Service to self, philosophy.

[Matt1]

[/url]

[url=http://www.lawofone.info/results.php?s=12]12.13 Questioner: [You] mentioned the Orion crusaders, when they do get through the net, give both technical and non-technical information. We know what you mean by technical information, but what type of non-technical information do they give to those they contact? Am I right in assuming that this is all done by telepathic communication?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct. Through telepathy the philosophy of the Law of One with the distortion of service to self is promulgated. In advanced groups there are rituals and exercises given and these have been written down just as the service-to-others oriented entities have written down the promulgated philosophy of their teachers. The philosophy concerns the service of manipulating others that they may experience service towards the other-self, thus through this experience becoming able to appreciate service to self. These entities thus would become oriented towards service to self and in turn manipulate yet others so that they in turn might experience the service towards the other-self.

Looking at the above does anyone know of any text that might be considered to be service to self in origin?

[Jade]

I think legitimate ones are probably highly guarded. I would say probably for good reason.

[Cainite]

I agree with what Jade says.. but there are lots of books and articles about manipulation of others and power. (Once a friend gave me a book.. but I'm not sure what it was called.. sth like ''book of power'' and it was rules for negatives)
there's also more black magic material than white magic on the internet.
I have also found mixed and confused paths such as Spiritual Satanism.

[YinYang]

The oldest esoteric bookshop in London called Watkins Books, established in 1897, recently launched a website with their titles online. You can't really tell from titles and descriptions, but some look like negative philosophy to me, like this one.

I just love browsing their site, such strange books. They've got some really expensive ones too, like this one... who has £3500 lying around to spend on a single book?

[APeacefulWarrior]

Well, if you're looking for something that isn't occult/esoteric, imo "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand is probably one of the most clear expressions of negative philosophy ever written down. And she successfully built a tightly-controlled cult of personality around herself largely thanks to it!

[Henosis]

Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Between the Law of One and that Book, is the ultimate balance between light and dark. You can find it online. It's only about 50 pages and it doesn't detail magic so much as a philosophy of Might is Right toward those deemed intellectually inferior. It details a long standing plan to control the world behind the scenes through banking, mass media, corruption, the destruction of education and morality, and the replacement of spiritual thoughts with arithmetical calculations.

Basically, it lays out a plan to control the world indirectly without anyone knowing they're controlling it. How to bend the will of the world toward their will by corrupting our values and making us focus on trivial things.

It's really hard to read and it takes courage to understand, but it caused me to desire rapid polarization in the opposite direction.

Proceed with caution.

[loostudent]

One less obscure work is perhaps The Prince (Il principe) by Machiavelli.

It's a work of political philospohy. Discussing the political power and qualities of a ruler it answers for example this question: As a ruler is it better to be loved or to be feared?
"The answer is that one would like to be both the one and the other; but because it is difficult to combine them, it is far safer to be feared than loved if you cannot be both."

[YinYang]

Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Between the Law of One and that Book, is the ultimate balance between light and dark. You can find it online. It's only about 50 pages and it doesn't detail magic so much as a philosophy of Might is Right toward those deemed intellectually inferior. It details a long standing plan to control the world behind the scenes through banking, mass media, corruption, the destruction of education and morality, and the replacement of spiritual thoughts with arithmetical calculations.

Basically, it lays out a plan to control the world indirectly without anyone knowing their controlling it. How to bend the will of the world toward their will by corrupting our values and making us focus on trivial things.

It's really hard to read and it takes courage to understand, but it caused me to desire rapid polarization in the opposite direction.

Proceed with caution.

Yes, when that document landed in Hitler's hands... well, the rest is history. Henry Ford's involvement with it is interesting.

[loostudent]

Giordano Bruno: A General Account of Bonding (De Vinculis in genere)

A complementary work to Machiavelli's political manipulation. Bruno's work is about manipulation of the masses with psychological an magical bonds.

[Matt1]

The oldest esoteric bookshop in London called Watkins Books, established in 1897, recently launched a website with their titles online. You can't really tell from titles and descriptions, but some look like negative philosophy to me, like this one.

I just love browsing their site, such strange books. They've got some really expensive ones too, like this one... who has £3500 lying around to spend on a single book?

What a synchronicity, i bought a book from that very store before reading your post. A book on the Qliphoth, the reverse side of the tree of life. It is indeed an excellent store for occult material, probably the best in Britain.

[Turtle]

Uhhh, how about picking up a copy of your local newspaper. lol.

[YinYang]

Uhhh, how about picking up a copy of your local newspaper. lol.

LOL!

[APeacefulWarrior]

On the subject of Machiavelli, I should point out that there are a great many who believe that he wasn't being sincere in writing "The Prince." He was in ALL other writings a humanist and progressivist who championed democratic ideals. The Prince is like nothing else he ever wrote. Also, by most accounts he wrote it under some duress while under quite heavy-handed Medici rule. The belief is that he wrote a book intended to sound like good advice to the Medicis but actually had a lot of elements which could undercut them.

So there's at least a reasonable possibility that it's an approximation of negative thought as written by a positive. (And yet another example of how hard it is to determine someone's motivations....)

[GentleReckoning]

I find the desire to control others to be evidence of massive insecurity.

The closest concept that I can relate to the confusing mess of words that Ra chose to gift us with is this evil, evil thing: Sales. Manipulating others into a position where you can serve them so that you may have more of the evil, evil thing called money so that you can later manipulate others into serving you.

[loostudent]

Today the ruling negative elite uses more sophisticated ways to enslave the masses in developed democratic world:
- consumerism
- global mass media (Ra already said something about TV),
- marketing, comercial magic simbolism and subliminal messages
- promiscuity, pornography
- addiction to new technology
- virtual reality
etc.

These are freely accepted bonds by the masses. It's like an inception without consciously realising you are being deceived. Collective pressure and instinct is very strong. Take notice and be watchful.

Some further reading:

Victor Lebow: Price Competition in 1955

Neil Postman: Amusing Ourselves To Death, Technopoly

[Trinity2Infinity]

[/url]

[url=http://www.lawofone.info/results.php?s=12]12.13 Questioner: [You] mentioned the Orion crusaders, when they do get through the net, give both technical and non-technical information. We know what you mean by technical information, but what type of non-technical information do they give to those they contact? Am I right in assuming that this is all done by telepathic communication?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct. Through telepathy the philosophy of the Law of One with the distortion of service to self is promulgated. In advanced groups there are rituals and exercises given and these have been written down just as the service-to-others oriented entities have written down the promulgated philosophy of their teachers. The philosophy concerns the service of manipulating others that they may experience service towards the other-self, thus through this experience becoming able to appreciate service to self. These entities thus would become oriented towards service to self and in turn manipulate yet others so that they in turn might experience the service towards the other-self.

Looking at the above does anyone know of any text that might be considered to be service to self in origin?

This might be what you're looking for: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thick_Black_Theory

Li was a scientist of political intrigue. He wrote: "When you conceal your will from others, that is Thick. When you impose your will on others, that is Black (Dark)." According to Chin-Ning Chu, the 'Thick Black Theory' describes the ruthless and hypocritical[1] means men use to obtain and hold power: "thick faces" (shamelessness), "black heart" (ruthlessness), according to author's view of history. It went through several printings before being banned in China as subversive.

Li argued that "A great hero is no more than a person who is impudent and wicked." According to Li, the wickedest of all was Cao Cao. "I would rather betray someone than be betrayed." It shows how black Cao Cao's heart was inside. Li picked Liu Bei (king of one rival kingdom competing with Cao's) as the highly skilled person with a "thick face". He never thought it shameful to live inside another's fence. He was also a frequent crier, appealing to others' sympathy. There is even a humorous saying, "Liu Bei's JiangShan (kingdom) was obtained through his crying."

During the 1980s, news spread that Mao Zedong had studied the Thick Black Theory before the Cultural Revolution, and Li Zongwu was in the spotlight again. In Beijing during the 1990s, many books related to the Thick Black Theory, "thick-black-ology", were published.

Low Sui Pheng, in 1997 a Senior Lecturer at National University of Singapore, discusses the theory and issues in "Thick face, black heart and the marketing of construction services in China" in the "Marketing Intelligence & Planning" journal, volume 15 (1997), number 5, pp. 221–226, MCB University Press. Low proposes that Li Zongwu's principles from the 1911 book are widely practiced today as, more than ever, the Chinese view business as war and the marketplace as a battlefield.

The principles are also discussed by Tony Fang, of the School of Business, Stockholm University, in "Negotiation: the Chinese style", "Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing", volume 21 (2006), number 1, pp. 50–60, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

[Trinity2Infinity]

Well since I double posted: also this https://www.amazon.com/Thick-Face-Black-...0446670200

[unity100]

Lying, manipulating for self gain, claiming credit for things not done are common traits of negative practice. There doesnt need to be 'grand', 'occult' aspects to those.

What Ayn Rand wrote is particularly a good example of negative philosophy.

[Sprout]

Lying, manipulating for self gain, claiming credit for things not done are common traits of negative practice.

Don't we all do these things at one time or another?

[Infinite Unity]

We do them now. Each piece is perfectly fit for its life/role/place. You offer to the creator the kinetic potential, through confusion. Movement is growth, if not confused you'd have no potential to grow to move. Be happy, perfectly imperfect.

A "human being" is like a piston in an engine. A mitochondria in a cell. A piece/portion within a larger dynamic whole. Yet in an engine or cell, do either function without the smallest or most insignificant piece, to us. No, it doesn't function, or well. That is the importance of every entity.

[unity100]

Lying, manipulating for self gain, claiming credit for things not done are common traits of negative practice.

Don't we all do these things at one time or another?

Many people do. Those constitute a major factor which determine differing polarization degrees.

[rva_jeremy]

I think a lot of Red Pill philosophy can be extremely negative in that it enables one to manipulate others through an instrumental manipulation of the self.

There's a catch with a lot of negative philosophy. Much of it is expressly transgressive and liberating, encouraging the student to reject morals, norms, and duties that an individual has never agreed to and by which it is not evil to feel somewhat constrained and oppressed. I'd put folks like Aleister Crowley, Friedrich Nietzsche, Robert Greene (48 laws of power), the Red Pill, and Ayn Rand in this camp.

The liberation of the self from a false self that grows in the cocoon of yellow ray influence is not only not negative, it is the seat of polarization in my opinion. Even on the positive path the student will be seen as pulling away from caring about the opinions of others. Because this is a one of the chief means of social discipline, this kind of individualism can be interpreted as anti-social and evil. It's important to recognize that this discovery of the self and its desire is seen as transgressive and evil, not because it is negative, but because it rejects the supremacy of society and its construction and regulation of the social individual. Both positive and negative polarization is, in a way, dangerous to third density society, which is the nest, the temple not of good nor evil but of stability.

In order to polarize, an individual must assume a certain individual responsibility for oneself and one's desires, as both a consequence of self-knowledge and as the means to it. Only then can one honestly commit to a path that leads to social memory, since it requires fully actualized component mind/body/spirit complexes to work. Nobody can phone it in in fourth density, in other words: you must reckon with your own power.

This is all exposition to my real point: I know many on the positive path who have found value in philosophies that are seen as negative. For example, the philosophy of objectivism is in many ways very powerful and consistent in exalting the individual and elitism. It was important to explore that to understand that I did not desire that. Similarly with the Red Pill: there's a lot in there that's just repackaged Stoicism which I consider a very positive philosophy, but you have to chew through a bunch of elitism and misogyny to get there. In fact, those negative parts serve a purpose for the STO student: they put one on the spot and force him or her to decide what they really wish. I even shared some of my experience with Red Pill philosophy on this board and benefited greatly from the reactions and feedback of people. As long as one can have a sense of self that isn't not innately tied to identifying with these philosophies, dabbling in them is not necessary a problem.

It is this discovery of fundamental desire that governs the dynamics of polarity. To the extent negative philosophies refocus one on the self and one's desire, I do not believe they are to be avoided.

[unity100]

There's a catch with a lot of negative philosophy. Much of it is expressly transgressive and liberating, encouraging the student to reject morals, norms, and duties that an individual has never agreed to and by which it is not evil to feel somewhat constrained and oppressed. I'd put folks like Aleister Crowley, Friedrich Nietzsche, Robert Greene (48 laws of power), the Red Pill, and

Concepts described above pertain to wisdom however. And wisdom should not be confused with negativity.

Ayn Rand in this camp.

Plain, bare, arrogant selfishness. There's little wisdom in that.

[upensmoke]

there are plenty of books you can find from a good google search into the topic. a quick google search on how to control people will turn up al ot of results. also a quick google search for how to change people minds, or manipulate decision making will also turn up results.

I haven't read any of these books so I can't truthfully say they're negative, But based of some titles and description i think you can get a general idea.

here are some examples that may fit what your asking about

Art Of Manipulation: How To Get What You Want Out Of People In Business, In Your Personal Life, And In Your Love Life
by R.B. Sparkman

Mind Control Mastery: Successful Guide to Human Psychology ...
Book by Jeffrey Powell

Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion by Robert B. Cialdini

Fascinate: Your 7 Triggers to Persuasion and Captivation by Sally Hogshead

Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions by Dan Ariely

hoped this helped

[Infinite Unity]

there are plenty of books you can find from a good google search into the topic. a quick google search on how to control people will turn up al ot of results. also a quick google search for how to change people minds, or manipulate decision making will also turn up results.

I haven't read any of these books so I can't truthfully say they're negative, But based of some titles and description i think you can get a general idea.

here are some examples that may fit what your asking about

Art Of Manipulation: How To Get What You Want Out Of People In Business, In Your Personal Life, And In Your Love Life
by R.B. Sparkman

Mind Control Mastery: Successful Guide to Human Psychology ...
Book by Jeffrey Powell

Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion by Robert B. Cialdini

Fascinate: Your 7 Triggers to Persuasion and Captivation by Sally Hogshead

Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions by Dan Ariely

hoped this helped

That first one, just makes me want to throw up....like how could you even want to manipulate people in such a fashion...most specifically, "in your love life". like what????

AKA: let me teach you how to setup your life, where its completely false, and only self validating and rewarding.... No doubt that first ones got some dark energy.

I also apologize for blowing up the forum with my replies. I am sorry =(

[Minyatur]

That first one, just makes me want to throw up....like how could you even want to manipulate people in such a fashion...most specifically, "in your love life". like what????

Like any other negative intent, it is directed without at the projection of unbalanced aspects from within.

There are probably not all that much people who are selflessly in a relationship, if that is even any possible, so seems to me it is an area where the state of proximity is where the distortions of self and other-self will be most strongly energized and as such it is highly unlikely that a person that leans toward manipulation would not be manipulative with whom is closest to them. Just like how a person with deep anger issues will have its anger erupt on those who are closest to them, as they are the mirror that dives most into their vulenrable self and as such create events of release of accumulated energies that came from other aspects of life where they were not expressed.

[Infinite Unity]

That first one, just makes me want to throw up....like how could you even want to manipulate people in such a fashion...most specifically, "in your love life". like what????

Like any other negative intent, it is directed without at the projection of unbalanced aspects from within.

There are probably not all that much people who are selflessly in a relationship, if that is even any possible, so seems to me it is an area where the state of proximity is where the distortions of self and other-self will be most strongly energized and as such it is highly unlikely that a person that leans toward manipulation would not be manipulative with whom is closest to them. Just like how a person with deep anger issues will have its anger erupt on those who are closest to them, as they are the mirror that dives most into their vulenrable self and as such create events of release of accumulated energies that came from other aspects of life where they were not expressed.

I agree completely, I was coming from a more mundane viewpoint. To say so blatantly a thing...
I definitely agree with your synopsis above though. Very nicely said, and as always enlightening.
I also caught your meaning in the first sentence (wink wink, looks in the mirror).

[Minyatur]

I also caught your meaning in the first sentence  (wink wink, looks in the mirror).

Wasn't necessarily to say look back at the mirror, and more that it is a good angle to seek understanding.

A man that mistreat his child, as an example, is one that seeks to overcome its own inner child and what it is symbolic of. A man that mistreats his wife seeks to overcome its own feminine aspects and what they are symbolic of.

A negative being destroys without what it wants to destroy within in rejection of what it is itself.

[APeacefulWarrior]

There's a catch with a lot of negative philosophy.  Much of it is expressly transgressive and liberating, encouraging the student to reject morals, norms, and duties that an individual has never agreed to and by which it is not evil to feel somewhat constrained and oppressed.  I'd put folks like Aleister Crowley, Friedrich Nietzsche, Robert Greene (48 laws of power), the Red Pill, and Ayn Rand in this camp.  

Just a minor point: According to Ra (in 18.10-11) Crowley was actually positive at heart, but very heavily distorted and "over-stimulated" by his incarnation. I actually think Crowley is a good illustration of just how difficult it is to properly assess whether someone is positive or negative, even when they seem to have lived a relatively destructive life. A lot of the time, it often boils down to a lack of wisdom or other personal issues.

Even Ayn Rand - who I do still think was ultimately negative - was still attempting SOME sort of mission with her work which may have been at least partly in the name of the "greater good." (At least as she would have seen it.) And she's one of very very few people I'd be willing to name as a negative wanderer with any sort of confidence at all. And even then, only because there is SO MUCH material about her on the record and just about every bit of it has her displaying negative traits consistently. I mean, her postscript to "Atlas Shrugged" infamously begins with her proclaiming "My personal life is a postscript to my novels. It consists of the sentence: 'And I mean it!'" That really sums up just how dedicated she was to the ideas she was advancing.

People like Crowley and Nietzsche (whose polarity I would NOT want to guess at) seemed to be encouraging people to challenge the status quo at least in part for the sake of trying to shake people out of their established ideas of morality, deities, and nature. Trying to free their minds, so to speak. That's quite a bit different from Rand's openly confrontational, conflict-based belief in a cultural war between the "egotists" and the "collectivists." Her work is downright tribal, in that respect, particularly as Atlas Shrugged turns into outright fantasizing about the mass destruction of "collectivists" and their systems.

[rva_jeremy]

I mean, her postscript to "Atlas Shrugged" infamously begins with her proclaiming "My personal life is a postscript to my novels. It consists of the sentence: 'And I mean it!'" That really sums up just how dedicated she was to the ideas she was advancing.

The funny thing is that… she didn't. She lived in a rent-controlled apartment and was on amphetamines most of the time, and collected social security and medicare towards the end. I don't begrudge her those entitlement programs, but it seems like she would!

With respect to Crowley, I do think it's possible for positive people to promulgate negative philosophy--no different than mixed channeling in that regard. I have no opinion on his polarity.

Also worth noting that sometimes the instrumental purpose our incarnation serves in others' lives can be different than the lessons we take from it personally. Nietzsche was tormented by his thinking (heck, most of my examples were not exactly content people) but think about all of the reflection his writing engendered. Judging folks' polarity is a fraught affair from our third density incarnate vantage point, and I don't think it accomplishes much good.