Re: [ufodiscussion] REPTOIDS APPEAR IN LOVECRAFT.
- Regan Power wrote:
>I just meant some of things that you and I seem to agree upon and have now
> Don: I think that we are beginning to nit-pick and quibble over minutia.
> Regan: I was just asking you to clarify what I thought was your central
> position, Don. But if, in fact, it is an item of "minutia" to you, then I
> apologise for misunderstanding you.
clarified. I thought that i was being very clear inmy representations;
apparently, to you, I was not. So,....let's just drop that now. :-)
>Yes, you could say that I feel that there is indeed "soul abuse" going on. ;-)
> Don: I agree with everything you say in your other comments. I was just
> making sure that you also 'repected' the nature of individuality, and were
> not suggesting that we should dissolve ourSELVES into the ONE. Apparently
> you have clarified yourself here and we see eye to eye.
> Regan: I am glad to have been able to clarify that point.
> Don: As I said to Janet, there are some "others", I feel, that may be more
> or less on the "right" track and some others that may be way off base and
> may even be trapped further into the "False ego" than we ourselves. By this
> I mean that I feel that *some* beings are almost *convinced* that they are
> "separate" and "other" in *almost* an absolute sense, or at least believe
> that such a state is attainable and even desireable. In such a case I
> believe I have a "right" to be "accusatory", just as I would have a right to
> be accusatory in human rights abuse.
> Regan: Yes, of course you have that right. I was just wanting to know
> whether or not you were choosing to exercise it in this instance. :-) If
> you were, then I think your charge would define a new category of crime, ie.
> soul-abuse. It would be interesting to see what the legal profession made
> of it. ;-)
But to what "court" do you take such a crime? In my book, there IS no such
"court", because at the level at which this "abuse" is taking place, the
Universe is a "free-for-all". It is so, because this is the level at which
the basic nature of the Universe to allow ANYTHING is completely understood.
Besides, as I said before, as a race of souls, I feel that we consciously and
*willfully* chose to *allow* our souls to be "abused" in such a manner for
the chance to advance "quicker" than we would have "naturally". However,
the was always the risk of losing ourselves *virtually* "forever" in the
illusion fostered by this "abuse". Whether we fully understood the risks
involved when we made this choice, I don't know, but the question is academic
because HERE WE ARE.
> Don: I feel that, as a race of souls, we consiously chose to subjectAs I said before, *some* of us will progress to a much more "advanced" state,
> ourselves to "manipulation" by a multitude of *seeming* "others", many of
> which are "not so nice" from our human perspective. As such, even though I
> can intuitively understand and accept that this was our choice so there are
> no "others" to blame, as a *human* AT a *human* level of consciousness I can
> have a "distaste" for some of their actions. In other words, whether I may
> be wise or not, sometimes I just call an asshole an asshole. ;-)
> Regan: Call them what you like, Don, but the question in my mind remains
> that of what, specifically, you feel they actually did to us, to which you
> are objecting. That is to say, How are we any worse off because of it? I
> don't think it would make much sense to accuse them of having done us a
> favour. ;-)
however, most will not. This is NOT the "natural" means of the advancement
of the human soul. It is a "quickening" process that we *willfully* chose
before this race was even born and manifested. There were risks and we took
them. Forgive me if this sounds like an "elitist" view of our *current*
nature and spiritual evolution but I'm afraid that's the way I see it.
> Don: Ultimately, though, our future development resides within *US* and weBy, "stinkin gods" I do NOT mean the "Primordial Aspects of the Absolute ONE".
> are the final arbiters of the "gods"(aspects of the Universal Nature) whom
> we ourselves shall chose to "shape us". WE don't need no stinkin' gods! ;-)
> Regan: I think that depends on what you mean by "stinkin' gods", Don. If
> you mean by it, stone statues and amulets, then I agree with you. But if
> you mean, primordial aspects of the Absolute One (Who is our own Cosmic
> Self), then I think we do need them. Indeed, I think they are essential
> requirements for all our lives, in every situation and circumstance. It
> appears prudent, to me, to honour those gods and to respect their ordinances
> to the best of our ability always, if we want to prosper.
In the Greater Picture, you can say that they are dissociated parts of ourselves
and it is our "destiny", if we want to advance, to reclaim them and make them
part of our SELVES. As in Egyptian esoterica, the Initiate assumes the qualities
of the Neteru and thus become one amongst them. The Neteru become "subserviant",
in a sense, qualities of the Individual, if you want to put some kind of
"direction" on the relationship, rather than being "subserviant" *to* the Neteru.
The "gods", of which I spoke, are the "False gods", the "ETs".... "others" who
are actively invloved in our development. I believe that there IS a difference
between the Primordial Aspects and these "Usurpers". Sometimes it may be
difficult to tell them apart because it may very well be true that occasionally
one of these Primordial Aspects may manifest as an "other", as an actual "separate"
being. This, however, is the exception rather than the rule, IMO. Most of the
manifestations of "entities", ETs, etc., are "real" "others" that may be acting on
behalf of the Primordial Aspects, some with "better" intentions toward us, some
with more selfish motives. As I see it, it is our "fate" to be subjected to this
second hand "guidance", sometimes outright "interference", rather than direct
guidance from the Primordial Aspects because of our *choice* to allow our souls
to be "fragmented" in the manner I described. I feel that we *may* be able to
work with *some* of these "second hand helpers", but that it is best to just
bypass them and get in touch with the Primordial Aspects themselves DIRECTLY.
And we should do this from *within*, realizing that they are a part of us and
NOT "out there". Any being that appears "out there" is a "False god". "The
kingdom of Heaven is within you!"
Anyway, this is how *I* see our situation. Again, I have no "evidence" and you
may disagree and show other "evidence" to support your view, however, I feel very
strongly about this based upon my own intuitive analysis. ...At least this is how
I feel NOW; I may be wrong and totally off base and see things differently at some
time later. As I said, I am ultimately an agnostic. I used to see things EXACTLY
like you, and you and I would not disagree on a thing. Then I had what you might
call several "revelations" that opened my mind to a totally different way of viewing
our spiritual status.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: DRxDON
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 12:14 AM
> Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] REPTOIDS APPEAR IN LOVECRAFT.
> Regan Power wrote:
> > Don: Such "others", I believe.. OOPS! I said that word! ;-), had a part
> > in altering our spiritual and physical development. Many such "others"
> > are
> > more deeply trapped in the "False ego" than are we, despite their
> > seemingly
> > "godlike" powers, and are even more convinced of their separateness. At
> > our
> > "lower" spiritual awareness, we have believed that we are lesser beings
> > and
> > so fell into their trap. At spiritually much deeper or "higher" levels,
> > though, we were/are aware that we purposefully and consciously allowed
> > such
> > *seeming* manipulation to take place in order to advance our spiritual
> > selves in this "risky" manner. I have no "evidence" for this, and I don't
> > want to get into another discussion, as I did with Bill and Janet, as to
> > what exactly constitutes "evidence" in the first place. I base these
> > ideas
> > of my analysis of many things; world mythology, comparative religions,
> > alleged UFO/ET encounters and communications, etc. Mostly, though, after
> > all of this information, I derive my ideas from my own intuitive or even
> > "revelatory" perception.
> > Regan: I believe there is nothing wrong with using the term "others" in
> > the
> > context of the Great Game of Life, if it is understood that there is an
> > absolute unity and common identity underlying all the individual players
> > and
> > their games. But if the term is used in such a way as to suggest that
> > their
> > "otherness" is absolute, total and real, then I would argue with it,
> > because
> > that would be to create another, artificial and burdensome illusion on top
> > of the creative illusion of individuality which nature has already given
> > us.
> > But I am unclear now, Don, as to what you are really saying here.
> > You spoke of "tampering" and "manipulation", which sounded accusatory to
> > me,
> > before. Now you speak of certain "others" who only "had a part in
> > altering
> > our spiritual and physical development", which would hardly put the aliens
> > in the dock in any World Court of Human Rights. Can you clarify your
> > position on this, please?
> I think that we are beginning to nit-pick and quibble over minutia. :-) I
> agree with everything you say in your other comments. I was just making
> that you also "repected" the nature of individuality, and were not
> that we should dissolve ourSELVES into the ONE. Apparently you have
> yourself here and we see eye to eye.
> When I say "tamper" and "manipulate" I AM being "accusatory",... to a
> though I think you read a lot more of such a connotation into it. As I said
> Janet, there are some "others", I feel, that may be more or less on the
> track and some others that may be way off base and may even be trapped
> into the "False ego" than we ourselves. By this I mean that I feel that
> beings are almost *convinced* that they are "separate" and "other" in
> an absolute sense, or at least believe that such a state is attainable and
> desireable. In such a case I believe I have a "right" to be "accusatory",
> as I would have a right to be accusatory in human rights abuse.
> I may understand the psychological history and disturbance involved in
> perpetrators of abuse. Thus I may understand at lower spiritual levels that
> these people have "problems" and I can "forgive" them. I can also even
> that at higher levels the so-called "victim" is "playing a game" of being a
> for their own hidden spiritual purposes. Nevertheless, at a base human
> level I
> can still refer to these "perpetrators of abuse" as such and even have a
> anger" toward them, even though I may intuitively grasp the "BIG picture".
> In the
> same manner, I can look at certain "alien others" as "perpetrators of abuse"
> they are more "users" of us than benevolent "givers", as I feel that *some*
> I feel that, as a race of souls, we consiously chose to subject ourselves to
> "manipulation" by a multitude of *seeming* "others", many of which are "not
> nice" from our human perspective. As such, even though I can intuitively
> and accept that this was our choice so there are no "others" to blame, as a
> AT a *human* level of consciousness I can have a "distaste" for some of
> actions. In other words, whether I may be wise or not, sometimes I just
> call an
> asshole an asshole. ;-)
> Ultimately, though, our future development resides within *US* and we are
> the final
> arbiters of the "gods"(aspects of the Universal Nature) whom we ourselves
> chose to "shape us". WE don't need no stinkin' gods! ;-)
> What If --------------------------?
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> [click here]
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
What If --------------------------?
- No need to get sarcastic, Janet. I was just making the point that there
are as many, if not more, accounts of "negative" behavior toward humans
during events which the experiencers describe as "abuctions" than their
are accounts of "positive" behavior. This is NOT so in experiences openly
described as "contacts". NO, I haven't read ALL accounts, but I think that
I've read as many as most researchers. I would say that you are fortunate
that you have never had a negative experience, and I suppose that would
tend to make you more open to the "bright side" of things.
I'm just trying to get to the point where we firmly disagree and define it.
I think that point is that you feel no *entire* race of ETs could be defined
as "bad" or have "negative intentions" toward humanity on the whole whereas
I do. You feel that any incidents of negative ET behavior are just examples
of *individual* "personality quirks" of the particular ET in question. I say
that this may be so in some cases but I also feel that if we are dealing with
a collective "hive" mind, as I believe is the case in many encounters, then
the concept of an entire race of ETs having hostile intentions toward the
human race is valid.
I may be wrong here(correct me if I am) but I believe that you also feel, like
Laneesa and I *think* as Karin too, that all fearful and highly negative and
traumatic experiences are merely the result of the experiencer's "fear-based"
mentality and refusal to "open up". Although I can accept that *some* first
contacts which are initiated without "prior notice" can be unsettling and
"freaky", on the whole, I disagree with the above generalization about highly
traumatic events. I myself had a waking "apparitional contact" with a powerful
entity that could be called "fearsome". It freaked me out and I was afraid but
I sensed no actual "malevolence" from the being, only a "challenge". It was
very impersonal to my "ego-self" but I had the feeling that it was transferring
vast amounts of multidimensional information to a "higher level" of my psyche
which my conscious mind couldn't comprehend. This event signaled a very
powerful turning point in my life and I credit it with a great deal of my
As far as creating reality from the energy of our thoughts, I firmly believe
this too. However, there are many "hidden" thoughts and "false beliefs"
involved within all of us. I feel that it is from this "hidden" part of
ourselves that most of our "reality" emerges. Our conscious minds reflect
this reality and validate it. "Know thySELF!"
I hope that we understand each other better now and know where to agree to
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DRxDON [mailto:drxdon@...]
> Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 11:42 AM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] REPTOIDS APPEAR IN LOVECRAFT.
> I considered ALL of the points you made,....YEARS ago. It was only AFTER
> ALL reports of encounters and looking at them in "depth and in their
> that I concluded that "something just wasn't right" in *SOME* of the
> reported cases.
> It wasn't *just* disoriented fear reported by the *particular* abductees of
> I speak, which as you say, could very well be expected, understanding the
> and general human psychology. It was outright snide condescension and even
> J: I hadn't realized that you had read every reported case there is...Is
> that suppose to give your thoughts preferance over mine??? Possibly they
> were arrogant??? You're being vague Don... Just what something wasn't
> right??? OH, I get it...Another race has been snide with a human while they
> were abducted. That is what's bothering you right? Hasn't a human ever been
> snide with you or others you knew??? Ever been pulled over for a ticket and
> made the mistake of questioning the officer???
> Why can't you accept the *posibility* that *some* ETs, and even entire
> ET races, are not "nice" and don't have our best interests in mind, at least
> as far
> as our *individual* identities are concerned as a race? IMO, it is more
> logical to
> assume that *some* ETs are what we would call of a "negative" frame of being
> and that
> *some* are from a "positive" frame of being than to say that ALL ETs are
> here for our
> greater good.
> J: There you go again twisting my words Don, I stated that I'm sure some are
> jerks too just like HUMANS, however I consider stating that a whole race as
> not nice solely because they are from that race as being prejudice... I have
> yet to meet an evil one, where I have met evil humans... That doesn't mean
> there aren't a few out there, just I haven't met them.
> I used to believe that any beings that have such vast knowledge and powers
> MUST be
> highly spiritually advanced too and therefore be "good" regardless of what
> we think
> and see from our perspective. Then, the more I learned of occult powers and
> the more
> intuitive I became, I realized that beings can be VERY powerful with
> technology but even *less* "spiritually" advanced than us. There is a long
> of "evil" sorcerers with vast "spiritual" powers which they use for very
> purposes. In the Hindu Bhagavagita, there is told the great battles of the
> between those of Light and the "Asuras", those of Darkness. Both had
> "Vimanas" (UFOs),
> which had the ability to fly through space and time and to other planets and
> fantastic weaponry which sound like nuclear or plasma based explosives and
> beams of
> J: I have heard of humans who have reached enlightenment and then later
> became twisted allowing the power to get out of hand and thinking of
> themselves as better due to it. Since we have genes of the gods, and humans
> seem to have this problem some times then it isn't too far of a jump to see
> where it came from... No one is perfect Don, only All That Is. The best we
> can hope for I think is to be perfect for what we are and what we set out to
> do here... If we can do better than that then we're doing pretty good...
> As to the "agremeent" thing, I said that I feel that we, as a race of souls,
> DID agree
> to be subjected to ALL sorts of "manipulation" by "gods" before we even
> incarnated here.
> However, this doesn't mean that we don't still have a CHOICE to decide which
> "gods" with which we want to be involved, nor does it mean that we can, AT
> ANY TIME,
> decide to WAKEUP from this "illusion" and not be involved with ANY "gods"
> J: Did I say we didn't have a choice which gods, aliens,etc. we deal
> with???I had a teacher who was enlightened and he dealt with them, so I have
> to say good luck Don...
> I understand where you are coming from Don, I just don't agree with all of
> it, and that's ok... The whole point to our discussion of these issues isn't
> so we agree with each other, but rather put various different ideas out
> there for others to think about and discuss. See by everyone reading this
> and disagreeing or agreeing they are putting the energy into the thoughts.
> Where you put your energy is what you create...ha ha
> Jahnets wrote:
> > Don,
> > Where it may or may not be true, fact is, it is how "they
> interpreted" the
> > aliens. Right??? Have you never misinterpreted humans intentions? So I
> > you'll understand if I question some of those. I believe anyone and
> > going up on those ships gets examined. Does that not make sense to you? Do
> > you think our astronauts would do differently bringing an alien on board
> > their ship if they happened to run into them??? To me this is perfectly
> > logical. Not evil, not mean, not intended to hurt anyone's feelings. You
> > I haven't experienced any type of behavior like this but that isn't true
> > really, I have just learned from it rather than automatically seeing it in
> > the light of hurtfulness. When I met Osiris and his court I was standing
> > the red carpet in very old pajamas that I would never have worn in
> > When I looked down and realized what I had on in front of all these beings
> > was at first embarrassed, then mad and literally glared around the room
> > searching for who ever had thought to land me in the middle of this group
> > without clothing me properly, then I thought ok fine you want a look and
> > stood up and ignored it the rest of the time. I grew... I am not my body,
> > am what animates this body. Now was that a disservice to me??? I would say
> > it was more of a test looking back on it... Like "she knows it does she
> > believe it?", you know... I guess the point I'm trying to make here is
> > aren't humans and most expect them to understand our feelings in regards
> > behavior just because their telepathic...Wrong...Also the shock of the
> > experience tends to make one over-emotional to begin with, it's only after
> > you sit and think on it awhile that some of the subtleties come out. Then
> > this has been happening to me since I was 5 so I'm used to it. I'm not
> > saying that some of them can't be jerks without even trying just like
> > humans, but to say it's intentional harm? As for this "you agreed to it",
> > have noticed something that might enlighten this for everyone... While I
> > have been talking to some of my contacts, they will ask me something and
> > I'll say sure, and they look at each other, and their body language says,
> > "OK, she just agreed"... Which when I noticed it I had to pause and think
> > am I agreeing to more than what I thought I was agreeing to??? So you see
> > can see this happening quite easily due to translation... When I note that
> > try to qualify what ever we are talking about to avert this, but still we
> > have had a few misunderstandings... That doesn't mean they are horrible
> > monsters, with evil intentions like some say... Have you ever thought that
> > maybe because they have hierarchical governing that since our government
> > ok'd this, that that means we have ok'd it to??? I mean just a thought but
> > that leaves a lot to misunderstanding...Another thing whether people
> > this or not their thoughts bring things to them. If people think about
> > in a day dreamy sort of way they are going to pick it up faster than a
> > would and comply...ha ha They're telepathic. So if one thinks about them a
> > lot, does this mean that person wants to meet up with them??? See there
> > a lot of ways we may be agreeing to things that we don't realize we
> > and that is besides for moving into the Aquarian age and the enlightenment
> > that is occurring generally with all people now... Let's try to be fair
> > in the face of over emotionalism...
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: DRxDON [mailto:drxdon@...]
> > Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 8:10 PM
> > To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] REPTOIDS APPEAR IN LOVECRAFT.
> > Janet,
> > I am only going by *some* of the accounts of *abductees*, not
> > who say that they were treated with disrespect by their abductors. When
> > they
> > told the abductors that they had no right to abduct them they were told
> > have every right", "we made you", "you are US", etc, in very a very
> > condescending
> > manner. Whitley Strieber is the most notable amongst this group but there
> > are
> > others. I recognize that there are contactees and even abductees who do
> > get treated this way and are merely taken aboard, given some kind of
> > examination
> > which is usually kind of "fuzzy" in their memory and then given a tour of
> > the
> > ship and perhaps some kind of "message". The fact that you haven't
> > experienced
> > this, nor anyone else that you know, does not mean that this has not
> > happened
> > to others. I am just saying, to put it in VERY simplistic earth
> > frame-of-reference
> > terminology, that there probably are "nicer" ETs and ETs who are not so
> > "nice".
> > Don
> > Jahnets wrote:
> > >
> > > Don, I am both an abductee and a contactee ongoing... I have never met
> > > alien that even subtlely stated that we were under their sovereign right
> > to
> > > control. About the only way I can even see this is in the sense that
> > > resposibilty merits you take care of and deal with what you create...
What If --------------------------?