Session 28 June 2025

[Kika]

It seems to me, Serendipity, from many of your posts throughout the Forum, that you are pretty much anti-female. You seem to have quite a bit of animosity towards women. You also seem to have the tendency to think that everything you think is correct. You don't seem to question your thinking even after several people have pointed out the errors in your thinking. There are books in the Recommended Reading list thread that cover how we have thinking errors and also many books on 4th Way principles.

You may want to start focusing your time on learning about how what we think is not always correct and how to overcome the predator's mind. Or not, it's up to you.

I think we've gotten a "picture" of what Princess Lux had to deal with.

It's off topic, but it was too much for me.

 

[Serendipity]

It seems to me, Serendipity, from many of your posts throughout the Forum, that you are pretty much anti-female. You seem to have quite a bit of animosity towards women. You also seem to have the tendency to think that everything you think is correct. You don't seem to question your thinking even after several people have pointed out the errors in your thinking. There are books in the Recommended Reading list thread that cover how we have thinking errors and also many books on 4th Way principles.

You may want to start focusing your time on learning about how what we think is not always correct and how to overcome the predator's mind. Or not, it's up to you.

Nope I'm pro male and female and pro life. Women want strong men. Anti women and anti life ideologies want weak men and they aim to achieve that by taking away the power from men and by cheating/hijacking the natural order of things, giving it to women or to anyone else who shouts 'I'm oppressed by life' the loudest. It's politically correct ideologies that are usually anti life and anti reality. But thank you for your reply though. We all should check and update our thinking always and be open for absorbing new bits of information from the objective reality. We all have much more yet to learn indeed.

 

[Serendipity]

Well it looks to me that you haven't really understood the difference between STS and STO. It would be worth investigating (in my opinion). Once you see that, then there (might) be a significant leap in understanding. But it is just my opinion.

I can confidently argue that neither have you. First of all we are all STS here. That should be a baseline and the objective reality fact of each of us simply being here in this STS 3D reality in the first place (remember that Cs said the same). Ignoring or trying to overcome that is not paying attention to reality. I've dealt with people who think of themselves as STO or the similar concepts, and often times those people are lying to themselves the most.
The first step towards knowing yourself and inner freedom is being mercilessly honest and true with yourself and applying the same approach to reality/life around you and people around you. In short live by truth at all cost, and the "you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free" idea, which is very difficult to live by in practice. And we all can do better in that area, myself included.

 

[SOTTREADER]

Patriarchy works just fine. Best structure we have had (in the current world and current level of people) that actually worked. And it's a natural result of the free market of life of both feminine and masculine exchanges on the market. If that makes sense.

@Serendipity so you've seen all iterations of possible societies and cultures, past and present and concluded the above? Or are you just proclaiming the above based on the narrow view you have, that you think constitutes all reality?

You speak in absolute terms about things you can't possibly know... no one can.

Patriarchy/ matriarchy what does it matter if we are still under the 4D STS yoke, and are nothing but food, to suffer so that they may be nourished?

Men's actions are directed by women.

Absolute statements are open to challenge. For example, quite a few men are directed by ambition, call to power, talent and such things.

Saying the actions of all men are directed by women is erhmm just not correct. You think Putin is having his actions directed by women for example?

I think what you meant to say is men, at a certain points in their life, or at a certain age, will come under the influence of "women" and will direct their efforts accordingly, to not only provide something for themselves but to also provide for someone else i.e. a woman or be attractive to the feminine. It may also be that a woman is able to make a man better at what he does or give him direction through her influence.

It's still not correct to say men are directed by women... Men are directed by many things, and things can change as a man goes through his life. There are many influences that act upon a person. Women are also directed by men FYI. We are all directed by each other, as well as our goals, ambitions, talents and inclinations etc.

Women want/reward dominant and controlling and masculine and strong men. You can even say that women want patriarchichal men.

I think you are mixing things up. What exactly do you mean by controlling and patriarchal? Do you mean men who are within their masculine energy and are able to take charge when needed, admit when they don't know, be virtuous etc or do you mean men who are abusive?

Best to be clear with what you mean when you speak absolutely, on behalf of all men.

Reading your posts about this subject, it's kind of all over the place. You certainly say things that are right, but you also say things that are wrong - it's all jumbled in together that put together, it's a bit sour to the taste. There's a charge in your tone that indicates there's something deeper going on behind your words, and you appear to be inviting confrontation.

 

[Weontv]

Definitely not surprising that "libtards" existed in the past. Whatever ideology they are currently using to channel their pathology is irrelevant. This is a big part of pattern recognition imo. The foundation for this behavior is the STS mind. I think if people are observing, say for example, Weimar Germany and they look at the modern day libtard, they might differentiate these groups or these ideologies.. when in reality they are not differentiated at all.. and you can apply that to any society in our history. I do see more and more people noticing though.

The situation in Europe boils my blood. I can barely stomach reading about anything coming out of Europe at this point.. the migrants are basically just allowed to roam around doing whatever they want while being provided for by their victims. Truly sickening. I really hope these politicians get their karmic retribution. There are already examples of people organizing and pushing back against the fake refugee invasion in places like Northern Ireland, maybe that kind of thing spreads.

Canada isn't far off in that regard. Carney is going to and already is destroying this country, and we are already getting our dose of "multiculturalism" with massive influx's of gang activity, exploitation/fraud and rape, etc.

'Patriarchy' is a product of life 'a.k.a.' women. Saying patriarchy is bad is not even understanding what it truly is and thus it's not seeing reality objectively.

I dont think we have ever lived in a Patriarchy and never will.

Patriarchy would mean a peasant man has power over an elite woman, which simply has never been the case. Our hierarchial nature is rooted in the STS mind, and thus our societies manifest as hierarchial structures. A small group of elites have power concentrated to them and enslave the rest.. this has pretty much been the blueprint for every society.. I would even think that this kind of hierarchial structure was prominent before the lizards started directly influencing us.

People can romanticize about the past as much as they want, but as we have and are learning.. these sorts of issues have existed time and time again because the human has always been a distorted 3D STS being, add OP's in to the mix and I can pretty much guarantee we have never had a harmonious society.. Even during the boomer decades, which is probably our best example of what a "good life" was, you had a plethora of issues and injustices being committed.

I don't think people falling naturally in to gender roles has anything to do with a "patriarchy". Traditionally, a man may be making decisions that lead the family to X, but hes doing so with the consultation of his partner.. the most ideal configuration is a total harmony between the two people, which would obviously mean respect/trust/compassion/etc at the foundation. This "power" dynamic is just another example of STS thinking, imo. I dont want "power" over anyone, the idea makes me uncomfortable. Even in this transcript you had an example of how the pendulum swung too far one way, towards a matarichial society, and the result was the mass slaughter of men, the proliferation of agriculture, which probably still has consequences stemming in to today.. Balance really seems to be the answer for so many things.

The Ra transcripts cover this material pretty heavily. When either a man or women want to be dominated, the energy skips the heart or a blockage is formed. In a totally harmonious situation, the connection you formed with someone would chain itself up your energy centers, hitting the heart, and in rare cases going even higher to the other centers. The fact that you think women "want to be dominated" by "patriarchal" men is another example of the fact that we are STS and this desire is an extention of that. Heartless "love" being the result.

The energy behind manifestation is what I think is vital here. Everything is just a result of universal forces. It sounds to me like you are indeed desiring to control and dominate someone, or maybe that becuase you think thats what women want, its what you are trying to emulate.. Either way, painting that brush on everyone is nonsense.

 

[Serendipity]

@Serendipity so you've seen all iterations of possible societies and cultures, past and present and concluded the above? Or are you just proclaiming the above based on the narrow view you have, that you think constitutes all reality?

You speak in absolute terms about things you can't possibly know... no one can.

Patriarchy/ matriarchy what does it matter if we are still under the 4D STS yoke, and are nothing but food, to suffer so that they may be nourished?



Absolute statements are open to challenge. For example, quite a few men are directed by ambition, call to power, talent and such things.

Saying the actions of all men are directed by women is erhmm just not correct. You think Putin is having his actions directed by women for example?

I think what you meant to say is men, at a certain points in their life, or at a certain age, will come under the influence of "women" and will direct their efforts accordingly, to not only provide something for themselves but to also provide for someone else i.e. a woman or be attractive to the feminine. It may also be that a woman is able to make a man better at what he does or give him direction through her influence.

It's still not correct to say men are directed by women... Men are directed by many things, and things can change as a man goes through his life. There are many influences that act upon a person. Women are also directed by men FYI. We are all directed by each other, as well as our goals, ambitions, talents and inclinations etc.



I think you are mixing things up. What exactly do you mean by controlling and patriarchal? Do you mean men who are within their masculine energy and are able to take charge when needed, admit when they don't know, be virtuous etc or do you mean men who are abusive?

Best to be clear with what you mean when you speak absolutely, on behalf of all men.

Reading your posts about this subject, it's kind of all over the place. You certainly say things that are right, but you also say things that are wrong - it's all jumbled in together that put together, it's a bit sour to the taste. There's a charge in your tone that indicates there's something deeper going on behind your words, and you appear to be inviting confrontation.

Yes well said thank you. I wasn't as clear with my thoughts as I could have and there was some generalization and also some statements I meant in general. Of course there is a spectrum of differences through each of the two genders. I admit my tone was a bit confrontational.

You are becoming rude and insulting, which suggests that you are emotionally invested in this "sacred cow" belief that patriarchy is good and that men should have power over women. Such emotional investment to the point of lashing out is never a sign of objectivity.

None of what you said as far as analyzing the disastrous effect of extreme feminism is new to me or anyone else here. It has all been discussed repeatedly for many years, for example in this thread. As I said, what you and many others see as the "good times" around the 1950's was not even patriarchy, but more balance between the genders. That is what I see as a more natural state of being.

The devil is often in the details and what you call 'nitpicking' is actually looking at those details.

Yes perhaps I was a bit rude and insulting in response to what I perceived as covert attempt of the same from your part. But if I was wrong about that I apologize to you.

To see the absurdity of your claim that "power should be with men", do you think that this group should be led by a man instead of Laura?

No no haha. That's mixing apples and oranges and maybe a sly attempt of 'low kick' on your part.
When I say patriarchy I mean natural power structures at all scales of society, that I argue naturally arise by the free market of life, of male and female interactions that are based on each of their unique preferences, or simply that women by their nature 'motivate'/''direct' men to take charge and be in control and be the ones in power and that they don't want to be the ones in power, not in the real full sense of it, which includes the responsibility that comes with being the one in power. But enough on that topic already. It seems some people are irritated by the idea that it's natural that in general men have power and that women themselves select for such men and that then translates to the structures at levels above the couple/family unit in the society.

You can't compare this forum and other communities here that are led by Laura to the world in general. Simply because this community consists of people who are on a much higher level of awareness compared to common people and who have desire to work on themselves and live by truth. And because Laura is not an ordinary woman. That's why it's apples and oranges.
And Laura is one of or likely even the person that I have the most respect out of all the people I met in my life (online and irl alike), because I admire and understand (to best of my ability) her love for truth and her bravery to go into the unknown and face the darkness in the quest for truth, and (I believe) we have that in common.

 

[whitecoast]

Our hierarchial nature is rooted in the STS mind, and thus our societies manifest as hierarchial structures.

I’m busy sure what you mean by our hierarchical nature, but I remembered the Cs said the archaic institution of slavery was developed to guide people newer to 3D existence to make better life choices

And I think the statistics bear that out. IQ is a poor predictor for outcomes on the right trail end of the bell curve, but it is a great predictor for the left tail. Once your IQ falls below a certain threshold, you end up with better life outcomes if your freedom is limited in certain ways.

R.G. Collingwood said as much in his work The New Leviathan, where Societies are contrasted with Communities. The former is a product of consciousness, while the latter is a natural engendering of our proximal organic and cultural and genetic influences. The former governs the latter, if the latter are to have any competent body politic which can bear security, abundance, and quality of life.

 

[SOTTREADER]

When I say patriarchy I mean natural power structures at all scales of society, that I argue naturally arise by the free market of life, of male and female interactions that are based on each of their unique preferences, or simply that women by their nature 'motivate'/''direct' men to take charge and be in control and be the ones in power and that they don't want to be the ones in power, not in the real full sense of it, which includes the responsibility that comes with being the one in power.

You know, I certainly don't disagree in a general sense. In the sense that on average men have bodies that are stronger than female bodies which puts men in a better position to physically protect and provide, if providing means doing something that is physically taxing or dangerous. Males are also provided with a life force that is more aggressive and inclined to "overcoming" compared to females so this together with a stronger body would to a great degree come to define "natural" gender roles.

It really makes you think about what "power" means. I think you take it to mean strength and brute force but I think power can mean many things - "soft" power can be deadly.

Remember, you won't get far in the world with brute force alone.

 

[whitecoast]

I’m busy sure what you mean by

This should be “I’m not sure.”

 

[cassandra]

Has anyone seen this yet? Niall got a mention on the Jimmy Dore Show (!), re Epstein's account still being active, further evidence showing that he may indeed still be alive. Jimmy quoted Niall, who wrote that $12 million had been transferred from Epstein's estate to an offshore account., which had been previously set up. Payments had been made for such things as cable-TV bills and phone services on his many properties. A lawyer claimed that this was a mistake. Apologies if this has been already posted:

 

[jebediah]

Thanks for sharing. Mindblowing... Condolences to msante.

 

[Mrs. Peel]

Has anyone seen this yet? Niall got a mention on the Jimmy Dore Show

We were flipping YouTube video and just caught that on Jimmy Dore but I missed where the info came from!

 

[axj]

It is clear that male-female relations is an emotionally charged topic for many.

A big part of it seems to be due to 'divide and conquer' manipulation aimed at creating division between men and women in general in order to weaken humanity.

Being against the extreme feminist anti-male agenda does not mean that men should adopt anti-female beliefs or blame women in general. Falling for that is basically to go along with the manipulation and division.

Regarding an example of a societal model that seemed to work better than what came before or after, I agree that the 1950s in the West seemed more balanced overall. Ironically, both the feminists and the anti-feminists think that the 1950s were a patriarchy. In my view, it wasn't, though that is certainly debatable.

 

[Ricardo]

Regarding an example of a societal model that seemed to work better than what came before or after, I agree that the 1950s in the West seemed more balanced overall. Ironically, both the feminists and the anti-feminists think that the 1950s were a patriarchy. In my view, it wasn't, though that is certainly debatable.

Still a prison for both human genders at any rate regardless. fwiiw /blah

 

[SOTTREADER]

Regarding an example of a societal model that seemed to work better than what came before or after, I agree that the 1950s in the West seemed more balanced overall. Ironically, both the feminists and the anti-feminists think that the 1950s were a patriarchy. In my view, it wasn't, though that is certainly debatable.

What was so great about the 50s? Post-War consumer Boom ? TVs? Washing machines? Cold war? Your youth