Grant Cameron, No Such Thing As Evil ET? |449|

ALEX, He does NOT know his M. Newton. Newton speaks of the necessity of reconstituting the energy of hopelessly evil souls, and if that is not enough, disappearing them. They will NOT be allowed to incarnate without this remediation.

Jurgen Ziewe, who is the best OBEr out there, and far more impressive than Newton, describes the "lowest astral Level" where radically evil people are quarantined after they die. I personally know of some practitioners of SRA who ended up there. One of them showed a wish to "make a better choice" and was therefore taken out of there to begin the long journey of self improvement (she showed up to express her remorse when I had a session with a renowned medium).

Finally, Cameron puts so much stock in his "downloads." There are serious veridicality issues with downloads, even with some well known trance mediums who work hard to separate out subconscious elements in what they receive. Further, does he know how to ensure gatekeeping / protection from trickster spirits or even demonic entities? ORRRR mind control by whomever--ETs are masters at this.

I was aghast at how exascerbating he was. The less-than-good entities are getting a free lunch here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Baccarat,
Interesting point. By adding yet another spin of "Jesus Freak ET's" could give one more attention, sell a few more books and get one interviewed, but agreed, it's just another B.S. add on.

I've been interested in UFOs since 1977 after my grandmother had a silver disc fly behind her car on a rural highway. There were two other witnesses. After many years of study, I have left that topic because it is a menagerie of disinformation, pseudo intellectuals, charlatans, shills and disturbed people that need medication. But at the end of the day, nothing comes of this. Nothing moves forward. Look at the movement that Steven Greer started. Nothing came of it. You can put up all the witnesses, all the government officials and nothing comes of it. Maybe I'm wrong?

On another note...
The discussions on consciousness are fascinating on Skeptiko. Alex, in my opinion, has ripped the lid off the dogma of atheism. I used to listen to Seth Andrews and John Loftus. Those interviews really exposed how closed minded that they really are. The Churchland interview was a trainwreck!

It makes me wonder if the answers lie elsewhere. Self improvement, diet, meditaion, yoga, calming our minds and developing our intuition the 6th sense which we've lost.

All be well,
Eugene
Yea the consciousness stuff is cool, this newer stuff is meh. The whole new age/ufo community is crazy..

I just watched an interesting podcast on my grimores being fakes now I'm thinking of all the cults and fake symbols people are using are made up lol. It's a poop show takes time to sort the wheat from the chaff I guess
 

Grants treating Newtons books like a bible, which I think is unwarranted. Newton claims to have thousands of transcripts of sessions which corroborate his findings, yet seems to cite only about 3 specific people for each of his three books that I had read (names of his sources are not given, just the first letter, and theres only about three letters mentioned iirc). Especially worrying was his reluctance to just publish the transcripts so we can examine the data for ourselves. While this may be unreasonable to expect from a therapist, it's well within reason to publish client sessions if the clients agrees to allow it. There also seems to be significant lack of follow up from other researchers into LBL regressions, just the same handful of positive testimonials published in pieces and no complete transcripts. I suspect they fear people will interpret the data as too fantastical to be true, too dreamlike. People say all kinds of bizarre stuff in trance, and experience strange hypnagogic imagery etc, I once had someone hallucinate they were in a freezer and begin to shiver, another was too afraid to go down an imagined stairwell because they imagined it lead to hell.

If someone has more information on the above, I'd be happy to be corrected - but as it stands the people who are performing this stuff seem to me to have failed their due diligence to demonstrate the phenomenon beyond a reasonable doubt, though maybe they don't care about such things, which is typical for regression hypnotists.

I had actually booked a session for a friend to go through one of the LBL regressions but we had to cancel because the quarantine was declared the same week, but I promise to follow up on this as soon as the quarantine is over.

I'm going to make a longer post in a bit here breaking down some of the claims over methodology in my next post using excerpts from Newtons first book Journey of souls - case studes of life between lives.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to make a longer post in a bit here breaking down some of the claims over methodology in my next post using excerpts from Newtons first book Journey of souls - case studes of life between lives.

Continuation -

I'm going to take us through some of the few claims made in the methodology section of the first book of michael newton. page 3.

How valid is the use of hypnosis for uncovering truth? People in hypnosis are
neither dreaming nor hallucinating
. We don't dream in chronological sequences nor
hallucinate in a directed trance state. When subjects are placed in trance, their
brain waves slow from the Beta wake state and continue to change vibration down
past the meditative Alpha stage into various levels within the Theta range. Theta is
hypnosis-not sleep
. When we sleep we go to the final Delta state where messages
from the brain are dropped into the subconscious and vented through our dreams.
In Theta, however, the conscious mind is not unconscious, so we are able to receive
as well as send messages with all memory channels open.

People in hypnosis do hallucinate, and do experience hypnagogic imagery if they are taken deeply enough, though these are usually if not always directed by the practicioner. The stanford susceptibility scale which tests how hypnotisable someone is and is one of the main tools of research hypnotists relies on the ability to induce various hallucinations in the subject such as the buzzing of a nonexistent mosquito, hallucinated tastes, and dreams on pages 26, 28 and 32 (1.)

Sleep is a process that does include theta waves in NREM 1 and NREM2 (2.) Despite these errors, these are probably irrelevant as to the veracity of the material itself. There are alternate theories available which encompass the dream state as being the state of the soul, which im sure most readers here are familier with.

As a correction to my previous post, this first book relies only on the letter S for the client, and I will assume here that the S stands for subject, and does not denote a specific person which could therefore alleviate my prior objections about a seemingly small case size. -leafing through the second book I see this is indeed the case, and 67 seperate cases are presented, haha its somewhat embarrassing to be so wrong about my previous objections - its a shame my memory is so faulty, but at least I managed to correct myself.

1. https://leevonk.com/information/Hypnosis/Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale.pdf
2. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/non-rapid-eye-movement-sleep


Overall I can't say much about how true or false the book is just based on reading through them, far too much of it aligns with other explorers in the OBE community like Jurgen Ziewe, Robert Bruce and Robert Monroe as well as older sources like Emmanuel Swedenborg to be mere coincidence in my opinion. I'm leafing through the third book again now and there are 37 additional hypnotists trained in the methodologies of Michael Newton which report very similar cases as the original book, so this may address my due diligence claim however I would still like to see full transcripts, see it done myself and would like more veridical information such as verifiable information regarding peoples past lives.
 
Last edited:
I guess I'm pretty stuck on this idea that evil matters because it's a lens to a deeper understanding of the extended consciousness realms. I just finished an interview with a terrific psychologist / clinician named Tom Zinser who summed it up like this -- ( paraphrasing wildly :)) there's darkness, which is a force of nature... like gravity... not good or bad. and there is our attraction to the darkness, and that can lead to evil. of course the bigger picture is that there's really only light, but darkness just kind of comes along for the ride.

but I can't grasp denial of evil. don't we all get our attraction to the darkness? can't we all relate to our ability to do / think evil?

so no, I really don't understand Grant's insistence that there are no evil aliens.
I agree I think the "attraction" to darkness is what makes people do evil things.
 
I would say that the perception of whatever we experience is ultimately an illusion.

How is this any different than Tyson saying consciousness is an illusion?

Of course, if something is dropped on our toes, it hurts but that's because we're locked in this physical reality.

Yes, we seem to be locked into this physical reality and maybe we can hack it a little bit and do some rule breaking things but we don't exactly know what the rules are that allow us to break the rules.

More importantly, we don't know to what extent we are still "locked" in a particular reality when we die. In the Matrix, if you die in the matrix, you die in the "real world" because "your mind makes it real." Presumably our choices in this life have consequences lasting beyond this life. So telling everyone that ultimately there's a happy ending even if it takes millions or trillions of years or lifespans to get there might not be the most useful or helpful thing to say at THIS time.

The non-dual experience can feel nice. It is a big stress reducer. Stress can only exist in a structure. Stress cannot exist in jello. Non-dual thinking is a big wrecking ball of love. And a wrecking ball can be useful in tearing down structures that need to be torn down, but if the mind you are living in is merely a pop-up tent because you don't want the stress of a big sturdy structure, then you have a very flimsy shelter against the elements. On the other hand, maybe your mind is a tall skinny structure that is just begging for someone to come along and knock it down. In that case you should probably go ahead and knock it down and build something more solid.

I say all this as someone who has enjoyed the non-dual experience. But there's a duality to everything so to truly make use of the non-dual experience I think you have to come and go from it as you need to.

What if you are stuck in an abusive relationship? What if you need to recognize the fact that you are a victim in order to get out? What if you need to exercise your will a bit in order to avoid being controlled? Non-dual thinking is nice... it leads to a greater sense of well-being, but it can leave you defenseless.
 
How is this any different than Tyson saying consciousness is an illusion?



Yes, we seem to be locked into this physical reality and maybe we can hack it a little bit and do some rule breaking things but we don't exactly know what the rules are that allow us to break the rules.

More importantly, we don't know to what extent we are still "locked" in a particular reality when we die. In the Matrix, if you die in the matrix, you die in the "real world" because "your mind makes it real." Presumably our choices in this life have consequences lasting beyond this life. So telling everyone that ultimately there's a happy ending even if it takes millions or trillions of years or lifespans to get there might not be the most useful or helpful thing to say at THIS time.

The non-dual experience can feel nice. It is a big stress reducer. Stress can only exist in a structure. Stress cannot exist in jello. Non-dual thinking is a big wrecking ball of love. And a wrecking ball can be useful in tearing down structures that need to be torn down, but if the mind you are living in is merely a pop-up tent because you don't want the stress of a big sturdy structure, then you have a very flimsy shelter against the elements. On the other hand, maybe your mind is a tall skinny structure that is just begging for someone to come along and knock it down. In that case you should probably go ahead and knock it down and build something more solid.

I say all this as someone who has enjoyed the non-dual experience. But there's a duality to everything so to truly make use of the non-dual experience I think you have to come and go from it as you need to.

What if you are stuck in an abusive relationship? What if you need to recognize the fact that you are a victim in order to get out? What if you need to exercise your will a bit in order to avoid being controlled? Non-dual thinking is nice... it leads to a greater sense of well-being, but it can leave you defenseless.
I think you're combining relative reality and Pure Oneness. The spirituality that I practice, A Course In Miracles, states that we're living in a dream and it's our attachment to this dream that keeps us locked in, perceptually. We are called to forgive ourselves and others for making this dream "real" and by doing that, eventually we'll wake ourselves up and fully experience our true nature of Oneness. In the case of abuse...even though in actuality, it's occuring in a dream, the cycle of abuse needs to be stopped so both parties have the freedom to love and forgive.
 
I think you're combining relative reality and Pure Oneness. The spirituality that I practice, A Course In Miracles, states that we're living in a dream and it's our attachment to this dream that keeps us locked in, perceptually. We are called to forgive ourselves and others for making this dream "real" and by doing that, eventually we'll wake ourselves up and fully experience our true nature of Oneness. In the case of abuse...even though in actuality, it's occuring in a dream, the cycle of abuse needs to be stopped so both parties have the freedom to love and forgive.

If, within any dynamic, you perceive "you," that automatically infers "not you." I did ACIM. I "got it" but ACIM never resolves the inescapable paradox of individuation with oneness.

That is known as "The Mystery" (and is (perhaps) the ever unsolvable paradox). And in that alone comes peace... at least until you start picking up slippery, heavy rocks again.
 
If, within any dynamic, you perceive "you," that automatically infers "not you." I did ACIM. I "got it" but ACIM never resolves the inescapable paradox of individuation with oneness.

That is known as "The Mystery" (and is (perhaps) the ever unsolvable paradox). And in that alone comes peace... at least until you start picking up slippery, heavy rocks again.
I actually don't think it's unresolved. I think most people interpret the "Son" as one entity. I actually think there are many "Sons" but they are One, in the sense that they share the same will and nature. Oneness doesn't just mean the sea or a similar metaphor. Oneness doesn't preclude individuality, in my opinion. It's the level confusion again.
 
Alex may I suggest you interview Jerry Marzinsky and Sherry Swiney if you want to know about evil.

As a psychiatric evaluator in prisons and inpatient psych units, Jerry discovered that the “voices” of schizophrenics are not hallucinations caused by chemical imbalances but are malignant entities feeding off mental negativity and pain.

It sounds bizarre but makes a lot of sense.
 
I would say that the perception of whatever we experience is ultimately an illusion. Of course, if something is dropped on our toes, it hurts but that's because we're locked in this physical reality.
Maybe the mistake that Grant and others make, is not to realise that when you talk about everything being an illusion that doesn't mean that nothing matters.

Even materialists know that physical objects are really just collections of particles - so in that sense a bullet is an illusion - but that doesn't alter the damage it can do.
I was aghast at how exascerbating he was.
I suspect that was part of the reason Alex interviewed the guy - rather like his interview with Patricia Chuchland!
https://skeptiko.com/237-patricia-churchland-sandbagged-by-near-death-experience/

Showing the barrenness of certain people's conceptual framework can be worthwhile - but we don't want too many such interviews :)

David
 
I'd have to disagree with 1. Oneness absolutely allows you to make decisions. In my life I've tried to live in Oneness with all things. If I'm upset with someone, I try to recognize them as my brother or sister and go from there. If I look at them as someone who has wronged me, then I'm separate from them, which leads to negative emotions.

People experiencing “ego death” actually do have a hard time operating and making decisions in this reality. If there is no self, there’s no reason to do anything.

I get why believing everything is ultimately connected is useful in promoting empathy and compassion if you already have those virtues. But there is no moral imperative that automatically comes from it. In fact just the opposite.

If I see that other person as myself, why would I want to harm them because I’m only harming myself? What if I want to harm myself? Apparently that’s what the Oneness decided to do to itself because here I am in a painful world full of problems. Apparently everyone being nice all the time is intolerably boring. Therefore someone believing in Oneness has just as much reason to harm others as to love them. Adding to the pain is saving people from intolerable boredom.
 
Maybe the mistake that Grant and others make, is not to realise that when you talk about everything being an illusion that doesn't mean that nothing matters.

Even materialists know that physical objects are really just collections of particles - so in that sense a bullet is an illusion - but that doesn't alter the damage it can do.

I suspect that was part of the reason Alex interviewed the guy - rather like his interview with Patricia Chuchland!
https://skeptiko.com/237-patricia-churchland-sandbagged-by-near-death-experience/

Showing the barrenness of certain people's conceptual framework can be worthwhile - but we don't want too many such interviews :)

David
I would agree with that statement. We have to be careful about saying everything is an illusion sometimes. I've heard of ACIM therapists telling people who have had traumatic experiences that they should just move on because everything is an illusion. That's not helpful or very compassionate. We always have to meet people where they are. Even if that's true, there are steps to really experiencing our true selves.
 
People experiencing “ego death” actually do have a hard time operating and making decisions in this reality. If there is no self, there’s no reason to do anything.

I get why believing everything is ultimately connected is useful in promoting empathy and compassion if you already have those virtues. But there is no moral imperative that automatically comes from it. In fact just the opposite.

If I see that other person as myself, why would I want to harm them because I’m only harming myself? What if I want to harm myself? Apparently that’s what the Oneness decided to do to itself because here I am in a painful world full of problems. Apparently everyone being nice all the time is intolerably boring. Therefore someone believing in Oneness has just as much reason to harm others as to love them. Adding to the pain is saving people from intolerable boredom.
I've wondered about that myself. I've heard that ego death does create "issues" with relating to the world. However, I don't really see how that would happen when we're connected to others through relationships. In my opinion, that is why the world is so full of problems... because of the feeling of separation. When we feel connected, we won't to hurt ourselves and others. I would also say that there really aren't "problems", there are just times when we don't feel connected to our higher selves and we need to shift into the higher awareness that all will be well, in "true" reality. It's the perception that needs to change.
 
I actually don't think it's unresolved. I think most people interpret the "Son" as one entity. I actually think there are many "Sons" but they are One, in the sense that they share the same will and nature. Oneness doesn't just mean the sea or a similar metaphor. Oneness doesn't preclude individuality, in my opinion. It's the level confusion again.

Yes, yes... It was the language that, over time, in how "this" was expressed, that I struggled with. Not ACIM's issue, mine.

I once flew from Bangkok to the island Curaçao where I had to stop over in Amsterdam - so two legs (the spring of 2000). I read the Manual for Teacher contemplatively and completely, first half the first leg / second half the second leg. I would sometimes read a single line three or four times for greater clarity. I would take in a chunk and then doze. It was like the whole thing was planned as I finished just as we were landing in Curaçao.

And there was a profound difference in my life after that read. It was like I had died and someone else came through.

The one thing I'll never forget is when it said in the Introduction - the very first paragraph of the Introduction - (bold emphasis mine).

"The role of teaching and learning is reversed in the thinking world. The reversal is characteristic. It seems as if the teacher and learner are separated, the teacher giving something to the learner rather than to himself. Further, the act of teaching is regarded as a special activity, in which one engages only a small portion of one's time. The course, on the other hand, emphasizes that to teach is to learn. so that teacher and learner are the same. It also emphasizes that teaching is a constant process; it goes on every moment of the day, and continues into sleeping thoughts as well."

Hummmm, Thanks for the post reply Chris7. Seems others and myself can benefit from a good 're-dive' into ACIM.

I just decided to do what I did 20 years ago sans the airplane.
 
I've wondered about that myself. I've heard that ego death does create "issues" with relating to the world. However, I don't really see how that would happen when we're connected to others through relationships. In my opinion, that is why the world is so full of problems... because of the feeling of separation. When we feel connected, we won't to hurt ourselves and others. I would also say that there really aren't "problems", there are just times when we don't feel connected to our higher selves and we need to shift into the higher awareness that all will be well, in "true" reality. It's the perception that needs to change.

Wasn't it ACIM that pointed out that the separation is due to self-hatred?... Emphasizing that self-hatred also is an illusion... and atonement is, essentially the absence of self-hatred which, when vanished, that illusory space is, metaphorically, transformed into 'reality' (no separation)?
 
Wasn't it ACIM that pointed out that the separation is due to self-hatred?... Emphasizing that self-hatred also is an illusion... and atonement is, essentially the absence of self-hatred which, when vanished, that illusory space is, metaphorically, transformed into 'reality' (no separation)?
Yes...self hatred and guilt and shame. We've projected the world and created it in that same self-image.
 
Yes, yes... It was the language that, over time, in how "this" was expressed, that I struggled with. Not ACIM's issue, mine.

I once flew from Bangkok to the island Curaçao where I had to stop over in Amsterdam - so two legs (the spring of 2000). I read the Manual for Teacher contemplatively and completely, first half the first leg / second half the second leg. I would sometimes read a single line three or four times for greater clarity. I would take in a chunk and then doze. It was like the whole thing was planned as I finished just as we were landing in Curaçao.

And there was a profound difference in my life after that read. It was like I had died and someone else came through.

The one thing I'll never forget is when it said in the Introduction - the very first paragraph of the Introduction - (bold emphasis mine).

"The role of teaching and learning is reversed in the thinking world. The reversal is characteristic. It seems as if the teacher and learner are separated, the teacher giving something to the learner rather than to himself. Further, the act of teaching is regarded as a special activity, in which one engages only a small portion of one's time. The course, on the other hand, emphasizes that to teach is to learn. so that teacher and learner are the same. It also emphasizes that teaching is a constant process; it goes on every moment of the day, and continues into sleeping thoughts as well."

Hummmm, Thanks for the post reply Chris7. Seems others and myself can benefit from a good 're-dive' into ACIM.

I just decided to do what I did 20 years ago sans the airplane.
I've never had so many "aha" moments, reading anything else.
 
oooh man, Chris7... just got through the Introduction again (to the Manual for Teachers) - all sorts of a-ha's.

Thanks for triggering this "return." (tears... many tears)
 
In my life I've tried to live in Oneness with all things. If I'm upset with someone, I try to recognize them as my brother or sister and go from there. If I look at them as someone who has wronged me, then I'm separate from them, which leads to negative emotions.

I disagree completely. Oneness leads to depression. Nothing matters, everything is just undifferentiated blob. Life has no meaning, relationships don't mean anything. There is no difference, for example, between a human and a fly. In my opinion this ideology is detrimental and the founders of A Course in Miracles are evil. I have bought one Robert Perry's book, but when I found out that he was involved with ACIM, I immediately tore that book into pieces and threw it into trash bin.

I like movies. They have characters, subject matter, plot etc. If it were possible to do a movie about oneness, what would it be like? There wouldn't be any characters, plot, action, music, dialogue etc.

Unlike a belief in oneness, an individualist spirituality has a positive and healthy view about other people.
An individualist spirituality is not about collective entities, but about the interests of individuals and their relations with other individuals. Therefore it concentrates on spiritual concepts that put individuals first. Examples of such concepts are personal immortality, personal growth and personal love.
In my view, reality is about our happiness and development, and life should be explicitly aiming at these. The emotional basis for this is a strong feeling of self-worth, but also connectedness, love and engagement with others. From these arises an urge to develop oneself but also to support others in their development.
Libertarian Spirituality
 
Back
Top