Saturday, July 27, 2013

#644: Laura Magdalene Eisenhower


Laura Magdalene Eisenhower is Ike’s great granddaughter and completely batshit insane. According to herself, she is a “soul-reaching teacher and healer, recognized by clients, psychics and spiritual societies, as a living global oracle and true archetype of Sophia-Magdalene on Earth,” who “has masterfully woven together the esoteric and alchemical aspects of nature with our ancient roots, the present world, and our future potential. [… She] has been on an intense world soul journey of the labyrinth through the many faces of the Goddess (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Goddess_religion). With great passion and courage, she is helping to return sacred union (Christ Sophia).” Most of that is borrowed from the biography of her given in connection with her participation at the 2011 Dolphins and Teleportation Symposium - Andrew Basiago was there as well, and you really do have to visit their website). She seems to have come to public attention as a brave whistleblower when she exposed her attempted recruitment by a secret governmental Mars colony project, the purpose of which was to provide a survival civilization for the human race on Earth in the event of a planned (HAARP or bio-weapon induced) or natural cataclysm (solar flares) that would depopulate the Earth. (Discussed here)

It is a little bit sad, really. She apparently really, really, wants to be as important and influential as her ancestor and when the dream of political influence was thwarted, then, well, in her own words: “My great-grandfather President Ike, who was also the Army general who led the Allied Forces to victory over Hitler, battled evil corrupt powers on Earth and took on some of the most challenging scenarios in history. As I grew up, I could sense that I was completing this battle that has ancient roots. When Hitler died and the Nazis lost power – the entities including those that were ET/Extraterrestrial did not. They continued to find hosts and create agreements with people who were a part of the races of the patriarch and Global Elite – who want to run things through fear tactics, control and the suppression of Sophia or the essence of the Divine Feminine.” What a pity mankind has thus far failed to recognize how Laura is special, too – as special as Ike, having built upon Ike’s efforts to reach even farther heights.

She marked the 50th anniversary of President Eisenhower’s famous Farewell Address by predicting the coming collapse of the Military-Industrial Complex and a global transformation driven by enlightened unity consciousness. It is unclear whether she thinks the prophecy has been fulfilled.

Diagnosis: Astoundingly delusional, and no, Laura: you are not a whistleblower. You are crazy. But probably harmless.

51 comments:

  1. I'm not so sure about not being a whistleblower...I mean, if I were the one in charge of recruiting people for a secret Mars colony, Laura Mag would be right at the top of my list. Who better to save the human race? LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh how exciting to make it on your list. Your diagnosis ~ you are immature, a name-calling brat, a projector, a pathetic low life with nothing better to do than to smear and bash those that are doing all they can to make this world a better place. You assume and find judgements that stem from your own internal issues, which is the real problem here, but you take it out on others who actually are doing real work to create positive change. What the hell is your deal, seriously?? More diagnosis - You are astoundingly full of yourself, and no - you are not serving humanity or the planet, you are energetic pollution and yes, you are probably harmless, but not really ~ You are part of the problem and sickness of our World and you know it, so you take it out on others and hide behind your arrogance and ignorance and total lack of intuition. You are insane for that alone and should be ashamed of yourself. Why don't you grow some real balls and say this to my face - message me! To turn people away from those that do good is a sad sad existence - thanks for contributing to the demise of humanity. Keep supporting instead those who are destroying the World or your own sick Ego - Bravo for you!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As a former reader of conspiracy theorists such as David Ike, Stichin, jones, etc., I became very tiresome of their theories (though amusing) when they could not back up their statements with credible evidence or scientific facts. Where are your facts that such technology exists? Please explain how it works if you are as familiar with it as you claim? Please explain how alchemy works because, to my knowledge, the only way to change an atom or molecule is to add protons to it, and that, in itself, takes a tremendous amount of energy, and also, precise mathematical equations combined with an extensive knowledge of quantum physics. In other words, though not theoretically impossible, it's very difficult and scientists have been trying to do so for centuries. I'm not bashing you. I am just a skeptic, and I am sure you can appreciate healthy skepticism.

      Delete
    2. Thing is, as a healthy skeptic, you have to admit the technology already exists. I mean we went to the moon in a tin can filled with liquid oxygen and a pocket calculator and that was 50 years ago. You see, in this day and age a real skeptic, one who honestly balances up all the various factors against each other and looks into the facts of a situation, can, in reguards to Mar's, only reach one conclusion / question, that being "why havn't we done it yet?" We know we can support life articially for longer than the mission would take, we know the destination has all the resources we could ever need to set up a base camp. It in fact would have been easier to send a manned mission to Mar's than it was to build and set up the ISS, so I ask you again, why havn't we done it yet, officially anyway?

      Delete
    3. Keep doing what you do, Laura! Love your work!

      Delete
    4. I think you hit the nail on the head Laura. The key word is "ignorance". People in the top secret military community know so much more than the average person who never has contact or knowledge of any of these things. So because of that, they sit there and laugh. They can't believe something that they've never even heard about. But simply making fun of someone as a reaction to this is indeed childish and immature. It's one thing to ask questions and another to be disrespectful. People don't yet understand that some things can't be physically proven to them. When someone gets a Reiki session and feels relaxed and their back pain goes away, how can anything be physically proven to someone else that it actually happened? We have gotten to the point in our society where no one ever believes an eyewitness to anything anymore. Everything must be on a video and even then they might claim photo-shop. So what standard of "proof" can be used to prove anything anymore? I just decided one day that I believe you. It's just a "feeling" and I can't prove anything either. It's just a decision I made and I'm good with it.

      Delete
    5. I just found this blog, how glorious it is to sit back and with poor grammar and spelling skills, disparage people you haven't researched. I guess it gets ad hits and that's what counts. Laura can be understood by those who can intellectually and with mathematical proof, bridge the gap that materialistic science has ignored.

      Delete
    6. This is a well written blog posting, written with concise language and clever innuendos. Had +lauramagdalene been trained in the diplomacy that she claims to have exercised as a "recruiter", she would have the language skills to put forth her argument and rebuttal.

      People without the intellect or capacity to counter an argument resort to using insults and offensive language. They also resort to transferring their anger onto their opponents, which effectively clouds up any attempt to present a concise rebuttal.

      The conspiracies she proposes does not add up very well, If she invented the stories, she did not have the scientific comprehension to construct a massively mathematically and economically coherent story. She also lacks the professionalism to effectively deliver the myth she had created.

      If her story were true, and if she truly had actually "seen things", she would have applied her licence towards being more subtle and more skillful as well as being more careful in reaching out to her audience, rather than a direct assault approach she has been taking.

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  3. You probably wont approve of my comment, cause you can't take the shit that you dish out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't doubt anything you say Laura, Cause, I've had many strange experiences in my life, That I can't even define.
      Keep up the great work.

      Delete
    2. Wow. For someone who is a spiritual healer and highly advanced, you certainly take offence easily. And your response is even more so evolved. NOT! If you can't respond in strength, don't respond at all..

      Delete
  4. Laura, I applaud for responding. Yet remember when you respond to these jerks you only empower them more. Keep doing what you do and getting the message out there. It take tremendous courage in a world full of sleeping souls. Any attempt to disturb their sleep is met with swift and awful retaliation. To their defense their are 100s of charlatans and dis-informationists out there that put out false info to the universe for the sake of profit/ self gain. Those folks will be met by the karma they've created. But you, Andrew and Bernie have tremendous credibility in my eyes. Please keep telling your story and putting the truth out there. One day people will wake up and realize that they were the crazy ones for never thinking out side of their own little worlds.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All my Love and support towards Laura. I dont need to write anything. We understand where we are at in this world and know what we have to do. Folks who dont know what this is about... Find out!! David Wilcock, George Kavassilas, Nassim Haramien ... Laura M. E. also.. ;)

      Delete
  5. This case and comments, as with most of our so called 'whistleblower' testimonies, is so sadly lacking in any fact or researched material, and simply trades on the idea that because we're not being told everything, anything MUST be happening!
    When will everyone stop overrating their own importance on this varied, marvelous and ever changing planet upon which we live. You all make the mistake of thinking that the human species matters, that you, we, matter. One need only look around to become aware of how incredibly unimportant and inconsequential in the grand scheme of nature, it itself only being a infeitssimal part of the grand scheme of the universe, we are.
    Get off your high horses and go do something useful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. wow, that's not very positive outlook for life.. If people & Earth is so insignificant than perhaps we should just Nuke the place & be done with it..
      Also your "go do something useful".. What would that be..? Work to pay my mortgage..? Pay my taxes..? Enlist to army & go kill me some "enemies"..? I wonder what is "useful" to you..?

      Delete
  6. LMAO she responded to the "name-calling brat" by calling names.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What's wrong with her responding by calling names? She's still human like all of us, after all, no? Just because I profess whatever principals doesn't mean I can't be like everyone else, does it? Or is this a general rule that must be followed?

      Delete
  7. Finally! Someone almost as loony as me! Laura Eisenhower. Why am I more "loony"? Because much of her belief is mainstream conspiracy stuff. But let's start with some basic "proof" shall we? Yellow 5 and 6 is industrial waste and they are illegal in many countries. So why does the U.S. allow these and many other harmful chemicals in our food supply? You should find out. Donald Rumsfeld held a press conference a day before 9/11 informing the media that the U.S. somehow misplaced 2.3 trillion dollars. Do you think the American people remembered the 2.3 trillion dollars that was "misplaced"? Nope. They were too busy hating the "terrorist". There were and still are many secret government projects. If only one of those secret projects were and are true with positive results, then red flags should be popping up, right? Millions of documented UFO sightings throughout the world and if only a small handful are legit, we should be thinking twice, right? There are trillions of planets throughout the known Universe, and to think that we are the only ones would be quite insane, right? "Religion" is a trillion dollar industry. I could go on and on, but my fingers are getting tired. So in conclusion, Laura Eisenhower is not a lunatic. She is simply aware of world around her. Neither Laura nor myself are 100% in our beliefs, but at least we're not too far from that number.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, she's loony and I'm normal because my normalacy bias keeps me on a steady course with everyone else who's normal as we sail down the River DeNile. Tell me again why we are fighting a War on Terror while simultaneously leaving the borders open? That's my favorite story. :D

      Delete
  8. To be honest, there's more historical proof of the existence of Jesus Christ than ancient UFOs and the myths connected.if laura is a Christian then surely Jesus is our saviour and god will prevail and deliver us from evil.the bible has many truths and answers but knowing which part(s) is meant to be taken literally is debatable. Its down to interpretation.to quote Jesus " the truth shall set you free" but what is truth? You cannot attach a myth to gaps in unknown history.its simply lost or unknown methods used in those times.just cause something is unexplained does not mean alien intervention.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am listening to an interview on youtube at the moment by Alfred Webre. I'm not sure what to think. I stopped it a couple of times and told myself, wow, this is worse than listening to Dan Burisch or Billy Meier stuff. I just hear a lot of things that there isn't much evidence for. I hear good arguments and information that has second hand information supporting it, but nothing concrete. I hear the suggestion, 'let's get this all out on the table'. Then what? How do you support the information with hearsay or second hand data? In my opinion there are some things I hear that do have support from good sources, but then a lot of far out ideas thrown in to muddy it all up. The story about Eisenhower's meeting with aliens has a little real support in the form of witnesses. We have people like Fife Symington (former AZ governor) coming out and providing real information, FAA chief of accidents/investigations John Callahan providing real solid data, and astronauts like Gordon Cooper straight up telling us they saw a flying saucer land on a dry lake bed and got video. It's hard to take things like reptilians and galactic federations seriously when there is no solid data on those subjects. Not saying they aren't there, but I think it's important to be careful about the information we focus on especially in the public eye. When you see Gordon Cooper say himself in several videos that he watched a saucer land and put 3 landing gear out, then take off again, you can't take that lightly. Why in the world would someone like that or an FAA official lie? But when I hear someone say reptilians are pulling the strings in high positions of power around the world, that is much harder to swallow. Documents please. Or testimony from someone who truly has a lot to lose (military, government official, highly respected scientist or astronaut).

      Delete
  9. After reading her rambling and disturbing biography ( http://cosmicgaia2012.com/about.html#2 ) I confess to being appalled that this poor tortured soul was not properly diagnosed with BiPolar Disorder and treated as a child. The symptoms, the assorted psychoses, the related delusions, all were glaringly apparent. Calling her a loon is hardly productive. She appears to be coping as best she can. What she clearly needed a very long time ago was a well qualified and emotionally understanding physician.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipolar_disorder

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was raised Buddhist, but was a born again Christian for many years.. Now a conspiracy theorist/light worker.. I have concluded that Laura is one of the most level headed human beings living on this planet. I truley believed that if someonene thought she was a Looney, and we set up a live debate for the both of them, Laura would win, hands down.. And would probably make a fool out of the other person. If anyone would have the guts to confront her in a live debate.. I would love to watch it.

      Delete
  10. Many of these rich political families are known to horribly abuse their children. Such "delusions of grandeur" are often a survival mechanism. I have no idea if this is the case here (I don't make diagnoses based on online articles), but is this is the case, why berate her? How does that make you better or more evolved?

    For all I know, Laura could be who she claims. Why not? It is now in her best interests to live up to the claim. And if she does so, it could only benefit humanity. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think we can all agree that nobody really knows anything for sure 100% about anything. Just because you cannot experience something directly or it cannot for some reason be measured or scientifically validated does not negate its existence, although i know for a fact that the hard core "science minds" would crucify me for that statement. In any case, To call someone a Loon or to have a page dedicated to exposing loons is derogatory and extremely immature. Its baby-ish non-sense and lacking in good character. I think Laura has some very valuable things to say. If you dig deep beyond the reptillian/ET stuff, there is real value in her teachings about the human journey, transformation, awakening, and using our difficulties as fertile ground for growth and enlightenment. This Blogger need to grow up. He/She is obviously afraid of change... afraid of personal growth... and enjoys smearing people that have things of spiritual value to teach humanity to rise higher in its evolution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I think we can all agree that nobody really knows anything for sure 100% about anything."

      Sure. Good critical thinking means *tailoring your confidence to the evidence*, nothing more.

      "Just because you cannot experience something directly or it cannot for some reason be measured or scientifically validated does not negate its existence, although i know for a fact that the hard core "science minds" would crucify me for that statement."

      No. But it *is* a fallacious argument from ignorance. Science is a method - the only one we have - that circumvent our natural biases and psychological proclivities (by definition: a scientific approach *just is* one where sound measures are taken to prevent bias, fallacies or shortcomings of human experiences to color the result). If you disagree with the results of science, it means that you reject the results of an approach that manages to see beyond biases and prejudices, in favor of claims you have *not* arrived at through such methods. It doesn't put you in a particularly good light.

      "He/She is obviously afraid of change... afraid of personal growth... and enjoys smearing people that have things of spiritual value to teach humanity to rise higher in its evolution."

      I am still baffled by the fact that some people fail to see the irony in claims like that, so maybe I will have to spell it out: You disagree with me, but instead of providing evidence, you *engage in psychological projections about my motivations* - that is, you are trying to smear me and describe me as afraid of change, babyish, immature, lacking in good character and so on - which is precisely what you also accuse me of doing.

      The difference is, of course, that you are engaged in an ad hominem fallacy (X is close-minded; therefore X's claims are wrong), whereas I am not. I provide ample evidence that the claims in question are silly, and conclude that the promoters of such claims are loons, which is at least not fallacious.

      Delete
  12. Oh.. thanks for all that clarification. What would us little, stupid people do without those self righteous linear thinking left brain geniuses! Hail to the Scientists... and All Knowing!

    Tell you what: You run your whole life by using the scientific method to direct all your choices and actions. Luckily we have free will... so that gives me the right to use science, personal experience and intuition blended together - a method the honors the totality of our brains... both right and left hemipheres.

    Sadly science negates the experience of anything beyond what can be measured scientifically and calls people Loons and Nut Jobs when they happen to have experiences that cannot be measured in a way that is acceptable to Science.

    Close minded-ness and black and white thinking is not very intelligent despite how intelligent and superior you "think" you really are.

    Again, try to look beyond the reptillian thing and seek the higher message she is trying to teach. There is only good things to be found. Sadly, you seem to have the proclivity to want to trash anything that would lead people to healing their lives.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ... and then we play the victim card. While at the same time smugly asserting superiority by dismissing me as close-minded. Classy.

      Of course, you also miss the point. Open-mindedness means being open to the possibility that you are wrong, and adjusting your beliefs when you are provided with evidence that you are, indeed, wrong. It does emphatically *not* mean sticking to whatever you'd like to believe in the face of all contrary evidence.

      As an open-minded person, I know a lot about the biases we humans are desperately prone to be subject to. Humans are horrible at figuring out how the world actually works, and there are good, and psychologically well-documented reasons for that. Science is the name for *the* method we have for circumventing these biases (including close-mindedness). And I mean that as a definition: If you apply any method to overcome confirmation bias, availability errors, common human mistakes about probabilities, memory biases, motivated reasoning, the Dunning-Kruger effect and so on, you *are* investigating the matter scientifically.

      In other words, and in danger of repeating myself, if science has provided evidence for X, that means that the methods used to circumvent biases and bad thinking, show us that X is the case. That also means that if you believe "not X", you are doing so for reasons that you have *not* arrived at by controlling for biases and psychological proclivities.

      In other words, it means that you don't care about the evidence if it goes against what you believe for reasons that are *not* evidence-based.

      And that is the very definition of being dogmatic, the opposite of open-mindedness.

      Being open-minded means following the evidence even if it takes you in directions you might not have wanted. Continuing to believe in things that evidence says is bunk - such as the stuff peddled by Laura Eisenhower - is dogmatism, not open-mindedness. And when you throw in ad hominems against scientists and the people who really take the effort to thoroughly investigate the evidence, the results don't exactly present you as an example of open-mindedness and reason.

      But yes, you are, of course, free to do whatever you wish, and I don't want to take that away from you. But you don't get the right to expect me to consider it anything but ridiculous.

      Delete
    2. Cant Prove it, so doesnt exist, your a Loon, end of story... and you call that open mindedness - ok, gotcha.

      I never once said that I believe everything that she said is a truth.

      What I did try to do was point you in the direction of considering the deeper more psychological underpinnings of her teachings that seem to mirror the teachings of psychologist Carl Jung.

      Do you know anything about psychology? Have you ever experienced periods in your life of difficulty and pain that prompted a positive transformation of some aspect of yourself/life? Do you know what EGO is? Do you know what psychological/emotional wounds you have, and have you healed them? Do you understand your more destructive side ... your shadow? Do you understand the connection between the emotions and physical health, and the mind and physical health? These are some of the things that Laura touches on, how these things operate and strategies for living the best lives we can live.

      I doubt you have any interest in these things and lack any understanding of these concepts because you have a robotic linear thinking mentality that compartmentalizes humans as separate parts that have no connection with each other. Body separate... mind separate... emotions separate. Give a drug to treat each and thats where the buck stops. You believe people to be robots devoid of a spirit or soul, simply meat and bone bags. There are deeper underpinnings to humans that science cannot measure, and to you, that means they dont exist, so you mock and ridicule others experiences and shame them for what they have experienced personally, on an inner level, a personal level, that cant be studied or quantified.

      I actually feel very sorry for you and the way you view life and people.

      Delete
  13. "Cant Prove it, so doesnt exist, your a Loon, end of story... and you call that open mindedness - ok, gotcha."

    So, instead of even trying to address the point, you create a completely ridiculous straw man, dismiss it by appealing to the character traits you attribute to that straw man, and then declare victory by smugly asserting your superiority. Nice.

    Psychology is a serious field of study, and does not resemble anything remotely what you describe. ("Body separate ... mind separate ... emotions separate" - what is that even supposed to mean?) Psychology also does a very good job of explaining the origins and sources of people's inner experiences, without appealing to magic, chi, ectoplasm or a medieval understanding of how human minds work. Your objections to a scientific approach to these things suggest that you reject all of this carefully assembled knowledge in favor of a fantasy world of magic.

    "There are deeper underpinnings to humans that science cannot measure, and to you, that means they dont exist"

    Wait, what? If science cannot measure them, what reason do *you* have to think they exist? After all, ask yourself this: Do the forces (or whatever) have any noticeable *effects* whatsoever (such as psychological effects)? If they do, then those effects can be measured. And that's how science measure forces in any case - by observing the effects, including psychological effects.

    Conversely, if there are forces the effects of which cannot be measured, it must be because they have no observable effects whatsoever on anything (including psychological effects). But if these forces have no effects on anything, including your experiences, why do you think they exist?

    Your inner life is yours to define. No one is going to tell you how you should experience things, what you imagine or feel. What you don't have any authority over is the explanations for why you feel that way, or the causes of these experiences. That's the domain of psychology, and psychology does a good job of that. There are, of course, plenty of things we don't know, but that doesn't mean that you get to fill the gaps in our knowledge with whatever mythology you fancy. That we don't know the causes or mechanisms underpinning some phenomenon is *not* evidence that it is whatever magic you would like it to be.

    And by the way: You repeatedly say that you don't accept everything Eisenhower says. However, you haven't specified what you accept and what you reject either. You can also stop feeling sorry for me, and at least stop using smug assertions of pity as a debate tactic - it's a ridiculous and blatantly dishonest strategy.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Funny, instead of your initials G.D., perhaps you should just smugly insert an "O" between the 2 letters. That would more accurately represent yourself, or at least how you view yourself.

    Cheers!

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Funny, instead of your initials G.D., perhaps you should just smugly insert an "O" between the 2 letters. That would more accurately represent yourself, or at least how you view yourself."

    Interesting gambit. I don't claim to know everything; instead, I admit that I may very well be wrong and am prepared to change my mind if anyone provides any good reasons for it. Rather, *you* are the one who claims to know of forces not measurable to science, and *you* are the one who claims that I am close-minded, narrow-minded and lacking knowledge and information, and *you* are the one who smugly reject the scientific approach when it conflicts with what you choose to believe.

    So who is it, then, who puts a lot of faith in their own abilities and opinions again?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Wow you guys are awesome, ROFL. I wish you both a Happy New Years. And may i suggest you look into the Resonance Project. Science and the O cult coming together. And remember we shall all prevail as we are all part of the great I AM. Namaste...

    ReplyDelete
  17. It is a typical abuse of the english language when CYNICS refer to themselves as skeptics. A skeptic is actually still looking for evidence to either support or refute various claims. A cynic is merely a sardonic and ofter bitter critic of anything he finds himself unable to understand. We all know about the "wolf in sheep's clothing" metaphor. Well, here's another one for you. Be ware of the CYNIC in skeptics garb" (in this case garb is also short for garbage). A cynic typically works overtime turning real FOOD FOR THOUGHT into GARBage.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dear Laura and Editor, Laura I am with you 100% on every level including your need to respond back. Unfortunately, I understand the Editors brick wall problem on the human level. He has not moved on from any level other than being a human skeptic?? as he calls himself. Laura you know all too well unfortunately that you cannot nor should you waste time trying to move these types of people out of their earth bound 3D virtual reality. Only those who know they are predetermined to move on with the shift can move out of their Earth bound captivity and those who ask for scientific proof of these things are obviously not destined to awaken anytime soon. The time is so very very limited and we must put our energies into those that are making the transition and need additional energy and guidance as I am one of them. I was like the Editor but I also knew something was part of me and that I was chosen for something I could not explain until only the right time when I would not question what was happening. This is that time, however, I still have so many factual questions that keep pestering me while at the same time I am moving closer to the shift without having some of these answers but it does not keep me from moving into the next cosmic transition. I actually have sadness and sympathy to the Editor that he should be trying to find the way that is within himself instead of seeking out the worldly ones that are actually the only hope they have to find their real purpose for being. Laura was put here to be a guide and you want to crush one of your only hopes. You still have time, look harder, real hard deep into yourself for questions and answers, you will find them but only if you truly are seeking love and truth, instead of seeking negativity and facts. The universe does not provide facts in the way a mere human demands them. Hope to see you and meet you Laura at the Cosmic Conference in Phila, PA in April 2015. It will be our first and may be our last attendance to this type of conference as we get so very very close to transition time. A light being and supposed distant relative. Pretty sure we are all the descendents originally from HANNS Nicholas Eisenhauer from around back in 1746 or around that time, so say Wikipedia if you can believe it. But not really important at this point in time. Best to you both. but especially Mr. Editor known only as G.D. ????

    ReplyDelete
  19. Some of what she has to say has merit. The task at hand should be to discern which aspects are worthy of our consideration and which parts are not. An open inquiry approach is without bias and capable of exploring any and all topics and finding what aspects are true, or not true and discuss them. Resorting to logical fallacies such as ad hominem attacks is not the best way to argue against ideas. It is better to explain the topics discussed themselves and why we think they have merit, or not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Tone trolling much, are we?

      "Some of what she has to say has merit."

      No, it doesn't seem that way to me. Care to come up with any examples?

      "An open inquiry approach is without bias and capable of exploring any and all topics and finding what aspects are true, or not true and discuss them"

      Don't take it too personally, but this is the kind of thing people who don't understand the basics of critical thinking tend to say, and I think it's worth pointing out the problem with it. There *is no such thing as approaching an issue without bias*. It's not possible. Human psychology doesn't work that way. And that's why we need certain tools that will prevent the results of our inquiry from being colored by that bias. Those tools are what we call "science". *Discussion* is a very, very poor substitute.

      "Resorting to logical fallacies such as ad hominem attacks"

      There is a logical fallacy called "ad hominem", but I don't think it is what you think it is. I committed no ad hominem fallacies in my post. Calling someone "idiot" is not a logical fallacy. Being rude is not a fallacy.

      The following argument type is *not* a logical fallacy:

      1. A says that p
      2. p is false
      3. Therefore A is stupid

      Depending on the premises, this can be a perfectly fine argument. It might be mean, of course, but once again: being mean is not a fallacy.

      The following is an ad hominem fallacy:
      1. A says p
      2. A is an idiot.
      3. Therefore p is false.

      I did not make any argument of that form in my post but stuck to the first form.

      The following *is* an ad hominem fallacy, however:

      1. A says that p.
      2. A is rude and mean
      3. Therefore, I have reason to be suspicious of p.

      Does that seem to be close to the argument you are making in your post (if you are making any argument at all)?

      Delete
  20. Dear Laura is participating in a Conspira-Sea cruise where she reveals the troof about alkemi: http://www.divinetravels.com/ConspiraSeaCruise2016.html

    ReplyDelete
  21. " you are not serving humanity or the planet"

    Actually, they are doing a great service by calling out the misinformed, the mountebanks and the whackos (like the subject of this post).

    ReplyDelete
  22. Laura, I just gotta say you are amazing!! We can't waste time or energy with people like this. Keep doing what you're doing!

    ReplyDelete
  23. I have been a student of Laura for a couple of years and have had the privilege of meeting her in person twice. She's genuine and emits so much love! There are few people like her in the world. I am forever grateful that she's in my world. She is Source's gift to Gaia and Humanity. I'll say it again Laura. "I love you!"

    ReplyDelete
  24. I was very enlightened by G.D.'s comments. I came to this site after doing a Google on Laura E. She has made claims without explaining where, how, and why she got her info...true or not. (I suspected not) This left me wondering and thinking upon those I have known in my life who have disorders or caused chaos in their own lives due to drugs, psychological issues, abuse, and ultimately proven they cannot make sound and rational decisions in their life along the way (and wildly accusing me of being something they assume about me, after I had the audacity to point out the cause/effect of their decisions). Not saying Laura has any of that, because I cannot diagnose or know her like that. But the results appear the same. Furthermore, I have seen others prop themselves above others too much, especially on the internet. It doesn't mean some of what they are saying isn't true, but that also doesn't mean some or all of what they are saying is true. Those that know the truth are usually willing to educate/explain it to others without attack, assumptions, and a convoluted mix in between. They simply explain their own known position with facts, be it emotionally charged or not. In my observation, G.D. did a fine job. Whether or not that reply above is THE Laura E., whoever that person is, does not understand inner peace, higher thinking, and open-mindedness by expressing the truth without arrogance or attacks. Why does any of you attacking G.D. even care what is said on this blog? Write your own blog to counter it, if you think you have enough information to keep an intelligent, well-informed blog going. I see no valuable information on Laura E's website to help me discern what she says as true or to empower myself with the information she makes claims to. Bottom line: it's all useless info towards my learning to actually affect or change my part of the world. What I have heard from videos where Laura E is the guest, leaves me with more questions than answers. WHERE does she get her INFORMATION to make such wild claims???? And I have been reading and watching these kinds of alien, light worker, conspiracy things since before the internet became a public forum. I've learned to observe the results of what people actually do and question WHO, WHAT, WHERE, WHY, and HOW (a basic 4th grade comprehension concept to writing). Most people are not all that they say they are. It's hard to find people that don't lie or aren't themselves misled into tangents, making pieces fit in their minds that, in reality, don't fit logically. And by association and admiration of Andrew Basiago - his shady history of himself - I tend to be very cautious about believing Laura face value with no explanations. By the use of logic from the conspiracy/lightworker field: If the power elites set out to start a new age movement to dissuade us from the "real" issues, if the governments are a part of this pyramid of trickle down manipulations, then it only means that Laura, great granddaughter of Ike, is also privy to this private family information to divide and confuse the rest of us; And never really explain yourself and all the new age concepts you present so we are blindly left to believe everything you say at face value.
    Overall, I have learned that if I disagree with anyone emotionally charged by their own ideas, strung together and weaved tightly with other erroneous ideas that are not actually tied to the same subject, they will not listen no matter how much I put a pleasant bow on it to make it palatable for them. Therefore, I save myself the mental gymnastics to appeal to the ignorant, and just call a spade a spade.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Laura Madeleine Bradshaw Mahon's daddy is a CATHOLIC priest. She is related to Nixon too. Susan Eisenhower endorsed Obama. George KVassilas was the original Horus down under. Tired of the ebolies.

    ReplyDelete
  26. It's always fascinating to me that the people who are supposedly enlightened and more sophisticated and have "seen the truth" also have horrible grammar and spelling skills.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I can't figure out how she's related to Ike. Ike and Mamie had two sons, John and Doud. Doud died age 3, so John is the only one to have had children. Of those children, only David Eisenhower (with Julie Nixon) had children, none of whom is Laura. Who the heck is this person?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought she was normal and found out otherwise, she is an American loon like y'all said, and far from the real McCoy that's too bad I had high hopes for this women, but she turned out to be just another Looney bin

      Delete
    2. I think she's the daughter of Susan Eisenhower (daughter of John). She is not listed in the Eisenhower family tree on Wikipedia, though I don't know what the significance of that might be.

      Delete
  28. I'm impressed at the effort G. D. puts into responses to irrational and fallacious commentators. I sometimes do this on Facebook, but I seriously lack the patience to perpetually instruct every credulous (and nearly entirely emotionally driven) person I encounter on attaining and exercising their own critical thinking skills.

    I'm appreciating this list. I've learned that there's considerable scientific consensus that aspartame doesn't cause cancer (though i never knew it was implicated as such), and I spent about two or more hours investigating just one minor aspartame-claimed issue (headaches) on pubmed, becoming frustrated by discovering a link between the authors and Pfizer (long story short: I tried to follow the research path and the papers, but the low participant count, conflicting results, and possible author relationships to Pfizer left me concluding that there's no conclusion, rather than taking either stance). It was a wholly frustrating experience and it is telling why so many intellectually lazy, credulous, or simply critical thinking inexperienced people jump at whatever conclusion best suits their ideologies.

    Anyway, thanks for the interesting read, for getting me to dive down a rabbit hole of published studies that I normally don't have the patience to do to such an exhausting degree, and for demonstrating good responses to people with anti-intellectual proclivities/insecurities.

    ReplyDelete