Lila9

I see. This is a very positive characteristic of yours. What do you think about someone so intelligent that you simply can't understand their thought process or what they are speaking about at all? I know that IQ is not the only measure of intelligence, but what if you talked to someone whose overall intelligence gap between you and them was like the gap between someone with an IQ of 70 and 170? Or 70 and 700? Their concepts and view of life would be so alien that you might start to think they are the stupid ones. Sometimes humans project stupidity (as well as insanity) onto those they simply do not understand. Ok, you mentioned your autism, and it explains a lot. You describe a common issue among autistic and neurodivergent people overall. The thing is that most people are focused on emotions in their interpersonal communication and on feeling good, bonded, and emotionally validated, which also often includes having their biases go unquestioned. Most people do not tend to see conversation with others as an opportunity for a good intellectual discussion (especially in this anti-intellectual age), but rather as something more casual and cathartic. Not that this is ideal, especially in institutions or environments where you would expect more intelligence and integrity, so in that regard I understand your frustration. The tendency you describe, of people to project is unfortunately inescapable.

I think that if you feel that people may not have the intellectual, emotional, and psychological basis to understand you, it is better to talk to them at their level or not to talk to them at all. Because most people don't like to feel unknowledgeable, stupid or incompetent. Even if it is technically true in some aspects. Talking to people with tact, at their level, to not make them feel uncomfortable is also a form of intelligence, social/emotional intelligence (and also self protection). It is also depends on the person and yourself. If they are open to truth, thinking, conversing, and learning, and trust your intelligence and that you will not judge them for their lack of knowledge, then this is another thing. Question: If you meet a stranger which is a very intelligent alien dressed as a human, who is so advanced in all measures of intelligence (but you don't know it), had a conversation with you that made you feel very stupid and incompetent, literally deconstructing your entire worldview and perception of reality and pointing out all the flaws in it, in a very smooth, natural, casual and elegant way, would you enjoy this conversation? Would you be defensive, fascinated, or confused? How would you react to and treat this stranger? With kindness, curiosity and an open heart, or with some anger and impatience?

Definitely. Looking outward too much is a distraction.

Creating a society/system that values truth and intelligence and teaches its children from childhood. This is possible. Of course, it is difficult because the elites don't want it, since it is easier to control foolish and ignorant people who are fragmented and separated from nature, from their ancestors' ancient wisdom, from their bodies, from their intuition, from themselves.

This is what happens when society is focused merely on efficiency and masculine values while repressing the feminine. If the main goal is efficiency, everything will become this seamless gray slop because real individuality, creativity, beauty, and authenticity cause too much friction and are harder to control (by those who seek power). This is the time to switch to more balanced values and welcome the divine feminine.

I think that the mix of love with resources is not natural. The new clear family unit is a patriarchal idea and is something that is not sustainable, not for love between a couple and not for raising mentally healthy children. This is why all those options you listed are flawed. The best structure for humans is a community in which all the needs are shared and provided by various people, because one person can't give everything to another person. Even if two people share the financial burden equally, there is no real equality because the woman pays a bigger price for giving birth to children. This is not realistic. Ideally, money and love should be separated.

Which is?

Why are you asking?

By kindness, compassion, and generosity. See who needs help, how you can contribute, and how to get out of yourself. Think about where you can volunteer, who you can help, and how you can improve someone's life. If we all thought like this, it would reduce unnecessary suffering in the world by 90%.

Yes, this is why I don't get along with most men. They expect the women around them to be insecure, pleasing, constantly happy, play dumb, and be attuned to their needs, responsible, while at the same time also playing damsels in distress so the men feel stronger and his soft ego will not shatter in pieces. This is not only contradictory, but literally a humiliation ritual, which I am obviously not willing to participate in. Especially while men socialized to be such cruel assholes which shitty NPC boring personality. This is why I had to break up with the men I dated because of all those implicit expectations, which are not in line with my true self. The more I spiritually evolve, self-actualize, connect to my intuition, and become more in tune with myself, the less convenient I become to men or women who are still stuck in the patriarchal paradigm. And I am happy about it. I love being a free-spirited woman, and I love making people who hate women angry and bewildered.

Yes, hopefully we will be alive to see it. I don't know if those ideas have been officially adopted yet by any political movement. They are borrowed from the ways humans organized themselves prior to the rise of patriarchy. I believe that as we develop our consciousness as a species, our society will naturally evolve (and, more accurately, return) into a more matriarchal/egalitarian structure because at our nature we are matriarchal/egalitarian species. This will start gradually from the bottom up. As women get more education and become wealthier, thanks to the freedom reclaimed by feminism (freedom is our birthright🥹) while men are still behind, pulling back toward oppressive traditional gender roles and supporting patriarchal, capitalistic, and fascist oppressive regimes, this will radicalize women even more and deepen the split between the genders. As a result, more women will deconstruct patriarchy and avoid patriarchal men and women. They will build their own safe communities based on the repressed divine feminine values (life, creativity, care, compassion, community, ritual, authenticity, gift economy etc) with a great spiritual and non dogmatic reclamation, in which women do everything (including using guns for protection from outsiders, doing science, arts and everything they are interested in with their unique non patriarchal perspective), and gradually they will accept safe men who have deconstructed patriarchy and built clans and families. As time goes by, more women will join those communities until many or the majority of them are there. Those communities will reproduce and support healthy, nurtured, and loved children, while the rest of the patriarchal system will starve from a lack of children because of a lack of women or because people are too old there to reproduce, until the old patriarchal, individualistic, and capitalistic structure collapses. It may take a century, two or a few but it is the future. This or fatal death and destruction because of patriarchy, capitalism, materialism and neoliberalism which are interconnected.

Male higher suicide rate (which occured even before feminism and women rights, as per the study mentioned in the video), feminicde, rape culture, greedy and selfish billionaires, inequality, environmental crisis, manosphere, they all have one main reason: patriarchy. This is not a gender war. This is a conflict between values. Life and death.

Sure, good leadership depends on the level of consciousness. As of today, women tend to be more conscious in that regard. They often care more about human issues and think more about the group and people other than themselves, which many men lack. Men can also develop it, but this clashes with patriarchal expectations of men, and usually this sort of more selfless thinking is punished in men, usually by other men. Ironically, it creates men who are bad, impulsive and selfish leaders. However, the modern feminist definition of matriarchy is not women ruling, but the acknowledgment of motherhood as a beginning and matriarchy as a care-centered society, as I mentioned. It is actually reclaiming the divine feminine which has been repressed and demonized in the last thousands of years. Without this, there is no healthy and thriving civilization, only destruction and death. I just wanted to add a note that there is data showing better leadership skills in women, and that it is more likely that in an egalitarian (matriarchal, care-centered, and life-supporting) society, there will be more good women leaders as a result of natural distribution rather than by force, not that there will be no good men leaders at all. I think that it helps women who are good at leading fulfill their life purposes while helping other people, while also relieving some of the pressure men feel to always be leaders. Many men are not built for it and do not like it. You can see it in the many fathers who leave their families or are afraid of the responsibility. Of course, when it comes to romance, it is different. Men are more likely to be the suitors because this is something that both men and women enjoy. There may be biological reasons for it as well.

She was brutally abused as a child. She knew male hatred and abuse her entire life. No love. So many women are living like that quietly, poor women, women of color, women in third-world countries, the most invisible women. The fact that they punished her by ending her life so easily shows how biased and misogynistic the system is. She deserved healing and recovery. Pedophiles and serial killers were treated better than her.

Egalitarian societies are naturally more feminine societies in which motherhood has significant value, as it naturally should. They are societies centered around care and nurture, which is what motherhood is about. In such a society, men are protectors rather than abusers, which is the real purpose of masculinity. The purpose of masculinity is to support life, not to destroy it. It benefits everyone rather than a minority of people whom everyone strives or is forced to imitate. The patriarchal definition of matriarchy is incorrect and is a projection. Feminists don’t want to do to men what they did to women for thousands of years, even though they are understandably angry about it. The purpose is to do what is both best and most natural for human social structure, and there are real anthropological data that support it. In an egalitarian/matriarchal society, leadership is given to those who are most suitable, regardless of gender, rather than taken. Since, according to some data, women are better leaders by many measures, especially older women, there will naturally be more women leaders in an egalitarian society. Some believe that in the human species, women living longer after menopause, especially longer than men, implies that older women have a significant role in society, particularly in leadership. Usually, men don’t enjoy leading roles or taking accountability as much. Of course, they may enjoy the benefits of power, the glory, and the identity associated with it, but they may not like to hold accountability or be responsible. Many men prefer to be useful, feel needed, and follow instructions rather than hold accountability and carry the mental and emotional load of managing and leading, even if they are not comfortable admitting it. Of course, there are many men who are great in leadership, especially as they mature, but this is not something that all men biologically and automatically have. Most of the leaders in the world are men and they are very selfish and do lots of mistakes. There are barely one man I can call a true leader or at least see in him the same leadership qualities I have seen in my grandmother for example. For most of human history, society was sustained by the behind-the-scenes, quiet leadership and management skills of women, especially older women, which were barely recognized as more patriarchal structures arose.

I heard that children by the age of 3–4 often experience hallucinations. I think that this may be because the ego hasn't formed yet, so the connection between this world and the other world is still very open. When I was 3 or 4, I remember talking to beings that were not physically there. I don't know if it was just childish imagination or if I saw someone or felt entities. I remember that someone told me that when they were a child, there was a green human always in their room watching them and their sibling, and they thought this was normal until one day it disappeared. Later they realized how abnormal this experience was.

@No1Here2c Maybe those dreams were glimpses of memories from past lives. Not necessarily as a human.

Billionaires Are Airheads That’s why they are such poor leaders. That’s why material abundance doesn’t necessarily equal spiritual or intellectual abundance. F them.

Yes, but only if “more sober” means more insane. There is a link between creativity and insanity.

OMG 🥹

1. The dog breeding industry is a real, corrupt evil, and people need to stop buying dogs and adopt them instead. There are tons of dogs in shelters, good and healthy dogs, but people still buy dogs for crazy amounts of money just because of their breed. I used to volunteer in a dog shelter, and the number of dogs there compared to the number of people willing to adopt them is huge. Many, or most, dogs in these shelters are killed by humans for no reason, only because some selfish people want a pure breed. 2. Dogs are not suited for the city or for the modern lifestyle. Many of them are alone and bored at home while their humans are working. This is horrible. They need fresh air, space to run, attention, and love. 3. People treat their dogs like children. This is natural because dogs and cats are childlike in some ways. They are vulnerable and fully dependent on humans for survival, like a human child in their early years. As long as they do not abuse the animals or cause them discomfort, I don’t see a problem with it. Dogs and cats are a source of love, and the attachment is often mutual. 4. The phenomenon of people walking their large and potentially dangerous dogs in crowded areas without a leash is not okay because it can be frightening for children, small dogs, or people who have a phobia. I have a phobia of unfamiliar, big, and potentially dangerous dogs, even though I have two dogs myself, so I don’t want to imagine what other children or people with dog phobia may feel. 5. On the other hand, there are people who simply don’t like dogs or even hate them, and they can make life miserable for dog owners and their dogs. Some of them can be very violent, to the extent that they may cause harm or even poison a dog. I understand that barking can be annoying to some people, but for some dogs this is their natural instinct, and they bark more than others even if their needs are met. My dogs which were adopted and are mixed with a guard breed that barks excessively (the other mixes are unknown), and I have nothing to do with that. I can ask them to stop, and they will, but I can’t completely prevent their random barking when they feel alert, which some people simply don’t understand. 6. Most people shouldn’t have dogs (or animals) for the same reason many of them shouldn’t have kids.

First of all, no one should have kids only because they receive benefits for it. Society needs to be reconstructed in a way that, first of all, the basic needs of all humans are met and are protected by law, such as food, shelter, healthcare, education, and being in a community. The space also needs to be constructed in such a way that it is friendly for communities to gather, walk, and exist. Unlike the modern structure of many cities, which is built for cars and consumption. This is not science fiction and is technically possible to do. Secondly, society shouldn't push anyone to be a parent, especially not women. For thousands of years, motherhood and marriage have been tied to womanhood and worth. There shouldn't be social pressure on women to have a partner or give birth. But if someone wants to be a parent, they should receive the help they need from the government and the community: basic education, shelter, food, and basic needs for their children. The idea that children are individual possessions is a patriarchal idea. Children belong to everybody, and society is responsible for providing for children so that they grow up and become good adults who contribute to and move society forward. Patriarchal people need to realize that while there are some biological differences between men and women and gender roles can help with order, they are not fixed, and both sexes can and historically have done both roles. People are more complex and nuanced than the black-and-white version of patriarchy.

May 15, 2026. I opened a new journal. I write about all that wants to be written through me.

I’m fascinated by black holes. I imagine or I heard a theory about aliens knowing how to use them for travel and for energy. I hope to be alive when there are some major discoveries about them. I painted one with gouache last year. I put it on my sacred altar. It reminds me of the greatness, vastness, the mystery, and the horror of the universe.

She is the real deal. Here is her Substack article debunking misunderstandings about matriarchy: https://lettersfromayoungmatriarch.substack.com/p/its-not-women-rule