A Followup to an MFM Answer on "Ten Alternative Courses"

Note: This is a question based on a posting on the MT List posted by John Roth; however, since all of Troy's channeling is sneered at there, I'll only post the Q&A here.

 

<Question> Back in the early 70s, the following quote was part of a Michael answer:

 

<Question> WELL, YOU SEE, THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY TEN ALTERNATIVE COURSES OPEN TO THIS WORLD AT THIS TIME, EIGHT OF WHICH WE WOULD CONSIDER FAIRLY UNATTRACTIVE. THE OTHER TWO CONCERN WHAT WE ARE TERMING PSYCHIC REVOLUTION. THIS WOULD, OF COURSE, BE IN FACT THE OVERTHROW OF THE PREVALENT BELIEF SYSTEMS THAT NOW CONTROL THE GOVERNING FORCES OF THIS WORLD, AND WOULD RETURN LEADERSHIP TO THOSE BEST QUALIFIED TO LEAD ON THE BASIS OF INTUITIVE KNOWLEDGE, AND WHAT WE CALL TRUTH. WHETHER YOU LIKE THIS OR NOT, IT IS WHAT IS HAPPENING NOW, AND IT IS WHAT THE CADRE HAS BEEN ASKED TO BECOME A PART OF. THIS REVOLUTION, LIKE ALL OTHER REVOLUTIONS, WOULD RESULT IN WIDESPREAD ANXIETY, AND PERHAPS EVEN AN EXCHANGE OF HOSTILITY. WE CAN NO WAY GUARANTEE THAT THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN, BUT IT IS FAR LESS `'BLOODY'' THAN THE EIGHT ALTERNATIVES.

 

<Question> I would like an both an update and elaboration on this quote about what the various alternative courses are open at this time, and which are the top two or most likely ones to play out, based on probabilities. Consider this a double-question topic-length Q&A.

 

<@MEntity> An update on this quote would be that these same courses are in place as "alternatives," all of which include bloodshed to some degree, with those "less bloody" alternatives still being bloody, if you will.

 

<@MEntity> In every revolution, there is bloodshed.

 

<@MEntity> In every true revolution, we should clarify.

 

<@MEntity> Evolution does not require bloodshed, but revolution, by its very definition, is a matter of divisions struggling for prominence, which often requires fighting.

 

<@MEntity> At this point in the evolution of your species' consciousness, it will require a process of overthrowing a paradigm to allow for a new paradigm to take footing.

 

<@MEntity> Human Sentience is quite stubborn in that regard, and while it generates a constant world of change and growth around itself, it also finds false comfort and solace in the absolutely familiar, which it may fight to secure at all costs.

 

<@MEntity> This is a kind of species' Self-Karma that has evolved: the struggle between the extremes of profound change and acceleration, and profound security and stability., and we think this is a byproduct from the effects of relocation of the species long ago.

 

<@MEntity> Every shift in Soul Age paradigm has come with a Revolution, then.

 

<@MEntity> In all alternatives, a revolution is at the heart, but only in two of these is this a "psychic" revolution, which translates into a conscious revolution.

 

<@MEntity> The others are simply wars of some sort.

 

<@MEntity> Even in those that include natural disasters as part of the shift, it is interpreted as a war against/with "Nature," or "Earth," rather than as a consciousness-raising pivot for humanity.

 

<@MEntity> In terms of the psychic revolutions, it is a matter of owning the evolving paradigm by a majority in a way that pronounces this effectively and securely, so that it is embraced across the species for the most part, or it is taught discreetly in a way that provokes this evolution/revolution from within.

 

<@MEntity> For the most part, the probabilities lean toward a mix of those two forms of progression, but it leaning toward a majority being forced to proclaim and own this paradigm shift in way that cannot be dismissed or ignored.

 

<@MEntity> The "prevalent belief systems" to which we referred is the Young Soul belief systems that simply do not work for the masses when those masses are Mature. Young Souls lead by force and authority, whereas Mature Souls lead by intuition and empathy.

 

<@MEntity> To simply decide what is true for the masses no longer works on many levels, and this is beginning to become glaringly obvious to those masses. They are currently living in a Young Soul paradigm that worked for a long time in many ways, but does not anymore.

 

<Question> what do Old Souls lead by?

 

<@MEntity> Old Souls lead by example and education.

 

<@MEntity> Many of those who are rising up against the enforced Young Soul beliefs and paradigm are doing so with as much compassion and empathy as possible, even calling on the compassion and empathy of those who refuse to budge, but this plea can only go on for so long before a revolution is ignited.

 

<@MEntity> It would not come as an initiative or initiation by those who wish to secure the new paradigm, but in response or reaction to the imposition and hostility of those who wish for this change not to happen.

 

<@MEntity> So at this point, a psychic revolution of some sort appears to be the higher probabilities over the next 10 to 50 years, with natural disasters, disease, and accidental mass catastrophes coming in as the next 3; governmental and economic collapse being a 6th and 7th alternative; localized religious war and terrorism being an 8th; and global war being a 9th; and a "reset" being a 10th, which would reduce the population drastically as to generate a completely "new start" of civilization again.

 

<@MEntity> The latter has already begun being explored in other parallels, so it is the least interesting in "this one."

 

<@MEntity> Media of the species often reveals those probabilities that are most likely going to be left behind, or those for which it is preparing. The intensive exploration of the natural disaster and post-apocalyptic themes in film seem to indicate that "you" would rather explore those at a distance, if you will.

 

<@MEntity> But because they are being explored with such intensity, it makes them also higher in the probabilities--in terms of natural disasters, disease, and accidental catastrophes, such as nuclear explosions.

 

<@MEntity> The 6th, 7th, and 8th options have not been explored thoroughly enough to indicate an interest or a disinterest, though we see that they are "too real" at this point for media to creatively explore them. They are abundantly obvious as possibilities in every day at this point.

 

 

<@MEntity> Because of the very real tangibility of the 6th, 7th, and 8th probabilities, the psychic revolutions are greatly preferred over the suffering in those.

 

<Question> Does exploring them intensely via media increase their likelihood? i.e., is there any cause and effect?

 

<@MEntity> Exploring them in media is an ironic process because the exploration begins as a way to look at the "what if" of that direction, which is a probability that has fallen lower in emphasis, however because of the exploration, it is then brought back up in probability.

 

<@MEntity> It is not so much that it increases the likelihood, as it is that it increases in presence as a possibility that may not have been in the awareness previously.

 

<@MEntity> So there is that level of irony, but another is that in the saturation of those explorations, it eventually lowers the probabilities again.

 

<@MEntity> An example of this is the Alien Invasion probabilities that have fallen far below the 10 greater alternatives.

 

<@MEntity> An example of this is the Alien Invasion probabilities that have fallen far below the 10 greater alternatives.

 

<@MEntity> When we spoke of the return of leadership to those best qualified, and in referencing the Cadre, we speak mostly of those from Cadre 2, who are pivotal in helping with shifts in paradigm.

 

<@MEntity> Those from Cadre 2 that you may not know, of course, as they would be busy in the realm of politics and protest. Much of the "occupy wall street" movement is being led by Cadre 2 members.

 

<@MEntity> Many of the political pundits of the progressives are Cadre 2 members, such as Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Lawrence O'Donnell, Bill Maher, etc.

 

<@MEntity> Most of those involved are the "younger" of the Cadre, as they are closer to the shift internally.

 

<Question> Do you see an attempt to stop this in a violent way come Spring next year?

 

<@MEntity> Stop the revolution?

 

<Response> yes, by those who currently oppose it

 

<@MEntity> Of course.

 

<@MEntity> Therein lies the necessity for terming this a Revolution.

 

<@MEntity> We do not see any particular window of time for it, but most of the probabilities for the "bloodshed" are in the 2012 window.

 

 

Tags: alternatives, courses, psyhic, revolution, violence, war

Views: 344

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jondalf Thrasher on October 21, 2011 at 1:25am

"Cogito ergo sum" - I think, therefore I am. - Rene Descartes.

His Epistemology (Theory of Knowing)

 

"Cogito ergo spud." -  I think therefore I yam.  - Jondalf

"Spud ergo spud"  - I yam what I yam.  - Popeye

 

>You claim to have had many personal experiences of your own. Why do you depend on what others say? /p>

I'll start with this last first.  Your choice of the word 'claim' is interesting.  (Read through the 120+ Posts from the last 8 years of my Blog, and tell me I wasn't there).  Have I ever attempted to mislead YOU Geraldine?  I don't "depend" on what others say, no more than you have blind faith in everything The Michael has ever stated.

I prefer to value a number of different sources, because the ME has failed to address the problem of meaningless human suffering sufficiently for my "inner truth sense".  How is the agonizing death from dysentery and malnutrition (or torture and pedophilia) of a 6 month old child in any way justified from ANY theory of "Soul Development".  Stating the "suffering is not real because the being is not really alive" is bullshit. Period.  Here my "inner truth sense" ASSURES me the ME is wrong.  I have tried for 30 years to reconcile this, asking hundreds of MT Students and Teachers and none could convince me of the probity of the Michael's ultimate stance on this issue (even when I ask them directly to explain themselves).  Much of this dilemma and how I've dealt with it since the '70s is a thread posted on MTSC.

We are both Sages with Priest ETs, You are Mid-Level Old, I am in my last Mature incarnation, schlepping towards 1st Level Old.  Not too different so far.  I think like you do, seriously.  When you say:  "I do accept that Troy seems to be "channeling" something far beyond his own level of Personality and expertise. It has proven to be consistent over the years in terms of content and message. It has sufficient truth to it for me to validate some of it." you sound like me in my own head, at my most skeptical. 

You are Sage Cast, I am King Cast, I doubt this is the total source of the difference in our temperments.  King Cast Sages have a nasty habit of wanting to make the most of the 'gift' of their Role, and use it responsibly to do the greatest good for the most, maybe some of my drive to study lies here.  Your Modality of Observation, Goal of Discrimination and Idealist Attitude probably lead you to want to find on truly true "True" and stick with it, while my Passion, Growth and Spiritualist Attitude may propel me to study for all I'm worth.

I 'claim' to have read all the Michael Books written by CQY, The Digest Group, Joya Pope & Jose Stevens quite a few times each, and skimmed many of the others. I 'claim' to have been privileged to have been able to personally apprehend & study the messages of 7 Michael Channels over the last 4 decades (Sarah, JP, Joya, Shepherd & Nancy Grace at some length & Ted Fontaine and Troy in depth).  I 'claim' to have also been able to study the works of at least 20 other Channels (including one Akashic Channel) some cult hucksters, most not:

I also "claim" to have studied Stephen Gaskin, Seth, Lazurus, Brother Bartholomew, James, I Am, Gaia, I Ching, Pan, Dionysus, Edgar Cayce, Arthur Ford, Robert Monroe, Aleister Crowley, Mdm Blavatsky, Anne Besant, Rudolph Steiner, Sun Bear, Jamie Sams, William Butler Yeats, St Germaine, Gabriel of Sedona, Elisabeth Clair Prophet, Isaac Bonewits, Margot Adler, MacGregor Mathers, AE Waite, Baba Ram Dass, Sri Chinmoy, Dalai Lama, Paramhansa Yogananda, Lao Tzu, Sun Tzu, Alan Watts, Timothy Leary, Terence McKenna, Alexander Shulgin, Rolling Thunder, Don Juan, Robert Hand, Max Heindal, Martin Schulman, Elias Lonsdale, Dane Rudyar, Meher Baba, Marshall McLuhan, Buckminster Fuller,  Nietchze, Paracelsus, Thoth Hermes Trimegistus, Nostradamus, Descartes, Aquinas, Heidigger, Schoepenhauer, Hegel, Spinoza, Liebnitz, Schhroedinger, Bohr, Jung, Freud, Riech, Camus, Sartre, Kepler, Newton, Locke, Adams  .  .  .  well you get the picture. Why?  Because I was there, then, and the data was available.  Why wouldn't a Sage try to "soak up knowledge like a sponge" when the puddles were so easily accessible?  Someone 200 years thence might need some esoteric piece of knowledge to which I had access - this is what Sages generally do.

I am my own source (and here we differ) from the first exposure to new data to the last.  The first thing I do is 'feel' whether or not my intuition accepts all or some of the data as 'feeling true', without (to the best of my human ability) comparing or contrasting it to my preconceived ongoing current "belief structures".  This always fails miserably because I will invariably read or hear something and think: "Bullshit"  .  .  .  sigh.  Always having a collective disembodied entity linked to your brain to ask if something is bullshit is sometimes a definite disadvantage.  Or, if you will:  Always having an Ontology (read: Ideation Projection of Michael Entity Model) to access when in doubt is an personality shaper for sure. 

Thus and thereby, I compare everything to the "World According To Jondalf " (BYOT - Bring Your Own Tardis) and compare and contrast it to what I have in memory, and my current set of "Belief Structures" which are built upon a "Synthesis" of assiduously attained acumen.  My bad.  - J

Permalink Reply by Geraldine B on October 21, 2011 at 1:03pm

Jondalf said:

 

"I prefer to value a number of different sources, because the ME has failed to address the problem of meaningless human suffering sufficiently for my "inner truth sense".  How is the agonizing death from dysentery and malnutrition (or torture and pedophilia) of a 6 month old child in any way justified from ANY theory of "Soul Development"."

 

First of all, I doubt that this particular belief system will ever be resolved in this lifetime by many, but most especially by you, simply because it is a baseline belief system for you. Much of who you are is perceived through this filter, your sense of "right" vs "wrong." I sincerely doubt that any argument I might posit would cause a rethink on it. It's integral to your thinking. 

 

However, I do not have the same belief system. To me the process of soul development, multiple incarnations, many choices and experiences, karma, etc., has been satisfactorily answered by Michael. It's probably the biggest why of "why do I accept Michael." I have sufficient lifetime experience to recognize that for me at least, I mostly learned from some really dumbass choices. But, beyond that I simply do not believe that any single life is more important or special than any other, whether it be based on age, sex, genetic abilities, talents, or place of birth, etc. I accept that I've done my own fair share of suffering lifetimes, all of which taught Essence something valuable about how living on the Physical Plane truly is different from living on the Astral, but when all is said and done, it's ALL valuable experiences. 

 

There is a vast gap between the two belief systems, and the absolute truth is something yet again. Therein lies the truth of Tao or the Godhead, or whatever one wants to call the multi-verse that is far beyond our genuine understanding. Or . . .it might all be a major crock of shit and wish fulfillment that we WISH that there is more than a single lifetime. 

Permalink Reply by Diane HB on October 21, 2011 at 1:22pm

Jondalf, you might find this channeling interesting. My partner brought up a similar concern to Michael recently and this was their response. It may or may not be satisfactory to you, but it's not your standard "we're here for the experience" type answer.

 

http://www.truthloveenergy.com/forum/topics/why-we-incarnate

Permalink Reply by Jondalf Thrasher on October 21, 2011 at 5:58pm

"First of all, I doubt that this particular belief system will ever be resolved in this lifetime by many, but most especially by you, simply because it is a baseline belief system for you. Much of who you are is perceived through this filter, your sense of "right" vs "wrong." I sincerely doubt that any argument I might posit would cause a rethink on it. It's integral to your thinking."

One thing I've noticed about most people's 'take' on me, is that even though I have stated repeatedly that I believe ANY rational being MUST be able to argue AND embody the "Antithesis" of any personal belief on a moments notice, many seem to mistake "Passion Mode" as being able to 'overrule' 'Intellectual Part of Intellectual Center'.  It can't.  I have NO personal investment in the POV, other than as an instructional meme.  Until a sufficiently 'weighty' "Antithesis" is applied to my "Suffering sucks" argument, it continues to obtain.  That's Empiricism applied to Epistomology.

"Good and bad, I defined these terms, quite clear, no doubt was allowed.  Ah but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now." !

Permalink Reply by Jondalf Thrasher on October 21, 2011 at 6:16pm



Diane H said:

Jondalf, you might find this channeling interesting. My partner brought up a similar concern to Michael recently and this was their response. It may or may not be satisfactory to you, but it's not your standard "we're here for the experience" type answer.

 

http://www.truthloveenergy.com/forum/topics/why-we-incarnate

 

WOW - made me cry, it did.  I am newly arrived at 1st Level Old and the empathetic connection you provided with this post is a treasure.  Thank you.

Still  .  .  .  is it just me, or does no-one else wish to assert their right to dispute certain aspects of the MT.  I don't get all this: "Hmmm. OK Michael, I guess you're right again as usual.  I'll just go re-order my priorities."  You know?  I didn't know infallibility came with the Causal Plane territory.

Still, I shouldn't sully your kind gift with nattering reservations.  Thank you again for the light.

▶ Reply to Discussion

RSS

QUICK MENU


TROY'S
UPDATES
RECENT
POSTS
MAIN
FORUM



SUPPORT
SERVICES
SPECIALS
CHAT

*LIBRARY*
EVENTS

 

PLEASE DONATE?





PLEASE CONSIDER A DONATION to help keep services alive and low-fee, and to keep your resident host and channel alive and well! THANK YOU SO MUCH! This is my only source of income, so I have to do a bit of humble groveling and ask for your support. Thank you!

© 2012   Created by TROY.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service