Emerald

I'm curious as to what motivates you at such a young age to take the course. I think I probably would have been into it at that age... but I don't know if I would have been able to really get the benefit that the course is intended for. I know that's the last thing a 12-14 year old wants to hear. So, I don't want to take the wind out of your sails. It would definitely be an adventure in self exploration. But what do you hope to get out of the course? And why do you say you need serious help? As far as money goes, you can make that amount of money online fairly easy if you have some skills or services you can offer... or things you can sell. Or do you draw well? Or do you know about some very specific thing like coin collecting or gaming? Basically, look at your skillsets that you already have and see if there's any way to make money with them. Or you can do something more in your local community like dog walking, car washes, lemonade stands, etc. But you'd pretty much have to do something entrepreneurial because you might be too young to work for someone where you live because of child labor laws.

Maybe you sense an incongruence in interest. I hate it when a guy likes me and I don't like him back, then you have to let him down gently. And then, if they don't take no for an answer, it's also uncomfortable. So, maybe you just don't like the women who have chased you very much and don't have feelings for them. Or, if you think it would happen with anyone, even if you did have feelings for them, it could be a sign of avoidant attachment. Or you have a belief in your mind that "high quality women" are unattainable to you, so if one shows interest in you then you automatically go to the conclusion, "If they like me, then they must not be a "high quality woman"."

So, the most basic advice initial attraction advice is to look your best and be personable and available. Also, be fun, easy-going, and open. But this won't keep a guy around as there are many many women that can provide these same benefits. So, this is important for the initial attraction phase and will generally help during the relationship on the easy-going/openminded/personable level. But the looks and fun and flash don't keep a man around. What you need is to develop your personality and be an awesome person to be around. Be your very best. Don't look for "the one", be "the one." And men who resonate with you and are mature enough to desire a deep connection, who value depth over excitement, will find you and will want to hold onto you. But you have to give them something that they can't get anywhere else... and relying on looks is a losing battle in this regard. You have to develop your personality. So, exalt yourself. Become a queen of your wheelhouse, and the right men will fight for you. But when you exalt yourself, do it for the joy of growing yourself and expressing your creative energy. It's this energy that will attract the right men. But the expression of that energy is not for the sake of that. Just be refreshing. Be the light and the moths will come to you.

Flat Earthers (and most conspiracy theorists) are basically people who are iconoclasts and rebels against the status quo, who want to rebel for the sake of rebellion. And there is this idea of, "I know better. I'm not a sheeple." So, I would put them as unhealthy expressions of Orange/Green, who are in deep resistance to the Blue aspects of society. They don't want to be engaged in the group-think of Blue so much that they resist any kind of mainstream interpretation of things. So, they go, "What if the world is actually flat?" and "All you (Blue) sheeple are being manipulated by the man and taking their word for granted... but if the world is round then why doesn't the water flow off of it... huh? Stupid sheeple. Open your eyes!!!"

A person is an infinite well of potential for exploration. Right now, you're likely interacting in the same patterns that you're used to interacting in. So, in order to awaken the passion, you need to break new ground exploration-wise relative to yourself and your partner. So, the idea is to make a deep connection on the level of soul and grow together. That's what keeps things from getting stale. Now, the limerance phase is over. So, you're unlikely to feel that crushy and hot feeling in the beginning in the relationship again. But the feelings of love and the ability to explore your partner happen on a different level. I also recommend tantra, especially for deepening the sexual connection.

With a dream, there is no aspect or character in the dream that isn't yourself. So, if you aren't nice to people in the dream then you're choosing not to be nice to yourself. Would that really make any sense when you likely desire others to be nice to you? And do you really have such complete clarity to identify the mean things done to you as coming from yourself just messing around?

It gives you access to a supportive community of vulnerable men with low self esteem to obsess about women with, and a toxic ideology that couples with it to feel a sense of bittersweet empowerment. So, that instead of facing one's own self-hatred and taking personal responsibility, they can transmute all that self-hatred into the form anger and hatred toward women as a whole group. And it gives you a circular track to go around and around and around with those feelings again and again, never feeling relief from the self-hatred but feeling a temporary scratching of that itch through scapegoating and demonizing women. And doing that over and over and over again until you wise up. I'd say it's best to seek a higher quality support group... if you can find one. That's really the reason why MGTOW exists. Because a lot of men feel the way you do, but don't have a healthy outlet to get support or help for it. So, they find shadowy groups like MGTOW and Incels and all the Red Pill jazz. But do detach yourself from women for a while. Not in the door-slamming, melodramatic teenager style of saying "I'm never talking to you again!" to their parents and then checking back in a moment to see who noticed and how they're reacting in hopes that they'll beg them to come out, kind of way. But in just an 'I'm working on myself' kind of way. And seek to develop yourself and work on your shadow.

One thing to do is to look toward the body to show if you're attracted to women in a genuine way. If you are you will feel physically aroused by women in a sexual way and you will get that crushy feeling toward particular women. But if it's just something happening on the level of the mind, like thinking you'll have safe companionship if you date a woman in the future, then it may be just as a protection mechanism to stay safe while staying safe. So, does this attraction occur through fantasy about what could be or is it something that's more in the moment on the level of the body.

Be careful not to take the societal script around masculinity and femininity as being what they actually are. Masculinity and femininity are subtle energies that imbue all people but are also expressionless in and of themselves. It's just that they inform many expressions, and people collectively notice these energies at play and make thereabout judgment calls about how the energy is being expressed in a given activity. So, let's take make-up for example, we relate makeup in our society to women and we can perhaps sense a feminine energy around the activity of wearing makeup. But in a different society makeup may be considered masculine by people picking up masculine energy around the activity. So, don't feel limited in your actions about what's masculine or feminine. And don't try to be masculine... simply try to be as you are and your natural energies will come out more as opposed to being stunted by the ideas of what masculinity entails. And you need to look no further than what you naturally gravitate toward, to find your authentic masculine/feminine signature.

@Shin Thank you for recommending out my video. This may be the one you were thinking of...

Let's get more at the core of why you're asking as opposed to what you're asking because that's a lot more important. I feel the reason why you ask is because you are insecure about some possibility relative to your inquiry. So, you're looking for confirmation of a certain outcome, and to avoid another outcome that you're afraid of. And this can be sliced in several directions. So, ask yourself these questions... What would it mean to you if you empirically discovered that men were definitively better leaders than women, in an undisputed way? How would that make you feel? What would it mean to you if you empirically discovered that women were definitively better leaders than men, in an undisputed way? How would that make you feel? What would it mean to you if there were a 50/50 split in leadership potential between men and women? How would that make you feel? What would it mean to you if there were no definitive answer to that questions? How would it make you feel? Look for the which of these possibilities above that temporarily relieve your anxiety/insecurity, and look for the possibilities above that cause you anxiety and amplify insecurities you have. Some potential feelings that I could imagine from a male standpoint are these... You feel anxiety at the idea that men being inherently better leaders than women because you've had a modern/feminist viewpoint and this if option number one were true, it would call those ideas into question causing you a lot of cognitive dissonance. It would also potentially make you feel like you need to conform more to the traditional masculine role to be accepted, which may or may not resonate with you. You have taken for granted your entire life that option number one is true and that men are indeed better leaders. But you are beginning to question and get insecure about that sense of male supremacy. So, any other option than option number one makes you question male surpremacy and your own value and position in the pecking order that you have in your mind relative to the value of men compared to women. Option number two is especially scary because it makes you feel like you're in the one-down position that you've assumed women were in. You want to be a leader yourself, and you'd like to fall back on your maleness as confirmation of your own capacity to lead to feel more self assured based in the folk wisdom that men are leaders. But your doubts about male supremacy relative to leadership is making you doubt your own capacity to lead, because your maleness is the only thing that makes you feel like you could/should lead others. So, this is fundamentally a feeling like you don't have anything to offer and maleness being the only asset you have toward leadership and being afraid of having that bargaining chip taken away because that's all you feel that you have. You are swallowing all the internet manly man culture and trying to be more masculine to attract women and to feel more worthwhile and are trying to empower yourself through a fetishization of masculinity. And part of that fetishization of masculinity is to frame it as the ability to lead and dominate. And your doubts about your own masculinity and leadership potential are making you question what's actually true. Like do I have hidden leadership potential because I'm male that I just haven't realized yet? Or is this idea that men have more leadership potential actually false, and I don't actually have leadership potential? Am I just not a leader and I'm in the lower ranks of men? Or maybe women and men are equal and I don't have any advantage... You don't want to be a leader. But you've heard that men who are worthwhile are inherent leaders. So, you feel a bit like you have to be a leader even though you don't really want to be or believe that you can be. So, you're looking for information about women being equal in leadership to men to debunk the idea that valuable men are leaders, so you don't have to potentially see confirmation as to your own lack of worth because you are not really a leader but you are male and feel the need to prove your worth in relation to these ideas of maleness that come from places like the manosphere and general folk ideas about what makes a man a man. These are just a few potentials that came to my mind in seeing your question and feeling the nervous energy of it. If you want clarity and to resolve your insecurity, you must be brutally honest with yourself about how you feel about yourself, about leadership, about men, about women, about your beliefs about gender, etc. When you're doing shadow work (which is what you need), you must not be politically correct with your own view of your internal landscape. You must look at what you actually believe and assume, even if it paints you in a light that you don't like to be seen in. And only then, can you unravel your insecurity about your maleness/masculinity and your ability to lead. And ultimately, the point here is to eventually discover what you really want and why you want it?

It depends on what you want and what you're capable of in terms of connection and receptivity. I would say that if you're in a position where you're not ready to make a soul-deep connection with someone, a LTR will probably be more work than what it's worth. But if you and a partner are both attuned to one-another and are on the same page and trying to grow consciously together, then a LTR is really excellent for that. You can't get that depth of connection over the short term. But the problem is that people don't see that they're just trying to get their partner to behave in a certain way they project them to or think they should. So, they only ever interact with their projection onto that person. So, there is no connection to be had. And this gets felt more and more as the relationship matures. Also, women's libido dropping comes more from not knowing how to get a woman in the mood and there not being a very deep connection. So, basically a lack of communication, intimacy, and emotional variety in sex and the time leading up to sex. This integral after the first few months of a relationship... or the girl won't be aroused. The newness of the connection will be enough at first, but afterward the intimacy needs to push much deeper.

This is just more mental gymnastics to blind yourself to what would otherwise be obvious. Just start to notice who he's "tough" on and who he's "easy" on. And it will be really clear that there are no parallels in this analogy between Trump and a Nazi protester.

Again. You are straw manning me. I said that I support common sense immigration policy, yet you act as though I'm all pie in the sky and advocating for open borders with no regulations. At this juncture in history, we still need these delineations for practical purposes. The problem is when people dehumanize others simply because they come from a place on the opposite side of those imaginary lines. Instead of simply thinking of the border as a practical delineation for immigration regulation, they think of it as some existential line carved by God himself that delineates the desirables from the undesirables. And this attitude is clearly reflected in the Trump administration's treatment of immigration policy, including but not limited to the policy of separating children from their families at the border. But yes. Leading with love and compassion is going to be the best solution in any case. And I say so, not from a place of naivete but from a place of having experienced struggle. It's often easiest to judge what we don't understand from the outside. But if we've been down and out, we can start to relate to others who are also struggling as opposed to judging and demonizing them and superimposing the image of the criminal onto an entire group of men, women, and children. Now, there will always be criminals in every group. There is no getting around that. But the good news is that, among the immigrant population, they are statistically less likely to commit crimes than native born citizens. And this is specifically because they want to stay here and lay low. The last thing they want is the attention of police. So, all the "they're bringing crime" talk is just using a falsehood and fear-mongering to justify shooting flies with a cannon and perpetuating cruel and dehumanizing treatment against immigrants. And it's also meant to make people react with fear and disgust and think of immigrants coming into the country like they're a bunch of criminals that are going to infest our country and ruin everything... And it appears that that rhetoric has worked on you.

Consider perhaps that murdering you might be for the greater good. Are you going to accept the workings of the universe and be as calm as you are and accept your fate with the level of detachment you have now if you're the one on the chopping block? My guess is, probably not. You would probably kick and beg and scream for mercy... as would I. You have a vested interest emotionally in keeping yourself alive and free from pain and suffering just as all other beings do. And if you were really aware, you would also have a vested interest in reducing suffering for others as an extension of yourself without engaging in mental gymnastics by guessing at the long-term effects of a good deed versus a bad deed and engaging in apologism relative to corrupt and unethical behavior. With this logic, you might as well Greenlight genocide or cutting every 10th person's head off, because perhaps (maybe could be kind of) it eventually leads to a better future some time down the line. Now, recognize that all the people who would suffer under this thought process are also yourself (because they are). Does it makes sense to you from that perspective to intellectually and spiritually bypass your natural human compassion and the obviousness of certain actions being harmonious and others more discordant. And to refrain from advocating for things that are obviously more conducive to well-being and against things that obviously cause sufferign. So, we can apologize for all those that don't care and behave in Machiavellian ways and create suffering all we want on the basis that "perhaps they're contributing to the greater good in ways we don't recognize." And while this may be true, it's not a very good bet to make relative to our own behavior. And it's also not a good bet to make relative to what we should and shouldn't stand for in our society, as this has real consequences that effect primarily people who are more vulnerable than you are. And if you end up on the chopping block, all that intellectual/spiritual bypassing you're engaged in won't mean diddly squat as you call out for mercy and some random person on the forum muses and armchair philosophizes about it being the best thing perhaps not to fight against it because maybe your death would save so many others. It's very unwise to always reach for top shelf spiritual truths when approaching a situation on the relative level. So, we can't use the top-shelf spiritual truths like "Everything is perfect" and "We never actually know what's good or bad in the long run" and "There's no such thing as good and bad", to invalidate relative and practical truths like "Bad things are bad." and "Good things are good".

Number one, the children didn't choose to go on the journey. And the parents (many of them seeking asylum) didn't know that they'd be separated from their children. Most come in seeking a better life. And it isn't even classified as a serious offense. So, it's cruel and unusual for that level of offense. Imagine taking children away from parents because the parent jaywalked. So, it's a very cruel thing to separate children from their parents in that situation. Some of the kids were even toddlers and couldn't process what was going on. But you act like I'm advocating for open borders when I'm criticizing a very barbaric policy that's unnecessarily caused a lot of trauma. So, don't behave as though this policy is just reflective of the president, border patrol, and ICE "doing their jobs". This is clearly over-reaching. We need common sense immigration policy. We don't need to inject cruelty or stupidity into the mix to get things done.

I already said that Obama was called the deporter in chief and that he bombed a bunch of civilians in Yemen. I'm no Obama apologist. If your defense of Trump's policy is "So what... a liberal did it too." then that's a piss-poor defense. The fact of the matter is that it's wrong to separate children from their parents at the border. So, even if they moved them to better facilities later on, it still is a very traumatic experience for them. Also, several children have died since being taken into custody. So, I'm very suspicious about the conditions they are living in. Stop apologizing for corrupt politicians.

This is well-known that the Trump administration separated children from their families and kept them detained in enclosures that are basically larger dog kennels. Here is a video...

Again... could you say that if YOU were currently a starving African child from where you are now consciously? If you were starving would you really be saying, "There is no me. So, there is no me staving." If you couldn't feel that truth from the standpoint of being a starving child, then you're not actually in touch with the Truth yourself. Your mind just thinks it understands and congratulates itself on being the wiser one. And attaching to these truths in this way is just spiritual bypassing and using top shelf truths to gloss over relative truths. So, consider that you don't actually know what's true, and that you're just clinging to canned intellectualized spiritual insights that make the world seem less scary to you and to feel like you know and have more control and expertise. And realize that bringing up higher truths in the midst of a lower truth conversation is an inappropriate paradigm to enter into... especially when there are real stakes on the relative level.

It was a rhetorical "I don't understand". The reason why is because he's playing partisan politics with this issues by saying... "So... a liberal did it too." But they're not connecting to the reality of the matter. They're just seeing it within the "left/right" dichotomy instead of the "benevolent/malevolent" dichotomy.

Yeah. They called Obama the deporter in chief. Not to mention, Obama bombed a bunch of civilians in Yemen. So, I don't even understand why you'd bring up Obama's destructive behavior to justify/excuse Trump's destructive behavior.

If you can say that from the perspective of a child living in a cage on the Mexican border who hasn't seen their parents in a year-and-a-half then more power to you. But if you are unable to do that, then check your self-deception and spiritual bypassing.

I agree. Which is why I believe Trump's diplomacy/denuclearization bids are naive at best. Either that or they're for show. Or potentially some other fuckery and trying to add another dictator to the collection. Though I don't really know if NK has anything to offer.

I don't know if this was a response to what I said. But it does actually matter to KJU if Trump is trustworthy, even if Trump will only be in there for a limited amount of time. If he sees that Trump is staging a coup in Venezuela and knows that the U.S. does a ton of regime change wars all the time, then he genuinely has something to fear. Now, I don't know if NK actually has any resources Trump/America would be interested in, but if I were in KJU's position I would be reticent to negotiate denuclearization with a world superpower that's well-known for their wars and picking on smaller countries. But if I were a dictator like KJU, I would also be a bit excited that Trump/America came to me. Like I said before, the U.S. backs like 70% of the world's dictatorships and even supplies weapons to them. If KJU thinks these negotiations could lead to something like that that, then he'd certainly be very interested in Trump.

A Centrist Democrat is basically center right. Centrist Democrats are still Blue/Orange even if they pay lip service to social issues (which Trump definitely doesn't do because he's not supportive of lgbt issues, women's issues, poc issues, or any of that..., so he's nowhere near even a Centrist Democrat by those standards). Trump does, however, do a lot of fake populism that makes him seem like he's gunning for the average white American working/middle class person. But he sees through on none of it. His interests are corporate interests and the interests of the billionaire class because he belongs to both of these groups. But he said all kinds of blatant lies like "Coal's coming back" and "I'm not going to outsource jobs" to get poor whites in the Rustbelt and elsewhere to vote for him. As far as mainstream American politics goes, you only really start tiptoeing into Green territory with Justice Democrats who are actively supporting progressive platforms for the good of the people and not just big corporate interests who can afford to buy the government. These are platforms like Medicare for All, a living wage, The Green New Deal, free college, getting money out of politics, and GENUINELY addressing income inequality. Most Democrats and ALL Republicans basically work for big corporations who line their pockets so that they can do the shady business deals they want. So, the standard politician on both sides either play to the social issues that left-leaning or right-leaning folks care about. So, a Democrat past 2010 would pay lip service to marriage equality, once they knew enough people in the base were on board. And a Republican would pay lip-service to pro-life legislation. But neither of these politicians actually care about that enough to upset their cash cows. They'll vote right along with whatever legislation that their donors support. So, they are deeply entrenched in Blue/Orange because Blue/Orange is their bread and butter. Trump is definitely Blue/Orange. No question about it. So is our system. So, is Neoliberal Centrism.