Why are "They Comin' to America"?

Put on your thinking caps ladies and gentlemen, one of this week's features is a serious neuronal workout (staves off Alzheimers, didn't you know?). Here is the first part of a thought-provoking essay by author Laura Knight-Jadczyk, on the US immigration debate which considers this problem from a truly unique angle.

Blue Ibis

***********************************************************

Immigration: Ignota nulla curatio morbi!
(Do not attempt to cure what you do not understand)

Laura Knight-Jadczyk
SOTT
Mon, 04 Jun 2007 06:06 EDT

Today I'd like to talk a bit (in a special way) about several items that have caught my eye over the past week or so, all of them having to do with immigration, or mass movements of people in various places around the planet.

Mexicans fear U.S. immigration plan

South Carolina's Republican convention "boo" new immigration proposal

Bush Praises Bipartisan Immigration Deal Nobody Else Likes

Illegals deal alienates everyone

Illegal immigrants refrain: 'Leaving America is not an option'

France says no to mass legalisation of undocumented immigrants

France sends back 24,000 immigrants in 2006

Iran expels 70 000 Afghans

Afghan refugees forced home, but to what?

Too Bad

The Bush Implosion

There is a lot more to this immigration issue than meets the eye!

In the last two articles linked above, we find that the immigration problem is what is turning the Far Right Fundies against Bush. Peggy Noonan, a loyal Republican who is not on the fringe, writes in Too Bad:

The White House doesn't need its traditional supporters anymore, because its problems are way beyond being solved by the base. And the people in the administration don't even much like the base. Desperate straits have left them liberated, and they are acting out their disdain. Leading Democrats often think their base is slightly mad but at least their heart is in the right place. This White House thinks its base is stupid and that its heart is in the wrong place.

For almost three years, arguably longer, conservative Bush supporters have felt like sufferers of battered wife syndrome. You don't like endless gushing spending, the kind that assumes a high and unstoppable affluence will always exist, and the tax receipts will always flow in? Too bad! You don't like expanding governmental authority and power? Too bad. You think the war was wrong or is wrong? Too bad.

But on immigration it has changed from "Too bad" to "You're bad."

The president has taken to suggesting that opponents of his immigration bill are unpatriotic--they "don't want to do what's right for America." His ally Sen. Lindsey Graham has said, "We're gonna tell the bigots to shut up." On Fox last weekend he vowed to "push back." Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff suggested opponents would prefer illegal immigrants be killed; Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said those who oppose the bill want "mass deportation." Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson said those who oppose the bill are "anti-immigrant" and suggested they suffer from "rage" and "national chauvinism." [...]

The beginning of my own sense of separation from the Bush administration came in January 2005, when the president declared that it is now the policy of the United States to eradicate tyranny in the world, and that the survival of American liberty is dependent on the liberty of every other nation. This was at once so utopian and so aggressive that it shocked me. For others the beginning of distance might have been Katrina and the incompetence it revealed, or the depth of the mishandling and misjudgments of Iraq. [...]

One of the things I have come to think the past few years is that the Bushes, father and son, though different in many ways, are great wasters of political inheritance. They throw it away as if they'd earned it and could do with it what they liked. Bush senior inherited a vibrant country and a party at peace with itself. He won the leadership of a party that had finally, at great cost, by 1980, fought itself through to unity and come together on shared principles. Mr. Bush won in 1988 by saying he would govern as Reagan had. Yet he did not understand he'd been elected to Reagan's third term. He thought he'd been elected because they liked him. And so he raised taxes, sundered a hard-won coalition, and found himself shocked to lose his party the presidency, and for eight long and consequential years. He had many virtues, but he wasted his inheritance.

Bush the younger came forward, presented himself as a conservative, garnered all the frustrated hopes of his party, turned them into victory, and not nine months later was handed a historical trauma that left his country rallied around him, lifting him, and his party bonded to him. He was disciplined and often daring, but in time he sundered the party that rallied to him, and broke his coalition into pieces. He threw away his inheritance. I do not understand such squandering.

Peggy Noonan knows she is seeing something ugly, but she really has no clue about what she is observing and that there really is a simple explanation, and if she had the knowledge she so desperately needs, she would have seen it a long time ago as so many others have. But, of course, they call the ones who can actually SEE what is really going on "conspiracy theorists." There are several issues here that I would like to cover, so bear with me.

The first thing that occurred to me as I read some of these items was that the reason people wish to emigrate is because of some situation in their homeland that makes living either uncomfortable or impossible. Let's face it, nobody picks up and emigrates just for fun. And if someone emigrates to "make more money," it's usually because they cannot make enough where they live to survive. Of course, there are those that want to do more than just make enough money to send home so that the family can have a roof over their head and food on the table, but we will get to that.

So, considering that emigration is a symptom of a country's failure in some sense, it's decline in equitable distribution of wealth, what can be at the root of such a problem? Why are so many countries full of people who want to go somewhere else?

Exploitation. The global economy has, by and large, been rigged to benefit a small ruling elite and to begger everyone else.

The fact is, poverty in most of the world is directly caused by large landholdings - the big estates of the ruling elite, and the war mongering of same in their efforts to acquire more land, more resources, more wealth. That is why Mexico has a flood of dispossessed seeking escape to the US; that is why Iran has so many Afghan refugees; that is why there are so many Muslims in France; that is why urban areas are so poor and overcrowded and crime ridden and wages are so low for everyone. And in most cases, it is due to the covert or not-so-covert U.S. involvement in the finances and internal policies of those countries.

In the present day, society is not much different from the time of Dickens when there were huge estates of England and starving, dying masses of people in East End London. Just look at South America and the stupendous land holdings of the Rockefellers and other international bankers.

So, what is at the root of the exploitation problem?

Psychopathy: those who seek to feather their own nest to an obscene degree at the expense of others.

It is psychopaths who have arrogated the world's wealth to themselves. Psychopaths are always and ever monopolists of the world's wealth, and they justify their having the wealth by their various pathological economic theories. It is psychopaths that say that "common" people "breed like rabbits and that if the masses had money and land and leisure they would just increase the population until their new land was just as teaming with poverty and stench as before". What is hidden behind this paramoralistic ideology is the truth that psychopaths fear the population of normal humans with conscience and a feeling of connection to other human beings. Noonan reports that Bush "declared that it is now the policy of the United States to eradicate tyranny in the world, and that the survival of American liberty is dependent on the liberty of every other nation. This was at once so utopian and so aggressive that it shocked me." She is only reporting the perspective of essential psychopathy. On this topic, let's take a look at what psychologist Andrew Lobaczewski has written about pathocrats:

In a civilization deficient in psychological cognition, hyperactive individuals [psychopaths and other deviants] driven by the[ir] feeling of being different usually find a ready echo in other people's insufficiently developed consciousness. Such individuals are dreaming of imposing their power and their different experiential manner upon their environment and their society; unfortunately, their dreams have a chance. [...]

...[I]n each society there are people whose basic intelligence, natural psychological world-view, and moral reasoning have developed improperly. Some of these persons contain the cause within themselves, [genetic] others succumbed to childhood influences o[f] psychologically abnormal people. Such individuals' comprehension of social and moral questions is different, both from the natural and from the objective viewpoint; they constitute a destructive factor for the development of society's psychological concepts, social structure, and internal bonds.

At the same time, such people easily line the social structure with a ramified network of mutual pathological conspiracies poorly connected to the main social structure. These people and their network participate in the genesis of that evil which spares no nation. This substructure gives birth to dreams of obtaining power and imposing one's will upon society... [...]

Their dreams do not lack a certain idealism similar to the ideas of normal people. They would like to reform the world to their liking but are unable to foresee more far-reaching implications and results. Spiced by deviance, their visions may influence naive rebels or people who have in fact suffered injustice. Existing social injustice may look like a justification for a radicalized world-view and the assimilation of such visions. [...]

[Pathological deviants] are aware of being different as they obtain their life-experience and become familiar with different ways of fighting for their goals. Their world is forever divided into "us and them" their little world with its own laws and customs and that other foreign world full of presumptuous ideas and customs in light of which they are condemned morally. Their sense of honor bids them to cheat and revile that other human world and its values. In contradiction to the customs of normal people, they feel non-fulfillment of their promises or signatures is customary behavior. They also learn how their personalities can have traumatizing effects on the personalities of those normal people, and how to take advantage of this root of terror for purposes of reaching their goals. This dichotomy of worlds is permanent and does not disappear even if they succeed in realizing their youthful dream of gaining power over the society of normal people. This proves that the separation is biologically conditioned.

In such people a dream emerges like some youthful Utopia of a "happy" world and a social system which would not reject them or force them to submit to laws and customs whose meaning is incomprehensible to them. They dream of a world in which their simple and radical way of experiencing and perceiving reality would dominate, where they would of course be assured safety and prosperity. Those "others", different, but also more technically skillful, should be put to work to achieve this goal. "We", after all, will create a new government, one of justice. They are prepared to fight and to suffer for the sake of such a brave new world, and also, of course, to inflict suffering upon others. Such vision justifies killing people, whose suffering does not move them to compassion because "they" are not quite conspecific. They do not realize that they will consequently meet with opposition which can last for generations. [...]

Every society worldwide contains individuals whose dreams of power arise very early. ... They would like to change this unfriendly world into something else. Dreams of power also represent overcompensation for the feeling of humiliation, the second angle in Adler's rhombus. A significant and active proportion of this group is composed of individuals with various deviations who imagine this better world in their own way, of which we are already familiar. [...]

The following questions thus suggest themselves: what happens if the network of understandings among psychopaths achieves power in leadership positions with international exposure? This can happen, especially during the later phases of the phenomenon. Goaded by their character, such people thirst for just that even though it would conflict with their own life interest ... They do not understand that a catastrophe would otherwise ensue. Germs are not aware that they will be burned alive or buried deep in the ground along with the human body whose death they are causing.

If such and many managerial positions are assumed by individuals [lacking] abilities to feel and understand most other people, and who also betray deficiencies in technical imagination and practical skills-(faculties indispensable for governing economic and political matters) this must result in an exceptionally serious crisis in all areas, both within the country in question and with regard to international relations. Within, the situation shall become unbearable even for those citizens who were able to feather their nest into a relatively comfortable modus vivendi. Outside, other societies start to feel the pathological quality of the phenomenon quite distinctly. [...]

Pathocracy is a disease of great social movements followed by entire societies, nations, and empires. In the course of human history, it has affected social, political, and religious movements, as well as the accompanying ideologies characteristic for the time and the ethnological conditions, and turned them into caricatures of themselves. This occurs as a result of ... participation by pathological agents in a pathodynamically similar process. That explains why all the pathocracies of the world are and have been so similar in their essential properties. Contemporaneous ones easily find a common language, even if the ideologies nourishing them and protecting their pathological contents from identification differ widely. [...]

The moment at which a movement has been transformed into something we can call a pathocracy as a result of the ponerogenic process is a matter of convention. The process is temporally cumulative and reaches a point of no return at some particular moment. Eventually, however, internal confrontation with the adherents of the original ideology occurs, thus finally affixing the seal of the pathocratic character of the phenomenon. Hitlerism most certainly passed this point of no return, but was prevented from all-out confrontation with the adherents of the original ideology because the Allied armies smashed its entire military might. [...]

A great ideology with mesmerizing values can also easily deprive people of the capacity for self-critical control over their behavior. The adherents of such ideas tend to lose sight of the fact that the means used, not just the end, will be decisive for the result of their activities. Whenever they reach for overly radical methods of action, still convinced that they are serving their idea, they are not aware that their goal has already changed. The principle "the end justifies the means" opens the door to a different kind of person for whom a great idea is useful for purposes of liberating themselves from the uncomfortable links of normal human custom. Every great ideology thus contains danger, especially for small minds. Therefore, every great social movement and its ideology can become a host upon which some pathocracy initiates its parasitic life.

The actions of [Pathocratic rule] affect an entire society, starting with the leaders and infiltrating every village, small town, factory, or collective farm. The pathological social structure gradually covers the entire country, creating a "new class" within that nation. This privileged class feels permanently threatened by the "others", i.e. by the majority of normal people. Neither do the pathocrats entertain any illusions about their personal fate should there be a return to the system of normal man.

A normal person deprived of privilege or high positions goes about performing some work which would earn him a living; but pathocrats never possessed any solid practical talent, and the time frame of their rule has eliminated any residual possibilities of adapting to the demands of normal work. If the law of normal man were to be reinstalled, they and theirs could be subjected to judgment, including a moralizing interpretation of their psychological deviations; they would be threatened by a loss of freedom and life, not merely a loss of position and privilege. Since they are incapable of this kind of sacrifice, the survival of a system which is the best for them becomes a moral idea. Such a threat must be battled by means of psychological and political cunning and a lack of scruples with regard to those other "inferior-quality" people. [...]

Pathocracy survives thanks to the feeling of being threatened by the society of normal people, as well as by other countries wherein various forms of the system of normal man persist. For the rulers, staying on the top is therefore the classic problem of "to be or not to be".

We can thus formulate a more cautious question: can such a system ever waive territorial and political expansion abroad and settle for its present possessions? What would happen if such a state of affairs ensured internal peace, corresponding order, and relative prosperity within the nation?

The overwhelming majority of the country's population would then make skillful use of all the emerging possibilities, taking advantage of their superior qualifications in order to fight for an ever-increasing scope of activities; thanks to their higher birth rate, their power will increase. This majority will be joined by some sons from the privileged class who did not inherit the corresponding genes. The pathocracy's dominance will weaken imperceptibly but steadily, finally leading to a situation wherein the society of normal people reaches for power. This is a nightmare vision [to the pathocrats].

The biological, psychological, moral, and economic destruction of this majority [of normal people] is thus a "biological" necessity. Many means serve this end, starting with concentration camps and including warfare with an obstinate, well-armed foe who will devastate and debilitate the human power thrown at him, namely the very power jeopardizing pathocrats rule. Once safely dead, the soldiers will then be decreed heroes to be revered in paeans, useful for raising a new generation faithful to the pathocracy. ...

After all, pathocrats give short shrift to blood and suffering of people they consider to be not quite conspecific. Kings may have suffered due to the death of their knights, but pathocrats never do: "We have a lot of people here." ...

Pathocracy has other internal reasons for pursuing expansionism through the use of all means possible. As long as that "other" world governed by the systems of normal man exists, it inducts into and within the strivings of the non-pathological majority, thereby creating a certain sense of direction. The non-pathological majority of the country's population will never stop dreaming of the reinstallment of the normal man's system in any possible form. This majority [of normal people] will never stop watching other countries, waiting for the opportune moment; its attention and power must therefore be distracted from this purpose, and the masses must be educated and channeled in the direction of imperialist strivings. This goal must be pursued doggedly so that everyone knows what is being fought for and in whose name harsh discipline and poverty must be endured. The latter factor effectively limits the possibility of "subversive" activities on the part of the society of normal people. ...

The ideology must of course furnish a corresponding justification for this alleged right to conquer the world and must therefore be properly elaborated. Expansionism is derived from the very nature of pathocracy, not from ideology, but this fact must be masked by ideology. Whenever this phenomenon has been witnessed in history, imperialism was always its most demonstrative quality. [...]

Economic factors constitute a non-negligible part of the motivation for this expansionist tendency. Since the managerial functions have been taken over by individuals with mediocre intelligence and pathological character traits, the pathocracy becomes incapable of properly administering anything at all. The area suffering most severely must always be whichever one requires a person to act independently, not wasting time searching for the proper way to behave. Agriculture is dependent upon changing climate conditions and the appearance of pests and plant diseases. A farmer's personal qualities have thus been an essential factor of success in this area, as it was for many centuries. Pathocracy therefore invariably brings about food shortages.

However, many countries with normal man's [social and political] systems abound in sufficiency as far as industrial products are concerned and experience problems with their food surpluses even though there are temporary economic recessions and the citizens are by no means overworked. The temptation to dominate such a country and its prosperity, that perennial imperialist motive, thus becomes even more strong. The collected prosperity of the conquered nation can be exploited for a time, the citizens forced to work harder for paltry remuneration. For the moment, no thought is given to the fact that introducing a pathocratic system within such a country will eventually cause similar unproductive conditions; after all corresponding self-knowledge in this area is nonexistent [to pathological deviants].

Unfortunately, the idea of conquering rich countries also motivates the minds of many poor non-pathological fellows who would like to use this opportunity to grab something for themselves and eat their fill of good food.

As has been the case for centuries, military power is of course the primary means for achieving these ends. Throughout the centuries, though, whenever history has registered the appearance of the phenomenon [of the rise to power of pathological types] (regardless of the ideological cloak covering it), specific measures of [achieving and maintaining control] have also become apparent: something in the order of specific intelligence in the service of international intrigue facilitating conquest. This quality is derived from the ... personality characteristics inspiring the overall phenomenon [that of psychopathy]; it should constitute data for historians to identify this type of phenomenon throughout history.

[Political Ponerology]

As the above excerpt indicates, the problem of most scarcity on this planet is created by psychopathy, a criminal class that controls psychologically damaged or uncritical human beings and uses them to control the money and credit systems. They then use these systems to imperialistically grab land and resources, to charge monopoly prices for production and offer less that living wages to labor.

Read more here . . . .

Laura Knight-Jadczyk Interviewed by BBC Radio

Hear the voice behind some of the most original ideas going today.

Blue Ibis
**************************************************************

Laura Knight-Jadczyk Interview on BBC Radio

Host, Adam Walton
Producer, Chris Kneebone

Date of Interview: 2/12/07

http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/radiowales/

Click on "listen again" on the right hand side, then in the new window that pops up under "A-Z OF ALL SHOWS" click the "MON" edition of the "Adam and Mal" show, the interview is about five minutes in (after Norman Greenbaum's "Spirit in the Sky". The link should be good until next Monday.

Transcript of Interview

(intro music – ‘Spirit in the Sky’)

Adam Walton: […] I think that record met the approval of our next guest on the program. What if everything you think you know about the world is a lie? Would we be able to perceive the truth if it was shown to us? Ancient Civilizations, Hyperdimensional Realities, DNA changes, Bible conspiracies - which are true and which are deliberate disinformation? Laura Knight Jadczyk says she has the real answers, and, believe me, if you read her book, ‘The Secret History of the World and How To Get Out Alive’, you’ll know that the truth is far weirder than fiction. Laura joins us now from our Paris studio. Welcome to the program, Laura.


LKJ: Well, hi, thank you for having me.


AW: First and foremost, Norman Greenbaum’s ‘Spirit in the Sky’, I believe you enjoyed that.


LKJ: I love that song; it’s one of my favorites.


AW: Excellent, I think we chose it especially for you, Laura, that’s about as, uh, as creative as we get on this program sometimes. Now, I felt very guarded about using the term conspiracy theories. I wasn’t really sure how to bracket your book, as it were, do we need to be able to bracket your book, to bracket your writing, to be able to fit it into a genre or a pigeon hole?


LKJ: Well, it’s really very difficult. It’s difficult for me because, for example, you refer to conspiracy theories and a theory is something that is based on a certain number of concrete observations or facts. You don’t form a theory until you have collected, uh, facts and data and if you’ll notice, I have a, you know, a fifteen page bibliography in there, or maybe sixteen page, that includes the literature that I went through, uh, in order to collect the data that is included in the book. The book is heavily footnoted. Uhm, it does not, uh, get into any kind of material that is not fact based. And, it is just the interpretation of those facts that is somewhat different; because, you know, you can take the same facts and interpret them any numbers of ways. But, generally what happens is people interpret facts and exclude some in favor of others because there are those inconvenient facts, which Charles Fort called the ‘damned data’. And the only kind of explanation that you can come up with for this world that would make any sense is one that includes all of the ‘damned data’.


AW: Hmmm, it’s funny that you should mention Charles Fort, we interviewed someone about him not so long ago on the program, and of course, he was another maverick, I mean, do you, do you, if I called you a maverick? Is that a difficult, or, uh, title that you don’t feel fits you very well?


LKJ: Well, maverick is probably pretty good because I definitely do not go along with the herd and I don’t even go along with the herd of the so-called alternative theorists. (laughs)


AW: Hmmm, well I’ve not had an opportunity to read the book myself, and I feel as though, I like to be able to do that, especially in these situations, because I feel the easiest thing to do, whenever anyone expounds theories that go against the grain, or go against the norm is almost to pour scorn on them. In a situation like this, Laura, do you feel defensive? Have you gone through a lot of experiences where people aren’t actually prepared to listen to what you have to say, and would more, rather, kind of pour scorn before they give you a chance to explain yourself?


LKJ: Well, as I mentioned, I write some things that are counter to even the alternative theorists of today, so, I get scorned by the scientific community, to some extent - they have a little more difficulty, actually, scorning me than the alternative community because I support what I say with so much data - but, the alternative community, of course, it was quite a surprise to be so viciously attacked by those types of people and also the so-called new age community. So, and, then, of course, naturally, the religion, the religionists, uh, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, it doesn’t matter because they’re all based on one single document, which is the bible and, I pretty much, uh, dissect the bible in this book and explain things in ways that are more comprehensible. It’s not even a new way of approaching this semi-legendary, semi-mythical material, it’s something that Mircea Eliade, an historian of religion did extensively many years ago; and I quote him extensively, as well as other historians of religion.

So, I get attacked by people in religion, people in the new age, people in the scientific community, although, like I said, the scientific community pretty much leaves me alone. (laughs)


AW: Well, they appreciate the rigorousness of your work, I would imagine.


LKJ: I have a lot of scientists who are fans, actually, some of them covertly. They will write fan mail to me and ask me to please not reveal the fact that they, you know, enjoy my book so much.


AW: Funny, a lot of the correspondence I get for this program is along similar lines, I wonder why? But, as far as the book is concerned, it is an attempt to - well, not an attempt, it rewrites human history - so it’s difficult for me as the interviewer, really, to focus in on any one point where you could perhaps give the people listening an insight into the dramatically different way that you interpret the facts that you mentioned earlier, so is there, perhaps, a best part of history where we could start?


LKJ: Well, the fundamental thesis of the book is that our reality is projected from, or embedded in, a higher or hyper-dimensional reality, and that what we perceive with our senses, you know, the, - the three dimensions of space and the four dimensions of space and time - are not all there is. And that, you know, even when we try to measure things that come from these other realities with our limited three-dimensional instrumentation, they fall short; you know, you can’t even go there. So, that’s the fundamental thesis, so taking history, taking the data that we have about human history, some of which is extremely mysterious; some of which is baffling, some of it’s very shocking; putting it together, you begin to see a pattern, a flow, of something that enters and exits our reality in a way that, uhm; if you’re familiar with the story ‘Flatland’ where, where the plane being, where the fingertips are put on the plane and what you see on the plane are round circles. And, if the hand were to be put through a membrane, you would just see, you know, circles going through, until the hand actually coalesced into a larger object, but to the beings of the membrane, it would never be anything other a circle that appeared and disappeared in time.

So, our reality is something like that and that there are denizens of this other reality that are perceivable to some people through history, and, they’ve - down through history - they’ve referred to them as gods or goddesses, or, uhm, you know, forces, beings, whatever; and they ascribe to them powers, appearances, you know, based upon how they read them. I don’t think they necessarily are amorphous either, and that’s, that’s where the new age community has completely gone astray, by thinking that anything outside this reality must be amorphous, must be a spirit. It doesn’t have to be a spirit at all. Just a slight shift in the dimensional reality and you have a completely other reality that is as physical as our own.

AW: Ok, Laura, from the point of view of the basic science, really, behind this, the idea of a parallel universe is obviously one that is very common amongst physicists, and I believe your husband is a world renowned physicist as well?

LKJ: Yes, he is.


AW: So, at least from that particular foundation, there would appear to be great scientific support for your theories. Why is there, then, resistance from all of the bodies that you mentioned, if this is almost explainable.


LKJ: Well, as I said, people who are attached to their religion don’t want a rational explanation for, for what happens. People who are attached to the new age; the new age is really little more than a variation on the old standard religions, I just call it new age fundamentalism. The scientific support that I get is really kind of unique because it comes from odd and unusual places. And then there are, of course, many people in the scientific community who just reject it out of hand. There is one of my husband’s colleagues who jokes that he does world-class mathematics on odd days and channels on even days. So, we have an interesting life in that respect. So, I think that some of the rejection comes from some of the inspiration I use to follow these clues.


AW: And, obviously, people have vested interests in preserving their own version of the facts, which is incredible. Now you mentioned multiple realities, why is it important for us as humans to try to question or determine a reality that is beyond our own? In other words, we can’t actually change the other reality, or change our own reality, is there any point in you making the voyage you have, as it were?


LKJ: Well, there is nothing that says that we can’t change it if we know about it and understand it. What you don’t know can definitely hurt you, especially in this respect. Uh, one of the things that really got me going many years ago was that I would, you know, I would read these so called conspiracy theories, and I would follow each theory as far as I could follow it - you know following a paper trail - and I always came up against a dead end. I mean, it was like, you would take it as far as you could go and then it was a dead end. It was like, ok, beyond this, there is a mystery. And, yet at the same time, you could look at the vast pattern of history and you could see that, you know, that there was a strong indication that something was maneuvering things toward a particularly directed end. And yet there was no possibility in my mind, after following all these many trails, that this could be a human conspiracy, because human beings simply, simply can’t conspire over thousands of years; they can’t keep something going that long. They, they work on immediate, uh, immediate reward, they want, you know, cause and effect, if I am going to do something, I want my reward in this lifetime.

And, uhm, so, there is no possibility that any of these conspiracies could be human originated and that was, uh, that was where I was for a long time. And then I began to think about manipulations from other realities. And then, of course, it was when I got into my channeling experiment, because I was very frustrated at that point, because I could go no further. I mean, I had, I had, I had pretty much exhausted everything; I had exhausted the normal avenues of, of information and I had exhausted the so-called paranormal avenues of information and I kept coming up against that funny thing that Charles Fort said, you know, he says, “I think we’re property”. And it struck me, uh, that is exactly how it appears, when you look at this vast sweep of history, it’s as though we’re one big experiment.


AW: Well, and, and who is, you know, perpetrating the experiment?


LKJ: Who perpetrates it? Well, I would suggest that it is denizens of this other reality that are referred to by the ancients as gods, and nowadays, of course they, they may refer to them as aliens. I don’t think they’re aliens. I don’t think they come from other planets. I think they are hyperdimensional beings and I think that they’ve been here for many thousands of years, if not for all of human history. There are records of lights in the sky and strange beings that are similar to, you know, what are called aliens down through history. Jacques Vallee referred to it as a control system. Control system, hyperdimensional reality; it’s pretty much the same thing.


AW: Hmm, I’m just wondering why, you know, why they would appear to be so fascinated with us, especially over such a long protracted amount of time. Clearly, I don’t know what their intentions are, so it’s difficult to try to gauge that, or even if they do have intentions like human beings have intentions. But what do you hypothesize is the reason that people might want to manipulate us in this way, or, I’m sorry, beings, might want to manipulate us in this way?


LKJ: Well, the evidence strongly indicates that we are food for them.


(long silent pause)


AW: Uhm, what evidence suggests that?


LKJ: Well, the evidence of, say for example, wars, and plagues and famines, and, uh, the… and I’m not saying that we are physical food necessarily, I’m saying that, you know, energy, energetic food, emotional; that pain and suffering is something they uh, they feed on, that gives energy to them. Just as the movie ‘The Matrix’, you know, said that people were in pods and their emotional energy produced energy for the system, for the machine, that they were batteries, it’s very similar, that we are, in essence, a, uh, a power supply.


AW: Well, if we, the, the, the human way of maybe responding to something like that, to maybe analyze it scientifically, typically, is to try to look for, perhaps, an example within our universe. So to look at maybe, you know, a microcosm within, I don’t know, the flora or the fauna that we research and I, I can’t think of anything, you know, and I’m sure you’ll correct me. Or at least an example within our universe of an ecosystem that behaves in that way, where you put things kind of under stress rather than just eating them or devouring them, it seems a…


LKJ: Think of the cat and the mouse. What does the cat do with the mouse?


AW: He plays with the mouse.


LKJ: I mean, is it necessary for the cat to play with the mouse before it eats it?


AW: No, it’s not (laughs) that was a very, yeah, that’s a very obvious example isn’t it? A very good example. So, is the point then that they need to kind of maintain us, and keep us here, keep us going as a food source in the same way we try to sustain our own food sources?


LKJ: More or less, and I think that in many respects, they cut us some slack, you know, they make sure we know enough to create a civilization, to feed that civilization, to build that civilization up, to increase the numbers of people in that civilization; and then, to put people into conflict with one another so that they fight and kill one another so that there is massive pain and suffering.


AW: Do you find this, I mean, having come to this conclusion, do you find that, I don’t know, a depressing thought? Or do you think it’s empowering because it removes us from some of the ways that humans have sort of been stuck to over the millennium, I mean, how do you feel having come to that conclusion?


LKJ: Well, in the beginning, it was extraordinarily depressing, as you, as you might imagine. And, you know, it was… Somebody asked me, you know, after all these years what have you learned? And I said, well, I’ve learned that there is no free lunch in the Universe and if you think there is, then you’re lunch. And also, we are not at the top of the food chain.

And, that was pretty depressing for a period of time, and then I finally began to work my way through that and I went back and started searching the literature for evidence of anyone who had found their way out of this, this - you know, had they realized this situation; had they understood it - what clues were there, and what conclusions did they come to and was anybody able to, to overcome it, to escape it, so to speak?

And, clearly, there are individuals in history; and you’ll notice that the book has a thread all the way through it of alchemy. I believe that alchemists were among those who were able to not only come to understand the system, but were able to step outside of the system, to be able to access hyperdimensional realities. Because all of these things, that uh, these special powers that so-called alchemists were be able to achieve, have to do with mastery of space and time, which is what you achieve when you, uh, achieve the ability to step in and out of the hyperdimensional realities.

So, there are alchemists, there are some types of yogis, there is, uh, there is the ancient material that was brought to the West by Gurdjieff, by Mouravieff. There is some very ancient literature that speaks to these matters and talks about people who have escaped. And that’s why there is a subtitle to the book, you know, ‘and How to Get out Alive’, because I do address that. You know, I mean, I don’t want to tell somebody, you know, hey, you’re in a, in one hell of a situation, without telling them, you know, there is a way out. And it isn’t… the way out is not in believing your way out, because believing your way out is what they want you to do. As long as they can get you to believe something; as long as they can invoke your faith, in some pie in the sky idea that you’re going to change your reality by, by believing it, or you’re going to get raptured to heaven when Jesus comes, or, uh, when the Mahdi comes, or whatever. You know, that keeps you complacent. Because…


AW: But, but, but, in that case, then, we live, at least I would imagine it’s the same in the States and in France where you are at the moment, but certainly in this country, we seem to be living in an increasingly secular society, you know, an increasingly less complacent, uh, society. And, fewer people subscribe to those points of view. So what is the, the, you know, belief system that we have at the moment that makes us fodder for these hyperdimensional beings?


LKJ: I would say that I don’t necessarily agree with you. Now, I’m from the United States and I lived in the Bible Belt, and, if you’ve noticed, George Bush has a great deal of support among fundamentalist bible believers, who actually believe that if they push the envelope on Armageddon, it will force Jesus to come and rapture them. They really believe this. I don’t know if you have anybody in your family who subscribes to these types of beliefs, but I do, and they sincerely, truly, believe that.

And, interestingly, the ideas of the rapture originated in Wales, I don’t know if you’re aware of that or not.


AW: No, no, I didn’t know that, no.


LKJ: Yes, they, they originated in some fundamentalist type churches that, uh, went into some charismatic type activities that were accompanied by strange phenomena, including lights in the skies. At the same time, all over England, there were strange sightings of black cats, black dogs and, uh, other unusual what you would call hyperdimensional window-fallers; creatures that would slip between dimensions. So, it was an extremely unusual event that this belief system was introduced there, at that time, accompanied by these types of events, which is, once again, a little bit of evidence of the hyperdimensional manipulation.


AW: Hmmm, ok, but I’m still, I would still maintain, I mean, you know, obviously, within my experience, there is no one in my family who has those kinds of fundamentalist views, but I would suggest that even those, you know, the people who hold those views in the Bible Belt in the States, it’s still a minority of the population. So, I’m just wondering when does that kind of spiritual void, if it’s that kind of thing that these beings feed off of, if we’re becoming, you know, less complacent, as it were, then we’re, we’re kind of failing as a, as a food source.


LKJ: Well, I don’t think we’re failing…


AW: So, what will they do about that?


LKJ: Because, it’s as much a belief, uh, science is as much a religion as Christianity is. And, you can believe all you want in the power of science, and it’s not going to save you if you don’t acknowledge that science itself has its limits.


AW: Ok, well, yeah, but there’s a rationality to science that, well at least, I don’t have experience with it any other way, that precludes it from forming the kind of conflict that you’re talking about, though, that these beings feed off. I’m still, maybe I’m focusing too much on this idea that it’s the conflict that these beings feed off of. We’ve become a, I mean, clearly there are examples in the world at the moment where there appears to be more conflict than there has been before, but we’re a more peaceful planet, aren’t we - as a whole, than we’ve been at most points in the past?


LKJ: Are you living in the same world I’m living in?


AW: No, I’m not, but I’m not living during the Second World War, I’m not living during the First World War.


LKJ: Well, what I mean is, if we’re sitting…


AW: I’m not living during the great plagues or the great tribulations that have shaken, you know, human history in the not so distant and the distant past.


LKJ: But we’re sitting here on the… we’ve got a lunatic sitting in the White House in the United States and we’re sitting on the verge of global nuclear conflict, and don’t ever think that he’s not going to try it, because he is.


AW: Yes, but that’s scare mongering…


LKJ: It’s not scare mongering, the man is a psychopath; he will do it.


AW: Ok, well we’ve been…


LKJ: He will do it.


AW: well, I think…


LKJ: Take it to the bank.


AW: I think from a factual point of view, we’ve been a lot closer to nuclear apocalypse in the past. That doesn’t mean to say that we need to be, uh, you know, complacent, to use your own words, now, but I think that, that, I don’t think it’s out of order for me to say that that’s scare mongering language.


LKJ: Well, look at the United States; it has turned into a fascist police state. The U.K. is practically a fascist police state, I mean, you know, it’s, it’s everywhere.


AW: I think anyone who lived in, uh, Nazi Germany or lived in France under the occupation would, would definitely react against that statement.


LKJ: I don’t think so, I…


AW: Wouldn’t they?


LKJ: No, I absolutely do not think so, I have studied this extensively, and the comparisons between Nazi Germany and the United States today are vast and numerous.


AW: Do you have, uh, secret police that, that, uh, takes people in the middle of the night and they never reappear?


LKJ: Apparently they do…


AW: In large numbers?


LKJ: Well, they’re starting to get the numbers larger and larger; they’ve got a place called Guantanamo. It’s just the beginning.


AW: Ok, well that’s uhm, you know, it’s an interesting way of interpreting things. If we move on, though, and look maybe in the deeper and more distant past, I believe that, uh, you know, that the roots of your book go back into ancient civilizations.


LKJ: Yes


AW: And, obviously, I’m assuming, civilizations where we don’t have a great deal of documentary evidence as to how they functioned, and an awful lot of that is conjecture. So, what have you interpreted from, from the ancient civilizations?


LKJ: Well, the one thing that I looked at particularly was myth. And, if myth is the survival of this ancient technology that I’ve theorized to have existed, based on certain archeological finds that I enumerate in the book, it seems to me, that… For example, the myth of Perseus… Perseus was given a pair of sandals that helped him to fly and a, a helmet that gave him invisibility and various, you know, accoutrements that helped him accomplish his, uh, his particular mission to cut off the Gorgon’s head. Now, a lot of anthropologists say that these kinds of myths developed, you know, as a way to explain the forces of nature. But, if you’re just explaining the forces of nature, and you have a, say, a super being who can fly, why do you want to put sandals on him to give him that ability to fly? Why can’t he fly without sandals?

Because, there certainly are other mythical beings who are able to fly or to transport themselves hyper-dimensionally. They don’t need sandals. So, essentially, what you’re looking at is you’re looking at a technological object that enables this person to fly. Then, of course, there are the, you know, the Vedas where they have these Vimanas, these ships that they would fly in and engage in what, uh, what seems to be nuclear war.

And, if you look at these myths, for example, the, uh, the series of, of Grail myths, there are… there is a lance, there’s a cup, there’s a, uh, a, a platter, a talking head. You know, there are several elements to the, to the Grail myths, all of which, if you understood them properly, might indicate an ancient technology. And, I, I go into that in the book to some extent to try to show how, if a civilization ended, uhm, and the, you know, all of the infrastructure of that civilization came to, you know, came to… was destroyed, essentially, how the survivors would tell the stories about what civilization was like to their children, to their grandchildren. And how, after several generations, these stories of this ancient culture, this ancient technology, would be transformed into myth.

And that, that is what I think we see when we see these ancient myths of flying and special powers and mastery of space and time.


AW: Mmmm, and you mentioned archeological evidence, uh, what kind of archeological evidence are we talking about? Because, obviously, you know, I’m obviously, you know, I’ve obviously, I’ve been to Stonehenge, and just the very fact that we still don’t know why these amazing edifices were created thousands of years ago, of course there are strong theories, but what would your theories be?


LKJ: Well, I would say that Stonehenge itself is an energy accumulator and it probably worked with human beings as part of the machinery. They interacted with the stones to gather the energy, or to gather it into themselves. It was a, uh, a human hyperdimensional interface. One of the ancient legends is that the god Apollo danced at Stonehenge every 19 years, there’s an 18.5 year cycle between the Earth, the Moon and the, and the Sun, which is, you know, a three body system that every 19 years, or 18.5 years, it returns to the same position. And, at those times, there is a theory that, uh, during those times, that a gravitational node, uh, exists at a certain point between the Earth and Moon, which could be a doorway to hyperdimensional access.

So, if they’re talking, if they knew, in those ancient times, about this particular three body system cycle, and they talked about the god Apollo dancing at Stonehenge every, you know, 19 years, or 18.5 years, then they obviously understood something about hyperdimensional realities.


AW: So, why have we become ignorant to this knowledge, what has been the force behind that?


LKJ: Well, many times there have been events that happen on the Earth that, uh, wipe civilizations out. I’ve just recently finished reading an interesting book by a physicist, uh, his name is Richard Firestone. And, he talks about the most recent extreme cataclysmic event, which was about 1300, uh, 13,000 years ago, which is, which puts it right at the time of Plato’s Atlantis. And, uh, he goes through extensive, excruciating detail, and he discovered and analyzed, all of the material that shows that the entire planet was bombarded by a swarm of cometary bodies that exploded, you know, either in the air or impacted. He, he proposes that the southern end of Lake Michigan is a cometary impact crater, and that there was one in Hudson Bay, and he has found several others around the planet, and that basically, at this point in history, nearly the entire human race was wiped out as well as all of the mega-fauna of Europe and North American, and South America too.


AW: And the knowledge was lost at that point…


LKJ: Well, certainly…


AW: And other points like that in human history…


LKJ: Yeah, I mean, if, if you’re… also another thing that happened was that the sea level rose 400 feet, so the evidence, you know, most of our civilization lives on sea coasts or, you know, along sides of rivers, so your sea level has risen 400 feet since then, or at that time, uh, an awful lot would be covered up. And, of course, if you have exploding comets in the atmosphere, if you have hundreds of thousands of the Tunguska event, happening…


AW: Hmmm


LKJ: Now, imagine, because you look at the Carolina Bays in the United States, and there are hundreds of thousands of them, and, and actually, the Carolina Bays are not the only place in the United States where there are these particular features. He shows how they also exist all over the South West, that they are also in the, uh, in, in other areas of the world, that there are some of them even in Ireland, I believe. So, there, this was a massive global event 13,000 years ago that almost literally wiped out the entire human race.


AW: And, was that perpetrated by these beings, or was that…


LKJ: Oh, no, no, no, that was a natural cycle; those are natural cycles. But, you see, they know and understand the cycles, and then they do everything they can to keep us from knowing and understanding those cycles.


AW: So it wasn’t a question where we got to the point where we almost knew too much, and we were, uh, being reined back as it were?


LKJ: Well, you could say that, because, uh, it, maybe it’s just a natural cycle that when human beings get to the point that they can destroy themselves, then that’s just the way it happens.


AW: Ok


LKJ: And that may be the point where we are now.


AW: So, do you, you know, having written a book and having studied these subjects extensively, uh, your world view does sound bleak, I’m afraid to say, Laura. Is that your feeling? Do you feel as bleak as the very stark manner in which you described the current state of, uhm, of America at this point in time?


LKJ: Well, personally for myself, I don’t feel all that bleak about it. I just do what I can to try to make as many people aware of the possibilities as I can, and if, you know, more people become aware, then they can possibly do something to change it.


AW: So is your motivation to get them to change it within the boundaries of how our society works at the moment, in a political fashion, as it were? Or, is it to embrace, uh, this more, almost more existential way of looking at ourselves and, and the, our futures, as it were?


LKJ: I think the first thing we need is, we need to increase scientific study of many, many things because science is the only thing that is going to save us. And, we need to get politics out of science, that’s the first thing. And, we need to give them some freedom to work on what really matters, and to quit controlling science, politically speaking.

And, then we need to listen to the consensus of scientists, and, uh, I think that’s the first thing we need to do. And, as far as politics, well, uh, I’m not too sure that anything can be done politically. It’s uh, you know, I’m not really, I couldn’t even suggest anything along that line, except to get rid of the psychopaths. But, you know, that has to be done through science. The only way you could deal with politics is through science.


AW: Hmmm, mmmm, indeed. And, what are you working on at the moment? You mentioned that you were, at least you were in the process of working on something at the moment, how do you extend this work further?


LKJ: Well, I’m, I’m kind of zeroing in on one particular aspect of something I mentioned in ‘Secret History’, which is the, the origins of, of our religious beliefs, which is Judaism, which began with, you know, supposedly, with Moses, Abraham, etc. And, I am zeroing in on that, and bringing together a lot of documentary evidence to explain exactly who, where, when, how and why it happened.


AW: And, if, I don’t know whether you’re familiar with our bookshops in, in the United Kingdom, I mean, if people come into a bookshop, as I mentioned right at the start of our conversation, uh, tonight, you know, books, like music, tend to be grouped in pigeonholes. Where would people be able to find your book in the bookshops, under what heading does it go? Is that a cause of frustration? From that exhalation of breath, it sounds like it might be.


LKJ: yeah, because there is so much science in it, yet there is a certain amount of paranormal, there is para-science, there is religion, there is, uh, alchemy, there is; it’s just, it’s just really a no-niche book.


AW: It’s funny, whenever we talk about science, particularly on this program, increasingly, uh, the scientists we talk to want us to embrace science, I don’t know, more holistically, look at it not as strict disciplines, you know, to make sure we are aware that all of these things do join together.


LKJ: Right.


AW: So, is this a good thing, as far as you’re concerned, a good thing, moving away from regarding the sciences as strict disciplines and maybe realizing that they are actually all intertwined?


LKJ: Absolutely, one of the big problems that I’ve seen as I’ve gone through this scientific literature, and I’ve been able to consult with scientists directly, for some of the material in the book, and, uh, to ask questions and have my questions answered by the experts in the field, and the one thing I’ve noticed is, is that there is, you know, scientists in one field don’t talk so much to scientists in other fields. For example, lowest on my list, and I, and I really apologize to some of you out there, but kind of lowest on my list are Egyptologists.


AW: Hmmm


LKJ: I, I have a, I am extremely frustrated with them, because, you know, all of our history; our entire history, as we understand it and know it, as it’s promulgated, you know, popularly, is based on what Egyptologists decide about chronology. And, Egyptologists really, really need to learn some science.


AW: Hmmm, it’s a, it seems like a fundamental mistake. Laura, thank you very much for coming in and talking to us tonight. We’ve had a few text messages, but one I think I’ll definitely bring up is, “this lady’s very brave and I congratulate her, very strange subject and almost quite scary”. So, there is definitely support for you out there. Thank you so much for talking to us. ‘The Secret History of the World and How to Get out Alive’ is published by Red Pill Press, and you can find that at your bookshop or go to redpillpress.co.uk. Laura, thank you for your time.


LKJ: And thank you for having me.