Working with health problems (Negative greeting and past lives).

Struggling with health issues a bit, which is what this will be about. But it will retain it's focus on metaphysics.

German New Medicine. 

Firstly:

Youtube: Alvin De Leon: Constipation (May 25th 2018):

https://youtu.be/xLhV_1TxJ_8?si=Q_WXIPuFlrebWcp5

German New Medicine is a modality of healing in a sense. The founder, Dr Hamer. Found correlations between things in the brain and the formation of Cancer. He followed on, with an understanding that the formations in the brain, were emotional issues that then became Cancer. 

From this he created an entire secondary system of medicine of sorts. Of health. The model is that a lot of our illnesses are kind of adaptions in a sense. The analogy is when a mouse escapes a cat, it exerts itself to the extent of getting asthma. 

When a person feels threatened in their environment, their bladder might expand so they can mark their territory. With a heavy dose of EvoPsych. The idea is similar to the general new age ideas of how health and healing work. 

For me then, as the four minute video discusses. The idea behind constipation is when you experience something that you are unable to digest. 

This could be many things for me. It could be that I have lost a lot of my life to my disability that I had not really realised until recently. But I don't think that's it. Even though I have realised it recently. I have to process that I won't have a normal life whereas before, I always used to believe it would "work out". 

But it might not be that, I have an idea of what it might be. But I have to explain something else beforehand. Which relates to this kind of psychological thing, and David Wilcock, which I have recently covered.

Psychological madness.

One of the things I experienced when I first got into the Law of One, after about three years or so. Was an incredibly strong belief, that felt like it was forced onto me. Like an insight. That I was Don Elkins in a past life. 

This was probably following on from my belief in David Wilcock. Who used to talk about himself being Edgar Cayce. 

I am not making the case for me being him, I do not believe that and I will explain why. But I do need to explain a little why it made so much sense to me at the time. At the time I had gotten very obsessed with, a seemingly mutual obsession. With a girl that I worked with. Who, kind of stalked or harrassed me, and went off with another guy after that. 

I had very little power in that place. In the supermarket I was working at. I just need to defend myself a little from the very possible implication, to anonymous readers, that I was in fact the stalker. I actually did not have the power to do anything in that place. I was told where to go, the specific checkout to sit on. I was told what time I could go on a break.

This girl on the other hand, did not have a lot of limitations there. Her family worked there. She had a LOT of friends there. This was the first time that I was socially ostracised from an entire social group. The entire time I worked there I did not see anyone outside work even though there was a huge social life there that everyone was invited to and I had got on with a lot of them informally. 

She also had access to the cameras, and could choose what she did, where she went in the store, at what times. There was a whole secondary office that I never saw but a lot of the staff disappeared into. 

The girl drove me nuts a bit. There is some that I don't want to say. But I will just summarise she was very obsessed. If I went in five minutes early or five minutes late she would always be there. Because she was watching me on the cameras. She would often be there in my breaks etc. She was setting up a kind of clown show where I would be in a position to approach her. 

Yes, this all sounds nuts I know. 

Nevertheless, this woman was a Cancer. The guy she ended up going with had a very specific and relevant synchronicity that tied him to the llresearch group. The story of Carla, Jim and Don seemed to me to be repeating in my own life. After years of being at this supermarket. Staying, really having had my life messed up in a way. I had this dream where I was fighting a serial killer. One I had seen on TV that tortured children. Blood slipped over my hands in my Grannies room (at the time, recently dead), and I opened a letter explaining I was Don Elkins. Then, and this seemed to confirm it to me. Supermarket girl left, and I left soon after, seeing no reason to be there. 

The effect of the negative:

This... is a powerful trick from the negative. I am sure of this. I will discuss a little later what the implications are of past lives and such and what is or is not real. But this specific example, and probably many others to. I believe is purely a trick of the negative.  

What has been created is then an avatar. A figure. An internal figure. As you might use in the Internal Family Systems framework. Which can become part of the psyche. But can feed into the psyche from wherever and whomever created it. I believe this was a negative entity. And rather like reading the Law of One feeds back to the positive sources that authored it. As an internal figure created by the negative. It goes back to the source that authored it. 

This is what I attribute to some deeply, deeply negative events that followed in my life. 

The positive break down of this. 

There is a problem here. I do not know if this is just my way of processing or is a Universally good way of processing. But in my belief. Past lives are never worth exploring. Perhaps in the sense of the Michael Newton books that always seemed kind of positive to me. But as it relates to us normal people. Trying to find these things through meditation, dreams or hypnosis. The problem with past lives is that they are something that can never be confirmed or denied by our objective senses. Which is really all we can ever know.

For this reason, either for me in general, or, as I said, universally. I think a Stefan Molyneux style of philosophy is important. For some matters, not all matters, atheism is needed. Since so little of those new age types of things can be known for sure. There is a part of life where first principles need to be thing we go by. 

But this brings up a problem. A lot of theological/ new age kinds of stuff is stuff that you kind of hold in your mind. You believe and you hope that it is real. Like energy healing. Like the teachings of Jesus. But without the ability to objectively prove it, it stays in the area of "faith". It is part of your faith. 

Where it was a bad idea to ever have the idea of being someone in a past life and definitely, to get resultant beliefs from that. It is also a bad strategy, in my view, to then say that you know for definite that you were not a past life memory. So you're stuck. Luckily I had no one really discuss this with me. The worst thing possible would have been for some llresearch people to have believed me back then, on the quiet perhaps a small amount did, a small amount didn't, and the majority simply didn't care, or didn't know.

These beliefs are DEEP. A belief in a past life, and people following you through into your life. Like David Wilcock talks about with Edgar Cayce. Which also reflects into my own beliefs around my life at the time. 

The slow collapsing of beliefs.

As the Law of One says in session 18.5 I think it is. On the path of the adept "Nothing has to be overcome, that which is not needed falls away". 

One of the things I linked with this Law of One stuff was my half sister. My disagreement with her seems to me to have started at the same time as the constipation. The thing that I am not able to digest is perhaps that we really do not connect, that she really doesn't like me. 

One of the horrible things I have found with going on red pill information (Pearl Davis is my favourite Red Pill Creator), is that women are... actually like that. They are actually like how a lot of those creators describe them. The modern zeitgeist is in a lot of ways emphatically against this reality and with a great deal of zeal tries to push against it. I sometimes feel a temporary relief when I start to hear a convincing case against the red pill information. It is always short lived. Soon after disproven. When you hear women saying exactly those things in real life, and acting in those ways. It is a little upsetting.

Growing up with a single mother (and women have an idealised vision of their own gender). Without a father to pick holes in that idealisation. It does go quite deep the blue pill reasoning.  

My half sister is astrologically very similar to Carla. A stellium Cancer. Similar in a lot of ways. But, she is not, and my brush with this reincarnation kind of belief system, has projected an image over her that is different to the person who is actually before me. The real person that is, or rather was, in my life.

So my conceptual framework that related to the Don Elkins beliefs. The fake belief. Has conflicted with the real world objective, but subconscious, understanding of who my sister is and her psychology.  

Conclusion.

This has been a very powerful article I believe. I think the spiritual energy is raising for Easter (as I write this I am eating one of my two Easter Eggs. There has been a family celebration April 1st!). I have wanted to articulate something on that Don Elkins madness for a long time but it hasn't come together. I think talking against David Wilcock has been part of why it has now. Or perhaps since I messaged Llresearch with that article.

This are interesting thoughts aren't they? But I have a very real medical issue. People can die from constipation. The problem is getting slowly, progressively, worse. I have a new stronger prescription to pick up. 

The test of a theory such as German New Medicine is; can it actually heal something in the real world? Can I change my emotions to understand something about my sister, or whatever the "indigestible morsel" is?  

In my view, I think what this comes down to, taking this framework. Is music. When I play music, it is an emotional expression unlike any other. Journalling, meditation, this blog, maybe visualisation. Loads of life has a way to express some kind of thing. But it is not quite like music. Music is raw emotion in a way I don't experience in other parts of life. 

When writing about this very subject I came away with good lyrics "If I wanted to enrage you I would take an interest in you". The strange feeling of hostility that comes about if I try and show any warmth towards my sister. The utter confusing logic of the situation.

But, well firstly, the constipation itself, the stomach aches, are stopping the music. But also, is it really likely that I will make loads of music, it will express or process said emotions, and the constipation will end?

That doesn't seem likely to me. But nevertheless, with the degree of powerless against illness that most of us experience. I still think it is worth exploring these ideas!  

Quick break.

A personal post. An fyi before you read.  

Whether it is a legitimate thing or something I am imagining. Having a very imaginative nature. Or just bad luck. I have been experiencing a little difficulty recently.

It actually seemed to move around making the David Wilcock posts. The "bad feelings" seemed to grow stronger then. During my meditations. I had the sensations of entities trying to speak to me and the kind of positive/ codependent feeling I used to have when I followed David. This meant I had to have book 2 of the Law of One next to me when I meditated. Which meant there were no negative sensations anymore. But the positive sensations when I meditate with the Law of One are a bit overwhelming and it tends to lead to me stopping meditation. 

It feels like it cost a lot of energy to create the posts around David Wilcocks 8th of March video.  

A bunch of other things as well. But my take away is that I am not blogging today and might take a short break. The thing I was saying on twitter I don't think is legitimate either. Was simply a symptom of approaching paranoia and overthinking.  

Philosophers HDC.

This is a post that highlights casual, not put together, thoughts:

Stefan Molyneux:

Neitzsche:

Shopenhauer: 

Bertrand Russell: 

Robert Greene:

Soren Kierkegaard:

All with the ego undefined. The following have the ego defined:

John Nash, founder of Game Theory:

Rene Girard:

There was one more that I could have added to each. A psychologist with an undefined will and a philosopher that I don't like, with a defined will (Doesn't say anything bad, it's just kind of cliche'd annoying statements to me!) 

I already had the chart prepared. I.e. without meta data. For Neitzsche, Bertrand Russell and Stefan Molyneux. I had Nietzsche and Russell because I was thinking of following up on the idea that philosophers are simply describing their charts. Bertrand Russell was often about a love of work. That work was our meaning for life in a sense. And he has three connections between the Sacral and G- Self. 

Neitsche was about the animal heirarchy. All the little justifications and false uses of moral terms that people use when they are jealous. Which is very typical of the 34-20. Which bypasses the G Self/ sense of ethics. Robert Greene is precisely the same at this.

While Stefan Molyneux, as an example I am far more deeply acquianted with, Has a lot more moral convictions in his ideas surrounding morality. That the conscience is perfect in a sense, as it is our brains best adapted way of running tribal life. His Sacral runs through the G-Self in order to get to the throat. 

It is interesting that so many philosophers have the undefined ego. But it is in truth. Not higher than it would be statistically for the population as far as I know. The reason I have highlighted things like this, is to think through the difference that the defined ego is adding. 

Firstly, all the strategy that is needed in political machinations IS shown very strongly in Robert Greene's work. So the undefined ego does not shy away from that. 

But what is it that changes from the defined to the undefined ego?

I have a defined ego, and so does Ra Uru Hu. I have had a bit of an insight into how Ra Uru Hu potentially functioned recently:

A quote taken from Goodreads:

Passive, submissive imitation does exist, but hatred of conformity and extreme individualism are no less imitative. Today they constitute a negative conformism that is more formidable than the positive version. More and more, it seems to me, modern individualism assumes the form of a desperate denial of the fact that, through mimetic desire, each of us seeks to impose his will upon his fellow man, whom he professes to love but more often despises.

This line is very very similar to what I have been thinking recently. Although I called it something else. The way I see it, is that everyone attempts to conform others to their own chart all the time.  

 It is a very subtle thing to put ones finger on. How these energies function. But if this kind of conforming others to oneself is something said by Girard, and not these other philosophers. Perhaps it is more of a behaviour of the defined will. So when I look out at others and see them appear to do that. It is actually my projection. Since they do not have a defined will?

Odds and Ends.

Just a few notes from my metaphysical thoughts in general then:

The negative crisis.

I am reading about sessions 85 and 86, and I cannot believe some of what I am reading. Due to the fact that the trio in the Law of One. Don, Carla and Jim, were not able to depolarise by the efforts of the negative entity targeting them. It was going into crisis. 

This entity, that was the definition of terror, was depolarising because it was experiencing an "unsuccessful attempt at exploring the wisdom of separation" (85.4) So roughly stated, this entity believes in its whole self in the wisdom of the service to self path. But, in order for that to be valid, they need to experience evidence of that in the real objective world. Their viewpoint is... "I am dominant and always right about everything". Then when they do something like trying to destroy a group of people through psychic power. And there is no result that confirms that they are in fact all powerful. They lose polarity and go into crisis. 

It is, to me, a pretty powerful and amazing. As were some other small comments about how the negative polarity functions. But this is a serious, serious problem for the negatively polarised entity. It happens, with no effort on behalf of the positive polarity to interfere with or take revenge on the negative entity.

It... adds a certain something to my world view. The anger that I have experienced over various things. Thinking, knowing, having it confirmed by the Law of One, that a lot of these things will be met, karmically in a sense, without any active effort to make those responsible pay (technically the effort of service to others to create a justice system might do that, but, the significance of this energetic situation is still relevant). Is just... amazing. 

I can't bring precise words to what changes. But it is just super cool!

The entities we call on.

In session 86.7, the contact is asked about dreaming. One of the things stated, and it is only one line. But it seems to be very important. The Law of One contact was talking about which entities the person would call to improve their dreaming state and it said... "most of all, the higher self".

A persons own higher self is not something I had thought that much about. I have noticed a difference in trying to connect with that. A rawness. A power. Whereas things that reference other entities more, like prayer. Tends to have a different effect, one of a kind of aggressive enthusiasm, and one of smoothing over conflict and such. 

The rawness from the higher self feels like something that genius' are working with. Such as Van Gogh. A raw energy that inspires but could very easily leave the rest of the persons life in chaos, profundity. Whereas the more love based energy of the higher positive entities and spirits feels like a more refined energy that smoothes over real world problems and communication.

But that is just a guess. 

I had mainly considered the "other entities" previously more than the higher self. But perhaps the higher self is worth considering. 

I mentioned a few days ago in a blog how I am withdrawing from X a bit. I recall an audience member saying to Stefan Molyneux said he got a lot more dreams when he stopped going on social media. I still go on reddit (which I will discipline myself off if I feel that I am not getting responses!). Talking about TV shows. But I have stopped X for the reason I mention, and it feels toxic now I think of it. But coming off X, I have started to get dreams again. I haven't had them for about a month. I did not have dreams strong enough to remember. But I remember I had dreams and I feel them creeping in again. Which might mean I am a little more connected to my higher self. 

I have a theory about why that is from previous dream interpretation. But that is not for now. 

The nature of the self. 

I have vaguely mentioned wrestling with this before. 

I have had the insight recently, about the emotional power of Stefan Molyneux's work. In that, when I found it, I feel it is the moment when I transferred to an emotional understanding of the Law of One.

Before that, I had an intellectual understanding of the Law of One. But no depth on an emotional level. 

The big break in my understanding, was that before that I was vaguely leftist. Leftism is toxic beyond belief and it has assumptions, that, if absorbed. Are just kind of nasty.

The idea that all rich people are bad and all poor people are good. It doesn't make any sense. Rich people are a lot of the time born into it. Rich people are condemned, and should be forced by the initiation of violence to give money to poor people. Every woman that gets pregnant is not at all responsible for this, the man is always bad and lied to her and she was always perfect in the relationship, and she is a perfect special victim that should be given money. 

Some people might be OK with this belief. But to me it was poisonous to my very soul, it feels. Coming away from it allowed me to emotionally connect in some manner. 

I really liked Stefan Molyneux's work a great deal and have absorbed a lot of it. I understand Universally Preferable Behaviour. I have some of his definitions such as Free will is our capacity to compare proposed actions to ideal standards.  

Phases.

Recently I have come away from Stefan Molyneux. He stated very explicitly that if you choose to "break bread with evildoers". I.e. he was defining that as anyone that voted left and entertains left wing beliefs. Then you should not have anything to do with any of his teachings. I forget the specific show he said that in. I could probably find it in my last Rumble comment.

I, do not know if I believe that. But I am disabled. So I have to rely on others. Some of which have left wing beliefs. I would not entertain that kind of thinking. Because if I did, if I believed I should be separate from left wing individuals but was just unable to due to disability. Then it sets up the idea that I am spending time with them while disliking them and wanting to be away from them. Which is not tolerable to me.

Larger discussions of this are not really relevant here. I think I have written before about how some people might be 'tricked' into these beliefs. A Law of One quote: "The negative polarity is very clever, the positive sees love in all things". Also, Carla was talked about by the Law of One contact as someone who literally could not have done better, and she was left wing. She wasn't even anti abortion.

Anyway, so I have turned away, or been turned away, from Stefan Molyneux. I will not go on his shows again or pay attention to his social media etc. So as I do, I start to eventually break down how I think of his theories. 

I remember listening to one of his call in shows where a guy was calling in who said that when he was not listening to Stefan, he started making not so good decisions. Like how Christians get refilled with their faith every Sunday. Belief systems and faith require a kind of constant validation and feeding. 

One of the things I was attempting to understand from him was the phrase "Love is our involuntary response to virtue if we are virtuous".

This has a bunch of meaning, but in attempting to apply it, I have not gotten anywhere. 

Against this though, let's look at my human design chart:

I have a strong tribal side here that Stefan doesn't have. The gate 19 is in the conscious earth, I suspect that is how my life is going to flower going forward. It is the only incarnation cross point that is on an undefined centre, and Pluto is due to transit the gate 19 in about three years. There are two complete channels here in the tribal circuit, 44- 26 and 21- 45. Currently, the transiting nodal points are completing this channel with the 40- 37.

This makes more sense as to my experience. Someone 'within my tribe', that my feelings won't correct for. That even though I cannot define any real virtue for, and that I don't believe is virtuous. Still inspires those kinds of positive feelings from me. 

It is what it is, but it makes sense. Stefans world view is powerful, seemingly complete, but the chart offers a very close understanding of what feels like my legitimate way of viewing. His teachings on political viewpoints helped me be consistent with what I already believed from reading the Law of One. His further teachings were powerful. But at this point the human design and Law of One seem a good thing to learn. 

Non Law of One Criticism of Davids 8th of March video.

So, following on from the past blog entry. Where I critiqued Davids video from a Law of One perspective. I also wanted to follow up on a few last pieces that do not, directly, reference the Law of One.

This subject will be finished when it is finished! Even though I would like to move on now. It is what is going on in my head after looking over the video. So it is what I will say!

Biblical references. 

The first point of two, is that David spoke at length about the bible in that video. Originally I liked this. But after watching, I realised David doesn't have a great deal of consistency in his biblical beliefs.

Since David was first looking at this kind of thing. About 20 years ago. There has been the raising of a spiritual teacher called "Aaron Abke". Who has made many, many videos on the idea that the Apostle Paul was a false prophet. That the Apostle Paul, put forward an idea of Christianity that was nothing like what Jesus taught. That Jesus had more of a salvation by works doctrine, and that Paul opposed this with a salvation by faith Doctrine. 

Aaron Abke has also done videos/ discussion, on the Law of One. I have seen discussions of him in that community, and other things he talked about. So this perspective, and his research, that is deep, has many references, many videos. Is understood in the same kind of community that David Wilcock is addressing.

I believe Aaron Abke. I think that the mainstream Christian framework of "salvation by faith" was created by a mass murderer, who could not face is crimes. That a lot of the problems with Chrisitianity ultimately come from this. This sense of unearned virtue. It is why you get a problem with people gaining a foothold in Christianity who have no virtue. Because they do not have to prove it by works. 

It is a very powerful and deep argument, David trying to take the whole discussion back to the basic mainstream narrative of Christianity, potentially might not work that well. 

Another quote:

Along with the general narrative I criticised in my yesterday post. 

29:06: The great spiritual teachings tell us that you have to love yourself first and foremost.

OK... Who says that? Jesus gave two directions when someone asked him what was the best way to progress: One, is love the creator. Two, is love your neighbour as yourself. 

The Law of One has similar ideas. It advises using mental exercises to get closer to the Creator in Session 10.14. But it talks a great deal about 'service to others'. Even though it does not explicitly state that that always means actually service others. Since it so often refers to things in a way referencing mystery. But even the chosen term 'service to others', suggesting serving others. Not the self. 

He referred to this being about "acceptance". But if you are to accept yourself, who would assume that was automatically love? It might be, it is more loving than not accepting yourself. But if you accept things about yourself that are say... unethical, devious, delusional. Then the result of acceptance might be disgust and change. 

Acceptance and Loving oneself are not the same thing. 

I don't know enough of every single spiritual teaching. I read a large part of the Qur'an and did not hear anything about self love. I have looked into Buddhism a little. Non attachment is the key there. Nothing about self love. But I really do not know enough.

I think that this is yet another time when David just has an unresearched, emotionally preferred opinion. And assigns the opinion to some other source "the great spiritual teachings". To conceal the fact that they are exactly that. His opinion. And a not very compelling one at that. 

Review of David Wilcocks video of 8th of March. Ref Law of One.

Finally, I have finished watching this video. It was hard work:

Youtube: David Wilcock: David Wilcock LIVE: Our Angelic protectors. Posted 8th of March 2026.

https://www.youtube.com/live/ENce2v48fvQ?si=QeYf35cb5XZSDVfS

I started this idea, of evaluating one of David Wilcocks videos in light of the Law of One specifically. The reason for this is two statements he made that caused a great deal of anger for me, because I do not believe they were correctly interpreted. One was that he once said that everything that happens to us is due to our own karmic life path. Something like that. Like it was all our own fault. The other was something I was sure was in this video actually. About how when a negative thing happens, due to free will, the positive then has the power to exert influence. 

Both these statements have some sort of basis in the Law of One. But the Law of One did not say these things. They could be interpreted in an opposite way. The Law of One was very careful not to commit in a lot of what it talked about. A lot of statements such as 'It can't be known', and such. 

There are also a few statements, like I previously talked about with 'Forgiveness is the stoppage of the wheel of karma", that  is a legitimate quote. But there is a lot more context to it. There is a larger quote 'Process of understanding, acceptance and forgiveness'. The Law of One was also very careful to not violate a law that the contact felt was very important. The Law of Free Will. So there is a possibility that the material is influenced by the need to not state things people cannot yet confront. Or to state truth, but to leave out things that have not yet been realised. (For instance, Carla was a heavy Christian, and if the "truth" was something similar but not the same as forgiveness, it might have conceivably been shortened to "forgiveness"). There are a lot of terms in the Law of One like "forgiveness" that a definition for would have been nice. 

I do not like quoting from the Law of One. I do it on social media when I cannot find other words. But I think it is important here, when I am directly arguing against anothers statement that they are claiming came from the Law of One. That I do in fact quote the whole thing. I understand if the reader doesn't want to read the whole quote. But it will be there. 

There are a few challenging ways people could respond to it. You are not correct, which is why I am fully quoting. The Law of One is all fraudulent anyway. Which I covered in my series from a few days ago called "Defining Morals, parts 1 - 3". Where I use the comparison for faith in general of a tarot reading. And I talk about at what point does it go from faith to fraud. A sub type of this would be criticism from the appeal to authority fallacy that is mainstream Christianity. 

Another option someone could go in could be: This is all a work of faith, and you cannot question works of faith. In that same three part segment I address this. Giving room for statements of faith. But clarifying cases where it is legitimate to question this. Such as a direct statement contradicting the Law of One. Which was claimed to have come from the Law of One. 

That was all rather wordy, but I believe necessary. 

So let's start off then with this:

1:31:05: Again the Law of One and other sources do tell us that, for self preservation. It may be necessary to have to take a life. If someone is threatening your family you can't just ignore that, you can't just leave it alone and do nothing. So I was trying to find this quote in the Law of One, I didn't have time to do it. But it does say, that you can at times defend yourself with lethal force if you have to. That's just part of what needs to be done.  

This is emphatically incorrect. David did a "trust me bro" here. He stated that this statement was in the Law of One. While I might have missed something. I don't think I did, here are two statements directly opposing that:

Questioner: Yes, I do. Then from this I will extrapolate the concept which is somewhat more difficult because as you have explained before, even fourth-density positive has the concept of defensive action, but above the fourth density the concept of defensive action is not in use. The concept of defensive action and [chuckle] offensive action are very much in use in this, our present experience.

I am assuming that if an entity is polarized strongly enough in his thought in a positive sense defensive action is not going to be necessary for him because the opportunity to apply defensive action will never originate for him. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is unknowable. In each case, as we have said, an entity able to program experiences may choose the number and the intensity of lessons to be learned. It is possible that an extremely positively oriented entity might program for itself situations testing the ability of self to refrain from defensive action even to the point of the physical death of self or other-self. This is an intensive lesson and it is not known, shall we say, what entities have programmed. We may, if we desire, read this programming. However, this is an infringement and we choose not to do so.

So, for some people in some circumstances. Self protection is not advised. It's not something I agree with philosophically. I believe the contact is talking about an individual circumstance in this case not a general principle. I think if someone comes after you extreme force is completely morally justified. However, I do not delude myself I can find a direct quote to support this.

Here is another:

Questioner: This motion picture brought out this point of which we have been talking. And the entity, the Colonel, had to make a decision at that point. I was just wondering, with respect to polarity, his polarization. He could have either knuckled under, you might say, to the negative forces, but he chose to defend his friend instead. Is it possible for you to estimate which is more positively polarizing: to defend the positively oriented entity, or to allow the suppression by the negatively oriented entities? Can you answer this even?

Ra: I am Ra. This question takes in the scope of fourth density as well as your own and its answer may best be seen by the action of the entity called Jehoshua, which you call Jesus. This entity was to be defended by its friends. The entity reminded its friends to put away the sword. This entity then delivered itself to be put to the physical death. The impulse to protect the loved other-self is one which persists through the fourth density, a density abounding in compassion. More than this we cannot and need not say.

Never one to be backed into a corner, the contact here. This basically runs along the same idea. As does a lot of interpretation of mainstream Christianity. It would be inconsistent to believe that forgiveness without contrition is a good. But not to then extent that to in the moment behaviour. I do not know where he got the idea that defensive action was explicitly agreed by the contact. Perhaps his own preference in believing it is true?

This is a bit of a pattern I believe. David just says what he thinks. Not what is in the text. 

1:29:45: Eventually these people were able to get out of the negative plain, get back to the positive. But they had to fight their way through the negative heirarchy, the pecking order; and all that. 

Perhaps this is a minor point, and perhaps I am being pedantic. But what he seems to me to be saying here is that the previously positive wanderers had to fight through the negative heirarchy as some sort of barrier to get to the positive? This is the actual quote:

Questioner: Then did they continue striving to polarize negatively for a fifth-density negative harvest or did they do something else?

Ra: I am Ra. They worked with the fourth-density negative for some period until, within this framework, the previously learned patterns of the self had been recaptured and the polarity was, with great effort, reversed. There was a great deal of fourth-density positive work then to be retraced.

We don't know precisely what the contact means here. But it doesn't state anything about getting to the top of a negative heirarchy. It could mean that they decided not to fight anymore and were executed?

29:55: In the Law of One system, in the spiritual teachings that I give. When this kind of calamity takes place it is paving the way for something better.  

I have read and re- read the Law of One. As might be obvious by me being able to quote against Davids thoughts here. I have never heard anything like this. If it was something David was saying from his own "authority", I might have let that go as a sermon/ statement of faith. But he linked the Law of One in here. 

It also doesn't make a lot of intuitive/ instinctive sense. What about World Wars one and two as an example? What about Vietnam or Iraq? A big thing I think Christianity, has to, and hasn't, answered. Is what about all those souls praying for salvation in the World Wars? Perhaps a side note but I think this is how the Boomers suddenly became less religious than previous generations.

I would say the objective evidence is that sometimes, there isn't a positive reason for things. Sometimes the world is gritty, dark and unpleasant and there is no obvious salvation.  

This is getting long. The following statements from him will get one line responses:

18:45: Let's co create a happy environment.

He did not say this was Law of One. But the Law of Attraction (toxic) positivity weirdos are not associated with the Law of One. This is feel good nothingness mixed in with the Law of One. Carla couldn't exactly wish away her Arthritis.

25:48: We want to be able to look at the positive and say, hey, I created this man. I created the foundation for my life, to be healed. I created the foundation for my life to transform. I am the author of my own destiny.

David links in a Law of One concept by name about ten seconds after this statement. Again it is kind of Law of Attraction waffle. The Law of One does not talk in these terms. It talks about handling life through tools such as meditation, journalling, archetypes. 

Also, I see no evidence Davids life is transforming in any positive way. He is, by the reporting of Steven Cambian and Hidden in Plain Sight. In and out of court for various things as well as the company he has given more than a million dollars to. And is in debt with the IRS. 

Is he trying to convince himself of this? 

Conclusion:

There is more I can say here. A LOT more that I can say. I would say I have missed some of the larger incorrect statements. For instance, where David excessively mentions self love. That was mentioned infrequently in the Law of One I believe, and under the term 'self worth'. Whereas, it is likely that any serious work like this, any serious attempt at balancing and psychological work, in fact, starts with 'honesty':

Questioner: I have a question here from Jim. It states: “I believe that one of my primary pre-incarnative choices was to open my green-ray energy center for healing purposes. As I see my compassion developing is it more appropriate to balance this compassion with wisdom in my healing exercises or to allow the compassion to develop as much as possible without being balanced?”

Ra: I am Ra. This query borders upon that type of question to which answers are unavailable due to the free-will prohibitions upon information from teach/learners.

To the student of the balancing process we may suggest that the most stringent honesty be applied. As compassion is perceived it is suggested that, in balancing, this perception be analyzed. It may take many, many essays into compassion before true universal love is the product of the attempted opening and crystallization of this all-important springboard energy center. Thus the student may discover many other components to what may seem to be all-embracing love. Each of these components may be balanced and accepted as part of the self and as transitional material as the entity’s seat of learn/teaching moves ever more fairly into the green ray.

When it is perceived that universal love has been achieved the next balancing may or may not be wisdom. If the adept is balancing manifestations it is indeed appropriate to balance universal love and wisdom. If the balancing is of mind or spirit there are many subtleties to which the adept may give careful consideration. Love and wisdom, like love and light, are not black and white, shall we say, but faces of the same coin, if you will. Therefore, it is not, in all cases, that balancing consists of a movement from compassion to wisdom.

We may suggest at all times the constant remembrance of the density from which each adept desires to move. This density learns the lessons of love. In the case of Wanderers there are half-forgotten overlays of other lessons and other densities. We shall leave these considerations with the questioner and invite observations which we shall then be most happy to respond to in what may seem to be a more effectual manner.

A quote at the beginning of the second paragraph then: "To the student of the balancing process we may suggest the most stringent honesty be applied." A way I have heard it described by Stefan Molyneux is: "Truth is the first virtue, because without truth, no other virtues are possible". 

There are a few different lines that say this. And I have at times mentioned things along these lines. But Davids huge emphasis on love, and forgiveness, to me, is more waffle/ word salad. It is the homogenised modern spirituality that should not, in my view, be linked with the Law of One. Even though the Law of one does emphasize Love. Here it is advising people to not be overburdened with empathy, because people might have chosen their life circumstances for a reason:

Questioner: Now, in some cases it seems that this use of catalyst is almost in a runaway condition for some entities; that they are experiencing much more pain than they can make good use of as far as catalytic nature would be concerned. Could you comment on our present condition in the illusion with respect to that particular subject?

Ra: I am Ra. This shall be the last query of this working of a full length. You may see, in some cases, an entity which, either by pre-incarnative choice or by constant reprogramming while in incarnation, has developed an esurient program of catalyst. Such an entity is quite desirous of using the catalyst and has determined to its own satisfaction that what you may call the large board needs to be applied to the forehead in order to obtain the attention of the self. In these cases it may indeed seem a great waste of the catalyst of pain and a distortion towards feeling the tragedy of so much pain may be experienced by the other-self. However, it is well to hope that the other-self is grasping that which it has gone to some trouble to offer itself; that is, the catalyst which it desires to use for the purpose of evolution. May we ask if there are any brief queries at this time?

I wanted to end with a little stronger conclusion. Of course, David did quote the Law of One directly on the idea of a religious war. But I will not also include that in this article that is already very long and fairly heavy if you were to actually read the entire Law of One quotes. 

My conclusion though, is that he is not quoting the Law of One correctly. He is just mixing it in with things that he in general likes to think are true. A message that swerves any kind of honesty, depth and accountability. 

Having done this. I have laid the foundation for doing it again in the future if I want to. Now I have written the Defining Morals three posts, and the one on forgiveness without contrition that links in as well. I have set the tone with back references for the over arching principles here. 

But it was not particularly pleasant to write this specific post. Since it is trying to quote someone who hasn't made a serious argument. I feel it devalues the Law of One slightly to be used in argument like this. but it is important to defend the Law of One as well.  

My nodal behaviours model.

Pretty exhuasted today, from doing an arm workout yesterday evening. Like, weights. a proper workout. Amazing. 

I am to three hours of the David Wilcock video I am intending to review. Strictly for it's conformity to the Law of One quotes. Nothing outside of that. Two surprises so far. One is that I asked Grok to review where in the video David talks about the Law of One and it got the question completely wrong. It gave me information that, now I have watched most of it. Was obviously incorrect. It said David discussed the Law of One in places he did not. It specifically gave time stamps to where he did not even mention it. It neglected times when he actually did talk about it.

It's also interesting. That Davids output. At least the specific video that I am watching is... not that bad. He might be a con artist. He might be someone that chose to associate with Corey Goode. But his material was actually fairly interesting. Some of it discusses bible quotes. I like bible quotes. I like to generally hear about peoples perspective on the bible. 

Anyway, a fair amount to say but physical exhaustion is taking it's toll. It should not take too long for me to start to get in enough of a pattern that my body is adapted to this. But it is only the second week. The third week I am planning to do a full work out on one day. Rather than split it into multiple days.

The main point for me though. Is that I am actually very happy, with how things are going. I feel like saying that is attracting a jinx. But I am. And I am because, in my view, I am applying my own teachings. I am also applying others teachings as well. But that is a little more in the background. 

Previously I have talked about my own model. Where in the human design. The incarnation cross is a kind of conatant. A 'meaning of life' thing. The 4 nodal points are physical, real world behaviours. For me these are: Conscious North Node. Meditation. Conscious South Node Exercise/ Gym. Unconscious North Node, Music. Unconscious South Node: Reviewing Narcissism types of literature. I am wondering if this comes under the general heading "Opposing evil doers"? 

The conscious North and South, then subconscious North and South are very much linked. I wonder if I have had a confirmation of that recently. In a way that I really didn't suspect, and could not have gotten to via "creating a story" with my mind. My energy switched on properly yesterday and I created some real music. I created a new song in a way I haven't done for a while. I have had a few ideas. But properly switching on like that is... rare. 

My theory is that by honouring the unconscious south node, I have tuned in within myself to a kind of passion that comes with opposing negativity in the real world.

The exercise thing is also good. One of my annoyances. I am aware this is pathetic but... so what? Then it is pathetic. I have to swim through the pathetic and confront it in order to get to the powerful. But one of the things that annoys me in life. Is that with my general reclusiveness and sense of loneliness. I often go on X. Then I make a lot of posts that I think are good quality. And have done for about ten years. And they rarely get a lot of attention or likes or anything. Likes are pretty much non existent. With the average being about 0.00001 or something. 

I have Dm'd about five people in the past year. All of them have pretty much ended the conversation mid flow by just ignoring me. 

I resent being in a position where I give any kind of positivity of attention to people that so reliably ignore me. I have made some comments recently that, I have just randomly thought to myself later... "Wow, that was a really nice thing to say to someone". Like, I realised I have said something original and made an effort. None of those posts have been liked or responded to.

It is hard to change a habit. So many times I have tried to change a habit, but then it has revealed the need that habit fills in a very raw way and I have been forced back to said habit. So I don't try and change habits. Even if they are dysfunctional. But I DO notice when some behaviour I am doing naturally changes a habit that I think is less than good. 

This is one of those times. Exercise. Weights. Not only do I think long term it will improve my social life. People that love exercise like to relate over that sometimes. But, it gives me this internally produced good feeling that means I am less likely to put up with this kind of thing on social media. It also means I am less annoyed about it. 

Ironically. Reddit, that is notoriously left wing. Is far better than this. I get a lot of likes and some responses to said posts. I share an enjoyment with others at sci fi shows and things. 

We'll see how it goes. I think, that social media like twitter has always depended on those ostracised by society having a need to connect. When the left were dominant this was even worse. But a lot of the engagement and user numbers are created that way. It puts those people in the place of continually attempting to offer value for no reason. 

I have also heard people say before that when the stopped social media, their dreams improved. Also, the Law of One was not at all in favour of a lot of that kind of thing, by my reading.

So I will see how it goes. But my faith is that exercise, or something else, will remove me from social media in general.