyk>

on 8/4/02 2:00 PM, Kelly Knuth at kellyknuth@columbus.rr.com wrote:

> > I don't know if I'll be able
> > to take it, but at least I asked. I may not be as brave as the others on the
> > list, but I do admire those who are.
replying to myself here: I don't think I *can* take it. I don't know what I
was doing here...I'm sure y'all will come to the conclusion that I was a
vector of attack draining away your valuable energies. That very well may be
true, which is why I kept pointing out the possibility to people. All I can
say is that I never meant to harm anyone, and I hope you believe it. I'm
sorry.

<kellyk>

And she unsubbed.

 

[Laura]

I guess we need screen shots - another to include in the lawsuit, including Rigorous Intuition as a website.

 

[Laura]

A selection of Kelly Knuth's posts from the group back in 2002 that might give some insight:

on 2/20/02 11:50 AM, Phil wrote:

> > Yeah - It's called the "Protestant Work Ethic" - to work is
> > ones' DUTY - to God and society, and the reason for human
> > existence. It has its roots in Calvinism - and it still
> > persists many years after among people who are no longer
> > particularly religious.

I think we also see this at work (no pun intended) in the derision of fat
people. As a semi-fat person myself, I constantly feel this societal
pressure to Shape up! My god, you're damaging your health! You won't live to
be a hundred like us virtuous skinny people! You must be LAZY! Don't you
have any respect for yourself?! Etc., etc.

It's as if exercise is a new kind of ritual whereby we reaffirm our worth.
It's becoming a duty laden with all sorts of moral implications.

Obviously I reject exercise simply to become thin or in shape. For me, the
reason to exercise is because I enjoy it (like walking the dogs), or because
whatever work I do (like gardening) is a form of exercise.

For the record, I'm not knocking anyone who uses a Stairmaster or does
Tae-bo if they do it because they enjoy it. It's just the exercisers'
"holier than thou" attitude that I find particularly annoying.
<kelly>

on 2/20/02 3:04 PM, prometeo2001 wrote:

> > The first impresion i
> > took three weeks ago when i started, was i was in the classroom guys
> > of Michelle Pfeifer's film ("the gangs...i don't know what") i
> > thought that just exists in New York city, but suddenly my classroom
> > was this,

I think the film is "Dangerous Minds," which I haven't seen, but I can
certainly relate to your predicament! I used to teach college freshman
English at three different institutions. It was the same in each one:
sometimes you just get a "bad" class. Overall, I think I taught about twenty
different classes, and all my co-workers agreed on this point (at least for
low-level required courses at public universities here). There's some sort
of odd classroom chemistry that sometimes goes on, and the students just
seem to hate you, hate the subject, or hate each other. For me, it happened
twice out of those twenty times. It seems to be the luck of the draw.

It's tough, I know, but if you can realize that it's not your fault, you
might feel a little better able to cope with it. If I were in your position,
I'd talk as much as I could with my colleagues, and form a sort of support
group. I'm sure others at your school have experienced it, and surely at
least one has found a good technique for dealing with your situation.

It's been nearly ten years since I taught, but I still, from time to time,
have nightmares about it. In one recent dream, the students all jumped up
and started throwing their desks out the window! I guess the bad feelings
are just an occupational hazard.

<kelly>

on 2/23/02 3:53 PM, dairycare wrote:

> > 1. Your own conclusion(s) of the source material would be far more valuable
> > 2. This work has been reviewed extensively in the discussion files over the
> > last 12 months and you can find this and much more there as well as in the
> > transcripts by the C's as related to Neanderthal, genetics, etc.
> > B

As I said, I have been unable to reach a conclusion at this point, which is
why I brought it up. I *have* searched the discussion files, and you'll note
that at the end of my references, I include a url to one relevant post. I
chose only one selection from the transcripts, but I have read others; the
one I chose seemed representative. Certainly the sources I cite are not the
only ones I've ever read; they're just the ones that came easily to hand to
send in an email.

No one on the list, as far as my search could reveal, has talked about "the
ginger gene." I'm also unaware of a posting that presented evidence pro,
con, and neutral on whether Neanderthals interbred with "modern" homo
sapiens. This is not to say that members have not done so; rather, if they
have, evidently my search skills need to be strengthened. Don't assume I
haven't searched, though, because I have.

To connect this post with another current thread: If people want to generate
free discussion, I think it would be better not to criticize members
(meaning me in this particular instance, but also others on the list who
have come under fire for the same thing), saying essentially "Duh! Do more
research!" You'll only end up squelching expression and inquiry. For one
thing, not all of us have been on the list for so long. For another, we
could all be reading from now until Doomsday (or 2012, whichever comes
first!) and still we'd probably be reading different sources of information,
at least from time to time. Such diversity can only strengthen discussions.

Why is my lack of an assertion about the Neanderthal theory so annoying to
you? Why is my seeming lack of knowledge about the topic so annoying to you
that you'd point it out so curtly? Is there something wrong with revisiting
topics already covered by the group? I'm picking up the impression that you
feel I'm a slacker somehow, but I apologize if that's not the case. If you
don't feel that way, you may want to reconsider how you phrase your "gentle"
suggestion that boils down to the equivalent of RTFM (computerese for "Read
the F...ing Manual"). While I won't let your comments hinder my free
expression, others may read it and think, "Gee...that's why I never post
anything! Who needs that kind of trouble? If I say something I'll probably
just get swatted down!"

I hope this response was logical and even-handed. I was working hard on not
letting this be a trigger, and I tried to divorce myself from most emotion
while writing it. I *want* to learn from my past mistakes...and I hope to
raise my level of success at doing so in the future.

Certainly, no hard feelings at all,
<kelly>

on 2/24/02 9:42 AM, Cathryn wrote:

> > I have been on the list for only a few months, and there have been quite a few
> > exchanges where I would have felt intimidated if it were not for the fact
> > that this is a good thing sometimes, because it shows us where we have an
> > emotional weakness. Hiding behind that weakness are the programs which we
> > need to root out and change into something more 'usable' than destructive.
> > Button pushing can be quite stimulating both for receiver and 'pusher' because
> > it will, if studied, reveal a truth which we need to take notice of.

I agree! That's sort of what I was trying to get at when I wrote:

> > I hope this response was logical and even-handed. I was working hard on not
> > letting this be a trigger, and I tried to divorce myself from most emotion
> > while writing it. I *want* to learn from my past mistakes...and I hope to
> > raise my level of success at doing so in the future.

I was honestly trying to be more constructive than reactive, which is a
personal goal of mine. I *do* think it's a good idea not to criticize
someone for what may appear to be a lack of research, simply because I'm
sure that's a button for many people on this list. I'm not trying to say
that "bad people" push this particular button--many, if not most, times, I'm
sure it's inadvertent, or the result of not trying to see something from the
other person's point of view.

In my case, this Neanderthal/interbreeding issue first caught my attention
before I joined the list, even. When I did join (I think it was in October
of last year), I started a draft of an email to the group about it. I did
search the archives (but as I said, I may not have the greatest search
skills, since it seems to take about an hour to thoroughly search those
archives). I have read the transcripts up to 960806, and I searched the rest
for other mentions of the subject (and found some; as I said, the one I
chose to include in the email seemed representative of the others).

But that email draft stayed in my "Drafts" folder until I sent it recently.
I *wanted* to reach some conclusion first, but couldn't, so I threw it out
to the group because I hoped to hear some more opinions on the subject, and,
spurred on by the other thread, I thought perhaps it would be a good idea to
participate more.

When I got that "you didn't do your homework" response, I was annoyed. And I
thought about how that might affect others, the "silent majority" on the
list. That's why I wrote what I did.

Fact is, I was just a little annoyed. I just got a little surge of
adrenaline. It wasn't that big of a deal to me, but it seemed like something
worth talking about. Should I even have said *anything*? I don't know.
Probably not. As I said back in January, I think it was, I'd really love to
be able to know when *not* to speak as much as when *to* speak.

I meant to defend myself without being overly defensive, and I meant to
encourage some of the quiet list members to post (I'm awfully curious about
you folks and would love to get to know you!).

I absolutely didn't mean to provoke a controversy! And I didn't mean to
imply that Bruce (is that "B."?) was being particularly mean, but could just
be a bit more thoughtful in the future with how he phrases a reply--as could
we all at times, I'm sure (definitely including myself in that one).

Golly gosh! The last thing I wanted was to be the center of another tiff!
Apologies to all for causing one!

<kelly>

on 3/4/02 10:07 AM, Curator at synaesthia@yahoo.com wrote:

> > Hi, I would be interested. If I'm not mistaken, the director is Hal
> > Hartley and someone told me that I would like his films very much.

Hal Hartley films can be something of an acquired taste, I think. I love
them, HENRY FOOL included. Hartley's got a very dark sense of humor,
eccentric characters, and somewhat aimless plots, but underlying all of his
work is a real compassion, I think. Many of the characters have suffered
abuse and the films deal with how that abuse lingers on into new
relationships (not just romantic ones) and how the characters come to cope.

It's interesting to me that the characters in HENRY FOOL reflect those of VB
and {Frank}. In the movie, the chemistry between the characters takes center
stage; the success that one achieves could not be reached without the
interaction (trying not to spoil plot here). I wonder if the same dynamic is
going on between VB and {Frank}, albeit in a reversal of roles.

BTW...a perhaps semi-interesting tidbit about me: remember the article on
chemtrails that someone posted about a week ago? That was from Columbus
Alive, a weekly newspaper here. I used to review movies for it! Here's a
sample of my work. Once I wrote, "If Tom Hanks doesn't win another Oscar for
FORREST GUMP, I'll eat a bug." Luckily, I didn't have to do that.

<kelly>

on 3/30/02 11:37 AM, Laura Knight-Jadczyk at lark2@ozline.net wrote:

> > Did any of you have similar experiences?

Yes. It seems to me that some people are just naturally friendly. But sure,
I'll be walking down the street and someone will just say, "Howdy." Or, if
I'm walking the dogs, they'll make some comment about them. I often get
people saying things like, "Smile! Things can't be that bad," which usually
startles me, since I'm not usually feeling sad when they say this. I guess I
have a grumpy face!

I also think this happens in towns where there's a friendly sort of culture.
For instance, here, a lot of people sit on their front porches during the
summer, so there's just more chances for interaction. It also seems to
happen more often on campus, don't know why.

<kelly>

Hi Karen, all--since I live fairly close to Serpent Mound, I've had a chance
to visit. It's actually sort of disappointing in some ways. The mound is
built up fairly low, and you don't really get a sense of what it looks like
until you go up into this observation tower. And the whole thing is smaller
than it appears in photographs. It doesn't have the grandeur you'd think it
would. Plus the tiny little museum they have on the site is practically
useless (it has been a few years since I went; they may have improved it).

Yet the area does have a power and magic of some sort. It's set high up in
the hills, and you really don't know you're coming upon it until you're
right there, giving it a bit of dramatic impact. The setting is gorgeous,
particularly in the fall. You really get a sense of a culture long past,
even if they keep the whole thing mowed and display only a few artifacts
there.

There are so many mounds around Ohio, and most have just been planted over
by farmers or built on or bulldozed. An entire city, Circleville, was built
on one. They're also a source of controversy when archeologists want to dig,
because the descendants of the moundbuilders say it desecrates sacred
ground. It's a quandary for me, personally, because I love discovering
ancient cultures, but I would want to respect the wishes of the indigenous
peoples that the US has already all but wiped out. So how far to go in the
quest for knowledge? Luckily, since I'm not an archeologist, I don't have to
make that decision!

Here's a tidbit of trivia: my husband's old band, Great Plains, recorded a
song about Serpent Mound.

<kelly>

Debra--I'm here for you, too. What you're going through with your son
reminds me of what I've gone through with my mother. What I came to
understand is that you absolutely cannot reason with an alcoholic when
drinking, and probably not even when not drinking. You just have to trust
yourself, that your feelings are right, since the alcoholic will do every
last damn thing to tell you you're wrong and that somehow the whole thing is
your fault.

My mom has consistently refused all help and will not go to any sort of
recovery process. She's worked in social services all her life, and her
assessment of mental health professionals in general is quite low.
(Personally, my experience with them has been good in general, with a few
notable exceptions). She claims she doesn't want help.

When my mom was at her worst, she tried to kill herself, too. I literally
scooped dozens of pills from her mouth while she tried to fight me off. A
few months later she ended up in the hospital with pancreatitis due to her
drinking, and almost died from it (probably not incidentally, this happened
on my birthday).

During a later hospital trip, she had to have an emergency appendectomy
which was complicated by her drinking. While there she hallucinated
terribly. She ran down the halls naked, according to a nurse, and I had to
try to convince her that it was okay to be restrained. She wasn't buying it.
She checked herself out, too, and boy were the doctors and nurses mad.

At one (sober) point during all this, I said, "mom, with your drinking
you're just killing yourself slowly and I can't stand to watch it." She
replied, "if I kill myself, it's my choice, and my right. It has nothing to
do with you."

While not exactly reassuring, her comment did make me feel less guilty. As
time went by, I realized that I only have control over myself. I'm not into
the whole AA, Al-Anon thing (read the article about it in the book "You Are
Being Lied To" for information about how ineffective it is in reality), but
the emphasis they place upon not being responsible for the actions of others
seems right to me--you know, the whole free will bag.

I came to think along these lines: Okay, my mom is alcoholic. She will
probably die from it. This is her choice. I cannot change what I cannot
change.

What would make me feel better in this situation, since that is the only
thing I have control over? I will feel better knowing that she has a roof
over her head and food in her mouth. While I can't force her to "mend her
ways" I can make sure she doesn't become homeless (which was a real
possibility at one point when she lost her job, was close to eviction, had
her utilities shut off, etc.).

My solution to the problem was this: I pay for her small apartment and
utilities. I go grocery shopping with her once a week. I make sure she has
her physical needs taken care of. I let her know that I love her and care
about her. When she got a job, I let her know that I supported her decision.

She's been sober most of the time in recent months, since this arrangement.
But if she drinks, there's absolutely nothing I can do about it. If she
refuses to seek help or go to a doctor for medical problems, there's
absolutely nothing I can do about it. She is an adult and sane and can make
her own decisions, even if I think they are really bad decisions.

Okay, sorry to vent. Debra, I feel for you. Your situation sounds much more
harrowing than mine, but perhaps my story will help you in some small way. I
hope so...

<kelly>

Hi all--I'm feeling very conflicted about writing this. One of my goals is
to know when to communicate and when to keep silent (knowing what's
important to share and what is not)...and I'm not sure which this is. I've
been going with "if you feel compelled, then write," but maybe that's not
the best strategy. Anyway, I feel compelled, so I'm writing.

Have any of the rest of you experienced what I'm about to describe? Can
anyone think of a way to end it?

Here's what I'm talking about: three times now, since encountering the C's
material, I've gone through periods where almost nothing of it makes sense.
I mean that literally. I read the emails, but I can't make heads or tails of
them. It seems like there are just these huge gaps--in my brain, in the
logic, in the emails? I just don't know. It's very foggy in my head right
now.

Previously, I've just hung in there, hoping something would become clear.
Eventually the fog lifts. But this is the worst I've experienced. It makes
me doubt everything I'm reading. I see what appears to be horrible
contradictions, then when I go back, they're not there anymore, or I simply
can't find them at all. Or I don't remember what bothered me, but the
feeling of doubt and being bothered is left.

I'm feeling so drowsy, like I just want to forget the whole thing and go
back to sleep. I mean this figuratively, as in our discussions, and
literally as well. I've been diagnosed with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome by two
different doctors, and while I'm not sure they're right, I do experience
periods of symptoms consistent with CFS. One of these is what is called
"brain fog" and another is, of course, unrelenting fatigue. So all I want to
do now is sleep. I feel like Dorothy in the poppy field. I hear the Wicked
Witch saying in her scratchy yet somehow soothing voice,
"Sleep....sleep...sleep."

I find it odd that the CFS is kicking in at the same time my mental block
about the C's is kicking in. Part of me says, "this is no coincidence. This
is yet another trick to keep you asleep." Another part of me says, "Bosh!
The whole thing is stuff and nonsense, and you know it! You're experiencing
the symptoms because you've taken on more work and you're becoming
exhausted. You can't understand the C's material because it is illogical.
Now go back to sleep!"

I have so many doubts, but when I think about it, I wonder if...

Sorry, I lost my train of thought. I mean really. But it seemed important.

I'd better close. Thanks for "listening."

<kelly>

Hi Laura, all--Thanks for sharing your experiences with us once again. I
know that I have found your personal story (as detailed in Grace,
Adventures, here) inspiring in this way, particularly: your courage is
terrific. I don't know if I could have survived what you've gone through
(and apparently many others on this list have survived terrible events as
well). My hat's off to all of you guys who persevere in the face of the
harshest adversity. My own adversity seems quite puny in comparison!

The thing I most wish for (if I can be allowed a little wishful thinking for
a moment) is something to anchor everything for me. A sign, if you will,
that I'm on the right track. Something to help me take everything I've
learned out of the realm of the theoretical. Unfortunately, reading about
the experiences of others can only take me so far in my endeavors. I'm back
at wanting to believe, like I did when I first joined the list. Grrr!

I have no problem saying that everything we talk about on this list, and
everything the C's say, and everything that Laura and Ark and others
research, *could* be true. I think much of it is a distinct possibility. But
that's the most verification I can ever give *anything.* I can't even say
for sure if I am real, in a phenomenological sense. Doubt should be my
middle name. And that's darn frustrating!

How I'm holding on right now, if anyone might possibly need to hear this: I
try to direct my attention to the statements I *can* understand rather than
kicking myself around for not understanding other statements. So some of the
discussion here goes over my head--and I delete it. I'm sorry; it's not a
sign of disrespect for any of you. I'm just trying to break things down into
chunks of information that I can assimilate.

I feel a bit like a blind person who has been told to imagine the color
blue. Experts have seen blue, and all evidence points to the existence of
blue. People keep telling me about blue. I have a vague idea what blue might
be, but heck, I can't *really* know what blue is because I'm blind. I accept
that blue probably exists, but without the experience of it, blue doesn't
exist for me, no matter how much I want it to exist.

All right, enough from me. Me me me. Grrr...

Let my egocentrism and frustration be a negative exemplar for all!
<kelly>

on 5/29/02 11:50 PM, reginahug wrote:

> > It happens for me when I stand to the side
> > and get out of my own way.
> > Regina "I will never surrender" Hug.

Hi Regina, all--wow, I love what you wrote in your post. Yes, certainly, I
am my own worst stumbling block. I tend to overthink *everything*. It's
mental masturbation, to put it crudely.

But it's more. I'm reminded right now of the "grooving of the channel" that
Laura had to go through in order to get a clear connection to the C's. Add
that to the comments you and Karen made about "feeling" color and sound,
raising FRV, brain chemistry, etc., and I think maybe the process is quite
physical.

Maybe the "AH HA" moment comes when a new neural path is worn in the brain.
I've simply worn the skeptical path pretty deeply, so it's harder for me to
break a new path. Someone hand me a machete! (Kidding--I know, I have to
find my own machete).

But thanks for the words of encouragement, Regina. I sincerely hope you're
able to share more of your insights now that you've left your trying job.

Maybe it seems to some that I've been self-centered during my tenure on the
list. It seems to *me* I have been! (Here I just deleted a bunch of stuff
where I was overthinking and being my own stumbling block. Maybe I'm
learning something!).

Anyway, please, all of you, understand how moved I've been by your reaching
out to me and to others on the list. I'm practically in tears thinking about
how sweet, kind-natured, and generous y'all are. A few days back someone
posted something addiction, which is kind of funny to me; I thought about
posting something about a month ago that it seems to me that this list is
like a support group for those in recovery from 3D addiction. I didn't,
because I know it's more than that--we're supposed to be adding to a body of
information and research, too. But it is the supportive nature of the group
that I find particularly appealing, I must admit.

Thanks again,
<kelly>

Her post on gaming dated 2 June 2002"

on 6/2/02 2:03 PM, Laura Knight-Jadczyk at lark2@ozline.net wrote:

> > Each day, I will remove his name from another page on the site. Not only his
> > name, but Burns and Weidner's names. Little by little, they will disappear
> > from our site until the names are all replaced by pseudonyms. On the places
> > where it may matter, I will insert a note that a pseudonym is being used.
They will probably use this opportunity to trumpet it as a triumph: "See,
she's backing off, so she knows she's wrong!" Be prepared for this tactic.

I'm thinking now about "actors" in some computer role-playing games I've
played. These are other characters you meet in the game who provide some
sort of narrative drive: they'll set you upon a quest, they'll battle you,
they'll provide you with some valuable information, etc. You interact with
them, and to an extent they seem "intelligent." They often have
well-developed personalities, too.

I think VB et al are "actors" in the Grand Game being run by 4D STS. They're
trying to force a narrative path down your throat, in a way. Because you've
encountered them, a series of events has been triggered. What you do now
will affect that series of events and their outcome. If you consider that
the AI technology must be incredibly advanced for 4D STS, the "actors" will
change tactics by learning about how *you* play the game. But you're still
driving the game! It depends on you, entirely. That's a pretty powerful
position, even if it doesn't look like it now.

Note that by existing on this density, we have chosen to play the game, to
"go for the gold" (remember people using this phrase originally to mean
Olympic athletes going for the gold medal?).

There's a movie called "eXistenz" which sort of formulates this kind of
world view, in a very simplistic way. It's a David Cronenburg film, which
means it's got lots of guts n' stuff, but if you can get past the grossness,
it's very interesting.

Oooh, I've been thinking more about this game idea, and there's more to it.
I'll have to excogitate awhile.

<kelly>

on 6/3/02 1:43 PM, Laura Knight-Jadczyk at lark2@ozline.net wrote:

> > And then he pointed out that they even FORGE being human beings. They are
> > massively efficient biocomputers that forge the appearance of having a human
> > soul.
To successfully forge something, you have to know exactly what the original
is like. Think of someone forging a $20 bill. They have to know every last
detail of the engraving, the ink, the paper, the watermark, the anti-forgery
markings (wonder how successful they've been?). They have to be incredibly
intimate with the original, as a matter of fact, to produce a completely
convincing fake.

If the psychopath doesn't understand consciousness or soul because he or she
lacks it, how can he or she produce a convincing forgery? Is the psychopath
perhaps being forged by another entity, i.e., 4D STS?

I still think that the psychopath is an "actor" in the narrative of a
person's life. They are artifacts of a massively efficient computer system,
yes--but they are not *independent* massively efficient biocomputers. The
control system produces them, as needed, to make winning the game more
difficult or hopefully impossible. (Note this is how I imagine 4D STS would
view it).

Perhaps psychopaths are *sleeping* "actors" until activated. Their
biochemistry is the switching mechanism. They, of course, are unaware that
they are actors, or else the forgery would be too flawed. They have to
believe that they are people to be effective. Thus their reality is
different from ours in many ways, yet they are deluded into thinking that it
is the same (although more colorful, interesting, weird, etc. than
"normal"). They have a direct, symbiotic connection to the control
system/matrix/preditor's mind/power structure/what-have-you. Maybe harmless
schizophrenics have had their switches thrown by 4D STO to stop them from
becoming psychopaths, and that's why the biochemistry is similar but the
behaviors are different.

To take a slight swerve in the road, not that anyone asked, but here's how I
think of plural realities: yes, no. Every infinite second we have a yes/no
decision to make. It could go either way. From each springs a reality. In
other words, I say yes to typing this period. I also said no to it, but that
reality branched off into another infinite series of yes/no decisions. When
something outside myself affects this reality, it may change the series of
yes/no decisions, but since both occur, it kind of doesn't matter. Oh boy,
does that ever make sense, huh. Well, somehow I'm able to picture this
infinite splitting of of realities as a kind of perfectly dense, boundless
and formless cloud of light particles that aren't actually separate from one
another. There's also a perfectly dense, boundless and formless cloud of
nothing bonded to that first cloud. How's that for nonsense?

Well, I like infinities.
<kelly>

on 6/3/02 7:48 PM, Laura Knight-Jadczyk at lark2@ozline.net wrote:

> > Have you read Cleckley??? It seems that they don't even "believe they are
> > real" in the sense we would understand it. Like Cleckley says, there is no
> > way
> > to convey the whole picture of what we are dealing with here without full
> > recitation of the many cases that, altogether, paint the portrait. This
> > includes numerous instances of interviews with quotes right from their mouths
> > in many situations...

Will do. They have it at the library. I must admit, I'm a little
uncomfortable with reading research from 1941 on the subject. Seems like
times and the culture were so different then. Back then, for instance,
homosexuality was considered a mental illness; women were constantly being
institutionalized and given shock treatments because they were prone to
depression (and not necessarily suicidal depression--just inconvenient
depression); people with epilepsy were put into asylums with the truly
mentally ill (my mother worked at a State School in Texas where in the 70s
there were still people there whose only problem was epilepsy; they had just
become so institutionally enculturated that they supposedly would not be
able to function on the "outside," so they kept them there). My point is...

I don't know what my point is, other than many people were classified as
insane/perverted/etc. who today would not be. I'm a little worried that this
might be the case with Cleckley. But I'll try to keep an open mind while I
read it; certainly if you value it so highly, it's worthwhile.

Also have several Gurdjieff books on order from half.com; one is about his
interactions with Jean Toomer, a figure in the Harlem Renaissance. Actually,
a couple of years ago, I was very interested in this
art/literature/political movement of the 20s and 30s, and in reading the
book "When Harlem was in Vogue" I first encountered the name Gurdjieff. In
that book he was portrayed as something of a charlatan, so I'll be
especially interested to read this one to see what this author's view is.
I'd be happy to report what it says at the conference or to anyone who might
be interested.

<kelly>

Hi all--I'm wondering about the usefulness of metaphor. For instance, in the
way I'm talking about reality these days, it's a glorified role-playing
game. There's a Matrix-type computer system generating our shared reality,
and it drops in "actors" or "non-playing characters" to keep us in line, to
keep its batteries charged, etc.

Here's the thing: is this a metaphor, or an actual description of really
real reality? I don't even know myself any more. Each seems equally
reasonable.

The Game of the Gods: is that a metaphor or an actual description? Is maybe
metaphor as good as we're going to get with our limited 3d brains? Is maybe
all language "really" metaphor?

There's a part in Gulliver's Travels (I think; it's Swift at any rate) where
people communicate by showing each other actual objects. Absurdly, they have
to carry many items with them all the time so that they have a workable
"vocabulary." Sure, it's satire, but does it also convey a basic truth about
language?

Is "density" a metaphor? FRV? Light? Love? Is that why some of us (uh, make
that me) have problems pinning these concepts down? The utter fluidity of
metaphor?

Maybe that's what makes personal experience so powerful...although...maybe
the whole of our existence is just a metaphor in the mind of 7d.

I know we've talked about language before, but I don't know if we've talked
that much about metaphor specifically. I know it's not good to use metaphor
to prove something logically, because it ends up becoming sort of a closed
argument. But maybe metaphor is fine as a proof that has nothing to do with
logic; maybe metaphor in fact takes the place of logic (wasn't it Henry who
proposed that something could or maybe should supplant logic?).

Just questions...don't know if anybody has answers, or if answers are
possible, but I'd love to hear some theories!

Whoa,
<kelly>

Hi all--I've been reading "The Mask of Sanity" and "Without Conscience." I
believe someone proposed that it would be handy to have some way of
identifying psychopaths early into our interactions with them, so that they
wouldn't get their hooks into us, so to speak. So far, I've come up with two
minor signals, things that should set off our DEW systems:

1. Boasting. I'm not talking about pride in accomplishments, like "Look at
this great birdhouse I built!" So far, from the case studies, it seems as if
the psychopath will tell you right off the bat how great he or she is. The
accomplishments they boast of also seem so much greater than what most
people experience. (As an aside, I think Cleckley's got Anna all wrong; it
seems totally clear to me what's behind her behavior--but that's another
story entirely).

Further, if you think about it, people who have genuinely accomplished
greatness don't talk about it that much in casual conversation. Can you
imagine meeting someone and in your first conversation she says, "You know,
I won the Nobel Prize last year." (Unless your conversation was related to
the Nobel or the category of the prize, of course.) And even if it did come
up, I'm sure it would be simply a statement of fact, not a matter to trumpet
to everyone around.

Some of my friends have done wonderful things, but it's not like they talk
about it all the time or use the opportunity to show how superior they are.
Then again, they're not psychopaths!

2. Fist fights. While not all psychopaths are brutally violent, it seems as
if a lot of them get involved in your basic fist fight or bar brawl. I see
this as separate from issues of domestic abuse--this is more public
fighting. When's the last time you or any adult you're close to got into a
fight? Probably back in school.

So far, I'd say if you meet someone who exhibits both of these signs, be on
your guard. Again, the aim here is to identify early, but if the psychopath
is *truly* effective, he or she may not present these indications.

Has anyone else come up with little tip-offs like these? I'd guess these
would help with avoiding the teeniest, tiniest of petty tyrants.

BTW, I've never encountered a psychopath, based on what I've learned here
and read elsewhere. I've met people who were real jerks, and had an abusive
stepfather, but they did not exhibit the classic signs of psychopathy. I
hope what I'm learning will help me at least recognize them if I should come
across them in the future.

<kelly>

on 6/7/02 9:10 PM, Laura Knight-Jadczyk at lark2@ozline.net wrote:

> > It's like the movie where aliens were taking over human beings and you had to
> > wear special glasses to see the fact that they were aliens. (What was the
> > name
> > of that movie?)
Isn't it "They Live"?

A thought occurred to me as I was reading Hare yesterday: could these be 2d
creatures in a 3d body, somehow? A lot of the descriptions of behavior
reminded me of animal behavior, especially dogs. Either that, or my little
Jack Russell Terrier is a psychopath!

<kelly>

on 6/8/02 2:31 AM, zilla1963 at hernanzez@hotmail.com wrote:

> > I'm also childless by choice, and have borne the brunt of criticism
> > because of it.
Count me among the childless by choice, as well, although no one has ever
criticized me for it.

No one factor has influenced my decision. Sometimes I think my genes are
faulty (depression), and I don't want to pass them on; other times I can't
stand the thought of being pregnant or giving birth, which sounds terribly
painful by all accounts; still other times I feel there are already far too
many people on this planet. Like others have mentioned about themselves,
I've never felt terribly maternal, either, yet I tend to enjoy being around
kids for short periods of time. I wonder how many others on the list are
childless by choice, and what the parents on the list think of us. Sometimes
I think it's the ultimate selfishness, but at others the ultimate
selflessness. Weird, huh?

<kelly>

on 6/8/02 2:31 AM, zilla1963 at hernanzez@hotmail.com wrote:

> > I'm also childless by choice, and have borne the brunt of criticism
> > because of it.
Count me among the childless by choice, as well, although no one has ever
criticized me for it.

No one factor has influenced my decision. Sometimes I think my genes are
faulty (depression), and I don't want to pass them on; other times I can't
stand the thought of being pregnant or giving birth, which sounds terribly
painful by all accounts; still other times I feel there are already far too
many people on this planet. Like others have mentioned about themselves,
I've never felt terribly maternal, either, yet I tend to enjoy being around
kids for short periods of time. I wonder how many others on the list are
childless by choice, and what the parents on the list think of us. Sometimes
I think it's the ultimate selfishness, but at others the ultimate
selflessness. Weird, huh?

<kelly>

on 6/13/02 12:15 PM, Arkadiusz Jadczyk at lark1@ozline.net wrote:

> > That is, this list is about facts and data and theories and
> > hypotheses relating these data, rather than about any particular
> > "enlightened source.".
It seems to me that this list is about more than the above. We all engage in
mere speculation from time to time. We all share personal experiences from
time to time. Perhaps this is where confusion has arisen.

Am I wrong here? The expression of thoughts and feelings is OK on this list.
But if something is represented as a "fact," or if it is a matter of
"belief," it must bear up to scrutiny. It seems as if we all try to analyze
what we read, to subject it to the process of critical thinking, simply
because most of what we read is presented as "fact."

Does this clarify anything for anyone? Am I off base?

<kellyk>
(sorry, recently I've signed <kelly>; I'll try to remember differentiate
myself from the other Kelly in the future)

 

[Laura]

Kelly Knuth Discography with Kelly playing drums:
_http://www.discogs.com/artist/Kelly+Knuth

 

[Laura]

There are some more threads in RI forum, and the leading character seems to be an 'American Dream'

thread: Laura Knight-Jadczyk (Cassiopaea Cult)
_http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=17715&p=186349&hilit=Jadczyk#p186349

American Dream, Sat May 17, 2008 7:28 pm
posted VB and AC (Constantine) stuff
gotnoscript siding with Cass (in this and some other threads)

-----
thread: Disinformation and Provocation Tactics, p.5
_http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?p=250428#p250428

American Dream Sun Feb 22, 2009 2:26 pm

I want to add one caution here about the Robert Hare book- it's about the extra baggage attached. Don't get me wrong- it seems to be a very good book. However, Laura Knight-Jadczyk of the Cassiopeia cyber-cult has latched on to the psychopathy issue big time, including Hare's book.

My understanding is that this cult has a whole motif about how this 5% or so of people born psychopaths are basically the cause of all Humanity's problem, and that they should be medically identified in early childhood and quarantined, or something like that.

It seems like this cult is fishing for abuse survivors, and that nothing good will come of their recruitment efforts. I say avoid them like the plague.

Please note that reading up on psychopathy, including Hare's excellent books, is very different from what I am cautioning about, and is very likely to be of value.

and AD a little bit later:

I'm not sure what you're talking about, don't really know that much about the Cassiopeia Cult. If you care to tell us more about them here, or better yet in a new thread, that would be grand!

so what, is he paid or what? After several years of posting about Cass cult he says he doesn't know much?

----
thread: Psychopaths are distracted, not cold-blooded(?)
_http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?p=292890#p292890
American Dream, Sat Oct 17, 2009

Psychopathy is a valid topic of inquiry, but by all means be very careful about anything on the subject coming from the deadly Laura Knight-Jadczyk and her cyber-cult. This means the Cassiopeia and Signs of the Times websites in particular.

She is trying to brand herself as the "go-to person" for all things related to psychopathy, but she mixes the requisite rat poison in with the valid information...

-----
Re: Laurel Canyon
_http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?p=337954#p337954
American Dream, Mon May 24, 2010 11:16 am

I would urge people to look around for other mirrors than the SOTT link given above.

Signs Of The Times is a front for the dangerous cyber-cult of Laura Knight-Jadczyk, who mixes valid conspiracy material with racism and cosmic debris and then uses it all to manipulate the minds of the people that she can reel in with this bait...

----
Re: Critique of Psychopathy Scale Delayed by Threat of Lawsuit
_http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?p=345178#p345178

American Dream Fri Jun 25, 2010 3:01 pm

It seems to me that "Ponerology" and the work of Hare on psychopathology have to a significant degree been appropriated by the cyber-cult of Laura Knight-Jadczyk. This is a very serious problem, as it is a deeply problematic group.

They may discuss very real war crimes by the State of Israel, mind control conspiracies and other such things, then attach on a hodgepodge of racist ideas, cosmic woo as "channelled" through Ms. Knight-Jadczyk and other such crap, all in the service of a dangerous cult which may fleece adherents of their money and their minds.

My personal opinion, and I have to share it when these kinds of ideas are being mentioned...

**

My concern is not that the meta-concepts are somehow tainted merely by their association with Laura Knight-Jadczyk and her minions.

My concern is that these concepts are being used as bait, all over the Internet, to draw people into a dangerous cult.

So warnings are definitely in order.

---
Re: Hopsicker's new book
_http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?p=413872#p413872

Wombaticus Rex, Fri Jul 15, 2011 1:07 pm

SOTT is an online community built around the graphomaniac Laura Knight-Jadczyk who is one of many purveyors of a top-to-bottom unified field theory of world history, paranormal activity and quantum physics. Spent a lot of time going through some of her research, she does thorough work although it's all in the service of her own Big Picture...

A few other threads/ posts:

_http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=14609&hilit=Jadczyk

_http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=13560&p=132657&hilit=Jadczyk#p132657

_http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.pahp?p=37836#p37836
Gouda Re: ...aliens Tue Nov 15, 2005
and following posts

BOARD: UFOs and High Weirdness
_http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?p=53612#p53612

 

[Laura]

Rigorous Intuition is run by Jeff Wells.

Jeff Wells on FB: _http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000142129509

About: Longtime satirist for the late Frank Magazine; author of Anxious Gravity and Rigorous Intuition.
Religious Views: two-thirds Simone Weil, one-third HP Lovecraft
One mutual friend: Richard Dolan

Lives in Toronto

_http://davefromqueens2.blogspot.com/2010/01/jeff-wells-and-rigorous-intuition-are.html

Thursday, January 21, 2010
Jeff Wells and Rigorous Intuition are Disinfo

A reporter once advised me that claims are never libel, if they are the truth. One of the biggest purveyors of satanic panic gibberish on the net has been Jeff Wells of Rigorous Intuition. He used to be close to Andy Stephenson, another person well-known for doling out extra spoonfuls of tinfoil. This is all part of the public record.

If you think Jeff and Andy have actually believed in their spewed garbage, then perhaps I can offer you some swampland in Florida.

Such people are mocking us. They have made lefties look like unhinged losers (see Jason Leopold). Whether such efforts have been for grifting purposes rather than something much more sinister is the $64,000 question. [...]

_http://davefromqueens2.blogspot.com/2010/01/real-person-apparently-victimised-by.html

Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Real Person Apparently Victimised by "Jeff Wells" and Dr. Lowell Routley of Iowa

Her name is Lynn Schirmer, an artist from Seattle, Washington. Her username at Rigorous Intuition is Project Willow. She has provided this information herself. ...

Schirmer believes she is a survivor of MKULTRA. She has basically been sucked into the vortex of the type of conspiracy chatter that Jeff Wells promotes. For someone suffering from multiple personality disorder, this was the worst result that could have ever happened to her. That will become clear, when some of her posts are presented later. She fears being abducted by the so-called perpetrators. She is a clear example that innocent people are still being victimised by the satanic panic. ...

It appears to me that Ms. Schirmer has been victimised twice. She seems to have been a victim of pedophilia. Now she appears to have become a tool for grifting doctors and outlandish conspiracy theorists like Jeff Wells. ...

A comment :

... Rigorous Intuition is a bizarre example of such an environment. A person alleging that they were victimized by a satanic cult or CIA mind-control operation will be permitted to post the most outrageous slanders about anyone - living or dead - especially about political figures or celebrities. But, persons who attempt to expose "holes", falsehoods or logical fallacies in a victim claimant's stories will be BANNED.

_http://davefromqueens2.blogspot.com/2010/03/jeff-wells-of-rigorous-intuition-linked.html

Saturday, March 6, 2010
Jeff Wells Of Rigorous Intuition Linked To Pentagon Shooter J. Patrick Bedell

This entry is dedicated to J. Patrick Bedell, now better known as the Pentagon Shooter. Don't take that the wrong way. I am not going Ormond Otvos style and claiming his actions were heroic. Au contraire. I abhor violence. What he did was terribly wrong. However, Bedell is just another in a growing list of victims of the internet zeitgeist. It appears that the Turner type strategy of "drawing out the crazies" may be more akin to the creation of violent crazies.

In an earlier entry we saw how Jeff Wells of Rigorous Intuition was partly responsible for Theresa Duncan's demise. We also saw how he has contributed to the worsening of some individual's mental states, e.g. Lynn Schirmer. Now we can tie Jeff Wells and his brand of disinfo to the deterioration of Bedell's mental state. It may appear to be a tenuous connection. I don't think so. [...]

 

[Laura]

There's more:

It definitely needs to be cross-checked before posting; I haven't done that. Wells seems to be rather loved (bad juju!), announced the best Canadian satiric writer, and it was difficult to find anything against him. So that guy socrates is the only source I managed to find so far who criticizes JW and RI.

He admits:

_http://www.blogger.com/profile/01764134901412321022

I admit the link between Wells to the Pentagon shooter is not strong, at least not as much as his tie to Theresa Duncan. Though I think I made that pretty clear in the blog entry.

Fintan Dunne makes a lot of claims about CIA internet fakes yet never supplies proof. I don't understand people like Wells and Ego. I admit it. I also admit a lot of my animosity towards people like them and Friedman, even Tinoire, are due to how they personally treated me. But I stand by nearly everything I've written. Tinoire did say she was military intelligence. Rivero did have contact addresses with both PMC4 LLC. and McDonnell Douglas. It gets to be kind of a mind fock actually the number of things we end up finding out, like an information overload, and I apologise for that.

But then he blames JW for Duncan's suicide to some extent because "Theresa Duncan obviously did believe a lot of things coming out of the Jeff Wells disinfo camp. She appears to have been a regular lurker of RI, going as far as to plug his website at her blog." and "it's clear the net is a catalyst for a lot of people taking crazy actions." Don't know if /how much he may be stretching things. On the other hand, it's difficult to disagree when he says:

I don't know how one can debate people like Alex Jones, Jeff Wells, Mike Rivero, and many others aren't having negative influences on unstable individuals. That's the main point I tried to make with this blog entry, though I admit I could have articulated it better.

BTW, one commenter provides some info about the Frank Magazine:

_http://www.blogger.com/profile/12503571778897116344

FRANK magazine was an obscure, low low budget publication, in magazine format but printed on newsprint. It was distributed independently, so it was never easy to find on news stands. Primary distribution seemed to be by subscription, through a post-office box that changed every 6 months or so. FRANK never broke any stories of importance, it was devoted to airing the dirty laundry of politicians & civil servants. Much of the subscriber base were probably civil servants, as a lot of content was insider jokes and references that ordinary folk wouldn't understand. Frequently, it was little more than mean-spirited slanders and mud-slinging. The "Dick Little" column written by Wells epitomized that aspect of FRANK.

Wells has been more careful than many bloggers about keeping himself out of his own writings. He doesn't talk much about his personal life, his life history, his emotional state, his offline friendships or activities. When you make your living mocking other people's faults & foibles, as Wells did while writing for FRANK, it would be vital to hide your true self in the shadows as much as possible, to minimize the risk of "retaliation in kind" by your victims.

Another good comment from the same page:

The other odd thing about RI is that Wells, Barracuda, Nomo, Compared2What and many of the long timers seem to uniformly take a stance limiting discussion of the controlled demolition theory(though like many have made note, other topics are not off limits). One of the posters calling RI a Honeypot linked to the Compared2What thread titled "RI "Bad" Guys: UR DOIN IT WRONG" in which she basically said they were all agents and some of them "were not doing it right" and exposing their methods or some such crap and may be in danger. Have to see if I can find the exact quote... but WTF is going on over there? And none of the usual suspects ever really called her out for making the statement. Strange.

It just seems strange that on a blog where anything goes, they take such a firm stance against discussion of controlled demolition.

_http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=27363&start=90

On the thread above, some are even suggesting that RI is itself a honey pot. A couple of posters in that thread have taken the moderators to task about how fishy it is that they are so concerned with limiting discussion of controlled demolition threads. You don't see the moderators concerned about other much more ridiculous topics... but on Controlled Demolition RI always wants to close those threads down. You would think the moderators if they didn't care for it would just ignore those threads... but they don't. Every time controlled demolition comes up there is a push by the RI regulars to shut it down.

So people wonder openly there if RI is a honeypot. My personal feeling is this, RI is indeed a honeypot. Just a matter of who and what is running the honeypot and more importantly why? Socrates has pointed out some far right connections. Is it the far right pulling RI's strings? Has RI been asked by some group of the far right to avoid the topic kind of like how Democratic Underground obviously has mods and fake posters in place to shut down 9/11 discussions? All of these so called "liberal" boards are asked to shut down and confuse 9/11 discussions for the same basic reason... we all know there is something in the USA that helped to pull off 9/11. Just like we know something in the USA helped kill JFK and is to this day still being protected. I have zero evidence but that is the only thing that seems to make sense of what the mods at RI are doing in light of some of the other things they have been involved with(Tinoire's Commie Honeypot over at Progressive Independent and the Gannon/Gosch hoax over at DU).

It was the far right after all that ran the government when the USA was attacked and had plenty of opportunities to shut the hijackers down but didn't. And it was the far right that attacked the Oklahoma City building, it was the far right in cahoots with muslim agent provocateurs that attacked the World Trade Center in 1993. It has been the far right mostly with ties to Texas that has been attacking the U.S. government facilities over the past few months(or in the case of Alex Jones, egging it on). And I imagine it would be certain parts of the far right that would probably want to limit discussion of controlled demolition. Specifically those far right elements unfortunately too close either by accident or by choice with whatever groups may have brought down the towers by controlled demolition on 9/11 if controlled demo is how it happened which i tend to believe. Hope they all get exposed to the light of day very soon so America can move on to better things.

I don't know what Jeff's scam ultimately is. He definitely writes a lot of stupid things. He was close to Andy Stephenson and many in the zeitgeist. Thanks for the info on Frank Magazine. I had a feeling it wasn't that important a publication. Thanks for confirming.

Maybe Jeff, Constantine, that Millegan TrineDay dude, Hopsicker and others receive funding from the same source. Without paystubs, however, it's all speculation. All one can do is post their findings, maybe throw in some ideas and then let the readers decide. It's all very strange, imho.

another comment about RI:

One thing I foind odd about the place is that they make a deal about being "anti-fascist" yet there's never any posting on fascism, let alone criticism and identification of it. What there is, as so often, is misidentification of this supposed "NWO" as "fascism". Hmmm. They can't spot the real thing, nor do they seem to care about it - there's no posts about it - but they see fascism in all the "NWO" stuff, and they really do care about that.... Odd.

Securing the borders is fascist! Opening the borders is fascist! Having a vast military machine is fascist! Having insufficient means to protect from attack is fascist! Destruction of jobs is fascist! Socialism is fascist! blah blah blah blah.

Absolutely senseless, but no-one seems to notice.