The Montague and Veronica Keen Foundation
Dedicated to love, truth and simplicity
© The Montague and Veronica Keen Foundation
All rights reserved
No part of this website may be reproduced without permission
Montague’s Message for Sunday, 4th November 2007

You are working so hard, my love. You need the complete co-operation of all around you to achieve all our goals. The thinking in your world is changing. One by one, they come to you to help them to understand life and consciousness. You are a facilitator of what is to come, because of your strong connection to Spirit. You have allowed Spirit to mould you. You are in their hands. Spirit give you the words which you must put into print. There is a need for this to be done. We know you will not let us down, your work is information-based and comes from the highest level, through me, to you.

Yes, darling, I have moved things around in my study. I needed to bring to your attention, something I wrote in 1996, and it is so relevant to today. I need you to copy the most relevant sections in our writing today. I know you understand its importance.

“There are many reasons why more people, today, appear to question and repudiate a purely physicalist interpretation of life: perhaps because of the approaching millennium, or through suspicion and fear of scientists and their interference with nature; perhaps as a by-product of the environmental and green movements and the so-called New Age beliefs which cling to them; perhaps a consequence of a decline in the influence and authority of the Church, and the breakdown in political and family terms of fixed codes of conduct and belief; perhaps due in part to widespread distaste for the frenetic materialism of Western culture, and perhaps due to the consequent rise of various strange and sometimes sinister cults and sects.

For the scientists, especially those in academia, it has become more difficult to break out of the straight-jacket of approved thought and to venture into unorthodox territory. The irrational fervour which led the Roman Church to formulate arbitrary dogma, from which any departure was a heresy to be dealt with by anathema or the rack, is closely paralleled by the rules of scientific correctness, disobedience to which can lead to a loss of promotion prospects or to ridicule and belittlement by one’s peers. The denunciations which have followed Jacques Benveniste for his experimental demonstration suggesting that water possesses some form of transmissible memory, and more especially the outcry against Fleischman and Pons for their claims to have created cold fusion, show what fate lies in store for those whose experimental evidence points disturbingly towards unorthodox conclusions. The peer-review system perpetuates establishment thought. The dominion of the research grant system reinforces it. Hence the creation of institutions like the Society for Scientific Exploration, or the Scientific and Medical Network in this country, which constitute forums for the expression and critical examination of heresies.

The defenders of orthodoxy, which in practice means behaviourism, reductionism, materialism, physicalism, all of which deny the existence of consciousness, let alone a soul, independent of the brain, see a rising tide of occultism and fundamentalism which threatens the foundations of rational thought. In America, where this battle is fiercest, Christian fundamentalism promises to match the bigotry and excesses of Muslim or Jewish fundamentalism, and the battlefield is in the religious instruction classes of schools and the role of creationism versus evolution. It is no remote academic debate: it is a struggle for the minds and hearts of the new generation. That struggle appears to be intensifying as we approach the Third Millennium.

The depth of feeling this arouses, and the determination to strike back at anything which attacks what they see as the essentially materialistic nature of the universe, has led many of the leading defenders of the faith into the very errors which they lay at their opponent’s feet. One form which serious psychical researchers suffer most, perhaps, is the kitchen sink approach. By assailing every belief system which defies the materialistic philosophy, the opponents of the paranormal have developed the contamination syndrome. By association of the nuttiest forms of occultist beliefs with such apparently sober-sided areas of anomaly as telepathy, dust is thrown in the face of rational inquiry. Those who believe in astrology or numerology are lumped into the same category as those who accept the validity of dowsing, the verticality of some hallucinations, the occasional capacity of the mind to foresee an event which has yet to be determined, the transmission of information from mind to mind, or the communication via trance mediumship of accurate evidence about third parties.

We may liken this to a battleground. While fervently proclaiming their dedication to an objective search for TRUTH, both sides look for the weakest links in the armoury of the opponents, for the least defensible ground: much like the confrontational postures of opposing council engaged to discredit a witness or undermine a defence. But there are two differences. One is that a court battle does not seriously pretend to the disinterested pursuit of truth by which standard the scientific community proclaims to live. The second is that exposure of a serious weakness in a legal defence is not necessarily fatal to the outcome if a sufficiently formidable array of counter-evidence can be mounted to sway the balance of probability. Not so with the paranormal. The parallel here is with the little finger in the wall of the dam, preventing a wholesale inundation. If this distinction is not appreciated, then the tenacity of the opposition and the ferocity with which it is now being pursued, cannot be understood.

Let me elaborate: the philosophic stance of the sceptic is no less deeply grounded in faith than is that of the most devout deist. His faith is in the indisputable domination of the laws which have been established to explain the working of the universe apparent to our five senses and operating within the three dimensions bounded by time. Beyond that there is nothing, nothing but the projections of human desire, the flights of imagination, the rich diet of illusion and fantasy. But because he is conscious that this philosophy has been seriously battered, the tenacity with which he defends his citadel is the more ferocious.

Hubris is a perilous destiny for those proclaiming the absolute impossibility of evidence undermining their belief system. But suppose we were able to produce, perhaps from out of a séance room, tangible evidence of physical changes in material objects, changes which simply could not have been created by normal means, would the sceptics behave as true scientists are committed to behave, or would they thrash about them in a desperate attempt to escape from the grim consequences of their own intolerance? I am curious to find out. It could be that this hypothetical possibility may soon be transformed into a direct and inescapable challenge.”

I intend to provide such a challenge in the near future.

Darling, I am becoming more and more active in your life, and it pleases me that you like and respect that. I can now step in, to agree and show my approval when certain things are being discussed. This is a very important month for us, there is much to achieve. We are making great strides. Opportunities will present themselves that will amaze and delight you. We in the Network send much love and protection to you, my dear wife, my soulmate. Forever your own Monty.