A blast from the past, more about the Cassiopaeans and there strange view of what they conceive reality to be. (Background included for newer members).
Greetings shoutwirers! Today we’re in for a slight change as I’m going to revisit a subject that was dealt with approximately one year and a half ago by a veteran editor of ours named Virellek: that of the Cassiopaeans and the cult that they profess is the true thing. Please note that they are a cult, since they do not have enough members to be classified as a ‘religion.’ Yes Cassiopaeans, you are in fact just another belief system as all of your ideas are ‘working hypotheses’.
Just for the record, I’m a COINTELPRO operative, lol.
This whole situation started a while back when Virellek wrote an editorial titled
‘Shoutwire’s Insidious Cult’ over a year ago explaining the exploits of a cult known as the Cassiopaeas. The link above refers to the original story and is interesting enough as it is completely ad hominem and for the majority only uses the text of the leader, one Laura Knight-Jadczyk.
Now I had my run in with them as you can see
here. Yes amongst that thread it does come out how I commented at the start of Vir’s ed that I said something ‘defamatory’ *gasp* but everyone has the right to do that. I did enter into a discussion truly intrigued about the validity of all these claims they make. If you look at the forum conversation between myself and these people, the main message they convey is ‘read more’, and that unfortunately all information but their own is wrong. I point you to the psychology being ‘hooey’ and philosophical argument being ‘invalid logic’.
It is good to note that any time the Cassiopaeas come into contact with anyone that questions their theories’ validity they immediately say that they are
COINTELPRO (Counter Intelligence Program) and that the purveyors of the information are actually government agents trying to debunk their very valid theories. I have to confess as stated above I am indeed a COINTELPRO operative. I was placed here by the government (oddly enough, since I am not a US citizen) but nevertheless I’m part of it. You can see what I mean by reading their response to Virellek’s critical editorial. I mean come on;
Shoutwire part of COINTELPRO? We have some of the most polar extremist points around and you really think that Shoutwire is a counter intelligence program? That’d be like sticking a black guy in the KKK.
Anyways I’m detracting from the article. I just wanted to fill all of you newer members in on the previous history of what went on between Shoutwire and the Cassiopaeas.
My main point I will profess here today is that of their main ‘channelled’ message, that of “we are you in the future”.
As was stated in my little forum debacle where I was so nicely treated as trash, Ark and Laura explained how time was unreal. If you look at my previous editorial I would concur with this. However they don’t seem to understand the metaphysical concept of how time is unreal. They state that time is unreal but don’t exactly state how just use it to further their ideal of that the messages they receive can be postulated as being ‘in the future’. The problem with this is that if you say time is unreal but the messages you receive are ‘in the future’ then how exactly can they be ‘in the future’ if you are saying they come from outside the human perception of time, as surely the terms past, present and future do not apply in this case.
Most notably in this I will turn to a French philosopher called Henri Bergson to do with a theory of time. Anyone that tells you that any theory of time is concrete and 100% valid is talking complete crap. The subject of time is debated amongst many philosophers, apparently physicists too (you’ll have to confirm that for me Ark) but time as a theoretical theory is more the place of philosophy in my opinion as it is empirically unverifiable from any scientific perspective.
Henri Bergson noticed that while the normal three dimensions of our reality are all similar and homogenous, what is commonly known as the fourth dimension time is completely heterogeneous to the other three, therefore there is a discrepancy. The problem he notes is that while the other three dimensions can be noted as scientifically verifiable, time itself is not so therefore cannot be considered in the same vain. Due to the nature of time we can experience it in a very slow form, like waiting for something you are really looking forward to, or really quickly, like something you are really enjoying. It is because of this he notes that time for each individual is what he calls duration. Time could possibly have an external objective factor but he notes that each interval of time that we experience is qualitatively unique, which ultimately results in the same theory as McTaggarts mentioned in my previous editorial.
This is theoretically reconcilable if we say that they are not qualitatively unique but have a different intensity relative to each other, but regardless of this we still end up with the problem that all time experience is homogenous to itself, i.e. one massive blog of experience, but is also completely heterogeneous to the other three dimensions.
In my
previous editorial the only thing that could really be concluded from this, along with Arthur Prior’s view is that the only thing that exists in an ontological status (i.e. objective reality) is that of the present. There is no objective past or future that exists, the only thing that exists is the present.
If we took a Kantian perspective he would say that the idea of time is firmly rooted in our minds and is part of our understanding, so in the terms of the Cassiopaeans a phrase like “we are you in the future”, would simply be completely irrational as the future only existed in the pre-existing concept of our minds, if time was unreal and this messenger existed outside of time then they do not exist in the future, as that then necessarily they exist in a framework within your mind. This could commonly be called schizophrenia.
Ultimately apart from all the problems I have presented not only in this editorial but in the forum thread I posted to the Cassiopaeans themselves one thing is proved. They are simply following the strange insights of divination from their leader that serves no logical basis at all. It’s strange to think that people like this quote such complex sciences like quantum physics and hide behind so called expert qualifications, when all they do is use complex terms to obfuscate the truth about what their true beliefs actually are. Though according to them they believe nothing but, at least from insinuation, show they know all what they believe. Again this is problematic as they say they use ‘working hypotheses’ yet don’t ‘believe’ something, so that is a contradiction in terms in its own right.
If you checked my forum post you will notice that at least Ark comes across as trying to put across his view in an egotistical educated manner, as opposed to Laura who just flat out starts insinuating insults and such.
Interesting to not as well is one site by a person named
Vincent Bridges which has a huge problem with the Cassiopaeas integrity (which to be honest is understandable). Yet both claim that each other has been proven wrong with according lawsuits filed against both, yet both of the groups sites and defamatory statements are left online, which one can only conclude this means that both of them are bullshitting in one way shape or form.
Personally I think that the Cassiopaeas are not too dissimilar to the Scientologists, the only difference being that the Scientologists have enough members to be considered a religion. As in the eyes of the governments of the world the only criteria to be classed as a religion is a documented membership of a certain number.
I’ll leave the you all to decide your own point of view, but just remember this one fact fellow Shoutwirers, I AM A COINTELPRO OPERATIVE!