Tom Cox AKA "Montalk"

[Laura]

Re: Cassiopaea and Montalk

Maybe montalk's right, and maybe laura's wrong. Ever think of that possibility?

Montalk proved to be spectacularly wrong as was proven when I was interrogated for over three hours by the French Gendarmerie. ... And I was right.

 

[shijing]

Re: Cassiopaea and Montalk

Walkington, please remember you are new in someone else's house. Your broad generalizations and manipulative language are giving away the notion that you are not nearly as well read as you claimed in your post at http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=19215.msg0, or that you didn't understand much of what you read or that your objective is to cause chaos.

Gonzo is correct about this -- you seem to be going to quite a bit of trouble over what comes across as essentially an emotional reaction to something; to what I'm not quite sure, although it apparently involves Montalk. I'm also curious about how old you are.

I thought this group emphasized "free thought". Why not encourage freedom of thought? Why not let people think for themselves?

It really depends on what you mean by "free thought". Is the "free thought" that you refer to done in the service of trying to uncover and see truth? Or does it merely mean that "everyone has the right to an opinion", regardless of whether those opinions are supported by anything substantial, add anything to the aim of the network, or even make sense?

 

[dant]

Re: Cassiopaea and Montalk

Whoa! I did not know the French interrogated you Laura!
Geez... for 3 (THREE) whole hours!?!?

Perhaps that is why the "French Connection" was censored?

Wow!

 

[Laura]

Re: Cassiopaea and Montalk

Whoa! I did not know the French interrogated you Laura!
Geez... for 3 (THREE) whole hours!?!?

Perhaps that is why the "French Connection" was censored?

Wow!

That IS why it was censored. There have been only two times have I ever removed anything from our site under duress and both times, the survival of my family was directly threatened. That was one of them.

 

[Renaissance]

Re: Cassiopaea and Montalk

Maybe montalk's right, and maybe laura's wrong. Ever think of that possibility?

Montalk proved to be spectacularly wrong as was proven when I was interrogated for over three hours by the French Gendarmerie. ... And I was right.

Good thing you guys made that big disclaimer about Montalk when you did. Sheesh, he put some serious issues in the mix and people really don't consider how these details can easily expand to threatening circumstances when the PTB choose to put it under the magnifying glass.

 

[dant]

Re: Cassiopaea and Montalk

Wow, that is mind blowing... I hope I never have to go though that,
but then again... never say never, I suppose.

Thanks for sharing, as always!
[... and thanks for the Dot Connector, a beautiful gift!]

 

[Laura]

Re: Cassiopaea and Montalk

I should add that the entire situation is described in this thread, the main post being here:
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=1767.msg16188#msg16188

 

[dant]

Re: Cassiopaea and Montalk

Thanks for the link!

Oh my... it was 4, >>FOUR<< hours!

So it was something of a honeypot trap and all the forces
ascended from out of nowhere and yet from everywhere
they came! Good thing rational minds prevailed... KPIE!

 

[Renaissance]

Re: Cassiopaea and Montalk

Why are you apologizing for what you've said? That doesn't make sense.

It makes sense when you understand consideration and how narcissistic wounding can come out any number of ways. On the flip side, your post is based pretty much entirely on inner consideration - only thoughts of yourself, so who knows if you're even interested in being considerate towards others.

You didn't even say anything offensive, or anything that would even affect Laura and the forum detrimentally.

A big thing your missing is where truth seeker saw it coming from within herself.

I thought this group emphasized "free thought

Free thought needs to be properly understood. 'Free thought' under pathological systems means freedom to impose your thoughts on others. Free thought in a normal and healthy world would be freedom from one's own programs, biases, lower emotions etc. It's clear you think for your emotions, which is not truly free thought at all.

". So why are people critisizng montalk?

Because at one point in time he advocated some dangerous activities, which had Laura not responded the way she did, could have brought an end to the work being done here. It's outlined in the thread Laura posted.

Why are people afraid of Laura's reaction?

If you base your whole reality on authority, then perhaps that is the only lens you'll see through. There are other options though. It is not fear that we operate on, but a human regard for others. That is the point you are missing.

I'm confused... Where are the values here? Gurdjieff and Ouspensky, and Mouravieff encouraged individuality, yet what are you doing other than kissing Laura's ass, and bowing down to her as if she is some kind of God?

I hardly think you think you're confused. In fact, it seems you are quite confident in your flawed opinions. That can be changed by doing some sincere reading, which from this post doesn't seem something you are interested in. If you are interested in interacting on this forum you should read the forum guidelines as a start.

Maybe montalk's right, and maybe laura's wrong. Ever think of that possibility?

This has been addressed.

You can't prove that it's NOT true (the main logic used for conspiracy assertions), so why apologize? Maybe you're right. There is no evidence here to encourage ANYONE on this site seeking the approval of Laura and Ark, or discrediting Montalk, or anything, yet that's what most people on here do. Why not encourage freedom of thought? Why not let people think for themselves?

Addressed above.


[Mod - fixed quote tags]

 

[truth seeker]

Re: Cassiopaea and Montalk

Why are you apologizing for what you've said? That doesn't make sense. You didn't even say anything offensive, or anything that would even affect Laura and the forum detrimentally. I thought this group emphasized "free thought
". So why are people critisizng montalk? Why are people afraid of Laura's reaction? I'm confused... Where are the values here? Gurdjieff and Ouspensky, and Mouravieff encouraged individuality, yet what are you doing other than kissing Laura's ass, and bowing down to her as if she is some kind of God?

The apology came, as Shane said, from behaviors that I saw within myself. I felt that I was being overly concerned for my own situation and not enough for someone else's - in this example, Laura.

After taking the time to read about both sides of the situation, I made my own decision.

What I find interesting about your post is how you seem to make it appear that you are concerned for me and the forum by extension (while at the same time insulting us). You're even trying to make it seem as if you're concerned for Montalk. However, what I think is really going on is that you're angry (for whatever reason) and seek to stir up the past. I wonder if you also posted something similar on the Montalk site?

Maybe you're right. There is no evidence here to encourage ANYONE on this site seeking the approval of Laura and Ark, or discrediting Montalk, or anything, yet that's what most people on here do. Why not encourage freedom of thought? Why not let people think for themselves?

I'm not sure if you're referring here to something I've said or to something someone else has said. If it's something I said, I would suggest that you reread the post I wrote.

 

[Laura]

Re: Cassiopaea and Montalk

Thanks for the link!

Oh my... it was 4, >>FOUR<< hours!

Yeah. Close enough to 4 to call it that, but I just refer to it as "over three hours" most of the time.

So it was something of a honeypot trap and all the forces
ascended from out of nowhere and yet from everywhere
they came! Good thing rational minds prevailed... KPIE!

Yes. And this isn't the only instance of traps being set and the elements of the trap just emerging from the landscape with no apparent connection. In fact, I still would have trouble wrapping my head around any idea that they were conscious. Another of the reasons that I am inclined to the hyperdimensional view of things where that sort of drama can be orchestrated at a level where there is no "proof" or obvious trail. This "lack of proof" issue is one of the reasons that many people reject conspiracy theories and, on the other side, many people can't see it coming when it hits them. They just can't believe that someone they KNOW and/or think highly of, could be part of a "plan." Well, in ordinary 3D life terms, they are both right: those who reject conspiracy theories and those that get caught in hyperdimensional traps: there is nothing on the surface that can be connected.

This situation with Montalk is a prime example of how even the most well-meaning individuals can be used if they are not awake and aware to how they can be used. The minute your ego enters the picture and says "I've got a handle on things, nobody can trick or trap me!" they are lost. That is why the network is SOOOO important. My personal liking and regard for Montalk (Tom Cox) had to be set aside. As you can see, I sure tried to shake him awake because I did NOT want to have to take actions that bifurcated our paths. I've been faced with this situation more than once and had to make this type of decision. It never gets any easier. It all comes down to colinearity and the AIM. Mouravieff puts it in the terms of the Gnostic Tradition:

Often the Knight is defeated because he was serving the Devil with all his heart while sincerely but mistakenly believing that he was serving Christ.

But, all is not lost as Mouravieff also points out:

But whoever commits himself on this field of battle will still find help. It comes to him from two sides: from the depths of his being, and from outside him. In the first case, it is his absolute sincerity towards himself and the purity of the faith with which his heart is aflame. By definition, faith is blind, since it is as certain of the invisible as of the visible. As the invisible is unknown by definition, the most ardent faith can be sincerely mistaken. The example of St Paul is sufficient proof of this. But this same example shows that, just by its existence, the sincerity of faith calls forth Love, and so it draws out a correction of what is admittedly in error from the deepest depths of the one who feels it. Ibis is the meaning of the revelation that the future prince of Apostles received on the road to Damascus.

What was most disappointing to me was that, even AFTER there came the evidence that he was wrong, Montalk's ego would not allow him to acknowledge it.

 

[dant]

Re: Cassiopaea and Montalk

Yes, it seems that all of this activity serves a greater purpose, to
keep the spiritual warrior diligent, true to oneself and for humanity to
BE, "on their toes", to stay awake, not to fall into a deep slumber even
if for a moment, not to anticipate too far ahead lest one loses their way,
to 'keep watch' and to stay alert at all times.... Who said it was easy?
No, it takes a lot struggles and hard work, to hopefully overcome our
own temptations, both from within and from without....

Somehow, all of this reminds me of the 'thief in the night' parable?

.... and I am forever grateful for the network that you, Ark, and all
co-linear participants have provided, with the AIM towards the awakening
of humanity.

... and your signature says it all.

Thanks be, to the great cosmic mind!

 

[walkingon]

Re: Cassiopaea and Montalk

the fact that you characterize my words as "broad generalizations" and "manipulative language" shows that you are delusional....

 

[Laura]

Re: Cassiopaea and Montalk

the fact that you characterize my words as "broad generalizations" and "manipulative language" shows that you are delusional....

No, you are attempting to "create reality" according to your own agenda. From "Beyond Insanity" by Amos Gunsberg:

EVIDENCE OF HUMANOID BEHAVIOR

They make pronouncements without substantiation. To them, these pronouncements represent what reality is . . . pronouncement by pronouncement. The present pronouncement may contradict what they said a moment ago. This means nothing to them. They make no attempt to deal with the contradiction.

They demonstrate a total lack of understanding what we mean by a "fact." In their writings and in their speech, they do not use that word.

We humans find this hard to believe. The use of facts is such a basic part of our lives. We base our conclusions and our actions on them. We go on from there to test things and establish more facts. When we debate, we present facts, and show how we derive our observations and our positions from them.

Without facts, all we have is what we call "fantasy."

Since these creatures have a human appearance, we assume they must think like us . . . be aware of what we are aware. We think they MUST know what facts are. When they don't address the facts, we say they are playing a game. We think they do know what the facts are, but don't want to admit it.

Not so! They DON'T know what a fact is. When we speak of facts and ask them to address the facts, they look at us with vacant eyes. They don't know what we're talking about.

They study us because their strategy is to pass as human. They hear us use the words -- facts, evidence, substantiation. They lack the human capacity to understand what we mean. What they do is ignore our reference to facts, ignore our requests for them to supply facts, and hope we won't notice it's due to their lack of comprehension. {...}

I asked a psychotherapy client to look at a chair which was situated about six feet away near a wall. I then asked her to describe the chair. She did, in rather complete detail, except for the legs. THE CHAIR SHE DESCRIBED HAD NO LEGS!

I pointed this out, and asked how the chair could be suspended in air, with no legs to support it. She said: "I put it there." I asked: "If you look away, will it fall to the floor?" She said: "No. If I look away, the chair is no longer there." I asked: "If you look away . . . and it turns out the chair is still there?" She ignored the question. {...}

Nothing of what we call reality is REAL to them.

When a human being mentions a chair, the reference is to a chair that sits there on its own legs. It's there whether anyone sees it or not, whether anyone mentions it or not, whether anyone "declares" it to be there or not. It's there ON ITS OWN.

A basic element in the profile of humanoids is their lack of comprehension that anything exists on its own, separate from their say-so. They don't SEE it. The only objects humanoids see are the ones they "declare" . . . the ones they imagine.

We use the phrase "my perception" to mean an appraisal, a measurement of something separate from ourselves. We don't announce it as "fact." We are open to consider other views if given facts to consider.

Humanoids use the phrase "my perception" as a buzz word. They imagine what they choose, and tell us it is their "perception" . . . which, in their minds, ESTABLISHES reality. What we call "facts" do not exist for them. That's why they whine and claim they are being attacked whenever substantiation is requested.

Humanoids claim their statements are valid simply because they make them!!! They elaborate on this: "I honor integrity in this regard. As an egoist, I make statements which are valid to me. Validity to my 'self' comes first. I grant other people this same respect assuming they say things valid to themselves."

Among human beings, for something to be deemed valid it has to be substantiated with facts. Nothing is valid simply because someone says it.

When humanoids are asked how they determine what someone says is valid to that person, and not something made up or imagined, they ignore the question.

Note the strange use of the word "integrity." Humans define integrity as uprightness of character; probity; honesty. We refer to sticking to the facts, sticking to the truth, not selling out. Humanoids use "integrity" to mean insisting what they imagine is what's real. No measurement. No evaluation.

When the demand is made for their pronouncements to be evaluated, they claim the confronter is the one who has no integrity . . . meaning the confronter is not upholding THEIR position: what THEY imagine is what's real.

On what basis do they claim this? Humanoids treat the world as if it were their own private holodeck. They "declare" things into being. Everything is a hologram. They program the holograms. They interact with them in any way they choose. They have them under total control. When they decide to cancel a hologram, it vanishes.

A hologram is a hologram is a hologram. A hologram is not supposed to have the ability to think for itself. A hologram is not supposed to have the ability to measure, evaluate, appraise, etc. Most importantly, a hologram is not supposed to be able to break out of its holographic state and critique its master.

When this does happen, they first chastise it to bring it back into line. If that doesn't work, they "vanish" it. When that fails, they run for cover by abandoning the program and calling up another one.

Experience has shown no matter what we say, no matter what we point out, no matter how much evidence is given, it has no meaning for these creatures. They have one goal: to fool us into classifying them as human so they can concentrate on murdering our human values. Without human values, the next step is murdering human beings.

Lobaczewski was obliged to create words to describe aspects of Evil that, with which, up to then, our natuaral language could not deal adequately. He writes in his book Political Ponerology:

Para-moralisms: The conviction that moral values exist and that some actions violate moral rules is so common and ancient a phenomenon that it seems to have some substratum at man’s instinctive endowment level (although it is certainly not totally adequate for moral truth), and that it does not only represent centuries’ worth of experience, culture, religion, and socialization. Thus, any insinuation closed in moral slogans is always suggestive, even if the “moral” criteria used are just an “ad hoc” invention. Any act can thus be proved to be immoral or morally proper by means of such para-moralisms through active suggestion, and people whose minds will succumb to such reasoning can always be found. In searching for an example of an evil act whose negative value would not elicit doubt in any social situation, ethics scholars frequently mention child abuse. However, psychologists often meet with para-moral affirmations of such behavior in their practice, such as in the above-mentioned family with the prefrontal field damage in the eldest sister. Her younger brothers emphatically insisted that their sister’s sadistic treatment of her son was due to her exceptionally high moral qualifications, and they believed this by auto-suggestion. Para-moralism somehow cunningly evades the control of our common sense, sometimes leading to an affirmation of behavior whose character is openly pathological. Para-moralistic statements and suggestions so often accompany various kinds of evil that they seem quite irreplaceable. Unfortunately, it has become a frequent phenomenon for individuals, oppressive groups, or patho-political systems to invent ever-new moral criteria for someone’s convenience. Such suggestions often partially deprive people of their moral reasoning and deform its development in youngsters. Para-moralism factories have been founded worldwide, and a ponerologist finds it hard to believe that they are managed by psychologically normal people. The conversive features in the genesis of para-moralisms seem to prove they are derived from mostly subconscious rejection (and repression from the field of consciousness) of something completely different, which we call the voice of conscience. A ponerologist can nevertheless indicate many observations supporting the opinion that the various pathological factors participate in the tendency to use para-moralisms. This was the case in the above-mentioned family. As occurs with a moralizing interpretation, this tendency intensifies in egotists and hysterics, and its causes are similar. Like all conversive phenomena, the tendency to use para-moralisms is psychologically contagious. That explains why we observe it among people raised by individuals in whom it was developed alongside pathological factors. This may be a good place to reflect that true moral law is born and exists independently of our judgments in this regard, and even of our ability to recognize it. Thus, the attitude required for such understanding is scientific, not creative: we must humbly subordinate our mind to the apprehended reality. That is when we discover the truth about man, both his weaknesses and values, which shows us what is decent and proper with respect to other people and other societies.

Gurdjieff speaks of a certain example of "paramoralism" in the following extract from In Search of The Miraculous, by P.D. Ouspensky:

"As I have already said, people very often think that if they begin to struggle with considering within themselves it will make them 'insincere' and they are afraid of this because they think that in this event they will be losing something, losing a part of themselves. In this case the same thing takes place as in attempts to struggle against the outward expression of unpleasant emotions. The sole difference is that in one case a man struggles with the outward expression of emotions and in the other case with an inner manifestation of perhaps the same emotions. "This fear of losing sincerity is of course self-deception, one of those formulas of lying upon which human weaknesses are based. Man cannot help identifying and considering inwardly and he cannot help expressing his unpleasant emotions, simply because he is weak. Identifying, considering, the expressing of unpleasant emotions, are manifestations of his weakness, his impotence, his inability to control himself. But not wishing to acknowledge this weakness to himself, he calls it 'sincerity' or 'honesty' and he tells himself that he does not want to struggle against sincerity, whereas in fact he is unable to struggle against his weaknesses. "Sincerity and honesty are in reality something quite different. What a man calls 'sincerity' in this case is in reality simply being unwilling to restrain himself. And deep down inside him a man is aware of this. But he lies to himself when he says that he does not want to lose sincerity."

Lobaczewski relates certain other psychological deficits to paramoralism:

Reversive blockade: Emphatically insisting upon something which is the opposite of the truth, this blocks the average person’s mind from perceiving the truth. In accordance with the dictates of healthy common sense, he starts searching for meaning in the “golden mean” between the truth and its opposite, winding up with some satisfactory counterfeit. People who think like this do not realize that this was precisely the intent of the person who subjected them to this method. If such a statement is the opposite of a moral truth, at the same time, it simultaneously represents an extreme paramoralism, and bears its peculiar suggestiveness. We rarely see this method being used by normal people; even if raised by the people who abused it; they usually only indicate its results [on their thinking] in the shape of characteristic difficulties in apprehending reality properly. Use of this method can be included within the above-mentioned psychological knowledge developed by psychopaths concerning the weaknesses of human nature and the art of leading others into error. Where they are in rule, this method is used with virtuosity, and to an extent conterminous with their power.

 

[Gonzo]

Re: Cassiopaea and Montalk

the fact that you characterize my words as "broad generalizations" and "manipulative language" shows that you are delusional....

No, the fact that I characterized your words as "broad generalizations" and "manipulative language" shows that I am observant.

A broad generalization is an unsubstantiated statement issued as fact that paints the object of the statement a colour of the author's chosing, usually with the intention of converting others into agreement.

It is manipulative by nature as it is designed to bypass the critical functions of the audience and plant itself in their minds as a native thought.

You made several assumptions about people you don't even know, about a forum you aren't familiar with, about writing you apparently did not read (although claimed to have read) or did not comprehend without offering one iota of evidence to back up your speculative theories.

The fact that we have heard these from others shows you might not be capable of independent thought, making you guilty of the very things you accuse others.

That you took my statements of observation and came to a conclusion that I am delusional is a reaction of a child.

I don't know much about you, but from what you have shown so far, I feel sorry for you. It seems you cannot enjoy life because you cannot evaluate it effectively to discern truth from fiction, emotion from thought; it seems you cannot separate a rose from it's thorny stem long enough to enjoy the flower, for all you see are thorns (metaphorically speaking).

But all is not lost for you. There is a chance that you can develop effective tools of discernment and independent thought, but that would require practice and intent, psychopathy notwithstanding of course.

Gonzo

Edit for typos, clarity