Cathee: I have lots of questions for you, Johnny.
Johnny: You're wondering if I've been somewhere else between going into the zero point hole and coming here. Is this a total shock to me? Yes and no. I'm not really physical now. I'm mainly astral, and so I have an awareness of much more than this room and this body. You don't have a sense of me being in the body speaking—it feels more like you're channeling me. Although, a couple days ago I felt very in, and was able to see out through your eyes at the beauty of the forest.
I'm amazed at how easy it is to come into your body, and I think that's because the other John already has. I don't know how to label us, because he's me and I'm him, but not really.
Anyway, I think he's done an excellent job of coming in, and I know that wasn't easy for him. So for me to come in . . . you perceive me as different from him, but I feel pretty comfortable here. I really do. I almost feel more comfortable in your body than in my old physical body, which like I've said, was always under assault from the way we had altered the environment. I'd exaggerate if I'd say it's like getting to become a newborn baby and come into a fresh body. But it feels pretty good. I know you think of yourself as a decrepit fifty-one-year-old woman, but you feel good to me, even though I've wiped you out here.
So it's a lot of fun, really, Cathee. I'm enjoying this. For me, it's being able to slip into the other John, and read through him. I get to enjoy his comfort and his love for you. He knows you very well. I do too, in some sense. But John knows you here, and he's pretty playful with this body. He's been giving me pointers.
It's a real stitch to meet him. It's heavenly to be so close in vibration, and yet to have had some different experiences. This is the closest to looking in a mirror I'll probably get, out of my old body. He's closer than a son. He's closer than a lover. There's a subtle resonance between us that's delicious. It's like if you're trying to taste rich fudge. You hold it in your mouth, and if you focus, you can taste the sugar, the butter, the chocolate, and the vanilla or cinnamon or almond flavoring. As you focus different places, you feel different flavors, but overall, it's just this satisfying full flavor. I feel like John and I together are the full flavor, but we each supply a different spice, which is lovely to explore.
I'm exploring verbally with you. With him, I do the energetic scanning/merging that astral beings often do with each other. But with someone who has so much the same as me, I could get obsessed with it. I could snuggle into him for aeons. It's the reflection you get back from someone that gives you a sense of selfhood, really. With John it is so refined. It's so sensitive, all the little nuances. With him being only a little bit different from me, it's not really a reflection I get back. The tiny difference between what he is and what I am is the reflection I get.
It's really sweet. We have exactly the same sense of humor, at root. And we have the same timing when we're sizing each other up. It really is like a mirror reflection. I move, and my arm in the mirror moves. I walk at a certain speed. He does too. I think at a certain speed. He does too, from an ironic, philosophical yet a little sacrilegious, playful place.
If people tend to fall in love with their soulmate, I'm in love with him. And if it feels like I'm not around a whole lot, it's because I'm focussed on John.
So, except when you want to know questions about either his life or my life after our split, I think we'll be pretty unified. We'll get past feeling around the different flavors of the fudge, and just be the fudge after awhile. But we do have a lot of different experiences, so it is fun to scan them.
Part of what's fun is to know that I have felt his experience of life in the background of mine. I don't know if you'd say it's in the dream state or the subconscious, but everything he's ever felt or done or been is there in the background. It's like putting on clear glasses lenses and getting to see, why did I have a particular feeling towards swanky New York publishers, you know? It's like, oh, that's why. I was one. [laughs] Or at least, I was around a lot of them.
He's merciless in his teasing, actually. That's a difference. He got sharper in his humor, and as a politician I had to be very careful with what I said. I couldn't take that one to the art form that he did. Obviously, both of us were scrutinized constantly, so it's not like he could be too flippant. But I think he had more fun, really, than I did, in general. He didn't have to hold up the world, or pretend to.
Now, you've wondered how other people figure in a split-off life. Let's start with you. Your split-off became a spirit guide to us at age eight for you and age seven for us, after a farm accident in which you survived and your split-off died. Then when I split off from John in our twenties, did I take your guiding parallel self with me? I think I took you more than he did. Maybe it was partly because high politicians are expected to be religious, and because they're often put in situations where prayer is about the only thing they can imagine will work. Where they're so self-conscious about every move they make because there's such power involved. I didn't have a name for you, but I think I had a feeling of a spirit guide. I would have called you a saint.
I don't know that you so much informed my decisions, because I didn't leave much opening for that, not spending a whole lot of time in prayer to listen. I didn't have much quiet time outside of church. And I didn't spend nearly as much time in nature as John did. But you were there to hold me. You held me.
As I've told you, I thought my relationship with Carolyn was fine. John and his version of Carolyn had the luxury of not being politicians. My Carolyn had to mature quickly. It was sink or swim at first, yes. It was very stressful at first for her. And we got married younger in my parallel than in John's, so maybe we had fewer former lovers breaking our hearts, and more of a sense of responsibility. Since we married after I'd entered politics, she understood when I proposed to her what she was committing to. There was no question. She had to get over the illusion that she could have a private life, which was quickly made apparent to her through discussions with the other Kennedy politicians and their spouses. And as I've said, she knew Jackie, so she had a mentor there too. I think she became aware that she could have some effect on history and the government, even in her role as wife. First lady is a nebulous position, or even senator's wife. But I think it's recognized as a position, in that you hope the senator will have an intelligent spouse who will be able to at least do pillow talk in such a way that the politician is helped to come to better decisions. You hope for a spouse who can read their partner well, bring out the best in them, and provide a secure base for them.
John's Carolyn was constantly surrounded by models that he had dated, and I think she was much more insecure. So it's funny how different two relationships can be in two different parallels with the same two people. I think John felt a glimmer in her when he met her of the senator's wife, so he thought "maybe this will work." But he wasn't a senator. He was someone putting a lot of movie stars in his political magazine, George. And she was expected to compete, really, not with politicians' wives but with models, by John's fans. And she wanted to compete. She wanted to be in there making suggestions and hanging out with glams. It was her world, since she had worked for a popular fashion designer.
Now, did her split-off happen at the same time as my split-off, or did she have two parallel selves going already when I met her? Well, I split off after law school, but I didn't meet her right away. I dated around too.
I didn't go straight into running for office after law school, but I did work in a couple government positions. Briefly as part of my uncle Ted's staff, and he got me a position with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, basically drafting potential legislation. Which was a good start. That lasted two and a half years.
Then I was a campaign manager for a democrat who wasn't a Kennedy for a year or so, for his presidential run. I was responsible for the northeast section of the country. And of course, with my name that was something they revelled in. But he wasn't a relative, he was a friend.
Then I met Carolyn, and so it might have been about the same time John met her. But I didn't date as many models as John did, or movie stars.
[Note from Cathee: There are more than two parallel Johns who have married more than two parallel Carolyns, so it gets a little confusing when I take a look.]
Johnny: If John had gone from being Editor-in-Chief of George to the Senate, and then to the White House, he would have had a more interesting route, and come with more creative juice than I had. It's ironic that he didn't make it there.
I was in government a long time, and more directly. And watched a lot of bad policy being made—especially environmental and telecommunications—that led us to our demise. We had external events over which we had no control, though, so I won't claim total credit as a legislator for the mess we were in. There were nuclear accidents—overseas, but nonetheless affecting us. More oil spills than you've seen so far. But also more breakthroughs, like with China. More cooperation. And worldwide, more population control, with less Vatican influence. Collectively the world got itself to a much more sustainable place in terms of population, to where we didn't give up on anybody. We expected to feed the world. But we went in some rather weird directions in order to do that.
So there was, in a way, more hopeful positive energy in terms of "we're in this together." When you have nuclear accidents, they let you see very graphically what would happen if you dropped a bomb. I think that was the biggest deterrent of anything. Cathee, the kind of old war photos you saw while you were in Japan of flesh dropping off the bone after a nuclear bomb was dropped on Hiroshima—there were photos on the evening news of similar problems. Only it was not a war situation. It was horrid.
Radiation was part of the pollution. You didn't want to breathe radioactive dust. And cancer—oh, cancer was like AIDs in Africa on your parallel. Even in our country, by the time I died the average life expectancy was fifty-six, largely because of cancer. It's ironic that Jackie lived longer in mine than in yours where she died of cancer. Go figure. Maybe she was smart enough not to smoke as much. She quit in mine, which was no small task for her. There was too much else in the air.
Cathee: Did your sister, cousins, uncles—you know, everybody—all have split-offs into both parallels? How does that work?
Johnny: I don't know how it generally works. We had a family boat accident around the time of my split-off that took five cousins out, and an aunt. They died much younger than their counterparts did in your parallel. But there were also cousins that I just didn't see again. I got busy with this or that, or they moved a long ways away. John kept in much better touch with them in his parallel.
My sister was very close to me all the way through, so she must have split off. Which makes me wonder if that accident, where we lost quite a bit of family, was a big split-off point for a lot of us. It's like that accident happened in one parallel and not the other, and those of us it happened for got more serious about life. Already we were policy-makers. I don't think this one was seen as an assassination. But it impressed us that life is short. We'd better make our mark young, if we can.
I'd say all around there were more oil spills, more hurricanes, and more everything that environmentally was a mess. But I also think we heard about more. Our press was a little more honest than yours—George excepted, of course.
In some ways the Kennedys had less glamour on my parallel. My Aunt Ethel, four of her own kids and my cousin Willie Smith died in the accident. Out. We were seen as mere mortals. We were remembered for deaths that weren't assassinations at that point. There was a question of who was driving the boat and what happened with the accident, but it was very conceivably an accident, at least to most people. There was booze involved, and who knows what else. I wasn't there, luckily.
When you look at how much energy goes into idealism and trying to make things happen in a lifetime—whoa. I'm kind of exhausted as I reminisce here. There was always some crisis, or always something you thought you could do to make the world a better place. Of course, you have to hype all that in a political speech, even if you wonder how you could possibly accomplish it, just so you're on the same page with what shared idealism you have with the voters.
I don't want to overdo the details here, but you were wondering. I don't understand how these split-offs happen. Because like, Cathee, you split off and died in a farm accident. There must be two versions of what happened there. In one version your family would have gone to your funeral. And in the other version there was no funeral, although everybody was almost as sad as if there had been [because a family member was maimed]. So your whole family must have split off. And even the people that heard about the accident . . . how does that work, Leapers? If Cathee's dad had a secretary who one way would have heard about the farm accident where Cathee lived, you'd think she would have heard about the farm accident where Cathee died. Do we have to split off parallels to wrap around everyone elses' lives too? It's mind boggling, if that's the case. How many people are involved, in big and small ways? The secretary may not have even met you kids, or she may have known you well. I'm baffled by all that.
Leapers: Think of how many acquaintances you have where you don't know their spouse or what their kids have done. You may even miss major events in a co-worker's life because you never hear about them. In a small town you might hear more, but often not until much later. For instance, Cathee, your mother tells you the news occasionally of high school classmates who have died or whatnot, but your mom could be on either parallel—where they died or they didn't die—and you wouldn't run into anybody else who would tell you the other version. Or you just wouldn't hook up the dates enough to figure out that it was a different version in which someone else last saw them.
It's a matter of resonance, paradigms, and purposes. You are seeing the world through a certain lens. Like with the accident of the Kennedys. . . . There was a barge involved, actually. And people besides Kennedys died in that one too—the Kennedys were just the most famous. But if it really affects you to hear that news, then you're in that resonance for the rest of your life. And you filter what news you perceive and what news comes to you through the knowledge that those Kennedys died involved with the barge. [Note from Cathee: I read later that John's uncle Steve Smith had worked for his family's barge operation company.]
With timelines and parallels, events are flickering all the time, in meandering loops that give you meaning. Like who wins the lottery—can only one person win the jackpot, or can several people split off different parallel selves and win the jackpot? And would most people notice that five different people won the jackpot, even though they're told only one wins it? No. Most people wouldn't notice. These flickers happen all the time around you.
News is very easy to alter, much more than who you met on the street yesterday and what they told you. You have a model of how this all works if you get your news on the internet. News providers will often give certain news to some people and other news to other people, based on "preferences." For instance, Cathee's been getting dished up a lot of celebrity news since John's come in because she tends to click on it more now. Before, she didn't. People are being fed different news according to what their perception is of the world. And reality does that too. It feeds you different news. We've talked about that with the website, that it's being accessed by people who are on several major parallels. (There are myriad numbers of parallels.)
Wouldn't this have to be true if you "create your own reality," but everybody else is creating theirs too? There's going to be some overlap, and some non-overlap, and it's immensely complex. We and many others say every thought you think is very important, but the truth is that there are major trends and currents in mass consciousness that make it very easy to think certain thoughts and not think other thoughts. That's why we sometimes tell you to news fast, or at least tone down what you're influenced by in what you know to be true.
It gets pretty interesting, doesn't it, that reading something in the news may predispose you to feel a certain vibration about a certain subject, and so then you're caught in that historical projectory. But it may also be true that what you're thinking draws to you certain news items.
We find it odd how few people think about sleep as much as Cathee does. How you only have a certain number of hours. And even within the hours you're awake, you're often in such different states of consciousness—dozing, daydreaming, interacting with other people, or reading information. And in different stages of intuitive knowing or logical thinking. Then on top of that, you as far as you know blank out about eight hours a day. And the system gets to sort all that data, and reboot again.
So when we talk about timelines, that's a rough, approximate term, because you're really a conglomeration of all these little episodes—even several in the same day. But then definitely at the end of the day the system goes into backup, you might say. It reconnects with itself to determine literally what in that day's input is going to stick in the brain and influence you from then on. And often, certain days' input is just deleted. It's not even deleted—it just doesn't stick.
For instance, you hear about the Kennedys' accident with the barge. And then you're glancing through the newspaper, and there's an article on Ethel Kennedy being honored at an awards ceremony. Your subconscious picks that up, but your conscious mind is just glancing through the paper, and you don't consciously absorb that information. You certainly don't spend any time thinking about it. Then at night, when your consciousness sorts data to see what goes into the brain's actual memory, that may get thrown out. It's inconsistent. That little piece of data slipped in from some other probable parallel and it just doesn't jive with what is in your brain already—that she died. So what in that case is keeping this all consistent is not some external reality sequence of events. What's actually keeping it straight is what got into the memory. Your whole consciousness tries very hard to keep that consistent. So once it decides to put Ethel getting killed in the brain, from then on it's going to screen out anything to the contrary. She's not still alive. If she was spotted, it was some hokey thing—it wasn't real.
Cathee had a friend who talked about when her boyfriend committed suicide. She was grieving inconsolably. One day she heard a knock on the door, and she opened it, and there he was looking as physical as ever. He had come to comfort her. This could be a case of her longing to see him overriding the cancelling out of that event from getting into the brain's awareness. It probably happens more often than you know, that a dead person goes to comfort the grieving and manages to even physically go knock on the door. That event was a co-creation between the two of them, since nothing else would work—we're sure they would have tried anything else first.
But then there's still the question of, will the person who lost the loved one be able to perceive that event? Or will it so not fit into their perception of reality, that it can happen but they don't even register it? They go, they open the door, they see 'em but they don't see 'em. He's there, but he's not there. And you can imagine if that's true of something that actually manages to be physical, how often that's true of people not seeing the spirits that come to visit them, etc.
As you move your focus of attention into the fourth dimension, you become much more able to perceive subtle energies, and subtle events even, like John's arrival. Neither of these Johns has come in a physical way at all to Cathee. The more you're able to perceive, the more the whole world gets thrown into an extremely complex multi-layered menagerie. Really, think how boring Cathee's life would be if she could not have perceived first John and then Johnny.
Cathee: That's makes me wonder how many other parallels of John have come by, or parallels of other people, and I missed them.
Leapers: Well, in this case, Cathee, we should take that back. John's arrival was physical in the sense that your body has had a heck of a time with it. It's unusual that he has walked in as physically as he has. And it's quite remarkable that you have been able to come upon life circumstances where you weren't getting distracted. Where you had the time to develop your intuitive ability to see, to experience, and to co-create John. Truly, to co-create John in this parallel having certain experiences with you, just as he is co-creating you.
We have talked previously about the creation of the world through perception. If you can perceive it, you can create it. But see, that's creating it in a way that is registering, because you perceived it. It's kind of circular. Do you co-create things that then you don't perceive, and so they don't seem real to you? All the time.
So it's very tricky, even when we're asking John to talk about his life. He's going to tell you what he managed to perceive about it. But now that Cathee has managed to perceive him telling her about it, and it's even on the recorder. . . . Half the time she doesn't remember what she has channeled into the recorder. Recorders are amazing, holding like substitute brain memories. But do they accurately play back what you put into them? Or is it that no matter what they say back to you, it's only what your brain can perceive them saying back to you that matters?
There are those who want to push the human/machine interface—the hybridization of humans with machines—so that computers extend the function of the brain, one might say. I can write something and the computer will record it, even if I forget what I wrote. That's externalization. But is there another level—the consciousness, beyond just the brain—that determines what I read when I read what the computer recorded for me? Most certainly yes.
It's fascinating to have this opportunity in this channeler who is able to compare here three versions of reality, only one of which she has memories, and two in which she has been told she was a guide but she doesn't remember being a guide. Will she be able to eventually remember being John and Johnny's guides, now that she knows? Can she find the focus of perception of herself as a guide to either John, and tune into and pull that back into her, just as she is pulling the Johns back into her in the walk-in experience, so to speak? This is what fascinates us. We're not quite sure what Cathee will be capable of doing.
She's also been told that John was a guide to her in the years after his death, before he walked in. And it certainly seems that way, because she has supposed evidence in dozens of channelings she and Peter did that led up to the walk-in perfectly, as if John were training her to receive him. Now, all that was typed up and printed out, so it seems like a very real thing. But of course, we have told you that you can change the past. Or as you can see, all that would have to be altered is the perception of the past, the perception that he trained her to be the walk-in that would receive him.
Your culture would have you believe that if you perceive a piece of paper with typewritten channelings on it from guides, that that is more real than an uneasy feeling you may have that something else was going on than what you see before your very eyes, typed up in front of you. That you typed. But the external world is no more real than the internal world. The perception of present events—of now—may or may not be any more accurate than your perception of a past event. Nothing is real, in short, until you make it such.
We mentioned quite awhile ago that we thought by now Cathee would be able to have John's memories, remembering people and events as he remembers them. Now, this hasn't seemed to happen, she thinks. But can you see how easy his memories would be to tune into if she didn't think they were something real in a brain that's now cremated—or who knows, stored in a bottle of formaldehyde on some black op shelf? And by the way, both of those realities may be true in different versions. Who really shot John's dad? Well, maybe a bunch of people did, or put his assassin up to it.
So why should you even bother to live a life if there's nothing you can consider real? And Cathee thinks the more important question is, how can her body possibly handle all these higher-dimensional shiftings about in this slow, lower-dimensional form? As she lies here feeling fried.
Well, let's take that question. Why do you feel fried? You don't understand the walk-in phenomenon enough to really understand that, although you can imagine. And you're not even sure exactly what form Johnny has just come to you in, and how the body interacts with that. Is he walking fully in? We've implied that he probably won't. Although, he seemed a couple days ago to be in pretty fully. Cathee felt stout. More playful than her usual self. More peaceful, actually, than usual.
Cathee: And I've felt heavier the last couple days. I don't usually think of my fat as feeling that heavy. But I think that was a perception of Johnny's heft.
Leapers: We glossed over the first question to get to the second, but that's OK. We made up the first one, not you. Why bother to live in a body if nothing's real anyway? We like that question.
But the second question. OK, Cathee. To let John speak through you . . . and we mean speak through you, because that involves not just talking to him in your mind, but actually picking up the recorder and speaking as a physical activity. To let Johnny speak through you, your body has to shift in ways that cause it—at the most subtle levels—to rev at different speeds, in different frequencies. There has to be a smooth going from his subtle energy through the brain, then out through the mouth. A lot of neurons have to fire. A lot of connections have to be made, including muscle connections.
You know how much trouble you had when John came in, and you're still having, with your mouth. That pain has kicked up again pretty badly. This time it's like jaw and ear problems, but it's mouth. It's like you feel that your teeth are too big on one side or the other, or the jaw is too big and it sticks out and interferes with the ear, and then there's a build-up of wax and infection or something. But it's like the mouth is like a gumby mouth—not physically so much as energetically in terms of the gyrations. But they have big effects on the physical. And you're wondering if your mouth will ever feel good again, just so you can chew. You felt today when you were chewing, your jaw was popping with every chomp.
We told you for a long time to not even bother to try to get it fixed until your mouth stopped changing so much with John. So you reached a leveling out there, and now here's another John speaking through you, and your mouth is going, whoa. Let alone the rest of your body. We did do some intense work yesterday to smooth it through. Although, you were channeling Johnny fluently before we did that. In fact, you felt it was harder to feel his energy after we adjusted you. Maybe now there's an easier flow so it's not as obvious.
We do think you need a lot of rest. We do admire and applaud your body for doing amazing things, Cathee. John could jump out of a helicopter and land on skis and go down a steep slope, but he couldn't lie here and channel himself.
Anyway, the answer to our question of why is it worth doing all this if reality isn't real anyway? We think experience is fun. If it's not fun, it's probably not worth doing. We say that about everything, right? So that's why you do it. It's fun. Aren't we having fun?
The piece we find especially fascinating in this, for our purposes at this time as a teaching tool for the masses, is the idea of polarity within oneness. Cathee is getting as close as she probably can right now to an experience of polarity within oneness. We Leapers set this up a little unusually, uniquely. So that Cathee would learn to channel. And there's been a playing back and forth, being each other's guides in the same lifetime that you've come together as walk-ins. And the etheric bodies in both John and Johnny's cases were not destroyed as in normal death. All this gives a rich interplay from which to feel a lot of resonance between all three of you—well, all four or five of you, if you consider those parallel Cathee guides that everyone else seems to remember.
Jackie's pointed out, "Well, I knew you were around." And Ted even pointed that out. They knew you, Cathee. They didn't consciously know you while they were alive. But they're like, "oh hi," now that they're out of the body. "Oh, there she is." You're afraid that your readers, if you let that go into a book, will think you're on an ego trip, deluded to think Jackie and Ted and everybody knew that you were John's alter self all along. But to us it's like, of course. Of course, on some level they felt you hanging around. You're not just celebrity name-dropping here. You're talking about a close family.
If John and Johnny were perceiving just themselves coming together, there may not be enough of an event there to register with a strong perception. But to have Cathee asking them about their coming together—as they speak she has a feel for it. She has quite a feel for both of their lives, because she is so close. And of course, they are close in now to her body and her focus of experience of her life. And you're all three getting very good very quickly at shape-shifting into each other, for lack of a better word. Seeing through the other ones' eyes what they're talking about, not just hearing the words.
So with the three of you now, it's exponentially more rich, what notes can be compared, and how to play with who's perceiving whom, and who's merging with whom. And to feel a bigger oneness, with more parts within the oneness perceiving each other. Once Cathee and John under daisy's tutelage had gotten a feel for that, it's not nearly as scary to add another person, another parallel self. Of course, the two Johns are closer in resonance than John and Cathee are, in a way. But Johnny is coming into a strong deva [spirit] of relationship between John and Cathee, that we call Cathee John. And it is that deva of relationship that is probably the most welcoming of him, and where he can hang out and enter the system the most easily.
Cathee seriously questions whether anybody will really want to read this. Or is she just playing with an afternoon here in a totally unproductive way? Alright, we'll admit that there's only a certain percentage of the population that will think this is interesting, but it's still cutting edge. It's still very important, we think. And what are the practical applications of this? Why know this?
You are helping to consciously create a whole new branch in the evolution of the human in this part of the galaxy. Somebody's gotta do it. It might as well be you.
Cathee: Thank you, Leapers.
from John Kennedy Jr.: Two Parallel Selves to:
Part Two of The Parallel Worlds Handbook
Intro to The Parallel Worlds Handbook
© Cathee Courter and Peter MacGill, nature photos and text. All rights reserved. Photos of John Kennedy, Jr. are for educational and research purposes.
You may (and are encouraged to) copy and distribute this message as long as you change nothing, credit the author(s), include this copyright notice and web address, and keep it free of charge.