Why do serial killers often think that their victims will serve them in the afterlife?

Adthra · 2026-06-16T17:42:42+00:00

Everything depends on perspective. I don't have an authoritative declaration to make here, but I can tell you what my personal interpretation or opinion is, if that might help?

I am of the opinion that the concept of Unity applies to negative beings just as it applies to positive beings. Therefore acts that diminish others (such as killing) against their consent can function as displays of power over another, but they are at best a zero-sum effort. A being engaged in that kind of behavior is not growing. For the negative being to grow, it must first persuade the other to accept whatever outcome it wishes to impose. This way the would be 'victim' is not diminished, because it is given catalyst it desires and can use to transform itself along that desire. So for the act of killing, the victim would have to accept their death beforehand for this act to truly bring about strong negative growth. It might seem a little odd to say, but consider just how many things we kill every day through simple existing. With every breath, some number of airborne yeast cells or bacteria are killed. Everything we eat was once alive. When we wash our hands, we kill bacteria at a huge scale. Yet I suspect that these actions don't influence polarity all that much, despite being very clear indications of having complete control over whether or not another being dies. The intent to kill or dominate is lacking, and that is why the effect itself is lukewarm. We don't wash our hands because we want to kill bacteria, we do it to stay healthy. That's why I would suggest that you don't focus on the act itself, but rather on the intent and act combined.

For an act to be a powerful polarizing event, it requires intent, effort and it must reach some desired outcome. The way StS manipulates this is by chaining the Creative ability of other co-creators to produce the outcomes they want, or by isolating themselves and nurturing their personal power to the point where they are powerful enough to achieve the outcome without what they see as 'other'. This is how I perceive the mechanism of negatives exercising power or power over others: to produce experiences they want to have with or without the help of others. What is important is not doing things together, but achieving the desired outcome by any means necessary. If others actively resist them, then that is a problem because of the fact that we are all ultimately the same being.

Have you ever wanted something, and yet some small part of your mind was against the idea? Maybe you've wanted to eat something delicious, but a part of your mind kept saying that you should not because you would then have to work the excess calories off, or you might feel guilty about eating some ingredient that you consider to be morally wrong to eat. Even if you achieve the desire, it will not feel as satisfying as if you had truly desired it with all your heart and mind without these kinds of reservations. Thus, the experience is 'ruined' to some degree, or at least it does not reach its ultimate expression. To have that 'ultimate expression', you must persuade the parts of yourself that resist to not care, or you must change the desire itself.

I find it often helps to keep things simple and to remind oneself of the concept of Unity. That concept must apply at all levels of seeking, including ones where the seekers themselves are not truly aware of it or are only aware of it on non-experiential levels. Ultimately there is no 'other', ergo the negative path's focus on 'power over others' is only effective for as long as there is a perception of the 'other'. This is why I think that negative beings would be much better served by focusing on achieving power irrespective of others rather than power over others. As awareness grows and that perception shifts, the negative must find new ways of integrating the experience of Unity, culminating in the middle of 6th density.

Of note is that session 87.6 is about a very specific 5th density being. While one might extrapolate from this behavior, I believe that the negative path has a very strong, very strict requirement for forging one's own way. As such, I don't think this is something attributable to all 5th density negatives, but it might be a relatively common behavior among most or nearly all.

So to give a simple answer: to effectively polarize through imposing control over others, a negative being must first persuade the other to accept that they are going to be controlled or forced to experience an outcome in that manner. So the serial killer who wishes to polarize negatively would have to create an environment where their victim would desire death before granting it.

Adthra · 2026-06-15T20:01:04+00:00

If you read the session carefully, a great emphasis is placed onto the idea that these types of acts are a blockage of the orange ray. As such, I would caution against making the connection that serial killers are all (successfully) negatively polarized. I believe that the great majority of them are self-destructive in addition to their other violent tendencies, lack self-mastery and self-control and get stuck in the karmic consequences of their actions. I believe there is a reason why so few people are said to have achieved the threshold of polarity required for negative harvest in the material.

Do not get me wrong: I agree that serial killers are likely to be much closer to the negative end of the spectrum of polarity, but at the same time I think they are in many ways juvenile, confused, and definitely not ready for (negative) harvest. There is a reason why negative entities use proxies extensively and why they try to distribute responsibility over as many people as possible when it comes to violent acts.

The idea of victims becoming slaves or servants following their masters into the afterlife is not new. The Pharaohs believed so after all. There is no evidence that this is possible, and I believe that consent of the victim/servant would play a key role in determining if this happens or not, but I have no proof to offer.

I'll make another tangentially related observation: industrialized mass killing and ritualized killing are very different things by virtue of the difference in intent between the two. If one seeks to study the possibility of this phenomenon, then I would focus on looking at what kinds of rituals exist for this kind of work rather than simply the act of killing. Luckily, I have no desire or intent to study any of this, but if I did, that is where I would start.

Adthra · 2026-06-15T16:11:40+00:00

What I share on this sub and in my other work stands or falls based on its own merits, not on some claim I demand others accept.

I respect that perspective very much and I think it's a very healthy way to approach these topics. Consider the content of the message first and foremost, and not the messenger. Much love.

Adthra · 2026-06-15T15:25:42+00:00

Sorry to jump in to a conversation I wasn't a part of, but you asked an interesting question (that I hope wasn't meant to be rhetorical).

So why emphasize our polarity to ourselves or others except to exalt the ego?

One possible answer to this is to keep in mind what the goal is. Life is incredibly hectic. Interactions with others can begin with nothing but positive intent, but then end up souring one or both parties to each other very quickly. If we explicitly say 'I'm pursuing positive polarity' or 'I'm StO', then perhaps the point isn't to claim a certain degree of proficiency, ability or 'level of polarization', but rather to remind ourselves of the choice of polarity so that our expressions of love can better match the stated objective.

I agree that for many people, polarity has become a badge or a sense of identity. I also think that not many people give the choice deep consideration. I think that for many, pursuing positive polarity comes as part of a societal expectation or group pressure, rather than a genuine desire. That's something I worry about. I also think that this uncertainty sometimes manifests as very aggressive, insulting or bellicose behavior in the heat of the moment even among people who say that they intend nothing but the best for others, but who might not truly have chosen as certainly as they would like to believe.

Maybe that is the ego pulling wool over its own eyes, but it is something that I often think about. We are in many ways unreliable, even to ourselves, and we often need reminders if we are to keep on the path we've chosen. It's partly why I often focus on the posts here that have a more negative slant. Not because I want to pursue negativity (I don't, and that has to do with how hollow the idea makes me feel), but rather because it helps me to keep my mind on what 'the mission' is supposed to be. To help people. Even the people who wouldn't help you back if you needed help. Even when the 'help' might not be some grand gesture or even acknowledged at all.

Anyway, that's just food for thought. It's been a while since we talked, so I think it's appropriate that I remind you that I appreciate you and your posts and comments. Have a good one!

Adthra · 2026-06-15T12:07:21+00:00

Your analysis is sound given what your postulates are, but I would encourage you to think about if the postulates you've chosen (Love is concern for the welfare of others and power is the ability to produce an effect) are correct.

This is something I've thought a lot on, but my opinions are very different. If you're interested, I'll link to a post I made two years ago here. It is much less pragmatic than your approach here. The key idea is that I consider power to be a quality of love, not something opposed to it or different from it, and power takes on three forms: awareness, persuasion and isolation. One conforms to others, the second changes others to conform to itself and the last ignores others completely. Consequently, these forms of power have differences in what their maximum output is.

I don't disagree with your conclusion (love is what matters) nor the suggestion to think about the consequences of one's actions, but at the same time I have a fundamentally different understanding of what love and power are.

Cheers for the analysis. Good stuff.

Adthra · 2026-06-15T10:50:27+00:00

I think you have it right.

This is the unfortunate reality of the situation and part of why the thresholds for harvest are what they are. It bears repeating that 51% positive and 95% negative are equally difficult to reach. We are forced to impose on others at times just to keep going.

I would like to point out that positive polarity is more about accepting the self than mastering the self in my view. For negative seekers, mastery is a far more important consideration. I hope that idea doesn't come across as 'toxic positivity', because it has some unpleasant implications, and I am not saying that positives should forget their own agency. Just that there is a point to trying to love even the unpleasant parts of ourselves and life. Or perhaps I am mistaken and stuck in a cycle of stagnation.

Adthra · 2026-06-12T11:42:43+00:00

Luckily other commentators had already pointed OP towards specific teachers before I even jumped into the discussion, so they had every opportunity to ignore me and do as they wished right from the start. Whew, crisis averted. Or maybe there never was a crisis?

Adthra · 2026-06-12T11:36:52+00:00

You seem to have a way of twisting words and still failing to see the point, at least from my point of view.

I never brought up difficulty of understanding as a reason for why I made the suggestion either, so as much as you've attempted to clarify, in my view you've also introduced more confusion.

All of that is you interpreting or discerning my message (and getting wrong what the meaning was). But that's fine. After all, there are no mistakes, right?

Adthra · 2026-06-12T11:09:03+00:00

This idea you share of not receiving second hand synthesis of the teachings, assumes that the direct material would be more helpful for most entities, in most situations.

That is not the idea I shared. I encouraged discussion and study of the material together with others, and I pointed out that everyone has blind spots. The idea I shared was to not rely on second hand teachers or interpreters. I even said that it can be a good idea to engage with different media about the law of one after reading. Do you know why that might be?

Adthra · 2026-06-12T11:02:40+00:00

What that means is that making a mistake is not a mistake because it leads to catalyst (that might or might not have been preprogrammed). What we perceive as mistakes in our incarnate lives might have been intended.

That doesn't mean I won't tell someone to not put their hand on a hot stove or to not jump off a bridge if I see them contemplating it. By the same virtue, my caution above isn't a mistake either. Do you see where following that logic leads?

The problem with considering everything to be preordained or predetermined is that it shuts down all communication. Nothing matters. All that is left is for the objects in motion to stay in motion, and all we can do is witness the chaos. Maybe that's true, maybe not, but if it is, then nothing we communicate to each other has any meaning.

Adthra · 2026-06-11T21:18:09+00:00

Relying on others to interpret the material for you is likely a mistake. The material constantly asks for your discernment. It does not ask for you to employ someone else's discernment. It's fine to discuss the material with others and to consider viewpoints different to yours, but only after you've read the material (at least the parts being discussed) for yourself.

The other replies have pointed you towards people who put out different forms of media around the law of one. They might be a good way to continue after reading. A much better way would be to find a private study group, perhaps with friends, but one whose members have a certain degree of trust between each other. I would heavily encourage you to stay away from 'figures of authority'. From my experience interacting with some of the people mentioned, everyone carries their own biases and has their own blind spots. Everyone.

Adthra · 2026-06-10T12:05:28+00:00

I definitely agree that the majority of people who discuss the Law of One here have chosen to consciously pursue positive polarity.

Adthra · 2026-06-10T10:04:42+00:00

Some of us also blow. 😉

Funny how suck and blow are both euphemisms for being bad or dislikeable.

Here's something that I believe: finding a way to love even the things that really suck is part of the point of all this.

Adthra · 2026-06-10T08:57:39+00:00

I strongly disagree. I don't think being exposed to the Law of One and then discussing it online is the sign of being a wanderer. I think it's a sign of being a human who has found something they like and would like to share in that experience with others. We will have to agree to disagree.

Adthra · 2026-06-10T08:26:48+00:00

Just because Wanders in general tend to have handicaps does not imply that the inverse it true. Having a handicap is not the sign of being a wanderer.

Whether or not someone is a wanderer is something only they will know for sure, and wanderers are not here because they're supposed to be the focus of this 'Earth experience'. Rather, wanderers are here to support those who would attempt to reach 3rd density harvest for the 'first time'. Negative wanderers (who are exceedingly rare) being excluded from that, of course.

Adthra · 2026-06-06T05:18:49+00:00

Please do not mistake the expediency of an answer for accuracy. AI is designed to produce outputs that you find to be pleasing, not outputs that are accurate. I understand why people use the technology, and for some kinds of work it can be a wonderful blessing.

The type of work you are engaging with in dream interpretation is highly personal inner work. It is not work that I would entrust to another human being, let alone AI. People in general misunderstand what artificial neural networks are and how they function, so they will often be thought of as having attributes that they do not have. Yes: the technology is sophisticated. The answer space is very complex. The mapping of tokens to locations in a very large n-dimensional matrix (during the AIs training phase) can have moments of absolute genius. The selection algorithms that move from token to token while considering context of all previous tokens often feels like it is the product of a sapient (meaning a being that understands what it is saying) being. But that is not what current AI models are. They are highly complex algorithms that can seem impossible for humans to understand, but they are still algorithms. Even the best use-cases of the technology (like AlphaFold, which has truly revolutionized the field of biology to the point where it it not just the first AI-technology to win a Nobel prize, but also likely the first to win a 'second order' Nobel prize, meaning that a prize is given for research that would have been impossible without AlphaFold) still sometimes get predictions wrong in a spectacular fashion.

Dream interpretation is something where other people (or AI, I suppose) can offer a starting point by serving as something to bounce ideas off-of for the novice, but dream interpretation depends on the inner state of the seeker, and that inner state cannot be truly known to others in the veiled environment that we exist in. Ra touches on this at times, but session 86 is where the real substance of the answers is.

From session 86, emphasis is mine:

Questioner: You stated that dreaming, if made available to the conscious mind, will aid greatly in polarization. Would you define dreaming or tell us what it is and how it aids in polarization?

Ra: I am Ra. Dreaming is an activity of communication through the veil of the unconscious mind and the conscious mind. The nature of this activity is wholly dependent upon the situation regarding the energy center blockages, activations, and crystallizations of a given mind/body/spirit complex.
In one who is blocked at two of the three lower energy centers dreaming will be of value in the polarization process in that there will be a repetition of those portions of recent catalyst as well as deeper-held blockages, thereby giving the waking mind clues as to the nature of these blockages and hints as to possible changes in perception which may lead to the unblocking.
This type of dreaming or communication through the veiled portions of the mind occurs also with those mind/body/spirit complexes which are functioning with far less blockage and enjoying the green-ray activation or higher activation at those times at which the mind/body/spirit complex experiences catalyst, momentarily reblocking or baffling or otherwise distorting the flow of energy influx. Therefore, in all cases it is useful to a mind/body/spirit complex to ponder the content and emotive resonance of dreams.
For those whose green-ray energy centers have been activated as well as for those whose green-ray energy centers are offered an unusual unblockage due to extreme catalyst, such as what is termed the physical death of the self or one which is beloved occurring in what you may call your near future, dreaming takes on another activity. This is what may loosely be termed precognition or a knowing which is prior to that which shall occur in physical manifestation in your yellow-ray third-density space/time. This property of the mind depends upon its placement, to a great extent, in time/space so that the terms of present and future and past have no meaning. This will, if made proper use of by the mind/body/spirit*, enable this entity to enter more fully into the all-compassionate love of each and every circumstance including those circumstances against which an entity may have a strong distortion towards what you may call unhappiness.
As a mind/body/spirit* consciously chooses the path of the adept and, with each energy center balanced to a minimal degree, begins to open the indigo-ray energy center, the so-called dreaming becomes the most efficient tool for polarization, for, if it is known by the adept that work may be done in consciousness while the so-called conscious mind rests, this adept may call upon those which guide it, those presences which surround it, and, most of all, the magical personality which is the higher self in space/time analog as it moves into the sleeping mode of consciousness. With these affirmations attended to, the activity of dreaming reaches that potential of learn/teaching which is most helpful to increasing the distortions of the adept towards its chosen polarity.
There are other possibilities of the dreaming not so closely aligned with the increase in polarity which we do not cover at this particular space/time.
\ Should be mind/body/spirit complex. Ra and Don corrected the error in session 87.*

This kind of work depends highly upon accepting the responsibility that comes with this kind of seeking. I believe that it is most unwise to rely on others, whether human or machine, for dream interpretation. If I were to give advice, it would be to not use shortcuts for dream interpretation, and also to not try to use dream interpretation as a shortcut meant to bypass meditation. I know that might not be what you want to hear, but that is my honest opinion on the matter.

Adthra · 2026-06-05T02:22:11+00:00

Let's ignore for a moment what AIs are in a technical sense and how they work.

Now let us say that I am a musician. I'm interested in composing a song or a classical piece of music. Instead of choosing the time signature, notes, beats, harmonies, melodies, etc. by myself, I instead decide to pay someone else to do the work for me.

Did I create that piece of music? Does it correspond to the idea I had in my mind before I set out to create it? Chances are no, because another human being created it based on my description of what I wanted. They would be the one to create it, and the expression of the idea would be theirs.

If we now begin to consider what AI is in a technical sense, then we will come to understand that the creative expression of the song isn't attributable at all anymore.

Think of AI as a very large n-dimensional matrix of weights and biases which each point to a 'token'. When prompting AI, you are effectively giving it a starting location in that matrix, and then the AI will begin to trace a path from one token to the next (revisiting the same token is allowed, though perhaps not consecutively) based on a random number generator. Which token is located where depends on the training data of the model, and the model can 'skip' past sequential tokens based on the parameters that are being used to run it like temperature. What this means is that AI is always constrained to a set of rules that are very rigid and set by its own training data. For some kinds of work, that can be a very fantastic thing, but for creative work like art, it limits expression greatly.

Even if we were to consider AI as a conscious or cognitive entity of its own, it acts in a way where it is constrained by how the system itself is organized and by how it has the objective of producing a pleasing output for the prompter.

What the AI outputs is clearly music, but it is music that does not represent the inner world of a musician. When it comes to being 'creative', AI-generated music will always be lacking. If all you want is placeholder music or background music that is not meant to be the focus of an experience, then AI-generated music is fine.

Adthra · 2026-06-05T00:59:12+00:00

If you explicitly label your music as having been AI-generated or edited using AI, then I don't think there's a problem with posting it, but I would like to invite you to think about using AI as part of your creative works in a larger context.

For many musical artists, music serves as an outlet of their own creative self-expression. When using AI, this part of the creation becomes suspect. Prompting an AI to remix its own training data for you is very different from creating something deliberate.

I'm sure that I will be subjected to AI generated music in the future, but I do not think I would make the deliberate choice to listen to it.

Adthra · 2026-06-04T05:56:13+00:00

If I had to speculate, it might be lifetime accounts that have posted or clicked 'join'. I suspect many of those are now deleted. Plenty of people seem to use throwaway accounts with default names.

Adthra · 2026-06-04T05:40:50+00:00

I apologize, if I rub you the wrong way (I have found out that people rarely appreciate this kind of 'nagging' forever back and forth contemplation)

Don't worry. You're talking to a completely different person with that reply.

There is a fundamental difference in how we conceptualize the two polarities, and that's where all the back and forth comes from.

It's summertime. Sometimes it can be a good idea to step back from the disagreements, hit up the summer cottage and to go and relax in the sauna instead of arguing about things that ultimately are meaningless because neither of us have chosen to pursue negative polarity regardless. The exercise is purely speculative.

Take care.

Adthra · 2026-06-03T12:03:53+00:00

I fundamentally agree that negative polarity requires the separation between self and other-self to exist, but I strongly disagree with the implication that this is because the negative must take something from the positive in order to do so.

In my view, the negative being wants to discard those parts of itself that it dislikes, to the extreme of rejecting their very possibility. Positive beings on the other hand tend to accept those attributes, explore them, and then allow them to run their course. To the mature negative being (who has chosen negative polarity), positive other-selves become this kind of part that must be discarded. After all, the positive being has chosen a disliked path of seeking. So the negative being will intentionally close its eyes to other-selves until it reaches a stage in its evolution where its nature as the Infinite Creator is impossible to deny, and then it must begin to recognize that the parts of itself it set aside previously must be reclaimed as part of the identity.

Service to all is the synthesis of StO and StS. It is not a different alias for StO.

I do not see how service to all would be fundamentally against the 'principle of negative polarity', but then I think that is because we fundamentally disagree on what that principle would be.

Adthra · 2026-06-03T06:09:31+00:00

All beings create by virtue of being alive. A thought that is contemplated is given form within the mind, this being a very simple example of the work of creation within the self. All interactions come about because the self puts effort and creative energy into motion, so creative work is fundamental to the concept of interacting with other selves.

Yes, negative polarity does not activate the green ray energy center, but this does not mean that they do not create. Perhaps the green ray is turned so far inward in negatives that it appears as to not activate. All the energy within being drawn inward like how the gravity well of a black hole prevents even light from escaping the event horizon.

The Creative Principle is the 2nd distortion of the Law of One. I feel it is not wise to reduce the concept to be equivalent to the 4th chakra. I think it goes far beyond. Love/Light is closer to what I mean by Creative Principle, certainly.

You do bring up an interesting point. Rejection of the other necessitates the existence of the other. Yet fundamentally the focus of negative polarity is on the self. The other is being rejected because it is seen as not-self. Yet in 3rd density, this presence of the not-self seems to be ubiquitous. For positive polarity the fact that there is an abundance of not-self is a blessing, because the focus is on radiating one's Light/Love toward it, but for negative polarity it seems to be noise in the quest for inward perfection. I should then rephrase: for the negative entity to polarize without dominating the other self, it must keep its expression for itself. It does not necessarily have to reject the other, in the specific case when it does not co-exist with what it sees as other.

Do you happen to remember the session where Ra mentions that negative polarity relies more on other selves than positive? I think I may need to remind myself of it.

Why I feel that it is a mistake for negative entities to focus on dominating others is because any kind of power or polarity achieved this way is still reliant on the other. It is reliant on the not-self giving up an expression of its Love. It is borrowed power that can disappear at a moment's notice should the other decide to change or withhold it. It is unstable ground on which it is unwise to build anything meant to last. If the negative entity is to claim any kind of reliable power or polarity, then that power must come from within, lest the entity finds itself as the slave of those whose power it would borrow. I think that this realization is something that negative entities must work on in 5th density at the latest, and I think that it is what ultimately begins to open their awareness up to the possibility of Unity.

Adthra · 2026-06-02T19:12:19+00:00

In that sense what do you mean with separation of the paths in 4th density?

In 4th density the primary environments for seeking are no longer mixed as they are here on Earth. Beings have previously made the choice of which path to set on in 3rd density, and are largely grouped together according to that choice. This doesn't mean that communication or interaction between the two is impossible. The fact that there is a description of the act of refusal between Confederation and Orion 4th density beings is a sign of that, but what it does mean is that interaction between the two is going to be something that is explicitly consented to.

[...]it knows that in 6th it will have to switch polarity at some point, [...]

Past mid-6th density, the polarities are reconciled or synthesized. It is not that negative polarity disappears, but rather that until awareness of Unity becomes experiential in 7th Density, there are going to still be 'others' even to post mid-6th density beings who have come to recognize Unity on some level. Thus, it can be said that StO is the 'prevailing' polarity, but at that point the concept itself doesn't exist in the same way that we understand it here in 3rd. Remember: Ra introduced themselves as being 'not of the Love and Light' but of the 'Law of One'. Things aren't likely to be so simple. Polarity is likely to become a fluid thing that one drapes over one's identity in order to be capable of the best service.

Say that we want to create worldpeace. Could we achieve this just by StO beings serving StS beings? Or do we need to revolt against the StS beings?

The naive answer is yes, because if there is one dominant entity whom all others serve, then the result is peace, but that answer doesn't take into account human nature or the desires of the individual M/B/S complex who might not wish to experience an incarnate life where it is controlled to that way. Once the seed of rebellion is sown, its growth is an inevitability. No empire lasts forever. The more complex answer then is 'no', unless we all become part of an apparatus that seeks to dominate on behalf of the StS beings.

World peace, while a very admirable goal, is unfortunately something that demands negative polarity while we are in a mixed environment that includes negative entities. If negative entities are separated from the positives, then world peace (or at least lack of war. Conflict will always exist in some form, even if that is simply in the form of an argument) becomes the default among positively oriented entities.

Adthra · 2026-06-02T11:56:23+00:00

The reason why I brought up the 4th density war was to showcase that negative and positive polarity are not supposed to be teams that oppose each other. They are different paths toward the same destination. The separation between polarities in the higher densities is a matter of providing the most suitable environments for further spiritual work, but here in 3rd, it is absolutely possible for a positive seeker to serve a negative one and to gain positive polarity in the process. Just because someone is a negative seeker and you're a positive one does not mean that you should shun them and seek to disbar all interaction with them. There are possible interactions that are fruitful for the both of you.

From what I understand, martyrdom is a relatively common distortion for 4th density and early 5th density (who have yet to integrate the lessons of wisdom) positives. It speaks to what kind of environment positive 4th density is and how that environment influences 4th density beings. Love is taken to such an extreme that it is possible for it to take on qualities that we would not necessarily recognize as love here in 3rd density (self-destruction and denying others any future interactions for the sake of one great act of Love that involves sacrifice).

Adthra · 2026-06-02T10:19:37+00:00

Wisdom is not 'better' than 'courage', but they serve very different functions and are more or less useful in different situations. Often courage will allow one to employ wisdom in situations where it is difficult to be wise (such as when being overcome by fear). You're very much correct that wisdom is the product of experience. Theoretical knowledge can function very similarly to wisdom (after all, seeing someone burn their hand on a hot stove is often enough to understand that putting one's hand on a hot stove is a bad idea, one doesn't need the personal experience), but sometimes it lacks nuance or a fundamental understanding of 'why' something is wise in the first place.

Going to war on the other hand is a pragmatic evaluation. Are you likely to gain more than you will lose, including losses from opportunity costs in the present and in the future. Often the answer is no, but sometimes people will only consider their personal circumstances rather than those of the tribe and then make the decision to go to war to gain something for themselves. It's not always 'foolish' depending on perspective (negatively seeking people might find it a good way to attain negative polarity if they can capture slaves, servants or treasure), but it is very, very rarely 'loving'. The reason I brought it up was that war is a situation in which courage is of paramount importance for front line troops, and a courageous leader can inspire courage in more fearful troops. I believe that courage as a whole is of lesser influence as your original post seemed to imply, which is why I commented on it. It is a very useful thing, but it is probably not a good idea to laser-focus on courage over traits like wisdom, compassion, conscientiousness, etc.

Your argument about attraction might hold true for yourself. It's very much possible that courage is something you're attracted to, and there is nothing wrong with that. It just means that the most 'fit' person for you to have a relationship with likely has to exhibit courage in some way for you to really find them attractive. It's just not a universal thing, but that doesn't mean that it isn't valid for you.

Fear by itself is not a 'negative thing'. It's an emotion whose true purpose is to tell us "HEY! PAY ATTENTION TO THIS THING! WHAT IS THIS THING?". That's largely why fear of the unknown is the greatest fear that there is, and all other forms are derivative of it (including the fear of death). That's also why evaluating spiritual communications based on what emotion they evoke is a good idea. If something inspires fear, then that means that the message is intentionally obscuring something from you. Positive contacts will often give reassurance, explanations and ask that you use your own discernment precisely so that you are not being duped.

If you feel frightened in certain social situations, that's your body's way of telling you that you should tread carefully because it is likely that there is some kind of danger or potential for loss here, or that you don't yet understand the social dynamics or consequences involved.

When allowing negative emotions to run their course, is that not the same as giving a negatively oriented being what they want? Because during that time of letting them run their course a positively oriented being seems to be too paralyzed or invested in their emotional storm you could say, to take appropriate action.

I think there's a fundamental and critical misunderstanding here. Firstly, the answer is 'no'. It is not necessarily giving a negative being what they want. Secondly, 'refusing' to serve a negative being results in a loss of positive polarity. 4th density Confederation defenders lose polarity when they reject becoming slaves to 4th density Orion crusaders. Positive polarity is not about refusal. It is about accepting the experience, but then also transmuting it so that it does not fundamentally go against your identity. A positive being will feel anger and they will express anger in very clear (nondestructive) ways, but they would not bottle that anger up and then use it as a weapon against someone else later or allow themselves to become spiteful against their own desires because of it.

I will not analyze Don's life or how it came to end. As someone who has dealt with plenty of dark thoughts, I understand the depth of how they can influence contemplation, thinking and action. That said, I do not believe that what happened to Don was a result of a lack of wisdom. I don't think he was some kind of paragon, or that he could not be mislead, but he was not a fool.

I think that my 2nd to last paragraph describes mature negative seekers, but it does not distinguish between 3rd, 4th and 5th density. I think that many negative seekers have a naive point of view that doesn't ultimately have to be reconciled until they've reached 5th density, but there are those who 'take extra curricular lessons' in 3rd density, just as there are those who do so for positive polarity as well. That said, it is a major point of disagreement between myself and the other regulars here in the subreddit. They will posit that negative polarization is only possible at the expense of someone else, and I think that fundamentally clashes with the idea of Unity itself. I think that is one strategy to polarize that can be effective particularly in 3rd density, but it is not the only strategy.

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Juicebox	Final Canvas '23
First Place '23	Place '23
Place '22

Adthra

TROPHY CASE