Emerald

Did you ever feel like you had to stand out in some way to get your parents' approval or attention? One possible reason is that there's a part of you that's still operating off of a belief that you must differentiate yourself and "niche market" yourself to others to get them to notice. Does this resonate with you or not so much?

I hope the guardrails of our institutions hold because they are being stress-tested right now. But I see it as a nonzero chance of an authoritarian takeover from these tech billionaires... which even if it's a 1% chance, it's too much. And my most recent medicine journey makes me concerned that it will come to fruition. It was showing me the macrocosmic service that dictatorship/authoritarianism serves in the collective evolution of humanity. And I really understood it in that experience that, despite its problems, dictatorship and authoritarianism was imposing limits on people that they unconsciously desire. It's like a child that wants total freedom... but desperately needs a parent to come in and impose limits. And my experience was about choosing and desiring limitation despite a strong curiosity drive to seek unlimited knowing that has been present for me since I was a small child. I had to keep affirming over and over "I'm choosing to be limited!" to create a barrier between my finite human consciousness and the consciousness of God. It was like having to cut my consciousness away from the infinite, and it was a really painful labor-like process. So now, I'm concerned that my journey is a reflection of a collective desire (including my individual desire) for limitation... and that the call is being answered by these top-down authoritarian dynamics. And now that there are these tech people who aspire towards authoritarian power taking big steps towards that end, I can't help but wonder if my journey was showing me a premonition of what is to come and insights to help me understand and accept why dictatorship is necessary for humanity at this time. That is my fear. And I know I won't accept the limitation I asked for if it comes in that form.

What's important to understand is that coming into alignment with unconditional love means accepting, loving, and holding space for all pairs of opposites. When it comes to Truth... it includes both truth and illusion, which are the Yang and Yin of Truth. And so, if we reject illusion, it actually takes us further away from Truth because we're being dualistic and rejecting the wholeness of these two sides of the coin. And it keeps us down in the lower expressions of both poles. I find that people who polarize into truth-seeking and attempting to transcend the human smallness often just repress these parts of themselves... creating a sharp split within themselves. And their Shadow leads them into lower expressions of the illusion like hedonism, pettiness, smallness, and other negative expressions of the illusion. So, it's counter-intuitive... but if you want to come into alignment with Truth... embrace the illusion fully.

It's not paranoia. Though I understand that it might be a more comforting notion that I'm just being paranoid. I've been correct about the rise in Fascism since 2015... and I'm correct about the situation with these tech billionaires now. Do you not know that Elon Musk and a sizable percentage of tech billionaires are trying to actively undermine democracy? My recommendation is to look into Curtis Yarvin, Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, and others in the tech space that want to upend the current social order and replace it with corporate fiefdoms. It's pretty clear that that's what they're attempting... and they've said as much. So, it's not paranoia to point out something that's (at the very least) being openly attempted by Elon Musk. I don't know if they will succeed, but my medicine journey from last March makes me think that they will. And if I didn't see a direct correlation to the current situation with Elon Musk, I wouldn't be making that connection with my medicine journey. At first, I thought it might be reflective of someone like Putin that it would be more reflective of... since the figure looked more like Putin than like Musk. 10 months ago when I had that journey, I just thought it was making a point about limitation and the general function of dictatorship in the collective... and why dictatorship happens. It was just another insight in my journey. But as more and more dictatorial dynamics are arising from tech billionaires, it makes me ponder if the medicine journey was showing me a sign of something to come in order to help me understand why these collective dynamics arise.

I'm definitely worried about it. And I've been worried about Fascism since around 2015... though I didn't think it would go exactly this way. I thought it would be more like old school Nazis... and there are elements of that. The plan from these tech billionaires is to create little corporate fiefdoms where there is an oligarch ruling as king/dictator over a patch of different territories. And it would be this Big Brother-esque kind of situation where everyone in that territory is under the control of that oligarch. The idea that they (Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, Curtis Yarvin, etc.) hold is that democracy has failed and that corporate dictatorship is necessary. Like, if Stage Blue Fascism was Nazis... Stage Orange Fascism is this kind of hegemonic corporatist oligarchy dictatorship. And it's really clear to me the Elon is seeing the Trump presidency as a way to erode the American system enough to become the dictator. He's also trying to do it with other governments. I suspect his goal is to be dictator to all of humanity. In my most recent Ayahuasca journey, the medicine showed me this image that was a neon contour line drawing on a black background... that looked like a mixture between Elon Musk and Vladimir Putin very large standing in front of a neon contour line drawing of the United States. And it was clear to me that it was depicting a dictator that had taken control of America. And it was showing me that the function of dictatorship is to impose limits on people when they don't limit themselves from a place of personal sovereignty. So, I keep going back to that image... and I suspect that it means that their plans will succeed. So, I'm concerned about it.

I'm sure that Leo definitely isn't a billionaire... but certainly a single digit millionaire. But he could have been socializing during that time, here and there... even if he wasn't putting a strong emphasis on it and was consciously thinking of himself as a loner. Just like how he was talking about enjoying living a solitary life on his blog, while also having a very large audience and engaged forum to share his experiences with... and spending a lot of time on the forum socializing. But he may not consciously value socializing. So, he may be finding rationales for why this, that, or the other social experiences don't count as socializing. Funny enough, the times where I thought of myself as a loner were actually the times when I had the most connection. I was just introverted... but also surrounded by people that I know and existing within communal systems (like school and work) where I was frequently interacting with others. So, I could afford to have the belief because my solitude was an illusion. When I was truly alone to where, if I went missing, no one would have known for weeks... that was when I stopped being able to tell myself that I'm a loner. I really felt what it was like to feel totally alone in the universe. I suspect most people who identify as loners have not experienced solitude in the extreme.

@Something Funny 100% Connection and socializing are really important for mental health. And we can't truly actualize our potential without it.

Then, why did I spend so much time in the shower when I was a teenager?

I see. These types of fears can come up in cases where we deal with negative experiences with dating... or even just in general. I just wanted to emphasize that, even if it feels true that women won't love you, that it's not true. And as a woman, I'm 100% sure that there are zero men in existence who would be romantically rejected by every woman.

The number one thing you can do is to interact with many women platonically just like you do with men. This will remove the mystique. But you may benefit from looking into integrating your own Feminine side. The more a man pushes away his Feminine side, the more he will project negative powerful images onto women as a group. And it leads to this love/hate pedestalization of women, where there is a disgust towards women but also this intense craving and feeling of women having power over you. Look into Anima possession. Here's a video about how to integrate your Feminine side...

From my perspective, this seems like an obvious statement. Of course there will be women out there who will love you. What gives you the impression that women won't love you?

That definitely works too... in similar ways to the double entendre because it's a sudden piercing revelation of sexual intention. With the double entendre, it reveals it in ways that have plausible deniability but still sends a clear message. But with something more direct, it's like building up a bunch of sexual tension first... and then just making one straightforward statement of desire that shifts the entire dynamic to something more erotic. The way that the woman experiences both of these dynamics (when they're well-done) is like being struck suddenly by intense excitement (like shot of adrenaline) followed a moment later by a swooning feeling that leads to deeper levels of relaxation. But the sexual tension has to be built up the right way and the statement of desire or double entendre said at the right time to create that sudden shift.

Obviously he's worse than an idiot. He actually knows what he's doing and is choosing to do what enriched him and brought him more power. But $100 million for a political donation is absolutely massive. Though I'm sure he'd do the same for less money as well. But he was basically doing an open pay for play. And Miriam Adelson was his third highest donor... while Elon Musk was his top donor. But Salman can't possibly give him $1 trillion. There are no trillionaires on the planet, yet. Here's a list of all of Trump's top donors... https://www.opensecrets.org/2024-presidential-race/donald-trump/contributors?id=N00023864

He got a $100 million in donations from Miriam Adelson when he was running for office. And she's a major Zionist. So, that money was given to him as a tit for tat... like "I spend $100 million to get you elected, and you clear out Gaza and the West Bank." But he's also just furthering the pre-existing US geopolitical agendas that were the initial reason for the US allying with and supplying weapons to Israel in the first place.

There are some really extreme Vegans that believe that pets are inherently slaves and who believe that pets shouldn't exist at all. And because domesticated animals like dogs rely on humans for survival and feral cats create issues for local wildlife, some of them even advocate for euthanasia for all cats and dogs. It's even rumored that that's why PETA mostly has kill shelters for rescues.... because the founder of PETA is very anti-pet for the reasons that you mentioned. So, be careful about the perspectives you're advocating for. But definitionally, pets are not slaves.... unless they're service dogs or something. A slave is one who works without compensation. And if you aren't making your animals do work, then they are not slaves. And that's true, even if the human being is getting value from having a pet around. They certainly are captive though, and there is certainly a major power imbalance inherent in that relationship. But there's also a symbiotic relationship between pets and their handlers if the relationship is a good one. Like our cat boys are super lovey dovey with us and seem (to my limited perception) pretty content. Have you ever had a pet before?

You're welcome!

To me personally, it only really has the desired effect if double entendres are very subtle and not too explicitly sexual... but that communicate a very deep sexual urge. Otherwise it just feels like corny neutral sexy banter that can happen in longterm relationships and doesn't quite hit the same emotional chord. Like the milkshakes and protein thing are kind of corny and reminds me of what my high school boyfriend would say when he was in the mood. He used to refer to certain sexual acts as having some cake (before cake was used as synonymous with sexual things). So, it didn't really have that emotional impact. It was just neutral corny sexual banter.... which is fine. But it doesn't really create any sexual tension. That requires some mystery and subtlety. It's hard to give an example because it's very in the moment and context-dependent. But I'll try. Let's say that there's a man and a woman who are out on a date. And the woman is showing signs that she's feeling him and that she's making some hints about wanting to go to his place. And then the guy says something like "Sure, I wouldn't mind taking you home." or "Sure, I'd love to take you home." in a way where his body language and voice clearly but subtly communicate a sexual intention. It communicates something sexual but it leaves a lot to the imagination. And it gives the woman that sharp sudden emotional reminder about his animalistic side that's hidden behind the gentlemanly politeness of the statement. But that takes a lot of skill. It's a bit like comedic timing. You can tell corny jokes and never get a laugh. But the right words spoken at the right time can produce an intense amount of delight. The main thing is being able to strike the right emotional chord at the right time.

Double entendres are good. But only if they're not super explicit as it kills the mystery. The facial one was too much and just cheesy, and feels too contrived. So, it's doesn't have the kind of plausible deniability that creates the tension.

What I'm saying is not that there won't be bloody conflicts in these transitions. I'm sure there will be. What I'm saying is that I hope there won't be quite as much violence towards civilians as in times past.... like with the dynamic you mentioned of tribes merging by murdering all the men, raping all the women, and abducting all the children. And a big part of that is the laws and international organizations created during Stage Orange. My hope is that the transition from Orange to Green will spare civilian populations moreso than in times past.

I have some advice. (and this is advice for an actual sexual encounter or the seduction leading up to a sexual encounter... not for phone sex or something like that where there's a long back and forth of sexy talk). The first bit of advice is to keep it in the moment. Don't come up with lines beforehand. I'm generalizing here, but the thing that turns most women on the most is being desired. So, you want to vocalize your desire in the moment and avoid being too "in the mind" about it. The second bit of advice is to not try too hard. With dirty talk, less is more. Just a few words said at the right moment will strike the right chord. If you want to maximize sexual tension, say only a little and only rarely and unpredictably. It creates mystery and anticipation. The third bit of advice is to make statements of desire.... or statements of desire mixed with a dirty/sweet compliment... or just a dirty/sweet compliment. It could be something as simple as "Your body is so soft" or "You're so beautiful, you make me wanna _____" or "Just looking at your body makes me wanna ____". or even a simple command like "C'mere." As long as it comes through as an authentic read of the desire you're feeling in the moment, it will strike a chord and create an intense peak of emotional excitement for her. So, the best thing you can do in this situation is to make your feelings of desire show in your words (here and there) but even moreso in your facial expressions and body language. And the more you seem like you're fighting a losing battle with your desire, the better.

I'm not disagreeing with you. You seem to be under the impression that I am. I was just telling you that I was responding "Haha" to @Basman and responding to his funny Family guy meme about teachers. I agree that all workers should unionize. What I was saying to you earlier is that some white collar jobs do have unions. I was a teacher in the past. And when I was, I considered joining the union.

Yeah, my mistake for not watching the video nor fact-checking the claim.

I know you're not joking. I was responding to the Family Guy meme that @Basman posted above.

The way that the post was written and by the way that people were responding to it, it sounded like Poland was allowing border guards to open fire on any immigrants attempting to come into the country. And in my opinion, any reasonable person would be against that. But if it's just allowing the border guards to use lethal force if they are genuinely threatened it is fine. I have no issue with self-defense.

Haha. True.