07-26-2011, 02:31 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-26-2011, 03:16 PM by Tenet Nosce.)
(07-25-2011, 12:02 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: Intelligently done. I like the 'traits' of negative/positive entities. But, in his 'possible scenarios' they're all negative, with only a brief mention of reality splitting into multiple timelines. So overall, really bleak. Seems the author has good intentions but doesn't recognize the possibility/probability of positive outcomes; thus he seems to be unwittingly furthering the fear agenda.
Even though the info is presented dispassionately (seeming to lack fear), the lack of any positive scenarios paint a very bleak picture. The proposed scenarios aren't nearly as important as the fear such scenarios generate.
I can see how it might be interpreted that way. Not to harp or push Montalk on folks, but I know for a fact that he certainly DOES believe in the possibility of a positive outcome, and that his articles are an effort toward moving in that direction. Certainly his methodology is up for discussion. However, in my opinion, I fully concur that the tendency of certain seekers to avoid speaking of "dark" beings or "negative" outcomes actually INCREASES the chances of such conditions manifesting. On the other hand, obsessing or dwelling solely upon the negative ALSO INCREASES the chances of such conditions manifesting.
Best to find a middle ground.
Denial is not an adequate form of protection. If "All Is One" then that includes negative thoughtforms, evil aliens, Yahweh, etc. Better to shine the light of awareness and knowledge upon them, then to retreat into the darkness of denial and hope they don't find you. Darkness is, after all, their specialty.
As with any other body of material, one really has to take everything in context. For example, there are entire articles devoted to multiple timelines. I would refer the interested reader to the most recent article: Dawn of a New Cosmic Day.
Montalk Wrote:Nonlinear time makes the past accessible and reconfigurable. Thus our reality is accessible and reconfigurable by beings who operate beyond linear time. This necessarily includes forces from our own probable futures who have already undergone the Etheric Tide and broken free from linear time, be they positive or negative.
If time travel is possible, it will happen sooner or later, therefore it already has happened at some point in the future, hence we are being visited by time travelers from our perceived future. This would be mere philosophizing were it not for alienology research confirming that time travelers do indeed comprise a portion of the alien presence. The other portions consists of meta civilizations that previously transcended linear time. Regardless of where within linear history the moment of transcendence was achieved, once beyond, one “joins the club” so to speak.
Warring among meta-civilization factions has the appearance of a timewar. As they attempt to reconfigure the past in their favor, we would experience a tug of war that continually adjusts our trajectory into the future. The subtler details are explained in my Timeline Dynamics article. The more our trajectory points toward their particular probable future, the stronger and more tangible they become to us. That is mathematical fact in quantum physics. This feedback loop resembles thoughtforms acquiring energy and tangibility and is intimately tied into that process:
Better probable futures are ones that have more of the Christ impulse defining their World Thoughtform, worse probable futures have the Yahweh or Corrupted Demiurge impulse underpinning theirs. The best of all possible futures is entirely of Christ/Logos, the worst entirely by Yahweh/Corrupted Demiurge. These are the “alive cat” vs “dead cat” outcomes in our cosmic Schrödinger’s Experiment. Currently the two states are superimposed, both outcomes exist in a mixed state, which is why both influences are simultaneously active in our world.
Quantum indeterminacy is what even allows probable futures to retroactively influence the choices that gave rise to them. The more significantly a choice impacts the future, the more strongly it experiences competing feedback flows from those probable futures.