(From The Biggest Secret) Icke tells us that Wilder "conducted human sacrifice rituals for some of the most famous people on Earth, including the British Royal Family." Arizona says:
"The Queen - I have seen her sacrifice people and eat their flesh and drink their blood. One time she got so excited with blood lust that she didn't cut the victim's throat from left to right in the normal ritual. She just went crazy, stabbing and ripping at the flesh after she'd shape-shifted into a reptilian. When she shape-shifts she has a long reptile face, almost like a beak, and she's an off-white colour.
"Prince Charles - I've seen him shape-shift into a reptilian and do all the things the Queen does. I have seen him sacrifice children.
"The Queen Mother is a lot older than people think. To be honest, the Royal Family hasn't died for a long time, they have just metamorphised. (sic) It's sort of cloning, but in a different way... They looked like reptiles originally, but they look like us when they get out now... The Queen Mother is 'Chief Toad' of this part of Europe and they have people like her in each continent." [Icke, The Biggest Secret, 1999]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) Now, just think about what this has done here. (Or could do to the less subtle and informed reader.) The first thing is that it has placed the focus of blame on HUMAN beings. Human beings ARE shape shifting Reptilians in kahoots with "ethereal" demonic reptoid beings. And you can see where that is leading back to, can't you? Yes, that ole time religion! We have a "Luciferian Rebellion" going on here, and those pesky reptoids are really just demons in service to Satan. And, of course, being demons, we have absolutely NO hope of doing anything at all without help from somewhere "out there," most likely prayers or rebukes to "get thee behind me, Satan!"
So, not only have we accomplished a huge coup in terms of hiding the true nature of the REAL conspirators, we have advanced the cause of disempowering human beings by reinforcing their beliefs in the same nonsense that has kept them captive for over two thousand years.
[Comment - ‘You say potaahto, I say potayto, you say tomaahto, I say tomayto, let’s get away from it all.’ Whether alien Lizzies are responsible for things or whether Satanic forces are responsible for it all, does it really matter?
Isn’t the central issue that disinformation and misinformation is being spread? Isn’t the central issue that misdirection, lying, deceit, exploitation, and manipulation are going on?
Laura has her own axe to grind with respect to the idea that one might call upon Divinity for assistance and feels that this is all part of the conspiracy to make us submit to old-time religion and keep us asleep. Yet, she does not find it odd that Jesus (peace be upon him) - according to the Cassiopaeans - can answer prayers and can replicate or have his soul replicated ad infintum?
Why is she so much more willing to believe one set of stories as opposed to another set of stories, when the common denominator is that manipulation, lying, deceit, and misdirection is going on - not necessarily to protect some SECRET but in order to keep people occupied with what is not going to help them to become better people. One could learn the entire truth about ‘THE CONSPIRACY’ behind all conspiracies and this would not accomplish a single thing to help one become a better, more loving, caring, considerate, compassionate, sincere, truthful, noble, kinder individual. One can only do this through work on oneself in conjunction with those who are like-hearted and with the assistance of authentic spiritual guidance.
Laura is complaining about those who look ‘outside’ themselves for a spiritual solution, and, yet, she is looking outside of herself for an answer to why things are like they are. What difference does it make if one is looking outside oneself for Divinity or one is looking outside oneself for the alien manipulators?
In either case, the emphasis is wrong, and the preoccupation is wrong. One should be concentrating on purifying the internal life in order to better understand what is going on within oneself as well as without - so that one can be more receptive to the Truth however it comes.
Moreover, just a short while ago Laura went through a little exercise with the Cassiopaeans which led to the conclusion that identifying who are the bad guys and who are the good guys is not all that clear-cut and simple. According to that conclusion, there are mixtures of both going on and, consequently, one cannot make universal statements about organizations such as the Masons, or the Illuminati and the like. Things must be examined on a case by case basis.
Consequently, one wonders why she feels so compelled to want to universally reject ‘religion’ as being all made of the same cloth - that is, a means to keep us asleep. Undoubtedly, this may be true in some, perhaps, many instances, but this doesn’t mean that everything is incorrect and ought to be, automatically, discarded as so much spin-stories of the Lizzies. Everything - including spiritual issues - need to be taken on a case by case basis and one must seek to find the Truth where it is and not where we would like it to be - and this applies to all sides of the argument.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) The aim of religion is to create a completely controlled artificial environment composed of thoroughly predictable human behaviors - made predictable because they have been programmed in through centuries of lies and obfuscations presented in the form of a 'story' that is actually untrue, and wholly misrepresentative of the real negative aim.
[Comment - Laura seems to forget her own counsel, given just a few pages ago (in her Wave Series), that the best conspiracies are kept hidden by mixing the truth with lies, thereby, making differentiating between truth and falsehoods very difficult. If religion is the manipulative screen that she says it is - and, in some respects, I do not disagree with her on this idea ... at least, within certain limits - then, religion, as manipulation, would work best - according to Laura's own criteria - when it mixes truth with falsehood. Yet, Laura has said very little about what the truths of religion may be that are being mixed with the falsehoods she is attempting to uncover.
Laura appears to believe she has access to tools - namely, the Cassiopaeans, the rational mind, and networking - which permit her to accurately know where different things are coming from and what is true and what is not true. However, there is a great deal left to be desired in her analysis of things.
She seems to feel she has created a hermeneutically tenable or viable space out of which to operate. Unfortunately, a great deal of this alleged ‘safe haven’ appears to be constructed on a foundation of sand which is, even now, crumbling about her as she seems oblivious to the manner in which the 'evidence' she is putting forth is often filled with problems, lacunae, unasked and unanswered questions concerning all manner of things - issues which have been raised throughout the various sections of 'Food for Thought - Cassiopaean Hermeneutics'.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) For centuries these programs have been being set up through space/time manipulation. Various prophets or religious leaders have been influenced to preach, prophesy or teach philosophies designed to lay a foundation for later take-over - possibly in our present time.
[Comment - Are the Cassiopaean 12 (which includes: Buddha, Jesus, and Moses, along with 9 others) also being influenced in the foregoing fashion? If not, then, perhaps, the issue is that we need to try to discover what such individuals actually taught and incorporate such teachings into our lives.
Given that the Cassiopaean 12 are dedicated to STO and that they are capable of indefinite soul division by means of which they address the problems of anyone who establishes a connection through, say, prayer, then, why are such individuals seemingly so much less effective than the STS beings? If they are capable - as they Cassiopaeans say they are - of assessing the necessity of a given prayer against a backdrop of soul development, then, how is it that the needs of humanity are not being met - apparently - through the intervention of such STO beings?
Perhaps, like the character from Pogo, "We have met the enemy, and they are us." The issue is not what is being done to us and by whom but, rather, what we permit to be done to us by the problematic choices we make and, through such choices, the manipulative, exploitive, deceptive, forces with which we align ourselves.
Why should we suppose that anyone who doesn’t appear on the aforementioned list of 12 automatically becomes suspect or that anyone who disagrees with their take (the Cassiopaeans together with Larua et al) on relevant issues is merely asleep and in the service of the Lizzies and other STS denizens? She rails away at the dogma of theologians, and, yet, she appears to have her own dogmatic theology going about what constitutes spiritual truth and what constitutes disinformation.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) Recently a parody of door-to-door evangelizing was sent around the internet. ... For those who may not have seen it, I am going to include it here because it makes very important points that need to be emphasized.
John: "Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."
Mary: Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's feet with us."
Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss His feet?"
John: "If you kiss Hank's feet, He'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, He'll kick the living daylights out of you."
Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"
John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropists. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do whatever he wants, and what He wants is to give you a million dollars, but He can't until you kiss his feet."
Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."
Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the feet?"
Me: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."
John: "Then come kiss Hank's feet with us."
Me: "Do you kiss Hank's feet often?"
Mary: "Oh yes, all the time..."
Me: "And has He given you a million dollars?"
John: "Well no. You don't actually get the money until you leave town."
Me: "So why don't you just leave town now?"
Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and He kicks the living daylights out of you."
Me: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's feet, left town, and got the million dollars?"
John: "My mother kissed Hank's feet for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money."
Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?"
John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it." [Comment - Apparently, Hank doesn't know about John Edwards and Crossing Over]
Me: "So what makes you think He'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who got the money?"
Mary: "Well, he gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a twenty-dollar bill on the street."
Me: "What's that got to do with Hank?"
John: "Hank has certain 'connections.'"
Me: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."
John: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's feet He'll kick the living daylights of you."
Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to Him, get the details straight from him..."
Mary: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."
Me: "Then how do you kiss His feet?"
John: "Sometimes we just blow Him a kiss, and think of His feet. Other times we kiss Karl's feet, and he passes it on."
Me: "Who's Karl?"
Mary: "A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's feet. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."
Me: "And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss His feet, and that Hank would reward you?"
John: "Oh no! Karl has a letter he got from Hank years ago explaining the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."
From the desk of Karl
1) Kiss Hank's feet and He'll give you a million dollars when you leave town.
2) Use alcohol in moderation.
3) Kick the living daylights out of people who aren't like you.
4) Eat right.
5) Hank dictated this list Himself.
6) The moon is made of green cheese.
7) Everything Hank says is right.
8) Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
9) Don't use alcohol.
10) Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.
11) Kiss Hank's feet or He'll kick the living daylights out of you.
Me: "This appears to be written on Karl's letterhead."
Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper."
Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting."
John: "Of course, Hank dictated it."
Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"
Mary: "Not now, but years ago He would talk to some people."
Me: "I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the living daylights out of people just because they're different?"
Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."
Me: "How do you figure that?"
Mary: "Item 7 says 'Everything Hank says is right.' That's good enough for me!"
Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."
John: "No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says 'Eat right,' and item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too."
Me: "But 9 says 'Don't use alcohol.' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."
John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."
Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock..."
Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."
Me: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon was somehow 'captured' by the Earth has been discounted*. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese."
John: "Ha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!"
Me: "We do?"
Mary: "Of course we do, Item 5 says so."
Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"
John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank's way of thinking."
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) Did you get it? Did you REALLY get it? And did you see how accurately it portrays the whole religious mindset? Most important, did you notice how "good rules" can be posited for the express purpose of establishing Faith in rules that are not only lies, but are actually detrimental to growth and development? And did you notice how cleverly this little skit actually captured the dynamic of the "true believer?"
[Comment - The foregoing skit portrays not just a certain relgious mindset of almost any fundamentalist hermeneutic of spirituality, but the foregoing skit portrays the mindset of a lot of philosophical, political, economic, and educational 'true believers' as well.
What is Laura doing which is so different from the fundamentalist when she says that if you don’t believe the way they do, you are going to be eaten by the Lizzies? What’s the difference between getting the living daylight beat out of you or being eaten by the Lizzies? ... except being eaten sounds more terminal, and, therefore, more frightening. In either event, the consequences seem rather dire and harsh, as well as conditional on believing the way someone else wants you to believe.
What is the difference between, on the one hand, promising someone a million dollars, heaven, or paradise, and, on the other hand, promising someone the delights of 4th density existence, unimpeded by the laws of physical/material reality, where one can create one's own reality and one can continue to evolve to higher densities? What is the difference between trying to warn someone about the forthcoming, momentous, Cosmic Wave, and trying to warn someone about the forthcoming Latter Days?
Surely, one of the differences, if there are any, has to do, in part, with the truth of things. But, this is the question which needs to be answered - what is the Truth?
The consequences of poor choices may be as Laura and company say. Or, the consequences of poor choices may be as some of the fundamentalist say. Or, the consequences of poor choices may be that one will come to realize - perhaps too late - that one has missed out on a golden opportunity called life and that, at best, one will have to settle for some sort of consolation prize in which, at the very least, there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth due to the belated realization that one’s choices have taken one away from whatever the truth might be and that one is going to have to go on existing with the realization of such failure on one’s part and the betrayal of one’s essential self that this entails. One could be raised to heaven and still be miserable despite the surroundings because of such realizations - we make our own Hell and we condemn ourselves to it through our choices.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) More than that, the totally illogical and nonsensical dynamic of "believe this" or you will be damned, punished or otherwise "left out" of some exclusive club is the essence of STS stalking wherein confusion and cross-purpose prevents a clear perception on the part of the Stalkees
What is the designed objective of this STALKING? It is two-fold. First, the effect of Stalking is sort of like stampeding a herd of cattle so that they run into a dead end canyon or corral and have no way out. Bit by bit, they are consolidated into an "us against them mode." Even though, on the surface, it may seem that this "mode" is positive or STO, (i.e. save the world because it is "wrong" or flawed, or blighted with original sin or whatever) the very fact that it is formed in the "dominator" mode of perceiving salvation "outside," or from some "other" source no matter how it is presented, means that it can more easily be "taken over" body, mind and soul at a level that is "unseen and unseeable."
[Comment - When Laura says - "the 'dominator' mode of perceiving salvation 'outside, or from some 'other' source no matter how it is presented, means that it can more easily be 'taken over' body, mind and soul at a level that is 'unseen and unseeable' " - such a statement seems rather arbitrary. In point of fact, whatever story which is spun that can get people looking in the wrong direction, away from truth, gives expression to misdirection and is, therefore, problematic and manipulative. What makes human beings vulnerable is not the location of the story line (outside or inside) but is, rather, our internal drive for purpose, meaning, identity, understanding and the truth and the constant threat of dissociation which, like a vulture, seeks to eat us alive in relation to failed/problematic projects involving purpose, meaning, and identity.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) Many people believe they are playing out the basic 'antagonism' and 'self- protection' roles of Satan vs. God. They believe that "sending love and light" to those "in need" is appropriate, without realizing that this activity is predicated upon a deep belief that there is something wrong, in error, in rebellion, and thus becomes again, "us vs them."
[Comment - Why doesn’t Laura follow the advice of the Cassiopaeans and say that one does not have to be in an antagonistic stance toward Satan or the Lizzies as much as one has to find ways to circumvent Satan’s or the Lizzies (or whomever’s) attempts to prevent one from realizing one's own Destiny which can only be realized through the Truth. The issue is not a matter of 'me against them' or 'us against them' but, instead, of trying to determine what is necessary to approach the truth and trying to gain mastery of the circumstances which are conducive to such a seeking. It is not religious thinking, per se, which leads one into the us versus them cul-de-sac, but rather it is a certain kind of narrow, inflexible, dogmatic thinking which is problematic irrespective of what discipline it is applied to.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) The primary object of Negative stalking is to persuade through strongly influenced, but not robotic, behavior patterns, the Free Choice of the targeted CONSCIOUSNESS to align with negative higher-density existence. It doesn't matter that the believer thinks he is following the teachings of Jesus, Brahma or Allah. If he is following the STS agenda, no matter how he was deceived to believe it is right, it is still the STS agenda. And, by being a "true believer," he can, at any time, be co-opted to the 4th density STS hierarchy by the appearance of an "angelic" being, or the receiving of a "benevolent message, prophecy, or healing." It is only with knowledge of these conditions that anyone has any hope of being able to see through the ploys and the programs.
[Comment - What makes Laura think that the Cassiopaean communications are not just a variation on the scenario involving the: “appearance of an ‘angelic’ being, or the receiving of a ‘benovelent message, prophecy, or healing’? If, according to Laura, it doesn’t matter “that the believer thinks he is following the teachings of Jesus, Brahma or Allah, then, why should it make any difference if a believer thinks that he or she is following the teachings of the Cassiopaeans?
By what set of criteria and standards does one judge that one is better than the other - self-reports of I feel better, or I see more clearly, or I, now, understand? How does one tell who is telling the truth and who is not - especially if all parties believe they are being sincere and honest and rigorously critical?]
What Laura and company don’t seem to understand is that they are - potentially - doing precisely the same thing they are warning against. They - through their argumentation, discussion, writings, and so on - are trying to persuade, in a strongly influenced way - “but not robotic, behavior patterns” - the free choice of targeted consciousness (anyway who happens on their site) to align with their own density of being - whatever that may be.
The Cassiopaeans say they only help those people who ask, but who was it that asked on the Internet for the Cassiopaeans web site. The Cassiopaeans were the ones who suggested that Laura put up a web site for all those people - the potential Shaman initiates - who might benefit from what is being said. Yet, who among human beings asked them to do this, and, why couldn’t the Cassiopaeans have dealt directly with such people who might have voiced such a question in their heart?
If Jesus (peace be upon him) can, according to the Cassiopaeans, soul-replicate to interact with billions of people, why can’t the Cassiopaeans do this? If the Cassiopaeans can’t do this, then, what business to they have doing what they do? Why not just refer people to the 12 who can answer prayers.
In effect, Laura and company kissed the feet of the Cassiopaeans because the Cassiopaeans said that this would have good results, or it was necessary, or that ecstasy would follow, but like Hank, the philanthropist, million-dollar promise, where is the proof? Like Hank, the Cassiopaeans say that one will just have to wait, or they say that we can’t tell you certain things because that would interfere with your exercise of free will, which is one of the commandments, but we can give you clues.
Isn’t the very giving of clues an infringement upon free will because it points in a direction that we might not have chosen otherwise? Isn't the providing of clues quite consistent - conceivably - with a process of manipulation which is intended to lead a person, step-by-step, away from Truth, rather than toward it? Why not just tell people what the truth is and, then, let them, through their own choices decide what they are going to do with respect to the information given - whether this be a story or Revelation?
If the giving of clues does not violate the Prime Directive, then, why would the Truth be violating the Prime Directive. After all, Laura is not giving ‘clues’ like the Cassiopaeans, she is coming to full-blown conclusions about the nature and purpose of existence. So, even if one were to agree that the Cassiopaeans did not abridge freedom of choice by providing certain clues, the fact of the matter is that they have led Laura and company in a certain direction which is not just restricted to clues that are being passed on - but the whole - allegedly - Gospel Truth according to the Cassiopaeans and Reason (which, of course, they are using perfectly).
If one should not lend support to those (like Laura’s ex-husband) who will not disengage from lending support to STS forces, and, thereby, become part of the feeding cycle which infringes on freedom of choice, then, why should one lend support to those who supply more than clues - such as Laura and company - and, therefore, apparently, are infringing on people’s freedom of choice by proceeding on beyond the realm of clues which - let us assume - do not infringe on people’s freedom of choice? The whole line between what constitutes infringement on freedom of choice and enabling freedom of choice is rather arbitrarily drawn.
Furthermore, the Cassiopaeans claim that this is the realm of Freedom of Choice and, therefore, everyone should be free to choose as they do. How do we know, for certain, that their account of how freedom of choice operates on this plane of existence is how things actually are, rather than just a story which they are spinning as the truth - whether sincerely or otherwise?
Why seek to persuade, or document, or write, or prove, or interact when what we may be doing is not STO but, instead, may be a function of 1001 STS influences? If the Cassiopaeans can interact with us despite our tendency to breach the realm of going beyond mere clues and, thereby, possibly, interfering with the free will of others, why isn’t it okay for us to interact with STS entities and seek to provide them with the clues that may be necessary to help induce them to move away from STS inclinations? When does one give up on other human beings - not with an agenda of changing them, but with the purpose of engaging them in an honest search for the Truth, whatever that might turn out to be?
Return to 'Food For Thought' Menu
|
