12-02-2012, 08:09 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-02-2012, 08:30 PM by Tenet Nosce.)
(12-02-2012, 07:20 PM)hogey11 Wrote: Do you entertain the idea of the guardians removing STS negatives that would seek to disrupt the harvest process (tares that would make the harvest taste bad)?
No. STS negatives do not want to disrupt the harvest process, as they are seeking harvest themselves. The whole notion is based upon the distortion of ego deprecation/aggrandizement.
Why would the "STS negatives" be so concerned with what the "STO positives" are doing? Why would either "side" be trying to "stop" the other side? Wouldn't that be restricting free will?
Quote:I started with Wilcock in early 2011 I believe. I went into his archives a bit once I started reading him, but I am fairly new to the David Wilcock party.
Ah... Well then you have missed a lot! The false prophecies stretch back over a decade...
Quote:My biggest connection with David is that he pointed me to the Law of One and is very much responsible for me finding it and actually reading it.
Yes, me too actually. He is also responsible for a great deal of confusion on my part, for having assumed his restatements of the material are actually true.
So... having read the material now don't you see the difference between what it actually says and what David has been saying it says in his blog posts? For example, the word "ascension" does not even appear once.
Quote: I found the TSFI a pretty novel read... I did buy his book in hardcover tho
I think it is interesting that he has put so much time and effort into "ascension," "disclosure," "insider testimony," and the "Illuminati." I find it detracts from his credibility as a person and therefore, from the credibility of his work. I actually tend to see it as a distraction and a successfully executed manipulation tactic.
Which is unfortunate- because I think he has done a great job of drawing together enough scientific evidence to start posing some serious questions about the legitimacy of a "source field" concept. As it stands now, it will probably have to be reintroduced elsewhere before any real scientists actually start considering it.