Tom Cox AKA "Montalk"

[Buddy]

Re: Cassiopaea and Montalk

I understand that you're not addressing me, meta-agnostic, but I find your post interesting since I also came to Cassiopaea from the direction of the Montalk site (and Educate-yourself.org). I also know the story and it's all out in the open and described elsewhere. Research pays off, as Bewildered said. :)

I'm mainly interested to know to what extent Tom might be a conscious disinformation agent,

We have a fascinating collection of threads in a special section of the forum where we train ourselves to be able to do our own assessing of this kind of thing, in case you're interested.

There was something on his site recently purporting to divulge the secret of alchemy. A little too far over my head to tell if there was anything to it without actually going out and trying it.

Going out and trying it? Do you mind saying what you think alchemy is?

It's just in the past he has seemed like a well enough meaning individual and I'm wondering if there's any way to tone down any sort of "feud" that might still be going on.

I'm just curious. If you don't know whether "any sort of 'feud'...might still be going on", how can you be wondering if there's any way to tone it down? It sounds like you're saying "please be kind to Montalk, if you're not already being kind to him". :)

Thanks for bearing with my questions.

 

[RyanX]

Re: Cassiopaea and Montalk

I'm mainly interested to know to what extent Tom might be a conscious disinformation agent, or if he just has ego issues and is a bit less critical and discerning in certain areas than would suit him. He does after all have quite a mind for hard science and still comes up with some pretty interesting stuff in that regard. There was something on his site recently purporting to divulge the secret of alchemy. A little too far over my head to tell if there was anything to it without actually going out and trying it.

hi meta-agnostic,

Regardless of whether Tom is a conscious agent or not, the results are still the same. Tom is out to promote Tom and he's obviously not interested in working with this group. Sometimes one's ego can be a disinformation agent of its own.

I'm curious what you see in Tom's science writing? From what I recall of reading his articles years ago, little of it made sense or offered any practical value for helping others. Most of his science writing, IMO, was word salad with a David Wilcock/Dan Winters style to it. If it is way over your head, perhaps it is just written with the intention of sounding knowledgeable, but with no actual substance behind it. FWIW.

 

[Laura]

Re: Cassiopaea and Montalk

I can't begin to thank you, Ark, and everyone else who has been involved in your work enough for persevering through what I have seen to be one vicious firestorm after another over the years. When I first arrived at your forum and to the wealth of your literature online, I had no idea of the trials and tribulations you have had to face. It took considerable time reading over numerous threads (especially the cointelpro boards...those are very illuminating) to begin to grasp the immensity of it all.

Truth to tell, there are "trials and tribulations" we have experienced that we can't write about without putting ourselves in even more danger. I often tell the "rest of the story" to people who visit in person if I "read" them as reliable.

I reference "montalk" in the subject line of this message because it was through his material that I was "introduced" to the C's and by extension, the Cassiopaea forum, S.O.T.T., and your series of books. At the time I was completely unaware of Tom's relationship with you all. While I have never met the man in person, I have had limited discourse with him via the internet. It wasn't until I came across the "Cassiopaea and Montalk" thread that the pieces finally fell in place; it dawned on me that I approached the work here with a ticking timebomb strapped to my back.

I was telling someone about some of the things we have experienced yesterday, including the fact that the attacks no longer affect me personally as they used to. I guess I've had any self-importance just burned off. I sometimes think that was part of my lesson or challenge: was I devoted enough to what I was doing to continue in spite of that kind of horror? Well, I guess I was/am.

However, I now begin to see that these attacks ARE harmful to others in a real and direct way. What you have written just emphasizes this point. That means that we really ought to do something about it at this point, though doing so will come from a completely different place of intention. Dealing with Vincent Bridges, Stormbear Williams, godlikeproductions, and even Montalk, via legal means may very well be on the agenda for the sake of the many people who could be helped, but are being blocked by such as they are.

Well, I wouldn't want to be in their shoes - or carrying their Frequency Resonance, rather - when - and if - the Wave hits. Reminds me of a passage from the Bible:

Mark 9:36 And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all.

9:36 And he took a child, and set him in the midst of them: and when he had taken him in his arms, he said unto them, Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.

9:38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.

9:39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.

9:40 For he that is not against us is on our part.

9:41 For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.

9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.

Not that I am comparing myself to Christ, but rather the principle of doing damage to other people for selfish/egoistic reasons.

I refer to cautionary statements from Tom that "prior to 2002, Laura and the C's were genuine and focused on 'light'; after this point, it seemed to devolve into a negative, abrasive cult dominated by Laura." He stated he couldn't in good conscience remain connected to the work when the cult began to emerge. He encouraged me to "find the good things there and take them for your own, but leave the rest out. I'd be taking my chances with a cult otherwise."

Boy, is that ever a twisted bunch of nonsense. Funny that it "just so happens" that we are said to have "devolved into a cult" right at the time that Montalk was tested and found lacking. And that isn't saying that anyone consciously devised any tests - that's just what happened. The Universe has a way of taking care of itself - and you - if you learn to read the signs. But that can only be learned in a network of sincere people. Tom was never sincere; to him it was just an ego-feeding pastime. It was all about him.

I admit that I was vulnerable - and an ideal target - for warnings regarding cults, since I was involved with one for a number of years. I found my way out eventually...and was a walking, talking, open wound for nearly a decade afterward. Tom's words, therefore, had maximum effect on me. I believed them for the most part, because I felt that I couldn't trust my own judgment in this regard. Tom was aware of this as I had shared that particular part of my life with him.

It's not a BAD thing to not trust your own judgment, especially when you have objective evidence that you have programs and buffers and so on. The problem is, people look for someone who is CERTAIN that they know and usually those with certainty are pathological. I don't think any of us here can say we are certain about anything, we just discuss the heck out of things, try to find all the evidence, and assign probabilities.

Tom never did that, not even as a member of QFG. He never doubted his own perceptions or judgments. He never networked with others. He never sought feedback. It was all about him.

I came to the forum and began reading like all newbies are encouraged to do...and during this time, I exchanged messages with Tom. This was when he cautioned me to look for certain "signs" of the cult that had emerged after 2002. I am ashamed to admit that I stepped back at this point, and would occasionally drop in on the forum and read from time to time. His cautions had an effect on me.

This, again, highlights the fact that it does seem that something pro-active needs to be done about people such as Tom Cox, Vincent Bridges, Stormbear Williams, Jay Weidner, godlikeproductions, and so on. It's one thing for them to discuss where or how they may disagree with our conclusions, our probabilities, our views, etc, but their personal attacks are not acceptable. They use paramoralisms, reversive blockades, prey on people's wounds, and then, in the end, offer them nothing but "believe ME and do as I say or the wicked witch will get you"! Geeze, that's spiritual terrorism.

Something struck me over time, however. Two things: networking, and applying oneself to the truth. I suppose in a way both are really one in the same, because after a period of stepping away and reading the many threads on the forum (as well as your books posted online), I realized there was no way on earth I could ever hope to find my way out of this mess alone. By myself, I am easy prey to subtle programs such as the one Tom "montalk" Cox apparently uses when he "recommends" people to look at the C's and the Cassiopaea forum. He didn't merely direct me here, Laura. He injected me with a timed-release poison for the trip.

See above. Tom and his ilk are well-described in Lobaczewski's "Political Ponerology" and having the truth told about them drives such individuals to an almost frenzied need to destroy me any way they can.

During the time I spent being quiet and reading, I came to discover that what I find here is a network of people checking and balancing one another. Both yourself and Ark exhort people to take the time to research and understand carefully...and I cannot help but wonder, "what the heck is wrong with that?" Hardly the behavior of the leaders of a "dangerous cult" who browbeat people into believing that what Laura says is the infallible truth (I'm paraphrasing Tom there).

Yup. And everybody here knows that I am fallible. That's why we have a network.

I thought about posting this on the forum, Laura, but I'm not sure if it would serve any useful purpose. Letting go and moving on seems more important than continuing to flog on a dead horse...but on the other hand, some awareness of montalk's disinfo efforts should be maintained as they were certainly to my detriment when I arrived here.

Thanks for all that you do

As you can see, once again, networking is the key. It's important for others to know every bit of data that is out there so that they can make accurate assessments. We can only acquire that data by networking. Especially when the data concerns the activities of human pathology in our midst. It operates in darkness and secrecy.

Mark 4:22 - For there is nothing hid, which shall not be manifested; neither was any thing kept secret, but that it should come abroad.

Sorry for going Biblical on ya'll, but there are just times when it fits!

 

[meta-agnostic]

Re: Cassiopaea and Montalk

I understand that you're not addressing me, meta-agnostic, but I find your post interesting since I also came to Cassiopaea from the direction of the Montalk site (and Educate-yourself.org). I also know the story and it's all out in the open and described elsewhere. Research pays off, as Bewildered said. :)

I'm mainly interested to know to what extent Tom might be a conscious disinformation agent,

We have a fascinating collection of threads in a special section of the forum where we train ourselves to be able to do our own assessing of this kind of thing, in case you're interested.

There was something on his site recently purporting to divulge the secret of alchemy. A little too far over my head to tell if there was anything to it without actually going out and trying it.

Going out and trying it? Do you mind saying what you think alchemy is?

It's just in the past he has seemed like a well enough meaning individual and I'm wondering if there's any way to tone down any sort of "feud" that might still be going on.

I'm just curious. If you don't know whether "any sort of 'feud'...might still be going on", how can you be wondering if there's any way to tone it down? It sounds like you're saying "please be kind to Montalk, if you're not already being kind to him". :)

Thanks for bearing with my questions.

Bud,

Thanks. I'm happy to get responses from whomever. I've already looked at some of those threads and I'll make it a point to look through the rest.

Regarding alchemy, here's the article since you asked about it:

_http://montalk.net/gnosis/174/the-philosopher-s-stone

My understanding of it both from this and from what Laura wrote in TSHOTW is there is the gold-making side of it and the transmuting your inner being side of it. Tom refers to it as a "demiurgic technology" here. The article may have a bit of Tom's typical word saladness and making pronouncements about things, but it also seems to cover the subject well. Then again, I don't really know enough about the subject to tell if he's on point. I'd love to see a knowledgeable critique of it.

This is also a response to RyanX's inquiry. His science writing seems to hit points from time to time but overall you may be right, it may be a majority of gobbledygook. I think because I have broad science knowledge that's deep in a few places here and there, his stuff seems fascinating and even entertaining. But it is usually hard to tell if it's of any practical value.

I am not trying to suggest that anyone be any more "kind" to Tom than they think he deserves based on their experience. I'm still putting together what those experiences are. I know there's a lot of stuff about the subject around here and elsewhere and I've read a lot of it but I'm sure there's more left. I don't know exactly what his relationship is with Vincent Bridges and that "crew" but he doesn't come off as being as bad as them based on my interactions. Then again, maybe he is just more insidious. It's entirely possible.

I'll admit that a big part of my wondering what's up and why this is all such a big deal is because of my own ego and the fact that I was hanging around with Tom's crowd online for such an important period of time, even offering up personal information here and there to him. I don't know that I ever really or completely "bought in" to any particular spin he may have put on things (see my username) but I invested my time, even repeated ideas to others at times. It's tougher to think of it all as being some scheming disinformation ploy and easier to think of it as honest human flaws and mistakes. Regardless of which, it may not matter much as far as the end result.

I think Laura covers it all pretty well above. This is serious business.

 

[Bewildered]

Re: Cassiopaea and Montalk

It's not a BAD thing to not trust your own judgment, especially when you have objective evidence that you have programs and buffers and so on. The problem is, people look for someone who is CERTAIN that they know and usually those with certainty are pathological. I don't think any of us here can say we are certain about anything, we just discuss the heck out of things, try to find all the evidence, and assign probabilities.

Tom never did that, not even as a member of QFG. He never doubted his own perceptions or judgments. He never networked with others. He never sought feedback. It was all about him.

What bothers me, Laura, is the timing of my introduction to the work here (tainted as it was) and method of delivery (Tom's cautionary statements that encouraged the formation of a skewed view). In a very real way, I think it might be a test for me. I was very paranoid of falling into the kind of trap I had previously. Truth be told, I was looking for someone like Tom to "help" me navigate through my fears. I realize this and wonder just how much of this I brought upon myself? When I stop and consider this, I shudder to think what a perfect victim I was.

This, again, highlights the fact that it does seem that something pro-active needs to be done about people such as Tom Cox, Vincent Bridges, Stormbear Williams, Jay Weidner, godlikeproductions, and so on. It's one thing for them to discuss where or how they may disagree with our conclusions, our probabilities, our views, etc, but their personal attacks are not acceptable. They use paramoralisms, reversive blockades, prey on people's wounds, and then, in the end, offer them nothing but "believe ME and do as I say or the wicked witch will get you"! Geeze, that's spiritual terrorism.

In essence, that is what Tom offered. He seemed to pin the "turn to the worse" on you, suggesting that the ruin came about because of your ego.

As you can see, once again, networking is the key. It's important for others to know every bit of data that is out there so that they can make accurate assessments. We can only acquire that data by networking. Especially when the data concerns the activities of human pathology in our midst. It operates in darkness and secrecy.

Mark 4:22 - For there is nothing hid, which shall not be manifested; neither was any thing kept secret, but that it should come abroad.

Sorry for going Biblical on ya'll, but there are just times when it fits!

I certainly have come to understand that I can't trust my own judgment. This has been hammered into my thick skull over and over. I am awash in a sea of pathology...and the most insidious part is how that pathology makes me just as ill, by extension.

Thanks for prodding me to shout this from the rooftops.

 

[Gonzo]

Re: Cassiopaea and Montalk

Hi meta-agnostic,

I think you might find that you have to get over yourself before you can get over the effects of Montalk and fully appreciate what has happened.

Interesting, I just noticed that Mon=My, therefore Montalk=My Talk.

A common buffer or program that many of us have is the "be nice" or "why can't we all be friends". This program interferes with our ability to assess a situation objectively. One indication we have the program running is when we start to squirm when we see someone being challenged by others. We might perceive a ganging up, insensitivity, rudeness or even animosity.

Another symptom is when we find ourselves asking those who are challenging the subject to be more gentle or to lower the tone, when we don't even have sufficient information to evaluate the degree with which the subject should be challenged.

Since you asked for a toning down while admitting you don't have the complete picture, you may have this program running.

Imagine someone asking an assault victim to lower their tone vis a vis the perpetrator without even knowing what the victim suffered and then, learning further, you find the victim was tortured, raped and beaten. What would the change in perception be between what that someone originally felt was an appropriate response versus after learning the victim's degree of suffering and the viciousness of the attacker?

I lived in a small town several years ago, where the chief of police was accused of molesting young teens 30 years prior in another town 8 hours away.

Even though one of the chief's daughters had recently committed suicide and his other daughter was a drug addict, half the town could not conceive this man capable of harming an adult, let alone a child.

This half of the town held contempt for anyone who dare question the chief's integrity. The other half were certainly considering the possibility of his involvement and the town was divided.

Now, why would half the town be so blinded to certain facts that should have, at the very least, created room in their mind to consider he might actually be involved?

If you can figure that out, you might be able to identify a second program running in you. You mentioned your ego influence on the matter, so that would be part of the equation.

I will not pretend to know Tom's mind. The best I can do is assign probabilities and form hypotheses, and there is ample data to work with.

I hope through this one topic you find great revelations about yourself and I hope they are only painful enough to learn from. There has been enough sufferring and not enough lessons for some.

Kind regards,
Gonzo

 

[Atreides]

Re: Cassiopaea and Montalk

Machiavelli once said that there are essentially three types of intellect, that which understands for itself, that which understands that others understand, and that which does neither. An over simplified paraphrasing, but this is what I understand he meant (the translation says "that which understands what others can understand").

If you cannot understand a certain thing, it is essential that you have the ability to appreciate that someone else does understand. You might not understand how to perform heart surgery, but you understand that there are some surgeons who do. You might not understand laws, but you appreciate that your lawyer does. The very nature of reality requires a network, that is, you can't know and understand everything, even if you know and understand a lot of things, you still need to understand that other people may have a better understanding than you. You only need a modicum of intellect to do this.

If you go to a doctor for an operation on your heart and he is drunk, maybe you shouldn't let him operate on you. It can certainly get more detailed and difficult for you, so it helps to get second opinions, or have a friend that is a doctor.

As we observe, there are a number of the 3rd type, they do not understand, nor do they understand that other people understand.

There is an old arabic proverb, my mother had it attached to our fridge for most of my life:

"He that knows not,
and knows not that he knows not
is a fool.
Shun him (i.e. Intellect #3)

He that knows not,
and knows that he knows not
is a pupil.
Teach him.

He that knows,
and knows not that he knows
is asleep
Wake him.

He that knows,
and knows that he knows
is a teacher.
Follow him."

Another consideration is that, those who deserve the least demand the most. Just like those who know the least, claim to know the most. This is like the Dunning-Kruger Effect, and it is especially prevalent in esoteric fields.

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which an unskilled person makes poor decisions and reaches erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to realize their mistakes.[1] The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their own ability as above average, much higher than it actually is, while the highly skilled underrate their abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority. This leads to the situation in which less competent people rate their own ability higher than more competent people. It also explains why actual competence may weaken self-confidence: because competent individuals falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. "Thus, the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others."

In esoteric fields, instead of competence, people tend to think they are more deserving than others, while those who are actually deserving tend to think that they are less deserving. They tend to think in reverse of what is normal, that is, they think that "When the teacher is ready, I will appear." These people can often become violent when refused the right to information that they do not have the right to. Not because it's secret, or special, but because human beings have to eat, sleep, they have their own lives to live. These types of people demand complete and total sacrifice from teachers.

We have seen both of these types in this thread. People that know not, and know not that they know not, and those who believe that they have some kind of right to be taught. They demand that we publish the complete C's sessions. Well, that's not up to me, but I think it's rather presumptuous and out of line.

Now there is another thing to consider, Lyra, and the "but they haven't done anything to me yet" program that people run.

People tend to judge an individual in discreet moments instead of looking at the whole interaction with them, as well as the interaction from others in the network. The fact that a person is nice, or polite in one moment, or has only been nice or polite with you, shouldn't make you suddenly lose your uncommon sense.

If you were talking to a serial killer, and they were being polite, and kind, and your friend was telling you, "Wait, what are you doing, he's killed like 5 women horribly, and you said "maybe so, but he's being so nice to me!" You'd be pretty stupid to be going home with that guy.

That's an extreme example, but it illustrates the point easily. The fact that someone isn't doing something now doesn't mean they a) didn't do it before, and b) won't do it again, to you.

Bad people can be as sweet as sugar right before they stab you in the back. Now, I am not making any specific complaints against Lyra, though in my small experience with women, she falls into the "butta wouldn't melt in my mouth" category, which screams danger. Whether or not she's Monty's Yoko is for another discussion entirely, I'd say maybe, maybe not. Some people are wolves in sheep's clothing, and as I recall from meeting her in person, I definitely wouldn't put her in the sheep category.

 

[dant]

Re: Cassiopaea and Montalk

That is an awesome response, Atreides!
... and I love the old arabic proverb!

Thank you!
Dan

 

[Gonzo]

Re: Cassiopaea and Montalk

I second that. Great post.

Thanks,
Gonzo

 

[meta-agnostic]

Re: Cassiopaea and Montalk

Thank you Gonzo. I know I have a problem and need to work on it more. I feel like the tone of my posts is still way off from where I would like them to be but I'm trying to work on it and get feedback rather than not post at all. Still don't have edit privileges but I'm no fan of the edit button anyway. Regarding Montalk, I should really just move on and consider myself lucky I wasn't even more taken in by him.

Also, Atreides, great post. Those categories help to narrow things down and think about my own place in things as well. I was never very impressed by interactions with Lyra. I had hoped she was trying to fight against whatever programming she had as she did seem aware of it at times, but her overall effect on things seemed pretty negative. I remember seeing several people on the NR board comment to this effect toward the end. Whether Montalk could have done better or could still do better without her is an interesting question but moot at this point I suppose.

 

[Gonzo]

Re: Cassiopaea and Montalk

Hi meta-agnostic,

Tone is very tricky in written communication. When we write, we often hear ourselves saying the words in our head in a specific way, only to have the reader hear it read quite differently in their head.

In another thread I wrote about a recent exercise I performed, reading and re-reading people's posts but holding a specific emotion in my mind each time. I was quite surprised at how much we can accidentally add to another person's words merely by assuming their emotion or having certain phrases in their message trigger an emotion in us. It certainly changes how the message is received.
As well, we can easily find ourselves writing with emotion while unaware of its influence on our choice of phrasing and pace. It is therefore quite important we develop an awareness of our emotional thinking and allow ourselves to process emotions before we post. Often, once an emotion has passed, we may find we don't really have much to contribute in a concrete way and that what we were about to write was more of an emotional release than anything of value to others.

I often use a program like notepad to write my message in before posting. It allows me to get my thoughts down quickly and save them. After crashing a few times and losing my message or posting before I was finished, this method proved quite handy.

As well it gives me the opportunity for a second sober review, after I have been able to get any surfacing emotions processed and reconsider my message for its tone, clarity and brevity, as we do try to eliminate noise as much as possible.
Perhaps this method might help you.

It's good that your are trying to identify these things. Keep it up. :)

Also, you might actually find that, once you can edit your posts, the edit feature has a lot to offer, especially for cleaning up missed typos or poor phrasing. However, using the preview helps a lot as well.
Take care,
Gonzo.

 

[morganhigh]

Re: Cassiopaea and Montalk

Hello guys - i recently read Tom's "Fringe Knowledge for Beginners" book that is on his website. Surely i'm not qualified to comment on any ego problems that he may be suffering from, though eye can say that the specific information in this book resonated very well with me.....and could be useful to any "beginner".

Can someone please quote some lines from his book that feel "dangerous" or "disinformational"?

As a sort of beginner, it would be most helpful to me

 

[henry]

Re: Cassiopaea and Montalk

morganhigh, have you read the entirety of this thread?

 

[Jeremy F Kreuz]

Re: Cassiopaea and Montalk

Hello guys - i recently read Tom's "Fringe Knowledge for Beginners" book that is on his website. Surely i'm not qualified to comment on any ego problems that he may be suffering from, though eye can say that the specific information in this book resonated very well with me.....and could be useful to any "beginner".

Can someone please quote some lines from his book that feel "dangerous" or "disinformational"?

As a sort of beginner, it would be most helpful to me

Morgan High,

Instead of asking the forummembers to quote some lines that feel dangerous or disinformational, it might be a good exercise to give the forum a few examples of the specific information that resonated very well with you. It is always a good learning opportunity to see if your resonances are in tune or not with the knowledge of the network. This seems to me a more active way, rather then the reactive one you propose.

 

[TheSpoon]

Re: Cassiopaea and Montalk

I came across Montalk while doing an unrelated search for Cassiopaean references to Handl. That took me back here to this thread, which references Tom Cox's Montalk forum - NobleRealms.org, which appears to have closed on 22 Feb 2008. Tom's reasons for closing the forum are posted at
_http://forum.noblerealms.org/viewtopic.php?id=6396&p=1

In particular:

This open internet forum was never intended to be an endless endeavor, however. And since late 2006 I sensed the end approaching but wanted to wait to determine whether what I was seeing was just a temporary phase or a progressive trend. The trend was a shift in the vibrational, experiential, and emotional profile of the active forum membership. What in the first couple years only Noble Realms could properly fulfill has shifted toward what could just as well be satisfied on other forums. Coupled with the fact that over the past four years many other good fringe forums have sprung up, NR no longer serves a unique function. Its original purpose has been served.

and

I am aiming for converting from a public forum to a more harmonized, personalized, individualized, and private means of networking. <snip> So I am advising switching to email, phone, instant messaging, private forums / IRC rooms, and face-to-face meetings with those who are mutually compatible with you.

I'm posting this for anyone who follows the same trail I did - took me a while to dig up that thread.