Why don't Christians Heal/ Modern sensitivity.

Things have suddenly shifted for me. As such this is a bit more of a less structured blog post. My energy is in a bit of a new place. For a couple of weeks I have had to expend energy but now, the thing I was doing has been done. I am relaxing and I had absolutely no idea that I was so anxious before this. For the past few weeks I have watched between 1 and 2 Fringe episodes per day. 3 on rare occasions. Yesterday, because I felt relaxed and I am recharging, I watched 7 episodes! 

This kind of thing really makes me think about how powerless I am in my life in general. I would say how powerless 'we' are, but I can't really speak for others. My impression is this relates to quite a lot of people. But I had no idea that for weeks I couldn't really relax. I just wasn't consciously aware until I did relax, and as such, in a way this was the most important thing happening in my life. While spiritual things I talked about were relevant. One of the larger lessons appears to be our relative powerlessness against what is going on in our lives. 

Anyway, many things to say. I realise, I will not say as many as I expected to. I will probably keep it kind of brief. 

First, is that for me personally, I am being drawn off various online places due to censorship from various sensitive people. I was censored on Pearl Davis' livestream yesterday. It was nothing insulting I assure you. Most of what I get censored for are just intellectual insights that people do not like. Like the following. This is when I went back on a Steven Cambian video recently and left this comment:

Two Law of One points. A) The Law of One explicitly talked against LSD in relation to Carla and I think, by implication, for many spiritual seekers in session 32.1. The justification is that the person we are naturally is perfect, is the Creator, and doesn't need to be changed with "harsh chemicals". B) The Law of One does not state that cancer is in all cases the "fault" of the person getting it as you have claimed/ summarised. The entire story is nuanced, and much of the Law of One comes back to statements like 'there is no best' and referencing the mystery of everything and our inability to really know what is going on "in this density". But session 73.19 among others talks explicitly against the idea that all cancers are curable.

I can see why Llresearch allegedly told David to not represent their work in his presentations. He butchers the quotes real bad.

Also, I wonder what perspective you are coming from as a Christian in this matter? One of the things about Christianity that I have wondered is why there is such a glaring difference between what Jesus taught on healing and what Christians today practice and apparently believe? Jesus said explicitly that his disciples should be able to heal and should do it regularly "When you go to a town, heal the sick among them and accept the food they give you". It would seem from a Christian perspective that diseases in general should be amenable to some sort of energy healing, that should be healable by modern day Christians? Unless I have misinterpreted these passages? It seems your perspective is more in line with a secular interpretation.

It is likely that last point is the one that Steven did not like. If you are challenging other peoples beliefs, as Steven was challenging the Law of One, by making a truth claim, then it is fair game to look critically at the truth claim you are making. With Steven it is 'Christianity is correct', of which he has ignored other challenges such as his 'test of a Prophet) claims. But there are many different truth claims from him and other Creators. 

It just feels like people in general are excessively sensitive. It just is the way the world is at the moment. Or I have become more articulate at challenging others? But it is clear to me I cannot relate to Pearl or Steven if I am going to be censored. I don't really put up with censorship of my contributions. In theory, if it makes sense from my perspective then I would let it go; in theory. If the other person is in a position of disproportionate power (like Twitter historically) I do let it go as well. But I have never been censored for a reason that makes sense to my perspective. It has, each and every time, been what I consider a minor abuse of power by the moderator of whatever outlet.

Anyway, I wanted to carry on on that point and end it on what I think might be relevant to the last point there. It is a fair point from a mainstream Christian perspective. But it loses it's purchase once you bring in a Law of One perspective. 

I have noticed that the Law of One mentioned a few characters positively. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Albert Schweitzer. All were big on real world service. Schweitzer is a really interesting one and he is called a 'healer' but he worked exclusively as a medical doctor.  Schweitzers brief section also mentioned that he gained in green ray energy by working with the organ. I have not previously fitted in playing an instrument to the overall service to others and Law of One paradigm. 

Anyway, I am getting off track. Those three individuals, amongst only a small handful that the Law of One mentioned positively. All have their own interpretation of Christianity. Franklin and Jefferson took Jesus as a philosopher and rejected any records of supernatural abilities. Schweitzer had some ideas on Jesus that I have not yet understood despite reading. But they were different enough from the church that he was almost prevented from missionary work, and was banned from preaching in Africa, only allowed to work in a medical capacity.  

I just think that is interesting. The relevant information on Christianity and healing adds up to an answer to why Christians don't heal in my view. Plus information on free will and a few other points.  

Love in a natural society.

A strange one today that I was not aware I was going to write about ten minutes ago. 

One of my big insights in life has been to do with people and densities. Like, how people are from if they are fourth, fifth or sixth density. Another, that goes along with this, has been the statement from the Law of One that people are either wisdom, power or love. These were modelled by Don, Jim and Carla respectively. 

Along with these I obviously notice patterns in people. Most women are the love element and most men are either power or wisdom. Not all, several examples to the contrary. But there is a large gender skew in my perception. 

So I have correlated a little the "love" people. I had a friend who killed herself. A half sister. My mother. An acquaintance. There was actually a very unpleasant one I knew in a previous job. This is just my data set for correlations the tendencies here will not apply to them all. Boomers won't experience it like millennial women will as an example. 

I suppose when I talk about this that 'love' element might not be relevant, I might just be talking about women. But I feel it is important.

Questioner: I would like for you to define love in the sense— in its sense as the second distortion.

Ra: I am Ra. This must be defined against the background of intelligent infinity or unity or the One Creator with the primal distortion of free will. The term Love then may be seen as the focus, the choice of attack, the type of energy of an extremely, shall we say, high order which causes intelligent energy to be formed from the potential of intelligent infinity in just such and such a way. This then may be seen to be an object rather than an activity by some of your peoples, and the principle of this extremely strong energy focus being worshiped as the Creator instead of unity or oneness from which all Loves emanate.

 

This line I believe is something that is unbelievably profound and largely missed in the narrative on the Law of One's teachings. It's come up for me partly because if I am to classify women as largely 'love'. I think even outside the element of the spirit/ self/ soul, there is a yin yang element, love and wisdom, where women are in the love section anyway. Then this line is relevant. As my health comes back along with my sex drive. I am seeing girls in the street and feeling extremely positive feelings about them. But this quote offers a bit of a way out of that. I believe it is a point that describes the entire dysfunction in our society. All of it. 

But anyway, if we are looking at the way a lot of these women are. There are some patterns in our society that have pushed them in a certain way. Love people are the same way. Wisdom people are the same way I would say, probably impotently expressing their wisdom without the power to change anything, and power people are as well. I don't know about the power people. 

Women then, due to DEI policies. Have a lot more responsibility than I think they would in a natural society. In a natural society, men have an overpowering need to protect and provide. They want to get resources to provide for a woman, and it is this fundamental drive that has built the entirety of society. All the buildings, sewage systems, water systems, lorry drivers, walkways, almost all of the inventions, the computer, the internet etc. 

However, due to DEI, feminism, taxation based policies and a lot of other things, men are not getting the benefit from these things. This has lead to a lot of false jobs being created. For a lot of reasons. One would be to keep women basically dominant in the society. Which also lines up with divorce laws and such. Another would be to keep women spending. Unhappy unmarried women are the best consumers. Women spend $8 for mens $2. 

I think the natural way women are they are meant to, or they would naturally, with their huge amount of emotional energy; create communities, and create babies. While the world has convinced them to abort their children to fill in google spreadsheets daily. This is far away from their natural state of being. Had we not had the current political system most of their admin jobs would probably have been automated by now. 

A young womans inflow is fantastic. The amount of people that want a piece of her. The amount of guys that want to take her on a date or be friends (it is an immediate raise in status for guys to associate with an attractive girl!). The amount of female friends. The parties. Her family as well. I think, in a natural society, women wouldn't work a great deal. They would do these things. They would be in a constant "love" state in a sense. They would have community, possibly religion, friendships and babies. A lot of their jobs would be easier and simpler. Aside from some few called to be healers and various other things. 

BUT, we are not in that society. I think womens large emotional energy and general instinct to relate emotionally is still a huge emotional responsibility. They still have people in their life that rely on them and such. But on top of this, they have a hugely inflated worklife. So they effectively have two jobs in a sense. 

Then add in politics. Leftism. Which they don't have time to research and don't have men in their lives that will tell them otherwise, and there is no power incentive since men have been disempowered. The power is so deliberately in womens favour, because they have more tendency towards leftism/ centralisation of state power. The men in their lives are often leftist anyway. Going on the pill will make a woman prefer a more leftist guy. There are a lot of individual manipulations encouraging this state of affairs. 

But the end result is that these women are just... Controlling. Their activities and "emotional labour" are not responded to with any real nourishment. The emotional energy is by it's nature controlling. It is more capable of that admin organising type of thing they do. A secretary is basically doing a mothering role for a boss. Where a mother would know all her kids football dates, the secretary knows all her bosses meetings. 

So they are both doing the best thing for their polarity and such. They are actively "service to others". But like the wisdom person, whose wisdom does not produce any impact or change. All the energy they expend doesn't get a good result back. So you add it all together and they are just super controlling. Their main personality trait is their icey control of each and every thing around them. 

Their leftism is a total belief. 

So I think when something does change, and I am a believer in QAnon, technically just "Q" and "Anons". The sudden breaking of this very controlling and depleted nature, I think this will be quite a stepchange and I wonder how they will recover from any sudden and huge political shift like this.  

The human design, Saturn, and gate 5.

As I read Ra Uru Hu various times. I am becoming more and more sure that he didn't get some things right. 

I want to expand on this. I want to put forward and explanation separating human design as a process, and the philosophy that follows it, unconsciously even. This piece of wisdom, this analogy I want to express, also applies to a great deal of other things I believe and is relevant to a lot of other areas. Power dynamics, narcissistic wisdom, philosophy itself etc. But the amount of things I want to express is at odds with my ability to express them. Partly this comes from lack of appropriate outer world response. My youtube channel, which is where those ideas would be expressed. Has not gotten many views. My last two videos in fact had zero! The one before that had five. 

Like, as far as life plans go, I can imagine one where me expressing that wisdom would have more beneficial effects (to me, so I can continue and expand the work) might be positive. But we can't argue against God I suppose! 

I had a dream once where I was giving a lecture on the Law of One and some other connecting bits. It was a good dream. I am not saying I should be doing exactly that. I might be destined for something else completely, like music, or something in health. 

I think if I did express that information though, and it were picked up and absorbed by people, it would open up the human design. It would show that these are the precise areas the human design gets very right, but this other area here is where a lot of assumptions have been made (and the bits that are right has given the system the mystique of infallibility). So people can work towards the correct information in those areas where I believe assumptions have been made. 

That is the case I think with some things I am thinking through. My conscious Saturn is in gate 5.4. My unconscious Saturn is in gate 26.4.

Most of the written understandings on these two placements do not seem to be correct. It vcry well might be so I suppose the jury is still out in a sense. But I will describe how it doesn't seem to be correct.

Firstly, I watch the hexagrams on peoples charts. I did this before I got seriously into human design when it was just the astrology. I noticed, when I had been attacked by people. Literally ganged up on, and moaned at by people. That the conflict I had with them. Not just the immediate conflict but the one that had stretched on for years. Was very well shown by their Mars placement. 

For instance, my sister that I talked about in the last post has Mars in Pisces, and the way that conflict has gone down definitely satisfies the definition of 'passive aggression'. I had a friend I got in political arguments with. Not even direct arguments but just issues on this level, like, he was a real believer in race politics. He has Mars in Aquarius. 

Another element of these interactions though I think is Saturn. When we have conflict with people, Saturn is involved I believe. This does not mean that Saturn is always right I don't think. Perhaps if we incorrectly label someone as being worthy of fighting with we initialise our own Saturn at them. But I have noticed it as a pattern. I have even seen it's activation in completely unjust behaviour, abuses of power. 

So to me then. This probably is very true of me. My conscious Mars in the gate 4.1. is very much a gift for conflict. Because it has the style of reasoned debate. It is a big part, I believe, of what connects me to Stefan Molyneux's work with his conscious Mars in the same hexagram. When there is conflict, I casually discuss and challenge it. I usually come off as the unaggressive one and since the other person is usually pretending to be less aggressive than they actually are it really gets to them. To get an even handed response back that simply questions their own - when they see their own as morally superior.  

But Saturn is a different matter. The function of Saturn anyway is a little mysterious. Ra Uru Hu's own statements on it didn't make much sense to me. He seemed to describe it as sometimes functioning and sometimes not and that leaves a lot of open questions. He describes it as giving a punishment to the person if they act bad and not giving that punishment if they do not. 

Not how I have experienced it though. As I just stated it seems to be relevant in our interaction with others. It doesn't seem like a purely internal thing to me. Quite frequently in conflict I summarise how the other person has behaved over a long period of time. Like, for a friend of mine I summarised he had cancelled about 20 times and various other things. This might be the 26.4 showing. The other person tended to argue on current events. One of them did have the 26 and he did mention the past, this person is in fact, very obsessed with the past and constantly brings it up. He has the 26 twice. But my articulation was generally better. 

This is at odds with Ra Uru Hu's summary of the 26.4.

What Ra Uru Hu says about the 5.4 is that it is a person who has a set of unusual patterns. Those patterns lead to genius. By accepting their patterns genius shows. If they are to not accept these patterns. They get health difficulties. 

My life at the moment is at odds with that in that my natural pattern is kind of working against me. Chocolate was terrible for this. I could not fix my circadian rhythm with chocolate. I'm very sensitive and the caffeine just switches it off. Even if I have it in the early morning. 

Where I am now is trying to get my natural pattern back to some semblance of normality for very important reasons. I go to sleep about 6am most nights. I have not been able to get to sleep before that, even recognising it would be desireable to do so. Also, I NEED to get to the gym. I badly need to get to the gym. Partly for health reasons again. I really love the gym as well. 

For me personally, this sleep pattern of mine is stopping me going to the gym. I need to eat earlier in the day than I am waking up to stabilise my blood sugar. I have had to cancel a few gym sessions from bad bloodsugar, which is linked to late eating.

It seems to me the human design would say that going to sleep at 6am is my natural pattern, and it comes, I think, from what seems to be Ra Uru Hu's theories which seem like a kind of belief in inherent divinity. We are all perfect and anything that happens to us is 'conditioning'. 

I don't know what the ultimate truth of this is. I don't know if the bad karma for me here was from eating the chocolate. Or the lack of discipline has upset my sleep pattern. But I think it very unlikely that Ra Uru Hu's own write up of this is correct. 

Reflections on forgiveness and narcissism.

This latest eclipse, in my view, was something special!

The Erika Kirk speech at Turning point to commemorate Charlies passing at the time of the funeral. Had her offering her forgiveness to the attacker.

Which meant that both Stefan Molyneux and Pearl Davis talked about the theme of forgiveness without contrition. I think this is a hugely important societal point. The idea that forgiveness without contrition is not a positive, is an argument, I believe a correct argument, that is struggling to gain ground. But hopefully with Stefan back on twitter he will reach a larger audience in his discussion about this. Pearl Davis was talking about it too.

It is something I am thinking about too. I have had the same dream again and again, the same upsetting feel to a same dream. I have explored easily ten different potential interpretations. The last one I explored was needing to take Christianity more seriously. Not that I don't but just making sure to listen to more Christian speeches and such. But it was not that, I got the dream again.

It is maddening! It is very positive and productive for keeping me focused on these areas.  

I have dreams back from 2017 and I have been searching the term "University" and "School" in relation to this. I hope as my will power is obviously focused on solving this piece of imagery I will be subconsciously aided in this. 

But one thing I'm thinking it might be at the moment is being aware of "narcissism" type of themes and handling them. It might be that. That might be wrong too. But if it was, if this is finally the right interpretation, it would also be this same theme. Not offering forgiveness without contrition.

I did so recently. I did not really realise I was doing it. But as someone that is disabled I am fairly weak in things like holding a grudge. I spend a lot of time alone. I reason myself out of taking past slights too easily. So I end up contacting people again. This is also partly when I think that I was probably not in the right due to my illness putting pressure on me and me acting in strange ways. 

Quite often though, the person in question does not like me, and is potentially frustrated I did not hear them when they told me previously. I am often told these things subtly. 

I had an experience like that recently. My half sister, I have tried very hard to relate to her. As I did I think I have identified a compulsive part of my psychology that related to things I have previously talked about here. I mentioned how I had this part of myself that tries to offer more and more information and reasoning to people (long messages) instead of recognising there is no real connection. 

Nevertheless, from the very beginning, since she was about 14, she started cancelling arrangements and various things. I used to give her birthday and Christmas presents and she never gave me anything. The entire thing has been an extremely draining set of interactions. 

The problem is, and I think I want to point this out in relation to the manifestor strategy. That my effort to continue to contact her and such, puts her, and many others I have had this same chemistry with, in a position of power. It's like the people on the Law of One forum. When I bring up something to discuss that I have learned through careful study of the Law of One. They can receive the information and offer their unresearched opinion as though it was real information, because I have essentially set myself up in a weak position by initiating. I am saying 'I would like you to join me in this discussion'. To which is the response is 'Yes, here is my enlightened viewpoint'. 

With my half sister, very often when I contacted her she ignores me and when we have been in contact, she has ignored me or cancelled some arrangement or something and I have broken it off for this reason. The last time we met, I asked her when we would meet again. This would seem, if we were both equal, a positive thing to prioritise, since we were not in contact for a while for precisely this issue, but she gave me a date and then cancelled later. Only after I contacted her though she didn't cancel ahead. 

The point I want to make here. Is that continuing to contact her has happened via a kind of forgiveness. Language seems to have less than the specificity needed. But I did not refuse to contact her because she had cancelled on me and been generally condescending and unpleasant. It was a kind of weakness. The attempt to negotiate from a weak position but not even negotiate. The lying to myself that such things can be painted over. 

The correct response, was for me to not give forgiveness without contrition. To not contact her. To not have anything to do with her. To stay true to the teachings that I have absorbed, believe in, and even worked out myself partially before I heard them. 

I did contact my sister though, and the response I got back was that she thought I was trying to sleep with her. That was not precisely what she wrote, but almost, and when I queried her on it she didn't correct me. I felt kind of sickly for several days because of this and kept trying to go to churches which were closed. 

But it is a level of delusion and hatred from her that I think has been going on for a long time. I also didn't have the energy to deal with it. Like, the literal energy. There is not enough positivity in the core relationship to support this additional negativity. If someone does this kind of thing, avoids meeting with another, there is a reason. I suspect all of my attempts to meet up, all my attempts to communicate, have been met on her side with this kind of hatred. Discussing with whoever, whatever thing I did which was somehow politically or socially incorrect that offended her. 

While I can't speak for this person precisely. My thoughts are that all the people in my life that made an effort to be unpleasant at some time have done so because they do not want to associate with someone like me who has a disability and various other issues. Such as unemployment. 

Part of having a condition like this is accepting that kind of thing to be true and not wanting to change it. That people have the right to be like they are and even if it is not 'fair' so to speak, to recognise that negative tools are not preferable. They are following their free will, their freedom of association. Etc. 

Nevertheless, the eventual truth is that sometimes holding a grudge against people for this kind of thing is really damn functional! Had I have not let go or forgiven my half sisters early flakey nature, a whole set of not particularly pleasant experiences of trying to be nice to her in some way would not have happened! I tend to think that going to the gym will allow someone to have a more healthy view in this area as well. Experiencing the conflict, without getting too anxious about it. 

But I do want to say that I believe, that even if things changed and all these people did change their mind and offer contrition. I believe it would be my right to not let it go and not see them again. That is where my head is at anyway. I haven't seen some of these people for ten years now and I barely saw my half sister enough to get to know her due to her avoidance. Why would I suddenly want to make that investment later? 

I mentioned narcissism a few posts ago in relation to one of those women that thinks they got more intelligent by getting a degree. That was someone whose teachings I did not rate. The below though is a narcissism teacher who is just next level. Rather than confusing the area in buzz terms, he talks about metaphors that we know are true, but the whole area is very hard to describe I think. The metaphor is true, you are richer for having known it, but you can't really get specific behaviours from it always:

Youtube: Richard Grannon: Narcissism as a Ghost Story ... Escaping the Shared Fantasy. Dated 22nd of September 2025:

https://youtu.be/TNA3oVPD71A?si=7PKSWIxXCdmdocWR 

Stefan Molyneux's definition of Love. Or 'The Simp Wound'.

"The Simp Epidemic" as Pearl calls it is something that seems to me to be absolutely unbelievably strong. In a left wing area, guys will not talk against feminism even behind closed doors with other guys. 

Much of the negative agenda, in my view, would not be possible without one of it's largest promoters. White Liberal Women. A fanatical belief in all deep state agendas that relate to practical mundane politics. So, perhaps they would not agree with child sacrifice to Satan. But increased state control and a lot of other agendas are A-OK. Even good and morally righteous.

In order to get this state of affairs. The Deep State knows it won't get the full co operation of men. It is not a possibility. It is not a fight to be had. But it does realise it will have to have enough men supporting white liberal woman and their very slightly less liberal cohorts.

To this extent, I believe the brainwashing is very strong and deliberate to get men to be 'Simps'. I think that the combination of single mothers plus widespread female allegiance to feminism and mainstream narratives. Creates this in a lot of men. Almost all most likely. 

I believe this happened to me. My mother was not a nutter. But she is not inclined enough towards working things out like political ideas that she has a lot of defence against some of the toxicity just floating around. I think, through various things, I was kind of subconsciously programmed to support a kind of female supremacy. 

As I mentioned in the previous blog, and something I have many more examples of. I, like most men, have experienced a fair amount of fairly deliberate female cruelty. I would probably have been a happy simp had things gone differently. But they didn't, that's precisely the point. 

But it combined I think with a lot of the spiritual stuff going on in my life. 

Social ostracism has been a big theme for me. That and the obvious lack of support that meant that it happened in the first place. Anyway, in many different ways things were not going well for me socially and I think I then reached out, for connection or a substitute. To Bring4th and started blogging there. 

This however, confused my energy field a bit. The alternative would probably have been worse. But engaging there set into place a deep conditioning, that I have talked about before; that I believed I was a "G- self to the throat' person. And a 1-8 person. It was all tied in. Supporting Llresearch. The belief in how spirituality should be and it's homogenisation. 

But recently it has been broken and I am still doing the work, still getting the effects of that. It is a single moment, followed by what feels as much like a process as an effect. 

The definition of Love. 

As I have mentioned, I have often had difficulties with women. The social exclusion is one thing but it is really more of a symptom. The issue I think is, that I have an unbelievably positive view of women most of the time. Even with regular red pill content, my brain just snaps back to "simpiness" quite quickly. 

There are a lot of versions of this in a sense. Breaking off with llresearch and anyone connected, since I was often talking to people that resisted me with their free will, is huge, and it is pushing the change I believe in a big way. Ending a lot of the difficult, simpy, behaviours. 

But the battle still wages on. Within myself I know the feeling of the 'simpiness' that connects with a lot of the more troublesome stuff, and it is a kind of reverence that leads in the direction eventually of wanting to, or believing I can, use metaphysical tools to attract women. It is a position of weakness, rather like how Nietszche described weakness, deceptive and committed to trickery. 

The real issue with this state of affairs is that a lot of times, I have thought everything was fine and a woman has absolutely hated me down to my very core it feels like. I consider this a lack of perceptiveness caused by A) A lack of information, but only partially, B) the Simp Wound.  

There are a few different ways I have gotten out of this state. Recently, today, I read a section of the Law of One. It's intellectual element really separated me from that dysfunctional emotion. Before I have prayed, and it has also been effective. There are human design things that are effective as well. 

But it is very relevant to Stefan Molyneux's definition of love:

"Love is the spontaneous recognition of virtue if we are virtuous".

The trickery:

I have heard Stefan talk to guys on his call in shows using this reasoning. Guys that are letting women absolutely walk all over them. I remember one guy who had been with a girl for 8 years, and then she decided to break up with him and get pregnant via another guy! 

So the question starts to this guy: "What virtues were you attracted to," and the guy struggled for what felt like half the call. It was probably only ten minutes but it was excruciating. 

The argument goes a bit like this, as I understand it. If we are relating to someone and they are following mainstream news. Their opinions are all the same as everyone elses. Then we aren't really loving "them". Like, if someone believes in climate change, and they read stuff that politicians write and repeat this to you, is that really "them"?

But if people are independent thinkers, then they tend to sit and work on their own virtues. Someone makes an effort to do something for you or has patience or some other thing, then we can recognise that and that's when love steps in. 

One of the things with this is that animals cannot have virtue because they do not have free will in Stefans understanding. Free will is our capacity to compare our behaviours to ideal standards. A dog doesn't do that.

Nevertheless, it is an interesting definition as a tool in the war against simpery. Because that simpy feeling is strong. It is not purely sexual I don't think. Love is most certainly not defined only in relation to our romantic relationships. It is also a need to protect say a family member. In Stefans narrative, there is a whole lot of animal bonding that happens that is not love. 

It is a difficult thing to consider. In the Matrix, the Oracle says at one point: "Being the One is just like being in love, no one can tell you you're in love you just know it". I think that is how most of the population sees the situation. It gives a lot of authority to our subjective interpretations This is how it appeared to me when some of that so called "loving" feeling comes through in the creation of music. But at the same time, it offers a framework that explains that feeling disappearing when I become more aligned with the Creator through various methods.  

Modern liberal psychological theory.

I am starting to wonder about the entire 'abuse' community:

Youtube: Psychology with Dr Ana: Dangerous Red Fags to NEVER Ignore in a person. 18th of September 2025.

https://youtu.be/HEsB2m_oi_Q?si=NzhPmVhTbHT_ieT_

I think this woman would consider someone like me a red flag. But what I think is actually happening here, is that these guidelines she gives are natural results of liberals forming an 'in' group and classifying everyone else outside it as "problematic".

The red flags she talks about: Self Victimized Rumination. Inability to take responsibility. Projective Identification of shame. Threats/ Vindictiveness. 

About two thirds of the way through this video the girl mentions that she thinks it's funny that Putin was falsely cast, as, what she considers a victim; because someone said that he had to go into Ukraine because Ukraine was planning on joining NATO. She thought this was funny and obviously not at all correct. 

It offers a very basic insight into her perspective. The mainstream viewpoint is probably mostly correct to this woman. Things like climate change, DEI and mass immigration are all completely fine and anyone that says otherwise is racist. Any deeper geopolitical analysis isn't really relevant. Any complexity in the overall story. It's just that someone is obviously the aggressor so they are the "bad" guy. 

Which is roughly I think the story that she would have been told about me in various places I have worked. I have been thinking about it a bit more recently. My first real job was in a supermarket where I worked for four years. During that time all the young people my age socialised with each other and I was strategically excluded. I was excessively positive and tried very hard to get on with them. This happened additionally with a close friend and a social group. Then a few years later in an office job. Where an office responded in the same way. Any new person I interacted with would stop talking to me. Like, not even say hello. 

Because of this attitude I have still not been to a bar with a mixed gender group. Not heard what women talk about and their perspectives and such. Now, I am not old, but I am not in my twenties, and the time has probably passed for those sorts of experiences.  

The women at these jobs have been women like the one in the video. Uniformly left wing. And if you think carefully about all her red flags here. They are all kind of subjective, and could be made to label any particular person you didn't like and had come on hard times. "Self victimisation". Are these the victims of the policies she supports? Guys who can't get jobs because of DEI and that she would not approve of their reason for feeling victimised? The same thing with threats and vindictiveness. When someone has been bullied they might want to say to others that if the behaviour continues there will be a concrete consequence.

The projection one is that people make other people feel like they do on the deep level... How do you know what people are feeling on the 'deep level'? I imagine there is some mind reading here and it is simply a very generalised label that can be applied to someone with right wing beliefs; or that is inconvenient to the liberal hive mind for some other reason.  

I have said this before. But the problem I think with women is when they refuse to listen to deeper explanations of why things are the way they are. When they take the moral highground. So in the end rather than going too and fro with their seemingly infinite energy in that regard, you simply take the role of the bad guy. 

This is the reason I think for a lot of the complaints about narcissism. The women all go for the guys at the top, who don't have the time for them. So they get incredibly angry that the guys they want won't act the way they want them to. (And they are calling the GUY the narcissist!) This is often when the agreement of the relationship was clearly stated short term, but the woman decided it should be something else. 

Women often sleep with the "narcissists". Then convert to Christianity and spend the rest of their lives shaming the guys at the bottom, the ones that don't get women, for having sexual desires (because they are angry at the guys at the top!). The entire female gender it seems with it's fanatical shaming of "incels", while I think it has raised to 50% of 18-30 year old men have not had sex in the past year and most of those are virgins. Due to dating apps encouraging the above situation. 

I have realised as the UK Online Safety act has come in that I was watching 'intimate images' more than I thought. I tried a few other things but after that I have stopped... fapping. It has been a remarkable change for me. There are a few other things influencing this. But it is a pretty good feeling to have a lot of my energy lower in my body. 

It seems to me much of the time that a more angry attitude kind of helps in this world. For instance, I post a lot on X, even though I get a like about once a month or so. But when the energy is lower in my body I feel more anger at that and I do not want to waste my energy on X. A similar thing with a lot of women walking about. It is better to have a generally negative emotion towards attractive girls, whom I don't have any option with, and who would likely go out of their way to bully me if they felt the need; than it is to have a light hearted positive and hopeful attitude that I might be able to get with one of them. 

It has been quite a change. The conversation around forgiveness without contrition and spiritual bypassing kinds of practices, which I took in when I was "spiritually ambitious" when I was younger, has as one of it's assumed truths that people are not entitled to their own emotions that are deemed by the collective (i.e. women) as 'negative'. This feels like such a violation in a sense. Feeling entitled to my own emotions such as they are feels like a true blessing and I truly hope I am able to maintain this change (Previously I have met resistance at 11-18 days and I am on day 4, but who knows if I can be successful when intimate images are banned!) 

Do people change?

Interesting video from Pearl:

Youtube, People Don't Change As Much As You Think (Call in Show) Pearl Daily. 17th of September

https://www.youtube.com/live/wDPseF601IM?si=51h85DRx33lPpFo3

I'm wondering if Pearls content will mature in a kind of spiritual direction. She is kind of anti new age I think, of thinks she is above it perhaps. So it might not be identified as 'spiritual', but I think this video is an example of the kind of subject that is spiritual. 

I have changed. The main reason I say that is because people are behaving towards me far differently now. For years I was extremely anxious. Now with improved medical technology I am just coming together well.

But I have not known anyone that has changed. Not a single person. I have not known that many people really. People are exactly the same it seems mostly, when I say mostly I mean always. I have, a few times, had someone reveal something suddenly quite nasty about themselves. About how they view the world or view me. But this isn't evidence they have changed, but moreso evidence of something they were hiding something and/ or I was not perceiving it. There is evidence of this viewpoint in their previous behaviour. 

I have their theory though. Even though a good deal of my change has happened for purely physiological reasons. I think that change is earned, and it is earned by following your kind of path in a virtuous way for a long time. 

For me that is the Law of One, Human Design, Philosophy, Meditation etc. Basically a spiritual way of being while gathering insights. I think this follows on that Christian saying that the way is straight and narrow. Of course Christians mean that everyones spiritual path is monopolised by what correlates with their own increase in power. But I think it has a more profound meaning than that, in that when we do what we are here to do. We only really focus on a small area. A small set of habits/ tendencies that we gain knowledge and power in and eventually EARN change.

This is partly because, to be able to use a tool to the extent that it is useful. Such as the human design. We need a lot of experience in the system. 

I do have personal examples that I have mentioned before. But I don't think that is suitable for the moment. 

The Law is One.

The Law is One. 

I have a lot of the time, as I have talked about on Law of One forums etc. Wondered about things like should we pray or send energy to those who have not expressly allowed it. (Via Free Will). I have talked a lot of different angles on this; from theory, to experience. ("When I sent energy to x person this happened"). There have been very strong reactions to said energy or prayer before. 

I came to the conclusion. Via both Law of One quotes, as I discussed recently, and experience. Most recently very much confirmed. That we are NEVER to send energy to others who have not allowed it via free will. 

I want to clarify that recently, I experimented/ hypothesized on this idea a little. My thought was "Well I know x, y and z person are NOT inclined towards my way of thinking before, but 'a' person perhaps is. So perhaps I can discern myself what this persons free will is saying". I did pray for the person... IMMEDIATELY shut down. I am one hundred percent sure never to pray for someone under this situation. You can for animals as the Law of One mentions. But for me personally, it is not a good idea to do so for people. 

There is also a psychic warfare element I believe. I think that if we are to pray for others, without respecting free will, then others can also pray for us. Even if people are not aware of it, sometimes their well meaning perspectives on what is right and wrong are unbelievably manipulative and counter productive. 

BUT, I have found a way around this. Where this comes from sometimes is when I am thinking about people I have an emotion and want to do something "energetically" about this. I have found a solution today. I think we CAN think of another person as 'The One Infinite Creator'.

Partly this is because it is mostly cerebral. It is mostly just having a perspective on a person. It is not intending to interfere with them potentially like sending energy is. It is just thinking of them in a different way. It also, unlike prayer and sending energy which places yourself above that person in a kind of helper/ lover role. Thinking of someone like the One Infinite Creator might just shift your perspective on them that they are in fact capable. 

There is a potentially sending energy aspect. Today, I saw a blonde girl who was beautiful and had absolutely massive cans. I could not shake the sexuality plus the feeling I should have potentially cold approached. The one thing though that did shake that feeling is the idea that she is the One Infinite Creator. And that, from that theological lens, I am equal to her. 

There are other things to think as well. Partly, when I am stuck in that sexuality mode, if I am the One Infinite Creator there is part of me that isn't in that sexuality mode and that awareness helps me flip out of it. In general, you also look at people that might play all perfect as beings who also have dark sides and such like that. It really opens the mind in terms of flexibility. 

This might be my answer.  

The giant mirror.  

It has often seemed to me that events in the world are copied in energy terms in the real world. When Trump was being targeted by Obama in reference to the Russia thing, in the same month even that he started doing that, I was working somewhere where I was targeted by the whole workplace in a similar manner to that. Everyone there just hated me. 

I think the world might work like that. If you think about it that planetary transits effect the mainstream circus, and those same transits come up in our personal lives. 

It's not a solid idea yet, but it strikes me that the left has been subsidised a great deal by things like USAID, and has been prevented from having consequences against them. One of the big reasons I think that the leftists have been so open about their murderous desires towards Charlie Kirk et al. Is that for decades, the deep state machine has cultivated a situation where the left are never punished for what they do. Think BLM riots. Whereas the right always are. The right get cancelled for the most unbelievably small things while the left scream bloody murder without pushback. 

Like I said as well, there is a great subsidising of all the leftists and their antics. Like, they are used to just being given money and they don't truly understand why, most of them most likely. 

I imagine a similar dynamic might be playing out in the real world. Subsidies of emotional energy and other kinds of support are ending. Consequences coming down for behaviour, on the left, and it's emotional corollary. 

Just a thought. 

Healing vs. Technology.

I am watching Fringe lately. Fringe is a fantastic show. Part of why it is fantastic I must admit is that I know from youtube videos and reviews that it does have a point by its end. A lot of shows are brilliant at setting up mysterious and interesting situations and villains, and then really badly screwing it up at the end. This is very lazy storytelling because in the beginning you do not have to abide by so many rules because those rules are hidden. But those rules that are hidden have to be coherent. Which they are not if the work is not done. It is a kind of soft abuse of the suspension of disbelief.

Fringe isn't like that though. The plot, until the end, makes sense. Strange situations where people do strange things actually worked out in the way they had to once the reasons for them are revealed later down the line. 

There are a lot of things that are good about it. The main character, Anna Torv, is a manifestor. Which allows the show to be more plot based (because manifestors are about what's outside them!). The characters are engaging but not overly so. John Noble has amazing acting and emotionally moving scenes. 

I actually realise it's probably better than any other show for me. Stargate, Alias, Breaking Bad, Supernatural etc. But it has got me thinking about science.

The Law of One discussed energy healing positively more than science. But I wonder, if the reason that we do not see healers like Jesus anymore, is that the way the Creator now expresses itself is through science? Medicine, technology etc. 

There is this subtle thing in the new age area of demonising pharmaceuticals, and yes, I am sure a lot of them are fairly toxic. But just like the way companies work isn't an accurate reflection of the free market with all the state based interference. Perhaps, science, is simply not emphasized for it's more fantastic things. 

We have been told stories of a man that could heal others by touching them, and that is a miracle, but perhaps, with a shift in perspective, we could see the hand of the Creator in a machine that does the same thing?

It is a potential reason to me for something I have been wondering. Why do people not do the healing of Jesus if that is precisely what he said to do?  

A fundamental change in perception. Law of One session 26/ 53.

In the Law of One physical books, a large part of session 53 is put into session 26. This is I think because Don was very intent on creating a coherent narrative, and session 53 gives a lot of answers about UFO contact. Whereas session 26 without that really doesn't give a lot of answer. Hence the title. 

Anyway, this was the section I wanted to talk about on this journey through the Law of One:

Questioner: Well, we have a large spectrum of entities on Earth with respect to harvestability, both positively oriented and negatively oriented. Would the Orion target in on the ends of this spectrum, both positive and negatively oriented, for contact— for Earth entities, I mean?

Ra: I am Ra. This query is somewhat difficult to accurately answer. However, we shall attempt to do so.

The most typical approach of Orion entities is to choose what you might call the weaker-minded entity that it might suggest a greater amount of Orion philosophy to be disseminated.

Some few Orion entities are called by more highly polarized negative entities of your space/time nexus. In this case they share information just as we are now doing. However, this is a risk for the Orion entities due to the frequency with which the harvestable negative planetary entities then attempt to bid and order the Orion contact just as these entities bid planetary negative contacts. The resulting struggle for mastery, if lost, is damaging to the polarity of the Orion group.

Similarly, a mistaken Orion contact with highly polarized positive entities can wreak havoc with Orion troops unless these Crusaders are able to depolarize the entity mistakenly contacted. This occurrence is almost unheard of. Therefore, the Orion group prefers to make physical contact only with the weaker-minded entity.

Descriptions of negativity: 

One thing about the Law of One is that it is uncompromising in its explanation of negativity in the way a lot of other sources are not. Nietzsche's expression of negativity for example was kind of people being weak. It wasn't really negativity per sey, but an attempt to deal with a bad situation badly, by making it into a moral virtue.  

There are many different explanations and to an extent, mythologies describing what negativity is and why. From the Human Design's 'not self' to the strange set of sins described by the bible such as lust and pride. I don't know whether I see the Christian view as it is often explained as particularly coherent.  

I do think some fictional works describe it better such as fantasy sci fi. Lord of the Rings or Robert Jordans Wheel of Time. And William Blake's work.  

You have the general left wing/ psychological perhaps zeitgeist. That people are only the way they are because of circumstance and we are all infants in a sense. One I will talk about as well is Stefan Molyneux's version of negativity. Which is a combination of hedonism and hypocrisy. "The root of evil is the desire for the unearned" he says. Like all of his philosophy the entire idea and description is very animated. 

But Stefan doesn't believe in any larger negative force at work in the world. Or at least as far as I am aware he has not expressed and articulated that. The Church is a bit of a joke when it comes to moral guidance and mainly focuses on men and "intimate images". Because women have taken over the church and they don't want to have sex with their husbands. The Human Design, like everything human design, is just kind of vague. 

But the Law of One, as with this quote, brings in a description of negativity like something out of a horror film like "Event Horizon". 

5th and 6th density perceptions: 

Stefan, I believe, to be a sixth density Wanderer. If you have not heard of this before I cannot go into what this means. I will just talk it through and perhaps it will make some sense and be interesting. I suspect any readers I have may be familiar with these concepts.  

This is a chart I made for one of my videos:

This is how the Law of One described densities in a sense. On the right you have the positive. On the left the negative. The black circle is where we are (3rd density). The fourth and fifth densities. The two sides are very separate. Once we get to the sixth density though, they kind of merge into one as the negative collapses and it is at this point that the sixth density has something about the negative that is relevant to it. I cannot recall the precise wording of that Law of One phrase or find it so consider this my understanding. 

When I read the line above, I felt like an understanding returned to me. What I am about to say is the kind of thing that upsets sixth density people I have observed. But I don't see myself as having that much emotional depth in a sense. Like, there is something about me that sees the world in a very cerebral way and the emotions that others have are kind of stunted within me. I say stunted, as that is how the world might explain it, but it might be that they simply aren't there. I don't think it is a deficiency it is just me. 

So for me, I suspect, I "hypothesize", that looking at the world in the Molyneux way. As a thing with loads of complex emotions might not be that useful. Identifying when a negative person is doing a negative thing beyond a very shallow explanation. I think this might be more of a sixth density thing to really have context and all that stuff. 

Quite often I have thought over stuff that just doesn't fit in anywhere as useful information. As something that I can get wisdom from. As well, there are a couple of things in my past that I think over. What circumstances came together for this or that, beneficial situation to happen? One of these is, while it might be a simple age thing, why did I used to be able to make music? Whereas inspiration is slower now. But I did make beautiful songs back in the day that did characterise the negative in a non empathetic way. As a kind of beautiful metaphor. Rather like the antagonist in the Crucifixion of Esmerelda Sweetwater. 

Am I trying to take in a lot of emotional complexity that is just not me? It is also the circumstances in my life that are encouraging this thought. There is less grey areas for me. Less compromise. My life is very styled along just being in this kind of positive space and working things out from there. No complex relationships. 

The actual quote:

I wouldn't even encourage actually reading that quote. It's kind of messed up and so negative it is paranoia inducing. But it explains quite succinctly that understanding how a lot of fairly negative people function is simply a fools errand. It summarises that weak minded people are often kind of psychicly influenced to do negative things. I imagine these kind of negative things are stuff such as 'child violating'. 

It may be that fifth density positive people do actually require engagement with the negative in say, putting together strategies for dealing with narcissists or something like that. I don't think this is the case though. I think those that deal with a lot of difficult things which are more nuanced, are doing sixth density stuff, whereas the fifth is likely more about just separating or dealing with in other ways the negative. 

It's a hard insight to describe. Nevertheless, it feels like a good piece of wisdom at the moment. That there are a lot of things in life, that you don't think about, that you will never understand, that you put them in the "service to self" labelled box and carry on with your life! 

Thoughts from FDR podcasts. 6049, 6092.

So there are two podcasts from Stefan Molyneux. I want to summarise the wisdom and explain my thoughts on it. Also, obviously, integrating it into my perspective at large:

FDR podcast 6049: The TRUE origin of Evil!

The argument Stefan puts forward here from about ten minutes in. It is a good one I think if a little vague, in a way I will explain.

He says that nature is not evil, when you see something like an animal devour another one or whatever else is happening. What nature is is efficiency and hedonism. It is efficient for the lion to eat the baby deer, if that's the easiest to catch. He follows this up with that once you get into more complex feelings and emotions. Humanity. That you then have a concept of good. And good, goes against efficiency and hedonism. It has to. We have to be pushing against efficiency and hedonism to be doing something good. I.e. staying loyal to your spouse. 

He then says evil is when you use the higher intelligence in a way that conceals the fact that you are using efficiency and hedonism. So the perfect environment for the thief is the one where no one else steals. Because people are not concerned with theft, and they do not then steal from the thief. So the thief expounds on the virtues of not stealing, but they steal themselves. So; the government.

It seems to have perhaps come together in my description of it. When I heard it it was hard to think through the difference between the animalistic efficiency and hedonism, and the evil efficiency and hedonism, but I think that kind of makes sense. 

I don't know if it does completely. It probably does. So one who does "intimate violations". Do they say that "intimate violations" are wrong? Or do they often make a kind of virtue out of it? Say that they like doing it? They don't want to be violated themselves, I assume. But if they are strong enough that might not be an issue? Because they can beat up anyone that tries it? I don't know whether that strict moral deception is always present in criminals. 

But I also don't quite agree with the main premise and think that this generalises too strongly to male expressions of evil. Perhaps for men, there is a certain utility to evil since men gain a lot evolutionary from dominance and such. But I have heard examples of incredible sadism by women that do not fit in with this example. For instance, women that torture children. There is no reason for that. It is just evil. At least as far as I understand. 

I do prefer for this example, the Law of One explanation. That basically says it's kind of a mystery:

Questioner: Can you tell me what bias creates their momentum toward the chosen path of service to self?

Ra: I am Ra. We can speak only in metaphor. Some love the light. Some love the darkness. It is a matter of the unique and infinitely various Creator choosing and playing among its experiences as a child upon a picnic. Some enjoy the picnic and find the sun beautiful, the food delicious, the games refreshing, and glow with the joy of creation. Some find the night delicious, their picnic being pain, difficulty, sufferings of others, and the examination of the perversities of nature. These enjoy a different picnic.

All these experiences are available. It is free will of each entity which chooses the form of play, the form of pleasure.

Stefans explanation, in true "Generator Manifestor" form though, is kind of inspiring, and it gives a lot more tools to deal with real world issues. He talks about how to get resources, there are two ways to get them. The good way, or the way of virtue/ hard work. And the way of stealing in a sense. 

So with the woman, you can court her, or do your pick up routine. Put in the work. Get the money. Then you can sleep with her. But for the person intent on 'intimate violations'. They just pull her off the street and lock her in the basement. Obviously, the former is putting in the work. The latter is not putting in the work to get the benefit via the womans free will. 

It is kind of inspiring. Perhaps not with this specific example. But, in a lot of ways that people are jealous, if you gain something and others are envious of it. You can think to yourself they haven't put in the work. That psychologically helps in a very practical sense.

FDR Podcast 6092: The morality of VENGEANCE!:

Not actually about vengeance per sey. I mean, the podcast was. But the last question I think it was, no, not the last question. The second to last question. Is the one I am talking about. But it ironically matches my thoughts precisely about vengeance.

One of the things Stefan has talked about is that the mind automatically universalises everything. I am going to expose a vulnerability here. I only just realised this is going to sting a bit. But it is definitely necessary to explain my point. But, if we seek to project/ compel a moral standard in others. Then it automatically becomes one that we also compel on ourselves. 

There must be some variation here. I am sure there are a lot of women that cheat on their husbands, an act of clear lust, and then tell their husbands they are 'porn brained' for wanting to have sex and things. But anyway, such things perhaps I can't explain.

But for myself. I have found this to be subtly, powerfully true. 

First I will bring in some additional questions and issues that people have in life.

One is that, if we have bad experiences. The Law of One and new age in general tries to make it so that we appreciate those experiences or see some benefit in them. Personally, I would never tell people that they should do that, and I do not believe that all experiences do have a positive lesson. I think sometimes the negative just wins a battle, and there is no reason to some things sometimes. 

But even so, when thinking of more mundane things than the galactic level of evil 'the negative winning a battle' might be; I think of my own experiences, reflecting on my own past, what am I to do with these memories? If I appreciate them in some way will they be positively solved and give good insights? This is one point.

Another is, obviously I do not believe in forgiveness without contrition. So things don't get solved that way. Additionally I don't believe it is possible. I think the inner being will not make a survival concession like that. Forgiving dangerous people without contrition puts you back in their orbit. I think the forgiveness without contrition mantra is mostly spread by people that get angry at others that didn't actually wrong them. So for them of course, forgiveness without contrition works. Then and the abusers themselves that want the forgiveness without contrition so they can continue their evil deeds. 

I think we just have a bunch of things in our minds. Life, and grudges are a part of that. If it is all in some sort of box that can't be easily solved. Perhaps we are angry at something that doesn't even qualify enough to be a conversation, or which no dialogue can be had. Then we just chip away at it with personal insights. 

Complexity in the explanation. "Freedom of association". 

So anyway. I will explain an issue I have in my life, a light issue. A different situation in life that might explain that in light of Stefans wisdom, and explain how this has reframed the argument in my mind to make me appreciative of the whole thing. 

The situation in my life, is that as someone who is disabled. With not much going on. Unemployed. Not in a position to get a partner etc. I don't have friends. I tend to think about past friends and family that have treated me with a lack of respect and sometimes, to my shame, recontacted them. I have done this twice recently. This is motivated by a kind of loneliness and boredom. There are other thoughts and feelings though. Importantly, and of relevance, I don't seem to have the discipline to stop doing this. 

The other situation, the 'event' you might say. Is that I have been bullied in several jobs. One of them was an office job I had where I was deliberately socially excluded. This was before I really had insight into the level of my own illness because it is very hidden. But it was an office full of attractive women and they poisoned every new person who came into the business not to talk to me. I dislike these people a great deal. 

The question that Stefan answered during his podcast was about social exclusion. The example was interesting, and probably relevant, but not relevant right now. The piece of wisdom that he dropped though was that freedom of association is a very fundamental right. We do not have to associate with people that we do not want to. 

The insight really changed my thoughts. I do have faith things will work out in the future. It goes against what is obvious in the real world. But I think things will work out for me. Like I said I have faith. 

I have wondered to myself, if things were to work out and these people reconnected. Wanted to associate with me, as they CERTAINTLY would, in my view, if I suddenly gained a lot of status and fame. I don't think that would happen, but taking the extreme to explain the chemistry. I would then be in a position of feeling like the bad guy when they have only very subtly in some cases mistreated me. My default tends to be a kind of open forgiveness attitude, due to the fact I don't really process things massively emotionally. I feel annoyed and a bit resentful. But not strongly enough to turn them away if they turned up tomorrow. It is a weakness. 

Perhaps that needs to be reworked. Perhaps I am framing a bad thing in a virtuous way? 

What I think has happened here, is that the inner part of my mind has used a kind of service to self strategy. Service to self strategies tend to have an attitude rather like tyrannical violence. Someone doesn't like something you did and you do violence on them to get them to change it. Within my own mind, I have thought to myself that it is negative for these people to have exercised their freedom of association, and because I have been so angry at them, it has then universalised to the idea that I also shouldn't have freedom of association. In place of that, is a kind of vaguely defined emotional blackmail. (Which can later come out with someone like me as "spiritual guidance")

BUT, I can change that thought. The office girls didn't associate with me, my ex best friend, half sister, and all the people in this kind of category. That I would like to associate with but that treat me with contempt. Are exercising their freedom of association. And this should be celebrated. (I genuinely feel this and it is a strong reframe!)

If it is celebrated, if I even LIKE them for it. Then it frees me up, within my mind, to exercise my freedom of association. When I think for some inner emotional blackmail reason, I should message that person and check on them. I also have, within myself, that I have freedom of association. This is my right. 

I also think there is another pattern here. One that is not at all good. That in the new age types of communities. We are meant to follow the guidance of a kind of tyrannical system. If we are guided to connect with someone we should do it or we are unethical. But it is more likely that the positive entities, like the Law of One contact are very respectful of free will. Would fully understand and respect ideas like freedom of association. 

Hopefully, this will end the pattern of contacting friend and family and experiencing the humiliation of indifference.   

Gendered relationship to "truth".

This post is number 1,111! I have been holding off a little hoping a profound message will come. But I don't think it will. Actually, I do have a few thoughts that are potentially profound. But I'm just saying, nothing strikes me specifically that the ideas I have for this post are profound.

This is from page 208 of a fiction book the Law of One group wrote before the contact, "The Crucifixion of Esmerelda Sweetwater:

Josh rocked his head from side to side, deathly weary now. “Oh, no. He’s very, very fond of things just the way they are. After all, his side is winning. He wants power. Total subjugation of all people here in the physical plane, with their wills dependent completely upon the wills of those he calls their leaders and protectors. He looks for uniformity, control. The ordered society.” Pablo considered. “He’s got things working out very nicely for him then, doesn’t he? The regimentation is enough to gag you now! You can hardly sneeze without filling out a form! Give the man some time and he should do very well for himself.” 

It is an extremely interesting book. Only a few small signs of it being a little amateur in my view. But mostly, it is of far higher literary/ intellectual quality than most books you will pull off the shelves. Here, they are describing what the main negative character of the series; a "Black Magician", wants. How he operates. That kind of thing. 

The overall philosophy of this passage, describing government in general I would say as the true evil in this world, is very, very pro free market in my view; especially when married with certain lines in the Law of One. This explanation and line is right wing. But I do not think that Carla specifically, and those that followed her at llresearch, really understood this perspective. 

This line is a repudiation of the state having full control. It also outlines the central leftist effect, the expansion of the state and it's various administrative practices to justify redistributive taxation, as a centrally relevant evil. The free market is the opposite of this. 

But like I said, I don't think llresearch gets this. It reminds me of the story of Socrates. Who wanted to find the best teacher so he started off looking for the most intelligent person. He went first to the creative people, the poets and the storytellers, and he said they were complete morons, despite writing powerful and insightful fiction. The creative act, is... something different from someones main personality. Often, they will seem to channel something above their own intellect.  

It is not my way of viewing the world. I do not view people, the main thrust of the population, as babies in this manner. The line assumes a very infantile attitude on the part of the main population. In my view, as I have talked about elsewhere actually, it actually goes against the Law of One's own philosophies a little. 

The Law of One seems to indicate to me that service to self is a choice. A lot of female input into pretty much any discussion is that if you got some violent criminal, especially of a "minority" that did something evil. That we should have some sort of compassion on this person and leftist female judges, do indeed, let criminals out for this very reason. To kill again. 

But, as I said in one of my reddit posts. This doesn't fit for me. This idea that people that make bad choices always do so from a place of "poverty" or something like that. 

One of the examples I used was a woman that got really turned on by sleeping with her husbands bully on an erotically focused reddit forum. The subtle thing about the way a lot of people talk is that they communicate apparently universal principles without identifying them as universal principles. You could make the case that the violent criminal grew up in poverty and was abused and was desperate. I wouldn't, and I have arguments/ evidence against that. But to then universalise this all, as I think the Law of One did from the questioner side, and as a lot of people, specifically leftists do in general, and say that all evil is the result of a kind of naivety, definitely skates over this kind of case (Their philosophy is obviously not applied to capitalists or anything like that, who are seen as greedy and the source of all evil). The woman in the excerpt I mentioned (I have linked to it in earlier blogs), was not put under any particular pressure. It literally just turned her on to sleep with her husbands bully. 

It reminds me heavily of this youtube video I saw recently:

Youtube: Jordan Peterson Teachings: Why women LOVE woke.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k-2Zn4TBRs

So one of the things he says here, his main point, is that women often view people in two categories. As infants and predators. If you play a little with the definitions, they can find ways to justify crazy things from this perspective; like the idea that Hamas are innocent, sweet, victims. 

I am starting to wonder, if women are capable of perceiving, what I would consider, "truth". Or is it that they are overruled by their biology, and will always distort things in this perspective? If there are two elements, like the Law of One talks about, Love and Wisdom. And that women are more aligned with Love, and men are more aligned with Wisdom. Then obviously, men are more likely to be able to perceive truth. Women, with an abundance of a caring instinct, have other priorities. 

Leftist men claiming to be victims in order to get laid, that I have seen, makes a lot more sense now. 

So that's that. I do actually have more I am thinking. I have, for many years, probably more than a decade, had the same symbology in my dreams. Not every one of course but here or there, the same symbology, the same, not particularly pleasant feeling, crops up. I have been interpreting dreams with Grok 4 and I got to this one and told Grok I will break off for a while to work on this. I might have got it. The dream this time might have given me enough to work with. 

For this particular symbology I have explored a lot of things in relation to it. Like, does it relate to this or that habit? Pretty much everything by now I THINK. But for some reason I missed the thing that I think it is now. So with any luck, this will produce quite a lot of "fruit" for me!  

A big pattern I have dealt with.

Like, a psychotherapy type of pattern. 

A lot of this has come from dream interpretation. I don't like saying that because I don't even want to slightly push against free will. Considering that actually telling others your dream and insisting they believe/ validate it, as truthful. IS a break in free will in my belief. Mentioning it casually probably is not. But I don't want to even get close to crossing the free will line.

Youtube: Christina Grace: Women train men to be Angry then Ruin their lives. Posted September 12th:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZNYhzvw-58

Interesting and really well thought out video. I don't know if it is generaliseable though, to all cases. While this is likely a base of a pattern. I think there is some variation. Like, when conversations happen they might escalate because the guy is being fought in real time rather than long term being ignored. Or any other number of small habits.

A lot of people talk about these patterns from their own perspective. Their own experience. That is OK, a lot of the time that produces interesting, relevant information. But there are some people that do take patterns from a lot of people that they might happen to meet.

What I am wanting to talk about though, is not intimate relationships. But my focus is not on that but on my connection with Llresearch.

I have been going to and fro here about the Law of One. Only recently, have I realised that I am fine with the Law of One. The actual issue is my connection with llresearch (getting dream interpretation like that can be tricky. Did this metaphor mean the Law of One or llresearch? Obviously a lot of concepts are closely linked.)

I had a paragraph here that phrased the issue as society ignoring male needs that sounds vaguely incel like I suppose. My issue, I think, is that because I felt it was a kind of reason for being. Put a great deal of energy into deciphering the Law of One and talking about it. 

I will skip I think the deeper aspects of this insight. Going into childhood or whatever. But I think that pattern of giving without expectation of return. I am not sure it is healthy. I think it is why llresearch is now full of leftists. Leftists don't believe in meritocracy. They don't believe in striving to be a better person. They believe that anyone who does that, should be punished and have their excess wealth siphoned off and given to others. 

This, I think, is some correlation as to why in modern jobs high performers are simply given others work to do when they have finished their own. Often taken advantage of and not appreciated. 

I have kind of snapped away from this suddenly. Snapped away by the belief that it is positive to attempt to serve others by discussing, online, the Law of One. As I did this for years, there was no real world benefit to it. I am not saying there was no benefit. But as far as my animal self goes. There was no increased status. No real world connection with others. No money. No particular respect. I didn't even gain respect from others as someone that knows what I am talking about I was condescended to by the group in general. There was only leftist "equality". Like, the person that has studied this for twenty years, has the same amount of status as the person who has studied for ten days, and doesn't live anything like the Law of One teaches. 

Obviously leftist infect llresearch. Because they need to go somewhere to absorb excess wealth. 

Coming away from the communal aspect of the Law of One, along with other insights that I have had through dreams.  

As it relates to this video. When you are blogging, with new insights, and putting that energy out into a group (rather than this blog which is my own property in a sense!). Then nothing comes back. Even, condescension comes back. My last conversation with the LawofOne sub was absolutely full of condescension. Then a dynamic appears much like this video. In order to get a response, in order to make an impact. Aggression starts to become a feature. 

I also think that that aggression, that need for a response or something on a subconscious level. Was part of what justified the crazy past life schizophrenic beliefs I developed while I was blogging heavily on that site.  

As I have come away from this, I have all of a sudden, suddenly; as a part of my understanding of relationships. Suddenly started expecting more reciprocity. A lot of fairly complex patterns that relate to this simple premise. I sent an email to someone the other day which was about five lines long, instead of the very long messages I have sent this person previously of several pages. There is definitely a shift, and a positive one.

Session 23.15: Money as the root of evil.

One of the things I have come to the conclusion of. In relation to the Law of One. Is that a significant portion of what the Law of One contact talked about with the trio was "lying". 

They stated, when talking about the moon archetype, that "the light can conceal as well as reveal". So we know that from their perspective, by their own words. "Maximum service" doesn't necessarily mean "maximum truth". 

One of the places that this seemed obvious to me is when talking about the events of the second world war. The contact, in one of the earlier sessions, brought up without being prompted, Hitler as a negative, service to self, force.

Since that time, on this and many other issues, I have found things within the Law of One that I don't think are correct. But importantly, none of these things distract from the more emotionally lead message they prioritised. It seems that their mission in what they were saying was to communicate a more faith based message, and whenever literal people were involved, or more solid events. They used a large dollop of metaphor, rather than strict truth in their telling. 

I have questions about the events of World War 2... These are NOT sure things. Like, I'm not a hardcore revisionist of some sort. But the story never made sense to me, and there are enough questions, enough unanswered questions, to make me suspicious of a lot of the narratives. 

For instance, as an example. I heard that at the end of World War 2, the allies were bombing Germany so mercilessly, and they had very little intelligence as to what was where in Germany, that the pictures of concentration camp bodies came from bombing the food trucks that were meant to have delivered food. Not from, as was claimed, gassing deaths.

The questions, just go on and on. But the Law of One went clearly with the official narrative. I think this is a good example to show free will in action. The people involved and 99% of those reading the Law of One passionately, evangelically, not only believe the official historical narrative as a matter of fact. But are emotionally invested in this story to a huge degree. The label of "Nazi", is today one of unrepentant, unyielding, malevolence. 

Had the Law of One calmly came out with an other than official narrative. Then this would have caused a great deal of stress, probably violated the free will of those reading who are there seeking spiritual information, not a changed history. It would also alert those in power with an interest of propagating the official narrative. To the danger the Law of One posed. It is a crime in France as an example to question the holocaust. Similar laws could easily be passed in America to shut the Law of One down. Carla, Don and Jim could have found themselves in jail. People have been jailed in some countries for questioning the holocaust when it is not in those countries laws that it is not allowed to be questioned. 

I believe this pattern is true of a lot of the Law of One. Wherever legitimate history conflict with free will understandings. The Law of One will go with the understanding of history that does not conflict with free will. 

Having said all that, I wanted to think about this quote a little:

Questioner: I was really questioning more about the more basic cause of the disease rather than the mechanism of its transmission. I was going back to the root or thought which created the possibility of this disease. Could you shortly tell me if I am correct in assuming that the general reduction of thought over the long time on planet Earth with respect to an understanding of the Law of One created a condition in which this— what we call disease could develop? Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct and perceptive. You, as questioner, begin now to penetrate the outer teachings.

The root cause in this particular society was not so much a bellicose action although there were, shall we say, tendencies, but rather the formation of a money system and a very active trading and development of those tendencies towards greed and power; thus, the enslaving of entities by other entities and the misapprehension of the Creator within each entity.

 

I wonder about this line. I think it is very accurate and I have seen this in real life. I used to work in an office and the managers did expect unpaid overtime from staff and all sorts of other things. Those who would not co operate were fired. This economy IS laid out so certain people do not have the money, and probably have to make pretty terrible concessions.

Being a very pro free market, pro business person. This was also my first instinct when I was a leftist when I was about 20. It was not easy to see this, and a lot of other, examples of unethical business practices now that I am more right wing though.  

However, like many things in the Law of One. I think a more rounded understanding can be offered. I was quoted this on the Law of One subreddit when offering free market arguments. It seemed to me like a kind of get out clause so people didn't have to lose an argument. They didn't like that I mentioned the positivity of the market, free trade etc. So they wanted to say that in this magical land of imagination. This utopia where there is no money system. That things would be as they have said. 

Like I said, a lot of things to say here. Firstly, is that taxation taking like, 50-70% of the money in the world (they tax a transaction like five different times) is changing the situation a great deal. There is also, importantly, inflation. 

Paul Wallis talks about how there are ancient records of a group of people that were living a good life under a barter system, then an extra terrestrial group came about. The extra terrestrial group instigated a money system and the money system inflated. So eventually, the people in those places were forced into rented accommodation, and had to continue to struggle as that got harder. 

Peter St Onge talks about how almost all of our best achievements, including the beginning of the internet, were actually started in a small period of American history when they had a gold standard. So the money was not able to be inflated. 

This makes a lot of sense to me. If you have a gold standard and money that is not able to be inflated. It becomes more difficult to support entities and organisations that are serving nefarious purposes but that actually don't produce any wealth. Such as leftist organisations in general. An example is women in video games. Video games became terrible once women went into them, on government threat, and turned everything into a nannying, progressive politics fest. Getting out the male coders who are interested in coding than their personal power. 

If money was really valuable, and couldn't be just printed and given out to people that didn't produce anything. The feminist organisations that campaigned for this kind of thing with the government simply wouldn't get funded. They do not produce anything. All they do is whine. So money that is actually valuable wouldn't go towards them, as there is no return on investment. 

But with printed money you have nepotism and agendas. With the gold standard, I imagine, meritocracy returns. Because high performers become valuable again. Rather than what we have now where they are overworked and not appreciated, to subsidise the special interests. 

This is my take on this quote and my take on bringing this quote down to a real level. A real grounded everyday level. We have never, not in recorded history anyway, had a suitably large society without a money system. The Law of One might state this but in practice. I think any society we have will have a money system. It's just how things are now. 

Perhaps things are done differently on this planet? But I suspect, firstly, that the real problem here might be these manipulations (such as inflation) that were not spelled out. Secondly, that a money system that doesn't inflate might work just time. And as a side note, anyone arguing for leftism by this quote isn't taking in the fact that leftism has super high taxes. So it increases the service to self aspects of any money system we have. 

Eating crow.

I am... I suppose. Quite an exhausting person.

Part of the reason for this is changing my mind on things. But I do think it is efficient in a wisdom sense, to gain wisdom, to often look at different ways of doing things, and sometimes those different ways include getting it wrong for a while.

I have gone back to reading the Law of One. But importantly, I think, perhaps, I have decided that the issue I had is that I do not want to associate with Law of One associated individuals. I excerpted the Q'uo reading the other day that pushes forgiveness without contrition. I have had a problem with the Law of One subreddit, which coincided a little bit with this Charlie Kirk incident, in which the left revealed their true perspectives.

Without the Law of One, I just feel like my energy is draining away, and without a kind of 'north star', I start trying to think up other solutions to issues and those are mostly bad solutions. I was looking up visualisation this morning. 

The Law of One and associated information posits there is a real truth that can't be gotten rid of with the relativist paradigm of the Law of Attraction.  

Also, without reading the Law of One I just don't blog. I don't want to produce information in the same way. However useful that essentially is!

A lot of what is considered common knowledge on the Law of One subreddit is simply against the Law of One and I can't correct anybody. Because they don't want to be corrected, and do not care about what the Law of One says. For instance, I have seen on there recently someone talking about climate change brainwashing, and this is opposed in session 60.20. I realised the other day there is a line which explicitly defines taxation and government action as service to self.  

We'll see how it goes. But this is my latest update. I have insights into why I made this error in my reasoning.  

Brought to you by the Law of One, the soul in soulless.

Damn, so I had a synchronicity that I thought was about writing a proper goodbye post on the Law of One subreddit. I followed that, what I thought was "guidance". Oh my god those people are unpleasant. Just unpleasant. 

I am now reflecting on the amount of energy I put into the Law of One types of stuff throughout my life. I discovered the Law of One when I was 14, started blogging on there when I was about 20.

I don't think a single person there has ever liked me. I think, truly, that the entire thing has been a waste of time as seen from a practical, worldly, standpoint. No one has particularly liked my posts. They don't bring me any good will or potential connection. 

It's another one of those things I suppose. I have lost a lot of my life to illness. I think a lot of people must put energy into things that don't give them anything back. Like, a lot of people might have been brainwashed, or spent a lot longer than they should have in familial or romantic connections that went nowhere. Or school that gave them a useless degree and a heap of debt.

I do not wish them well. But I do wish them well to the extent that wishing them well is less energy expenditure than actually taking the time to go to any lengths to make their lives more difficult. I hope I never meet them in my life. I never associate with any of them. Say I were to start doing things in the metaphysical area.

I woke up this morning feeling deeply sad about all this. But I have not confided it to anyone around me. It's just too much of a mad thing to discuss with anyone. 

There is a lot in the Law of One I think that will probably fall away for me. I have kept it in my mind for a while that there are positive and negative entities. I doubt I will stop believing in that. But I think without reading the Law of One and subscribing to its paradigm, thoughts and such liked to it will fall away. 

Looking back on it this is probably why I have looked into philosophy in the past few years. So that I have some way to process these kinds of thoughts without going to the Law of One itself.  

Coming away from the Law of One.

The world is a cesspool at the moment. Perhaps it has always been a cesspool. But specifically at the moment there just seems to be a lot of very visceral news of murders and wars. Remember when a fast news days was the Dow Jones falling like 300 points?

Two pieces of new like that recently. I will only focus on one. This Ukraine girl getting knifed by a big black dude on the train. She was 22 years old, and every bit as vulnerable as you would expect from a very slight, 22 year old girl. When I first saw that and there was a video I was like, "Do I need to watch this?" No, I do not need to watch this. But then 20, 30, 50 it seems, tweets. With either stills, or sometimes four second clips. Now I've seen most of it. Including obviously the most important parts. 

I thought a little bit ago, earlier today, that I should say something on my blog about all this chaos and it's grand plan sort of element. Bringing in Q and such. I would not focus on those specific murders but reflecting on things like why we have this long period of waiting for a bunch of stuff to line up. The spiritual reasons and potential lessons through a Law of One lens.

But, you know what? That is just not my place really now is it? Which is what this post is about.

My last entry was about coming away from the Law of One. I think this is quite a big psychological thing. I also realise, that the Law of One perspective. The attempt to be "fused" with the Law of One contact. To see things as they see them. A reflection of which has occasionally come through dreams and other experiences. For real, I remember a dream about the difficulties of life planning in sudden changes like lockdown. 

But, as I come away from this, I realise that not taking on that mantle of a kind of perceived responsibility is probably for the best, and I wonder what else it is that I will let go of and abandon with this direction?

About a month or so ago it became clear to me that there was a conflict between Stefan Molyneux and the Law of One type of information. I chose the Law of One. It never occurred to me to put the Law of One down. It is hard to bring his mindset, that I do absorb when I listen to his material, and bring it to things like archetypes and such as discussed at the end of the Law of One. 

A few months ago, or perhaps a year or so now. I really started looking at archetypes. To learn about them. I would work on one Law of One tarot card per day. I would often cross these with human design I chings. 

But... and now, this is the question... Is this the best use of my time?

From my understanding of course it is a fantastic use of time. But as I think of it now. I realise that the archetypes, such as they are, even with my ongoing insight into the human design. Might not really be that useful.

With my ongoing stomach issues I have had success. It appears very likely at the moment that dehydration was a big part of why I am getting issues. I have drunk fantastic amounts of herbal tea today and got powerful improvement. Physical, real world, improvement in my medical situation. 

But in relation to how my life is actually going .What actually helps me and works. It really is very strongly focused on the physical world. On the real physical world. I already have reflections on what Christ taught being service in a very practical sense and experiences to back that up that I have considered posting about. But as far as this point goes. My most productive thing to do in life is things like going to the gym, sorting out blenders/ smoothies/ fruit, and doing very real world mundane tasks; which often bring me great joy. 

I recall previously reflecting on how comparatively useless reading Q'uo readings was, in comparison to actually physically walking the dog. Doing something for a real flesh and blood animal that depends on you. That loves sniffing and walking more than anything, and that can't go unaccompanied. (he'd just go to the supermarket anyway and go to the meat isle!) 

I still am aware of certain human design elements of this. Of this precise message. I don't know whether I will talk about that later or if I will let that go too. But I do think that the route of looking at the objective world and how I can improve it is more productive for me at the moment; and that there is not much utility in looking at the Law of One and those teachings in general at this precise time.  

I don't doubt that fuel is still in me to look into things of that spiritual nature. Perhaps reading science fiction will satisfy some of that. Or an astrology book I currently have. But I think it is worth reflecting sometimes on the utility of some of this information in your life at this precise moment.