I want to discuss a little bit, the value of certain internet personalities work. I have mentioned before that I had been attempting to discern if I should stay away from certain thinkers due to dream interpretation (Pearl Davis or Stefan Molyneux).
Originally I made a post where I thought I should stay away from Stefan Molyneux, then I changed that to maybe the dream meant Pearl Davis. But I do not know that it is either of these people now. Where I am settling is to simply not be too involved in either of them, but to not stop going on them either.
Pearl Davis
Firstly, Pearl Davis, Pearl actually sometimes comes out with extremely wise things. I talked before about her radical acceptance that she mentioned in a video covering Andrew Tate. In this video though, around the 40 minute mark and clarifying at the 45 minute mark. Pearl talks about how real life is a lot better way to interact with reality than 'studies'.
Youtube: Pearl Davis: Let's Catch Up. Dated December 6th 2025:
https://www.youtube.com/live/MBsTkb7WVac?si=-NrXIZOs7Rj6vaKW
It might sound like a really basic point, but it's something that clicked for me. It reminds me of this line in the Law of One, session 46:
Questioner: What is the plan for use of the catalyst of cancer?
Ra: I am Ra. The catalyst, and all catalyst, is designed to offer experience. This experience in your density may be loved and accepted or it may be controlled. These are the two paths. When neither path is chosen the catalyst fails in its design and the entity proceeds until catalyst strikes it which causes it to form a bias towards acceptance and love or separation and control. There is no lack of space/time in which this catalyst may work.
This relatively small line is quite powerful. In that it basically states that a positive entity is meant to accept literally everything in their life. All the mundaneity. It is a bit of a perspective shift. But it kind of states that what we have in our lives is relevant to us to engage with. That is our real lives. It means, to me, that things like statistics is not the point. Like Pearls video talked about.
Stefan Molyneux
Now I want to move onto Stefan Molyneux:
Before that, I just want to mention something. A few months ago in June I think, I stopped going on the llresearch forum. In my most recent absolutely last tussle with Pluto in gate 60.6 before it left for about 300 years or so. I decided I should go back to energy healing.
When I do energy healing on myself I fall away from myself. I stop being passionate and doing music, I stop doing meditation. It also broke the commitment I had to stay away from that forum.
I may stay posting there. It is not uniformly negative. But I do want to discuss one feature that is common in the spiritual communities.
I actually talked with Tom Humble a bit more and the conversation ended with what I thought was quite a good joke from him.But it is showing something I have heard talked about in a Stefan Molyneux podcast. I have seen this a lot. I saw Adam Elenbass mention this recently.
The thing about the Law of One is that although it submits to a whole lot of a kind of undefineable mysticism. Where a lot of it is given over to the law of Free Will and/ or, the mystery of the Creator.
But some of what they say is actually solid and real. Exercises to do or comments on emotions that can be applied and reflected on. It is not just all 'everything is one'. But sometimes there is some substance to it.
In the world of morality, there are a lot of people that do not want anyone to have any commitment to any standards. To anything solid or real. Stefan talks about this in Podcast 5099: Moral Relativism is control:
2 minutes 55 seconds: So if somebody says to you, "well there's no such thing as objective value", well clearly they're trying to communicate a truth to you, they're saying that truth is preferable to error objectively. Because they're not saying it is my opinion, they're saying "there IS no such thing as objective value". Well why would you tell me that? Are you saying it is better for me to understand there is no such thing as anything better than the other? Again, none of it makes any sense it is all complete machiavellian power grabbing nonsense.
Like, once you understand, human beings, we're functionally incapable of not comparing proposed actions to ideal standards. We cannot avoid doing that. If you understand that's the human mechanism. Then if someone can convince you there's no such thing as objective value, then the moment you start thinking of objective values, you will have this ideal standard called "Well there's no such thing as objective values", and you will nullify that within your own mind.
We are objective speaking machines, we are ideal standard seeking machines, and people will constantly deploy that against you, in order to cripple you, in order to invalidate anything you might do to block their use of power over you.
Like what a lot of Stefan says there is a beauty to these lines. There is a whole lot more in the podcast segment that is only nine minutes. This is about one minute. Where he clarifies in more detail how viciously people are trying to gain power over others.
This is where the passive aggressive response comes from in spiritual communities if anyone actually expresses and SAYS anything, then the tone policing comes out. When someone makes a passive aggressive comment you must not respond to that passive aggressive comment because you apparently don't know it is objectively what it clearly is.
Do not commit to one meditation or one theory of how to making your life better. Even if it is in the Law of One, because we are all equal and none is above the other, so if you follow this theory and it makes you better, you are not better than others. If you just say 'everything is One' you are at the top of the pyramid anyway. Never commit to anything.
Or some other poisonous crap.
I could go on here and add more clarity. but the point of this is not really to add clarity to this particular point. Which is just a fact of life and so does not need that much emphasis. It is to explain how positive and powerful Stefans work is in explaining this. When I have had a particular bad time with people that have played passive aggressive games, it is time to go back and listen to some Stefan.
Conclusion:
For me, in attempting to follow this guidance, I do not think it is the individuals themselves that are what I need to stay away from. It is over engagement in them. I used to go on every single Pearl livestream for a while until the moderator took a disliking to me and blocked me. I used to listen to a lot of Stefan Molyneux. I think that these bits of wisdom are incredibly useful to me. But I also think that there is a depth in them both I can't engage with. Stefans call ins are life changing for a lot of people, but for me, listening to them is kind of confusing and meaningless, the information can't be applied at the moment and Pearl has a whole lot that she wants to say. A whole career of explaining the emotional to's and fro's of this current world. Which is another depth that loses meaning for me after a while.
I think for me it is best to take from these thinkers sparingly. So that's where I am sitting on that particular guidance.














