Mummy, why is Daddy wearing a dress? Daddy, why does Mummy have a moustache?

[Voyageur]

I’ll admit that some of my buttons were pushed by the article too, it stirred up some very old fears. It wasn’t unusual back then for gays to be lumped into the same basket as pedophiles – gosh I remember that growing up and one the fears I had when considering coming out was that I would be accused of being a pedophile, or be treated as though I was one.

In general and in my experience there seems to have been a shift in that public perception. I’m curious if that shift began to happen when some pedophile groups started to claim that pedophilia is a normal sexual orientation like homosexuality in a fake attempt to gain some legitimacy while the real purpose was to reduce the perceived connection between the two by creating a vehicle to talk about the distinctions between them. In other words, take the heat off gays, then join them to influence the direction of their political lobbying to gain benefit for their own sick ends. So I wonder if this was engineered as part of the plan in order to help pedophiles to hide behind a mask of ‘gay’ so that they can continue or advance their own sick agenda? I’m not yet finished ECHCC so perhaps that point may have already been addressed.

Although I recognised that this was important information to share, I hesitated to share a link to the article fb because I expected reactions like whitecoasts and I wasn’t sure how to deal with that, so am thankful for this discussion.

When I first read the article, it kind of donned on me that this will touch personal buttons deeply, forgetting, as it appeared to me in the very direction of the article, that it was an exposé on pedophilia and how they are very good at hiding and creating cover stories. As the pathological focus was on pedophilia, homosexuality seems to be a choice mask (most suited) to hid behind to better co-opt and manipulate their particular mental and sexual pathology from within. What you said above (bolded), seemed to come across to you also in this way, if reading it so.

As this article primarily concerns pedophilia's parasitically infiltration of the gay community, this is not dissimilar, osit, to hardcore Zionists or Hawks infiltrating religions to help legitimize their ulterior motives. In the prior case, assaulting children, in the latter case, bombing them.

Hervey Cleckley, in his book The Caricature of Love, offers the reader many descriptions (back at that time) of sexual pathology and some of the modus operandii that this pathology would operate in. Given this article, he might of agreed with this pedophilia focus in our current time.

I think it was very good, whitecoast, that your were able to share what you were thinking, including your wiliness to listen to others and work through it - appreciate the discourse by all here and thank you Pierre, for writing your article.

 

[luke wilson]

Pierre,

Excellent article. Mind-blowing. Excellent research. I learnt something new today!

From the research/experiments of Robert Jahn and Brenda Dunne, bonded heterosexual couples have the strongest positive signature in terms of the human-cosmic connection. This I suppose is not surprising given that such strong heterosexual bonded unions are pretty much the corner stone of human society. Even being around such people, you can sense the magnetism that they emanate as a 'couple'.

From your research, someone who is forever single, what does this mean cosmically/energetically? Cause for concern? What would your grandma say?

Speaking from the point of view of Gnosis by Mouravieff, for progression through where we are - evolution of spirit and from mechanicalness, does the cosmos demand of us to be in such unions (i.e. happily married/bonded unions) in order to be complete - as per your view?

Maybe my Grandma would say that, couple or not, what really matters is to be good human beings.

I think that the couple thing is only one factor amongst many others. The most important factor being probably the ability of an individual to 'resonate' with Truth (this point is explained, hopefully clearly, in part IV of ECHCC).

Of course a bonded heterosexual couple made of two individuals resonating with Truth is ideal (and very rare).

This being said there might be a correlation between the formation of bonded couples, and the Truth resonant individuals. Indeed the more an individual resonates with Truth the more he is likely to find the 'one' because he's less blinded by programs and prejudices that make him attracted on superficial levels.

To be honest, I don't really believe in the 'one' any more - I now think of that as wishful thinking. I just believe in people who get on well together now. I don't think 'Truth' or 'Lies' have much to do in the way of heterosexual coupling, at least not in the way we think of 'Truth' here. Maybe 'Truth' in terms of being able to 'read' a situation accurately/objectively and respond effectively and accordingly is what you meant? Well, the majority of heterosexuals can do this, no problem. Either way, I suppose this is all besides the point you were making.

I'm going on a tangent mainly due to Elliot Rodgers lunacy. That video on youtube made it appear like all forever single people are aberrations. Anyways, this is now moving away from your article.

Btw, regarding HFL, don't waste your energy.. he's a nice guy who's heavily invested in his views, some of which can be interesting but sometimes he just doesn't know when to stop.

 

[Jones]

Yeah Voyager, that was what I was thinking.

This morning I've made another possible connection that has left me feeling a bit shaky. Are pedophiles in high places using the whole 'receivership' thing that they think gays have as part of their justification for the abuses they commit?

 

[mabar]

I hope someone gets something out of my efforts, regardless!

Yes it did and does, thanks Wu Wei Wu and thanks other members, the explanation from Laura about receivers and senders was quite intersting, had not finished though, I'm still in Pierre's post, and thank you Pierre for the article, was not interested in reading it, I admit, but I did due to curiosity?, I read your previous article http://www.sott.net/article/279037-Eradicating-beauty-The-destruction-of-art, last week, on Saturday I read one of the post related to this thread in the "View the most recent posts on the forum" that I usually do, and went to read the article.

I hadn't had been having much coexistence with homosexual people, a friend from university, that took the decision to leave the semester due to a conflict with other homophobic classmates, that was years ago. Nowadays, I have little interaction, mostly with transsexual clients, more from the provocative ones. And I had observed, as Laura says, the automatic correlation/association with pedophiles and homosexuals in other people, and yes, myself too. So yes, one/me learn to see more behind the curtains with this kind of articles, and my own falling/ponerized thought process from the manipulations of the PTB.

---
What is a PC people?, does it come from Plato's Cave?

 

[Mal7]

This I suppose is not surprising given that such strong heterosexual bonded unions are pretty much the corner stone of human society. Even being around such people, you can sense the magnetism that they emanate as a 'couple'.

I think in some cases that magnetism is just neuroticism or some other form of mild pathology. Speaking here about regular couples rather than polar opposites, I don't think they need to be 'glorified' vis-à-vis the state of being single. We are here to learn, about ourselves and about objective reality. Sometimes that learning is accelerated within a relationship, and at other times that relationship might be putting the brakes on the pace of learning and we would be better off without it.

In one misguided romantic perception of what a relationship is, the other person becomes one's "whole world", and you become that person's "whole world", which leads to an involutionary state where both people lose track of the real whole world which continues to exist outside of their obsession with each other.

 

[Mal7]

What is a PC people?

PC = Politically correct.
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness

 

[Sol Logos]

This I suppose is not surprising given that such strong heterosexual bonded unions are pretty much the corner stone of human society. Even being around such people, you can sense the magnetism that they emanate as a 'couple'.

I think in some cases that magnetism is just neuroticism or some other form of mild pathology. Speaking here about regular couples rather than polar opposites, I don't think they need to be 'glorified' vis-à-vis the state of being single. We are here to learn, about ourselves and about objective reality. Sometimes that learning is accelerated within a relationship, and at other times that relationship might be putting the brakes on the pace of learning and we would be better off without it.

In one misguided romantic perception of what a relationship is, the other person becomes one's "whole world", and you become that person's "whole world", which leads to an involutionary state where both people lose track of the real whole world which continues to exist outside of their obsession with each other.

Many people use others to prop up their low self worth, and often two people come together and do that to each other in a symbiotic kind of way. They might feel in love, but that's not what I'd define as a loving couple. I'd say those type of relationships are generally short lived as the underlying low self worth will come up sooner or later for another fix. Probably then there's more of the real loving relationships able to be found in lasting couples whether homosexual or heterosexual.

 

[Pierre]

Pierre,

Excellent article. Mind-blowing. Excellent research. I learnt something new today!

From the research/experiments of Robert Jahn and Brenda Dunne, bonded heterosexual couples have the strongest positive signature in terms of the human-cosmic connection. This I suppose is not surprising given that such strong heterosexual bonded unions are pretty much the corner stone of human society. Even being around such people, you can sense the magnetism that they emanate as a 'couple'.

From your research, someone who is forever single, what does this mean cosmically/energetically? Cause for concern? What would your grandma say?

Speaking from the point of view of Gnosis by Mouravieff, for progression through where we are - evolution of spirit and from mechanicalness, does the cosmos demand of us to be in such unions (i.e. happily married/bonded unions) in order to be complete - as per your view?

Maybe my Grandma would say that, couple or not, what really matters is to be good human beings.

I think that the couple thing is only one factor amongst many others. The most important factor being probably the ability of an individual to 'resonate' with Truth (this point is explained, hopefully clearly, in part IV of ECHCC).

Of course a bonded heterosexual couple made of two individuals resonating with Truth is ideal (and very rare).

This being said there might be a correlation between the formation of bonded couples, and the Truth resonant individuals. Indeed the more an individual resonates with Truth the more he is likely to find the 'one' because he's less blinded by programs and prejudices that make him attracted on superficial levels.

To be honest, I don't really believe in the 'one' any more - I now think of that as wishful thinking. I just believe in people who get on well together now. I don't think 'Truth' or 'Lies' have much to do in the way of heterosexual coupling, at least not in the way we think of 'Truth' here. Maybe 'Truth' in terms of being able to 'read' a situation accurately/objectively and respond effectively and accordingly is what you meant? Well, the majority of heterosexuals can do this, no problem. Either way, I suppose this is all besides the point you were making.

Exactly!

And you emphasized an important point here. Being in a couple and resonating with truth are two different things.

Being in a bonded heterosexual couple solely catalyzes the effects of your intent. However, it doesn't say anything about the nature of this intent.

Let's take a bonded heterosexual couple that believes the lies spread by mainstream media. For example, they believed that Bin Laden committed the 9/11 terrorist attacks and at the time their intent (based on their beliefs) was that Bin laden must be arrested (although he might have been already dead for a while). Despite the catalyzed effect (due to the bonded couple), they didn't necessarily push things in the right direction.

What I mean here is that the bonded couple acts solely as a catalyst (how strongly you push) of the individual's intent (in what direction you push), which is based on what you know and believe. Bonded heterosexual couples push 6.5 times harder but it doesn't mean at all that they push in the right direction. To push in the right direction you need, as you mentioned an objective assessment of reality.

Maybe that's one of the meaning of 'hell is paved with good intention'.

 

[Mal7]

Being in a bonded heterosexual couple solely catalyzes the effects of your intent. However, it doesn't say anything about the nature of this intent.

Let's take a bonded heterosexual couple that believes the lies spread by mainstream media. For example, they believed that Bin Laden committed the 9/11 terrorist attacks and at the time their intent (based on their beliefs) was that Bin laden must be arrested (although he might have been already dead for a while). Despite the catalyzed effect (due to the bonded couple), they didn't necessarily push things in the right direction.

What I mean here is that the bonded couple acts solely as a catalyst (how strongly you push) of the individual's intent (in what direction you push), which is based on what you know and believe. Bonded heterosexual couples push 6.5 times harder but it doesn't mean at all that they push in the right direction. To push in the right direction you need, as you mentioned an objective assessment of reality.

Regarding the part I have bolded above, I have a small quibble to make about it. The Jahns' experiments show that the deviation from what would be the expected result if there were no PK influence was 6.5 times greater in the cases of bonded heterosexual couples than with single operators. But this is not the same thing as the "push" being 6.5 times greater.

For example, imagine there is a type of Bamboo that grows 100mm a month, and two different fertilizers are being tested, Fertilizer A and Fertilizer B.

Let us say the results are that the Bamboo treated with Fertilizer A turns out to grow at a rate of 101 mm per month. The Bamboo treated with Fertilizer B is found to grow at a rate of 106.5mm per month.

Now about this it could be said that the effect of Fertilizer B was 6.5 times more powerful than that of Fertilizer A. But if we consider the ability of the two experimental Bamboo plots to grow as their "pushing" power, the Bamboo with Fertilizer B only has about 5.4% more pushing power than the Bamboo with Fertilizer A, rather than 650% (or 6.5 times) more.

Or to put it back into terms more like the original experiment, imagine a coin is tossed 200 times, with the subjects of the experiment being asked to try and make it land on heads using PK. After many repeated tests, let us say single operators are found to on average produce 101 heads per 200 tosses, while bonded heterosexual couples are found to produce on average 106.5 heads per 200 tosses. It might seem reasonable to say the bonded heterosexual couples push 6.5 times harder in this case. But what if it the results were 1,000,001 heads per 2,000,000 tosses for single operators, and (on average) 1,000,006.5 heads per 2,000,000 tosses for bonded heterosexual couples? Although the number of "unexpected" heads is 6.5 times greater in one case, the difference from the expected result if there were no PK effect is still small. If pushing power were defined as the number of unexpected results divided by the number of tosses, the pushing power for the bonded heterosexual couple would be 0.00000325, and for the single operator it would be 0.0000005, so indeed it would be 6.5 times greater by that definition. But the numbers are so small, that it seems a bit like saying that putting a bumper sticker on your car makes it 6.5 times less fuel efficient (e.g. if the extra weight of a bumper sticker meant a car could only travel 1,000,000,000,001 kilometres on a certain amount of fuel, while without the bumper sticker it would travel for 1,000,000,000,006.5 kilometres on the same amount of fuel.)

 

[Neil]

(Pierre) In a previous session, years ago, it was mentioned that sometimes a man and woman make love, there is this kind of union on a soul level. I'm kind of paraphrasing here. And I want to know if this only happens between polar opposites?

A: Not necessarily.

Q: (Pierre) Okay, another question that's a bit more personal. I think in the past I experienced this kind of thing once. Is it true, or I'm just dreaming?

A: More or less, but could have been more than you can imagine presently if you had been capable of carrying the energies.

Q: (Pierre) Wow. That's already a lot. (L) I don't want to know about this kind of thing, Pierre! Jesus Christ! [laughter] (Pierre) No, it was not sexual like that, it was very beautiful. (L) I know, I'm just teasing. (Pierre) And they're saying it can be much more than that? (L) It's kind of like you were a 110 appliance trying to run on 220V.

Thinking in the context of this session, if something happens at the point of orgasm, I've always kind of wondered how gay guys can bond energetically. It seems to me that the bioenergetic "circuit" is designed for heterosexual intercourse and homosexual people kind of run up against the wall of physical anatomy. The energy just doesn't flow correctly from a battery with two positive ends.

The reason this concerns me is because I've always found members of both sexes to be sexually interesting and have had a couple of "boy crushes" that I've had to deal with.

[mod: graphic language edited]

I grew up in an environment where homosexuality is basically unacceptable and throughout my life have basically tried to ignore it. My initial reaction to the bit about PK experiments was this was another fact supporting the idea that homosexuality is unacceptable. However, since encountering the Cassiopaean material, I've often wondered, if we are souls that incarnate into all of these different bodies and gain these experiences that make us who we are, why should gender matter? It really seems like a small trifle. Perhaps at our relatively low level of 3D vibration it matters a lot and only at higher levels can you really liberate yourself from the constraints we are faced with here. Maybe that leads us into the shamanic element, I really don't know.

As for the rest of the article, I have to agree with everything Pierre brought up. The hypersexualization of the gay "scene" has done nothing for me except make me feel bad about my homosexual urges in the past. It definitely has a nasty sort of entropic vibe behind it. I always wondered where the pedophilic associations came from, and Pierre really did a good job of connecting the dots for me.

 

[l apprenti de forgeron]

I grew up in an environment where homosexuality is basically unacceptable and throughout my life have basically tried to ignore it. My initial reaction to the bit about PK experiments was this was another fact supporting the idea that homosexuality is unacceptable. However, since encountering the Cassiopaean material, I've often wondered, if we are souls that incarnate into all of these different bodies and gain these experiences that make us who we are, why should gender matter? It really seems like a small trifle. Perhaps at our relatively low level of 3D vibration it matters a lot and only at higher levels can you really liberate yourself from the constraints we are faced with here. Maybe that leads us into the shamanic element, I really don't know.

Yes, that may be the point. In 3D sts maybe this is important. Gender should not be ignored, is part of the lessons.
Also, it would be nice, Neil, if you write with a slightly more moderate vocabulary.

 

[Mal7]

I think the kind of PK experiments by Jahn are an interesting area for research, but that it may be possible to read too much into the results that have been achieved. More robust or definitive conclusions could be made if other researchers were able to produce the same results in other settings. I think sometimes psychological studies have been criticized for using a sample population of e.g. American college students, and then extrapolating the results of that particular sample, that has its own unique traits, to the whole of humanity?

The concept of "peer-reviewed" science has its good and bad aspects. The bad aspects are that science that is considered unacceptable by the mainstream can be unfairly denigrated under the guise of "peer review". While Pierre's SOTT article notes that Jahn's research was recognized by the U.S. National Research Council, Wikipedia reports that a committee of that same council in 2001 also supported the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Research_Council#Report_on_climate_change). My point being that although peer review approval is desirable, it is not really a sufficient guarantee of the validity of results.

A Wikipedia page on the Jahn's Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab also has a couple of links to articles that question the Jahns' research. (_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princeton_Engineering_Anomalies_Research_Lab). The existence of critical articles does not in itself disprove any particular research. In fact, the opposite might be the case, i.e. better research that points towards a different paradigm that is more explanatory of objective reality may attract more attempts to debunk it, than more conventional research does.

So in conclusion I think the Jahns' research is interesting, and ideally more research, including from other researchers and other institutions, should continue on the subject before too many definitive pronouncements are made.

One other idea that occurred to me was what might the results be if, rather than a couple, a whole "mob" or crowd of people which had been worked up into a kind of "crowd mind" were tested? Maybe their pushing power would be even greater than for bonded heterosexual couples?

 

[luke wilson]

I think the kind of PK experiments by Jahn are an interesting area for research, but that it may be possible to read too much into the results that have been achieved. More robust or definitive conclusions could be made if other researchers were able to produce the same results in other settings. I think sometimes psychological studies have been criticized for using a sample population of e.g. American college students, and then extrapolating the results of that particular sample, that has its own unique traits, to the whole of humanity?

The concept of "peer-reviewed" science has its good and bad aspects. The bad aspects are that science that is considered unacceptable by the mainstream can be unfairly denigrated under the guise of "peer review". While Pierre's SOTT article notes that Jahn's research was recognized by the U.S. National Research Council, Wikipedia reports that a committee of that same council in 2001 also supported the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Research_Council#Report_on_climate_change). My point being that although peer review approval is desirable, it is not really a sufficient guarantee of the validity of results.

A Wikipedia page on the Jahn's Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab also has a couple of links to articles that question the Jahns' research. (_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princeton_Engineering_Anomalies_Research_Lab). The existence of critical articles does not in itself disprove any particular research. In fact, the opposite might be the case, i.e. better research that points towards a different paradigm that is more explanatory of objective reality may attract more attempts to debunk it, than more conventional research does.

So in conclusion I think the Jahns' research is interesting, and ideally more research, including from other researchers and other institutions, should continue on the subject before too many definitive pronouncements are made.

One other idea that occurred to me was what might the results be if, rather than a couple, a whole "mob" or crowd of people which had been worked up into a kind of "crowd mind" were tested? Maybe their pushing power would be even greater than for bonded heterosexual couples?

Fair points.

Besides the point you are trying to make Mal7, what is going on underneath the surface with you if you don't mind me asking? Jahn's work or rather the conclusions derived by Pierre seems to have some significance to you, emotionally? Just a guess, not totally sure.

 

[Mal7]

Besides the point you are trying to make Mal7, what is going on underneath the surface with you if you don't mind me asking? Jahn's work or rather the conclusions derived by Pierre seems to have some significance to you, emotionally? Just a guess, not totally sure.

While it is hard to know exactly what is going on underneath the surface (or it would then be a conscious thought), I could guess I have some kind of fear of a hegemonic discourse that prescribes what is the one good way for humans to live, or what kinds of art are good or bad. Even if some art is "bad", I think people are complex enough that that "bad" art could still be "good" for them where they are at that point in their lives? Politically I consider myself "liberal" in the sense that I think people should be free to do what they want, when it doesn't harm others. When you look at all the different values and ways of living practiced in different human societies throughout prehistory and history, there seems to be a great diversity. Along with the sixth extinction of animal species now going on, loss of human cultural diversity is also taking place, with the loss of whole languages, and the continued expansion of American corporate culture and products into the rest of the world.

 

[Pierre]

One other idea that occurred to me was what might the results be if, rather than a couple, a whole "mob" or crowd of people which had been worked up into a kind of "crowd mind" were tested? Maybe their pushing power would be even greater than for bonded heterosexual couples?

Yes, PK group influence has been tested by Robert D. Nelson ( ‘Field REG anomalies in group situations’, Journal of Scientific Exploration, 1996) during all kinds of venues (stand-up comedy performances, concerts, theatrical events) and by Dean Radin who studies the influence of the world population, or most of it, during worldwide 'moving' events (Radin D., The Conscious Universe).

Collective PK influence is addressed in Earth Changes and The Human Cosmic Connection (particularly in chapter 40: 'Collective Resonance' and Chapter 41: 'The Truth Factor')