Session 13 December 2014

[de-tached]

Thanks for the food for thought.

I have a few observations I'd like to share.

[quote author=Perceval]
That's why people like this HumbertoLVX guy, they're into from the point of view of "Just give me the answers."
[/quote]

Perceval, I feel sad that even though we've worked together on Dot Connector promo stuff, we've supported each other's work on Facebook, I've commented on threads under this name before, and you know who I am outside the forum (although we've never met face to face), A.) you dismissively refer to me as "this HumbertoLVX guy" as if you don't know who I am, and B.) you condescendingly profile me as someone who "just wants someone to give me answers" despite my work, process, and history that you're fully aware of and is publicly available online with a simple google search. Hopefully we can clear things up because I'm confused by this acrimony.

It feels to me like you may be emotionally triggered about something (perhaps by my simply questioning something the C's said which nobody else mentioned on the thread, or by a subconscious transference of spiteful emotion given my association with Bernhard?) leading you to misconstrue and derogatorily misrepresent me. Is what I asked back in July really such an outrageous question considering the vast implications? If it was such a ridiculous question, y'all wouldn't have bothered asking it too, right? Clearly I don't want someone to "just give me the answers" because A.) I research, cross-reference, question, and value the journey just as much as the destination, as the work I've done shows for itself, and B.) notice I said the C's are "a source of inspiration for research." implying that obviously I'm not just in it for handouts.

I feel it's incumbent to use critical thinking to discern truth from lies, both within and without, in myself and in others, and this is where I'm coming from, so I hope you don't mistake my inquiry with disrespect or a sense of entitlement for perfection handed to me without my own effort. Much evidence to the contrary. Thanks for hearing me out to set the record straight.

[quote author=Perceval]
They don't even know what they can or cannot perceive themselves."
[/quote]

With all due respect, considering what I just said, this may useful to consider for yourself. All things considered, I don't think this is too much to ask, moreover considering you flat out admitted publicly that you do not consider yourself awake.

In regard to the following question:

(L) So, my question is: He asks why couldn't the C's have just said, "'You are not ready to receive the truth', or something similar like they have before, instead of espousing disinformation?"

A: "what would you have done if we had told you either all of such details or that "Jesus" did not exist?"

It seems curious to me that the only options mentioned by the C's are basically "all or nothing". That seems like a very limited "black or white" approach from supposed advanced 6th Density Unified Thought-form (which could just be the "black or white" thinking influence from within the group). It seems to me that they could have just as easily alternatively said, "At this time, we cannot tell you everything because it's necessary for your own development to find the answers for yourself, but you're getting closer. Keep searching, dear Knight.", or just give you a clue, like they've done numerous times before, from which research has usually broadened or come back around at a later time. This way, they're not fabricating a fictional character based on the selective compilation of myth and elements from the lives of two people (which, in my opinion, definitely applies to the definition of "disinformation", regardless of the strawman rationalization), nor would they be dismissing your inquiry, nor would they mitigating your efforts or respectful communication. There are many other options, is what I'm saying, and the lack of efficacy to navigate them on behalf of the C's gives me pause to question some things.

Generally speaking though, I understand the general premise of not overloading a person who isn't yet ready to hear the whole truth. I get that. I just think the options aren't as "black and white"/ "all or nothing" as the C's lead on.

Furthermore on that topic, I'm finding conflicting perspectives among the group discussion.

Perceval seems to feel Laura would have been adamant about getting to the truth:

[quote author=Perceval]
But if they would have told you that you were not ready, that would have just provoked you, and you wouldn't have let it go. Especially around Jesus, if you're not ready to know the truth about it. Ya know, like, "About Jesus?! I wanna know the truth right now! You better fess up!"
[/quote]

...even though Laura says she would have just dropped it:

A. What would you have done if we had told you either all of such details or that "Jesus" did not exist?

Q: (L) I would have terminated the project because at the time, I was quite convinced that any spirit that couldn't or wouldn’t acknowledge Jesus was demonic. That was a pretty common “test” in New Age land at the time. I would have stopped communicating with the C's altogether.

Yet later on in the session, Laura's disposition seems to indicate a combination of the two sentiments:

(L) Well, I tell you, some of their answers about some of the alien questions where they couldn't tell me something right then, that actually made me turn away from it right then. […] So, I just decided that path wasn't the right one. I just continued research along certain other lines. And that's when, as I said, I came to the idea that the whole "alien reality" is a paranormal reality.

This, along with numerous examples in your work, as well as the following snippet from the session, suggests to me that being honest and simply saying that further independent research is needed (as the C's have done before) would have spurred interest rather than detract from it. For example:

(L) And then they dropped those hints... "Children with Roman women." That just drove me crazy! That was such a hint!

(Andromeda) It was one of those seeds.

(L) Yeah, and it just grew and grew and grew in me. That was one of the reasons why I went into the whole Roman history thing and now have found pretty much all of the clues that demonstrate that everything the Cs said about Jesus then, and now, is true.

Ok. So Laura stayed on the same subject but learned from a different method. That part makes sense to me, given what your work shows and what you've have repeatedly emphasized about yourself, namely:

[quote author=Laura]
(L) Yeah, and I have a pretty stubborn streak….
[/quote]

Given your track record, Laura, it seems to me that you surely wouldn't have just let it go, especially with a topic that you have such a passionate, vested, personally-identified interest in (which is strong enough to supposedly necessitate distortion of the information coming through). There's a seeming lack of congruency and I just wanted to share my observations on that.

Related to my earlier question in July, I feel the issue of influence on the C's message, in regard to the content as well as the overall tone, being influenced by those present is an important consideration when being discerning. As Laura said in the July 12th, 2014 session:

Laura: There are various points where the C’s were wrong – probably consciously – but I can see no fault or bad intent, because they were definitely working within the psychological parameters given them by those present. And this is a crucial thing to understand about this kind of work: it is definitely a reality where the observer/participant has a powerful influence and it is harder for a materially minded, black-and-white thinker to grasp the essence of this reality than that a camel should go through the eye of a needle!

One of the things early investigators of the paranormal discovered, and which became clear as I followed through with this experiment and learned from the experiences, is that psychic phenomena can be strongly influenced or ‘colored’ by a sitter’s preconceived beliefs.

Given that data, it seems to be a good reminder and grounds for the suggestion that that whenever the group asks about something that they hold an emotionally-charged confirmation bias toward, A.) it may be helpful to share your feelings and make it known to the readership so that people are more conscious about not just accepting things at face value (as often tends to happen, I've noticed), and B.) it would inspire the readers to hold each other with even more compassion, critical thinking, and consideration for their subjective prejudices, projections, wounding, and ulterior motives, which not only brings greater objectivity to the C's channel, but connection and healing within the forum group.

The reason I'm commenting so much about it is out of care and concern for the group and the information coming through in hopes that the following doesn't completely happen:

April 15, 1995:

A: [...] Remember all channels and those of similar make-up are identified, tracked, and "dealt with."

August 12, 1995

A: Be careful not to read incorrect mechanical approaches as defective characteristics or personality or nature. It is important to differentiate between that which is alterable, curable, or can be helped, with that which is incurable, unalterable, and cannot be helped. Also, realize too, that as third density STS beings, it is very easy for any and all of you, each and every one of you, to fall into the trap, which is, of course, one form of attack coming from 4th density STS; to fall into the trap of seeking to serve self even when in cooperation with or in forum with others. This can cause, ultimately, a derailing, of any and all activities designed to improve situations or generate wide-spread assistance.

May 20, 1995

A: […] you were brought together as a result of many confluences of energy transfers for a purpose! You are always free to pursue any path you choose, however, if you concentrate on 3rd level matters such as your physical location, you risk creating rifts within your group! This is because such thoughts and potential actions will strengthen 3rd level STS feelings within each member, thus risking breakup of channel. Now, please realize, you have a unique combination of forces working through all of you that brought you all to this point. This is fragile, and any major changes in the chemistry will inevitably change "the whole picture."

This is just my observation and concern since I've been noticing this already start to happen. Maybe I'm off or maybe there's some truth to this. Either way, I'd feel remiss in my responsibilities if I didn't share, network, and express my feelings about it.

Moving on...

[quote author=C's]
A: Notice that Bernhard does no original work of his own, but rather attempts to ride on the coat tails of others!!!
[/quote]

From what I've seen, it's an aggregate method. He, like SOTT and like Laura, pieces things together from different sources, adds personal thoughts and observations along the way, and "connects the dots". From his writings to the videos we created (including the Dot Connector trailers), I think synthesizing various sources in a unique way IS "original" in a creative sense even if it's not primary research. At least that's what I think when I'm supporting SOTT against the very same criticism. Just a minor point, but one worth addressing since it applies to all involved.

Now, I'd like to generally discuss the "Alien Love Bite" topic, not Bernhard's specific case since A.) my concern is more fundamentally important and, B.) he can speak for himself if he choses to. Specifically in regards to the "Love Bite" topic per se, the C's said:

A: [answer comes super fast, pointer nearly flying off the board] The love bite scenario is more a government disinformation program for the weak minded and susceptible than anything else. Notice that all the effects can be easily produced with microwave manipulation of consciousness and emotions along with the normal interactions of social programming and psychopathology.

Then Pierre and Perceval follow up emphasizing that the Alien Love Bite, which has a lot of convincing case studies and circumstantial evidence, doesn't actually exist and that there's "not much "alien" about it".

Again, I find myself confused by seemingly conflicting information from the same source. Given what I've seen extensively reiterated in Laura's work and heard in her interviews (and extensive source information to Laura's work), the concept that hyperdimensional pranormal forces covertly and subversively working through people is a major part of the Matrix Control System. Therefore, to dismiss it ENTIRELY when it applies to relationships directly contradicts much of what has already been proven to have a considerably high probability in some circumstances.

All things considered, I can't help but wonder if dismissing the entire phenomenon, given the pre-existing emotionally-charged bias of those in the group toward Bernhard, has something to do with the contradictory messages coming through regarding the Alien Love Bite.

In summary, given that the C's and Laura have said repeatedly that observers/participants can have a powerful influence, and that clear emotional bias was shown through hyperbolic and even demonstrably false statements made by observers in the session, and that the Cs warned that overly concentrating "on 3rd level matters" (which seems to have become the case) meant risking creating rifts within the group and breaking up the channel, I can't help but wonder if some or all of what was channeled in this most recent session was even the Cs or not. And since nobody has cared to publicly make these observations and ask questions before accepting the information, neither back in July or in this thread, I figured it'd be worth considering since they're important considerations, IMO.

Thanks again. :)

 

[Turgon]

In summary, given that the C's and Laura have said repeatedly that observers/participants can have a powerful influence, and that clear emotional bias was shown through hyperbolic and even demonstrably false statements made by observers in the session, and that the Cs warned that overly concentrating "on 3rd level matters" (which seems to have become the case) meant risking creating rifts within the group and breaking up the channel, I can't help but wonder if some or all of what was channeled in this most recent session was even the Cs or not

That sounds to me like the C's said some things regarding Bernhard and the alien love bite scenario that you didn't like and had a vested interest in, so rather than question what your own beliefs and Bernhard's actions, your writing off that session as "corrupted", more or less.

Again, I find myself confused by seemingly conflicting information from the same source. Given what I've seen extensively reiterated in Laura's work and heard in her interviews (and extensive source information to Laura's work), the concept that hyperdimensional pranormal forces covertly and subversively working through people is a major part of the Matrix Control System. Therefore, to dismiss it ENTIRELY when it applies to relationships directly contradicts much of what has already been proven to have a considerably high probability in some circumstances.

The work and research on the forum has grown and evolved since some of those original remarks about aliens/hyperdimensional beings influencing mankind were asked. In particular, HOW exactly the hyperdimensional aspect does work through people. There are a myriad of ways that "alien" influences can work through people like social and family programming, poor diet and it's effects on biochemistry, ponerization and so forth are all influences and things that need to be struggled against. Struggling against the Predator. And I think psychopaths and people who are so identified and immersed in this Predators mind, who don't take responsibility for their actions and choices and who lay blame elsewhere rather than looking at themselves are by default acting out the machinations of these same forces because they haven't taken the bulls by the horn.

 

[Beau]

All things considered, I can't help but wonder if dismissing the entire phenomenon, given the pre-existing emotionally-charged bias of those in the group toward Bernhard, has something to do with the contradictory messages coming through regarding the Alien Love Bite.

What bias? Bernhard has never been banned from the forum, he's never had any "dust-ups" here either. I think when you say bias, what's really going on is that Bernhard, and you, follow a different path that this forum takes. No one judges either of you for that choice, but we will point out what that path is, objectively. There's nothing emotionally charged about that. It is just simply a matter of pointing out the philosophical differences. What makes you say that there's an emotionally charges bias towards Bernhard? And why are you latching onto that in your effort to dispute the messages the C's gave in the session?

 

[Mark]

and that the Cs warned that overly concentrating "on 3rd level matters" (which seems to have become the case)

Consider the year of the sessions you quote: 1995 - nearly 20 years ago, in a totally different stage/context of Laura's experimental work - the earlier stages. Based on what I can see that work has come a very, very, long way since then. So now we're in a different context than 1995. Now at this point in time, basically the beginning of 2015, I don't see the group as a whole overly concentrating on 3rd level matters, not any more than is necessary given that this is where we live, this is where we learn, this is where we grow ( and the work done here is done with an aim ), and to do any of that requires considerable attention to 3D matters - and in my perspective that is well beyond smart based on what is happening in and to this world.

Also, about referring to you as HumbertoLVX - did it ever occur to you that maybe it was put that way to avoid directly exposing your actual name to the public? That's certainly possible isn't it?

 

[Yas]

In summary, given that the C's and Laura have said repeatedly that observers/participants can have a powerful influence, and that clear emotional bias was shown through hyperbolic and even demonstrably false statements made by observers in the session, and that the Cs warned that overly concentrating "on 3rd level matters" (which seems to have become the case) meant risking creating rifts within the group and breaking up the channel, I can't help but wonder if some or all of what was channeled in this most recent session was even the Cs or not

That sounds to me like the C's said some things regarding Bernhard and the alien love bite scenario that you didn't like and had a vested interest in, so rather than question what your own beliefs and Bernhard's actions, your writing off that session as "corrupted", more or less.

Again, I find myself confused by seemingly conflicting information from the same source. Given what I've seen extensively reiterated in Laura's work and heard in her interviews (and extensive source information to Laura's work), the concept that hyperdimensional pranormal forces covertly and subversively working through people is a major part of the Matrix Control System. Therefore, to dismiss it ENTIRELY when it applies to relationships directly contradicts much of what has already been proven to have a considerably high probability in some circumstances.

The work and research on the forum has grown and evolved since some of those original remarks about aliens/hyperdimensional beings influencing mankind were asked. In particular, HOW exactly the hyperdimensional aspect does work through people. There are a myriad of ways that "alien" influences can work through people like social and family programming, poor diet and it's effects on biochemistry, ponerization and so forth are all influences and things that need to be struggled against. Struggling against the Predator. And I think psychopaths and people who are so identified and immersed in this Predators mind, who don't take responsibility for their actions and choices and who lay blame elsewhere rather than looking at themselves are by default acting out the machinations of these same forces because they haven't taken the bulls by the horn.

Yes, and also consider that Laura, the Cs and others have always said that we have to learn our 3D lessons before we can actually grasp 4D or higher stuff.

In this way, we cannot influence those realms directly. We can try to understand them as much as we are able with our
3D machines and perception, but there is much of which remains a mystery and the only thing we can do to avoid being influenced by those realms is about choices that we make in OUR realm of reality, that's to say, diet, emotional cleansing, observing our programs and mechanical behaviour, our biases, etc... just as I quoted Don Juan above: "We can only discipline ourselves to the point where they will not touch us."

In that sense, understanding our psychology, our 3D brains, our 3D society, psychopathy and ponerization, our 3D bodies and what is best for them to function correctly, etc... is really important to widen the ability to see and understand more when observing ourselves and our reality, and therefore, make the choices that allow us to be a bit freer from those influences, step by step.

Just some thoughts fwiw...

---

Edited: spelling and syntax

 

[Laura]

Thanks for the food for thought.

I have a few observations I'd like to share.

It feels to me like you may be emotionally triggered about something (perhaps by my simply questioning something the C's said which nobody else mentioned on the thread, or by a subconscious transference of spiteful emotion given my association with Bernhard?) leading you to misconstrue and derogatorily misrepresent me.

See above: reading WAAAY to much into colloquial expressions.

Is what I asked back in July really such an outrageous question considering the vast implications? If it was such a ridiculous question, y'all wouldn't have bothered asking it too, right?

No, it wasn't an outrageous question, it was just that it said more about you than anything else. And notice that it was only asked AFTER this issue with Bernhard came along and only was put on the list because the two things seemed to go together.

Clearly I don't want someone to "just give me the answers" because A.) I research, cross-reference, question, and value the journey just as much as the destination, as the work I've done shows for itself, and B.) notice I said the C's are "a source of inspiration for research." implying that obviously I'm not just in it for handouts.

Fair enough. But in this instance, there were a LOT of pieces to the puzzle that you were missing (and still are), which led you to make erroneous assumptions in that particular case.

I feel it's incumbent to use critical thinking to discern truth from lies, both within and without, in myself and in others, and this is where I'm coming from, so I hope you don't mistake my inquiry with disrespect or a sense of entitlement for perfection handed to me without my own effort. Much evidence to the contrary. Thanks for hearing me out to set the record straight.

Fair enough. As you note, I regularly point out the flaws and issues in the sessions and have published volume 1 of the annotated sessions where all the issues that I could see then and since are highlighted.

In regard to the following question:

(L) So, my question is: He asks why couldn't the C's have just said, "'You are not ready to receive the truth', or something similar like they have before, instead of espousing disinformation?"

A: "what would you have done if we had told you either all of such details or that "Jesus" did not exist?"

It seems curious to me that the only options mentioned by the C's are basically "all or nothing". That seems like a very limited "black or white" approach from supposed advanced 6th Density Unified Thought-form (which could just be the "black or white" thinking influence from within the group). It seems to me that they could have just as easily alternatively said, "At this time, we cannot tell you everything because it's necessary for your own development to find the answers for yourself, but you're getting closer. Keep searching, dear Knight.", or just give you a clue, like they've done numerous times before, from which research has usually broadened or come back around at a later time. This way, they're not fabricating a fictional character based on the selective compilation of myth and elements from the lives of two people (which, in my opinion, definitely applies to the definition of "disinformation", regardless of the strawman rationalization), nor would they be dismissing your inquiry, nor would they mitigating your efforts or respectful communication. There are many other options, is what I'm saying, and the lack of efficacy to navigate them on behalf of the C's gives me pause to question some things.

In this case, Humberto, the answer was exactly correct. If they had given the answer you propose, because of my training, I would have considered that a cagey avoidance of the necessary declaration.

Also, notice this important factor: the Cs did NOT fabricate a fictional character. This is where your research has not gone, probably because the topic is of no particular interest or import to you.

Generally speaking though, I understand the general premise of not overloading a person who isn't yet ready to hear the whole truth. I get that. I just think the options aren't as "black and white"/ "all or nothing" as the C's lead on.

See above.

Furthermore on that topic, I'm finding conflicting perspectives among the group discussion.

Perceval seems to feel Laura would have been adamant about getting to the truth:

Yet later on in the session, Laura's disposition seems to indicate a combination of the two sentiments:

(L) Well, I tell you, some of their answers about some of the alien questions where they couldn't tell me something right then, that actually made me turn away from it right then. […] So, I just decided that path wasn't the right one. I just continued research along certain other lines. And that's when, as I said, I came to the idea that the whole "alien reality" is a paranormal reality.

Keep in mind, Humberto, that we are now ON A DIFFERENT TOPIC. I had a hard and fast rule at the time about the question of spirit communication in relation to the "being known as Jesus" and that was my line drawn in the sand then. In the snip above, we are on a different subject: aliens, NOT Jesus. Apples and oranges.

This, along with numerous examples in your work, as well as the following snippet from the session, suggests to me that being honest and simply saying that further independent research is needed (as the C's have done before) would have spurred interest rather than detract from it. For example:

(L) And then they dropped those hints... "Children with Roman women." That just drove me crazy! That was such a hint!

(Andromeda) It was one of those seeds.

(L) Yeah, and it just grew and grew and grew in me. That was one of the reasons why I went into the whole Roman history thing and now have found pretty much all of the clues that demonstrate that everything the Cs said about Jesus then, and now, is true.

Ok. So Laura stayed on the same subject but learned from a different method. That part makes sense to me, given what your work shows and what you've have repeatedly emphasized about yourself, namely:

A: [answer comes super fast, pointer nearly flying off the board] The love bite scenario is more a government disinformation program for the weak minded and susceptible than anything else. Notice that all the effects can be easily produced with microwave manipulation of consciousness and emotions along with the normal interactions of social programming and psychopathology.

Then Pierre and Perceval follow up emphasizing that the Alien Love Bite, which has a lot of convincing case studies and circumstantial evidence, doesn't actually exist and that there's "not much "alien" about it".

"Lot of convincing case studies"? From where? Who? Eve Lorgen? Who else? Remember, I dealt with one myself directly - alleged to be one - but I only learned later that the individual had been contaminated by Lorgen's work. That is, the idea had been planted. There were many other indications in that case that the real solution was otherwise and had more to do with psychopathology than aliens.

Again, I find myself confused by seemingly conflicting information from the same source. Given what I've seen extensively reiterated in Laura's work and heard in her interviews (and extensive source information to Laura's work), the concept that hyperdimensional pranormal forces covertly and subversively working through people is a major part of the Matrix Control System. Therefore, to dismiss it ENTIRELY when it applies to relationships directly contradicts much of what has already been proven to have a considerably high probability in some circumstances.

Here you are confusing things again, mixing apples with oranges. Hyperdimensional, paranormal forces working through people is, in my mind, pretty much a given; notice also that what we think of as "social programming" is very much a consequence of the tension between hyperdimensional realities and our own 3D existence. However, the Alien Lovebite deal is something else altogether that has been piggy-backed on the concept. I had some close interactions with Eve and others of that "crowd" over the years and while there were many things about that work that bothered me, it didn't impinge on me or my work so I simply left it alone. Eve sent me her last book some time ago and asked me to read it and write a blurb. I couldn't get past the first few pages because of all the grammatical and conceptual errors. In the meantime, of course, we had done years of work on psychopathology and it was pretty clear to me that this was mainly what was in play. I have HUNDREDS of pages of "testimonies" of individuals claiming "alien love bite" and direct "alien sex" activity that would blow your mind if you read it. This material was sent to me by someone who was a participant in the exchanges and began to feel profoundly manipulated by the claims. Running throughout all of it is a thread of something that cannot quite be pinned down except as a sort of schizoidia. If you look at the characteristics of the schizoidal psychopath in Lobaczewski, you find this:

Carriers of this anomaly are hypersensitive and distrustful, but they pay little attention to the feelings of others, tend to assume extreme positions, and are eager to retaliate for minor offenses. Sometimes they are eccentric and odd. Their poor sense of psychological situation and reality leads them to superimpose erroneous, pejorative interpretations upon other people’s intentions. They easy become involved in activities which are ostensibly moral, but which actually inflict damage upon themselves and others. Their impoverished psychological worldview makes them typically pessimistic regarding human nature. ...

When they become wrapped up in situations of serious stress, however, the schizoid’s failings cause them to collapse easily. The capacity for thought is thereupon characteristically stifled, and frequently the schizoids fall into reactive psychotic states so similar in appearance to schizophrenia that they lead to misdiagnoses.

The common factor in the varieties of this anomaly is a dull pallor of emotions and a feeling for the psychological realities of this essential factor in basic intelligence. This can be attributed to the incomplete quality of the instinctive substratum, which is working as though on sand. Low emotional pressure enables them to develop proper speculative reasoning, which is useful in non-humanistic spheres of activity. Because of their one-sidedness, they tend to consider themselves intellectually superior to “ordinary” people. ...

On the small scale, such people cause their families trouble, easily turn into tools of intrigue in the hands of clever individuals, and generally do a poor job of raising the younger generation. Their tendency to see human reality in the doctrinaire and simplistic manner they consider “proper”, transforms their frequently good intentions into bad results. However, their ponerogenic role can take on macro-social proportions if their attitude toward human reality and their tendency to invent great doctrines are put to paper and duplicated in large editions. ...

...doctrinaire people believe they have found a simple solution to fix such a world. Such a historical period is always characterized by an impoverished psychological world view, a schizoidally impoverished psychological world view thus does not stand out during such times and is accepted as legal tender. These doctrinaire individuals characteristically manifest a certain contempt with regard to moralists then preaching the need to rediscover lost human values and to develop a richer, more appropriate psychological world view.

Schizoid characters aim to impose their own conceptual world upon other people or social groups, using relatively controlled pathological egotism and the exceptional tenacity derived from their persistent nature. They are thus eventually able to overpower another individual’s personality, which causes the latter’s behavior to turn desperately illogical. They may also exert a similar influence upon the group of people they have joined. They are psychological loners who feel better in some human organization, wherein they become zealots for some ideology, religious bigots, materialists, or adherents of an ideology with satanic features. ....

In spite of the fact that the writings of schizoidal authors contain the above described deficiency, or even an openly formulated schizoidal declaration which constitutes sufficient warning to specialists, the average reader accepts them not as a view of reality warped by this anomaly, but rather as an idea to which he should assume an attitude based on his convictions and his reason. That is the first mistake. The oversimplified pattern, devoid of psychological color and based on easily available data, exerts an intense influence upon individuals who are insufficiently critical, frequently frustrated as result of downward social adjustment, culturally neglected, or characterized by some psychological deficiencies.

If you study this matter closely and carefully, as I have, and even work directly with some individuals who claim to be affected by it, read cases, cases, and more cases, you'll see the characteristics emerging that I have bolded in the above text.

The "Alien Love Bite" scenario is a cheap and easy solution to a set of complex phenomena. Read my article "The Golden Age, Psychopathy and the Sixth Extinction" http://www.sott.net/article/227222-The-Golden-Age-Psychopathy-and-the-Sixth-Extinction for some clues about how all this works together.

 

[Joe]

I have a few observations I'd like to share.

It feels to me like you may be emotionally triggered about something (perhaps by my simply questioning something the C's said which nobody else mentioned on the thread, or by a subconscious transference of spiteful emotion given my association with Bernhard?) leading you to misconstrue and derogatorily misrepresent me. Is what I asked back in July really such an outrageous question considering the vast implications? If it was such a ridiculous question, y'all wouldn't have bothered asking it too, right? Clearly I don't want someone to "just give me the answers" because A.) I research, cross-reference, question, and value the journey just as much as the destination, as the work I've done shows for itself, and B.) notice I said the C's are "a source of inspiration for research." implying that obviously I'm not just in it for handouts.

I feel it's incumbent to use critical thinking to discern truth from lies, both within and without, in myself and in others, and this is where I'm coming from, so I hope you don't mistake my inquiry with disrespect or a sense of entitlement for perfection handed to me without my own effort. Much evidence to the contrary. Thanks for hearing me out to set the record straight.

If you're referring to my references to you in the session, like I said, you seem to be placing too much emphasis on the words I used and inferring something much worse than is actually there. I mean, you're suggesting that me calling you "this Humberto guy" and pointing out that your previous comment about the Jesus session suggests you want answers handed to you (at least by the Cs) is evidence of "transference of spiteful emotion" and "derogatory misrepresentation". Really??

And why would I have any issues with you because of your association with Bernhard? Not sure what you're trying to get at there.

In regard to the following question:

(L) So, my question is: He asks why couldn't the C's have just said, "'You are not ready to receive the truth', or something similar like they have before, instead of espousing disinformation?"

A: "what would you have done if we had told you either all of such details or that "Jesus" did not exist?"

It seems curious to me that the only options mentioned by the C's are basically "all or nothing". That seems like a very limited "black or white" approach from supposed advanced 6th Density Unified Thought-form (which could just be the "black or white" thinking influence from within the group). It seems to me that they could have just as easily alternatively said, "At this time, we cannot tell you everything because it's necessary for your own development to find the answers for yourself, but you're getting closer. Keep searching, dear Knight.", or just give you a clue, like they've done numerous times before, from which research has usually broadened or come back around at a later time. This way, they're not fabricating a fictional character based on the selective compilation of myth and elements from the lives of two people (which, in my opinion, definitely applies to the definition of "disinformation", regardless of the strawman rationalization), nor would they be dismissing your inquiry, nor would they mitigating your efforts or respectful communication. There are many other options, is what I'm saying, and the lack of efficacy to navigate them on behalf of the C's gives me pause to question some things.

It seems your thinking is a bit muddled here. The Cs were not saying that the only option was "all or nothing". They were saying that telling Laura the truth or telling her Jesus did not exist was not an option at the time because both would have amounted to the same thing for her: Jesus didn't exist as Laura had been led to believe.

So they did the only thing they could, they gave her some information that would not push any of her buttons but that included clues that made her question and slowly divest herself of her assumptions about Jesus. You suggest that they could have said "At this time, we cannot tell you everything because it's necessary for your own development to find the answers for yourself, but you're getting closer." But as I suggested in the last session, such an answer would probably not have satisfied Laura, and the Cs apparently knew it. It seems that it was decided, by them, at the time, that the only way to deal with the question about Jesus was to 'soft sell' it to Laura for the time being.

Furthermore on that topic, I'm finding conflicting perspectives among the group discussion. Perceval seems to feel Laura would have been adamant about getting to the truth:

Yet later on in the session, Laura's disposition seems to indicate a combination of the two sentiments:

(L) Well, I tell you, some of their answers about some of the alien questions where they couldn't tell me something right then, that actually made me turn away from it right then. […] So, I just decided that path wasn't the right one. I just continued research along certain other lines. And that's when, as I said, I came to the idea that the whole "alien reality" is a paranormal reality.

This, along with numerous examples in your work, as well as the following snippet from the session, suggests to me that being honest and simply saying that further independent research is needed (as the C's have done before) would have spurred interest rather than detract from it. For example:

(L) And then they dropped those hints... "Children with Roman women." That just drove me crazy! That was such a hint!

(Andromeda) It was one of those seeds.

(L) Yeah, and it just grew and grew and grew in me. That was one of the reasons why I went into the whole Roman history thing and now have found pretty much all of the clues that demonstrate that everything the Cs said about Jesus then, and now, is true.

Ok. So Laura stayed on the same subject but learned from a different method. That part makes sense to me, given what your work shows and what you've have repeatedly emphasized about yourself, namely:

Yes, she got there, after 20 years of following many Ariadne's threads. At the time though, it was apparently not a good idea. You can insist, Humberto, that you know what SHOULD have been said to Laura at the time, but it's a moot point. What was said was said for very particular reasons at the time, and trying to nitpick it now seems rather futile. Unless you're trying to build some other case.

Related to my earlier question in July, I feel the issue of influence on the C's message, in regard to the content as well as the overall tone, being influenced by those present is an important consideration when being discerning.

Given that data, it seems to be a good reminder and grounds for the suggestion that that whenever the group asks about something that they hold an emotionally-charged confirmation bias toward, A.) it may be helpful to share your feelings and make it known to the readership so that people are more conscious about not just accepting things at face value (as often tends to happen, I've noticed), and B.) it would inspire the readers to hold each other with even more compassion, critical thinking, and consideration for their subjective prejudices, projections, wounding, and ulterior motives, which not only brings greater objectivity to the C's channel, but connection and healing within the forum group.

The reason I'm commenting so much about it is out of care and concern for the group and the information coming through [...]

This is just my observation and concern since I've been noticing this already start to happen. Maybe I'm off or maybe there's some truth to this. Either way, I'd feel remiss in my responsibilities if I didn't share, network, and express my feelings about it.

At this stage, you can assume that we are well aware of confirmation bias and always take it into consideration. After all, you've only learned about it in the context of the Cassiopaean communications by reading it IN those communications. Laura and others, on the other hand, know about it from direct experience. So don't worry too much about that.

From what I've seen, it's an aggregate method. He [Bernhard], like SOTT and like Laura, pieces things together from different sources, adds personal thoughts and observations along the way, and "connects the dots". From his writings to the videos we created (including the Dot Connector trailers), I think synthesizing various sources in a unique way IS "original" in a creative sense even if it's not primary research. At least that's what I think when I'm supporting SOTT against the very same criticism. Just a minor point, but one worth addressing since it applies to all involved.

The value of any work of piecing together from other sources is largly dependent on the 'piecer's' ability to be objective.

Again, I find myself confused by seemingly conflicting information from the same source. Given what I've seen extensively reiterated in Laura's work and heard in her interviews (and extensive source information to Laura's work), the concept that hyperdimensional pranormal forces covertly and subversively working through people is a major part of the Matrix Control System. Therefore, to dismiss it ENTIRELY when it applies to relationships directly contradicts much of what has already been proven to have a considerably high probability in some circumstances.

All things considered, I can't help but wonder if dismissing the entire phenomenon, given the pre-existing emotionally-charged bias of those in the group toward Bernhard, has something to do with the contradictory messages coming through regarding the Alien Love Bite.

You seem pretty sure about what constitutes "black and white thinking" in others, but fail to notice it here in yourself. No one dismissed the concept "ENTIRELY". Why would say as much twice?

In summary, given that the C's and Laura have said repeatedly that observers/participants can have a powerful influence, and that clear emotional bias was shown through hyperbolic and even demonstrably false statements made by observers in the session, and that the Cs warned that overly concentrating "on 3rd level matters" (which seems to have become the case) meant risking creating rifts within the group and breaking up the channel, I can't help but wonder if some or all of what was channeled in this most recent session was even the Cs or not. And since nobody has cared to publicly make these observations and ask questions before accepting the information, neither back in July or in this thread, I figured it'd be worth considering since they're important considerations, IMO.

To me your summary appears far from objective and, in itself, full of emotional bias that you make clear at the beginning of your post when you take unreasonable umbrage at being referred to as "this Humberto guy". There were no "demonstrably false statements made by observers in the session". You are free to question the validity of any Cs session, but, if I were you, I'd hesitate before trying to convince any one else by way of your analysis above.

 

[gdpetti]

If you've read through all the LLResearch sessions with Ra/Quo, then you'll understand what is meant by 'challenging in the name of Jesus'... as that is/was Carla's big question challenging all entities when she opened herself up for contact/communication... (unlike 'Frank"... no wonder he said: ~if you knew the state of my mind... as in no filter ). Carla's challenge 'in the name of Jesus' wasn't some typical New Agey bubble gum stuff either, more like a warrior... imagine that scene in 1984's 'Conan the Destroyer' in which Arnold and company comes across Grace Jones chained to a peg or something as she is fighting off a whole mob of men intent to 'get her'. Of course, there is a price to be paid for that type of attachment... as Laura has written about and her life at that time well attests to. Imagine how any data coming through such a channel might be skewed in such a vessel... thus the need for those annotations right? Perhaps sort of like someone questioning us about something we said when we were in our teens... ;D

This all points out the need for clarification of what exactly the questions meant when asked, and thus the meaning of the answers when received, as many of the C's statements can be taken to mean a number of things, it all depends upon how we read it, understand it... which again depends upon understanding the question. A better way of treating such inquiries might be to first ask exactly what was meant by such questions and what the receivers thought the answer meant. When pulling on Ariadne's thread, all kinds of stuff might be attached to it and present all kinds of problems or opportunities, depending upon how you choose to look at it.

From a marketing standpoint, that title, "Alien Love Bite", is catchy and would help sell the product to a certain audience, which is what nearly every product/program is designed for anyway. From an economic standpoint, why would these 'aliens' waste so much energy unless they felt it necessary and for their benefit? Isn't there always a chain of command to deal with this stuff? And at the lowest level possible to conserve energy... the little guys need training after all.... part of that 'teach/learn -- learn/teach' aspect... and if something goes wrong, there is a fall guy ready for sacrifice... sort of like Israel just now.

 

[Joe]

I think it's a fairly common function of human language communication that people tend to "talk around" the point(s) they really want to make. In the same way that System 1 motivations are usually fairly basic but are translated by System 2 into a rather wordy narrative, people often 'beat around the bush' with their narratives also, even when they know what they want to say, and could say, in a more honest, straight-forward way.

If I were to apply this idea to your post Humberto, and read between the lines:

Your close friend Bernhard is criticized in a previous session.

You then make a post in that session thread that:

A) somewhat cryptically accuses me of engaging in "a subconscious transference of spiteful emotion [because of your] association with Bernhard"

and then

B) pursues an elaborate, and largely tangential, argument laden with faulty logic and assumptions, before finally bringing yourself to the conclusion that the Cs session, in which your close friend was criticized, may not be valid.

Could that, perhaps, be the more prosaic argument you wanted to put forward?

 

[jsf]

Interesting session once again, thanks !

Although I haven't followed what happened in detail with this "love bite" case, it reminded me the story related by Mark Hedsel at the end of the Zelator book. It deals with sexual impulses and the donkey allegory. Also, it involves the "spiritual guru" infection and how Mark Hedsel successfully refrained it.

Latona stopped, and swung round to face us. 'As I talk to you, I feel that I'm drinking at a great fountain of wisdom. Does that sound horribly pretentious? Well, even if it does - thank you.' She was embarrassed, yet she continued. 'Fulcanelli is a book - but you are a living book. Where do you get such wisdom? Where do you teach?'
The question passed through our soul like a burning rapier. It was the question we were asking ourselves: where do we teach? Should we teach?
We hid our discomfort. We laughed and were evasive.
'You ask many questions. As for where I find such wisdom? You are asking me how do I know what I know? Come - what sort of question is that? How does anyone know what they know? Where do ideas come from?'
And my question, where do you teach, could have been more circumspect. Do you teach? She seemed to realize that she had touched a tender spot.
'I do not teach.' There was a finality in our voice.
Perhaps we had replied a little too forcefully, but some delicate thread in our relationship had broken. We had drifted towards Le Week-End once again, and Latona moved over to the menu displayed near the door, as though contemplating having a meal. In our absence, the cafe had filled up, and we had lost our places outside.
Suddenly, she turned back towards us. 'Which hotel are you staying in?'
''Le Grand Monarque? It was a short walk from the cathedral. 'Where are you staying?'
'I haven't found a place yet. My things are in the car. Perhaps I could
stay with you tonight?'
The question was asked as though it carried no sexual undertones, yet we were totally surprised. There had been nothing in her comportment, or in what had been spoken about, which had suggested such an intimacy.
She was beautiful, and we felt a strong attraction to her, yet, at the same time, there was something which made us uneasy. Something we could not bring into consciousness. Perhaps we should have said no, but, instead, we nodded.
'It cannot be sexual,' she said, her eyes meeting mine. 'Will that make any difference?'
We shook our head. What were we letting ourself in for? The sense of embarrassment deepened.
Perhaps a little too abruptly, she said, 'I'll fetch my things.'
We watched her as she crossed the cobbles, to disappear behind the west front of the cathedral. There was something feline about her movement, and the sway of her hips was almost lascivious.
There was only one bed in the room. We offered to sleep in a chair, but Latona signed that this would not be necessary: 'We can share the bed.'
Perhaps it would have been better if we had insisted, for the following hours proved to be among the most difficult in our life.
We showered first, and climbed into bed. We had expected Latona to change in the shower, as we had done, but she chose to strip in the bedroom. The electric lights were out, but as the French windows were still open, the moonlight cascaded into the room, lighting up Latona in silhouette. She was certainly aware that we could see her, and there seemed to be something intentionally provocative in the way she removed her clothes. We began to suspect that she was enjoying our discomfort. Why was it not pleasurable to see such a beautiful woman take off her clothes before coming to bed? It was not pleasurable because Latona had insisted that we should not touch her.
To our horror, she climbed into bed completely naked. While our bodies did not touch, we could feel each other's presence. Never before had I realized just how strong a source of spiritual power is the human body: it is a magnet of immense force. It is this power - a power which can descent into desire — that keeps the Moon swinging in pursuit of the Earth, and the Earth spiralling after the Sun.
There was a long silence. It seemed that when at last she spoke, her voice was deeper. She was a stranger. 'I am sorry that we cannot touch. I cannot explain.'
'I agreed.' That was true. We were foolish, and we had agreed. The intimacy we had slipped into earlier had completely dispersed. We were now held apart by almost tangible tensions. To offer some release, we observed, 'You were wearing a stone around your neck. What is it?'
'A sapphire. My birth-stone. I was born in September.'
Then, and only then, did we begin to sense the import of the inner warnings we had received at the moment of meeting. In her onesidedness, this girl was too deeply under the influence of the Moon.
All stones are symbols: the sapphire was worn in ancient times as an antidote for lunacy. Did she know? Did it matter if she knew?
We remained silent, and directed our attention to wrestling with the inner demons of desire. It is quite impossible to describe the way our body was racked with pain during that night in Chartres. We could feel ourselves trembling with desire. Fearful that our desire would induce us to reach out towards her, even in sleep, we reached up and grasped the brass bedrail above our head. All night we lay like a manacled prisoner,
our arms stretched upwards in prayer, our fatigued mind in a fitful halfslumber, desire pumping through our limbs.
At some point, shortly before morning light spread over Chartres, we must have dozed. When we came to, the inner burning was no longer there. We could no longer feel that feminine magnetism on the other side of the bed, and when we turned to look we found that Latona was gone
The bed sheets beneath us were wet through, as though a dew had fall through the ceiling. We were swamped in our own sweat.
As we showered away the misery of the night, we suddenly remembered the story told of Latona in classical times. On the island of Delos, she had knelt by a fountain to quench her thirst. Perhaps her clothes had been blown a little by the wind, or perhaps the two children in her arms were crying, but, for whatever reason, two Lycian clowns
who watched her attempt to drink had foolishly mocked the goddess, Latona was so affronted that she had turned them into frogs.
On the dressing table, Latona had left a note. It was written in a precise and scholarly script. As we picked it up we caught a whiff of her perfume.
The script and the scent reminded us of the two sides to her nature: the questioning soul and the woman. [...]
There is a hurdy-gurdy playing in my mind, and I cannot hear. If we meet again, I will explain. I think you are a Teacher, and this changes normal things. You deserve an explanation: I think that you are Perseus, riding a donkey, rather than a winged horse. But, for now. thank you for that other angel and that other donkey. I hope that your
horse will resume its journey, and is not too bruised. The note was not signed, but there was a sigil in place of signature.
Not only the horse had been bruised. We our self had been turned into a frog by this black princess. We were the sweat-born, and had spent the night bathed in a pool of our own pores' dew. Yet, in truth, we had never mocked her. Was it possible that she had been ill-used by others, and sought to punish all men? Was the feeling of unease we felt when we first saw her a measure not of her, but of our own guilt?
We found no answers to these questions, yet that night in Chartres had been burned into our soul. We recalled it ever afterwards as an emblem of the power of the human body. The body may well be merely an illusion constructed by our senses. It may well be a four-legged donkey, dangling on strings from the higher world of stars . . . Yet, when the creature is used by a soft-fingered goddess - who was herself the mother of the Moon - then the terrible secret of its power is revealed. Those women who displayed their secret places were less powerful than those who kept them hidden away. Yet it was not the sulphuric power of the tortured body which had been our real tutor. Our tutors were shadow images created in the mind of our imprisoned body - the creatures struck like sparks from the dark lunar imagination.
At last, we had learned what must have been obvious to our friend in Florence. We had learned that it was time for us to become a Teacher.
We should teach others the Way of the Fool, and end this strange emptiness which had invaded our soul.
We never met Latona again, but we knew what she had meant when she referred to the Perseus of Ovid: perhaps it was time to change our donkey for a winged horse.

What helped me a lot in Eve Lorgen's books (especially the first) was the idea that our
amorous feelings could be implanted from outside. It's one thing to learn about the "shadow" as in Jung's explanation (and transference, counter-transference...), but it's another thing to realize that a very strong emotional impulse can be constructed with our own "animus/a", and projected from outside in our mind, like if it was a technological process. And then you have strange coincidences, synchronicities, shared dreams, premonitions, paralysis, ...

I was very grateful to Eve Lorgen when I had a similar experience a few years ago. After pondering it a long time, it was also an interesting experience because it showed me how I was intrinsically dissociated. If it was not the case, any love bite would have been impossible.

 

[Joe]

What helped me a lot in Eve Lorgen's books (especially the first) was the idea that our amorous feelings could be implanted from outside. It's one thing to learn about the "shadow" as in Jung's explanation (and transference, counter-transference...), but it's another thing to realize that a very strong emotional impulse can be constructed with our own "animus/a", and projected from outside in our mind, like if it was a technological process. And then you have strange coincidences, synchronicities, shared dreams, premonitions, paralysis, ...

Using a theoretical construct to define the idea that we can be negatively influenced and must fight against that influence for our spiritual evolution, to 'master' ourselves or to simply become a better person, is obviously very useful. But it is not necessary, and depending on the person it can be a bad idea, to define that construct as coming from outside ourselves and from conscious entities like "aliens".

Take Gurdjieff for example. He posited the idea that there are "two" inside us. As relayed by Jeanne de Salzmann:

Observe without preconceptions, accepting for a time this idea of lying. And if you observe in this way, paying with yourself, without self-pity, giving up all your supposed riches for a moment of reality, perhaps you will suddenly see something you have never before seen in yourself until this day. You will see that you are different from what you think you are. You will see that you are two. One who is not, but takes the place and plays the role of the other. And one who is, yet so weak, so insubstantial, that he no sooner appears than he immediately disappears. He cannot endure lies. The least lie makes him faint away. He does not struggle, he does not resist, he is defeated in advance.

This is enough, I think, for a sincere seeker to be made aware of the need to struggle with the self and to engage in that struggle. The problem with projecting that influence outside of ourselves is that we risk blaming that outside force for 'persecuting' us rather than us "owning" it and thereby taking full responsibility for resolving it.

People are weak and susceptible to being influenced by what they are encouraged to understand as a "foreign installation", and that they need to gain strength and mastery over themselves to defeat that installation. Yet the very fact of being weak, of being under the control of a foreign installation, means that that they are equally susceptible to not fully understanding the nature of it and, especially when it is presented as a conscious external entity/entities, blaming that outside entity for 'interfering' or 'victimized' them. The result being that they do not "own" the problem.

It is obviously a very difficult task to attempt to impart fundamental truths about the weaknesses of human nature to humans who tend to use that same weakness to excuse their weakness and blame something or someone other than themselves.

The point being, the Jungian explanation of the "shadow" and "transference" that you mention does not just refer to human to human interaction, but, in the case of new age spiritual seekers, also human to "alien".

Someone who is aware of the concept of the "shadow" can come to accept the error of projecting their "darkness" onto others and understand that the other is not guilty of the 'evil' attributes projected. The same person however may fail to see the error in projecting that same "darkness" within them onto aliens, and thereby justifying the same projection and transference of their darkness. Because, unlike the innocent human, they can point to various sources that confirm the objectivity of the the evilness or darkness of those "interfering aliens" that are responsible for the darkness they find within themselves.

That does not mean that "alien" interference in human lives is not a reality, we can assume it likely is, but it takes a very perspicacious person to handle that knowledge and not fall into the trap of shirking or projecting outwards their responsibility for their own darkness, not onto humans, but onto "aliens", and in so doing, deviating from their path of true spiritual evolution.

All of that was, if I'm reading you correctly, more or less summed up in your last point:

"After pondering it a long time, it was also an interesting experience because it showed me how I was intrinsically dissociated. If it was not the case, any love bite would have been impossible."

So apologies for harping on, but focusing on and blaming "alien love bite" rather than our own part in such feeding dynamics - a part that is required for the "love bite" to happen - risks facilitating the dynamic, or worse, turning us into predators who justify our "darkness" via "alien love bite".

 

[eleusis]

I'm excited to get on today, participate and not dissociate. I was thinking that by being here so long and I haven't participated to the degree that is appropriate considering what I've received, that I've been taking too much and giving too little and that is clear entropic behavior or turning in on one's self. I'm grateful I can genuinely now feel this entropy and have the chance to get to know and counteract this state of moving toward non-being and a lack of self remembering. Plus, I have been seriously feeling and observing my machine for the past few days and am numbering, observing and writing about it's theater full of programs. Boy oh boy, it REALLY is a machine. No joke here and as Castaneda says, "they gave us their mind." An imitation of life.

I say I was excited to get on and write today but that is only part of the story. I began my observation with my feeling of excitement and wanting to do but had to sit in the car all day writing and anticipating. I noticed that anticipation builds up energy so that needed to be dispersed by writing more or I get that excited feeling that I'm doing something by over-thinking and over-feeling but I'm really not. (thanks Divide By Zero) But still, the anticipation lingered a bit, and when I began thinking too much about posting my chest would constrict slightly and I'd get a small knot in my throat. The effect was not serious but was enough that I could trace the effects and emotions in my body and the stress they caused. What I was thinking that caused me to catch my breath a bit was that someone had possibly written back to me and maybe simply said hello or offered support. To a mechanical program even greetings can be weirdly threatening and an excuse to retreat or run and hide and take the other "I's" with it into the "I" witness protection program.

The interesting part for me was that there were basically two conflicting I's trying to run the show. There was the "I" that was excited to post based on the results of one post and feedback and then there was the surreptitious "I" that was timid and a bit frightened and pleading something like, 'oh please, oh please no one talk to me.' By writing this out I could see on paper, and not nebulously floating around in my mind, that I had two directions and needed to take an action. I could feel a bit of the freezing and being caught between the two choices but that was not serious. It was important to observe this freezing moment though and it's intensity in order to match against further observations and actions in the future and see if I'm progressing. I was then thinking 'here I can see the two I's and feel them' and decide which one is best in accordance with my aim which is to learn and grow with this group. I posted as that was my true aim and not my mechanical default setting of getting all worked up and then not following through.

 

[goyacobol]

I'm excited to get on today, participate and not dissociate. I was thinking that by being here so long and I haven't participated to the degree that is appropriate considering what I've received, that I've been taking too much and giving too little and that is clear entropic behavior or turning in on one's self. I'm grateful I can genuinely now feel this entropy and have the chance to get to know and counteract this state of moving toward non-being and a lack of self remembering. Plus, I have been seriously feeling and observing my machine for the past few days and am numbering, observing and writing about it's theater full of programs. Boy oh boy, it REALLY is a machine. No joke here and as Castaneda says, "they gave us their mind." An imitation of life.

I say I was excited to get on and write today but that is only part of the story. I began my observation with my feeling of excitement and wanting to do but had to sit in the car all day writing and anticipating. I noticed that anticipation builds up energy so that needed to be dispersed by writing more or I get that excited feeling that I'm doing something by over-thinking and over-feeling but I'm really not. (thanks Divide By Zero) But still, the anticipation lingered a bit, and when I began thinking too much about posting my chest would constrict slightly and I'd get a small knot in my throat. The effect was not serious but was enough that I could trace the effects and emotions in my body and the stress they caused. What I was thinking that caused me to catch my breath a bit was that someone had possibly written back to me and maybe simply said hello or offered support. To a mechanical program even greetings can be weirdly threatening and an excuse to retreat or run and hide and take the other "I's" with it into the "I" witness protection program.

The interesting part for me was that there were basically two conflicting I's trying to run the show. There was the "I" that was excited to post based on the results of one post and feedback and then there was the surreptitious "I" that was timid and a bit frightened and pleading something like, 'oh please, oh please no one talk to me.' By writing this out I could see on paper, and not nebulously floating around in my mind, that I had two directions and needed to take an action. I could feel a bit of the freezing and being caught between the two choices but that was not serious. It was important to observe this freezing moment though and it's intensity in order to match against further observations and actions in the future and see if I'm progressing. I was then thinking 'here I can see the two I's and feel them' and decide which one is best in accordance with my aim which is to learn and grow with this group. I posted as that was my true aim and not my mechanical default setting of getting all worked up and then not following through.

pegasus,

Thanks for sharing. The sentence you added after the Castaneda quote really hit me. "An imitation of life". I think that is bursting through the bubble that the C's are talking about. If we don't get past the predator's mind in us we won't get to real life but will be stuck in a bubble.

I appreciated the "I" witness protection program too. It struck me as true and funny at the same time. I think that is another way to look at the bubble. It could be an "I" witness protection program or another buffer to keep us from reality.

Thanks :)

 

[SeekinTruth]

I think it's a fairly common function of human language communication that people tend to "talk around" the point(s) they really want to make. In the same way that System 1 motivations are usually fairly basic but are translated by System 2 into a rather wordy narrative, people often 'beat around the bush' with their narratives also, even when they know what they want to say, and could say, in a more honest, straight-forward way.

If I were to apply this idea to your post Humberto, and read between the lines:

Your close friend Bernhard is criticized in a previous session.

You then make a post in that session thread that:

A) somewhat cryptically accuses me of engaging in "a subconscious transference of spiteful emotion [because of your] association with Bernhard"

and then

B) pursues an elaborate, and largely tangential, argument laden with faulty logic and assumptions, before finally bringing yourself to the conclusion that the Cs session, in which your close friend was criticized, may not be valid.

Could that, perhaps, be the more prosaic argument you wanted to put forward?

That's actually quite close to the way the whole "Love Bite" scenario was put to writing in a long-winded narrative by Bernard, to my mind. It would be much more honest to just put it simply. Bernard met a woman on the internet. They eventually met in person, had sex the first night, and many times over a period of weeks. There is this whole implicit "guru" dynamic at play. Bernard and Humberto have a whole different understanding of networking than this forum does.

The whole "spiritually advanced guru" and being attacked/manipulated by dark hyperdimensional beings/forces narrative is trying hard to cover the simple fact of scouting for sex on the internet and going for it. Then making up this long and elaborate narrative of being manipulated by hyperdimensional beings because one is so advanced spiritually and spreading such important truths on Facebook and elsewhere. But the whole thing is just that: an elaborate narrative. Then blaming the woman in a public way that these forces are supposedly coming through her with absolutely no responsibility on the part of Bernard is just really strange. One would have to be really invested in the "Love Bite" meme not to see the obvious facts of Bernard's behavior. At least that's the way I see it. There are many ways to spin elaborate narratives, claim one didn't have carnal desires, etc. But is it really necessary? For what purpose?

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

I worked in California for several years and I met Humberto and Bernhard in person one night for a public showing of one of their videos in Hunberto's alternative book store. The video was shown followed by questions/comments/discussion. There was only one thing the entire night that kinda jumped out at me and left a bad taste in my mouth. When I introduced myself outside and we chatted a bit, I was pretty excited to meet anyone from the forum but nervous at the same time because of all all the potential problems (feeding, reinforcing each other's subjectivity, etc) that can obviously happen but figure it won't hurt to just show up and chit chat a bit and call it a day, as it wasn't going to be a continuous thing.

Anyway, this forum came up in our chat, and I don't remember the context but it was probably me apologetically stating that I kinda wasn't participating as much as I used to, tho I really wanna change that. And the immediate response was "we all have our problems with the forum". Now, this was not my actual reason for not participating, I'm just weak willed, lazy, and make bad life decisions for senseless and self-compromising reasons, but always hold this group and forum in the highest regard so I always feel pretty shitty not actually actively participating. But I was kinda surprised by that comment cuz they kinda looked at each other and smiled as they said it (one of the few details that totally imprinted itself on me from that night).

Now I admit, it's stupid to take offense to such a comment but I have a personal attachment to this forum and those who run it and long time members and I've seen it grow from inception to today and I kinda felt a bit defensive at that moment, and almost wanted to say "your next sentence better be that it doesn't have enough background color customizations". Still, I was really curious at this point so I asked "what kind of problems"? They said for one it doesn't seem to be the most helpful medium for self development and that you really need a face to face group to truly be able to do the Work in a meaningful way. That the online interaction is just too limiting.

My "be nice" program was in full swing at that point, so I didn't want to be argumentative but still couldn't possibly agree because I just know better, so I politely said that this is the best tool we have that has any possibility of having a wide audience and that people are regularly genuinely helped to grow and evolve and I've seen it too many times to count on the forum.

They just didn't seem to agree and since I didn't want this to evolve into any sort of argument, we found a way to change topic and then I left.

I'm not posting this to create any kind of conflict or anything, I just remember this feeling icky because I figured they knew better. And the statement "we all have our problems with the forum" almost makes it sound like there's some kind of group meeting every Saturday somewhere to discuss how much the forum sucks somewhere, or maybe they meant just themselves, or whatever.

I didn't bring this up before cuz they're really nice guys and it just didn't seem significant enough to actually make a post about, and probably my own brain was overblowing how I felt about it because of my own experiences and love for this forum, and they are entitled to their opinion. They never said anything bad about the people who run it or anything, just that the medium as such is limited, and they can have their opinion as it seemed harmless enough.

But maybe this is why they don't participate as much here and value their own physical "network" between the 2 of them more than the virtual network of the online forum that they seem to dramatically underestimate. And perhaps this lack of faith in the productivity and usefulness of their interaction here is why Bernhard seems to easily fall under the sway of his own programs and thought loops. And maybe why Humberto is so defensive of Bernhard that he will split any hair to defend it. They have a close friendship and while friendships aren't a bad thing, if they start getting in the way of real progress because they feed each other's illusions and devalue the one thing that can truly help them progress - a larger network of people, many of whom having "been there done that", then it can be a problem.

Also Benhard I remember you quit Facebook for quite some time because you had an emotional crisis of some sort, which I assumed was with your girlfriend whom I also met that night, perhaps as result of you guys breaking up and whatever happened to cause that (correct me if I'm wrong), and you kinda went away to deal with it. Maybe a better solution would've been to network here, maybe in the swamp? Because you came back "a new man" so to speak and now you pull stunts like this and blog about it, so what have you really gained or learned from that experience in your isolation? Maybe networking, once again, would've been actually helpful, because it seems like whatever you did didn't help squat. Or maybe you think it helped but this time aliens caused your mishaps so you're not at fault? That's a cop out and you know it.

And if you're gonna take the time to blog about it anyway, why not be externally considerate to her AND considerate to yourself by networking in a private forum and getting actual feedback instead?

And everything I just advised you to do Bernhard applies to me as well - I make really really stupid decisions in my life, very naive decisions, and instead of networking about it, I just keep it all inside and sit there feeling guilty about not talking on the forum like an idiot. And it gets to the point that I'm quite frankly embarrassed to talk about the absolutely foolish decisions I've made in my life on the forum, so that makes me hesitate even further. So no I'm not at all exempt from the very same criticism, and frankly may need a very harsh mirror as well. Preferably a mirror pretty much smashed right over my head like someone means it.

Also Laura I just wanted to apologize for ignoring you in the Lisa Giuliani thread. I was whining about how sorry I was for not posting and that I'm an idiot and you asked me to be specific like Lisa was, and I completely froze out of sheer embarrassment about just how stupid I am, and didn't even respond. A very shitty thing to do to a friend, to someone I look up to, and to the forum at large, especially after asking for help. I know words are cheap so I'll gather my thoughts, swallow my pride, and hit the swamp. If I'm going to "disintegrate" at least I can go down fighting, instead of with a whimper.