The Concept of Service to Others.

I have been wondering what angle to take with this article. I write the articles in my head as I go about my day. I could go via the Law of One and my thoughts on it, catalysts and such. Or I could go via the Ayn Rand route. Both will probably reach the same conclusion but via different slightly different material.

Atlas Shrugged. 

I think I will go via Ayn Rand. 

I am reading Atlas Shrugged at the moment, and this line that I quoted and will now probably, occasionally, post on social media. Said exactly what I was saying in my blog yesterday:

Ayn Rand is one of the strongest right wing voices there is and Atlas Shrugged is a book that is very critical of socialism. It is set in a society where socialists are very active in simply taking things over, and passing strange laws, and the economy is failing as a result. 

The book has a lot of socialist characters. A lot of people that say the kinds of things that socialists today say. But it is more pure than todays political climate. It is more focused on socialism vs capitalism. There is no mention of race or global warming, and very little mention of gender. It is purely based on the capitalists. That are very like business leaders actually are. We have all dealt with them at some point I imagine. The conversation goes, "casual chat, let's do x then y then z", and that, on most cases, will solve the issue. 

The socialists are a lot different though. They have the thing that modern day socialists do have. They don't really engage directly. They try and get out of direct points that are made by saying "yes, the facts go in this direction, but there are larger concerns here". They call anything the capitalists do as selfish. They say those people are selfish. They declare rather. With an authority they do not have. 

I find a pattern kind of like this in real life. Although I do perceive more nuance in real life. This post is not meant to be about socialists vs. capitalists, I am trying to get to another point. But I find with socialists. They often want to launder all these emotional values into the conversation that... well, don't really have a place. It's like "you say 'a', but you didn't consider that I might think something that would disagree with 'a'"... They don't even go as far as saying "I might think 'b'". They say "You didn't consider that I don't agree with 'a'". 

To which I say to them. "Yeah, I didn't consider that you might think whatever, that is your side of the conversation"! Do these people want to be treated like children? I think they do, that was what all the drama was about "safe spaces" a couple of years ago.

The book also includes a lot of conversations amongst socialists. Where they talk amongst themselves and share an incredibly obscure and confusing value system. They keep talking about what to do 'for the public good' and things like that. It is often things like 'We have to stop this efficient company trading so all the business goes to our socialist friends who are incompetent, we don't want our socialist friends to lose out'. 

The discussion for me comes down to fundamental values about what we should be doing with our lives. In this book, the capitalists are the virtuous ones. They might have bad turns. But they are the ones providing value. It is the basic right wing argument. If you give an ambitious guy free reign, then he creates a business, and enriches everyone around him. The value system this book and the right wing in general says is that there is no need for this person to be massively positive or compassionate in dealing with the world around him. His own self interest, his greed and desire. Are suitable drives to move the entire society in a more positive direction.

To gain money and status in a free market you have to provide value. A guy might just want to make money. But to do so he creates a pencil factory and improves the lives of everyone. 

This point, stated in the extremely deep and powerful way that Ayn Rand does, in Atlas Shrugged. Actually goes to very deep values within me. Values that have not been questioned in years. 

History.

When I was 14, I discovered the Law of One. It was from this point that I made the phrase "Service to Others" a very integral part of my life. I wonder if I yielded a bit of my own authority to this term in a sense. My own agency. 

It served me well and after all these years, it has become very habitual. I recall that when I was that age about I was very big in getting everyone around me presents. A habit I have not observed in other 14 year olds. I remember one Christmas making a little pack for each person in the family. It had some stationary and various other things. 

Over the years though, in dealing with "catalyst" as such. The Law of One advises to intelligently engage with the world. Not just assume things are unuseful and random. Pretty much most of my attempts to help others in any way has fallen flat. I have volunteered previously that went VERY badly. I have "gone above and beyond" in terms of working in customer service jobs. I am not a super caring person and people can feel this within me. Although in my personal life, I do do nice things and do some kind of 'caring'. In terms of friendships, people just don't confide in me, and sometimes, often even, don't want to see me. So there is not much opportunity for caring.

Where I do excel though, is in two areas. One, humour and being fun and laughing about. Two, deep and meaningful philosophical style conversations. 

I have never "helped the poor" or had any real opportunity to. I volunteered with a food bank once and it was just that. Volunteering. Riding around in a van picking up and delivering food places. Most recently, ridiculous admin problems have stopped me volunteering. While the volunteering probably did help me find work when I was younger. It never connected me with anyone socially. It never connected into my life like a "meaning of life" thing logically should. 

I once heard how Stefan Molyneux broke down how "helping the poor" was not a great moral instruction. I forget the specific reasoning behind it. And Stefan Molyneux helps a LOT of people. That is a guy that walks the talk. 

Jesus said pretty directly that feeding the poor was a positive.

I also, like Ayn Rand. Have a lot of illness. I do not have a chronic illness that destroys my entire life. I have an invisible illness that causes a lot of little problems. These are not painful just inconvenient, time consuming and causing of fatigue. I think with people that have illness, the idea of helping others is less of an option. If you have illness, you tend to not have that much energy. 

Of course, Carla Rueckert was more ill than me. She followed the Law of One in the sense that the term "service to others" meant, literally "to serve others". But her catalyst also lead in that direction. Her catalyst lead in the direction of her teaching channeling and very often being engaged socially with others. This is also the case with a great many other people. Like nurses and such. 

We will see though what the Law of One actually says about this term:

Questioner: What is the greatest service that our population on this planet could perform individually?

Ra: I am Ra. There is but one service. The Law is One. The offering of self to Creator is the greatest service, the unity, the fountainhead. The entity who seeks the One Creator is with infinite intelligence. From this seeking, from this offering, a great multiplicity of opportunities will evolve depending upon the mind/body/spirit complexes’ distortions with regard to the various illusory aspects or energy centers of the various complexes of your illusion.

Thus, some become healers, some workers, some teachers, and so forth.

But to me, in my personal life. I am starting to doubt that my commitment to the term "service to others", does actually help me. 

The world is emotionally changing for me. It is changing in an internal way that changes the way I look at everything. I suppose this is the result of 'the great work' in a sense. It is also something people naturally experience through aging and things like that. 

My point being that, one of my main goals is music. Another is my personal health and specifically making sure I get to the gym and things like that. Health goals. If I wake up in the morning and start planning my day. Does an abstract commitment to "service to others" and "helping others" (a term recently removed from my prayers.) Actually help me? Or does it help me more to think. "Man, I really want to get to the gym. I intend to write a great song". And why... because I want to! Because it makes life better for me! I enjoy these things. 

A way that I do "serve others" might be this blog? But this blog is not a commitment to serve others. This blog I do because I want to do it. I want to share my fascination with the various metaphysical things I talk about. 

Link to the deeper work.  

Back to my earlier point though. I said that my perspective is changing a lot recently. This is partly through these studies and loyalty to this spirituality I think. Firstly, I have just grown tired of politics in general. This requires no particular discipline. I just can't stand it and as a result. While I still go on X and such. I simply do not pay attention to the political stuff and am less motivated to go on X as frequently as I did before. 

Separating from politics, also separates me partially from a kind of delusion I have identified. Also informed by my understandings of Nietzsche. I have noticed that naturally within myself when younger (before I was humbled) and then again reflected through 'transcient' material. There is a great tendency within people as a matter of course to engage in a kind of "false status". Engaging in beliefs that we kind of feel and believe gives us status. But in actual fact, do not. 

As my idea of myself. My idea of myself as 'informed' falls away. What I am left with, is a very delicate inner persona that values music a great deal. In a sense. My songs are not much. But they are a very valuable possession of mine - to me. I am letting go of all the self connected to the political stuff and connecting more solidly with the beauty that is music. I am letting my internal push towards the mystery find a home in music. Rather than seeking it anywhere else. 

"Nothing has to be overcome, that which is not needed falls away" - Law of One. 18.5.

 Conclusion.

I think I have stated my point here quite clearly. To conclude. For me personally, I am starting to consider that ideas I have had that are sometimes religiously linked about helping others, is not actually my best path. And that the path of the highest good, might be more in the direction of determination for personal achievement and excellence.  

One of those people was Taras Bulba.

Ah, back to more of a serious post. I have not been well the past few days so the previous two posts were more casual.

Anyway, I wanted to explore something about the negative polarity that is nagging me a little. These all from Session 11:

Questioner: As our cycle ends and graduation occurs, is it possible for anyone to go from this third density to a fourth-density planet that is a self-service type or negative type?

Ra: I am Ra. We grasp now the specificity of your query. In this harvest the probability/possibility vortex indicates an harvest, though small, of this type. That is correct.

Questioner: Are any of these people known in the history of our planet by name?

Ra: I am Ra. We will mention a few. The one known as Taras Bulba, the one known as Genghis Khan, the one known as Rasputin.

Questioner: Well, that was the last question, so I will as usual ask if there’s anything we can do to make the instrument more comfortable?

Ra: I am Ra. You are doing well. The most important thing is to carefully align the symbols. The adjustment made this particular time/space present will aid this instrument’s physical complex in the distortion towards comfort.

May we ask if you have any short questions which we may resolve before closing the session?

I included the last question and answer because the Law of One contact would often put hints in the very end questions. That this or that was unaligned. But everything was physically perfectly aligned. And they meant to say that the three of them were somehow not in sync, or perhaps, the questions were not going in the right direction. 

I recall a long time ago, when llresearch still had a forum and I was still on it. Someone asked, if the Law of One contact was around today. What would you ask? It is a question I sometimes return to in my mind. 

One of the many questions I have come to is this: "You have given us information on the service to self, and it is in fact you that has initiated that. You have given and not hidden information on the service to self polarity. But at the same time, you consistently advise to not look too strongly into these issues. Most especially with physically relevant issues. 

I want to know, in the service to others polarity seeking. Of what benefit is it to know information on the service to self polarity? and for what uses? and what is the limits of what is useful to know for the positive seeker? As an example. It is (is it?) important for service to others entities to know about service to self entities in the areas of personal self defence. Please provide a comprehensive answer as to the values and pitfalls of seeking information in this area with reference to how this is relevant to Wisdom, Power and Love if this additional distinction allows a greater response".

It is rather like those stories of phrasing your question right for a genie it feels to me. There feels like there is a legalise element to it. But I hope that is not felt too strongly as a question designed to "trap". 

This is what I have arrived at, this is the conclusion I have arrived at about these passages in Session 11. I consider it a possibility when considering the Law of One that lies, not obfuscated half truths. But lies are told in the service of the Law of Free Will. For instance, I think the reason that Hitler was singled out as a negative being was because the group held Hitler as the symbol of everything evil as most of the Western World does. That is becoming less strong due to the internet. But for a long time it was unquestionably the most evil thing that had ever happened everywhere.

A more informed viewpoint would say that Stalin and Mao were more evil. They killed more people. There was extreme levels of cruelty under the Soviet regime. But Communism wasn't as well understood back then I do not think. And Communism is vaguely left connected. Communism is just ultra leftism, it is leftism taken to its logical conclusion. It is just more leftism than socialism. So it might be against Free Will to have stated this directly in the sessions. 

I do not know whether it is true or not. But in making judgements such as these. We have to risk getting things wrong.  

The substance.

In thinking through this then. I am wondering what exactly was meant by these specific passages in the Law of One. Taras Bulba is not a real character. He is a fictional character. What precisely that means is not clear. But what I think it might mean. Is that the Law of One contact was simply not going to answer this question so they added this in as a clue. The Law of One did get things wrong occasionally. In session 23.6. They rephrased 11,000 years to 8,500 years. In another session they get the fourth and fifth density mixed up briefly. And positive and negative fourth at another time. 

They described these issues rather like getting bad transmission on a radio. I believe. 

The issue comes from this. I have not researched these people in any depth. It is only because of Grok that I can now peruse these lives at all. Genghis Khan was known to engage in expansionist wars. The Law of One mentioned that the two Wanderers who had graduated into fourth density negative on Venus had been 'ruthless depots that engaged in Holy War'. Genghis Khan had expansionist wars and he had a LOT of kids. Which is definitely a kind of rape, even though it isn't "Bash on the head and dragged behind a hedge" rape. It is still rape.

This kind of makes sense. But of all the historical evildoers. He certainly was not the worst. Many tyrants have done things such as bury people alive. Most of what was happening in Genghis Khans society worked quite well. There was very little crime in his society. Some of the wars he declared were defensive in nature.

The real issue, the reason I have talked about this at all. Is trying to look into Rasputin. I can find almost nothing to justify the insane levels of evil needed to reach fourth density negative.

So he cured one of the royal princes of Haemophilia. He was an advisor to the royal family in Russia and he engaged in a lot of debauchery. Nothing evil though. No violating children or strangling women to get off. He engaged, it sounds like, in the kinds of things that Russell Brand did. 

I watched a documentary once that described that one of the women that had him as an advisor was unusually war like and no one could understand it. Russia engaged in a ten year expansionist war at this time. And in 1914, Rasputin advised Russia NOT to engage in World War 1. Two years into this war the British got sick of him and had him killed. 

What did the British know? We don't know that. It could simply be that he did not want anything to do with World War 1. There are reports at this point that he couldn't be killed. Couldn't be poisoned or be shot and it took a lot to kill him. 

If you add all this up. It really isn't very much to go on. Being an advisor to a royal figure and pushing an expansionist war. 

One of the things I did find out though. Is that a lot of the defining of him as evil came from the church leaders of the time. I don't consider the church particularly objective in what it defines as "evil" since it inevitably means "Assign all magical power in the world, and virtue. To Jesus. Which just happens to correlate with the thing that gives us the most power". So here we have a potential clue. Is it that the Law of One is indicating something on the same level as 'Taras Bulba'. That what we define as evil is... as we define it. They gave a person that has been defined as evil. 

Further points.

All in all. My main take away from these figures is that, there is just nothing to particularly learn from it. Maybe I am taking the wrong meaning from the question. Maybe the actual question should have been "Can you give us some examples of negative polarity that we can learn from?". Rather than just, factually, who went to negative fourth density. 

I do think this is a question that has a huge bearing on free will. Who we think of as negative, if we are positive, are the behaviours we want to avoid and part of the negative polarity is self deception. The negative tends to think of themselves as perfectly moral regardless of behaviour, in a kind of narcissistic way, and everyone they don't like as pure evil, (like how David Wilcock convinced himself Steven Cambian was evil for opposing Davids efforts to commit fraud) regardless of that persons features independent of them.

So defining what is actually, factually, objectively immoral; may be a violation of free will. To point out what negativity actually is and which behaviours to avoid. Rather than allowing self deception as to what the negative actually is.

In the Crucifixion of Esmerelda Sweetwater. I noticed that the main discussion had at the end. Between the positive and negative adepts. Happened after we got past the point that Carla and Don had lost connection to the story and had to create it themselves. It is assumed that this was not able to be completed due to prophetic reasons. But I suspect, it is because the discussion on moral philosophy at the end would be a violation of free will if channeled. Some things said in that discussion were corrected in the Law of One. 

So, what is the value of understanding the negative polarity? It might be to me, that the various hints of the Law of One to not talk about certain things. Simply add up to the idea that we should not be that interested in a lot of negative polarity adjacent things. The negative polarity, rather like the evil hell realm in the movie 'Event Horizon'. Is just something that exists over there. Something that just spews forth all sorts of disgusting hell stuff, and that the best we can do is largely ignore it. That we will never understand it and the attempt to is kind of evil in itself. 

Lately, it has become more and more obvious to me how valuable philosophy is. This following video is one that I think shows the negative polarity in an interesting way. One that has useable insights that relate it to our everyday world:

Youtube: Liam Out Loud: Dave Chappelle: "Ever Since Charlie Kirk... I Feel Better": November 8th 2026:

https://youtu.be/DjQcLi5Wom4?si=z0fgbUIFwSkxn6Sf

I am reading Ayn Rand at the moment. Atlas Shrugged. And as I previously mentioned here. I have recently been contacted again by an old friend. One I have known since I was four years old. 

In Atlas Shrugged, it's morally fairly simple. There are good characters and bad characters and the bad characters are left leaning, and the good characters are right leaning. When reading this book, there is a discussion at the beginning that the protagonist, Dagny Taggart, has with her brother. James Taggart. That was precisely like the one I had with said friend. Very precisely. I could not believe I was reading it just a few days after an identical sounding disagreement.

Atlas Shrugged captures powerfully something about dealing in the world with these personalities that is very relevant. 

Rather like how the video above talks about Nietzsche's perspective on evil. Resentiment. That creates entire political systems to justify its perspective. Atlas Shrugged also discusses the negative and positive as related to each other, and related to real life. 

Conclusion.

I, of course, have no idea what the Law of One was thinking when it said these things. It is "above me". But I can speculate.

A side note is that I wanted to also discuss the point that, it is stated that the negative harvest will be small. But there seem to have been a great many very negative things that are going on in the world. I wonder if there is an incentive to be truthful about this either for an entity which is intent on improving the positive harvest?

In looking at this in future. I am doing a proper read through and categorisation now. Session 11 has some interesting things to say about the industrial revolution. But outside of the beginning, obvious relevance. I think it might be worth not considering these specific passages in understanding the negative polarity. When other tools and philosophers are available to us. 

Looking at the home team.

So, I don't see the 'fairness' angle with this particular issue. At least consciously. It is noted in the more mainstream, but not completely mainstream podcasters and various individuals that will note that, when you criticise men. You always have to couch it in "But men do this too" or "But women have problems to" if you are talking about a mens rights issue. 

But nonetheless. I talked my last article about whether women have lives a lot easier than men. Whether the advantages they are given. Actually translate into a real world 'royalty' kind of thing.

In this post though. I want to talk about my general observations of the male side of this. Specifically, the red pill and mens rights perspective, holds men as being a victim of these issues. 

The large amount of pressure against men is indeed very powerful. It is the entire machinery of the government. The "deep state", so to speak. I have had personal experience justifying all the family court accusations. These are not exaggerations or lies as I see it. 

But we also have our personal experience in life. The complaint of the Boomers is forever that it was somehow everyone elses fault that the world is as it is. As the generation of people that came up with wealth and a functioning free market. Who, by definition, have the most power. The boomers are those that are responsible for the world as we see it today. But, mention that to one of them and you will get the same kind of responses as asking a stoner about Marijuana. Paragraphs of text explaining why their addiction is in fact justified and correct.  

This is, in a small way, how I see mens attitude to the situation. While, like the Boomers, there is always an extremely intimidating and powerful force of Federal Reserve whatevers. This is a real force that exists. The Boomers did have the power, and they still have a large amount of it with their wealth. Despite the many, truly malevolent forces facing men today. Men are, in fact, especially the white men targeted. The most powerful force in the entire world. They are incredibly intelligent. They are the same substance that heroes were always made of. 

In my personal life. I live in a very left wing area. Most of the right say horrible things about women voting in various aggressive immigrant cultures but man. Have you ever heard a room go cold when you said something anti feminist in a group of guys? I have. I remember listening to a guy tell a great set of jokes. He was a comedian and wanted to be a comedian. He said that his girlfriend had text him for a break up and he had been extremely happy. "Yes, we never have sex, you don't respond to my messages". I'm not doing it justice as I am not a comedian and perhaps it relied a little more on intonation and body language. But it was hysterical. I said to him that he should use it as part of his set but... "No". This was in the same group of people that wasn't going to tolerate anti feminist sentiment. But in any group of guys, anti feminist sentiment naturally grows. 

A lot of times the debate simply can't be had on any issue where leftism is involved. I had one friend whose girlfriend didn't like that I had posted on facebook about Trump. It was never identified what I said. But apparently because I was 'racist', she was leaning on him. And yes, I don't see that friend anymore. Trial by gossip never comes with an opportunity for self defence. 

Support of and refusal to challenge or debate political issues is one of the fairly significant issues I think. But another, is the semi sociopathic things men will do in order to get laid. The amount of guys that will just drop you like a stone once they are in a relationship. 

Against these problems. I really don't have a lot of sympathy for a lot of men, a lot of the time. There is a guy who is incredibly miserable and isolated. OK, but did you ditch all your friends so you could smash for a decade and now they can't be bothered with you? There is a guy who has been rinsed in a divorce. And he votes leftist. Or he voted leftist up until he experienced something personal. 

A lot of men are atheist by nature. If the things I believe are in fact true. About positive entities surrounding us ready to respond to our prayers. Then they are turning down free help due to their closed mindedness. 

The trouble is with men. Is that with women. I do not have a great deal of insight into them in general. With men though, I can see the virtue more. I have very rarely had any work problems with men. With women, the problems are so legion, that nice women are the exception. The extreme exception I would say. With men though, the pattern is very much reversed. While I am sure they would step over my rotting carcass to get laid; mostly, when I deal with them personally, they are just nice. And individuals are often very courageous and positive. 

It sounds cold to lay it out like this. But at the same time. I consider it justified from my experience. I have messaged men to join me in right wing endeavours before. I have been entirely ignored in person when I have said any of the wisdom in these pages. Anything to do with politics. Anything to do with spirituality types of issues. It is predictable that people with such viewpoints, with some notable exceptions of people that have good understandings outside these. Will experience difficulty. And it is pathetic in its lack of "fight" most of the time. 

Looking at the other side.

A bit of a weird one today. 

Recently, I have gone back on X. I realised I probably would. In the stresses and grumbles of life, especially with the occasional medical issues I am faced with. There are down times and times when discipline is not going to be high. Also, I am kind of lonely in a sense. I think this is at a level less than a lot of people experience. I am naturally an introvert. But given a couple of weeks off X, I did eventually go back. 

I have things that I have wanted to say about the Law of One (for a change right?) Working on grander philosophical ideas. But I just wanted to try my hand at this tweet in general:

Female psychology. Not exactly being an area that I specialise in. I still have observed certain things over the years. This blog is not quite as serious as some of my previous ones. A lot of blogs, ones that focus more on the Law of One and other philosophical or self improvement points. I am looking for the truth in these ideas and they are important for me to get right. This subject is one I do not expect to get right. I do not expect that I can and to get it right, I would think you would need to pay attention to someone in this area that honest, highly intelligent, and capable of looking objectively at things like research. So someone that had written a book on this kind of thing. 

But I can observe. This is a "shooting the sheet" kind of post. 

A) The "churn" of the female heirarchy.

I remember working, in the mid to late 2010's, in an office where a lot of the women did not like me. It was an ongoing bullying situation. I don't know the reason this was. There were any number of unusual things about me these women perhaps didn't like. But I had a strong instinct, based on previous experience as well. That the reason I was getting targeted here was that I looked good. That I was attractive. Not because of anything actually bad. 

The issue started before I had any real insight into it. I started working there and for six months I was not invited out socially. I finally was and a woman there made a huge fuss about something tiny that I said. I will not say what this was. But I will say I have repeated this to others in my life and they were shocked someone could get upset over something so little. 

This began a two year campaign of bullying where this woman made sure that anyone who came into the business, any woman that sat next to me. I would talk to and everything would be fine. Then she would not be allowed to talk to me. So I would say hello and she wouldn't respond. Shortly after they would leave. So there was this massive turnover at the company. Whether this was the only issue is unlikely. But I think, from seeing the womens strong reactions, that it was a significant one for them. 

I recall, one of the only longer term workers there did sit next to me one day and was shaking. Properly shaking. 

It strikes me that we are in this time in our society where women have a certain amount of immunity for any and all push back from moral error. The relationships with the highest rate of domestic violence are lesbian relationships. Followed by straight relationships. And the lowest is gay male relationships. 

I had a horrible time at this business, and the other places I have worked, because of women. But I do not actually have to spend any time with them that I do not want to spend with them. Perhaps that is because I am not working and that is partly due to disability. But, even if I were to be working. I can go in and go out of a business and not engage with women that much. Beyond "hi", "yes I had a good weekend" etc. 

Women do not have that option. Womens lives have integrated social groups and a fair number of people they cannot avoid. Which means that if women in general are narcissistic and entitled like many manosphere types claim. (And while I don't agree with that, I cannot disprove through direct experience). That also means that women are subjected to each other. In a way they cannot escape.  

This also goes for many other areas. For instance, womens friendships are known to be fickle and back stabbing. There are literal movies about this. I have often thought that nature planned this so that eventually, to escape this madness, women run to the arms of a male protector that ("hits yummy animals with clubs" (hunts) "steak taste good",) and has no taste for drama. But the world, being as it is, sometimes disables that mechanism. And women still have to deal with other women once they are in a relationship.

B) Living in a world without correction. 

I had a very close friendship with a woman for a while. Rather a tragic story. Like she stepped out of a Tim Burton film. She had been very beautiful when younger. Had deep eyes, was a Pisces, and eventually killed herself. We used to work through a book I was reading at the time from a PhD psychologist, that listed a lot of things she experienced as Borderline Personality Disorder. 

The 'female intrasexual competition' had been brutal on this girl. But, one of the things I noticed was how much her attempting to put together a model of the world had pushed her in a bad direction. 

As I said before. The world seems to have sorted itself into a place where women do not get a lot of accountability for their actions. While many of them might like this. Even if they are incapable of appreciating anything. This can lead in the direction of giving a person really confused models of how to deal with reality. 

One example of note. Women often get told, and often believe; like, actually believe, that men do not have emotions. Once they are suddenly in a relationship though. They find out that... This is not the case. It is actually so not the case they are often in danger. A lot of men, obviously, have deep wounds going back to childhood. Men are incentivised to show their best to women a lot of times to get laid. But they cannot keep this up a few months into the relationship. 

They can have many delusions and the reason is that no one is incentivised to tell them the truth. Men want to sleep with them, and a lot of women lie to avoid conflict. It is sometimes hard, seeing as when someone does tell them the truth they are shunned, to see this as a legitimate problem for the women. But it does cause a great deal of suffering for them.  

I have sometimes wondered with attractive women, if they are naturally being sorted towards people that are naturally not as good as the ones that stand back and are not interested in the drama; a narcissist wants the pretty girl on his arm. But I don't have much to say on that. Women very consciously choose 'the bad boy'. So perhaps that thought does not have legs. 

Back to the tweet.

I should probably go back to the original tweet here. I do not take it as legitimate that women have a common experience of being nice to men and then getting rage back from them because sexual interest was assumed. Having been bullied in multiple jobs by women and often, only women. And having a similar thing happen outside my work life in my social groups. I don't take this to be a legitimate generalised female issue. I consider this person a mutant, if she is nice to men.  

I would not say that I have anger that women have more sexual attention than I do. I have actually turned down a lot of sexual attention. I would say a lot of men have anger at women for the things those women do to them. And the list is not small. DEI hiring. Family court. As larger political issues. 

This woman says that she finds it dysfunctional being nice to men. But what is the alternative? If women, in general, are not nice to men. Then that would be a legitimate reason for men to not like them, correct?

Then there are these other issues. An eating disorder. Not being able to leave the house without make up. I would say these things are secondary, and a part of, the first issue I have outlined here. 

Conclusion.

I don't think women, morally, on the collective level, really have a leg to stand on. But they don't need one. The simps will step in and be their legs for them. The redistribution of resources, via violence, from men to women. One quarter of Gen Z being aborted and the march of feminism through the Western World. Is... irredeemable. 

But on the individual level. As far as individual experiences go. I would say they do have things to deal with. I don't know if they are on a par with men because how could anyone judge that? But I do consider it a possibility that, in accord with the Law of One. It is possible that within the same society. Male and female experience is roughly equivalent. As women harm men, through left wing policies and taxation. They then don't have men to love them. And even if they "don't need no man". They do, in fact, need men. 

 

 

Formatting. 

The Lonely World.

Todays Video:

Youtube: Shelby Exists and Makes Stuff: Most People Don't Have Friends These Days. November 5th 2026:

https://youtu.be/RjrhtdZ-mSA?si=A8hyinza10xFvBKU

I wanted to talk about this video. Because it builds on what I said in my last post. My last post I kind of summarised the difficulties I have had with modern communication. And maybe it's not just me. Maybe it's pretty much everyone. Like this girl says. 

I am reading Atlas Shrugged at the moment. It is a very powerful book. Possibly the best book I have ever read. And if not; one of the best two or three series. I am not that far through it. And the books plot is unravelling a mystery as to how things in their dystopian world actually got quite as bad as they are, so I don't fully know what has gone wrong with their society. But the basis of the book is against socialism. The high achievers are working hard to save the society and the socialists are undermining them. 

Something really good about the book, and fictional stories through books in general. Is that everything is grippable. So more understandable. Than things are in this society. In our society. The 'negative forces' are unbelievably complex and include many, many different interest groups, psychologies and hidden complexities. You have the Communists, the feminists, the violent immigrants and their supporters. The overly passive. The grand agenda with the WEF, world Banks and various other things. The different countries. 

But in Atlas Shrugged. We focus on just one. We focus on the socialists. 

The socialists are more of a hidden danger than a lot of these other dangers. Invading Muslims commit crime and set up human trafficking at industrial scales. Feminists shout and complain and bully and are exhausting in their endless energy towards death. They invade movies. Destroy entertainment. Brainwash young women into making viral man hating Tik Toks. 

But socialists do none of these things. While if you actually engage in politics, they are there. If you go to University, you can hear them talk about things. Mostly they do none of these things. They sit back, in their Councils. In their little meetings. In admin of places like the NHS. And they take all the resources that are coming in from the taxation system that is now automatic. That people don't even pay attention to. They increase taxes. Incrementally. Like the boiling frog. And most of that money goes somewhere we wouldn't agree with. Like the USAID situation. To shoring up the left when they don't have any legitimate support. To wars. 

But while they are invisible. They are still 'there'. As I said, the conversation at the beginning of the book was just like one of the conversations I had with a long term friend that I mentioned yesterday. Socialists, have a passionate and tyrannical belief that you should have the emotions, that they wish to exploit. They do not like the transaction of 'I will provide x, if you provide y'. They prefer the interaction of 'You will provide y on my terms, and I will provide endless emotional energy to force you to do so'. 

I have been thinking of this a bit since reading the book. That a lot of people, all over the world, have what I would call 'retarded' beliefs. Ayn Rand makes a good show of the kind of conversations these people have. Conversations not completely unlike some I have heard at University while studying politics. For me, thinking of the vast amount of people with these kinds of beliefs and the kinds of conversations they might have. Is insane. It is something I had never thought about before. But all over the world. People of this political persuasion. And there are many millions of them. Are having conversations of the same, annoying, formulaic, kind. Filled with emotional blackmail.

As I have read this book and had these thoughts though. As I also mentioned in the last blog. I have started to question the world more than I had initially. Ayn Rands book has many truly inspiring male characters. And I realise that I have been missing those inspiring male characters in my own life. The closest that I have come is paying attention to Stefan Molyneux for a few years. Before that, I paid attention to David Wilcock. Who was only ever 'inspiring' because of lies, and for lack of other male role models. 

I had assumed, as I think we all do, when I was younger, and carried it through. That the world as it was presented was the 'normal' world. It has been a function of my consciousness that I have taken in the millennial mythology presented by the media. The OC adjacent idea you just kind of sail through life and things work out in due course. But the world as it is, I have come to believe. Is not the 'real' one in a sense. As in, it is not the natural world as 'God' in a sense, would have designed it. Where men are men and women are women and there are exceptional and gifted people who are helping society. I am living in a society, which, is analogous to one that has lost a war. Inspiring men and things in the world do not now exist because socialists, behind the scenes. Have made every single effort possible to undermine them. 

This is the world we now live in and this, I think; is the reason that everyone is so isolated. The economy is not functioning for the Western populace. It keeps crashing due to socialist policies and the lack of money definitely reduces social opportunities in a big way. Not only with 'work friends'. But with people not having the money to pursue their own interests and groups. Not having the money to go out and have fun and to date. 

We are also sitting on the longer term agenda of feminist. That is... misery. Mens groups haven't been allowed to form for many decades now. Womens have, you can have womens gyms and exclusive womens groups. But not mens groups. They are always sued by feminists.

I think this is another big part of it. The thing is with womens groups and women socialising, is that women do not care about anyone outside themselves. You will not get a group of women seek to include men in anything (as I have learned in many jobs). And women will tend to like to chat and not really do much. Men are the ones that organise in a way that seeks to attract women. First men deal with each other. Then, after a while, they seek to include women in some capacity. 

Socialising has become disconnected, shallow and prioritises women to a huge degree. Because that is female friendships, when women are allowed to socialise and men aren't. The society becomes female dominated. Mens socialising usually corrals around purpose. Which has now been lost in our society. 

Anyway, like I said then. The point I am making. Is that the situation I talked about in my last post are probably not specific to me really. But are experienced by a great deal of people as our society has become dysfunctional. 

The power of principles.

I am learn-ding. As Ralph from the Simpsons says! A few minutes ago I was completely unable to write this blog. I also had these strange feelings of malevolence, of being "unprotected". And I had forgotten my prayers and affirmations today. I did them, and the blog was just 'there' all of a sudden in my mind. I would have preferred to do the prayers earlier today but was genuinely rushed off my feet. My tasks were being fit in to the minute! 

The details I am going to drop here are personal details, stuff I would not share with a large audience. But things that I think are OK to share with anonymous people online. Some that are from places like Kentucky, according to my stats. Which is not going to effect my personal life. Is not going to uncomfortably expose anyone or make anyone feel uncomfortable. 

It is one of those things in life that what we have to express is often not valuable without honesty. Honesty often includes pettiness. It is a hard line to walk to remain honest and avoid unneccessary pettiness! Pettiness is a shared human experience! 

So, I have the theory that a lot of our basic thoughts have a point. So, I noticed that some of my thoughts are relevant to the future and I have a belief and faith in the Q narrative. I believe that in the future, we need to get to the paradigm the Law of One describes. The Q narrative is the most likely route to meet that. A lot of the Q posts do check out. Although, it is not healthy to actually engage with it in my view. (Going to the Law of One's discussion on 'transcience'.)

The perfection of everything. 

So I believe, and believed FAR more strongly when I was pathologically political. That in the future, there will likely be a mass arrest and events that will level the playing field a great deal in relation to status. If a fair few people in my life are not that pleasant, since I don't follow their left wing political views. There was a time I relished, as a revenge fantasy. Those people losing out and me being obviously correct. Now I no longer do. My personal life and health is improving and I do not think so much about that kind of thing. I also, am changing some of my viewpoints in powerful ways, but that is for another post!

But today I had the insight. Even if that never were to happen. As it might not. Or it might look very different. These kinds of thoughts prepare me for a future where the power dynamics have changed. Which they might do for any number of reasons. I am basically thinking of and subtly planning for, preparing for, a reality where I have more power and status than I do now. So the thoughts, even if they ended up being incorrect, are actually quite productive. The use of power probably will be relevant to my future in some manner! 

Which brings me to the theory I wanted to discuss. I have often wondered about the nature of revenge and revenge fantasies. Revenge was talked a little against in the bible I would say. But I want to separate a kind of unhealthy revenge from this discussion. An unhealthy revenge I would define, is that the person was completely justified in doing what they did. But I did not like it. This is in contrast to a person claiming to be a friend, claiming the honour position of 'friend' and then doing unfriendly things. Because the latter chose the obligation, and potentially received through the deception. The unhealthy revenge is say... I want a connection with a girl and she does not want one with me. If I were to take revenge on that in a physical way, I don't think that would be right because her not wanting anything to do with me is her own sovereignty. Her own free will. 

I do think there is a place for the second type in that, if I ask a girl out, she says no, then I gain in status and she looks regretful I can enjoy that. But I do not think 'revenge' in this circumstance is generally justified.

I am also not talking about serious revenge here. Not like... physically beating someone up. I just mean general petty grudges.

But I suspect, these little annoyances... Have a place. The people that have put us down and that we would like status to push back on them. I think this might be, in some cases, a positive indication of the right direction. 

And so, this is where I end this blog. I had fully expected to go far further. It is all in my mind. But somehow I know I do not need to write further (Narrators voice... But he did, in fact, write further!). A point I was going to expand on with examples, is the idea that aligning with principles, such as those found in the Law of One and other places. Is likely to align you with what that 'revenge' would be against people that have treated you badly. 

The two modes. 

I have also noticed a concurrent insight. I have essentially two modes. One is the emotion I had since I was a child and this includes a great deal of sentimentality. The other, is the part of me that has grown up on the kind of information I talk about on this blog. The second part is the "correct" part, so to speak! What feels correct to me. This also connects to insights I have had recently about service to self and service to others. And left and right wing politics. Which is that the environment we see today is the result of the left being mostly successful. The left, the service to self, make a huge drama of not being given further concessions as though this was the worst thing in the world. They never appreciate anything they have 'achieved'. All the misery and death they have achieved so far. 

This conceals the fact that they have actually done quite a lot so far. The welfare state has managed to create huge amounts of single mothers and with their various successes. The baseline levels have changed. With that, it means we have to doubt a lot of what is just 'normal' in order to arrive at what is healthy. For me, one of the realisations I have had is the complete lack of strong male role models. Really strong inspiring men in life. 

Where this links in is that I said I have two modes. A childish emotional side and a more correct part that is reliant more on principles. Believes in things more. The principled version is that of a 'strong man' and that, is something that I had not completely understood existed, before the insight I just described. 

So I will give a good example of this. A personal example I did not want to share. But I will. When I was young, and unwell, but I did not know it. One of the people that was relevant in my life was my little half-sister (referred to just as 'sister' from this point on for brevity). More than a decade younger than me. 

I have mentioned her casually before. On my fathers death bed he asked me to look after her. Which... was kind of stupid. My father was the kind of person so disconnected from reality he did things that "appeared" to be correct, because that's what he thought he should do. In my view. By the time he died he was a severe alcoholic, so severe that morphene would not work on him! And he had done crimes in his past that, perhaps they ate at his conscience, although he never expressed anything like that. Or perhaps he lived without one. Perhaps it is some confusing mix between those two. 

Because of this, I have put a lot of energy to connecting with my sister, a lot of messages to connect. But, this is of a semi compulsive nature. My early life was spent in 'mysticism' I would say, with a dose of schizophrenia. I assigned virtue to compulsions I had to do things. I was "guided". 

As I have grown though, the second person I mentioned has grown. The person that is connected to more objective things. Also to the Law of One. 

One of the things I feel "guided" to do every so often is contact my sister. To process things in my extremely powerful cerebral manner (i.e. this blog!) To try and smooth over the rough edges and communicate whatever I think is interesting or profound.  

And what tools do I have against such a powerful inner compulsion? Well, contacting my sister has not been very successful. In fact, it has been constantly rebuffed. I have had to accept the idea that she does not like me. Perhaps that's too harsh. Perhaps she considers me a kind of annoyance but the feeling would not go as far as "dislike". Rather like how you don't actively dislike bird poop falling on your jumper. You are mildly annoyed and disgusted, put the shirt in the wash, and carry on with your day. 

Against this clear contradiction. I have found a Law of One quote to help me. Now I am not saying anything about my sisters character. But even if she did have any service to self tendencies. I imagine she is service to others with a tiny amount of service to self. The kind a normal positive wanderer would have. But the advice in this quote still stands:

Questioner: Thank you. In closing that part of the discussion I would just say that if there is anything that we can do that is within our ability— and I understand that there are many things such as the ones that you just mentioned that are not within our ability— that we could do for this particular entity, if you would in the future communicate its requests to us we will at least consider them because we would like to serve in every respect. Is this agreeable to you?

Ra: I am Ra. We perceive that we have not been able to clarify your service versus its desire for service. You need, in our humble opinion, to look at the humor of the situation and relinquish your desire to serve where no service is requested. The magnet will attract or repel. Glory in the strength of your polarization and allow others of opposite polarity to similarly do so, seeing the great humor of this polarity and its complications in view of the unification in sixth density of these two paths.

When I get this instinct. And I have let in the more nightmarish compulsion adjacent part of my dreams recently. This is the wisdom I use to oppose it. Contacting my sister, is not going to go anywhere. Even if I said 'everything right'. There is not enough connection there to make a connection. 

But without daily reading of the Law of One and keeping the "second person" in place. I would probably yield. Go back to messaging her like a schizophrenic, and have her avoid and ignore me.  

The point here, which links to what I am just about to say. Is that the 'second person' is delivering a different message than the first. The young emotional self. I think the principles used by the 'second person' in this example. Does deliver a kind of justice or "revenge", or something like that.  

The Q narrative 

And this is where I connect back to the Q narrative that I started with, and something that links with the general 'revenge fantasy' kind of mindset. 

In the Q narrative, the good guys have taken over and are now engaging in a kind of positive psy op to awaken the population. But what does that mean for us on the 'normal level'. While we kind of sit through societal dysfunction? We are not in danger. But we have not moved into a positive place where service to self viewpoints can be challenged and done away with yet! 

For me, what this seems to mean, is that people that dug their heels in at COVID and acted in various disrespectful ways due to their perceived higher status than me (which would be correct, given my disability!) Have had the opportunity to really prove who they are.

I had two of these situations recently. One was a friend, whom I had broken contact with because he had cancelled about twenty arrangement (disrespect!) sometimes clearly having an opportunity to communicate clearly and not saying anything so I turned up anyway. I broke contact with this person clearly. But this person was very apologetic and wanted to meet up again. So I did meet up again. For one time. The second time we met up, some of this personal issues got sorted out because he got a phone call and now... He has gone back to being disrespectful. 

A second one was a very long term friend who is now a passionate socialist. The conversation I had with him is exactly like the one that Dagny Taggart has with her brother at the beginning of Atlas Shrugged. The fact was that there was no way of connecting. The guy had, more than socialist tendencies in discussion. He also had very specific ideas about how emotional other people should be and what their views should be. Just like James Taggart. 

I went through the ringer with these two and now am back out of contact with them I think. It is not official with the first one, but there is not a lot of time to undo the 'rudeness'. 

The conversations after I thought about it though. DID serve a function. And they served the function of closing the door. And I think that is a beautiful thing. Because the door was half open for both of them. The first one because an apology could get him back through it. The second because I did not fully know the issue was not due to my own illness and craziness at an earlier time. Relating with that person once I was sane was very clarifying for me! 

The insight. 

Of the two inner beings I talked about. The first person would not want these connections closed. The second person though, does not care about the people involved. The lesson gained from the experiences, and the principles involved. Are what is important.  

It's not really revenge I am talking about is it? The goal here is lack of sentimentality. A clean break. Where revenge might become relevant is if the Q narrative were to happen. I think the principles involved would lead me to not connect with these people, and if the societal changes happening were traumatising for them. Well that's some tough crap!

It is an insight that is opposed to the codependency friendly version of the Law of One teachings, and Christianity, that a lot of people promote! 

A tool very often used in some of these interactions I have noticed. Is the false apology! The false apology was used once by my sister. She apologised and then went right back to the offending behaviour. And then by the second of the two individuals I mentioned. But the lesson I should have learned with my sister was to ask questions. Apologising for what? What behaviour do you think was wrong and how would you change it? What values do you think motivated it? Many other questions like this that refuse to let a person off the hook without genuine contrition and contrition, is hard, almost impossible for these sorts of people. 

The kind of people that are putting you down for their own status anyway, are not able to yield status in contrition. If the questioning goes deep enough into their values, such as, a big part of the issue will be leftism in some way. That is an extremely close belief they will not want to have questioned or part with.

These experiences are kind of hardening and clarifying the theoretical basis I have for dealing with people. 

Like I said, the second person, the person of the principles. CANNOT just flip to the old way of being. If someone wants to communicate it's like "OK, but I have, one hundred times tried to deal with people without questioning and getting answers on their values, so I will not do that this time". This is the only logical answer. But it also prevents a potential hurdle that some people, these kinds of people, cannot get over!

So, like I said, the principles, positive principles; correlate with the "revenge fantasy". 

Conclusion.

Not sure all this was that interesting or relevant. But I think the idea that are grudges are actually an indication in the right direction, and not something to be thrown out in favour of some "love" based spiritual idea. Is one that is worth considering! 

Knowing the facts!

So, haven't posted for a few days. Because, I wanted to have the benefit of meditation. 

I have meditated daily for a short while now and... It IS the answer. Not so much the answer in itself. But it seems to provide just a sense of improvement and good luck to the rest of my life. If I meditate, I am more likely to pray. If I meditate, I sleep better. I am in a better mood. Etc. 

I also think I am getting good results from the general things I am doing. A lot of things I have taken from the Law of One and other improvements, such as drinking a lot of water. Have really improved my life recently. 

The issue I described earlier of, because I have not been doing meditation. Losing a sense of direction. Not knowing what to read or why to read it. Has definitely changed since the daily meditation. I do know what to read and think and I am doing that. But I do not have conclusions on those things yet. I have thoughts on those things. But not conclusions that can be communicated. 

I wanted to make a quick note here though. On a thought that I have had. Since coming off X I have definitely felt an improvement, since not engaging with X, I have appreciated political youtube more. Not red pill political. No more of that. I don't need to know about female psychology at the moment. But political theory, history, and sometimes a video on political events.

I was surprised though. With the Russell Brand situation. I have seen it pop up a few times. While I know there are a fair few people that believed Russell to be guilty. I did not click on those. A few creators have made videos on the whole thing not being right and being a 'he said she said' situation. 

That though, is not correct! I asked Grok. In one case, the one where the most serious crime was tried. There was substantial evidence including medical. Three more where sexual assault was alleged and I suppose now. Convicted. And three more that were dismissed. If those cases were dismissed. It kind of lends credence to the idea that the courts are doing their job, rather than assuming him to be guilty. 

There were 340 witness statements including statements from the victims families saying that certain behaviour was grooming. One of these cases was when Russell was 30 and the girl involved was 16. There are further charges being investigated.

A lot of people in the comments are saying things like that they don't believe the case because it is a case of withdrawn consent years later. Or that it is because the establishment is after him.

They said that about Andrew Tate as well. But the claims about Andrew Tate coming out are so bad, and so unlikely to be made up. That no one is talking about it. 

The reason I suppose that this has annoyed me. Is that, I have not once made a video on an existing political situation. I think I have made some videos casually referring to the red pill. I like to talk about political theory. But I have never made a video on something like the Russell Brand situation but if I were to. I would be sure to do a LOT of research so I knew my facts. I just wouldn't want to get something like that wrong.

For a lot of people on youtube. That doesn't appear to be the case.