Ah, back to more of a serious post. I have not been well the past few days so the previous two posts were more casual.
Anyway, I wanted to explore something about the negative polarity that is nagging me a little. These all from Session 11:
Questioner: As our cycle ends and graduation occurs, is it possible for anyone to go from this third density to a fourth-density planet that is a self-service type or negative type?
Ra: I am Ra. We grasp now the specificity of your query. In this harvest the probability/possibility vortex indicates an harvest, though small, of this type. That is correct.
Questioner: Are any of these people known in the history of our planet by name?
Ra: I am Ra. We will mention a few. The one known as Taras Bulba, the one known as Genghis Khan, the one known as Rasputin.
Questioner: Well, that was the last question, so I will as usual ask if there’s anything we can do to make the instrument more comfortable?
Ra: I am Ra. You are doing well. The most important thing is to carefully align the symbols. The adjustment made this particular time/space present will aid this instrument’s physical complex in the distortion towards comfort.
May we ask if you have any short questions which we may resolve before closing the session?
I included the last question and answer because the Law of One contact would often put hints in the very end questions. That this or that was unaligned. But everything was physically perfectly aligned. And they meant to say that the three of them were somehow not in sync, or perhaps, the questions were not going in the right direction.
I recall a long time ago, when llresearch still had a forum and I was still on it. Someone asked, if the Law of One contact was around today. What would you ask? It is a question I sometimes return to in my mind.
One of the many questions I have come to is this: "You have given us information on the service to self, and it is in fact you that has initiated that. You have given and not hidden information on the service to self polarity. But at the same time, you consistently advise to not look too strongly into these issues. Most especially with physically relevant issues.
I want to know, in the service to others polarity seeking. Of what benefit is it to know information on the service to self polarity? and for what uses? and what is the limits of what is useful to know for the positive seeker? As an example. It is (is it?) important for service to others entities to know about service to self entities in the areas of personal self defence. Please provide a comprehensive answer as to the values and pitfalls of seeking information in this area with reference to how this is relevant to Wisdom, Power and Love if this additional distinction allows a greater response".
It is rather like those stories of phrasing your question right for a genie it feels to me. There feels like there is a legalise element to it. But I hope that is not felt too strongly as a question designed to "trap".
This is what I have arrived at, this is the conclusion I have arrived at about these passages in Session 11. I consider it a possibility when considering the Law of One that lies, not obfuscated half truths. But lies are told in the service of the Law of Free Will. For instance, I think the reason that Hitler was singled out as a negative being was because the group held Hitler as the symbol of everything evil as most of the Western World does. That is becoming less strong due to the internet. But for a long time it was unquestionably the most evil thing that had ever happened everywhere.
A more informed viewpoint would say that Stalin and Mao were more evil. They killed more people. There was extreme levels of cruelty under the Soviet regime. But Communism wasn't as well understood back then I do not think. And Communism is vaguely left connected. Communism is just ultra leftism, it is leftism taken to its logical conclusion. It is just more leftism than socialism. So it might be against Free Will to have stated this directly in the sessions.
I do not know whether it is true or not. But in making judgements such as these. We have to risk getting things wrong.
The substance.
In thinking through this then. I am wondering what exactly was meant by these specific passages in the Law of One. Taras Bulba is not a real character. He is a fictional character. What precisely that means is not clear. But what I think it might mean. Is that the Law of One contact was simply not going to answer this question so they added this in as a clue. The Law of One did get things wrong occasionally. In session 23.6. They rephrased 11,000 years to 8,500 years. In another session they get the fourth and fifth density mixed up briefly. And positive and negative fourth at another time.
They described these issues rather like getting bad transmission on a radio. I believe.
The issue comes from this. I have not researched these people in any depth. It is only because of Grok that I can now peruse these lives at all. Genghis Khan was known to engage in expansionist wars. The Law of One mentioned that the two Wanderers who had graduated into fourth density negative on Venus had been 'ruthless depots that engaged in Holy War'. Genghis Khan had expansionist wars and he had a LOT of kids. Which is definitely a kind of rape, even though it isn't "Bash on the head and dragged behind a hedge" rape. It is still rape.
This kind of makes sense. But of all the historical evildoers. He certainly was not the worst. Many tyrants have done things such as bury people alive. Most of what was happening in Genghis Khans society worked quite well. There was very little crime in his society. Some of the wars he declared were defensive in nature.
The real issue, the reason I have talked about this at all. Is trying to look into Rasputin. I can find almost nothing to justify the insane levels of evil needed to reach fourth density negative.
So he cured one of the royal princes of Haemophilia. He was an advisor to the royal family in Russia and he engaged in a lot of debauchery. Nothing evil though. No violating children or strangling women to get off. He engaged, it sounds like, in the kinds of things that Russell Brand did.
I watched a documentary once that described that one of the women that had him as an advisor was unusually war like and no one could understand it. Russia engaged in a ten year expansionist war at this time. And in 1914, Rasputin advised Russia NOT to engage in World War 1. Two years into this war the British got sick of him and had him killed.
What did the British know? We don't know that. It could simply be that he did not want anything to do with World War 1. There are reports at this point that he couldn't be killed. Couldn't be poisoned or be shot and it took a lot to kill him.
If you add all this up. It really isn't very much to go on. Being an advisor to a royal figure and pushing an expansionist war.
One of the things I did find out though. Is that a lot of the defining of him as evil came from the church leaders of the time. I don't consider the church particularly objective in what it defines as "evil" since it inevitably means "Assign all magical power in the world, and virtue. To Jesus. Which just happens to correlate with the thing that gives us the most power". So here we have a potential clue. Is it that the Law of One is indicating something on the same level as 'Taras Bulba'. That what we define as evil is... as we define it. They gave a person that has been defined as evil.
Further points.
All in all. My main take away from these figures is that, there is just nothing to particularly learn from it. Maybe I am taking the wrong meaning from the question. Maybe the actual question should have been "Can you give us some examples of negative polarity that we can learn from?". Rather than just, factually, who went to negative fourth density.
I do think this is a question that has a huge bearing on free will. Who we think of as negative, if we are positive, are the behaviours we want to avoid and part of the negative polarity is self deception. The negative tends to think of themselves as perfectly moral regardless of behaviour, in a kind of narcissistic way, and everyone they don't like as pure evil, (like how David Wilcock convinced himself Steven Cambian was evil for opposing Davids efforts to commit fraud) regardless of that persons features independent of them.
So defining what is actually, factually, objectively immoral; may be a violation of free will. To point out what negativity actually is and which behaviours to avoid. Rather than allowing self deception as to what the negative actually is.
In the Crucifixion of Esmerelda Sweetwater. I noticed that the main discussion had at the end. Between the positive and negative adepts. Happened after we got past the point that Carla and Don had lost connection to the story and had to create it themselves. It is assumed that this was not able to be completed due to prophetic reasons. But I suspect, it is because the discussion on moral philosophy at the end would be a violation of free will if channeled. Some things said in that discussion were corrected in the Law of One.
So, what is the value of understanding the negative polarity? It might be to me, that the various hints of the Law of One to not talk about certain things. Simply add up to the idea that we should not be that interested in a lot of negative polarity adjacent things. The negative polarity, rather like the evil hell realm in the movie 'Event Horizon'. Is just something that exists over there. Something that just spews forth all sorts of disgusting hell stuff, and that the best we can do is largely ignore it. That we will never understand it and the attempt to is kind of evil in itself.
Lately, it has become more and more obvious to me how valuable philosophy is. This following video is one that I think shows the negative polarity in an interesting way. One that has useable insights that relate it to our everyday world:
Youtube: Liam Out Loud: Dave Chappelle: "Ever Since Charlie Kirk... I Feel Better": November 8th 2026:
https://youtu.be/DjQcLi5Wom4?si=z0fgbUIFwSkxn6Sf
I am reading Ayn Rand at the moment. Atlas Shrugged. And as I previously mentioned here. I have recently been contacted again by an old friend. One I have known since I was four years old.
In Atlas Shrugged, it's morally fairly simple. There are good characters and bad characters and the bad characters are left leaning, and the good characters are right leaning. When reading this book, there is a discussion at the beginning that the protagonist, Dagny Taggart, has with her brother. James Taggart. That was precisely like the one I had with said friend. Very precisely. I could not believe I was reading it just a few days after an identical sounding disagreement.
Atlas Shrugged captures powerfully something about dealing in the world with these personalities that is very relevant.
Rather like how the video above talks about Nietzsche's perspective on evil. Resentiment. That creates entire political systems to justify its perspective. Atlas Shrugged also discusses the negative and positive as related to each other, and related to real life.
Conclusion.
I, of course, have no idea what the Law of One was thinking when it said these things. It is "above me". But I can speculate.
A side note is that I wanted to also discuss the point that, it is stated that the negative harvest will be small. But there seem to have been a great many very negative things that are going on in the world. I wonder if there is an incentive to be truthful about this either for an entity which is intent on improving the positive harvest?
In looking at this in future. I am doing a proper read through and categorisation now. Session 11 has some interesting things to say about the industrial revolution. But outside of the beginning, obvious relevance. I think it might be worth not considering these specific passages in understanding the negative polarity. When other tools and philosophers are available to us.
No comments:
Post a Comment