From: zetatalk@zetatalk.com (Nancy Lieder)

Newsgroups: sci.astro

Subject: Planet X: SCAM ARTIST on Art Bell

Date: 14 Jan 2002 13:15:23 -0800

Organization: http://groups.google.com/

Lines: 150

Message-ID: <2a1fff53.0201141315.369481fc@posting.google.com>

NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.171.106.70

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

X-Trace: posting.google.com 1011042923 19237 127.0.0.1 (14 Jan 2002 21:15:23 GMT)

X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com

NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 Jan 2002 21:15:23 GMT

Xref: sn-us sci.astro:360232

ZetaTalk began on January 19, 1995 in Michael Lindemann's ISCNI chat

group, and lead its introduction by announcing that at approximately

May 15, 2003 the world would experience another pole shift. By late

1996 it was posting this warning on the sci.astro Usenet during a

debate with astronomers. Debates continue today. On October 24, 1997

ZetaTalk was featured on the Strange Universe program, under the

subject Planet X:2003. Nancy sitting at her PC with a view of the

Pole Shift TOPIC of Troubled Times was included, as well as her

message about 2003. Jeff Rense then featured Nancy several times,

sometimes for 3 hours at a time, when the Zeta took live calls from

the public, on Dec 10, 1998, March 5, 1999, Jun 4, 1999, Aug 27, 1999,

and Jan 12, 2000. This is of record and at the Sightings Real Audio

archives. The pole shift in 2003 was extensively discussed. Nancy

has twice been included in a Wireless News Service notice, which

brought her numerous requests for live radio interviews in 2000 and

2001. She was featured in the April 2001 edition of Art Bell's After

Dark magazine, re pole shifts. She holds Live ZetaTalk IRC chats at

present each Saturday. The inbound Planet X was sighted at the

coordinates given by the Zetas in early 2001, and imaged on January 5,

2002. That a middle aged woman with a high school degree, who does

not even know which end of a telescope to LOOK into, could pinpoint

the RA and Dec of the brown dwarf, Planet X, is astonishing, and

speaks to the validity of ZetaTalk as does the ZetaTalk Accuracy TOPIC

of Troubled Times.

So why is Art Bell featuring Mark Hazelwood on this issue, on

Wednesday Jan 16, 2002 instead of Nancy?

Hazelwood joined the Troubled Times mailing lists over a year ago and

was promptly banned for continuously soliciting money for various

get-rich-quick schemes. Few are honest enough (below) to admit they

have been fleeced, especially sending money to a stranger, where no

laws except let-the-buyer-beware can govern. Please note that once a

victim has been lined up, requests for large amounts of cash were

unhesitatingly made, all without any paper backing or oversight of

the transaction. Having found a reason for folks to panic, i.e. the

coming pole shift in 2003 and ZetaTalk accuracy, Hazelwood set out to

make himself the spokesperson, generating an electronic book composed

entirely of material lifted from the ZetaTalk site, the Troubled Times

site, Sitchin's books, and others. He didn't WRITE a book, he cobbled

it together from other copyrighted material, and then demanded money

for it from those he flooded with his e-mail promotions. He did not

generate information or content, or make a contribution, just

plagarized. The information is given FREE on the ZetaTalk and

Troubled Times sites, the straightforward warning and information on

self-help, but Hazelwood neglects to mention this.

So why is this a concern, when it's just information?

The short time left leading to the pole shift on or about May 15, 2003

will be a time of panic for many. Those living in cities along the

coastlines will be desperate for a place to go. Someone without

integrity, as Mark Hazelwood has proved to be, would take their cash

without hesitation, promising to have a place for them, a boat come

for them, supplies set aside, and families with small children would

find otherwise at the last minute, left without camping equipment,

tools, seed, or supplies. Shame on Art Bell for helping Hazelwood

position to fleece the populace in this way! I hereby announce that

just because Hazelwood has plagarized my material, which is free to

the public at the zetatalk.com web site but in no way put into the

public domain, and points the public to me to get coordinates for the

inbound Planet X or ZetaTalk on safe locations, that this in NO WAY

implies that I approve of his con games, his theft of money from

frightened people, or his agenda. The public being conned by

Hazelwood should consider that 2003 IS ZETATALK, as this is the

source, and that if he is telling the public to believe this, then he

is also telling them to believe what they say about him. Here's what

they had to say:

Hazelton is the TYPE of person we have been

warning about, during our various self-help

suggestions, who will front as someone

concerned about your welfare, while stripping

you of self-help options and taking your resources.

Why does he do this? He has correctly analyzed

the situation, along with others of a like mind,

and concluded that the hose of money that can

be pointed at them due to horrendous anxiety

over earth changes and the honesty of politicians

over the real truth of the matter can be turned

on THEM. Huge profits, in the months leading

into the shift, to pad their own confort. His

history is clear, his methods clear, but con artists

flourish worldwide and throughout time due to

their ability to size up the touch, and say just

what is needed to open pocket books. As we

have stated, rely on your SELF, those you know

and have know for years, and not potentially

empty promises.

ZetaTalk

From: Brent <brenfree@excite.com>

Date: Thu Nov 8, 2001 8:07 am

Subject: Hazelwood Con Victim

I'm posting this to TT-Watch simply to get the word out, and to help

prevent other victims in the process.

I was the one that got burned by the pyramid scheme that Sol refered

to in his post, and yes it was for a relativley small amount of money,

$100.00. And as Sol said, we have all been approached by people about

these schemes, and did not think they were "monsters".

But this is an extreme simplification of the whole story. Hazelwood

got involved with me over a six month period, at first helping me to

find a better ISP than I had at the time. We shared several private

emails on this subject, and then we began phone conversations. He is

easy to talk to, warm, friendly and seems extremly willing to help. He

also began to discuss the urgency of prepareing, and mentioned that he

was exploring several ways to make money in order to buy land in the

southern part of the U.S., and build

a few domes on it for his family. Was I interested?

Well, he'd already helped me once...sure, I said.

He approached me with several schemes in the next 6 months. The first

involved and investment of $20,000, but would guarantee a quick

return. Sorry...that was way over my head.

The next scheme...$10,000 an equally good investment, but a slightly

smaller return. Hmmm....sorry, still over my head, but thanks anyway.

The next opportunity was ideal. An invitation only investment scheme

that only a few people are invited into, and you start at just

$100.00. And Brent, I know that your wife has just gone through

surgery and treatment for Thyroid Cancer, and you have 2 kids in

school, but we need to prepare....think of the future.

O.K., send me the info, I'll give it a go!

I got my information packet with full instructions, I was excited,

this could work! I got my list of names in the pyramid, and

instructions on who I should pay to get the investment rolling. This

was a woman's name and address on the in Florida. Once I sent her the

money, things would start to really happen.

I waited......and waited......no updated list came in the mail. I

called Mark. Oh, that investment scheme just wasn't working out, he

was researching others. But his mother got the $100.00 I sent, thanks.

Yes, his mom was the person on the list I had to send my money to

first! By the way, was I interested in an off shore investment scheme

he had? I haven't talked with him since.

I agree that the people on his list are "just a bunch of good people

like us who want to survive"....but what will it cost them in the long

run? Why are we not encourageing them to join OUR group for free

information with no fear of ever being charged for the privelege?

I hope none of those people get burned, but if they do, they can't say

they weren't warned....and I don't want to hear any whining.

Brent

wagner.videotron.net.POSTED!not-for-mail

From: "Greg Neill" <gneillRE@MOVEnetcom.ca>

Newsgroups: sci.astro

References: <2a1fff53.0201141315.369481fc@posting.google.com>

Subject: Re: Planet X: SCAM ARTIST on Art Bell

Lines: 33

X-Priority: 3

X-MSMail-Priority: Normal

X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200

X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200

Message-ID: <8pI08.17942$fX1.698719@wagner.videotron.net>

Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 16:50:51 -0500

NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.96.146.100

X-Complaints-To: abuse@videotron.ca

X-Trace: wagner.videotron.net 1011045060 207.96.146.100 (Mon, 14 Jan 2002 16:51:00 EST)

NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 16:51:00 EST

Xref: sn-us sci.astro:360236

"Nancy Lieder" <zetatalk@zetatalk.com> wrote in message

news:2a1fff53.0201141315.369481fc@posting.google.com...

[Self promotional tripe snipped]

> The inbound Planet X was sighted at the

> coordinates given by the Zetas in early 2001, and imaged on January 5,

> 2002.

This has been shown to be false. If the pixels you encircled on

the image were indeed your mythical object, then it would have a

surface brightness below 20th magnitude, contradicting your 11th

magnitude claim. Further, it could not be seen by eye through

any sort of telescope, contradicted the above mentioned sighting.

Conclusion: You are lying.

> That a middle aged woman with a high school degree, who does

> not even know which end of a telescope to LOOK into, could pinpoint

> the RA and Dec of the brown dwarf, Planet X, is astonishing, and

> speaks to the validity of ZetaTalk as does the ZetaTalk Accuracy TOPIC

> of Troubled Times.

Nothing was pinpointed. Several contradictory X marks on an image

with a circle around empty sky does not constitute an astonishing

feat. Practically every verifiable pronouncement you have made has

been shown to be wrong, contradictory, or both. Your science is

a mish-mash of unworkable pipe dreams. You are an empricical fraud.

skynet.be!skynet.be!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!128.39.3.168!uninett.no!Norway.EU.net!not-for-mail

From: Stig Bull <stig.bull@no.spam.cds.no>

Newsgroups: sci.astro

Subject: Re: Planet X: SCAM ARTIST on Art Bell

Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 08:31:12 +0100

Organization: Commercial Data Servers AS

Lines: 20

Message-ID: <a20lth$ii0$3@oslo-nntp.eunet.no>

References: <2a1fff53.0201141315.369481fc@posting.google.com> <StI08.17957$fX1.701298@wagner.videotron.net>

Reply-To: stig.bull@no.spam.cds.no

NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.cds.no

Mime-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

X-Trace: oslo-nntp.eunet.no 1011079921 19008 193.71.216.18 (15 Jan 2002 07:32:01 GMT)

X-Complaints-To: abuse@KPNQwest.no

NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Jan 2002 07:32:01 GMT

User-Agent: KNode/0.6.1

Xref: sn-us sci.astro:360298

Greg Neill wrote:

> This has been shown to be false. If the pixels you encircled on

> the image were indeed your mythical object, then it would have a

> surface brightness below 20th magnitude, contradicting your 11th

> magnitude claim. Further, it could not be seen by eye through

> any sort of telescope, contradicted the above-mentioned sighting.

>

> Conclusion: You are lying.

Of course she is! Why else would she ignore to defend herself when her

little fantasy planet fails to show up, and instead ramble on as usual in a

new post as if nothing has happened?

--

Stig Bull

No animals were hurt or killed in the process of creating this electronic

message. To reduce download time, this message is made of 100% recycled

bytes.

news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!cyclone.hawaii.rr.com!post.hawaii.rr.com!typhoon.hawaii.rr.com.POSTED!not-for-mail

Newsgroups: sci.astro

From: tholen@AntiSpam.ham

Subject: Re: Planet X: SCAM ARTIST on Art Bell

Reply-To: tholen@AntiSpam.ham

References: <2a1fff53.0201141315.369481fc@posting.google.com>

X-Newsreader: IBM NewsReader/2 2.0

Lines: 22

Message-ID: <V%I08.15752$2N5.1806381@typhoon.hawaii.rr.com>

Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 22:32:21 GMT

NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.210.124.25

X-Complaints-To: abuse@rr.com

X-Trace: typhoon.hawaii.rr.com 1011047541 204.210.124.25 (Mon, 14 Jan 2002 12:32:21 HST)

NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 12:32:21 HST

Xref: sn-us sci.astro:360243

Nancy Lieder writes:

> The inbound Planet X was sighted at the coordinates given by the

> Zetas in early 2001,

Incorrect; all that we have is an allegation, Nancy.

> and imaged on January 5, 2002.

Incorrect; there is nothing 11th magnitude in that image, Nancy.

> That a middle aged woman with a high school degree, who does

> not even know which end of a telescope to LOOK into, could pinpoint

> the RA and Dec of the brown dwarf, Planet X, is astonishing,

You have a peculiar notion of "pinpoint", Nancy, given that you

don't even know whether the units are hours or degrees.

> and speaks to the validity of ZetaTalk

Actually, it discredits you, Nancy.

From: sarahmac@hotpop.com (Sarah Mc)

Newsgroups: sci.astro

Subject: Re: Planet X: SCAM ARTIST on Art Bell

Date: 14 Jan 2002 20:24:57 -0800

Organization: http://groups.google.com/

Lines: 420

Message-ID: <3c09ad3.0201142024.22d29297@posting.google.com>

References: <2a1fff53.0201141315.369481fc@posting.google.com>

NNTP-Posting-Host: 172.173.176.152

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

X-Trace: posting.google.com 1011068698 30205 127.0.0.1 (15 Jan 2002 04:24:58 GMT)

X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com

NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Jan 2002 04:24:58 GMT

Xref: sn-us sci.astro:360285

zetatalk@zetatalk.com (ZetaCult Leader, Nancy Lieder) wrote in message

news:<2a1fff53.0201141315.369481fc@posting.google.com>...

<ZetaCult message snipped>

Geeez Marie, did you think Art Bell was going to ask you on the show

now, after you posted this? Guess why he didn't want you there to

begin with. Good Lord, if you can't stand up to the competition, get

the hell out of the race.

Typical Cult Leader, show only what you want people to know, not the

whole truth.

Interesting that she didn't mention the $50,000 she took in last year

from her cult members, and any profits she's recieved from her sci-fi

book. Here's an enlightening article that she didn't post (it was

posted to her own yahoo group), much like the mesaages she posted.

Well worth reading for some first-hand insight into the ZetaCult and

the ZetaCult leader....

"From: "billglenn28" <billglenn28@y...> Date: Thu Dec 27, 2001 4:36

pmSubject: Zetatalk: Cocreating Reality or Paradigm of Power?

Zetatalk: Cocreating Reality or Paradigm of Power?

Essay by Bill Glenn

This is a bit lengthy (7 pages) but I hope it will be a worthwhile

read. Some of you may remember me, some may not. I was quite active of

these lists, particularly TT-Watch, for over a year and half, but then

turned my interests elsewhere during the last year. Starting in the

beginning of 2000 I worked with Nancy helping her collect content for

a large number of the accuracy-related Topics at TT Hub. For a while,

I was probably among the most determined of TT members wanting to

elevate ZetaTalk from the realm of the speculative, give it

legitimacy, and make it a reality. In my mind, ZetaTalk, its

predictions, and its extraordinary claims were true and I wanted to

ensure that none of this was left to chance and went undocumented.

So why my determination, why my unseemly interest in wanting to prove

the accuracy of ZetaTalk? Well, I admit it was less about wanting to

save mankind from this looming disaster and more about wanting to help

build and promote a website which I believed offered a lot of

commonsense solutions to the problems plaguing our society today. Some

of the energy I had for promoting ZetaTalk probably derived from an

uncomfortable situation I was emerging from. I discovered ZetaTalk

while sitting in an Internet Café located on the outskirts of Taipei

City, Taiwan, an area considered to have one of the highest population

densities in the world. In many ways, I considered that place hell on

earth, capitalistic forces gone amuck, an artificial world run by

greed, preying on ignorance and apathy, creating misery for all but

the big cats sitting on top, who probably didn't even live in Taiwan.

Anyway, to make it short, I was upset and what I found in ZetaTalk was

a possible answer to the destructive and chaotic forces ruling the

planet. Certainly, I would exalt to see places like Taipei City and

its counterparts in other countries vanish, but I didn't see the pole

shift itself as being a saving grace. Even if the earth was given a

clean slate again, it was uncertain that we humans wouldn't repeat our

own mistakes and be back at square one within a couple millenia. So

what appealed to me so much about ZetaTalk was not only the pole shift

information, but the fact that it offered a new paradigm for living, a

paradigm which I believed was it all it promised to be.

I admired the Zetas and ZetaTalk for several reasons. They showed an

incredible concern for the environment; they said that money was not

an economic necessity in a society in which individuals were more

mature and connected (a society in which volunteerism was more the

rule than the exception); they said that democracy was a good start,

but democracy didn't work so well when immature or selfish entities

had equal or disproportionate influence; they expressed a disgust for

the arrogant behaviors of the elite class (speaking to the fact that

those in visible positions of power can wear very service-oriented

masks yet be very self-centered individuals); they suggested that

telepathy was a solution to the confusion we experience when

evaluating other people's motives; they showed a mature, clear

understanding of human behavior (why we do all the crazy, screwy stuff

that we do). And I could probably list 100 more reasons why I was

attracted to ZetaTalk. So ZetaTalk became my new passion in life and I

considered Nancy to be a very competent gifted individual. I wanted to

do what I could to help Nancy and give ZetaTalk the little extra

momentum that it needed. Simultaneously, though, I knew ZetaTalk was

an experiment of sorts, and I was highly interested in seeing how this

experiment would play out. I accepted that what Nancy and the Zetas

were saying was sincere and true (the material was simply too

extraordinary in scientific understanding and detail for it not to be

true). However, what was more uncertain to me (and Nancy I'm sure) is

how ZetaTalk would play out in other people's minds.

Some of the questions I asked myself were…what kind of folks would be

drawn to this material?…what kind of discussions would it

generate?…would it indeed encourage folks to reconsider their

mainstream lives and attachments and start joining with like-minded

individuals to form peaceful survival communities?…would society be

revolutionized by this information? So essentially I was keeping my

mind open, allowing for various outcomes, knowing that this was an

experiment of sorts. As I knew the information quite well and was

highly convinced that it was true and was of enormous relevance to

society, I defended ZetaTalk often and certainly promoted it through

my volunteer work at TT Hub. However, with so much of my energy being

put into ZetaTalk and helping Nancy and also realizing the impact of

this information and its potential ripple-effect through the coming

centuries, I didn't want to simply surrender my voice and become one

of Nancy's good soldiers. So even as I worked with Nancy I often

questioned ZetaTalk and Nancy and did my best to protect ZetaTalk from

interpretations or forces which I felt threatened to undermine my own

interpretation of ZetaTalk. This questioning took many forms. I

questioned the formation of TT-Welcome because I felt there was a

potential for abuse (a few people wanting to increase their popularity

while perhaps fostering some kind of dependence). I spoke out when

some people started engaging in ego-centered discussions about

graduating to the next density level or being saviors for mankind. I

warned that Nancy's endless promotion of ZetaTalk Accuracy may skew

people's ability to judge ZetaTalk by more important criteria, such as

the model of governance it was proposing. I expressed upset when Nancy

used data on volcanic eruptions that was clearly misleading. I

questioned Nancy when she essentially gave the Democratic Party a

glowing endorsement because much of what the Democrat Party represents

is still very at odds with ZetaTalk. I questioned TT members about

their understanding of what the word "cult" means, and asked if such

elements do indeed exist within ZetaTalk and the TT membership.

In retrospect, I don't think I should have promoted ZetaTalk so

fervently all the time thinking I could protect ZetaTalk from

misguided people or interpretations. Whatever any one person sees in

ZetaTalk is necessarily going to depend on where that person is coming

from and what they are looking for, and there is probably little I can

do to affect their perception. Likewise, I realized that indeed

ZetaTalk is a manifestation of Nancy's being, not mine, and it was

foolish for me to pretend otherwise. It is an often repeated message

from Nancy that ZetaTalk is, in fact, being created BY all us through

our questions and input, but what she won't often acknowledge and is

just as true is that ZetaTalk is being created FOR us. Such being the

case, there is a strong propensity among TT membership towards an "us

vs. them mentality" which may have its usefulness in some cases (such

as keeping a list on the right track) but I believe is mostly

counterproductive and uncharacteristic of a healthy organization.

When people take what they believe is truth, identify with it,

champion it, and rally behind it, they are not acting with a lot of

awareness. Doesn't the mind lose its sensitivity when it attaches

itself to a higher authority such as the ZetaTalk doctrine? How can a

mind beholden to and conditioned by a higher authority be independent

and meet the present with clarity? For many people ZetaTalk and thus

Nancy have become a vital part of their identity, an extension of

themselves so-to-speak, and so defend it as if they were defending

themselves when criticized. As is the case with people who are afraid

to look at themselves in the mirror of relationship and question their

own beliefs and actions incessantly, so is the case with ZetaTalk and

all those who identify with it. Without a deep understanding of the

structure of the self, the fortress we build around essential being,

those who champion ZetaTalk are very apt to make ZetaTalk the

embodiment of their own fears and ambitions. I think, to a great

extent, this is what is happening at ZetaTalk and Nancy permits it to

happen. ZetaTalk, in my view, is very educating as far as dispelling a

lot of our ego-centered assumptions about the universe, acquainting us

with concepts yet undreamed of, gathering lots of disparate

information and giving it coherence and order, illuminating us about

other forms of governance and parenting styles, and so forth. However,

while it certainly challenges our conditioning and demands our

openmindedness, can't it also recondition us and create its own kind

of closedmindedness if we aren't aware? So if the real revolution

hasn't already occurred on a deeper level, maybe we are only jumping

from one prison of thought to another.

I don't think ZetaTalk is all that it is hyped up to be. There is very

much a division between what ZetaTalk claims to be, and the reality of

what it is. There is a contradiction between the ends being sought,

and the means employed to get there. Nancy and ZetaTalk may indeed

have grand visions of the future, but if we as individuals are not

living and demonstrating those truths today (rather than simply

jumping on the ZetaTalk bandwagon), I'm afraid all is for naught. The

utopic vision ZetaTalk presents is just that, a vision, which is not

in accordance with fact. The facts speak for themselves and I will

clarify them as best as possible. While ZetaTalk and Nancy make

numerous references to empowering people (giving them the tools to

survive the shift, giving them the information they need to understand

today's world, etc..), I tend to think that disempowerment is the

overall effect. The nature of ZetaTalk, in which one person has been

given a monopoly over extraordinarily sensitive information and the

tools to respond, as if a god, to everybody's questions about the

mechanics of the universe, sets the tone for the whole organization.

Essentially, this whole operation we call ZetaTalk is being run by one

person. One person is dictating reality for a great many people. Nancy

is the one with all the answers. The same person is both providing the

information that has the potential to extinguish the human race and

setting herself up as its savior. It is no wonder that Nancy not only

dictates the content and tone of ZetaTalk, she also dictates the tone

and content of Troubled Times. If anyone has the illusion that

Troubled Times is an entirely collaborative effort, they are wrong.

Troubled Times is as much dependent on Nancy's leadership as ZetaTalk.

In several ways, I don't think the ZetaTalk information is very

empowering. The core of the ZetaTalk information is the information

concerning the pole shift . Without a doubt the primary focus of

ZetaTalk readers is the pole shift info because it speaks to a human's

most basic instinct, survival. So predictably and inevitably, ZetaTalk

readers get drawn into what seems like an unwinable scientific debate

with Nancy and the Zetas, and the emphasis rarely shifts elsewhere.

What may be unspoken but nevertheless true is the assumption that if

Nancy is correct about the pole shift information, by default, she is

correct about everything else. As the thinking goes, if Nancy has such

a strong command over her science, certainly she is right about

everything else she is proposing and doing. For example, if Nancy is

right about the pole shift, shouldn't we also believe she is right

about how she governs the Nonprofit? What if we believe she is right

about A, but not right about B because we prefer another governing

style? So if we didn't want Nancy leading the post-PS communities

movement because of her undemocratic style, wouldn't that disqualify

us from "contactee" status and all the benefits associated to it? Why

would the Zetas want to provide special assistance to an individual

who opposed their emissary's form of governance. For the last 7 or so

years, (if we are to believe it) millions of fiercely individualistic

(yes, sarcasm) Zetas have decided to give one person exclusive rights

to their voice. So should we then expect that these same Zetas are

going to support individuals who are not in line with Nancy and her

plans? It is almost as if this ultra-sensitive information which has

been put so liberally at Nancy's proposal is being used as a source of

leverage for implementing a greater program.

If we take a look at the Nonprofit, we see an environment where one

person essentially controls the content of the dialogue, the tone of

the dialogue, and has the final say on all major decisions. Of course,

Nancy does allocate work to others and permits them some autonomy, but

it is always set within her constraints. There really is no way to

challenge Nancy's judgment on issues of importance because she is THE

SOURCE, and without her Troubled Times could not exist. Certainly, one

could point out that a great many people willingly lend their help to

Nancy and willingly accept a diminished decision-making role, but this

does not equate to empowerment. I would say that this willingness to

help Nancy is blind to the reality of the governing model which TT

Nonprofit represents. All these people want so much to offer up their

skills for this great cause (how could an STO do otherwise), but I

wonder how much they consider the paradigm of governance, being

promoted for all of posterity, they are supporting. I wonder how many

of them have forced a discussion about the necessity for more defined

decision-making processes at TT Nonprofit. Doesn't it serve Nancy not

to have such a discussion? Nancy, I'm sure, dislikes process because

it slows things down and erodes her decision-making control. But what

kind of example is she setting for all the survival communities she

wants to assist with the TT information? Should they follow her

example and let a "natural leader" make all the major decisions.

On several occasions Nancy has made it clear that the Nonprofit is

anything but a democracy. I think there are several examples, but I

would like to use the incident involving Sol because it was revealing

in many ways. I don't really know the specifics about what happened (I

don't read the lists too much anymore) but I know the general story.

It is not my intention to glorify Sol, only to use that incident as an

illustration. So Nancy wanted Sol removed from the Board because of

his involvement with Mark Hazlewood (you all know the story). I think

Nancy had some good reasons for not wanting the Nonprofit to become an

official sponsor of Mark Hazlewood and his book, Blindsided 2003.

However, Nancy seemed to have no interest in using democratic process

to decide the fate of Sol and others who supported him. She probably

knew that if she attempted to negotiate a solution to the problem, she

would lose because it is no secret that Sol is very popular among

members. So with premeditation, she decided to take the matter into

her own hands, going public on TT-Watch, and began to slam his

reputation, going as far as to make an unsubstantiated accusation that

he had been disbarred as a lawyer and reviving something Sol had said

about selling pot a long time ago. Anyway, specifics aside, Nancy

certainly didn't intend on becoming a champion for our legal system,

putting forth a case that everybody would accept. She wanted to boot

Sol by angering him so much that he would decide to go away AND make

it clear that anyone in his camp would suffer a similar fate. With

fear pervading all, it is no wonder that very few of Sol's closest

allies spoke up after this event. By ignoring democratic process,

Nancy was essentially saying that she didn't trust the judgement of

the people who were working closest to her. If indeed it was not

Nancy's intention to send this message, she really needs to ask

herself why she is so afraid to use democratic processes at Troubled

Times. Why is Nancy bringing in and relying on people at the Nonprofit

who she doesn't trust? I think the answer lies in the fact that

Troubled Times is indeed not a collaborative project (when one person

has so much decision-making authority) and this creates a dynamic

riddled with problems. If you are interested in this problem, the

below article extracted from Communities magazine provides an

excellent review.

Extracted From Communities Magazine:Edition #88, TOPIC: Intentional

Communities and "Cults", Fall '95"Benevolent Dictators" in Community?

Kat and Mildred DebateStrong Central Government vs Decision by Dialog,

Part Ihttp://fic.ic.org/cmag/88/2888.htmlEdition #89, Winter

'95"Benevolent Dictators" in Community? Kat and Mildred DebateStrong

Central Government vs Decision by Dialog, Part

IIhttp://fic.ic.org/cmag/89/3089.html

I believe that too much power has been invested in Nancy. I don't

think it is responsible for us to say…oh that is simply how it was

designed to be…and who would question the judgement of the aliens who

chose her for this role because of her special qualities. Perhaps, it

is easy to be intimidated when you think you are in dialogue with

superhigh IQ 4th density aliens, who even claim to pals with Jesus

Christ himself! But, this is a really harmful mindset, which ZetaTalk

does little to subdue. If we assume that our friends from beyond are

wiser than us and always acting in our best interest, I think we are

making a big mistake. It is not certain to me why a benevolent race of

4th density aliens would give so much authority to one person. As I

see it, there are options for disseminating this kind of information

which have more respect for our free will. Certainly, the pole shift

information does not come without any strings attached. As I said

before, if we are to accept that the pole shift will happen, mustn't

we also accept that Nancy and the Zetas be our leaders? What if we

don't want them as our leaders? What if we don't want them to be the

judge who determines who is STO and who is STS and thus who is worthy

of their survival assistance and promotion within their ranks. What if

we don't want to accept their entire acculturation/indoctrination

program, yet still feel the information has merit? If we don't accept

Nancy's program could we bet on any assistance during the pole shift?

So do we want leaders who are so elevated and insulated that all

challenges to their authority and decision-making are rendered futile?

Do we want to be cocreators of our culture and government or do we

want paternalistic leaders to show us the way? I think something Nancy

answered to a couple IRC sessions really illustrated how warped our

thinking has become. Somebody asked Nancy what the New MJ12 looks

like. In the typical nonchalant way, ZetaTalk said that indeed a New

MJ12 was formed consisting of 57 members, who by the way are very STO

in their opinion (which of course means they are very in sync with the

ZetaTalk agenda). There was no mention about how undemocratic this all

seems to be, with the Zetas and Nancy essentially deciding for

themselves who should be part of the next government of the planet.

None of us have any idea who these people are and yet they are being

endowed with an enormous degree of responsibility and influence. And

nobody seems to really care. If somebody did care, and asked Nancy

about this, I imagine that she would say that this was the only viable

option in light of the election of George Bush Jr. as U.S. President.

Maybe so, but I still question the legitimacy of their election and I

wonder if the New MJ12 is not simply a perpetuation of the current

power structure. Wouldn't the complexion of the New MJ12 look a lot

different if they were actually elected by those they intend to

represent? In so many ways, the dominant theme of Nancy and ZetaTalk

is surrendering to a greater authority. Nancy surrenders her voice to

the Zetas, we surrender our voice to Nancy and the New MJ12, and

others simply die or reincarnate elsewhere.

OK…now I'm going to shift gears and see if I can't provide another

perspective on all this. As some of you may know, I'm now living on a

commune in central Virginia, USA called Twin Oaks (www.twinoaks.org).

Twin Oaks is the largest community in a network of U.S.-based

communities called the Federation of Egalitarian Communities

(www.thefec.org). The FEC is somewhat of a parallel movement to the

kibbutz movement in Israel, though there are many differences between

the two. And even among FEC communities there are great differences.

What FEC communities do share is an aim to be economically

self-sufficient (while exercising environmental responsibility) and a

general agreement about methods for decision-making and resource

allocation. Fundamental to the FEC philosophy is a disdain for

over-centralized leadership and a strong desire to facilitate the

participation of all members in decision-making. Every FEC community

is unique in their experimentation with cooperative decision-making

models, but all aim to create an environment where individuals feel

empowered to assume decision-making responsibilities. There is a lot

of literature on this subject, and one only need to delve a little

further into the FEC website to find it. Another complementing

characteristic of FEC communities is a desire not to sponsor any kind

of religious dogma. Sure, you can be a Quaker, a Jew, or a Pagan (all

of which there are many living at FEC communities), but that's your

business, not the community's business.

Twin Oaks, inspired by B.F. Skinner's book Walden Two, was founded

about 35 years ago and has become one of the most recognized successes

in communal living (I should say that B.F. Skinner is hardly an

influence at Twin Oaks anymore). In fact, it often the case that

people learn about Twin Oaks through college courses. Three books have

been written exclusively about Twin Oaks, the last one by Kat Kinkade

titled Is it Utopia Yet? This book is probably a good place to start

if you would like to learn about Twin Oaks' unique decision-making

process, called the planner system. It is also insightful in that it

shows Kat's own struggle with and relinquishment of power at Twin

Oaks. Like I said though, Twin Oaks is just one example and what works

for one group of people may not work for another group of people.

However, I do think that the FEC movement, as a whole, represents the

best elements within the broader intentional communities movement.

And, in fact, many FEC members have been instrumental in providing

leadership for a larger network of communities called the Fellowship

for Intentional Communities (www.ic.org).

*I would be remiss if I didn't also mention that there is a large

circle of members at Twin Oaks who are currently experimenting with a

governing system/decision-making model called Sociocracy, developed by

Quakers in the Netherlands. More can be learned by doing an Internet

search on Sociocracy.

Before I conclude I should mention a couple of things which might be

of interest to readers of ZetaTalk and those interested in community.

Not once, in my last 9 months living in community and visiting other

communities have I heard someone start referring to others as STO and

STS. Certainly, not everybody is accepted for membership at FEC

communities, but it is not cast as STO vs. STS. Perhaps such a

distinction does exist, but is it really as black and white as Nancy

describes? And whether or not a person is STO or STS, doesn't that

really depend on who is judging? In many eyes, Nancy would probably be

considered to be STS because of her appetite for control and

authority. Anyway, I think most people living in community would

consider such labeling counterproductive. When you start giving labels

to others, don't you start to lose the ability to see them in a more

profound way? Personal growth requires change, and change doesn't need

labels. Here is another question a ZetaTalk reader might ask. Do

people who live in communities (in this case FEC) talk much about

aliens? Actually, I've met a couple people really interested in the

topic, but mostly people have only a mild interest or no interest at

all. It is probably the case that the lack of interest stems from some

degree of close-mindedness. But, I think in general people aren't

interested because they don't see how aliens relate to anything.

Certainly, as the FEC has proven, humans do not need alien

intervention to make this planet a more peaceful and cleaner place. I

guess that in the case of a pole shift, if Nancy is correct,

intervention would be necessary and aliens would be relevant, but

frankly I don't see much compatibility between ZetaTalk and existing

FIC/FEC communities and their members. ZetaTalk requires a level of

openmindedness most people don't have and it requires acceptance of a

cultural/governing paradigm most people would resist. In the FEC

communities, there are no leaders with special status, but rather

several leaders with equal status. Age, race, gender, and sexual

orientation are not at all obstacles to assuming leadership positions.

People clash and there are heated discussions but compromise is the

rule. If compromise was not the rule, I doubt living in community

would be very enjoyable. What do you think?Feel free to contact me at

Twin Oaks. Email address: bill@t..."