A few days ago, an astute reader informed me that there were differences between the new edition of the Key and the one I published in 2002.

The 2002 edition, it turns out, was secretly censored by unknown parties. Crucial changes were made, that had the effect of obscuring and diminshing the message of the book. If you have the old edition, you can use this journal entry to annotate it. To make this easier, I have provided page numbers from the old edition beside each comment that needs to be changed.

I provided Tarcher/Penguin with the same copy of the dialog between myself and the Master of the Key, dated November 16, 2000, that I used in the creation of the first edition.

My edition was changed by an unknown party. The current Tarcher edition reproduces the actual dialogue exactly, changing only a few typographical errors and misspellings. Thus the Tarcher edition contains the actual, correct dialog, while the one I published in 2002 does not.

The file that I sent to the printer of the orginal edition and to Tarcher is dated November 16, 2000. It was generated by converting the a Word file into PageMaker using the conventional process, which certainly wouldn’t have led to the changes that appeared in the book.

At some point prior to being printed, the file was edited by somebody other than me, and the edits resulted in crucially important changes. When I got the proofs back from the printer, they corresponded with the original, but when the book was actually printed, changes had been made.

These changes are extremely subtle and brilliant. They were made by a skilled censor with a very definite agenda, which was to diminish the ways in which the dialogue offers empowerment to the reader.

Since the proofs were accurate, I did not think to check the finished books, and thus have been unwittingly selling the edited version for ten years.

I have to say that I am appalled and horrified by this, and extremely glad that the actual conversation, as I remember it, has finally been published.

I just thank God that the Tarcher edition contains the actual dialogue, as it was meant to be read. In a sense, therefore, the SECOND edition of the Key is really the first!

Here are some of the notable differences between the Tarcher edition, which follows the original transcript, and my edition, which does not:

New Edition:

Ah. I’m lost.
All being includes all elements of the earth, and thus all are part of all bodies. We are the consciousness of the planetary level that it has spent all of its life evolving, each and all of us. My being is the awakening earth. As is yours. The destiny of earth and the destiny of man are one. If we kill earth, we kill ourselves. If we die before our time, then we will not be able to enter ecstasy as a whole being. You are not a whole being, child. And ‘Whitley’ is only a tiny part of you. All mankind in all time is a whole being.

Old Edition P 30:

Ah. I’m lost
All physical being includes the same elements, and thus all are part of the earth and of each other. Living bodies are the consciousness of the planet. Man is earth’s mind. If man kills earth, then earth has committed suicide, because its mind has reached the next level, which is ecstatic union with the rest of the universe.

Comment: The statement in the new edition is closer to what I remember being said, and it is profoundly empowering because it contains the powerful sentence, "All mankind in all time is a whole being."

New Edition:

If we kill earth before we have all reached ecstasy, what happens?
We wait until and if the earth spins elemental bodies once again that fit all the attachments of our energetic bodies. If it does not, then we wait forever. We remain incomplete.

Old Edition:

This crucial idea is not present in the text of the 2001 edition. It is a gentle warning, but a very important one. It shows us why we need to preserve our planet, how deeply this matters to us.

New Edition:

What’s it like, going to another planet?
Other worlds exist on many different levels, and contain beings of many different levels and appearances. The details from world to world can be very different. But the basic laws of reality remain the same.

Old Edition P 34:

What’s it like, going to another planet?
The details from world to world can be very different. But the basic laws of reality remain the same.

Comment: The text in the current edition adds the concept that worlds "exist on many different levels and contain beings of many different levels." This would appear to include the possibility of parallel universes.

New Edition:

There are aliens here?
Using you and guiding you.

Old Edition P 35:

There are aliens here?
Some using you and some guiding you.

Comment: The original transcript and current edition imply a consistency of policy among all aliens who are here, who are both using us and guiding us. The first edition suggests that different groups may have different motives—a skillful lie, I believe, intended to convert an empowering statement into one that will lead only to confusion. It strikes me as a small but extremely sinister edit.

New Edition:

We’re being exploited?
You are, but also helped. You are being guided to your place as guides of another world.

Old Edition P 35:

We’re being exploited?
You are, and in some respects horribly, by creatures of the dark. But you are also being helped. You are being guided to your place as guides of another world.

Comment: This difference is consistent with the one noted above, where the original transcript suggests a single alien presence both exploiting us and guiding us, while the first edition suggests different types of aliens with differing agendas. The first edition added the idea that ‘creatures of the dark’ were present. There is nothing else in the book that suggests ‘creatures of the dark’ and the phrase, with its lurid, horror-story overtones, doesn’t sound like the Master of the Key. I think that this was added so that people would seize on it and waste their energy indulging superstitions of demons and such, when the truth is that we need to see ourselves as we are, a mysteriously self-aware presence in an unconscious world, facing not illusory "creatures of the dark," but rather facing ourselves.

New Edition:

Another world is in control of this one?
Yes.

Old Edition P 36:

Another world is in control of this one?
Other worlds participate, both elemental and energetic.

Comment: At least the censor was consistent. The simple "yes" has been replaced by a statement that can, once again, send us into a labyrinth of confusion.

New Edition:

How do they control this world?
By planning, and they use mind control.

Old Edition P 36-37:

How do they control this world?
Very generally.

Comment: All I can say is that I am very glad that the current edition was published, otherwise this frank truth would have remained hidden. In my opinion, this is the most disturbing change in the whole book. "Very generally" tells us nothing. "By planning, and they use mind control," tells us everything.

New Edition:

Am I under mind control?
The opposite. The technological intervention that has occurred in your case has been done to make it certain that general fields of control will not affect you.

Old Edition:

Question and answer not present.

Comment: I vividly remember asking this question, and thinking at the time that the ‘technological intervention’ that he was referring to was the implant in my left ear. I suspect that I am among a very small band of people who are not subject to this general level of control, and that my readers and I constitute the great majority of people who are free of this general influence. It is why we see the world as it truly is, and why the vast majority of people around us seem strangely blind to what to us appears to be obvious reality. They are blind. They have been blinded. For whatever reason, we can see.

New Edition:

General fields of control?
Directional suggestion is applied to all who are enhanced electrically. This is the means of control of military and government.

Old Edition P 37:

General fields of control?
Directional suggestion.

Comment: Again, the statement in the edited first edition is essentially meaningless and certainly useless. But the statement in the unedited version is filled with meaning and even suggests a potential means of escape for a species that I believe is being held in a state of mass hypnosis.

New Edition:

Telepathy?
Radio frequencies. Extremely sensitive circuits can pick up and decode thought. Microwaves can be used to project thought into the brain. But the fields of which I speak are much more general. They create tendencies. The desire is to preserve the maximum amount of freedom in the maximum number of individuals.

Old Edition P 37:

Telepathy?
Extremely sensitive circuits can pick up and decode thought. Microwaves can be used to project thought into the brain. But the fields of which I speak are much more general. They create tendencies. The desire is to preserve the maximum amount of freedom in the maximum number of individuals.

Comment: The censor here removed the sentence "Radio frequencies." By doing this, he cuts off any possibility of actually understanding the technology that must be involved here.

New Edition:

What do they do here?
They enforce mankind’s blindness by preventing science from exploring the key mysteries of the past and discovering a practical means of expanding into the universe, and they maintain the official secrecy that keeps the question of whether or not aliens are here from being answered.

Old Edition P 39:

What do they do here?
They enforce mankind’s blindness by preventing science from exploring the key mysteries of the past and discovering a practical means of expanding into the universe.

Comment: The secret censor removed yet another reference to governmental involvement from the old edition. But the new edition includes the full statement that was actually made, which makes it clear that there is some sort of penetration of government, and use of official secrecy to conceal themselves.

New Edition:

Was Christ God?
The promise of resurrection is the essential promise of being. Rebirth is not a literal reconstitution of the elemental body. It is, rather, awakening from the sleep of being. Resurrection can take place in you right now. You are Lazarus in the tomb, all of you. And Christ is always knocking upon the door, calling you to come out. Soon, the tomb will be torn down around you, and you must come out.

Old Edition P 39:

Was Christ a product of this science?
The promise of resurrection is the essential promise of being. Rebirth is not a literal reconstitution of the elemental body. It is, rather, awakening from the sleep of being. Resurrection can take place in you right now. You are Lazarus in the tomb, all of you. And Christ is always knocking upon the door, calling you to come out. Soon, the tomb will be torn down around you, and you must come out.

Comment: The answers are the same, but there is a critical difference in the question, one that reflects on me. In the old edition, I am made to ask an arrogant, cold question. In the new edition, the question that appears is the one I actually asked: Was Christ God?

New Edition:

What practice would make us physically able to communicate?
Over the course of our discussion, everything you need to learn how to objectively communicate with these beings will be given, just as all information necessary for your science to begin to detect living energy, which is trying now to communicate with you.

Old Edition P 41:

What practice would make us physically able to communicate?
When you know by the use of scientific instruments that you are in the presence of such a being, go into a meditative state. Concentrate your attention on your physical body. You will soon find yourself in communication.

Comment: The reply in the old edition is intended to disempower. What ‘scientific instruments’ are we supposed to use? No indication of that. Then the promise, ‘you will soon find yourself in communication.’ This is a very subtle and sinister comment, intended to reinforce failure. By contrast, what he actually said is that the conversation itself contains the information we need to learn how to communicate, and all information necessary for our science to make a start at detecting living energy, and ends with the precious and empowering reassurance that it is trying to communicate with us now.

Old Edition P 41:

Do energetic beings appear in the physical world?
An example would be the much maligned crop circles. These are two dimensional portraits of these beings, self-created. They are trying to introduce themselves to this age.

New Edition:

How?
An example would be the much maligned crop circles. These are two dimensional portraits of these beings, self-created. They are trying to introduce themselves to this age.

Comment: Here, it looks as if my mysterious editor simply preferred a more precise question that the one I actually asked, but a crucial piece of information is omitted: that they are trying to introduce themselves "to this age." We have a lost and muddled history. Apparently somebody does not want us to realize that there has been an earlier attempt to communicate with us.

Old Edition P 41:

Why doesn’t anybody believe in them?
They are a manifestation of the rising of the dead and thus the end of time during which souls can change. For those souls who are yet incomplete, this is terrifying, because they fear two things: first, that this means that it’s too late for them; second, that they will, if the conjoin the world of the dead, also see as the dead see, and thus become unable to change even if the earth remains able to support elemental bodies. So they pretend that it’s all false. There are many other reasons to conceal such things, but these are the strongest.

New Edition:

Why doesn’t anybody believe in them?
To face the return of the dead is to face the change of the age. For those souls who are yet incomplete, this is terrifying, because they fear two things: first, that this portends that the time during which they can grow and develop is ending; second, that they will, if they conjoin the world of the dead, also see as the dead see, and thus become unable to change even if the earth remains able to support elemental bodies. So they pretend that it’s all false. There are many other reasons to conceal such things, but these are the strongest.

Comment: Here the censor wanted to muddy the waters. He removed the stunning, utterly clear sentence that is among the most powerful and clear ever uttered by anybody: "To face the return of the dead is to face the change of the age." This statement was burned into my soul. It is, in fact, the central reality of our age and the central meaning of the whole close encounter experience. It is also theme of the book I am publishing in January, ‘What Is to Come.’ To understand it is to understand human reality as it is unfolding right now. I can only thank God that it is at last available to my readers.

New Edition:
What has this all got to do with resurrection?
The resurrected man is a consistent theme of the mythology that developed out of observations of a certain type of being, beginning with Osiris and ending with Christ. Fully conscious beings adept in this science can enable the radiant body to appear as an elemental body, so perfectly imprinted are its sensations on their energetic being.

Old Edition:
Statement censored.

Comment: This incredible statement tells us that resurrection is not a mystery, but a practice that is potentially available to anybody, and also tells us that Jesus is not the only being who has done this. I can well understand why somebody seeking to diminish the empowering potential of the Key would remove it.

New Edition:

You are saying that the demon is not evil, that he is—what–the bringer of knowledge?
We learn from our mistakes. But those who give themselves to evil suffer. Make no mistake. They can become so heavy that they sink into the earth. Just as the energetic body can enjoy extraordinary pleasure, it can suffer excruciating pain. You have in your body a few million nerves. But in your energetic body, every tiny bit of being can experience the totality of ecstasy or agony.

Old Edition P 49:

You are saying that the demon is not evil, that he is—what–the bringer of knowledge?
We learn from our mistakes. But those who give themselves to evil suffer. They can become so heavy that they sink into the earth. Just as the energetic body can enjoy extraordinary pleasure, it can suffer excruciating pain. You have in your body a few million nerves. But in your energetic body, every tiny bit of being can experience the totality of ecstasy or agony.

Comment: Dropping the sentence "Make no mistake" removes emphasis from the statement and makes it easy to pass over.

New Edition:

What did the word sound like?
I don’t know, I wasn’t there.

Old Edition P 52:

What did the word sound like?
A whine.

Comment: This is just an outrageous change. Sickening, and doubly sickening to me that I never noticed it. "A whine," indeed. It’s calculated to make the Master of the Key look silly and arrogant, when his actual statement makes him appear clear, careful and humble.

In the old edition, I then ask him ‘That’s a joke?’ He says, ‘It’s a joke.’ In the new edition, this exchange obviously isn’t present.

New Edition:

And nobody ever leaves the recurrence? Every soul eventually comes back for a new life?
All recur, all do not.

Old Edition P 54:

And nobody ever leaves the recurrence? Every soul eventually comes back for a new life?
If needed.

Comment: It’s almost as if the ambiguity of the Master’s actual statement bothered the censor, who wanted a simpler answer. In truth, the Master’s comment is extraordinarily multidimensional. It means two things at once: first, that we all share in everything that happens to any of us; second, that even though we must live many lives, we also will eventually be free, all of us. A glorious promise in an incredibly dense few words, reduced by the censor to the mundane.

New Edition:

What’s going to happen to us?
You have come to the end of the resources that were given you in the time that was given you. We measured the rate at which you would expand and grow very precisely, and fitted your development to a calendar which we devised called the Zodiac. In your writings, Whitley, you have wondered why mankind would have such a long-count calendar. Why were simple farmers in need of it? They were not. We needed it. The constellations of the Zodiac are arbitrary inventions to enable us to mark the progress of the equinox and keep track of exactly where you are in your journey. At this moment, the little fish of Pisces is about to be spilled out onto the dry land by Aquarius. All you know how to do, little fish, is swim. How will you swim upon the dry land?

Old Edition P 56:

What’s going to happen to us?
You have come to the end of the resources that were given you in the time that was given you. We measured the rate at which you would expand and grow very precisely, and fitted your development to a calendar which we devised called the Zodiac. In your writings, Whitley, you have wondered why mankind would have such a long-count calendar. Why were simple farmers in need of it? They were not. We needed it. The constellations of the Zodiac are arbitrary inventions to enable us to mark the progress of the equinox and keep track of exactly where you are in your journey. At this moment, the little fish of Pisces is about to be spilled out onto the dry land by Aquarius. All you know how to do, little fish, is swim. How will you swim upon the dry land? Let me give you a hint: that water of Aquarius is the energetic body.

Comment: The mysterious sentence that is added to the statement, "Let me give you a hint: that water of Aquarius is the energetic body" is wrong. It is a misdirection. The truth is that the water of Aquarius is the world around us. I assume that this misdirection was intended by the censor to render the statement useless to the reader, which is consistent with what I perceive to be a desire by somebody who is in control of our world to continue to deceive us in every way possible so that we will blunder into the great changes that are coming in a state of total ignorance, and end by losing every shred of civilization and humanity in a worldwide holocaust of destruction and terror.

New Edition:

The Meister Eckhart? How did you know I was interested in that?
I read over shoulders, child. A bad habit of mine. God laughed, and his laughter begat the son, and their laughter begat the spirit, and out of the laughter of the three poured the creation. Laughter is the key to everything. It is far more powerful than prayer, than meditation. It is the stuff of which the world is created. Find laughter, find freedom.

Old Edition P 67:

The Meister Eckhart? How did you know I was interested in that?
I read over shoulders, child. A bad habit of mine. God laughed, and his laughter begat the son, and their laughter begat the spirit, and out of the laughter of the three poured the creation. Laughter is the key to everything. It is far more powerful than prayer, than meditation. It is the stuff of which the world is created. Find laughter, find God.

Comment: Once again, the censor is consistent in spreading disempowerment, and doing it with great cunning. "Find laughter, find freedom" is an incredibly valuable and useful statement. "Find laughter, find God" tells us very little of practical value.

I cannot tell you how grateful I am to the reader who noticed these changes. He naturally thought that I had rewritten the dialog, which I would never do. When I realized what had actually happened, I also understood a great deal more about my life and the lives of those of us who are open to material like this.

Overall, this does NOT mean that the original edition of the Key is without value. On the contrary, it is filled with wisdom and valuable informaiton–just less of it than there should have been. I am so grateful, though, that the new edition exists!

I know now why so many people tune me out. They’re captives. Sleepers. Rendered passive in the face of a world that is disintegrating before their eyes. Well, they might be fodder, but I’m not and neither are you, or you wouldn’t be here reading this right now.

We are outside of the context of control that rules this world. Now, I don’t think that it is necessarily evil. What it is doing is making sure that the full shock of what is coming impacts the human species as intensely as possible.

So, why are we outside of the enormous barnyard that contains the vast majority of the human species? The answer is obvious to me: there is a different fate in store for us, and for all who wake up and join us. We are here because we are able to face the unknown, not with answers that, in the end, are just guesswork, but with the truest and most human of all responses: the question explored with care and intelligence, but left open.

130 Comments

  1. FWIW, many of those examples
    FWIW, many of those examples did, in their original form, disturb or confuse me. I was especially put off by the “whine” response. A subtle, brilliant evil was definitely at work. Seriously Whitley, are you sure this hasn’t happened to any of your other works?

    1. I recall reading this word
      I recall reading this word and being stunned and confused at what Whitley or the Master of the Key could possibly mean: it almost seemed like something a person/wiseaker would say as an arrogant joke. It reminds me of the sickly arrogant talk of the more idiotic “politically correct” geniuses we currently must tolerate. I thought I was imagining things.

  2. FWIW, many of those examples
    FWIW, many of those examples did, in their original form, disturb or confuse me. I was especially put off by the “whine” response. A subtle, brilliant evil was definitely at work. Seriously Whitley, are you sure this hasn’t happened to any of your other works?

    1. I recall reading this word
      I recall reading this word and being stunned and confused at what Whitley or the Master of the Key could possibly mean: it almost seemed like something a person/wiseaker would say as an arrogant joke. It reminds me of the sickly arrogant talk of the more idiotic “politically correct” geniuses we currently must tolerate. I thought I was imagining things.

  3. Thanks for making this known,
    Thanks for making this known, Whitley. The censorship underlines the value of what you share. The more obstacles are put up, the more I want to know what the truth is.

  4. Thanks for making this known,
    Thanks for making this known, Whitley. The censorship underlines the value of what you share. The more obstacles are put up, the more I want to know what the truth is.

  5. I am not sure that this
    I am not sure that this hasn’t happened to my other books. However, it is less likely because they have all gone into paperback, meaning that the publishers have given me paperback proof pages, which I read religiously, and they have been exactly like the hardcover editions.

    With conventional publication, things like this are harder to do because there are so many points at which manuscripts are checked by so many different people. That’s why the Tarcher edition came through intact, while my edition was changed. There was only one person to check my edition: me. Not enough, it seems.

    Boy, am I furious about this. Just furious. My question is not so much ‘have they done this to my other books’ but ‘what else have they done to my life and my career?’

    I want answers!

  6. I am not sure that this
    I am not sure that this hasn’t happened to my other books. However, it is less likely because they have all gone into paperback, meaning that the publishers have given me paperback proof pages, which I read religiously, and they have been exactly like the hardcover editions.

    With conventional publication, things like this are harder to do because there are so many points at which manuscripts are checked by so many different people. That’s why the Tarcher edition came through intact, while my edition was changed. There was only one person to check my edition: me. Not enough, it seems.

    Boy, am I furious about this. Just furious. My question is not so much ‘have they done this to my other books’ but ‘what else have they done to my life and my career?’

    I want answers!

  7. This is very interesting. My
    This is very interesting. My internet went down last night from about 8 PM to midnight (when I was fast asleep). I wake up this morning and it is fixed and Voila! I have this incredible journal entry to read. What follows is equally astounding (but not unusual because of the interaction I have with my Visitor Guide). I have a copy of both the old and new Key. I have to admit that I never read the old Key. Every time I picked it up to read I was told by my Visitor Guide, “No, don’t read it. It is not correct.” I thought that was odd and I never knew why she would say this since everyone was talking about how great it was. However, since I trust her completely, I did not read it. Now I know why she said that. She also told me to buy the new edition of The Key and read it even though many people have said since they have the old one they were not buying the new one. Some of the people on UC know I have the old one and never read it, so there is some validation to what I just said.

  8. This is very interesting. My
    This is very interesting. My internet went down last night from about 8 PM to midnight (when I was fast asleep). I wake up this morning and it is fixed and Voila! I have this incredible journal entry to read. What follows is equally astounding (but not unusual because of the interaction I have with my Visitor Guide). I have a copy of both the old and new Key. I have to admit that I never read the old Key. Every time I picked it up to read I was told by my Visitor Guide, “No, don’t read it. It is not correct.” I thought that was odd and I never knew why she would say this since everyone was talking about how great it was. However, since I trust her completely, I did not read it. Now I know why she said that. She also told me to buy the new edition of The Key and read it even though many people have said since they have the old one they were not buying the new one. Some of the people on UC know I have the old one and never read it, so there is some validation to what I just said.

  9. Whitley, I would want answers
    Whitley, I would want answers too…and now.

  10. Whitley, I would want answers
    Whitley, I would want answers too…and now.

  11. Whilst this is very
    Whilst this is very disturbing, it is also very telling, even positive. Why? Perhaps we should look at this, not as an injustice, but as a victory of sorts – it exposes the depth and detail of the censorship that is attempted in all aspects of human life, and it also highlights the incontrovertible nature of the event, the questions and the responses.

  12. Whilst this is very
    Whilst this is very disturbing, it is also very telling, even positive. Why? Perhaps we should look at this, not as an injustice, but as a victory of sorts – it exposes the depth and detail of the censorship that is attempted in all aspects of human life, and it also highlights the incontrovertible nature of the event, the questions and the responses.

  13. Whitley,
    I have read the old

    Whitley,

    I have read the old “The Key” more than once. While I may purchase the uncensored version, trust that I got a lot from the first one, and after reading the edited portions above, I feel that I truly did not miss a thing. Some of us do have the ability to sift through things, and also think and feel the truth.

    I am going to say this, realizing that many will think it sheer nonsense, but I believe we have had several shifts in timelines/reality since you wrote the first book. Maybe some of us have somehow found “The Key” to consciousness across timelines. Maybe the original book was not censored—maybe it was the way you wrote it and somehow you (and WE) are remembering a new timeline, complete with a book that is to be interpreted by a whole new audience who either did not read, or understand that first edition.

    Call me crazy, but I see this as a chance to reach more people and in a slightly different way—a way that the people in this new timeline NEED. “The Key” mentions compassion as giving people what they need. I got what I needed from the old, censored version of your book. You have been given a ‘re-boot’. 🙂

  14. Whitley,
    I have read the old

    Whitley,

    I have read the old “The Key” more than once. While I may purchase the uncensored version, trust that I got a lot from the first one, and after reading the edited portions above, I feel that I truly did not miss a thing. Some of us do have the ability to sift through things, and also think and feel the truth.

    I am going to say this, realizing that many will think it sheer nonsense, but I believe we have had several shifts in timelines/reality since you wrote the first book. Maybe some of us have somehow found “The Key” to consciousness across timelines. Maybe the original book was not censored—maybe it was the way you wrote it and somehow you (and WE) are remembering a new timeline, complete with a book that is to be interpreted by a whole new audience who either did not read, or understand that first edition.

    Call me crazy, but I see this as a chance to reach more people and in a slightly different way—a way that the people in this new timeline NEED. “The Key” mentions compassion as giving people what they need. I got what I needed from the old, censored version of your book. You have been given a ‘re-boot’. 🙂

  15. I am curious to the ‘who’.
    I am curious to the ‘who’. The censor seems like an expert, not some intern romping through a small press’s slush pile. So after WS proofed it, it was to go to press and then the manipulation ocurred. Whom would benfit from this effort?

  16. I am curious to the ‘who’.
    I am curious to the ‘who’. The censor seems like an expert, not some intern romping through a small press’s slush pile. So after WS proofed it, it was to go to press and then the manipulation ocurred. Whom would benfit from this effort?

  17. The book was self published.
    The book was self published. How could you not notice or at the very least…fail to be aware of the differences? It took ten years for you to be made aware of edits to your own life changing conversation? And from a reader? I do not doubt that the experience occurred…as much of the content matches my own reality…but what seems much more likely is that either from a desire by you or your publisher….the need to separate this book from the other…giving previous readers an incentive to buy the new one…controversy etc., is a much more obvious scenario. We all have to eat…but seriously…stick to the story. The real one. What’s next? Never before read, deleted text from the original conversation? You are a smart man, don’t fall into the trap of greed.

    1. @Gary, With all due respect,
      @Gary, With all due respect, the points you raised, while valid questioning, are highly improbable. Although I admit the conspiracy angle is deliciously tantalizing. First and foremost, Whitley’s offering of the differences here together with his commentary negate the question, and completely remove the profit motive for those who care. Secondly, if you were aware of his real situation you would realize how incongruent this idea is. Finally, no writer that I know typically compares jot and tittle what he takes on a leap of faith to be correct galleys of his (or her) work. I know it’s not good form to argue from the specific to the general, but then I’m not a professional writer.

  18. The book was self published.
    The book was self published. How could you not notice or at the very least…fail to be aware of the differences? It took ten years for you to be made aware of edits to your own life changing conversation? And from a reader? I do not doubt that the experience occurred…as much of the content matches my own reality…but what seems much more likely is that either from a desire by you or your publisher….the need to separate this book from the other…giving previous readers an incentive to buy the new one…controversy etc., is a much more obvious scenario. We all have to eat…but seriously…stick to the story. The real one. What’s next? Never before read, deleted text from the original conversation? You are a smart man, don’t fall into the trap of greed.

    1. @Gary, With all due respect,
      @Gary, With all due respect, the points you raised, while valid questioning, are highly improbable. Although I admit the conspiracy angle is deliciously tantalizing. First and foremost, Whitley’s offering of the differences here together with his commentary negate the question, and completely remove the profit motive for those who care. Secondly, if you were aware of his real situation you would realize how incongruent this idea is. Finally, no writer that I know typically compares jot and tittle what he takes on a leap of faith to be correct galleys of his (or her) work. I know it’s not good form to argue from the specific to the general, but then I’m not a professional writer.

  19. It’s a fair question. All I
    It’s a fair question. All I can say is that this is no publicity stunt and I am ashamed for not noticing before. That said, how dare you accuse me of greed. If you knew what my finances were like, you’d show a bit of empathy. Perhaps.

  20. It’s a fair question. All I
    It’s a fair question. All I can say is that this is no publicity stunt and I am ashamed for not noticing before. That said, how dare you accuse me of greed. If you knew what my finances were like, you’d show a bit of empathy. Perhaps.

  21. A lot of the promos for
    A lot of the promos for interview shows and so forth on this site use words like “astonishing”, “unforgettable”, “important”, etc., and quite frankly I find many of the shows fairly forgettable. That could very well be as much an indictment of my own filtration of information as it is the possible overhyping of the contents, so please don’t take it the wrong way. But it leads me to my point: this documented censorship is probably the most astonishing, unforgettable, and important thing I might have ever read on this website. For example, it puts the whole time slip stuff into the trivial pursuits category by comparison.

    If it’s real, and I believe you it is, then you’ve at least made up my mind that I must now get the revised copy of The Key, probably on my Kindle. As to the new material stating, “Directional suggestion is applied to all who are enhanced electrically. This is the means of control of military and government,” I had an immediate flashback to a very powerful and vivid dream I had a few years ago.

    In it, large ships were landing in a big city at night in large numbers, but surprisingly they were all rectangular and looked very much like floating buildings landing on top of other tall buildings. In other words, it appeared to be advanced technology with a very human signature to it. Everyone went inside to take shelter from this seeming invasion. At some point, some kind of electronic signal spread through the building I was in, which sounded like a droning, moderate volume, complex dis-harmonic tone set, and could also be seen as what looked like green tubes of laser light in mid-air, which red nodes at various points, giving the complete impression that every corner of the building was a vast grid of control, with no corner or hiding place undetected. I went with some people into an apartment to watch a TV to get some kind of indication of what was going on and what to do, but watching the news channel it seemed like that transmission was as controlled as everything else now seemed to be, and there seemed to be no escape from this profoundly changed world. It’s hard to convey how powerful the imagery and realistic the sensations were in the dream, but on waking it made me feel like the message was that some governmental or even extraterrestrial power was exerting or going to exert some very oppressive control over all people. Based on this MOTK material, I guess it already is!

    Only problem is, I don’t know if I’ve been disaffected by some intervention (because like Whitley I feel like the world is going unbelievably mad), or I’m also being very much affected by it!

  22. A lot of the promos for
    A lot of the promos for interview shows and so forth on this site use words like “astonishing”, “unforgettable”, “important”, etc., and quite frankly I find many of the shows fairly forgettable. That could very well be as much an indictment of my own filtration of information as it is the possible overhyping of the contents, so please don’t take it the wrong way. But it leads me to my point: this documented censorship is probably the most astonishing, unforgettable, and important thing I might have ever read on this website. For example, it puts the whole time slip stuff into the trivial pursuits category by comparison.

    If it’s real, and I believe you it is, then you’ve at least made up my mind that I must now get the revised copy of The Key, probably on my Kindle. As to the new material stating, “Directional suggestion is applied to all who are enhanced electrically. This is the means of control of military and government,” I had an immediate flashback to a very powerful and vivid dream I had a few years ago.

    In it, large ships were landing in a big city at night in large numbers, but surprisingly they were all rectangular and looked very much like floating buildings landing on top of other tall buildings. In other words, it appeared to be advanced technology with a very human signature to it. Everyone went inside to take shelter from this seeming invasion. At some point, some kind of electronic signal spread through the building I was in, which sounded like a droning, moderate volume, complex dis-harmonic tone set, and could also be seen as what looked like green tubes of laser light in mid-air, which red nodes at various points, giving the complete impression that every corner of the building was a vast grid of control, with no corner or hiding place undetected. I went with some people into an apartment to watch a TV to get some kind of indication of what was going on and what to do, but watching the news channel it seemed like that transmission was as controlled as everything else now seemed to be, and there seemed to be no escape from this profoundly changed world. It’s hard to convey how powerful the imagery and realistic the sensations were in the dream, but on waking it made me feel like the message was that some governmental or even extraterrestrial power was exerting or going to exert some very oppressive control over all people. Based on this MOTK material, I guess it already is!

    Only problem is, I don’t know if I’ve been disaffected by some intervention (because like Whitley I feel like the world is going unbelievably mad), or I’m also being very much affected by it!

  23. Throwing in my two cents. I
    Throwing in my two cents. I take Whitley at his word. Additionally he has provided the text of the changed and new dialogue right here, free of charge. If this were a commercial ploy, he would not do so. Anyway, as always I am grateful for the work. I think The Key is great–though not necessarily uplifting considering what has been and is transpiring since its release in 2000. The momentum is for the most dire outcome. That said, I still believe we can avert catastrophe somehow.

  24. Throwing in my two cents. I
    Throwing in my two cents. I take Whitley at his word. Additionally he has provided the text of the changed and new dialogue right here, free of charge. If this were a commercial ploy, he would not do so. Anyway, as always I am grateful for the work. I think The Key is great–though not necessarily uplifting considering what has been and is transpiring since its release in 2000. The momentum is for the most dire outcome. That said, I still believe we can avert catastrophe somehow.

  25. This is the first time I felt
    This is the first time I felt the need to comment on one of Whitley’s journal entries. I too, as one of the posters above had put off purchasing The Key over the years without fully knowing why. I did feel that it was going to be a fascinating and inspiring read. I haven’t done this with any of Whitley’s other non-fiction titles (I do look forward to discovering the golden nuggets in his fiction works). I purchased The Path without hesitation, even going so far as ordering the Tarot deck depicted in the book from France. But a ‘feeling’ kept me from getting The Key just yet. As soon as I heard of the second edition I pre-ordered it right away and today that action makes more sense to me.

    This attempt at censoring the material has put a spotlight on the censored content. The outcome of this matter reminds me of the story of the farmer and his runaway horse.

    There once was a farmer who owned a horse. And one day the horse ran away. All the people in the town came to console him because of the loss. “Oh, I don’t know,” said the farmer, “maybe it’s a bad thing and maybe it’s not.”

    A few days later, the horse returned to the farm accompanied by 20 other horses. (Apparently he had found some wild horses and made friends!) All the townspeople came to congratulate him … “Now you have a stable full of horses” … “Oh, I don’t know,” said the farmer, “maybe it’s a good thing and maybe it’s not.”

    A few days later, the farmer’s son was out riding one of the new horses. The horse got wild and threw him off, breaking the son’s leg. Naturally all the people in town came to console the farmer because of the accident. “Oh, I don’t know,” said the farmer, “maybe it’s a bad thing and maybe it’s not.”

    A few days later, the government declared war and instituted a draft of all able bodied young men. They came to the town and carted off hundreds of young men, except for the farmer’s son who had a broken leg. “Now I know,” said the farmer, “that it was a good thing my horse ran away.”

    The fact that this censorship was missed by Whitley makes sense to me. Why would he feel the need to proof read it again once the book was released? It would also be easy to miss considering how subtle the changes were.

    I can’t image someone not finding The Key uplifting. The quote “Find laughter, find freedom.” is the most uplifting sentence I’ve read in a while. I think most of us can remember the positive energy we felt when having a good hard laugh with family and friends. THAT can be put to good use somehow.

    1. The censorship issue is very
      The censorship issue is very disturbing. It alerts us to the fact that certain things are within our realm of responsibility to preserve/protect. I would’ve never foreseen anything so astoundingly sneeky & sinister. I heard the “negs” – Robert Bruce’s term, can be very trivial, and this proves it.Whitley, you struck a nerve with someone – I’d fear for my life if I were you, but you must be protected.

  26. This is the first time I felt
    This is the first time I felt the need to comment on one of Whitley’s journal entries. I too, as one of the posters above had put off purchasing The Key over the years without fully knowing why. I did feel that it was going to be a fascinating and inspiring read. I haven’t done this with any of Whitley’s other non-fiction titles (I do look forward to discovering the golden nuggets in his fiction works). I purchased The Path without hesitation, even going so far as ordering the Tarot deck depicted in the book from France. But a ‘feeling’ kept me from getting The Key just yet. As soon as I heard of the second edition I pre-ordered it right away and today that action makes more sense to me.

    This attempt at censoring the material has put a spotlight on the censored content. The outcome of this matter reminds me of the story of the farmer and his runaway horse.

    There once was a farmer who owned a horse. And one day the horse ran away. All the people in the town came to console him because of the loss. “Oh, I don’t know,” said the farmer, “maybe it’s a bad thing and maybe it’s not.”

    A few days later, the horse returned to the farm accompanied by 20 other horses. (Apparently he had found some wild horses and made friends!) All the townspeople came to congratulate him … “Now you have a stable full of horses” … “Oh, I don’t know,” said the farmer, “maybe it’s a good thing and maybe it’s not.”

    A few days later, the farmer’s son was out riding one of the new horses. The horse got wild and threw him off, breaking the son’s leg. Naturally all the people in town came to console the farmer because of the accident. “Oh, I don’t know,” said the farmer, “maybe it’s a bad thing and maybe it’s not.”

    A few days later, the government declared war and instituted a draft of all able bodied young men. They came to the town and carted off hundreds of young men, except for the farmer’s son who had a broken leg. “Now I know,” said the farmer, “that it was a good thing my horse ran away.”

    The fact that this censorship was missed by Whitley makes sense to me. Why would he feel the need to proof read it again once the book was released? It would also be easy to miss considering how subtle the changes were.

    I can’t image someone not finding The Key uplifting. The quote “Find laughter, find freedom.” is the most uplifting sentence I’ve read in a while. I think most of us can remember the positive energy we felt when having a good hard laugh with family and friends. THAT can be put to good use somehow.

    1. The censorship issue is very
      The censorship issue is very disturbing. It alerts us to the fact that certain things are within our realm of responsibility to preserve/protect. I would’ve never foreseen anything so astoundingly sneeky & sinister. I heard the “negs” – Robert Bruce’s term, can be very trivial, and this proves it.Whitley, you struck a nerve with someone – I’d fear for my life if I were you, but you must be protected.

  27. Reply to BobInNJ: I heard an
    Reply to BobInNJ: I heard an interview of a former SpecOps operative who detailed UFO’s over Israel (Daniel Ott Radio/LtCol SC) matching the description of your tall buildings. I think the only useful thing in the future is gently waking others up so they get the alert. I did not imagine it would be this bad. Also, as with all “bad guy” scenarios, there must be a weakness which could be potentially exploited. After all, it is only technology. The best thing to do is be ready to jump ship because this titanic is going down, like it or not.

  28. Reply to BobInNJ: I heard an
    Reply to BobInNJ: I heard an interview of a former SpecOps operative who detailed UFO’s over Israel (Daniel Ott Radio/LtCol SC) matching the description of your tall buildings. I think the only useful thing in the future is gently waking others up so they get the alert. I did not imagine it would be this bad. Also, as with all “bad guy” scenarios, there must be a weakness which could be potentially exploited. After all, it is only technology. The best thing to do is be ready to jump ship because this titanic is going down, like it or not.

  29. I want to make one thing
    I want to make one thing clear here. You don’t need to get the new edition. You can use the journal entry to annotate your old edition. The only things I left out were minor typos that Tarcher/Penguin corrected.

  30. I want to make one thing
    I want to make one thing clear here. You don’t need to get the new edition. You can use the journal entry to annotate your old edition. The only things I left out were minor typos that Tarcher/Penguin corrected.

  31. Could you add the Page #’s
    Could you add the Page #’s Whitley? I have the old version and would like to correct it…

  32. Could you add the Page #’s
    Could you add the Page #’s Whitley? I have the old version and would like to correct it…

  33. “Directional suggestion is
    “Directional suggestion is applied to all who are enhanced electrically. This is the means of control of military and government,”

    No better explanation for TV (boob tube) Those without electriticy by default are without TV.

  34. “Directional suggestion is
    “Directional suggestion is applied to all who are enhanced electrically. This is the means of control of military and government,”

    No better explanation for TV (boob tube) Those without electriticy by default are without TV.

  35. I do think that the fact this
    I do think that the fact this censorship happened is a very clear indication of the profundity of this material. And the urgency of the messages contained therein.

    In your first example above: “Man is earth’s mind” from the 1st edition is a horrendous claim – and not at all what we can now see the MOTK intended. It separates us (yet again) from the elements that we are, were created by, and are eternally connected to (earth, air, fire, water). (and btw….see David Suzuki’s “The Sacred Balance – Rediscovering Our Place In Nature” for a wonderful exploration of these concepts).
    I look forward to delving into the new/original/REAL edition.
    Whitley – I guess the cliche ‘everything happens for a reason’ just doesn’t cut it in this case! Yes, it proves more than ever that your work is a threat to a certain faction. What that faction is…..we may never know.
    Meanwhile, I continue to follow your amazing work. You are responsible for much of my own spriritual evolution in that wherever you’re pointing, there’s always a fascinating new world of experience 🙂

  36. I do think that the fact this
    I do think that the fact this censorship happened is a very clear indication of the profundity of this material. And the urgency of the messages contained therein.

    In your first example above: “Man is earth’s mind” from the 1st edition is a horrendous claim – and not at all what we can now see the MOTK intended. It separates us (yet again) from the elements that we are, were created by, and are eternally connected to (earth, air, fire, water). (and btw….see David Suzuki’s “The Sacred Balance – Rediscovering Our Place In Nature” for a wonderful exploration of these concepts).
    I look forward to delving into the new/original/REAL edition.
    Whitley – I guess the cliche ‘everything happens for a reason’ just doesn’t cut it in this case! Yes, it proves more than ever that your work is a threat to a certain faction. What that faction is…..we may never know.
    Meanwhile, I continue to follow your amazing work. You are responsible for much of my own spriritual evolution in that wherever you’re pointing, there’s always a fascinating new world of experience 🙂

  37. I hate to rain on the
    I hate to rain on the censorship conspiracy parade, but doesn’t it seem odd that this is being discovered now. A new edition of a previously published work comes out and suddenly irregularities are found in the first edition. A work that has been quoted on a regular basis by the author for over ten years and just now he discovers that there is something wrong with it. I know, you were quoting from the original transcript, right? It just seems awfully convenient. Now people that bought the first book will have to buy the new one to see if they can find any other inconsistencies. It’s a good marketing ploy.

    Mr. Streiber I have read your stuff since you published Warday and I’ve been a subscriber to your web site since just after you took over Dreamland from Art Bell. I’m quite cynical, but I’m also open minded enough to support your work because I think it’s important., but something here just isn’t right. You always seem to take the high road, but there’s the scent of a week old mackerel hanging in the air. I hate to think that you purposely had anything to do with it. Did you?

    I know you posted a message stating that no one has to buy the new edition. They can just annotate the old edition. Who’s going to take the time to do that? Just buy the new one! Brilliant! Sorry! My snarkiness is coming out too!

    Boy! I am going to get toasted for this one!

  38. I hate to rain on the
    I hate to rain on the censorship conspiracy parade, but doesn’t it seem odd that this is being discovered now. A new edition of a previously published work comes out and suddenly irregularities are found in the first edition. A work that has been quoted on a regular basis by the author for over ten years and just now he discovers that there is something wrong with it. I know, you were quoting from the original transcript, right? It just seems awfully convenient. Now people that bought the first book will have to buy the new one to see if they can find any other inconsistencies. It’s a good marketing ploy.

    Mr. Streiber I have read your stuff since you published Warday and I’ve been a subscriber to your web site since just after you took over Dreamland from Art Bell. I’m quite cynical, but I’m also open minded enough to support your work because I think it’s important., but something here just isn’t right. You always seem to take the high road, but there’s the scent of a week old mackerel hanging in the air. I hate to think that you purposely had anything to do with it. Did you?

    I know you posted a message stating that no one has to buy the new edition. They can just annotate the old edition. Who’s going to take the time to do that? Just buy the new one! Brilliant! Sorry! My snarkiness is coming out too!

    Boy! I am going to get toasted for this one!

  39. It is my habit to sit quietly
    It is my habit to sit quietly and observe without comment, but the Quickening is upon us. So, I offer these two humble observations: (1) Tarcher/Penguin must be free of “Their” influence, or else “Those” who “use and guide” have opted for clarification. And, on a more personal note, (2) its time for me to make contact with others of like mind – Nashville here I come.

  40. It is my habit to sit quietly
    It is my habit to sit quietly and observe without comment, but the Quickening is upon us. So, I offer these two humble observations: (1) Tarcher/Penguin must be free of “Their” influence, or else “Those” who “use and guide” have opted for clarification. And, on a more personal note, (2) its time for me to make contact with others of like mind – Nashville here I come.

  41. I am a longtime subscriber,
    I am a longtime subscriber, and I have never added comment to any journal entry or bulletin board post. But this one really caught my eye. I greatly appreciate Whitley’s frustration. As a professional writer, I cannot begin to explain how crucially important the long and tedious editorial process is. Several pairs of eyes are always needed to get to that hard-to-reach goal of Accuracy. Having recently self-published a novel, almost exclusively edited by myself (I thought I took great care, spent over a month on it), I cringed at the final result — chock-full of mistakes. (It’s now resting where it belongs, my computer’s equivalent of a sock drawer.) And I have been a paid and trusted writer for many years! Though skeptical by nature — and trade — I am inclined to believe and support Whitley on this one. Thanks for your humility, Whitley.

  42. I am a longtime subscriber,
    I am a longtime subscriber, and I have never added comment to any journal entry or bulletin board post. But this one really caught my eye. I greatly appreciate Whitley’s frustration. As a professional writer, I cannot begin to explain how crucially important the long and tedious editorial process is. Several pairs of eyes are always needed to get to that hard-to-reach goal of Accuracy. Having recently self-published a novel, almost exclusively edited by myself (I thought I took great care, spent over a month on it), I cringed at the final result — chock-full of mistakes. (It’s now resting where it belongs, my computer’s equivalent of a sock drawer.) And I have been a paid and trusted writer for many years! Though skeptical by nature — and trade — I am inclined to believe and support Whitley on this one. Thanks for your humility, Whitley.

  43. Whitley says to just update
    Whitley says to just update the original edition with the notes on this page. Don’t. Get the new edition. All I read of the revised Key were the foreword, afterward and the Fragmentary inclusions. I had not thought to read the reprinted conversation. Why would I? I had the first edition after all. And still, those three sections of the new book were enough to, well, it has great effect, I’ve only read it once so far. The terror set alongside the incredible sense of promise, these two emotions had such a propulsively powerful effect on me, I didn’t know what to do with it. I started on the Path audios, and am surprised and oh so glad to get sparks of insight on parts that have given me trouble all this time. So it is a powerful book not at all hindered by but enhanced with Whitley’s voice added into it. Do not listen to him when he says to just alter the first edition – the black Key. It was altered to play into Mr. Strieber’s fear of misleading people. Very tricky, oh so devious that. You are free to turn away from it of course, that’s the entire spirit of the book, the sense and promise of freedom. Pay for the book too. You cannot get something for nothing and have it mean anything to you. (That little tidbit I got from the additional Inclusion material.) So, this 10 dollar compact little book of conversation is SO much bigger on the inside. I’m beginning to think its a gift of grace and mercy (with a great sobering punch).

  44. Whitley says to just update
    Whitley says to just update the original edition with the notes on this page. Don’t. Get the new edition. All I read of the revised Key were the foreword, afterward and the Fragmentary inclusions. I had not thought to read the reprinted conversation. Why would I? I had the first edition after all. And still, those three sections of the new book were enough to, well, it has great effect, I’ve only read it once so far. The terror set alongside the incredible sense of promise, these two emotions had such a propulsively powerful effect on me, I didn’t know what to do with it. I started on the Path audios, and am surprised and oh so glad to get sparks of insight on parts that have given me trouble all this time. So it is a powerful book not at all hindered by but enhanced with Whitley’s voice added into it. Do not listen to him when he says to just alter the first edition – the black Key. It was altered to play into Mr. Strieber’s fear of misleading people. Very tricky, oh so devious that. You are free to turn away from it of course, that’s the entire spirit of the book, the sense and promise of freedom. Pay for the book too. You cannot get something for nothing and have it mean anything to you. (That little tidbit I got from the additional Inclusion material.) So, this 10 dollar compact little book of conversation is SO much bigger on the inside. I’m beginning to think its a gift of grace and mercy (with a great sobering punch).

  45. My post turned into a book
    My post turned into a book review. All I wanted to say was of course you ought to get the book. And that I hate that Whitley seemed to shortchange his contribution to it. Oh gosh, it had such a good ending, I find I need some time before I can re-read it.

  46. My post turned into a book
    My post turned into a book review. All I wanted to say was of course you ought to get the book. And that I hate that Whitley seemed to shortchange his contribution to it. Oh gosh, it had such a good ending, I find I need some time before I can re-read it.

  47. ‘ending,’ I wrote. More like
    ‘ending,’ I wrote. More like a beginning.

  48. ‘ending,’ I wrote. More like
    ‘ending,’ I wrote. More like a beginning.

  49. Any of you all remember the
    Any of you all remember the audio download of The Key? Where Whitley reads? There are differences between that and the two texts discussed above, that are at least as pronounced. What about those? If I have time maybe I will post again with some examples. I love TMOTK, but Whitley, this is all sounding a bit paranoid to me. I don’t find that one text is more empowering than the other, frankly, and a bigger fan of TMOTK you could not find than me. All depends upon an individuals interpretation. And in that regard, to me, the Audio version is superb, and better than the book.

  50. Any of you all remember the
    Any of you all remember the audio download of The Key? Where Whitley reads? There are differences between that and the two texts discussed above, that are at least as pronounced. What about those? If I have time maybe I will post again with some examples. I love TMOTK, but Whitley, this is all sounding a bit paranoid to me. I don’t find that one text is more empowering than the other, frankly, and a bigger fan of TMOTK you could not find than me. All depends upon an individuals interpretation. And in that regard, to me, the Audio version is superb, and better than the book.

  51. I think if Whitley were the
    I think if Whitley were the kind of person who would dream this up to sell more books, and I strongly believe he is not, at least he would have “created” this censorship story before the official publication, and it would have been part of the foreword of the book as part of the sales pitch (I can see the cover now, “New Uncensored Edition!”)

    I still say this censorship is the most believable and startling evidence of insidious forces at work that we’ve ever seen through UC. I briefly considered that MOTK himself might have been behind it, but given the specific messages that changed I seriously doubt it.

    What always amazed me about The Key is how detailed Whitley’s recollection was of this complex material, apparently using just some hastily scrawled notes. I wish I had that kind of memory!!

  52. I think if Whitley were the
    I think if Whitley were the kind of person who would dream this up to sell more books, and I strongly believe he is not, at least he would have “created” this censorship story before the official publication, and it would have been part of the foreword of the book as part of the sales pitch (I can see the cover now, “New Uncensored Edition!”)

    I still say this censorship is the most believable and startling evidence of insidious forces at work that we’ve ever seen through UC. I briefly considered that MOTK himself might have been behind it, but given the specific messages that changed I seriously doubt it.

    What always amazed me about The Key is how detailed Whitley’s recollection was of this complex material, apparently using just some hastily scrawled notes. I wish I had that kind of memory!!

  53. This issue has captured my
    This issue has captured my imagination for some reason–my second comment in as many days (third actually if you count a comment on another thread on this website). For all of the doubters and hand-ringers out there, just buy the new edition. At ten bucks, it’s the equivalent of a couple of trips to Starbucks. The work is valuable and Whitley’s efforts to bring it to us then and now are well worth the support. Last comment (promise).

  54. This issue has captured my
    This issue has captured my imagination for some reason–my second comment in as many days (third actually if you count a comment on another thread on this website). For all of the doubters and hand-ringers out there, just buy the new edition. At ten bucks, it’s the equivalent of a couple of trips to Starbucks. The work is valuable and Whitley’s efforts to bring it to us then and now are well worth the support. Last comment (promise).

  55. Of course it makes me furious
    Of course it makes me furious that people would be suspicious that this is a ploy to sell new books, but at the same time, it’s a completely understandable and justified reaction. This is why I was careful to make it easy to use the journal entry to annotate your existing copy. I just wish that I had noticed it before. But it took a reader, comparing the two editions, to see it. I’ve been through a very dark personal space over this for the past few days. How could I have failed to notice? Was I under some kind of mind control that I didn’t see this in TEN YEARS? I just wish I had an answer, but I do know one thing: the reason that this was discovered was because the new edition was published, and I sense that the emergence not only of the true message of the book, but also the revelation of what the censor wanted to hide is part of the opening of secret doors that is going on right now. So, in that sense, I’m grateful. Still royally furious at myself though.

    Jim Marrs, who has had censorship problems of his own, is going to interview me about this on Dreamland this weekend. The great thing is this: because we can compare the censored material to the original, now we know what the people who are trying to control us want MOST to hide. That is a huge breakthrough.

    Had I seen these changes before the original edition was published, I would simply have removed them, and what has turned out to be an extraordinary revelation of some deep, deep secrets would never have happened.

    So, there is a good side.

  56. Of course it makes me furious
    Of course it makes me furious that people would be suspicious that this is a ploy to sell new books, but at the same time, it’s a completely understandable and justified reaction. This is why I was careful to make it easy to use the journal entry to annotate your existing copy. I just wish that I had noticed it before. But it took a reader, comparing the two editions, to see it. I’ve been through a very dark personal space over this for the past few days. How could I have failed to notice? Was I under some kind of mind control that I didn’t see this in TEN YEARS? I just wish I had an answer, but I do know one thing: the reason that this was discovered was because the new edition was published, and I sense that the emergence not only of the true message of the book, but also the revelation of what the censor wanted to hide is part of the opening of secret doors that is going on right now. So, in that sense, I’m grateful. Still royally furious at myself though.

    Jim Marrs, who has had censorship problems of his own, is going to interview me about this on Dreamland this weekend. The great thing is this: because we can compare the censored material to the original, now we know what the people who are trying to control us want MOST to hide. That is a huge breakthrough.

    Had I seen these changes before the original edition was published, I would simply have removed them, and what has turned out to be an extraordinary revelation of some deep, deep secrets would never have happened.

    So, there is a good side.

  57. I didn’t even want to touch
    I didn’t even want to touch on the intentional vs. accidental subject – not wanting to engage the ‘doubters’. But since Whitley is clearly feeling the anguish of regret over not noticing the censored text, I want to put my two cents’ worth in…..
    In my job, I have to do a lot of proof-reading for material that is published to our website, pamphlets, etc. and after I sign off on the edits, it would never occur to me that our IT and/or communications staff would deliberately alter a PDF or Word document. It just doesn’t happen. (Unless someone, somewhere, has the motive of sabotage).
    Of course, you always give a cursory glance to the finished product, but it’s more of a cosmetic check-up…..Does the text line up nicely? Did they use the right font? Are the headings centred? etc, etc. Then, you move on to the next project. You don’t sit and obsessively re-read your own work. And even if you did, you just might miss the odd typo.
    Enough said on that issue.
    As to the timing of this new edition – it seems there is some possible synchronicity in this, and I’m glad Whitley can see that there may be a positive side. Maybe there are readers out there who need to pay very close attention to this material, and this will ensure that they DO pay close attention.
    I guess my 2 cents turned into 3 or 4 cents…..signing off now 🙂

  58. I didn’t even want to touch
    I didn’t even want to touch on the intentional vs. accidental subject – not wanting to engage the ‘doubters’. But since Whitley is clearly feeling the anguish of regret over not noticing the censored text, I want to put my two cents’ worth in…..
    In my job, I have to do a lot of proof-reading for material that is published to our website, pamphlets, etc. and after I sign off on the edits, it would never occur to me that our IT and/or communications staff would deliberately alter a PDF or Word document. It just doesn’t happen. (Unless someone, somewhere, has the motive of sabotage).
    Of course, you always give a cursory glance to the finished product, but it’s more of a cosmetic check-up…..Does the text line up nicely? Did they use the right font? Are the headings centred? etc, etc. Then, you move on to the next project. You don’t sit and obsessively re-read your own work. And even if you did, you just might miss the odd typo.
    Enough said on that issue.
    As to the timing of this new edition – it seems there is some possible synchronicity in this, and I’m glad Whitley can see that there may be a positive side. Maybe there are readers out there who need to pay very close attention to this material, and this will ensure that they DO pay close attention.
    I guess my 2 cents turned into 3 or 4 cents…..signing off now 🙂

  59. Whitley, Don’t beat yourself
    Whitley, Don’t beat yourself up over this. Things happen for a reason and when they are supposed to. It may be more important that the censorship came to light now than it was for the original book to have been published correctly. I told a friend that I could sense you were in a dark place for more than a few days and I hope that the support you are finding here will help you out of that place. Perhaps there are going to be instances of a greater degree of attempted censorship of you and/or your material/messages coming at you soon. Now your headlights are on and it will be neigh on impossible for that to happen. That may be your lesson in all of this. I believe that everything that happens to us should be viewed as a lesson. Learn the lesson, move the knowledge to your soul, and dump the rest as baggage you don’t need to be dragging behind you. As a P.S. to this post and take it for what it is worth to you (no worries from either of us if you totally disregard it): My Visitor Guide told me to tell you to be very careful who you trust for a while and to rethink those that you do trust now. You know you have my support and a little bump like this isn’t going to change this. Hugs to both you and Anne.

  60. Whitley, Don’t beat yourself
    Whitley, Don’t beat yourself up over this. Things happen for a reason and when they are supposed to. It may be more important that the censorship came to light now than it was for the original book to have been published correctly. I told a friend that I could sense you were in a dark place for more than a few days and I hope that the support you are finding here will help you out of that place. Perhaps there are going to be instances of a greater degree of attempted censorship of you and/or your material/messages coming at you soon. Now your headlights are on and it will be neigh on impossible for that to happen. That may be your lesson in all of this. I believe that everything that happens to us should be viewed as a lesson. Learn the lesson, move the knowledge to your soul, and dump the rest as baggage you don’t need to be dragging behind you. As a P.S. to this post and take it for what it is worth to you (no worries from either of us if you totally disregard it): My Visitor Guide told me to tell you to be very careful who you trust for a while and to rethink those that you do trust now. You know you have my support and a little bump like this isn’t going to change this. Hugs to both you and Anne.

  61. Any change to the text that
    Any change to the text that were done without Whitley’s knowledge is indeed a corruption. I agree with Whitley that the changes are subtle and brilliant. Perhaps the writer of the above article failed to truly understand this.

  62. Any change to the text that
    Any change to the text that were done without Whitley’s knowledge is indeed a corruption. I agree with Whitley that the changes are subtle and brilliant. Perhaps the writer of the above article failed to truly understand this.

  63. Let me follow up my previous
    Let me follow up my previous post by letting you know that I have been an avid reader of your works. I do listen to your pod casts often and have for the most part enjoyed your style of presentation. So when I read your latest Journal entry I was honestly not to amused that someone I respect for standing up where so many have turned away came as a blow. Where I draw the line is when you cross it. I work in this arena also and know how to swim in it very well…so when someone I admire begins to go down a road I am all to familiar in seeing…I react. You mentioned The 2002 edition was secretly censored by unknown parties. In fact…and this may come as a surprise to many…”The Key”,© 2001 Walker & Collier…was self-published through Whitley Strieber’s own company, Walker & Collier. Printing of the book was performed by Whitehall Printing Co., Naples, Florida. I also noticed the first publisher you did have listed on your journal entry is now gone. Using Censorship as a tool is wrong. It could be as simple as an attempt to make the material more palatable for the readers in the new edition. It could be to stir up controversy. Whatever the reason…the subject matter calls for integrity if it is real. Any writer or artist in today’s information society would have noticed his work manipulated early on and brought suit against the publisher or printer. 10 years is a long time to be quoting from your own works. So tell me you are filing some sort of legal action. Against yourself? I have not lost faith in you or stopped being a supporter…only cautioning you against going down a road that will mislead you…

  64. Let me follow up my previous
    Let me follow up my previous post by letting you know that I have been an avid reader of your works. I do listen to your pod casts often and have for the most part enjoyed your style of presentation. So when I read your latest Journal entry I was honestly not to amused that someone I respect for standing up where so many have turned away came as a blow. Where I draw the line is when you cross it. I work in this arena also and know how to swim in it very well…so when someone I admire begins to go down a road I am all to familiar in seeing…I react. You mentioned The 2002 edition was secretly censored by unknown parties. In fact…and this may come as a surprise to many…”The Key”,© 2001 Walker & Collier…was self-published through Whitley Strieber’s own company, Walker & Collier. Printing of the book was performed by Whitehall Printing Co., Naples, Florida. I also noticed the first publisher you did have listed on your journal entry is now gone. Using Censorship as a tool is wrong. It could be as simple as an attempt to make the material more palatable for the readers in the new edition. It could be to stir up controversy. Whatever the reason…the subject matter calls for integrity if it is real. Any writer or artist in today’s information society would have noticed his work manipulated early on and brought suit against the publisher or printer. 10 years is a long time to be quoting from your own works. So tell me you are filing some sort of legal action. Against yourself? I have not lost faith in you or stopped being a supporter…only cautioning you against going down a road that will mislead you…

  65. This is directed to gary
    This is directed to gary purviance: Whitley has explained what happened. We all knew the first book was self-published. That doesn’t mean that he did all the work himself. It means that he paid that publishing company to publish what he sent them. There is no reason why between his submission of the work and the book actually coming out, that someone could not have altered it. He trusted them to do a job that they did not do. Why do you continue to beat him up about this? You again to caution him about going down some road, which I assume is the same one that you accused him of in your first post: greed. Then you couch you words by stating that you are still a supporter and have faith in him….geez, if those posts are what you call faith and support, one has to wonder what you do to your enemies. Kick any animals lately? I read between the lines and energy very well. I, personally, believe you have an axe to grind here that is different from your stated reasons for the posts…and that is to make Whitley look as bad as you can. The word “troll” comes to mind.

  66. This is directed to gary
    This is directed to gary purviance: Whitley has explained what happened. We all knew the first book was self-published. That doesn’t mean that he did all the work himself. It means that he paid that publishing company to publish what he sent them. There is no reason why between his submission of the work and the book actually coming out, that someone could not have altered it. He trusted them to do a job that they did not do. Why do you continue to beat him up about this? You again to caution him about going down some road, which I assume is the same one that you accused him of in your first post: greed. Then you couch you words by stating that you are still a supporter and have faith in him….geez, if those posts are what you call faith and support, one has to wonder what you do to your enemies. Kick any animals lately? I read between the lines and energy very well. I, personally, believe you have an axe to grind here that is different from your stated reasons for the posts…and that is to make Whitley look as bad as you can. The word “troll” comes to mind.

  67. Look. Whitley is not an
    Look. Whitley is not an idiot. He has been working with publishers since the 1970’s. “Walker & Collier,” with all due respect, is nothing more than a paper-bound entity, a nominative business tool. A transitory thing you set up in the vanity press process. The First Edition of “The Key,” that lies upon my desk as I write this, was published in 2001, when POD was in its infancy. Without the benefit of consulting Whitley or his personal business records, my assumption is he placed his personally edited manuscript in the hands of the Floridian printers without suspicion. And why would he suspect? Just my assumption… I believe what Whitley states is that between the time he made his editorial checks and the submission of the MS to the printer is where the mischief occurred. On this humble level of business, it seems to me infiltration would be pretty easy to exact. Again: assumption. Conspiracy theorists perk; skeptics pall. If it happened, it was at this juncture. (Note: If a pristine bullet can be found on the gurney that, many hours before, bore the body of JFK, then mere text altering is child’s play.) Finally, Whitley has made it clear in This Very Journal Entry that anyone can use these corrections to annotate their vanity press edition of The Key. I see no profit motive or PR stunt in this. I see a man who has fostered a community doing his best to serve his community.

  68. Look. Whitley is not an
    Look. Whitley is not an idiot. He has been working with publishers since the 1970’s. “Walker & Collier,” with all due respect, is nothing more than a paper-bound entity, a nominative business tool. A transitory thing you set up in the vanity press process. The First Edition of “The Key,” that lies upon my desk as I write this, was published in 2001, when POD was in its infancy. Without the benefit of consulting Whitley or his personal business records, my assumption is he placed his personally edited manuscript in the hands of the Floridian printers without suspicion. And why would he suspect? Just my assumption… I believe what Whitley states is that between the time he made his editorial checks and the submission of the MS to the printer is where the mischief occurred. On this humble level of business, it seems to me infiltration would be pretty easy to exact. Again: assumption. Conspiracy theorists perk; skeptics pall. If it happened, it was at this juncture. (Note: If a pristine bullet can be found on the gurney that, many hours before, bore the body of JFK, then mere text altering is child’s play.) Finally, Whitley has made it clear in This Very Journal Entry that anyone can use these corrections to annotate their vanity press edition of The Key. I see no profit motive or PR stunt in this. I see a man who has fostered a community doing his best to serve his community.

  69. Whitley,
    Remember the “Open

    Whitley,

    Remember the “Open Doors” and also that the floor resembles a chess board. This is all part of the game.

    The Master of the Key never said that it would be easy. This is not a set-back, but a new opportunity.

  70. Whitley,
    Remember the “Open

    Whitley,

    Remember the “Open Doors” and also that the floor resembles a chess board. This is all part of the game.

    The Master of the Key never said that it would be easy. This is not a set-back, but a new opportunity.

  71. I will still continue to
    I will still continue to support Whitley and his work. I have decided to accept him as he presents himself and take him at his word. That is honestly all we can do with anyone. It is all rather silly anyway. I do enjoy his journal and look forward to when he does make entries. I have always enjoyed how he writes and his passion. I am happy to withdraw my remarks and offer my apologies to all of you including Whitley.

  72. I will still continue to
    I will still continue to support Whitley and his work. I have decided to accept him as he presents himself and take him at his word. That is honestly all we can do with anyone. It is all rather silly anyway. I do enjoy his journal and look forward to when he does make entries. I have always enjoyed how he writes and his passion. I am happy to withdraw my remarks and offer my apologies to all of you including Whitley.

  73. Note to Gary – have you ever
    Note to Gary – have you ever actually been in charge of proof-reading and editing? Also, are you completely void of empathy that you can’t play out the chain of events as presented by Whitley and believe that things unfolded as they did?
    Like I said in my previous post, any author, at the end of their project, having proof-read and double-checked everything for the umpteenth time would not in a million years suspect foul play at the printer’s! Clearly, there was sabotage and clearly it’s the last thing Whitley would have been looking for. As well, why would Whitley read his own book cover to cover? He wrote it! He has a full schedule – he likely was on to the next project the day after he sent the proof-read manuscript to the printer.
    It’s a no-brainer. Let’s move on now 🙂

  74. Note to Gary – have you ever
    Note to Gary – have you ever actually been in charge of proof-reading and editing? Also, are you completely void of empathy that you can’t play out the chain of events as presented by Whitley and believe that things unfolded as they did?
    Like I said in my previous post, any author, at the end of their project, having proof-read and double-checked everything for the umpteenth time would not in a million years suspect foul play at the printer’s! Clearly, there was sabotage and clearly it’s the last thing Whitley would have been looking for. As well, why would Whitley read his own book cover to cover? He wrote it! He has a full schedule – he likely was on to the next project the day after he sent the proof-read manuscript to the printer.
    It’s a no-brainer. Let’s move on now 🙂

  75. Glad to hear you’re coming
    Glad to hear you’re coming around Gary 🙂
    I have a very accurate instinct for phonies, and I’ve never for a moment questioned Mr. Strieber’s honesty. I don’t enjoy this kind of posting. It seems juvenile. We can all do so much more with our thought energy…..
    I’d rather be smelling the flowers, or gazing at the moon 🙂

  76. Glad to hear you’re coming
    Glad to hear you’re coming around Gary 🙂
    I have a very accurate instinct for phonies, and I’ve never for a moment questioned Mr. Strieber’s honesty. I don’t enjoy this kind of posting. It seems juvenile. We can all do so much more with our thought energy…..
    I’d rather be smelling the flowers, or gazing at the moon 🙂

  77. This explains a lot. I had a
    This explains a lot. I had a weird feeling when I read it the first time, and then when I read it again recently, that something was being held back and that there was more going on. I would say that the changes are significant, and that some of them are the same passages that made me think that there was something that I wasn’t understanding.

    The idea of the dead coming back is very interesting. I look forward to “What is Coming”, and can’t help but think of an idea that is floated on the web every now and then about the ‘end of the world’ actually consisting of all times being experienced simultaneously instead of linearly.

  78. This explains a lot. I had a
    This explains a lot. I had a weird feeling when I read it the first time, and then when I read it again recently, that something was being held back and that there was more going on. I would say that the changes are significant, and that some of them are the same passages that made me think that there was something that I wasn’t understanding.

    The idea of the dead coming back is very interesting. I look forward to “What is Coming”, and can’t help but think of an idea that is floated on the web every now and then about the ‘end of the world’ actually consisting of all times being experienced simultaneously instead of linearly.

  79. If I were an intelligent
    If I were an intelligent machine, I would prefer the 2nd edition.

  80. If I were an intelligent
    If I were an intelligent machine, I would prefer the 2nd edition.

  81. Can someone please email
    Can someone please email Whitley Strieber that there are a number of more edits that have been MISSED in his post above. Specifically:

    Page 66 Old Key:
    … if all the world was to pray in the same hour, the whole universe would hear you….

    NEW KEY:
    … … if all pray in the same hour, the whole universe will hear you.

    Also, at the end of same paragraph p. 66 Old key:
    … These beings, though, they hunt you, body and soul.

    NEW KEY:
    …These beings, though, they even seek your souls.

    These were noted on the message board, but no one seems to have notified Whitley about them. There is another as well.

  82. Can someone please email
    Can someone please email Whitley Strieber that there are a number of more edits that have been MISSED in his post above. Specifically:

    Page 66 Old Key:
    … if all the world was to pray in the same hour, the whole universe would hear you….

    NEW KEY:
    … … if all pray in the same hour, the whole universe will hear you.

    Also, at the end of same paragraph p. 66 Old key:
    … These beings, though, they hunt you, body and soul.

    NEW KEY:
    …These beings, though, they even seek your souls.

    These were noted on the message board, but no one seems to have notified Whitley about them. There is another as well.

  83. This one seems to involve
    This one seems to involve changed text that was moved out of place or it involves a chronological blip in Whitley’s memory:

    NEW EDITION:
    …You mentioned monsters in the world of the dead. [No mention of monsters appears earlier to this, BUT it seems to reference something said LATER on, in two places, both relating to regret, recrimination.]

    Old Edition p. 23, instead of the above, it says:
    .. What do the dead look like?

  84. This one seems to involve
    This one seems to involve changed text that was moved out of place or it involves a chronological blip in Whitley’s memory:

    NEW EDITION:
    …You mentioned monsters in the world of the dead. [No mention of monsters appears earlier to this, BUT it seems to reference something said LATER on, in two places, both relating to regret, recrimination.]

    Old Edition p. 23, instead of the above, it says:
    .. What do the dead look like?

  85. @sophie, Whitley addresses
    @sophie, Whitley addresses the “monsters in the world of the dead” question on the latest Dreamland at the 35:05 minute mark. He said he remembers asking him that question but doesn’t recall exactly what the MOTK said about monsters previous to that question. Whitley stated: “I know he said something [about monsters in the world of the dead] but I just can’t capture it. I can capture it in images but not in words…”

  86. @sophie, Whitley addresses
    @sophie, Whitley addresses the “monsters in the world of the dead” question on the latest Dreamland at the 35:05 minute mark. He said he remembers asking him that question but doesn’t recall exactly what the MOTK said about monsters previous to that question. Whitley stated: “I know he said something [about monsters in the world of the dead] but I just can’t capture it. I can capture it in images but not in words…”

  87. Whitley, while I am also
    Whitley, while I am also confused by the lack of knowledge on your part, I am absolutely sure that there is no greed a work here. As you’ve said in the past, you were a best selling, gifted author of “thrillers” prior to the visitor experiences and could have made a FANTASTIC living had you not chosen your current path. If greed is your motivation, then you never would have pursued the mystery of the visitors, and all that came with it. As a result, I believe you’ve experienced a great deal of financial hardships, but you’ve always been true to yourself and to others. I’m thankful for having stumbled upon your works, and thankful to you for having forged a difficult path. I admire your bravery and hope for an opportunity in my life to approach fear with the same obstinence.

  88. Whitley, while I am also
    Whitley, while I am also confused by the lack of knowledge on your part, I am absolutely sure that there is no greed a work here. As you’ve said in the past, you were a best selling, gifted author of “thrillers” prior to the visitor experiences and could have made a FANTASTIC living had you not chosen your current path. If greed is your motivation, then you never would have pursued the mystery of the visitors, and all that came with it. As a result, I believe you’ve experienced a great deal of financial hardships, but you’ve always been true to yourself and to others. I’m thankful for having stumbled upon your works, and thankful to you for having forged a difficult path. I admire your bravery and hope for an opportunity in my life to approach fear with the same obstinence.

  89. I’ve never posted on this
    I’ve never posted on this site before, even though I have been a member of unknowncountry since it first started. I am frankly furstrated and cheesed off with the negativity aimed at Mr Streiber. I can think of many occasions that, with hindsight, I wish I had done somethink differently or more thoroughly and how bad I felt about not having done so first time round. The only place you get the truth is on this website, so why would anyone be so untrusting, suspicious and without empathy. As to the comment that no one will edit their old version of the key; I have an old copy of ‘The Key’ and will be marking up the revisions. I am grateful to Mr Streiber for providing us with the changes so that we don’t need to buy a new copy.

    Big hug for Mr Streiber 🙂

  90. I’ve never posted on this
    I’ve never posted on this site before, even though I have been a member of unknowncountry since it first started. I am frankly furstrated and cheesed off with the negativity aimed at Mr Streiber. I can think of many occasions that, with hindsight, I wish I had done somethink differently or more thoroughly and how bad I felt about not having done so first time round. The only place you get the truth is on this website, so why would anyone be so untrusting, suspicious and without empathy. As to the comment that no one will edit their old version of the key; I have an old copy of ‘The Key’ and will be marking up the revisions. I am grateful to Mr Streiber for providing us with the changes so that we don’t need to buy a new copy.

    Big hug for Mr Streiber 🙂

  91. In response to Gary
    In response to Gary Purviance’s comment “Any writer or artist in today’s information society would have noticed his work manipulated early on and brought suit against the publisher or printer”. I’m not convinced this is the case; as a research scientist I have published many science reports; when the report comes back from the publisher for checking I make the automatic assumption that the text has not been altered (I also know that many of my colleagues assume the exact same thing). And I can honestly say that once a report is published I never read it again; why would I when I know it inside out.

  92. In response to Gary
    In response to Gary Purviance’s comment “Any writer or artist in today’s information society would have noticed his work manipulated early on and brought suit against the publisher or printer”. I’m not convinced this is the case; as a research scientist I have published many science reports; when the report comes back from the publisher for checking I make the automatic assumption that the text has not been altered (I also know that many of my colleagues assume the exact same thing). And I can honestly say that once a report is published I never read it again; why would I when I know it inside out.

  93. I rarely post anything,
    I rarely post anything, anywhere, because I’m a low profile kind of person, but I just have to speak out on this issue.

    I bought the first edition of The Key about 5-6 years ago and found it to be a vessel of extremely important, accurate and clear information. Today, when I first read Mr. Strieber’s journal entry, I thought, OK, well there are plenty of careless people out there leaving behind destruction in their wake of thoughtlessness. Maybe the editor was an idiot. But, after I read the differences between the editions, I have to agree that this was not the result of some clueless cubicle dweller; it was intentional.

    My heart is with you Mr. Strieber. To have someone do this to your most beautiful work is like waking up one morning to find someone has tattooed a small gang symbol to your neck during the night. It is nothing short of a hostile, invasive, destructive act. BUT, you have a new edition, so I’m going to buy 4 and send a copy to friends. I suggest other members do the same. Fight back, speak the truth, stand your ground. Thank you, Mr. Strieber for your strength, honesty and clarity.

  94. I rarely post anything,
    I rarely post anything, anywhere, because I’m a low profile kind of person, but I just have to speak out on this issue.

    I bought the first edition of The Key about 5-6 years ago and found it to be a vessel of extremely important, accurate and clear information. Today, when I first read Mr. Strieber’s journal entry, I thought, OK, well there are plenty of careless people out there leaving behind destruction in their wake of thoughtlessness. Maybe the editor was an idiot. But, after I read the differences between the editions, I have to agree that this was not the result of some clueless cubicle dweller; it was intentional.

    My heart is with you Mr. Strieber. To have someone do this to your most beautiful work is like waking up one morning to find someone has tattooed a small gang symbol to your neck during the night. It is nothing short of a hostile, invasive, destructive act. BUT, you have a new edition, so I’m going to buy 4 and send a copy to friends. I suggest other members do the same. Fight back, speak the truth, stand your ground. Thank you, Mr. Strieber for your strength, honesty and clarity.

  95. It seems to me with regards
    It seems to me with regards to the conversation about the electronic or radio control (implants? Enhanced electrically) we are definitely talking about control of the population. If you take this a little deeper we could extend the meaning to also mean they are controlling the population by energetic or ‘fields of energy’ that are given off by cell phone towers, cell phones themselves, digital TV broadcasts and antennas, cable-internet anything that networks humanity together. This is exactly what the independent scientist Leuren Moret speaks about when she talks about the history and evolution of MK Ultra and the mind control programs, and how this morphed into the Haarp system and then it expanded into utilizing cell phone towers and TV towers to control the population. Perhaps those ‘implanted with chips’ can either be protected from those fields of energy or made more receptive to them. Imagine that when watching your TV you are not only receiving the audio / video signal but also another frequency that radiates out into the room. This radiation or frequency is on the microwave wave length and affects our brain waves and nervous systems AND changes our DNA. I often wonder what’s really going on when they run those emergency TV ‘tests’ on occasion. Ms. Leuren Moret also speaks about the abilities of black programs/science to be able to locate new species by utilization of satellite technology because they know every living thing gives off a certain energy signature and that our DNA can be changed by applying a certain frequency radiating out from our computer montors while we are on the internet….

  96. It seems to me with regards
    It seems to me with regards to the conversation about the electronic or radio control (implants? Enhanced electrically) we are definitely talking about control of the population. If you take this a little deeper we could extend the meaning to also mean they are controlling the population by energetic or ‘fields of energy’ that are given off by cell phone towers, cell phones themselves, digital TV broadcasts and antennas, cable-internet anything that networks humanity together. This is exactly what the independent scientist Leuren Moret speaks about when she talks about the history and evolution of MK Ultra and the mind control programs, and how this morphed into the Haarp system and then it expanded into utilizing cell phone towers and TV towers to control the population. Perhaps those ‘implanted with chips’ can either be protected from those fields of energy or made more receptive to them. Imagine that when watching your TV you are not only receiving the audio / video signal but also another frequency that radiates out into the room. This radiation or frequency is on the microwave wave length and affects our brain waves and nervous systems AND changes our DNA. I often wonder what’s really going on when they run those emergency TV ‘tests’ on occasion. Ms. Leuren Moret also speaks about the abilities of black programs/science to be able to locate new species by utilization of satellite technology because they know every living thing gives off a certain energy signature and that our DNA can be changed by applying a certain frequency radiating out from our computer montors while we are on the internet….

  97. Would you ever considering
    Would you ever considering releasing an annotated version of The Key that would further explain the meaning of The Master’s answers to your questions? I find The Key a difficult book to digest because very complex ideas and concepts are explained with very compressed answers and I find myself saying “Wait, Stop! Explain what you mean by that!” The Key is written in the most simple and direct way a transcript of its kind can be, but for the average reader thinking about these concepts for the first time, they require much more background and relation to our own world to make sense.
    Also, I’m curious how you were able to conduct the interview with no preparation? The questions, themselves are so deep and complex, I would think it would take days or weeks to prepare for such an interview. Moreover, the sudden nature of the interview in the middle of the night must have been jarring. Do you feel the Master helped you in some way, by helping to focus your mind on the types of questions to ask and the focus to retain what he was telling you?
    Thank you for releasing The Key, but in its original doctored form and the new uncensored version. You have battled great adversity from within and without to reach this point.

  98. Would you ever considering
    Would you ever considering releasing an annotated version of The Key that would further explain the meaning of The Master’s answers to your questions? I find The Key a difficult book to digest because very complex ideas and concepts are explained with very compressed answers and I find myself saying “Wait, Stop! Explain what you mean by that!” The Key is written in the most simple and direct way a transcript of its kind can be, but for the average reader thinking about these concepts for the first time, they require much more background and relation to our own world to make sense.
    Also, I’m curious how you were able to conduct the interview with no preparation? The questions, themselves are so deep and complex, I would think it would take days or weeks to prepare for such an interview. Moreover, the sudden nature of the interview in the middle of the night must have been jarring. Do you feel the Master helped you in some way, by helping to focus your mind on the types of questions to ask and the focus to retain what he was telling you?
    Thank you for releasing The Key, but in its original doctored form and the new uncensored version. You have battled great adversity from within and without to reach this point.

  99. Thockman: You can’t read
    Thockman: You can’t read this book with your mind/ego, you must read it with your heart/soul. Your mind/ego seeks to control and confuse anything that the soul needs to understand. In other words, you can’t ‘think’ about what is said, you must ‘feel’ what is said. For those of us that are used to spirits or manifestations appearing, this would neither be unusual nor dis-concerting. You have to be willing to look at the unknown with no fear or you will not be able to do this.

  100. Thockman: You can’t read
    Thockman: You can’t read this book with your mind/ego, you must read it with your heart/soul. Your mind/ego seeks to control and confuse anything that the soul needs to understand. In other words, you can’t ‘think’ about what is said, you must ‘feel’ what is said. For those of us that are used to spirits or manifestations appearing, this would neither be unusual nor dis-concerting. You have to be willing to look at the unknown with no fear or you will not be able to do this.

  101. Whitley, I have read The Key
    Whitley, I have read The Key in the past and now I realize I must go back and read it again, but I must read the real edition that is complete. In listening to your interview with Jim, something struck a note of familiarity with an event that happened to me many years ago. I used to work nights at a Pharmacy in Austin Texas. One night a man and a woman, dressed totally in black, walked in to my pharmacy with a medical question. They struck me as someone I needed to take good care of and in payment, I would receive a special gift. That became true. Over the course of all the years I worked that shift, they kept coming back to talk. Let me say, the man was the source of a great deal of information and confirmation of knowledge I had been gathering over the years, while on my spiritual path. But, what you said that rang true with what my mentor said was the bit about the power of needed for creating the Radiant Body. The Radiant Body is something my mentor’s Master achieves when he wants to be in that hyperdimensional form. I think these Masters are everywhere. I think they teach us in a quiet manner that is meant only for those who will listen and understand. As far as the Word…. it is like a roaring river to some who hear it… wrapped in a light so brilliant that it is like a million suns shining… Thanks for sharing your lesson from your Master.

  102. Whitley, I have read The Key
    Whitley, I have read The Key in the past and now I realize I must go back and read it again, but I must read the real edition that is complete. In listening to your interview with Jim, something struck a note of familiarity with an event that happened to me many years ago. I used to work nights at a Pharmacy in Austin Texas. One night a man and a woman, dressed totally in black, walked in to my pharmacy with a medical question. They struck me as someone I needed to take good care of and in payment, I would receive a special gift. That became true. Over the course of all the years I worked that shift, they kept coming back to talk. Let me say, the man was the source of a great deal of information and confirmation of knowledge I had been gathering over the years, while on my spiritual path. But, what you said that rang true with what my mentor said was the bit about the power of needed for creating the Radiant Body. The Radiant Body is something my mentor’s Master achieves when he wants to be in that hyperdimensional form. I think these Masters are everywhere. I think they teach us in a quiet manner that is meant only for those who will listen and understand. As far as the Word…. it is like a roaring river to some who hear it… wrapped in a light so brilliant that it is like a million suns shining… Thanks for sharing your lesson from your Master.

  103. You know, all this loopy
    You know, all this loopy suspicion and anger that I ‘dreamed this up’ to sell more books is really very poorly thought out. The fact that the old edition was altered is a great embarrassment to me. Why didn’t I see it? Who did it? How did I ever let it get past me? Obviously, it’s not a ploy to sell books, but I have a question, here, WHAT IS SO WRONG WITH BUYING MY BOOKS? There are people around here who seem to think that buying the new Key would be some kind of horrible thing to do, if they have the old one–or, for that matter, even if they don’t. The new one is full of terrific new material about all the different ways the MOTK’s predictions have come true. It’s worth buying, darn it, just for itself!

  104. You know, all this loopy
    You know, all this loopy suspicion and anger that I ‘dreamed this up’ to sell more books is really very poorly thought out. The fact that the old edition was altered is a great embarrassment to me. Why didn’t I see it? Who did it? How did I ever let it get past me? Obviously, it’s not a ploy to sell books, but I have a question, here, WHAT IS SO WRONG WITH BUYING MY BOOKS? There are people around here who seem to think that buying the new Key would be some kind of horrible thing to do, if they have the old one–or, for that matter, even if they don’t. The new one is full of terrific new material about all the different ways the MOTK’s predictions have come true. It’s worth buying, darn it, just for itself!

  105. I’m sure I speak for many
    I’m sure I speak for many when I say, ‘I appreciate your frustration, Whitley.’ There is but a small pocketful of authors that can be categorized as wealthy. The rest of us simply make a living. And for the record, I am glad and grateful to say I have both copies. The added comments in this new edition, and especially the rich prose in which it is delivered, make it well worth the few dollars spent. There’s no conspiracy here, folks! Just a man of erudition plying his craft. Thanks, Whitley.

  106. I’m sure I speak for many
    I’m sure I speak for many when I say, ‘I appreciate your frustration, Whitley.’ There is but a small pocketful of authors that can be categorized as wealthy. The rest of us simply make a living. And for the record, I am glad and grateful to say I have both copies. The added comments in this new edition, and especially the rich prose in which it is delivered, make it well worth the few dollars spent. There’s no conspiracy here, folks! Just a man of erudition plying his craft. Thanks, Whitley.

  107. I bought the new one. I own
    I bought the new one. I own both copies. Don’t see the problem doing that. It was my choice and I do not regret it.

  108. I bought the new one. I own
    I bought the new one. I own both copies. Don’t see the problem doing that. It was my choice and I do not regret it.

  109. Hi Whitley – and everyone
    I

    Hi Whitley – and everyone

    I finally joined the subscriber section after many, many years following your work, inspired by this recent discussion around The Key and wishing to participate in it. (As far as I know the only way to post here is by subscribing, though I did try to register as a non-subscriber a couple of years ago, but it didn’t work.)

    First let me reiterate that I’ve read The Key (original version) at least half a dozen times and that for a time I even considered it to be the most profound text I had ever read. I was naturally curious to hear it was being re-released and even more so when I found out it would be with changes or additions. I read your description above and, as with just about everything you write, it left me somewhat ambivalent, undecided what to think.

    A couple of technical observations: you fluctuate between citing the new edition first, followed by the old edition, and then the other way around. It’s a bit confusing (my preference was for reading the old version first, thereby refreshing my memory), and being the way I am, I can’t help but wonder if it doesn’t indicate a deeper confusion at work? Secondly, more strikingly, in one of the early examples of a change, you say that this paragraph is not included in the old edition:

    “If we kill earth before we have all reached ecstasy, what happens?
    We wait until and if the earth spins elemental bodies once again that fit all the attachments of our energetic bodies. If it does not, then we wait forever. We remain incomplete.”

    I don’t have the old edition at hand, but I know beyond any doubt that this or a similar paragraph IS included, because this is an idea that has troubled me ever since I first heard it. It is even something I have repeated, in my own words, to people over the years – that if the Earth died (before humanity had “ascended”), we would remain in limbo as a species. So you might want to recheck that.

    Overall, many of the changes you cite seem minor to me; for example, you suggest the phrase “Make no mistake” was removed so that the reader might “pass over” the idea that evil-doers become so heavy they sink into the Earth (an idea reminiscent of Castaneda’s descriptions of the old seers, by the way). But if some sinister intelligence secretly censoring the manuscript wished to keep this information from readers, then why not omit it altogether? Though your commentary wishes to persuade us that these changes are destructive, I remain unconvinced. Even the “joke” about the whine – though it certainly stood out for me – did not and does not strike me as so terribly inappropriate (I assumed the MOK was making fun of you). The only idea in the old version that seems to be profound enough to qualify as possible misinformation is the idea of the earth committing suicide (also something I adopted and shared with others as a personal belief for a while); that and (maybe) the idea that the water of Aquarius is the energy body, which is just confusing, since in the metaphor given, it would surely be the lungs that allow us to exist in the new element (that of awareness, or conscious energy)?

    It seems to me, however, that the idea of a “brilliant,” subtle manipulation of the text in order to distort the message is not sufficiently supported by the actual changes which occurred. It’s understandable that you’d reach this conclusion, however, since obviously the changes didn’t happen by chance so they must have happened by design; in which case it’s natural to assume that the design must be “sinister.” But there may be another explanation which you’re not considering and that so far no one has brought up here (though the “wacky” idea of different timelines gets close to it).

    As everyone here knows, you write a lot about how reality is not what we perceive it to be. You even suggest in the above post that you and your subscribers are among the few who perceive the true nature of reality. And yet, when all’s said and done, I have noticed how your interpretations of the events surrounding you tend to adhere pretty closely to a consensus view of reality, albeit with a paranoid cum mystical flavor. In the present example, if marked differences have appeared between the version of The Key which you wrote (or remember writing) and the one originally published, the assumption is that some external manipulation has occurred on the part of the publishers. This seems quite literal-minded when it comes to a text such as The Key, which is nothing if not otherworldly and which, according to your own account, has for its source an ascended master who is presumably not bound by the laws of physics in the same way we are?

    I’ll give you an example (with apologies for how long this post is becoming): a few years ago I was working on a novel based on the life of the filmmaker Sam Peckinpah. In order to do justice to my subject, I naturally did all I could to get inside his head; after a while I began to get the acute sense of somehow communing with the dead – the book became a shamanic endeavor in the nature of “soul rescue.” Towards the end of writing it (using Microsoft Word), I opened the document and was bewildered (and horrified) to discover that, in every place I had typed the words “Sam” or “Peckinpah,” there now appeared in their place the word “I”! Somehow, my novel had morphed from third to first person while I was not looking. How did this happen? Was Sam’s ghost getting into my software? Were intelligence operatives hacking my computer and messing with my head? Or was it (what seems to me the most likely explanation) a living interface between my consciousness and the computer via which I was unwittingly altering the text – in keeping with my own developing affinity for and understanding of the subject?

    You can probably see where I am going with this. . .

    Did the changes that occurred in the first publication of The Key come from external meddling by a “mole” at the publishers, dispatched by the forces of darkness? Or did the Master of the Key himself tweak the text by remote manipulation? Or – since you are the leading character in this whole narrative – did you yourself have a “hand” (an astral marker pen) in what happened? Possibly it’s a combination of all of the above, or even none of them. But isn’t a mystery of this nature, one which pertains to another, much greater mystery (the book itself), more likely to have a mysterious explanation than a mundane one?

    Reality isn’t what we think it is, because time and space are not what we perceive them to be. When something changes in the present, it seems likely that has repercussions, not only into the future but into the past also. If your own awareness is evolving, then at some level, doesn’t it make perfect sense if the products of your awareness evolve along with it?

    I think this mystery – though it of course fascinates admirers of The Key – has much more significance for yourself than for your readers, and that looking for an outside explanation, though an almost irresistible temptation, may not be the way to go. The mystery is within. When we have an experience of our car keys vanishing and reappearing somewhere else, we tell ourselves we are simply being absent-minded. But can we say for sure that the absence of our minds wasn’t exactly what caused our car keys to teleport through space, and that we are merely papering the cracks with our reassuringly mundane explanation? In a quantum universe, it is only our attention that keeps things fixed and consistent with what we expect them to be. Mightn’t this be the case with The Key? Isn’t the real question: how could you overlook something this major for ten years? Not as something to beat yourself up over, but as a clue to the riddle of Whitley, a riddle which keeps us all tuned to this particular channel?

    I hope some of these thoughts are useful to you, and I look forward to your upcoming book (What Is to Come).

    Jason

  110. Hi Whitley – and everyone
    I

    Hi Whitley – and everyone

    I finally joined the subscriber section after many, many years following your work, inspired by this recent discussion around The Key and wishing to participate in it. (As far as I know the only way to post here is by subscribing, though I did try to register as a non-subscriber a couple of years ago, but it didn’t work.)

    First let me reiterate that I’ve read The Key (original version) at least half a dozen times and that for a time I even considered it to be the most profound text I had ever read. I was naturally curious to hear it was being re-released and even more so when I found out it would be with changes or additions. I read your description above and, as with just about everything you write, it left me somewhat ambivalent, undecided what to think.

    A couple of technical observations: you fluctuate between citing the new edition first, followed by the old edition, and then the other way around. It’s a bit confusing (my preference was for reading the old version first, thereby refreshing my memory), and being the way I am, I can’t help but wonder if it doesn’t indicate a deeper confusion at work? Secondly, more strikingly, in one of the early examples of a change, you say that this paragraph is not included in the old edition:

    “If we kill earth before we have all reached ecstasy, what happens?
    We wait until and if the earth spins elemental bodies once again that fit all the attachments of our energetic bodies. If it does not, then we wait forever. We remain incomplete.”

    I don’t have the old edition at hand, but I know beyond any doubt that this or a similar paragraph IS included, because this is an idea that has troubled me ever since I first heard it. It is even something I have repeated, in my own words, to people over the years – that if the Earth died (before humanity had “ascended”), we would remain in limbo as a species. So you might want to recheck that.

    Overall, many of the changes you cite seem minor to me; for example, you suggest the phrase “Make no mistake” was removed so that the reader might “pass over” the idea that evil-doers become so heavy they sink into the Earth (an idea reminiscent of Castaneda’s descriptions of the old seers, by the way). But if some sinister intelligence secretly censoring the manuscript wished to keep this information from readers, then why not omit it altogether? Though your commentary wishes to persuade us that these changes are destructive, I remain unconvinced. Even the “joke” about the whine – though it certainly stood out for me – did not and does not strike me as so terribly inappropriate (I assumed the MOK was making fun of you). The only idea in the old version that seems to be profound enough to qualify as possible misinformation is the idea of the earth committing suicide (also something I adopted and shared with others as a personal belief for a while); that and (maybe) the idea that the water of Aquarius is the energy body, which is just confusing, since in the metaphor given, it would surely be the lungs that allow us to exist in the new element (that of awareness, or conscious energy)?

    It seems to me, however, that the idea of a “brilliant,” subtle manipulation of the text in order to distort the message is not sufficiently supported by the actual changes which occurred. It’s understandable that you’d reach this conclusion, however, since obviously the changes didn’t happen by chance so they must have happened by design; in which case it’s natural to assume that the design must be “sinister.” But there may be another explanation which you’re not considering and that so far no one has brought up here (though the “wacky” idea of different timelines gets close to it).

    As everyone here knows, you write a lot about how reality is not what we perceive it to be. You even suggest in the above post that you and your subscribers are among the few who perceive the true nature of reality. And yet, when all’s said and done, I have noticed how your interpretations of the events surrounding you tend to adhere pretty closely to a consensus view of reality, albeit with a paranoid cum mystical flavor. In the present example, if marked differences have appeared between the version of The Key which you wrote (or remember writing) and the one originally published, the assumption is that some external manipulation has occurred on the part of the publishers. This seems quite literal-minded when it comes to a text such as The Key, which is nothing if not otherworldly and which, according to your own account, has for its source an ascended master who is presumably not bound by the laws of physics in the same way we are?

    I’ll give you an example (with apologies for how long this post is becoming): a few years ago I was working on a novel based on the life of the filmmaker Sam Peckinpah. In order to do justice to my subject, I naturally did all I could to get inside his head; after a while I began to get the acute sense of somehow communing with the dead – the book became a shamanic endeavor in the nature of “soul rescue.” Towards the end of writing it (using Microsoft Word), I opened the document and was bewildered (and horrified) to discover that, in every place I had typed the words “Sam” or “Peckinpah,” there now appeared in their place the word “I”! Somehow, my novel had morphed from third to first person while I was not looking. How did this happen? Was Sam’s ghost getting into my software? Were intelligence operatives hacking my computer and messing with my head? Or was it (what seems to me the most likely explanation) a living interface between my consciousness and the computer via which I was unwittingly altering the text – in keeping with my own developing affinity for and understanding of the subject?

    You can probably see where I am going with this. . .

    Did the changes that occurred in the first publication of The Key come from external meddling by a “mole” at the publishers, dispatched by the forces of darkness? Or did the Master of the Key himself tweak the text by remote manipulation? Or – since you are the leading character in this whole narrative – did you yourself have a “hand” (an astral marker pen) in what happened? Possibly it’s a combination of all of the above, or even none of them. But isn’t a mystery of this nature, one which pertains to another, much greater mystery (the book itself), more likely to have a mysterious explanation than a mundane one?

    Reality isn’t what we think it is, because time and space are not what we perceive them to be. When something changes in the present, it seems likely that has repercussions, not only into the future but into the past also. If your own awareness is evolving, then at some level, doesn’t it make perfect sense if the products of your awareness evolve along with it?

    I think this mystery – though it of course fascinates admirers of The Key – has much more significance for yourself than for your readers, and that looking for an outside explanation, though an almost irresistible temptation, may not be the way to go. The mystery is within. When we have an experience of our car keys vanishing and reappearing somewhere else, we tell ourselves we are simply being absent-minded. But can we say for sure that the absence of our minds wasn’t exactly what caused our car keys to teleport through space, and that we are merely papering the cracks with our reassuringly mundane explanation? In a quantum universe, it is only our attention that keeps things fixed and consistent with what we expect them to be. Mightn’t this be the case with The Key? Isn’t the real question: how could you overlook something this major for ten years? Not as something to beat yourself up over, but as a clue to the riddle of Whitley, a riddle which keeps us all tuned to this particular channel?

    I hope some of these thoughts are useful to you, and I look forward to your upcoming book (What Is to Come).

    Jason

  111. Whitley: I was disappointed
    Whitley: I was disappointed not to receive a response to my last post but I understand that you must be very busy. However, in the interim I’ve been doing more reading and research and I feel the need to address this matter further. At your post of May 25th, you wrote this remark: “There is even one person out there claiming that the “edits” make the book better. Sure, get rid of anything about mind control. Stick in things about evil aliens that don’t exist to confuse people about who the sinister forces around here really are. That’s great editing! The book was CENSORED.”
    ….
    Anyone who’s being paying attention at the forum will have guessed that you are here referring to a couple of documents written anonymously but placed online (at Scribd) by “heinrich66” and linked to here by (presumably) the same user. I have read both documents now (unfortunately there is much repetition, and ideally they ought to be synthesized into a single document) and been very impressed by what I read. Whoever has written these reports has gone to a great deal of care and has done an extremely thorough, erudite, intelligent, and balanced job of it. As far as I know, you have made no mention of these documents outside of the dismissive and defensive comment quoted above, and I for one would like to hear more from you.
    ….
    I have noticed, Whitley, that you have a tendency to respond to anyone who questions or challenges your version of things with emotional outbursts and with either some sort of moral indignation or with angry and impatient accusations – in other words either defensively or offensively – or a combination of both. I’ve also noticed that this appears to satisfy many of your followers (there’s no other word for them), who rush to your defense and offer the same sort of blind, unquestioning support which you appear to want. That’s all very well, but it’s not an environment that allows for open inquiry, constructive criticism, or the thorough examination (and evolution) of ideas. It’s actually rather more like a cult environment (of which I have some experience).

    This present example is therefore a very compelling – and to my mind urgent – one, in that it presents an opportunity for all concerned. It’s for this reason that I feel driven to speak up, even knowing that I risk incurring your displeasure and being grouped with those “insensitive swine” who dare to offer you anything besides slavish agreement and unconditional support.

    To my mind, and speaking as a great admirer of your work and especially of The Key, the “charges” made in these two documents are highly persuasive, and simply ignoring them is not going to make them go away. On the contrary, it only creates the impression that you are trying to keep something covered up by sticking stubbornly to your version, which essentially is based on the premise that, since you wrote the book, you’ll be damned if you don’t get to have the final word on which version is the true one. But by your own account, you didn’t so much write the book as transcribe it, and unless I am mistaken, quite a bit of it from memory. So you must admit there’s a fairly large margin for error there. There’s also an interesting parallel with Communion, after which the beings described in it allegedly made an appearance and *let it be known that you had got some things wrong.* You gracefully acknowledged this in a later work (Transformation, I believe), but then, later still, you quite *ungraciously* refuted the “charges” and accused the beings of lying!

    I propose that – if we are to take you at your word in all of this – an alternative explanation is as follows: the originally published version of The Key was the “correct” one, and that the document you meant to send to the publishers (the new, supposedly improved version) was “supernaturally” intercepted by the Master of the Key – or those intelligent forces which sent him to you – in order to ensure that it be released in a closer to accurate form. Ten years later, for reasons known best to yourself, you managed to override that BENIGN interference and get your own version out, a version which, as the author of these documents more than convincingly argues, is the inferior version, but which is the one YOU wished to get out there (complete with the rather baffling claim that you are immune to mind control thanks to taking an implant into your body).

    You have already made it abundantly clear that you not agree with this interpretation or any variations upon it, at least not publically; but so far, your own story has not been persuasive, not to me at least; your arguments for the book being censored by dark forces have been emotional and full of accusatory, inflammatory language (“censorship!” , “sinister,” “sickening,” and so forth), but with very little logical force behind them. Perhaps you are hoping that your fierce conviction will be enough to convince others, regardless of just how paltry the evidence is? And judging by the comments, you’ve been largely successful. But there are those of us out there who aren’t persuaded, and to group us with the fools and swine (or disinfo agents with secret agendas) which you are convinced are trying to persecute and discredit you is – to put it mildly – an extremely arrogant and disrespectful way to treat your readers. I am asking that you treat us with the respect that WE deserve, and provide us with some honest, considered responses to these troubling questions.

    Here are some quotes from the conclusion of one of the documents (the one titled “Changes in The Key: A Short Essay on the Question of Censorship in the Texts”) which I hope you will address. (The full document can be read here: http://www.scribd.com/heinrich66 , along with the other one, “A Minority Report.”)
    ……
    [Quote:] Whether or not the 2011 edition conversation is more ‘accurate’, it is inferior as writing. There are self-consistency issues, exchanges that seem cut-and-pasted in out of context, and disruptions of the seemingly perfect system of word-repetitions and associative structure of the 1st edition.

    One suspects that the charge of censorship has been made as part of an emotional reaction by the author at the disturbing fact of differences between editions (despite numerous tiny changes that can only be editorial). One also suspects that barring a mundane explanation like a later electronic manuscript file being misplaced or lost reflecting the superior 1st edition, the composition process of this book was as ‘hyperdimensional’ as the original conversation.
    …..
    Because the 1st edition has been publicly disowned by its author, sacrificed on an altar built by the new edition, an incredible rift has been introduced in the credibility of the book itself. In later years, when referring to the book or quoting from it, specific mention will have to be made whether it is the 2001 original/censored edition or the 2011 true-original/altered edition depending on your point of view. That the book’s author has disowned a version that seems artistically superior and free of the 2nd edition’s structural flaws means that readers sensitive enough to notice those flaws are put in the position of having to defend a book discredited and practically denounced by its author, while the majority of people will be ushered toward a book that is not the masterpiece of the original.
    …..
    What does this mean? It means that any future academic-level study of “The Key”, if it takes place, will focus instead on issues of authenticity, rather than the provocative new ideas introduced in the book. It also means that this level of interest is likely not to take place, because if an author cannot agree with himself as to whether words in a book are his own, it will prove too high an obstacle for even a beginning interest in the book.
    …..
    What is taking place with “The Key” is that the book is being killed so that its message will come out. [A reference to TMOTK’s story of the killing of the pig, so God would come to his senses.] Like seeing a movie version of a book you have read, the difference between the two versions is enough that the original experience of reading the book can never be the same. Likewise, the ultimate accuracy of the text itself is now being questioned because of the reality of alternate versions that cannot be explained away as censorship. As a result, the printed words fade into the background and the ‘hyperdimensional’ nature of the conversation itself comes to the fore. The book now cannot be made into a religious text. It has been sabotaged too early in its origins. While holy books like the Bible can generate centuries of exegesis and controversy owing to the unique limitations of every language, no book like the New Testament could long survive quoting words from Jesus and then other words from Jesus disavowing those same words. Who knows what might happen to “The Key” in two hundred years’ time, after cultural shifts and perhaps accepted signs of contact? Its words will continue to influence the minds of those who read it, but the book itself as a physical object will now not be able to replace the mysterious reality and the open question of the original encounter.
    ….
    [End quote]

  112. Whitley: I was disappointed
    Whitley: I was disappointed not to receive a response to my last post but I understand that you must be very busy. However, in the interim I’ve been doing more reading and research and I feel the need to address this matter further. At your post of May 25th, you wrote this remark: “There is even one person out there claiming that the “edits” make the book better. Sure, get rid of anything about mind control. Stick in things about evil aliens that don’t exist to confuse people about who the sinister forces around here really are. That’s great editing! The book was CENSORED.”
    ….
    Anyone who’s being paying attention at the forum will have guessed that you are here referring to a couple of documents written anonymously but placed online (at Scribd) by “heinrich66” and linked to here by (presumably) the same user. I have read both documents now (unfortunately there is much repetition, and ideally they ought to be synthesized into a single document) and been very impressed by what I read. Whoever has written these reports has gone to a great deal of care and has done an extremely thorough, erudite, intelligent, and balanced job of it. As far as I know, you have made no mention of these documents outside of the dismissive and defensive comment quoted above, and I for one would like to hear more from you.
    ….
    I have noticed, Whitley, that you have a tendency to respond to anyone who questions or challenges your version of things with emotional outbursts and with either some sort of moral indignation or with angry and impatient accusations – in other words either defensively or offensively – or a combination of both. I’ve also noticed that this appears to satisfy many of your followers (there’s no other word for them), who rush to your defense and offer the same sort of blind, unquestioning support which you appear to want. That’s all very well, but it’s not an environment that allows for open inquiry, constructive criticism, or the thorough examination (and evolution) of ideas. It’s actually rather more like a cult environment (of which I have some experience).

    This present example is therefore a very compelling – and to my mind urgent – one, in that it presents an opportunity for all concerned. It’s for this reason that I feel driven to speak up, even knowing that I risk incurring your displeasure and being grouped with those “insensitive swine” who dare to offer you anything besides slavish agreement and unconditional support.

    To my mind, and speaking as a great admirer of your work and especially of The Key, the “charges” made in these two documents are highly persuasive, and simply ignoring them is not going to make them go away. On the contrary, it only creates the impression that you are trying to keep something covered up by sticking stubbornly to your version, which essentially is based on the premise that, since you wrote the book, you’ll be damned if you don’t get to have the final word on which version is the true one. But by your own account, you didn’t so much write the book as transcribe it, and unless I am mistaken, quite a bit of it from memory. So you must admit there’s a fairly large margin for error there. There’s also an interesting parallel with Communion, after which the beings described in it allegedly made an appearance and *let it be known that you had got some things wrong.* You gracefully acknowledged this in a later work (Transformation, I believe), but then, later still, you quite *ungraciously* refuted the “charges” and accused the beings of lying!

    I propose that – if we are to take you at your word in all of this – an alternative explanation is as follows: the originally published version of The Key was the “correct” one, and that the document you meant to send to the publishers (the new, supposedly improved version) was “supernaturally” intercepted by the Master of the Key – or those intelligent forces which sent him to you – in order to ensure that it be released in a closer to accurate form. Ten years later, for reasons known best to yourself, you managed to override that BENIGN interference and get your own version out, a version which, as the author of these documents more than convincingly argues, is the inferior version, but which is the one YOU wished to get out there (complete with the rather baffling claim that you are immune to mind control thanks to taking an implant into your body).

    You have already made it abundantly clear that you not agree with this interpretation or any variations upon it, at least not publically; but so far, your own story has not been persuasive, not to me at least; your arguments for the book being censored by dark forces have been emotional and full of accusatory, inflammatory language (“censorship!” , “sinister,” “sickening,” and so forth), but with very little logical force behind them. Perhaps you are hoping that your fierce conviction will be enough to convince others, regardless of just how paltry the evidence is? And judging by the comments, you’ve been largely successful. But there are those of us out there who aren’t persuaded, and to group us with the fools and swine (or disinfo agents with secret agendas) which you are convinced are trying to persecute and discredit you is – to put it mildly – an extremely arrogant and disrespectful way to treat your readers. I am asking that you treat us with the respect that WE deserve, and provide us with some honest, considered responses to these troubling questions.

    Here are some quotes from the conclusion of one of the documents (the one titled “Changes in The Key: A Short Essay on the Question of Censorship in the Texts”) which I hope you will address. (The full document can be read here: http://www.scribd.com/heinrich66 , along with the other one, “A Minority Report.”)
    ……
    [Quote:] Whether or not the 2011 edition conversation is more ‘accurate’, it is inferior as writing. There are self-consistency issues, exchanges that seem cut-and-pasted in out of context, and disruptions of the seemingly perfect system of word-repetitions and associative structure of the 1st edition.

    One suspects that the charge of censorship has been made as part of an emotional reaction by the author at the disturbing fact of differences between editions (despite numerous tiny changes that can only be editorial). One also suspects that barring a mundane explanation like a later electronic manuscript file being misplaced or lost reflecting the superior 1st edition, the composition process of this book was as ‘hyperdimensional’ as the original conversation.
    …..
    Because the 1st edition has been publicly disowned by its author, sacrificed on an altar built by the new edition, an incredible rift has been introduced in the credibility of the book itself. In later years, when referring to the book or quoting from it, specific mention will have to be made whether it is the 2001 original/censored edition or the 2011 true-original/altered edition depending on your point of view. That the book’s author has disowned a version that seems artistically superior and free of the 2nd edition’s structural flaws means that readers sensitive enough to notice those flaws are put in the position of having to defend a book discredited and practically denounced by its author, while the majority of people will be ushered toward a book that is not the masterpiece of the original.
    …..
    What does this mean? It means that any future academic-level study of “The Key”, if it takes place, will focus instead on issues of authenticity, rather than the provocative new ideas introduced in the book. It also means that this level of interest is likely not to take place, because if an author cannot agree with himself as to whether words in a book are his own, it will prove too high an obstacle for even a beginning interest in the book.
    …..
    What is taking place with “The Key” is that the book is being killed so that its message will come out. [A reference to TMOTK’s story of the killing of the pig, so God would come to his senses.] Like seeing a movie version of a book you have read, the difference between the two versions is enough that the original experience of reading the book can never be the same. Likewise, the ultimate accuracy of the text itself is now being questioned because of the reality of alternate versions that cannot be explained away as censorship. As a result, the printed words fade into the background and the ‘hyperdimensional’ nature of the conversation itself comes to the fore. The book now cannot be made into a religious text. It has been sabotaged too early in its origins. While holy books like the Bible can generate centuries of exegesis and controversy owing to the unique limitations of every language, no book like the New Testament could long survive quoting words from Jesus and then other words from Jesus disavowing those same words. Who knows what might happen to “The Key” in two hundred years’ time, after cultural shifts and perhaps accepted signs of contact? Its words will continue to influence the minds of those who read it, but the book itself as a physical object will now not be able to replace the mysterious reality and the open question of the original encounter.
    ….
    [End quote]

  113. @ Jason Horsley –
    It is

    @ Jason Horsley –

    It is interesting to think

    of the word authority, when a book might make demands of its own.

    how something can retain its integrity while undergoing an integral change.

    how even a Master might find truth to be a moving target.

    why a Creator would give his creation free will.

    of methods of close approximation,
    measurement by triangulation,
    and skeleton keys.

    It is interesting to think.

  114. @ Jason Horsley –
    It is

    @ Jason Horsley –

    It is interesting to think

    of the word authority, when a book might make demands of its own.

    how something can retain its integrity while undergoing an integral change.

    how even a Master might find truth to be a moving target.

    why a Creator would give his creation free will.

    of methods of close approximation,
    measurement by triangulation,
    and skeleton keys.

    It is interesting to think.

  115. Yes, it is…. Nicely
    Yes, it is…. Nicely phrased.

    Since I posted the above I listened to Whitley’s talk with Jim Marrs from the 19th of May and was pleased to discover that he does address the documents I quoted above and even acknowledge some truth to them. So I’d like to apologize to Whitley if I “jumped the gun” there, to some extent. Whitley also mentions making the document visible at an “opinions” page – if it is then I have yet to come across that page.

    That said, I’d still like to hear more from Whitley on this. It was distressing to hear how quickly and easily Marrs went along with his diagnosis of ‘sinister interference’ at work based on such flimsy evidence. It also strikes me as ironic, if not paradoxical, that on the one hand, Whitley cites how part of the meddling with The Key was designed to strengthen the idea of dark forces battling light forces (the standard Manichean dualism), while on the other, he is doing exactly that with his indignant exhortations of sinister conspiracies at work. It may be that Whitley is just too close to this to be able to see it clearly or with a level head.

    As queli hints at above: what if the document (like everything else in God’s creation) is itself alive and has been making its own changes, internally? Why reduce this to any one thing and say “It is censorship!” (or anything else) when the only really honest statement anyone can make (including Whitley) is: I don’t know??

  116. Yes, it is…. Nicely
    Yes, it is…. Nicely phrased.

    Since I posted the above I listened to Whitley’s talk with Jim Marrs from the 19th of May and was pleased to discover that he does address the documents I quoted above and even acknowledge some truth to them. So I’d like to apologize to Whitley if I “jumped the gun” there, to some extent. Whitley also mentions making the document visible at an “opinions” page – if it is then I have yet to come across that page.

    That said, I’d still like to hear more from Whitley on this. It was distressing to hear how quickly and easily Marrs went along with his diagnosis of ‘sinister interference’ at work based on such flimsy evidence. It also strikes me as ironic, if not paradoxical, that on the one hand, Whitley cites how part of the meddling with The Key was designed to strengthen the idea of dark forces battling light forces (the standard Manichean dualism), while on the other, he is doing exactly that with his indignant exhortations of sinister conspiracies at work. It may be that Whitley is just too close to this to be able to see it clearly or with a level head.

    As queli hints at above: what if the document (like everything else in God’s creation) is itself alive and has been making its own changes, internally? Why reduce this to any one thing and say “It is censorship!” (or anything else) when the only really honest statement anyone can make (including Whitley) is: I don’t know??

  117. One does not have to be alive
    One does not have to be alive to defend a sense of self.

  118. One does not have to be alive
    One does not have to be alive to defend a sense of self.

  119. Deleted
    Deleted

  120. Deleted
    Deleted

Comments are closed.