"Extremely Negatively polarized" Scientist

[XionComrade]

I would say we will find that a surprising amount of events in our history(Particularly nation building activities) were helped along by Orion, for better or for worse..."The bringers of order"

For worse. Remember that their aim is to create a consistent supply of negative emotion on this planet, which they literally feed on.

Every time we promote fear on this planet, we're serving our Orion would-be masters a tasty snack.

That actually simplifies and clears up things for me alot! It makes a ton of sense!

[Spaced]

Alexander was a die-hard conqueror with a pleasant personality, you could hardly find a more perfect example. "A tomb now suffices him for whom the whole world was not sufficient."

I'm not saying that Alexander was a paragon of positivity, but neither do I think he was a paragon of negativity. I don't think the entity behind that incarnation polarized enough one way or the other to reach harvestability.

But then again, what do I know? And that's kind of the point I'm trying to make.

The Soviet Union was known for it's command and conquer attitude and it's phenomenal level of suppression, it was a empire deliberately made to be a breeding ground for negative polarity, as empires typically are.

Unlike, say, the United States? Or the British Empire? I could engage you in a long-winded debate on political policy and differing perspectives of history, but that would be off topic and likely would serve little purpose.

All I'm saying is be careful making judgments or applying labels, because we do not see the big picture. This sort of speculation can be interesting, but it can be a dangerous game to play. Creating lists of people we think are negative is a separative act, it makes an Us and a Them.

[XionComrade]

The Soviet Union was known for it's command and conquer attitude and it's phenomenal level of suppression, it was a empire deliberately made to be a breeding ground for negative polarity, as empires typically are.

Unlike, say, the United States? Or the British Empire? I could engage you in a long-winded debate on political policy and differing perspectives of history, but that would be off topic and likely would serve little purpose.

All I'm saying is be careful making judgments or applying labels, because we do not see the big picture. This sort of speculation can be interesting, but it can be a dangerous game to play. Creating lists of people we think are negative is a separative act, it makes an Us and a Them.

Oh I know that lol, not gonna argue with any of that, can't, because I know it is true. I was just saying it is a shame we aren't digging through soviet scientists too to try to figure the mystery out.

I don't know, to me it isn't a separative act at all studying negative entities/people, it is quite inclusive, I think it is just as important and useful to understand negative philosophies as positive.

[Unbound]

Sure, but if we can't actually tell who was/is actually negative or not, how can we garner any truth beyond each individual's moralistic speculations? An entity you view as negative may not be viewed as such by another, or vice versa, so how do you talk about "negative individuals" without an agreement on what actually constitutes that in the first place?

[XionComrade]

Sure, but if we can't actually tell who was/is actually negative or not, how can we garner any truth beyond each individual's moralistic speculations? An entity you view as negative may not be viewed as such by another, or vice versa, so how do you talk about "negative individuals" without an agreement on what actually constitutes that in the first place?

It doesn't seem to always be so hard to figure it out when someone is of a very negative nature(And sometimes it is ridiculously obvious), sure not everyone will ever agree, but it would take the fun out of it all if everyone did I suppose. Granted nowadays it is much easier to just work in the shadows and never be known at all historically, negativity is much subtler work it seems, as is possitivity of course.

[Unbound]

Sure, but if we can't actually tell who was/is actually negative or not, how can we garner any truth beyond each individual's moralistic speculations? An entity you view as negative may not be viewed as such by another, or vice versa, so how do you talk about "negative individuals" without an agreement on what actually constitutes that in the first place?

It doesn't seem to always be so hard to figure it out when someone is of a very negative nature(And sometimes it is ridiculously obvious), sure not everyone will ever agree, but it would take the fun out of it all if everyone did I suppose. Granted nowadays it is much easier to just work in the shadows and never be known at all historically, negativity is much subtler work it seems, as is possitivity of course.

Aha Things aren't always as they seem and the obvious is not always obvious as what seems obvious to one may be completely the opposite for another. The problem in my eyes is taking particular "life themes" and saying they are either positive or negative, that doesn't make much sense to me. It doesn't seem so obvious to me that those who keep their hands "clean" are always more positive. I believe that there are individuals throughout history with very positive, empowering stories, but I feel nothing but manipulation through them so for me it is certainly not always obvious by observing the actions of an entity what their apparent spiritual disposition is.

---

Also note, each person has for themselves a collection of thoughts, ideas and traits they consider "negative" so it's hard for me to not just think that in these cases what is identified as negative is what is seen by the self as self-serving, but that isn't the same for everybody so that's a bit of block for me...

[XionComrade]

Aha Things aren't always as they seem and the obvious is not always obvious as what seems obvious to one may be completely the opposite for another. The problem in my eyes is taking particular "life themes" and saying they are either positive or negative, that doesn't make much sense to me. It doesn't seem so obvious to me that those who keep their hands "clean" are always more positive. I believe that there are individuals throughout history with very positive, empowering stories, but I feel nothing but manipulation through them so for me it is certainly not always obvious by observing the actions of an entity what their apparent spiritual disposition is.

---

Also note, each person has for themselves a collection of thoughts, ideas and traits they consider "negative" so it's hard for me to not just think that in these cases what is identified as negative is what is seen by the self as self-serving, but that isn't the same for everybody so that's a bit of block for me...

For me it is almost always obvious in many cases, after some analysis anyway. Granted we humans have a pretty strong tendency to rapidly bounce from one end of the spectrum to the other, "negative state of being" or however you would call it to "Positive" in a moments notice, that is the typical way of doing things on this planet. The idea of a polarized consciousness is not one that is widely or heavily considered I think, and this has helped to put us behind quite a bit.

I guess it is sort of confusing though in the sense that a more progressed negatively oriented person believes what they do is right and good for others whatever it is, I think a thing to look for is a situation where what they are doing is engineered to help a certain people and suppress/hurt another people. Biased help, rather than a more universal unbiased and balanced service. jmt.

[Unbound]

This quote hear speaks a lot of this subject to me. talking about George Patton:

(34.17) Ra: I am Ra. This will be the last full question of this working. The one of whom you speak, known as George, was one in whom the programming of previous incarnations had created a pattern or inertia which was irresistible in its incarnation in your time/space. This entity was of a strong yellow-ray activation with frequent green-ray openings and occasional blue-ray openings. However, it did not find itself able to break the mold of previous traumatic experiences of a bellicose nature.

This entity polarized somewhat towards the positive in its incarnation due to its singleness of belief in truth and beauty. This entity was quite sensitive. It felt a great honor/duty to the preservation of that which was felt by the entity to be true, beautiful, and in need of defense. This entity perceived itself as a gallant figure. It polarized somewhat towards the negative in its lack of understanding the green ray it carried with it, rejecting the forgiveness principle which is implicit in universal love.

The sum total of this incarnation vibrationally was a slight increase in positive polarity but a decrease in harvestability due to the rejection of the Law or Way of Responsibility; that is, seeing universal love, yet still it fought on.

See here it says that for this "positive" entity, they were also simultaneously polarizing negatively, so the whole idea of "positive" and "negative" INDIVIDUALS, makes absolutely no sense to me. There is only positive or negative polarization and the amount one does one or the other in a life and that is why I find it is not so obvious or easy using historical records (which do not actually convey the actuality of experience) to make the judgement of the dominant polarization in an individual's life, especially since in history many assumptions, images and concepts are applied to people according to the culture or biases of the historian.

Patton also seems to me to be as "glory-pumped" as they come, always interested in courage and rank and title and the empowerment of his image to lead his troops and he was obviously working in an "us vs them" scenario. Yet, he still was able to polarize positively.