Conspiracies = Distractions = Smoke-Screens = Control (Page 1 of 2)

Not everybody here is familiar with the C's transcripts or the "raffle incident", so for their sake, I'll just summarize what that is, so they can be on the same page and not feel left out, like there's a clique with "inside information":

The C's is in reference to a group of channelled entities known as the Cassiopaeans, channelled by Laura Knight Jadczyk, (and others) over a 9 year period from 1994 - 2003.  The channelling is chronicled in what's known as the C's transcripts.   The C's claim to be us in the future, in 6th density.   They also have a startling track record for accurate, detailed information.  Personally, I've never seen material that even comes close to this stuff.   It's llke nothing that's out there.   The method of channelling used to obtain the information was also unusual in the sense that it wasn't done through hypnotic trance.  It was done using a custom made ouiji board, in order to prevent disinformation, distortion, etc. from getting through which is often the case in long term trance channelling.   But the result is consistant, detailed, down to earth accurate information, while lacking the usual new agey flakey voice of many channelling sources

Laura J. and a few people who were a member of her group, (known as the Quantum Future School) moved to France in the spring of 2003.   Laura didn't sell her house in Florida via the traditional route, she opted instead to raffle it off.   Anybody who wanted could purchase as many raffle tickets as they wanted, for  $50 a pop.  The winner received her house.   Some people with a vendetta against Laura started spreading gossip that nobody actually won the house, and that she actually just "took the money and ran".   From what I know, this is not true.   Somebody did receive the house, but they in turn turned around and sold it.  But the end result is what's known as the "raffle scandal."

WELL!  Now that we're all on the same page now, there should hopefully be no confusion for those forum members with no prior knowledge of "The C's" and "C's transcripts", and "raffle scandals".

Not everybody who reads the Montalk site has read the C's material.  Many people find the Montalk site via search engines;  Many are referred through the articles which are posted and linked on other sites.    So the people visiting the Montalk site aren't just members of the Quantum Future School, as if its a closed, mutually exclusive group.    The Montalk website has been around in various forms for over 5 years, attracting its own readership, separate from anything that Laura was doing.   And on a sidenote, I have to add that I've personally invited several people to join this forum who have no prior knowledge of the C's channelling.  Others may be doing the same, inviting friends to join who also would never have heard of them.   So for all of their sake, I thought it was a good idea to give some background info. on who / what these "C's" are, so nobody feels left out.   

I hope that clears up the confusion.

Hi BlackBox,

(some off-topic info, but since you asked....)

This forum, at least its current location and style, was formed about a week ago, having transferred from the YahooGroups format which existed since December of 2003.

There's nothing unusual about you posting this early because we have sincere people in this group willing to discuss interesting topics without intentional antagonism. That implies a resonance of frequencies.

Fun and seriousness are not mutually exclusive - learning is fun, remember. And with anyone being free to start their own topic, and free to select which topics to read, there is no limit to how serious or lax any particular topic can be - as long as it serves more than just yourself (otherwise what's the point of posting in a forum.)

For example, I look forward to discussing the C's and related material in depth with those interested, under its own topic or forum, but there's no requirement that other topics must include it or that members must be familiar with it. It's their choice - freewill is paramount. Ideally, we take what we need and give what we can, and this differs from one person to the next.

Considering that this is a forum, after all, some external considering is necessary. I've learned long ago that ego-aggrandizement will inevitably bite you in the ass. Often, the problem isn't what you say, but how you say it - arrogance invites antagonism, especially when it stems from false assumptions.

Progress comes within the natural flow of things. I find no need to force anything and tend to respond honestly and openly when there is inspiration to respond. When there is harmony, things fall into place naturally.

- Tom

Well, I'd rather not get into the details at this moment, but I'm certainly home now at this forum.

You have no idea how uplifting it is to hear Montalk say things like "external considering" and etc from the above. Not to feed that ego with flattery, Montalk, but I didn't expect this, any of this.

In regards to my Atlantis ideas, etc etc, those types of hunches and thoughts towards enhancing technologies and remembering old ones, well those are the kind of ambitions that makes me no longer able to speak with that collective. As always, I speak too soon, so we'll just have to let the discussions swing and see what happens.

Personally from your post Montalk, you're implying that we'll be attracting people of the similar FRV, which is not what I'm doubting, but that sooner or later through the discussions, I keep on realizing the person I'm talking to can't get past certain C-transcript concepts. Do you know what I mean? Like we go through a big enchalada of revelations and then they bring up emotional topics like, "What kind of lessons are learned for a indonesian baby that is killed in the womb, due to terrorism" etc etc etc. Yadda yadda yadda. There's no way to answer these questions objectively to these people because there are 3 things you can be conciously that are in direct relation to your programming limits also:

1.) Sleeping
2.) Being Awake
3.) Day-Dreaming

I know it sounds simple but most things that are actually understood are that simple. The Day-Dreamers are the ones I'm meeting right now (just like I used to be) that resonate with C-transcripts yet they don't truly understand the fundamentals. As if perhaps their too old and set in their ways to break their core-programming.

Jay Weidner once said to me: "There's no such thing as subjectivity!"

What I mean to imply from the above is that I've become skeptical from my experience that it is enivetable for someone like that or a group of them to come into the picture and start pointing out pety topics and questions that the casschat, for example, would call "Noise". Their smart and stupid at the same time! Hehe, and that my friend is a oxymoron waiting to explode.

Good discussion. Speaking of mind-jobs, we were talking about TV on the general discussion board. Tranzdoozer quit watching, and Phlux reminded me of a few points.
     Since college I had resented the influence of it, as I had been a latchkey kid and watched alot, and I needed to do art to get it off my chest, which I did for a long time. Then I fell into periods of watching it again. But I really feel that since coming to a fuller knowledge of the matrix, mind control, and manipulation, due in large part to the Montalk site, I have greatly broken free. Even the past influence does not seem to hold, as I feared it would.
     My recent research, just for my own bolstering, about the effects of TV scared me straight. Now I watch mostly movies, and the so called news tells me a different story, one about the attempt to control vast numbers of people, and for reasons that may be literally alien to me.
     It would be helpful, perhaps, to some people if maybe someone in-the-know could clue some of us in even more. For instance, I would like to know specifically what responses TV situations and responses can evoke in people. Sometimes when I look at my life in the past, I now see that something was influencing me that at the time I did not. Now I have more of an overview, but as I was a sensitive person, I often lacked the resources to do this in the past. It helps me see myself more clearly, not by dwelling on the past, but more in the line of what it means to be human, how these various technologies, machines, forces, concepts, mass consciousness, and so on , have been at play. Play of thoughts. SEDNOUGH.

Lyra, thanks!

Glad to know that someone else feels that way about it. It just scares me when I realize how many people watch alot of it, and I get enraged when I realize the resources that go into it, at the expense of real living and thinking. I don't watch alot, as I said, and I'm usually outside or in the studio or reading, but when I do watch I have the same puzzled reaction as to why it fascinates people so. To sit there staring at a wall, is basically what it amounts to. It could be a way to distract people from what is really going on, while pretending to give them news and information. Its deeply disturbing.
     Is there anyone here who knows about programming? Phlux, you mentioned something about the Pavlovian aspects.
     It's not the mostly inane subject matter of TV that is the main problem, I think, but there is also something in the psychology and symbolism of it, as well as the cathode ray tube technology itself.There is at least one article about it on the web.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. From my experience, it does affect the unconscious in a strong way, even if all your attention is focused on understanding the manipulations (which can't be done all the time anyway). The unconscious stores information 8 times faster than the conscious mind can analyze them (your mind sees only 4 images/second on a 24 images/second movie).