The mental diet.

My continual thoughts in trying to move forward. Trying to improve in general. 

Two insights, that I am hoping are both useful and powerful. 

The gym has been giving me amazingly powerful positive changes. I have before put together theories that when men experience life and their various stresses get stored in their muscles. (As hormonal combinations). When those muscles break down after a weights session. A lot of this is released. I mean, we know a lot of anxiety for guys is released at the gym. The releasing of that energy leads to increased insights.

It feels quite powerful. As though the part of me my body is first working on in making me more masculine is my thoughts. Which would be... Obvious, wouldn't it? 

First insight: Digital media. 

So the first insight I had, when I was watching one of the gym bros that I follow on youtube (and outside music is one of the only things that interests me on youtube). He was talking about how he 'avoids lust'. This is a biblical gym bro. That he simply does not go on instagram because it is full of bikini models. 

Another thing that has been happening for me. Is that the day after I got rid of the dream catcher. The next day. I just couldn't go on X. Which I have been going on everyday, many hours everyday, for years now. I just stopped. It feels uncomfortable. I don't want to go back. 

I realised, that a process has gone on in my subconscious that perhaps has not helped me. In the absence of clearly defined social roles in relation to women. In the absence of actual women in my life. Combined with a general interest in spiritual sources like the Law of One. Some of my sense of mysticism, or my seeking towards 'The Creator'. Has been caught up in the idea of understanding emotions. As though these would bring me some powerful insight. To that end, not often, but sometimes I will explore one of those young women on youtube talking about her feelings and how everything is going wrong. 

Yet another thing to link to all this. Going quickly, as quick as I can through the red pill argument. The red pill argument is that modern women. Due to dating acts and other cultural changes. Tend to spend their 20's dating only the very top guys (status, wealth and looks). Tend to believe, even if not stated, that those guys will settle down with them. Tend to get angry and bitter at men who do not commit to them. This is almost all women. Guys in their twenties are divided into two sections. One, is the top guys. The trust fund guys or guys alpha for some other reason. These guys get a LOT of one night stands. They are the men that "break the hearts" of the women just mentioned. Then, in their twenties, there is "the rest" of the guys. About 90%. Who have few if any relationships and sexual encounters. (This dichotomy between top and bottom guys has increased statistically, with various societal dysfunctions. The amount of 18-30 year old men who have not had sex in the past year is on an upward incline. It used to be around 10% but more recently is about 50%)

The red pill argument is that the top 10% guys are not damaged by their behaviour. They will sleep around then eventually pick one out of the "litter". There is no influencing them from doing what they want to do. What happens following this is that the women who could not get the top 10% guys. Find one below that and marry him. While being incredibly bitter at the top 10% guys (this is where "all men are trash" kinds of sentiments come from, women then blame all guys for their experience with the guys that had the options to treat them like that). And usually have a sexless marriage after that and possibly an extremely unpleasant divorce. 

So the way the situation works. The top guys, it does work for them. I mean, on a deeply spiritual or philosophical level maybe not. But as far as practicalities and statistics go. These men have fun and then settle down. They are fine. 

The women, this is all women. Not just a certain percentage. Are screwed up by this arrangement. They effectively, a lot of them, shot above their league in their twenties. But they were not aware of that. If they had gone within their league in their twenties and settled down with their match (their match is the most attractive man that will commit to them). Then they would have kids and live from that place. They would spend their youth and energy on the marriage itself rather than frittered away. And they would get a higher value husband in their twenties than who will settle down with them in their thirties. 

The bottom 90% guys. Well, this is who the red pill is aimed at. This pattern seems fairly correct anecdotally even. Women having fun in their twenties and settling down in their thirties. This is how most of us came to be But that was before the internet. The red pill is trying to tell those 90% of guys. "No, this is a bad deal, here is the information. Don't assume she had 5 partners in her twenties if she tells you that. Ask more questions". So those guys do not get themselves stuck with a resentful sexless wife. 

I am not saying this is 100% correct. I find small problems with this model every so often. It is very useful as a guy to know though because there are a lot of women that WILL tell you they had five sexual experiences in their twenties. While their true body count is three figures. What I am saying this is the red pill argument. 

But then, if you are on X. Every few months or so. You will get a bunch of women jumping on the viral point that the red pill is hypocritical because it shames women for body count but has no problem with mens body count. The women have to be sleeping with someone right.

This is an incoherent point. As already explained. Because it is a large proportion of women. Whom this arrangement effects extremely negatively. And a small proportion of men. Whom, as I have said, this arrangement does not effect negatively as far as can be proven. The majority of men, the bottom 90%, the red pills target audience, are mostly innocent in this arrangement. 

But nevertheless, these kind of stupid points, along with "incel" and other IQ 100 terms. They were already destroyed in the original argument. And yet, they are repeated and repeated. The same thing with Kay Podgees video on Paul being a false apostle. Paulians bring up the most basic points destroyed in the first 10 minutes of the video ("1st Peter says XYZ").

The case can be made, I think, that idiots repeating the same statements without analysing the argument they are pushing against. Is why we can't move forward as a society. If Jesus' true message was practiced. Our society would change overnight. Rather than their being endless Pauls message sermons. Our society cannot move forward due to the pure weight of stupid (and sometimes bad intentioned!) people. 

So bringing these three points together. The coming off X, the female emotion as spiritual mystery, the point about instagram models and the point about stupid people bringing up the same disproven points again and again and again and again and again. I realise this has become a redundant thing in my life. The time involved in trying to figure out female psychology passively... Is wasted. I do not need to go on therapy types of female youtubers. Not the ones oozing feminine softness anyway (I am still subscribed to one that is more logical and practical). I don't need to go on gotcha videos about say, the woman in France that was super pro Refugees then had her store looted by them. These people are idiots. They would be idiots if they incarnated as men. It does not matter what they think or do. There is certainly no larger spiritual relevance to it. I need, to avoid that kind of redundant energy from being something I ever have to pay attention to. 

Sounds subtle but, I think it is quite significant. Withdrawing from the various irrelevancies like this allows me to more completely focus on what is relevant. It allows me to access my real emotions more. To do more. Which might allow me to eventually work it into my music.

Second Insight: The potential irrelevance of Philosophy:

After I woke up and was not so interested in Twitter. Another day I went on a massive binge TV watch of a new series I am watching. The next day I was like. Damn, I need to read more. 

So I did. I read Poetry. I read astrology. And I read philosophy. The Philosophy I am focusing on at the moment is Simone Weil. Nietzsche. And on the shelf and planned to be next. Kierkegaard. 

And here, I have hit a snag. Poetry... Wow, I love poetry. And obviously it feeds into my direct goal of music. Astrology... has always been profound, and provides a specific kind of insight. I have a lot of astrology books.

The philosophy though. And I will provide excerpts here. Disgusted me so much I don't think I will continue on with it. 

Getting into philosophy originally was actually listening to Stefan Molyneux. Which I stopped doing when he said that people that had certain behaviours in their lives which I have, shouldn't listen to him. I have a lot of quotes by him which I re read every so often but, now that that is over I am not sure I can recapture the magic by following up on other philosophers. That period of my life was to meet a certain need at a certain time. Also, I clearly have other things I am into which provide a great deal of substance. Astrology is kind of a first principle (if astrology is right then...) I am reading the Law of One and I do have theological considerations.

Anyway, down to the quotes. Simone Weil. I did actually hear that she had a bad reputation for being totalitarian. But this is explained away. Nevertheless, when really reading it. It disgusted me. And it is not the only theoretical problem I find in her works:

The Need for Roots. Part IX.

In the current situation, it is good to allow people to form groups to defend their interests, in other words, pay and the like, and to allow these groups to act within very narrow confines and under the constant eye of the government. 

As for the political parties, if they were all rigorously banned in a general climate of freedom, it is to be hoped that it would at least be difficult for them to carry on a clandestined existence. 

It would not be difficult for political parties to continue underground if a fascist cunt like you was in charge, Simone.

Page after page reads like this. She just wanted to start up her own fascist government.  

Nietzsche, is not quite so clear cut. 

Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil. Part 13.

Physiologists should think again before postulating the drive to self- preservation as the cardinal drive in an organic being. A living thing desires above all to vent its strength - life as such is will to power - : self preservation is only one of the most direct and most frequent consequences of it. - In short, here as everywhere, beware of superfluous teleological principles! - such as it is the drive to self- preservation (we owe it to Spinoza's inconsistency). For this is a requirement of method, which has essentially to be economy of principles. 

So the most fundamental drive is the will to power and not the need for self preservation.

There is some basis for this idea I think. It is hard to justify suicide outside of potentially the desire for power. Suicidal people often want to take revenge on the world. I have often looked at them and thought that their distress is the anger that things didn't go like they wanted it to. If David Wilcocks desires had come to fruition - money, fame, and status (especially spiritual), presumably. It was what he talked about publicly. He would not have killed himself. He screwed up his life, and as if in protest at it not doing what he wanted, of it not working out how he desired it to. He killed himself. 

Suicide seems to me like an extension of the will to power and it also kind of aligns with the Law of One. Potentially. It can be interpreted. The most important thing in third density is the choice of polarity. This takes precedence over the chakra system. So it does make sense.

It also has rewired my understanding of polarity a bit. Nietzsche makes clear that even good people have the desire and mechanisms of power. This is a point not properly emphasized. I don't believe. In llresearches material. Such as the crucifixion of Esmerelda Sweetwater (where the philosophical engagement only happened AFTER the work stopped being a channeled work after Space Girl was abducted. In my view due to free will. My hypothesis is the llresearch groups model of polarity is that the negative experiences power and the positive are powerless). 

But Nietzsche's work also acknowledges the fundamental point that the yellow chakra is as important to the positive energy system as it is to the negative. It might take on a different manifestation being opposite polarities. But it is still important. 

But... and this is the point... Why would it matter? To me, it doesn't really. Nietzsche here hasn't justified his philosophy on first principles. Or a really rigorous argument of any description. It is just what some genius happens to think about some stuff. A modern book with studies and detailed historical arguments is arguably more useful. 

So for these reasons I might lay philosophy down and concentrate my reading time on things that feed back into things that matter to me, and that are useful to me. Like poetry feeding into music.  

I did see something on line that might legitimately be interesting though. Carl Jung seemed to me to be very much in line with the Law of One. Perhaps a fifth density individual, in touch with the Law of One contact. His work discusses things like emotional opposites being brought together:

 

Law of One. Reflection on Orange Ray Blockage.

Just got Google Analytics. Damn, it is confusing. I don't quite know what to do with the information yet. 

I've been thinking recently about the Law of One (for a change!) And I've been thinking of what it is to actually apply the information. Re- reading the Law of One and taking notes on almost every question. It leads to self reflection on how much of it I can use. Am I using it precisely. Even if I do not apply the specific passage I am reading, they are not all applicable to real life. Continuing to read through and scrutinise the text means that it is at the forefront of my mind and I think about other bits I have picked up previously.

One of the central themes of the Law of One, which I have taken more seriously over the past year or so, is the idea that what we experience in the world is catalyst. Which is then used as a kind of nudge towards better understanding our inner world. I have been using this thought process far more frequently. Enough to use it in my general everyday life. It is definitely a perspective that softens reactive, angry behaviour. "This thing is here to teach me, I am to process it and gain understanding on it". Is a different thought process than "you are challenging my status." 

Even with that though. Either the Law of One contact is being intentionally obtuse. Or I am not that able to understand it. This is more true of the second of these two answers:

I will add a bit of emphasis because it is a bit dense: 

Questioner: Thank you. I have a question here from Jim that I will read verbatim: “Much of the mystic tradition of seeking on Earth holds that belief that the individual self must be erased or obliterated and the material world ignored for an entity to reach ‘nirvana,’ as it’s called, or enlightenment. What is the proper role of the individual self and its worldly activities in aiding an entity to grow more into the Law of One?”

Ra: I am Ra. The proper role of the entity is in this density to experience all things desired, to then analyze, understand, and accept these experiences, distilling from them the love/light within them. Nothing shall be overcome. That which is not needed falls away.

The orientation develops due to analysis of desire. These desires become more and more distorted towards conscious application of love/light as the entity furnishes itself with distilled experience. We have found it to be inappropriate in the extreme to encourage the overcoming of any desires, except to suggest the imagination rather than the carrying out in the physical plane, as you call it, of those desires not consonant with the Law of One; this preserving the primal distortion of free will.

The reason it is unwise to overcome is that overcoming is an unbalanced action creating difficulties in balancing in the time/space continuum. Overcoming thus creates the further environment for holding onto that which apparently has been overcome.

All things are acceptable in the proper time for each entity, and in experiencing, in understanding, in accepting, in then sharing with other-selves, the appropriate description shall be moving away from distortions of one kind to distortions of another which may be more consonant with the Law of One.

It is, shall we say, a shortcut to simply ignore or overcome any desire. It must instead be understood and accepted. This takes patience and experience which can be analyzed with care, with compassion for self and for other-self.

Questioner: Basically I would say that to infringe on the free will of another self or another entity would be the basic thing never to do under the Law of One. Can you state any other breaking of the Law of One than this basic rule?

Ra: I am Ra. As one proceeds from the primal distortion of free will, one proceeds to the understanding of the focal points of intelligent energy which have created the intelligences or the ways of a particular mind/body/spirit complex in its environment, both what you would call natural and what you would call man-made. Thus, the distortions to be avoided are those which do not take into consideration the distortions of the focus of energy of love/light, or shall we say, the Logos of this particular sphere or density. These include the lack of understanding of the needs of the natural environment, the needs of other-selves’ mind/body/spirit complexes. These are many due to the various distortions of man-made complexes in which the intelligence and awareness of entities themselves have chosen a way of using the energies available.

Thus, what would be an improper distortion with one entity is proper with another. We can suggest an attempt to become aware of the other-self as self and thus do that action which is needed by other-self, understanding from the other-self’s intelligence and awareness. In many cases this does not involve the breaking of the distortion of free will into a distortion or fragmentation called infringement. However, it is a delicate matter to be of service, and compassion, sensitivity, and an ability to empathize are helpful in avoiding the distortions of man-made intelligence and awareness.

The area or arena called the societal complex is an arena in which there are no particular needs for care for it is the prerogative/honor/duty of those in the particular planetary sphere to act according to its free will for the attempted aid of the social complex.

Thus, you have two simple directives: awareness of the intelligent energy expressed in nature, awareness of the intelligent energy expressed in self to be shared, when it seems appropriate, by the entity with the social complex, and you have one infinitely subtle and various set of distortions of which you may be aware; that is, distortions with respect to self and other-selves not concerning free will but concerning harmonious relationships and service to others as other-selves would most benefit.

I get what a lot of this says in principle. That the life is an extremely complex process of receiving a catalyst. Experiencing a life event. Then going through analysing it and understanding it, accepting it. Etc. 

But in reading this quote. There were some powerful, relevant lines. Such as 'nothing shall be overcome. That which is not needed falls away'. This really helps when you have a strong instinct to try and fight for something that you can't actually get. "I have to do xyz or else my life path is off" kind of thinking. Or if someone is offering opposition to how a person thinks a relationship should be.

There are other relevant bits. But overall, the actual guidance is rather vague. And lines like 'What is correct for one entity may be wrong for another'. Is especially vague. When Don says that the thing not to do is to infringe on the Law of Free Will.  The contact does not validate that as correct. Why? This could be because it is not. Even though reading the Law of One would indicate that in my opinion. It could also be the Law of Free Will. Anyone who votes left, or for a right wing party pretending to be left. Is infringing on the Law of Free Will. So the contact might be infringing on free will by agreeing with that. 

It just struck me that the idea that there are no particular need for care for the societal complex might be a statement that is subtly against voting!? Rather easy for me, I live in a left wing safe seat. 

Anyway, having said that, there is far more of the Law of One to explore. I think that some of the most useable stuff comes from the discussion on archetypes in book 4. That's where you get to what you actually do, best practices to live with in real life. Indirectly in a lot of instances. I think of the Matrix of the Mind frequently.

The real world. Real grounded people. 

Some of this then will be more from memory. It would be silly to engage in a discussion that has a lot of Law of One roots and quote every passage.  

But it seems to me, that in terms of judgement. There are passages that are kind of conflicting. One of the passages. Either 94.9 or 95.9 says something like, in dealing with Carla, that she should ponder the non efficacy of judgement. But another, when discussing ways of understanding service to others and service to self polarity. It is specifically said that those words were the best used to judge accurately in others what is service to other sand service to self behaviour. 

In our lives. There are a lot of people of varying shades of service to self walking about. Some of them might be very service to others, but they are drug addicts or have some other issue that makes them service to self to the extent that it is a problem. 

I recently had the thought. And this does go along political lines. I have seen a lot of reports. Social media types of reports. That amongst homosexuals. There is a LOT of sexual activity. One post was from someone that had been talking to a colleague that said that he would go to a club for an orgy with new people every week. So body count would be in the 1000's. I suppose there is no reason not to. No risk of pregnancy and the male sex drive is high. Apparently, when researchers first heard the stories from this community. They simply couldn't believe it.

Imagining this reality then. Obviously they are not all like that, but of the subsection that are that promiscuous. Imagine someone whose world is constantly doing that. The incredibly energy expenditure that involves. Their lifestyle is that. They do not have any energy left over for reading philosophy or exploring political issues deeply.  

So if someone is engaged in conversation with them, and then starts talking in complex political terms. Redistribution of wealth this, meritocracy that... Or whatever. Then the reaction is not going to be based on a considered thought of said opinions. It's going to be knee jerk based on protecting themselves and their identity. I.e. fundamentally. The Christian right is not pro gay and the left is very pro gay. It is going to be based on that.

Now let's extend this to a straight guy that has a lot of hook ups. So we can capture some more of the subtleties of this point. Straight guys that do hook ups are less promiscuous than that. But some of them not by much. The body count will be in three figures rather than four. But, there is a lot that goes into one of these 'interactions'. Dealing with female emotions is heavy. Even if you are meant to be having a one night stand. Women are emotional by their nature, and, despite women not usually perceiving this and seeing their effect often as only positive. Very often that emotion is a burden. It is a burden men are happy to carry, but it is still a burden. Every honour is a responsibility.

This guy would likely have had to pay lip service to their beliefs and way of being. I have seen it said that pick up artists are more like women in their strategies. Cognitive dissonance means that we cannot engage too much in lying without starting to believe said lies. Also, these women will have a lifestyle. Alcohol and drugs might be what a person needs to remain 'interesting' to said women. 

Also, virtue costs energy. And these decisions mount up. It takes a long time for a person to get to casually being interested in philosophy to reading Nietzsche's original works. It takes a long time for a person to be convinced of the value of what is valuable. Another example might be investigating obscure forms of music. Over time, prioritising hook ups and this lifestyle over real relationships, can hollow out a person. 

If a person is hooking up a whole lot. Do they have the time to give their all to their other friendships? To their family? If someone has a long term relationship and wife those things are usually cut off anyway. But a long term relationship and wife will give more than what is purely carnal. You can spend time with friends with a long term relationship. You meet your family with your wife by your side. So it is not the same thing. 

What I am getting that with all these analogies is... Orange ray blockage. I am wondering if these behaviours are orange ray blockages. 

The boundary between the conscious and unconcious.

Today is going to be a highly weird post. It is in the area of things that are new age and that I perceive to be real. But many would see as crazy or schizophrenic. But then, a whole lot more new age folks very well might perceive as legitimate. 

While perusing Youtube. I came across a Christian channel. Which mentioned, offhandly. That he considered Dream Catchers as part of negative, black magick spirituality. 

I do not necessarily believe that. I don't know for sure that it is not true. But for me, I have found that I have used a dream catcher to good effect in the past. But that now, I have gotten rid of it. My dreams have seemed to have already changed in line with my understandings. But I think there needs to be a longer period for the change to really set in. 

Ah, no, there was no larger article here. Although I thought there would be. My best understanding of what dream catchers do. Is that they simply dismiss a lot of the more negative themes running through your subconscious. Since throwing mine away (Two dream catchers, and another symbolic/ lightly magickal thing related to Islam!) I have had a dream that is more engaged than my previous ones used to be. More like I am a person in a real situation, rather than kind of removed. Proper passionate arguments and such. I have not had a dream with an argument or similar close personal engagement in a dream for all the time that I have been recording and recalling said dreams! 

This also fits with a more secular understanding though. A real world understanding. I used to get loads of nightmares due to medical reasons I could not change. My medical condition causes huge amounts of anxiety. A very physiological, not psychological, anxiety. But now, with improved medical care. I am kind of undoing that. Not only am I handling the issues with the medical condition, But I am undoing all the muscular stress I experienced in those years via going to the gym, as much as I am able. 

So either way you look at it. The point of what I am doing now is to relax into allowing my own self to become more aware of the lower parts of myself that I previously blocked out because they were producing noise, rather than signal, that I was unable to use. 

So after I had that dream. I do feel differently about the world in a way that makes sense. But it might only be temporary. I felt very exposed going on Twitter and saying things. I was not so interested in various other things.

The thing is with this dream catcher kind of stuff is it all feels so... You know. Feminine and irrelevant. Like such a thing is an interesting cognitive exercise. But should not be serious enough to reflect into my real life. I should not be sensitive enough, being male, to it. But in truth, this has caused quite a stir within my being and I do feel that the changes will be significant, and it will be several days before I feel normal again. As this change integrates. 

Back to basics. Human Design.

So, I thought I would do an old fashioned Human Design post. A reading, or just general thoughts and notes. On Stefan Molyneux's Human Design.

Who is Stefan Molyneux?

Well, he is a philosopher. He is a secular philosopher, and one of his crowning achievements is to have put together a theory of secular ethics. Universally Preferable Behaviour.

We can see his incarnation cross is one of those that has only G- Self hexagrams. 46, 25, 15, 10. His theory of Universally Preferable Behaviour has as one of its first principles. That of Universalisation. That is, the mind universalises everything. When you show a child a tree, they automatically universalise this principle. They suddenly can identify a tree in any country. Any type of tree. From the tallest oak, to the apple tree. 

I wonder, a little bit. If the G- self is largely about Universalisation. The G- self I wonder. Is where our ethics sits? Anyone that has things going through the G-self and then to the throat. Especially if energised. Is going to carry general principles and ethics in anything they discuss?

If we were to look at Nietzsche's chart, which I understand that Nietzsche neglected a lot of moral arguments in his writing (I have not yet read them completely myself so can't confirm. But people that talk about Nietzsche second hand seem to think that Master Morality does not necessarily involve ethics!)

This is Nietzsche's chart:

I think that Nietzsche's perspective, as seen here. Was one very much of the pure animal realities of the world. The sacral. Some animals are just tougher or better than other animals from the sacrals perspective. 

Anyway, back to Stefan. We can see his main perspectives in his chart. In Stefans view, the state is a creature that is only negative. It is only capable of producing negative results (like war) because it relies on the initiation of force. The initiation of force is taxation. if the left wing political apparatus puts a gun to someones head, basically saying that pay up or go to jail. Then this is the initiation of force. From Stefans viewpoint, no good can come from this. 

For example, if we are to expand this out, say you have a governmental system that provides some sort of service. Like public schooling. They already have the money. So they have no real need to negotiate with the customers. (Students parents). Once that power dynamic has been decoupled. All sorts of corruption can come in. All sorts of inefficiencies that the free market would not allow. 

Such as the desire to teach students progressive politics that will not actually help them in the job market. In a small town this would not fly because the students would leave to work somewhere in the local town with a lot of additional information they did not need and was sometimes deleterious to their work. But divorced from the free market, these things can happen. 

Stefan follows on in some way from Ayn Rand. We can see this in his chart. The first point of the 'energy' that leads to the throat is his gate 14 in the sacral. The entire channel also linking to the gate 2 and G- self.

Reason, virtue and happiness. 

Some quotes from Stefan:

5764: 31 minutes: People avoid moral clarity because once you have moral clarity you have to take a stand or you feel like crap. 

5838: 15 minutes: You cannot have the love of the virtuous, which is the only love that matters, without incurring the hatred of evil doers.

1969: 1 hour 21: So people who say, something that is incomprehensible is not valid, are more accurate than people who say, things that are incomprehensible should run my life. 

The first two I think are good G- self comments but the last is a well articulated pro secular argument and this may come from Stefans 64-47?

One of his "meaning of life", kind of core of his philosophy statements is: "Reason, leads to virtue, leads to happiness." 

Furthermore, he has talked a bit about how for men, doing manual labour jobs is important. Or, even if not manual labour per sey. Even if it is coding. Doing a job that connects you to objective reality in that things in the real world are relevant. If someone codes something, the code either runs, and does what it is meant to do, or it doesn't. If someone works in fast food. They have to actually make the food and pass it to the customers. If a person works with heavy machinery, perhaps in a bad area. Like in the snow weeks away from a hospital. They have to deal with real machinery and put their life in their own hands. What they do in the real world is important.

Verses a lot of other jobs that are more language dependent. No one can really say if Human Resources is succeeding or failing at their job while they are hiring and firing based on woke ideology.  

This is very sacral based. Stephan criticises philosophers who have not worked a "real job" in their lives. Saying that this is where disconnected ideas come from such as "life is a simulation". 

But we see, with this reasoning. A very direct link between what Stefan says, how he justifies it, and his chart. Reason here is linked with logic. Because reason comes fundamentally from objectivity.  

Then virtue, Well, with the first two quotes above. I think the virtue of his message and how that directly ties into the G- self is quite well established. 

Happiness? "Reason leads to virtue leads to happiness". Is that true? I don't know. But connecting it to Stefans chart we can then see that the "happiness" part is where these things reach the throat.  

Further. 

Let's go further though. I have found the parts above the throat tend to shape the entire life while not being included in this kind of chain. In my own chart, below the chart, you can trace where each thing leads to the next. But above the chart. It simply adds a perspective or lens that the rest of the chart goes through. My 11-56 changes the rest of my chart into one that talks about philosophy and Law of One types of things. But the actual 'chain' of my life. How I deal with people in the real world. Comes from below the throat. 

Having all these viewpoints does not make a person a philosopher. At least, not in the same way Stefan is. He has described how his mind constantly races. One such event, was when he suddenly got the idea that J K Rowlings Harry Potter, was not actually about magic. But about a traumatised young boy who goes to a mental institution and we see his imaginings. Stefan said, he went to bed with the beginnings of this idea. And it kept him awake all night so in the morning he had put together all the different reasons why. 

The 64-47 I would say is the 'God' channel. (Where 61-24 is mysticism and psychology, and 63-4 is the scientific process) Like how Ra Uru Hu said that the human design is not a system of morality. Where his energy stream fed through the 51-25 and then 10-20. His energy stream went through the G- self and the expression was to REJECT ethics. Not in real terms, but in theory. I wonder if Stefans 64-47 is part of his expression in rejecting God, as a philosophical interpretation. 

The undefined centres.

Stefan, to me, is closest to the ideal man as you can get. I say ideal not as a term of worship or endearment. But in the technical sense that, he has got a lot of stuff right. He grew up in a poor family in an abusive situation. He worked for a while in very highly paid roles and used what is likely an extremely high IQ in a technical field. He was kind of alpha in that time and dated a lot of women. As far as I know this was serial monogomy not hook ups. Then he settled down, has a wife and daughter, whom he often talks about and adores. And he has produced incredibly powerful and valuable work for the world in the form of his philosophy. 

Because he is an ideal then, I think one of the things we can do with his chart is back date what in his chart means what. What things look like when they are performing well. The Human Design main system does not believe this, and has a tendency towards a kind of Protestant understanding. That we are all such sinners that we cannot guess what living authentically actually means. We are too far away from it. I do not see things like that. 

This would not work with someone like David Wilcock. Even though I think he intended to be service to others. We cannot look at his chart and his life and be certain that the comparison is accurate since he was so mentally disturbed. Because a good deal of what we see in David Wilcock is likely, a term I don't like that much but don't have a better one for... "Not self".

My general theory about the Human Design and how it functions is this. We are our defined centres. This is the thing we are as we experience it in the everyday world. As a soul obviously we experience all centres. An undefined sacral centre does, for example, experience sexuality. But as we pull ourselves together and interact in the world. What we produce, which is what feels like what we are. Comes from our defined centres. The defined sacral has to go to work or they drive themselves up the wall. The undefined sacral will be more easily tired out and will adapt better to a workload that is less directly taxing (this also includes non work things like joy, parties, sex itself, etc.)

So through our life we go through and tune our defined centres, in various ways. For instance, my G- self has been strongly tuned by listening to Stefan Molyneux. Before listening to him. It was probably far more weak in the area of the kind of morals he talks about.  

But life, real life, outside of our own perspective. Is not only the centres we have. (Even if we have every single one defined). Real life is all of it:

For instance, I do not have a single hexagram on the Solar Plexus. But that does not mean that in an ideal world, solar plexus energy is missing from my life. It means, that if we were all in a service to others environment. I would find that solar plexus energy in other people. Thus, if it were frequent enough. Even though I have nothing there, I would amass positive wisdom of what is going on with the solar plexus. If I had a wife that had a defined solar plexus. And was with her for 5 years or so. I would learn certain wisdom that came with it. Such as with the solar plexus to the throat, there is no way out of expressing your emotions, even if it is annoying to others. 

If I then had a child with a defined solar plexus. I then already have that understanding. It does not only relate to other peoples energy. But even my own. Even though nothing is defined there. There will often be something in those solar plexus hexagrams. We are 'all things', as the Law of One teaches. Or perhaps it is conditioning. 

So where I am going with this. Is that, as a philosopher. Stefan also needs to articulate a lot of what is going on in other centres. There are some areas that he likely will not talk about because people don't need to talk about everything. Like, I have not heard him discuss anxiety much, the undefined root or spleen are not talking about that. But as regards to a lot of work challenges. Which would be the ego. I have heard Stefan talk about these things a bit.

But, I suppose we are coming to the point I started with. When I was out walking maybe, just flipped into my head. The Human Design holds that hexagrams that are in undefined centres are not really useful to our selves. Our lives. Our evolution. Whatever. I suppose I have heard that. I have also heard the entire area talked about in more vague terms as though, people haven't thought about hexagrams on the undefined centres. 

Stefan bases a lot of what he says, explains a lot of his worldview. Via Evolutionary Psychology:

"Scarcity is where morals come from" - 5570 (But I don't have the time stamp for this one).

He also has the 41.5. I have seen someone else with the 41.1 who expresses evolutionary psychology themes fitting with those different lines. The 41.5. means that Stefan expresses this area in a way that it fits together in a framework that it is good and right that things do work in relation to evolutionary psychology. Whereas, when someone expresses these themes from the 41.1. It seems to be more that this is how it is and if it is chaos or negative. Well, we're just talking about what it is. 

This is an extremely strong and valid part of his chart. We do not know a great deal about his life really but, we can say that he deals with others in a positive manner and obviously those people have different definitions to him. He deals very regularly with his wife and daughter so both of those likely offer positive conditioning from their own defined hexagrams and centres. There are very likely other people he deals with as well.

So, we can see that his conscious moon is a fundamental part of his being, and the philosophy he expresses. But it is in an undefined centre. Lending credence to my theory that the Human Design represents what we are. But the perfect expression of what we are, is one that lives within a community of positive people. So every centre and as near as possible every hexagram is experienced!

Larger and personal ideas on this. 

I have had this theory for a long time. We are linked to our society. Our lives and higher selves have a plan. If we are in a negative environment. We have certain programming within ourselves. Based on what we want. So, some plan to be dominant in such a situation. And some refuse to make moral compromises, so they become paranoid and guarded. 

We then have 'neutral'. A mix of positive and negative, what we have today. In this situation, a lot of people are disconnected. Living alone. Or dysfunctional in some other manner. Our full chart can't really work. 

In a positive environment. We have enough positive connection with others. That many of our gifts can come out and flow more. As powerful as Stefan's philosophies are. They are very much built on Evolutionary Psychology. And without that foundation, he might not be able to put the rest of it together.

This might be the reason I can't seem to get back to music as well. I wrote a lot of good pieces of music when I first started working and there was a lot going on socially. I could just sit down and write, at least the beginning of, a piece of music, every time I practiced.

Conclusion.

This was a bit hazily put together. I have more that I am thinking about this whole area but cannot articulate yet. 

The problem with "boundaries".

This is the video for today:

Youtube: Julia Kristina Counselling: Boundaries for Beginners: How To Set and Keep Boundaries. April 26th 2021.

https://youtu.be/F6CJtIk457g?si=wQFohA_ocJ3A2mBF

Boundaries are the principle of psychology and obviously, likely, was made by extremely intelligent people and is a useful tool in a lot of peoples lives. 

In principle, say, with a person with narcissistic parents, or a young woman that everyone wants a piece of. I get boundaries. 

But have you noticed that people that use the term in real life are just giant dickheads? I have never seen it used properly, in my understanding, and most of the time I have seen it used. I have seen it used extremely badly. 

I think the first time I heard of the idea. It was from a woman that I was paying to do Reiki for. I brought up an issue I was having. One of bullying and harassment at work. And she told me the important thing here is to work on "boundaries". But then, when I was trying to look further into Reiki teachings. One of them, the first one perhaps. Was: Just for today, I will not anger.

My thinking was... That isn't this contradictory. Suppress your anger then set boundaries? Why not just get really angry at the person screwing you?

I don't need it in my own life. My father is dead. My mother is not an issue. A generally positive person. And I am a hermit. I just avoid people. The one or two friends I do meet every so often these are just not issues. 

Also, another issue I remember thinking over in relation to boundaries. Is that left wing and female culture is all about boundaries. But the second you step in a workplace the idea is almost a joke. They are all about everyone being a "family" and trying to get everyone to do unpaid overtime and massively emotionally invest in the staff there. And if you don't play ball. You are just fired. It seems ridiculous to talk about boundaries when there is real power at the other end of the discussion. 

I know for a fact some of these women talk about "boundaries" in their personal lives. While not applying it at work.

Abusing the principle.  

I was going to go through personal examples. They feel oddly personal though. So I guess I will do what everyone else does. Draw off a very few amount of personal examples and pretend I have enough knowledge to make larger generalisations. 

There are three ways I can think of this principle being abused.

One: Avoidance of conflict: 

A connection, a friendship or something closer. Relationship or something half way. Rather than having any sort of conversation about wanting the relationship to change. The person simply ghosts, stops communicating clearly, and then dismisses any attempt by the person to get clarity as to what has suddenly changed as "boundaries". I said I don't want to see you anymore so... 

Two: Hiding of dishonourable motives: 

Imagine, you are a high status individual, or a perceived high status individual. That has some sort of personal relationship with a low status individual. You cannot very much say that the other person is low status. Especially if you are surrounded by a social group that wouldn't approve (in theory. Of course, in some female in groups this is the norm. No one would admit to wanting to rid themselves of low status individuals. And everyone would persecute anyone who outwardly would do it. But they would all do it on the quiet).

So what are your options at this point? Well, you scrutinise carefully any communication and you declare some behaviour or other a violation of your "boundaries". Because then you are the victim and hence. You are exempt from criticism. If someone says "Yeah, you are a bit of a crappy human being" you just say "But so on so crossed my boundaries and did this horrible thing". 

Three: Free advertising. 

Stefan Molyneux talked about this once:

I think this was in relation to leftist censorship. 

As a principle for social ostracism in general. Say there are two friends. One of them is a leftist, and the other friend slaughters them in some sort of conversation or debate. Then, there is a need on behalf of the loser of that discussion to classify the other person as "trouble", without earning that. They were not able to earn it in debate as they backed away from the debate. 

Let's say the left wing person has a passionate desire to see anyone to the right of them as literal Nazi's. As some of the left do. One workable tactic is to then set "boundaries" in this situation. Because if a boundary is being set against said friend. Then they must be a terrible person, and hence, in no way correct about their political views, right?

The original video actually had the example of someone that discusses politics too much. To be clear. Where this differs from the given example. Is that in the video it was done directly. In this example. The person that wins the argument against the left wing individual is perfectly willing to not discuss politics. But they have to be labelled so "boundaries" comes into the equation. 

Societal change.

Notably here, and I think this is the point. The term 'boundaries' does not have any real moral meaning behind it. People take it to use it because it has a morality applied to it. If people do a certain behaviour in the real world. It really has to stand on its own.

Whatever relationship exists in the second example. If the low status person suddenly became very high status. Would the boundary still be relevant? Because if it would not. Then of course it was not a boundary. It was a manipulation.  

A lot of left wing people have socially ostracised right wing people such as in COVID. Years later, when the lockdowns are forgotten and the COVID narrative has lost credibility. Does the fact that there was a lockdown absolve the person doing the ostracism? 

In the world we live in it seems that consequence and accountability is somewhat rare. But if it were to happen. When it does happen perhaps, on a longer timeline. In my opinion. A majority of the people getting consequences for crappy manipulative behaviour will be those that talk about "boundaries" all the time.  

Charm and deception.

Aaron Abke did a video recently on the Law of One. In it he talked about the world situation with positive and negative super powerful entities engaging with each other indirectly via humanity. And said some specific things such as that since we are in Harvest time. We could still harvest as a planet negatively. Depending on how people respond to things such as disclosure. This was the response I put to him (since deleted, as it sat there with zero likes. I do this often if a comment sits on youtube with zero likes):

I felt your video was very well done. It is hard, in my opinion. With the Law of One. To actually understand it. And in order to understand it we often need to go to other things. Read other things to gain more context. I think. I liked how you made very clear that the chess analogy was your own addition. I thought the chicken analogy is good and may use it in the future.

A strict reading of the Law of One though, in my view. Posits that the harvest time already happened. 1981 + 30. 2011. Session 40.8 discusses that there will be a transition period of 100 - 700 years that is "variable on the volatility of your peoples" (not a direct quote). So we could be in a period where the harvest is done and the positive forces are just going through a kind of grand sorting process (A 'wheat and tares' process, so to speak) to transition out the third density. If this were the case we are no longer at risk of going full negative harvest. But are just being kind of "managed" into sanity.

There is another source that I believe is also from the same channel that discusses the birth of what sounds like fourth density entities (mostly deaf, mostly blind, and INCREDIBLY psychic to a level we could not understand! Once they are born they will ignore humanity in general and get on with their own stuff). In around February of 2027.

That all seems a bit off the wall and it is hard to straddle both things. This weird, metaphysical very crazy sounding stuff, with real life and grounded research. But there is precedent for it in the material.

This was the Law of One section I was quoting. At least half of it (The other half being the description of the harvest date as 2011, being "as regularised in its approach as the striking of a clock"):

Questioner: Then what will be the time of transition on this planet from third to fourth density?

Ra: I am Ra. This is difficult to estimate due to the uncharacteristic anomalies of this transition. There are at this space/time nexus beings incarnate which have begun fourth-density work. However, the third-density climate of planetary consciousness is retarding the process. At this particular nexus the possibility/probability vortices indicate somewhere between 100 and 700 of your years as transition period. This cannot be accurate due to the volatility of your peoples at this space/time.

Aaron Abke has ignored me previously. Even when going on the comments on his premiers or lives. To talk about forgiveness without contrition. He has never been challenged on that and is fully behind the pro abuse (in my view), pro perpetrator immunity perspective of forgiveness without contrition. 

These are all very feminine attitudes in my view. The idea of veganism. Forgiveness without contrition. And generally ignoring things that are "bad vibes", even if they are true; and liking all the blankly positive responses to a post. 

Dreams:

My dreams recently are so on point it feels like "cheating" in the great work. I am just being told directly the insights it seems. Since drinking water instead of no caffeine or sugar Pepsi Max. I have had almost nightly dreams where before I was sometimes missing one for several weeks. Often even. I am also earnestly attempting to do all the relevant spiritual things like prayer, meditation, reading the Law of One and interpreting previous dreams. (Working on previous dreams may have free will implications!)

But now dreams are laying out pretty directly relevant and practical insights into my life. I have written my dreams down for years. Since I was about 18 but before July of 2017, when I kept the diaries and the date I have interpreted from. I used to throw those diaries away! But most recently. I have started occasionally doing audio diaries of them. Which I find very useful in that I can immediately drop my interpretations in. 

I said two posts ago that I had had a dream that was so profound, that my perspective had been shifted. That I didn't want to talk about it because it could not be explained. I still do not think it can. But I do want to talk about it because it reflects into the perspective I am bringing in now.

Part of the dream then. Was that I was in a female body thinking (small, pasty, frail, hands!) and feeling as a woman. It was an interesting experience because the sense of anger I felt in this situation. If it can be called that. Was very different to the anger I feel in my waking life. The woman that I was in that dream, but even now don't want to closely associate with. Felt completely justified in acting out her emotion that one would think was anger from the behaviours (hitting things, shouting). But was more like emotional conviction. The anger I feel as a man in my waking life is like a thing that is separate from me. Like carrying a case of lead. Because there is so much of it, and it is so heavy and fierce, that it cannot be part of me too closely. It is connected but it is not "me". Whereas in this dream, it was just an extension of emotional conviction that was part and parcel of me. 

There are two things that I think this dream represents: One, it represents that the Law of One and psychic forces involved. It represents that there are things to consider in the world. Realities. That I am not aware of and will never truly be aware of. Perhaps I will get psychic feeling insights. Specifically, one of the things I was thinking before sleeping this night was about the golden age and theorising, that the reason this shift and mass arrests/ disclosure was taking so long is that it is not enough to have a golden age. The people that caused the damage have to be exposed and punished. I was thinking specifically of a lot of female bureaucratic types. This dream might suggest that there are other things that higher forces consider that might not go along with what I would understand as "accountability". The 'woman' in that dream, was not capable of dealing with a great deal in general. Even tiny movements effecting her reality would very powerfully effect her and put her in constant emotional torment.

The second point, is the negative. That first point is the positive. A Law of One insight. The second is the negative. I talked about how chocolate seems to subtly undermine me but not in a way I can actually properly logically justify. Always in a different, but significant, way. Leading to me not stopping it because I could not justify stopping it. I had it about five days in a row and this time it was a very psychological effect. I was happier but in a very youthful, ungrounded way. I was not able to go to the gym when I would have liked to. 

So this is a more negative thing being highlighted. Since I am not a woman and don't want to be a woman. And even though a female perspective with a lack of condemnation might have some value on its own. I do not want to be that. Perhaps the world will not do the "accountability" thing as I would like to see it done. But the effect of my own perspective, my own output, DOES want to bring accountability to bear. Because I am male. An entire day without chocolate/ caffeine has made me get back to what I was. To masculine thinking. But I am not all the way there yet.

Even in this blog I feel more emotional and chatty in general. It probably won't be until Communion on Sunday that I can fully shake this off. Also, I need to get to the gym. Very often experiences and small lessons like that seem timed to end when I do Communion. I felt specifically last week that Communion had made me spiritual in a masculine way, whereas the energy work I was doing previously seemed to make me spiritual in a feminine way.

The Male Perspective.

To this end this blog post is going to focus on those things more directly. First, just as background as to what I want to say. I want to put forward this video:

Youtube: Akkad Daily: A Guardianista Reflects on the Manosphere: October 16th 2026. Both date it was created and accessed on:

https://youtu.be/VyA_ajzgAAU?si=QbQTGKZe7cmKoZ3P

But this is the actual video I want to focus on. This video could easily get deleted. The woman here is likely to be impulsive in that manner. 

Youtube: Elise Michaels: Update2. Except I'm venting and turn into a soft David Goggins speech half the way through. October 13th 2026: 

https://youtu.be/ddBQiYONySw?si=7nR_dxSiflKzkDHn

I did question halfway through writing this whether I should continue with a modest 625 views on this video. But my blog is also very, very low views. Between 5 - 30, of probably a fundamentally spiritual leaning. But a big part of the point I am making here is that the cuteness, vulnerability and crying is not a reason to back off of critical thought in relation to people. 

So, this woman, is extremely attractive, cute and charming. She has the blond hair and whatnot. I would put her in the upper echelon of looks. 8 or above. She will have gone down a couple of points due to age. But she is very facially attractive in an unusual way. There is something very nourishing in general about this kind of honesty. 

However, this is a very surface thing. I said yesterday in one of my posts that sometimes there is positivity that does not effect us negatively at all. It does not condition us and I used the example of an emotionally defined woman that is a pleasure to be around. I was thinking then of a female friend I used to have. I used to go round her house and it was all just sweet and positive. She was easy to make smile. Vulnerable etc. And when I left I experienced no discomfort from this positive experience.

But this is not always the case in fact, and the female charm can, at times. Seem to only be positive. But actually it is conditioning you. And the way it is conditioning you, is to overlook the negative that is clearly there. I have recently had the insight that certain charming women in my life that I know are emotionally defined. The positivity and pleasure of their company was concealing the fact they were not particularly pleasant or loving. So when they seemed to suddenly go cold a few years later. This was not a sudden change, but the love had never been there.

Very annoying. I was going to talk in general about things I have seen from her videos over the years. I did not follow her seriously but have seen a bit of output sporadically. But I realise I need a certain amount of specificity to deal with this so I will watch the videos more fully to quote this. There is also this second video [here] that I will call the "two months" video when I quote it.

I realise I will have to start out with the "big guns". Because it is a hard sell to state that an attractive blond womans philosophies are flawed. It runs against the 'women are wonderful' effect. I won't build a case with background first. I will go straight to the part that is relevant to a Law of One quote.

I will just state though first. That without the background information I am going to include here. Her case does sound correct. People don't make up, or misperceive claims of abuse right? If she says her comment became abusive. Then they did? Isn't faith in God virtuous? Isn't she following a Christian path of a sort in a valid way?

Two months: 

5:40 And you feel far from God. Because you haven't succeeded, in what you thought was his promise.

 

6:17: I have a different calling in life. I have different dreams in life.

 

6:48: And bases your entire reality on faith and hope, and intuition. And so far, it's never done you wrong.

 

7:26: You feel like you failed. How could it be? How could it be that the promise I thought I was going to have is no more. 

 

15:50: I want to have a good life. I want to be rich. I want the yacht. I want the Mansion. Some people think that's very vapid or vain. Because they value different things. But, for me, it wasn't about having a family because I don't desire responsibility.  

(So that would be she desires honour without responsibility!) 

Update:

6:05: And God will give you that side quest. He will give you that mission. And it does get really hard.

 

7:25: To then what am I doing with my life? Is God still going to give me the promise?

The different things I am going to go into here are that this women has kind of defined herself as on Gods path. But we have not seen any evidence of virtue. She has said specifically that she was never inspired to have a family, and, as quoted, she wants a lot of money.

But is that Gods promise? That he will give you yachts and stuff? 

She also discusses things like wanting to create a new movement where people are not 'abusive' to each other. 

Two months:  

15:00: I think it's time for us to create a new world. I think it's time for us to start a movement.

 

15:45: I want to create a different world. Because I don't want the one where the bad guy wins.

17:00: I don't want people to say these poisonous things to each other. I don't like to hear them. I don't like people to say these mean things. It's poison, we don't need that. We can be the change we wish to see.

More on how movements need to be centered in virtue in a bit. But I suspect this 'abuse' is red pill talking points that are uncomfortable truths. But not necessarily abuse and what is expected with a certain amount of public exposure and honesty. A level of public transparency which I would never expose myself to. Which is why my youtube doesn't have my face on it. And this blog is pretty anonymous. When I drop my human design chart I don't even confide my age. And details of my personal life are not on my blog. I do confide some things such as about my spiritual path and health. But other than that very little is known about me I think. 

Anyway, here is the Law of One quote this brings to mind and why this annoyed me:

Questioner: Can you tell me what the Orion group did in order to try to cause his downfall?

Ra: I am Ra. We may describe in general what occurred. The technique was that of building upon other negatively oriented information. This information had been given by the one whom your peoples called “Yahweh.” This information involved many strictures upon behavior and promised power of the third-density, service-to-self nature. These two types of distortions were impressed upon those already oriented to think these thought-forms.

This eventually led to many challenges of the entity known as Jesus. It eventually led to one, sound vibration complex “Judas,” as you call this entity, who believed that it was doing the appropriate thing in bringing about or forcing upon the one you call Jesus the necessity for bringing in the third-density planetary power distortion of third-density rule over others.

This entity, Judas, felt that, if pushed into a corner, the entity you call Jesus would then be able to see the wisdom of using the power of intelligent infinity in order to rule others. The one you call Judas was mistaken in this estimation of the reaction of the entity, Jesus, whose teach/learning was not oriented towards this distortion. This resulted in the destruction of the bodily complex of the one known as Jesus to you.

I should state clearly here that I do not believe that the pursuing of power is a service to self characteristic. I have complex thoughts on this I am working through, and will likely formalise later. I do believe this might have been an error in llresearch's thinking as reflected in the Crucifixion of Esmerelda Sweetwater. I do not believe wealth and power are service to self. But I do believes the service to self focuses on these things more exclusively. 

But it starts in the first paragraph. Promised power of a third density service to self nature. I would think that would very likely come with Mansions and yachts. 

Onto the next point of this claimed "abuse". I want to note a point here of how people can leave out, or sometimes even not perceive, details, to create a narrative.  

Two months:

10 seconds: After I quit mens coaching. It was really hard. I had been doing mens coaching for six years. On every single platform. Facebook. Youtube. Instagram. Tik Tok. For a million followers across all platforms and I was expecting people to be sad or disappointed. I was not expecting the cruelty.

4:50: And it's very easy to come from a place of high morale when you have never had the opportunity to be corrupt. When you have never been put in between a rock and a hard place. When you've never been challenged in such a way that, it forces you to sell your soul.

8:17: You can't be a mess in the public eye… A million followers across social media is enough to have widespread judgement.

10:50: For a long time. After that experience with the mens coaching and with all those nasty comments and… with all my observations and getting sucked into red pill circles. It's really hard sometimes to remain good. Because you see so much abuse in the system. You see so much negative talk. You get told horrible things.

Digging through my memory is going to be hard because I did not pay attention to this woman a great deal. She said something interesting and is very pretty. So I added her. But soon enough I found out that she markets herself exclusively to very high wealth and status men. I think I watched one or two thinking that I might need to know some things to deal with those same sorts of guys. The traps they get in that makes them resentful and things. But it was not of use to me so I unsubscribed. But she still continued to come up on my instagram and youtube. 

This is a significant point. That she markets or considers herself "above" other people. It is another thing that is not supported by "God" necessarily. It may be. I cannot speak for God obviously. But there is also the possibility that the positive forces just will not have a part in guiding her to see herself as above others, if this does not serve her and the positive forces ultimately. 

It is one of many things that she has omitted that would perhaps limit any sympathy she is to gain when she says that she is in a bad place.  

Like I said, she is feminine and sweet. And when I saw her I did not categorise her as genius guide of men so much as a woman doing predictably woman things. As shown in the red pill. That's where I have learned a lot of things about women from because society itself certainly has no interest in teaching me things I need to know about them. 

There were a few funny videos that were then released. It was like she had reached the end of her tether. One was that she made a video crying that she had gotten into mens coaching desiring high status men. But she realised as she had been into it that career go getter women are not the kind of women those men are looking for. They are looking for house wives. 

Which is very classic red pill. It is a behaviour that annoys men. Women are very insistent that them having a career is desireable to men. It is not. But they won't hear it. Then later on, a few decades and no children in, they realise they were wrong. And this is extremely annoying to men. Because they were telling women this from day one. And the arrogance with which the women declared their girl boss status earlier continues to grate.

Another was a funny one where she said that she does not want to get to know her dates. But wants someone to arrive that is already married to her. It was also funny. But it reflects the mindset of a person that doesn't understand the transaction required. Life does not give you things. You engage in trade by offering value, until, you are very familiar with a person and then, someone can fall ill or something and the balance of the transaction can be one sided. But at the start, in a place of the more shallow relationship. It is almost purely transactional. (Conveniently) not seeing this transactional nature is another female mindset that annoys men.

I wonder with this statement:

6:48: And bases your entire reality on faith and hope, and intuition. And so far, it's never done you wrong.

Is the 'basing her reality on faith and hope'. Basically that men wanted to sleep with her so gave her resources (which with a suitably young and attractive woman they often do, a large amount of resources, without asking for sex!) But now she has aged a bit and is less likely to offer children, that they are no longer interested in doing that?

So all these "cruel" comments. Are they saying things like that high status men don't want a career woman? Are they saying things like you have aged out and can't have children? Harsh, but certainly not abuse. Abuse is statements of violence or that she should be 'intimately violated'. And, it is the internet. I would NEVER expose such an intimate detail of my life. If I did, it would probably have spiritual teaching implications. It would be carefully weighed. For Elise to expect no pushback on a public forum to behaviours that really annoy men. Is just... It is naive and childish. 

This is a big annoyance men have with women. Things that are annoying that they do that are called out. With reference to reality are reframed as "abuse". Maybe it is "abuse". But the term of "abuse" has specific connotations that these expressions are not the same thing as. They are not unjustified negative intentions.  

So what is the way?

Of the people I have really admired in my own life. That would be the llresearch people and Stefan Molyneux. A few others. They tend to produce a whole lot of information for free. They also very strongly provide services to the poor with no hope. The Law of One. Carla Rueckert are the kind of people that start movements like Elise casually mentioned she wanted to create. Serving the rich is not inspiring in that same kind of way. Serving the rich is exactly what it is... Serving the rich. It comes with money. But it does not come with a larger cultural response. Which any Christian should know. 

I also want to address this specifically on my own and others criticism of her.

4:50: And it's very easy to come from a place of high morale when you have never had the opportunity to be corrupt. When you have never been put in between a rock and a hard place. When you've never been challenged in such a way that, it forces you to sell your soul.

Pearl Davis talks about this. That she used to look at women that were getting offered Yacht stays in exchange for intimacy and think and talk against them but one day realised... She never got the offer to go on a yacht. She is not attractive enough and does not know what she would do if she had been born more attractive. Maybe she would be the same?

But OK, let's say that there are people in her comments that have never been tempted to... sell their bodies? Prostitution? No, men do not get that offer as often. But a lot of men who do not get that offer tolerate well the difficulty that those women are rejecting. A lot of women make compromises for money. They don't want to live in a small town with their parents without any money. 

And a lot of men simply live with their parents without any money. The word "force" in this line, is doing a lot of work. And it is creating a subtle hypothetical that I do not know is true. And think is often specifically misrepresented strategically. 

Also, a lot of prostitutes do settle down in the end. And become useful members of society. So the implied lack of virtue isn't necessarily correct either.  

No family. 

The last thing I want to mention here is that she has said specifically that she does not want a family. OK, but back to our transactional model. What are you offering then? The miracle of creating a whole human being with your body. Is it Gods will that a person is given that and rejects it? It is yet another thing that just doesn't really make any sense. 

What it sounds like happened was that she knows she is very attractive. Couldn't get a high status man that she was coaching and doesn't want to settle. Which, OK. Perhaps you would make your husbands and childrens lives miserable by settling or you just can't do it. But the path she is talking about walking now is one in which God has given her things for... some reason. I don't know why. But without any particular humility you want to start a movement. Without providing obvious value you want to gain loads of money and be seen with respect. And preaching the non children lifestyle because she failed to secure the kind of guy she wanted. 

She could, of course, be doing exactly what God wanted her to do. She could be service to others. Carla Rueckert, after all, never had kids. The moral issues I see here could be in error. 

But these are the practical issues I see with her platform. I am using this as an example of how all the charm and sweetness and beauty might just be promoting something that is not particularly useful, and influencing us into its orbit; and it is something to be aware of.  

The perfection including dysfunction as found in the human design. 3rd and Final Part.

So here we are then. 

My incarnation cross:

33.6 Disassociation.

The ability to let go. Exaltation. The will to concentrate on revitalisation and not be handicapped by persistent recriminations. The ability to let go, to enjoy privacy. 

19.6: The Recluse.

The avoidance of contact in general but not exclusively. Exaltation: The avoidance of contact in general but not exclusively. The fool on the hill. The sage that if you can find him, will talk to you. The energy which generally fuels avoidance. Detriment: The sulking child. The self imposed exile that will only end when it attracts appropriate and soothing reaction. Oversensitivity to rejection that fuels avoidance. 

2.2 Genius

Unconscious and unlearnable alignment of stimulus and response. The natural. Exaltation: The inner strength to focus and realise. A natural gift for unlearnable knowing. Detriment. Genius as madness. Knowledge exclusively for power for the enhancement of the ego. The delusion that knowledge is power. 

1.2 Love is light.

Exaltation; Venus exalted as a symbol of beauty. The required harmony between established values and ideals that enriches inspiration. Self expression conditioned by ideals and values. Detriment: Desires and passions have their place but not at the expense of creation. Self expression limited by desires and passions.

1.2 is the only one that is not a blue line. I did not include the detriment on 33.6 because I have it in exaltation. 19.6, even from Ra Uru Hu's explanation as far as I understand it. Is not massively different between the exaltation and detriment. 

I have shown my chart a lot of times recently (a cropped version without planetary placements!) I am also referencing the experiences that I talked about in a blog four posts ago now. Where I talked about Master and Slave morality and reflecting on those. But to do so I used a lot of my personal experience to draw off. To say, this is the substance I am working with and this is how it is seen through Master and Slave morality. I will come back to Master and Slave morality in this blog. 

Back to the 51-25 and defined G Self. 

The post describes bullying and difficulty communicating with women. It also references things like social ostracism. 

In my view. You can see this very easily in my chart. But I think the way it flows could use more explanation.

Firstly, as I stated, I have the gate 51.1 in detriment. This means that I am able to absorb a certain amount of trauma. At least this was how Ra Uru Hu described it having his conscious moon there. The trauma I experience is from my medical condition, and then from that, from that and other weaknesses I have; I then get bad social experiences. Like social ostracism and other types of bullying (kind of sexual in at least one instance), that then also become part of the 51.1.

This, combined with my incarnation cross and chart in general. Means that I start becoming more spiritual. This kind of catalyst is how I found the Law of One in the first place. If young me had gotten a girlfriend I was happy with, around 14-15, and a larger social group. Then I may never have looked at the Law of One. Never have found David Wilcock. 

This creates a difficulty with the collective. Namely, I come to conclusions that are not part of the hive mind or as the human design would call it, "the homogenised viewpoint". Things to do with politics/ conspiracy or just things I have experienced. My belief that I am protected via spirituality (so a lack of fear). My interest in spirituality itself. My general intellectualised takes that annoy (and perhaps diminishes) people that haven't thought about things that much. My bad habits as a side effect of my medical condition etc. 

I have a full channel from the gate 51. So the gate 51 travels to the gate 25 and then, it defines the G- self. Which means that, through this specific wisdom, through this flow and connection of two parts of myself. I then become sure of my identity. The channel comes first before the definition in my understanding. Technically, even though it is perhaps unneccessarily precise. I wonder if a centre defined through a different channel is kind of a difference centre. So my 51-25 is a different defined G as a person with the 14-2.

So, we have a defined G, and a defined G without a route to the throat. Meaning it is projected, or as I prefer to call it. It is an 'information centre' so it is binded by free will. When something is binded by free will the second someone doesn't particularly like you and wishes to minimise you. It loses its voice. It is not an energy centre to the throat which can express itself regardless. This is, in my view, part of the mechanic why love is so important. 

But a point I am trying to get to, through all the tangents I evidently keep going on. Is that, I do not believe that once we have a defined centre it is perfect. The defined centre motivates us to improve it through increased knowledge and experience. So my G- Self, as it was, needed further tuning. The "you have wisdom that traumatises others from the gate 51-25 so now you are socially ostracised", is not the end of the process. Now, we have an entire defined centre. So what do we do with it?

It is very much a 'chicken and the egg problem'. What came first, the spirituality and individual viewpoints? Or the social ostracism that these relate to and often seem to be motivated by? But in real life, a lot of these things happen concurrently. Or at least, we are not capable of going back to our childhoods to identify cause and effect that precisely. 

Anyway. This is Stefan Molyneux. He has a G- self which feeds from the Sacral and into the throat. So it is effectively one that can still continue to operate if people try to shut it down. It seems to me strongly that his 14-2 channel reflects his "capitalist" leaning. Although I don't see capitalism as a thing, as though socialism was its equal. I see "capitalism" as simply the way things are when they are not interfered with by malevolence. Capitalism is just trade. But my point is the right leaning element of his platform can be seen here. 

Anyway, unwell and socially ostracised me then finds someone like Stefan Molyneux. A lot of his philosophy is G- self based (As is every point on his incarnation cross). Then, this is used to tune my existing G- Self. Which then further enforces the social ostracism of the original experiences. All that I learned from Stefan Molyneux as well, still has the 51-25 within it. 

Bringing it together. 

So, here's much chart, without planets:

 

I noted my incarnation cross because it is relevant I think. The gate 19.6 is indeed very sensitive and it experiences in the life, the themes of approach and rejection. You might say that with this chart, whether or not I approach a girl (or job or whatever) is likely to become a theme. The office bullying I described was very much hammering on that gate 19. And the experiences I have had being rejected for jobs for years on end would not help it either. It is on an undefined centre. So it is not strongly held or pathologically energised/ angry. But it is there, and, to my mind, with a broken economy and DEI. It is not receiving a lot of "good" catalyst.

It is the only hexagram within my incarnation cross on an undefined centre though. I tend to think, casually, as a hypothesis; that undefined centres are handed over to the world in general. They are not specifically bad. They are conditioned negatively in our world because our world is kind of negative. If we were in a more positive world. The conditioning would be positive, and not an issue.  

If I meet an emotionally defined woman that is just a joy to be around. It effectively provides positive catalyst to that open solar plexus.  

So, in a more positive world that gate 19 and the 'approach' would be felt more positively by me. Rather than simply as more justification to withdraw. 

The gates in my own chart are not the only ones that discuss solitude as a positive either!

But where we have gone here goes back to master and slave morality. As my chart sits, the bad experiences get handled by philosophy. At what point should moral violations be let go of? At what point should revenge be taken and what form should that take? What principles do bad experiences help us to understand. This centre is also, obviously, a potential aspect in my own song writing. Where my own chart invites the information out via the 21-45.

I hope this is not too complicated! 

But the master morality way of handling things. The way I would handle them when I have prayed, eaten properly, journalled and whatever else. is the 21-45. It is meant to be the first way of handling things. And it is far, far more ruthless than anything coming out of the 51-25. But expressed through wisdom. Expressed through what is the relevance of transactional thinking in relationships. And other similar principles. the 21-45 is about providing value and gaining power through that. 

Anyway, hope that all made sense and added to peoples understanding of the human design.