A powerful dream.

I had a truly powerful dream this morning with an image in it that is so powerful it feels burned into my skull. This was distinctly celestial imagery.

This morning, I was wondering the significance of it and how to phrase it in this blog. Like, the angle I was thinking was that perhaps I am doing well. All the different things I am doing well, then some of the things I am not doing so well, that are obviously not too big a deal, if the higher/ inner forces still approve. Then, also, on top of that, the dream did seem to indicate to me a way I can improve. A distinct way I very likely will improve with this motivation.

But, I feel all that information will strangle the inspiration somewhat. There are a lot of things that are distinctly going well. But if I were to write out all the six or more things it COULD be, I will be getting lost in the minutea. I might even be writing out a few things that I think are good, but are not actually good at all. 

So for the moment I will just sit with the experience, with the insight, in a sense; and let it filter through me, until I learn better what I want to express. This has happened a few times recently, insights so profound I simply can't practically/ immediately use them, and I think they will likely come out slowly over years, or be a precursor to later knowledge. But at the moment I suppose the term might be overwhelm. 

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!)