A maioria das pessoas está em modo de sobrevivência, 2
Tunia através de A. S.
Tradução a 27 de dezembro de 2025
Aqui quem fala é a Túnia. Eu te amo muito.
Recapitulando a parte 1 : pessoas que não têm suas necessidades atendidas por muito tempo entram em modo de sobrevivência. Afinal, necessidades são necessidades, e o modo de sobrevivência é uma maneira emergencial de tentar satisfazê-las, de qualquer forma possível.
Se as necessidades psicológicas não estão sendo atendidas, as pessoas entram em modo de sobrevivência psicológica, descartando a verdade, a moralidade e a empatia, e passando a acreditar em qualquer coisa que as ajude a satisfazer suas necessidades psicológicas.
Certo, vamos começar abordando um tópico específico. Esse tópico será relevante mais tarde nesta mensagem e, ao tratá-lo primeiro, não interromperemos o fluxo da conversa posteriormente.
Sobre Hitler
Algumas pessoas acham que Hitler não fez nada de errado.
Para este canalizador, é difícil escrever sobre Hitler porque ele vive na Holanda, onde a liberdade de expressão não é tão forte quanto nos Estados Unidos, e certas leis são bastante severas e restritivas.
Dito isso, a narrativa de que "Hitler não fez nada de errado, ele estava perfeitamente justificado em tudo" não é verdadeira.
Não é justificável maltratar todos os judeus só porque alguns judeus tiveram muita influência internacional ou fizeram coisas ruins.
Se você quiser argumentar que as câmaras de gás nazistas não existiram, bem, é inegável que judeus ainda eram colocados em campos de concentração, incluindo aqueles que não haviam feito nada de errado. E mesmo isso não é moralmente aceitável.
Suponha que alguém comprovasse objetivamente que alguns americanos (digamos, hipoteticamente, Bill Gates, Fauci, Bush e alguns outros) exerceram grande influência internacional e prejudicaram muitas pessoas, incluindo pessoas de outras nações. Nesse caso, você apoiaria a prisão de americanos inocentes em campos de concentração por vários anos?
Toda essa ideia de "prender pessoas porque outros em seu grupo étnico têm influência internacional/fazem coisas ruins" não parece tão inofensiva quando seu grupo é o alvo, não é?
Além disso, comunistas também foram colocados em campos de concentração, e obviamente não é justificável colocar pessoas em campos de concentração apenas por crimes de pensamento.
Hitler também matou pessoas com deficiência.
Hitler invadiu sete países neutros. Claramente, "bem, isso me beneficia" não é justificativa suficiente para conquistar um país neutro. Por exemplo, a Dinamarca e a Noruega não estavam secretamente tramando para invadir a Alemanha.
A Alemanha nazista também fez acordos com extraterrestres negativos. O que, novamente, não se encaixa na narrativa de que "Hitler não fez nada de errado".
Outra narrativa relacionada é a de que, nos dias de hoje, os judeus controlam o mundo secretamente.
Isso não é verdade. Os controladores das trevas comandam o mundo, mas não são um grupo judaico.
Israelis were subjected to the covid shot too, and a percentage of them died (if you think they somehow got a benign injection: go to yandex.com and search for “israelis deaths covid vaccination” or similar). So the world isn’t secretly run by Jews, for Jews.
Yes, AIPAC and certain other Jewish organizations and individuals have an outsized influence in Washington. Yes, Americans have every right to oppose that. However, that doesn’t prove that Jews secretly run the world.
The US has 350 ish million people, yet it has an outsized influence over the world, which has a population in the billions. And certain countries have / had policies that are more favorable for the US than for their own populations (similar to America prioritizing Israel’s interests). Does that prove that the world is run by a secret American cabal? Not really, right? Okay, so that also debunks the argument that Jews secretly run the world.
With that said, what we’ve discussed so far will become relevant later. We’ll now go to the main part of the message, where we look in depth at a specific group that is in survival mode, to further explore what survival mode looks like.
Young men
Unlike previous generations, young men are in survival mode. Let’s list some reasons for that:
They see that their society is declining very fast and no one has a realistic plan to stop that.
The current thought leader of young men is Nick Fuentes, who at 27 says women are “very difficult to be around”.
Nick Fuentes is a no-sex-before marriage Catholic who hasn’t found his partner yet (and is thus a virgin).
From young men’s perspective: “you go girlboss”, feminism, social media, tinder, tiktok, “become a career woman”, “Trump supporters are nazis”, “men are evil”, “women are oppressed” etc messaging have turned most young women into some kind of nasty, delusional far-left creature. (Older women aren’t nearly as unreasonable, because they didn’t grow up with smartphones.)
To be clear, I don’t think this is fair. Young men are in survival mode, after all, and people in survival mode aren’t fair.
However, I think that this perspective is closer to being fair than most people realize.
In my “Tunia: female supremacism” series I argued that society is female supremacist, and consequently, many young women are female supremacists. This sounds outrageous, but this statement is actually really hard to argue against if you logically consider the argument I outlined in those messages. Plus, well, young women are in survival mode and anyone in survival mode becomes unreasonable.
Still, I can’t blame young men for not wanting to date a female supremacist. And when most young women are female supremacists, then obviously dating becomes a nightmare.
If you’re not currently an average young man who is currently interacting with young women in 2025, then you have no idea what that’s like. If you’re a slightly older person: things today really aren’t as they were before smartphones and the covid lockdowns. Your experience doesn’t apply. The world has changed.
Thinking that young men can surely find a reasonable-minded girlfriend if they just do this and this, is like saying that young men can surely walk up to the local factory and give the boss a firm handshake, and then buy a house two years later. It’s just not reality anymore.
More than 60% of young men are single, nearly twice the rate of unattached young women [who are dating older men or sharing top men, which is more common than you may realize]. Source https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/3868557-most-young-men-are-single-most-young-women-are-not/
And of course, if less than 40% of young men are in relationships at all, then a substantially lower percentage is in relationships that are stable, happy, functional and that are going to last a long time. (Women initiate most divorces.)
From a young man’s perspective, good women exist but there are few of them, hence they’re picky because why wouldn’t they be, hence they’re out of reach of average guys.
Women usually won’t date poorer men, but meanwhile white men are getting discriminated against during hiring processes, and by teachers when they grade papers. Which is obviously unfair and this means men have a really hard time getting a decent girlfriend. Or buying a house. In fact, every year houses become more expensive and therefore get further out of reach of young men.
Meanwhile men are getting demonized even if they do nothing wrong. They get called Nazis for supporting Trump when Trump won the popular vote last election. So basically they have the most common opinion in the country, yet get called Nazi over that.
Young men face discrimination, yet are told they’re privileged.
Every group is allowed to work for their own benefit, but when white men try to do that they’re called white supremacists.
Also, covid lockdowns destroyed their mental health during a pivotal time in their development.
Also, if AI fails, then the stock market will be hurt severely (because AI doing well is priced in). That means that companies will put in a hiring freeze and stop hiring young men. Plus you might get an economic crisis with an intensity of the one in 2008.
Whereas if AI succeeds, then companies will replace young men with AI.
So AI companies are flipping a coin, and both sides say “young men lose.”
And obviously young men aren’t going to retire in five years. Even if AI only gets really good 20 years from now, well, then men still lose. Not very motivating, is it?
Furthermore, young men idolized Charlie Kirk, who got murdered.
Young men put their hopes into Trump. And the person pretending to be Trump can reasonably be said to have betrayed the “America first” agenda.
And young men put their hopes into Jordan Peterson, who disappointed them as well. (See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAR58Kwreb4 for details if you’re interested).
So, no wonder young men are in survival mode.
Now, some young men are left wing. However, the left is very hostile to men, discriminating against them while falsely claiming that is justified because men are privileged (they’re not).
Hence, most young men, and certainly most strong and self-respecting young men, are right-wing. (If the left doesn’t like this, stop discriminating against and demonizing men.)
As a result of all this, young men want to dramatically change the country so that it works again in general, and especially for them in particular. They’re in survival mode, so the concerns of other groups (such as women) are a lower priority for them. I’m not saying that’s justified, I’m just saying that’s what’s happening.
Installing the backup
So, what do you do when your computer has all kinds of weird glitches, and you don’t know how to fix it?
Well, you install a backup, from an earlier moment in time when your computer clearly worked.
“Install the backup” is a very sensible problem-solving solution.
Similarly, young men want to “install the backup” of society (this is a term I invented, not a term they use, but I think it fits).
The goal is to revert society back to a place when it clearly worked.
That may sound horrifying, but it’s not a bad problem-solving solution.
And currently there is no proven alternative. Sure, everyone says “implement my agenda and that will fix everything” but those claims are often contradictory, and none of those claims are proven.
There have been endless policies that were widely hyped up at the time, but they turned out to not fix things or even make things worse.
From that perspective, experimenting with unproven policies seems quite reckless. After all, people are desperate and lives are at stake. Installing the backup could be seen as the responsible thing to do.
So what does this actually mean?
Roughly speaking, the backup that young men want to install is white patriarchy. That’s what they want to go back to.
A problem with saying the word "patriarchy" is that different people define the word wildly differently. Depending on definition, either the US has literally never been a patriarchy, or the US has literally always been a patriarchy and it's still one today.
So let’s be more specific. Not all young men have the same views, but many think along the lines of: women don’t get to vote anymore. Jewish influence is heavily curtailed. Every non-white person whose deportation can be reasonably justified is deported. However, a non-criminal minority person who has been living here sufficiently long isn’t deported, and gets to have full rights. After that, immigration is restricted, with the goal being to keep the country largely white.
The US and Europe for most of their history didn’t let women vote, were more patriarchal than today, were skeptical of Jews and were overwhelmingly mono-ethnic (i.e. white). Hence, young men want to “install the backup” and basically go back to that. Because it worked.
Women back then were happier than young women are today.
And of course, from young men’s perspective, it doesn’t hurt that installing the backup of white patriarchy would put them at the top. (I’m not saying young men aren’t being self-serving.)
The current thought leader among young men is Nick Fuentes, who we mentioned earlier. He’s very influential among young men, source for that claim:
Let’s look at Nick’s basically white patriarchy agenda:
Nick Fuentes openly says he’s a racist (adding that he thinks everyone is racist). Source: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/CTMRvXqYwAk
He said that women should have fewer rights than men,
He said that women “absolutely” shouldn’t have the right to vote. Source: first link about Nick I shared. Here it is again:
Nick said: “banning gay marriage is back on the menu, banning sodomy is back on the menu, banning contraceptives is back on the menu, and basically we’re having something like Taliban rule in America, in a good way. We’re having something like a Catholic Taliban rule in America.”
Source: https://x.com/RightWingWatch/status/1541451617874153472. (Nick is Catholic himself.)
Also, Nick Fuentes said Hitler was “really fucking cool”,
source https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_KXvjOJ7YA&t=4105s. (This is why we discussed Hitler earlier.)
He expressed skepticism whether 6 million Jews really were killed during the Holocaust.
That said, Nick also said that housing and public transport should be affordable, source https://youtu.be/VqsDzjiSn_Q?t=1349. Which is a left-wing position. So young men aren’t far-right cartoon villains. They’re a product of their environment, and they’ve experienced that the right-wing agenda may work for rich people and home owners and stock owners, but they’re none of those things and hence the right wing agenda doesn’t work for them.
Still, overall Nick is obviously quite extreme.
Most zoomers aren’t that extreme. Still, a larger group of them is more extreme than you may think.
For example, Nick Fuentes was recently interviewed by Piers Morgan. Piers played a video sent in by the Jew Danny Finkelstein, who lectured Nick about the horrors of the Holocaust and the harm done to Finkelstein’s family.
Zoomers were not impressed and remarked “Piers dropped a tactical Jew and it backfired.”
Zoomers then made a meme out of the phrase “me mum died in the holly”, mimicking and mocking what Danny Finkelstein said. “Holly” stands for “holocaust.”
If you search youtube for “me mum died in the holly”, you can find a dozen music videos riffing on that phrase. For example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBYXDldT-kU, which also features a dancing Hitler. It has been watched a hundred thousand times or so, and comments under that video are positive.
I get that the previous video is shocking to most people, and I don’t approve of it, but remember, young men are in survival mode. They’ve been squeezed and they think the house is on fire, and they don’t care about an event that happened on another continent 80 years ago. They care about what is happening today.
Besides, the Americans didn’t commit the Holocaust, and in fact they fought against Hitler. So why should Americans still let themselves be controlled by word-spells such as “if you think this then you’re a Nazi”, “you must prioritize the well-being of Jews because of the Holocaust”, etc.
Most young men aren’t really invested in Hitler being cool. But if people with more power than them keep them down, and tell them they can’t praise Hitler, then they’ll praise Hitler out of spite.
Zoomers are typically offered a binary choice: “comply with a society that hates you, that mistreats you and that is self-destructing. Or do what you think will actually save society, but then you’re Hitler.” To that, zoomers say: “okay, I guess I’m Hitler then.”
If people don’t care about young men’s issues, then why should young men care about the Holocaust? Because of common decency? People aren’t showing young men common decency.
The zoomer future is coming
The future may very well be substantially more in the Nick Fuentes direction than the present day is. Especially because young men currently show much more energy and vitality and a willingness to reshape society than any other group (in general, obviously this doesn’t apply to every single individual).
Older men, women and left-wingers seem to either want to fiddle with the tax rate and social services a bit, which is like rearranging the deck chairs while the ship sinks. Or they have a utopian vision of a love-based rainbow society, which might be your medium term future but there’s no realistic way to directly get from here to there in the short term. (Then again, multiculturalism isn't guaranteed to be your future; Pleiadian worlds are 90-95% Pleiadian and we're going to keep them that way.)
So everyone except young men has the plan of “rearrange the deck chairs while the ship sinks” or “let’s hold hands and imagine a world where the ship isn’t sinking” or “let’s censor the people who are trying to plug the holes and call them racist.”
While on the other hand, young men have the ugly, imperfect but at least functional plan of “install the backup.” It’s not what I would do, it’s not my preferred plan, but it is a functional plan.
Okay, then my money is on young men.
I get that people may not like this, but it's not going to work to criticize the ugly solution, while offering no realistic solution yourself, as society is burning down around you. Not taking real action isn't really an option given that your society is burning down.
And I get that this doesn’t conform to people’s idea of a line straight upwards into New Earth. However, New Earth doesn’t include anti-male discrimination. And if people just refuse to end anti-male discrimination, then the only path that’s left is that eventually the zoomer generation ends anti-male discrimination, by “installing the backup.“
Or in other words: right now women advocate for women, Jews advocate for Jews, Muslims advocate for Muslims, etc. And some people in all of these groups are working to make sure their group gets unfair privileges, and that white men are discriminated against.
And young men can’t convince these groups to stop advocating for themselves, and sometimes discriminating against white men, through conversation. Plus these groups aren’t holding their own unfair people accountable.
Additionally, some people in these groups scream “white supremacist” and “nazi” if white men try to advocate for themselves. So effectively they’re saying “we get to advocate for our group, but you don’t.”
Then even young men who want a diverse rainbow future where everyone is included and everyone is fair to each other, can’t get there, because the other groups refuse to be fair to white men.
Then the only choices that young men have are “everyone advocates for their own interest except white men” or “everyone advocates for their own interests” (which men seriously advocating for their own interests, as everyone else is already doing, may lead to white patriarchy).
If people don’t like white patriarchy, people can end anti-male discrimination before the zoomers get into power. And then you won’t get this kind of future.
(Yes, you might get bailed out by galactics, by a solar flash or by a gray hat intervention. Still, waiting for that isn’t a great plan because it’s unclear when those things will happen. And even when we land, we’re not going to rule you, or fix all your problems for you, so Earth humans are still going to have to fix their own society. Most people also won’t be allowed to permanently move to a Pleiadian world -- we also don’t want mass immigration either.)
Currently young men can’t implement their white patriarchy agenda because they’re being held down by older men. However, older men are going to die from old age. And then younger men are going to come into power by default. You can’t really prevent that.
And the conditions that made zoomers like this, are going to make subsequent generations of men like that too. So don’t think that zoomers are a unique generation and the generation after them will be “normal” again.
In fact, the generation that comes after zoomers, namely generation alpha, could be even more extreme than the zoomer generation Nick Fuentes is in. Teenage boys of generation alpha are currently listening to Nick Fuentes, and they’re seeing how everyone just relentlessly attacks Nick, even during those times when Nick makes genuinely reasonable points (such as reasonable anti-immigration or anti-sending-money-to-Israel points).
If teenage boys see pretty much everyone attacking the 27 year old zoomer who has no power other than his voice, even during times when he’s clearly right, then Nick looks like the heroic underdog fighting a corrupt system.
Here is senate minority leader Chuck Schumer, who is a Jewish millionaire, mentioning Nick Fuentes by name and denouncing him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiE03pbJNwM.
If you’re a teenage boy and you see this, do you side with the 75 year old Jewish establishment politician, or with the 27 year old American underdog?
This 75 year old Jewish millionaire is sending young men’s tax dollars to Israel. Israel is an ethnostate guilty of committing genocide on Palestinians. But the 75 year old Jewish millionaire denies Israel’s genocide. However, while he denies the genocide, he says that it’s very harmful when young men say mean words.
And also, he says that if young men want America to be for white people, that’s white supremacism and the most evil thing imaginable. But if Jews want Israel to be for Jews, if Jews want Israel to be an ethnostate, then that’s perfectly fine. And not just is it fine, young men’s tax dollars should be sent to ethnotate Israel.
“An ethnostate for me, enforced multiculturalism for thee. You racist. You white supremacist. Now excuse me while I go send your tax dollars to Israel.”
Says the Jew. To Americans. In America.
The Jewish millionaire is allowed to deny Israel’s present-day genocide. But socially speaking, young American men aren’t allowed to deny the Holocaust, even though it happened 80 years ago and therefore it feels much less relevant to young men than Israel’s present-day conduct.
This is all just so obviously corrupt.
If you’re a young man, how can you not side with the young American underdog against the old, obviously hypocritical Jewish millionaire establishment politician?
So I don’t think young men are going to moderate (unless society dramatically changes).
Role models of young men
And here’s another argument for why young men probably aren’t going to moderate:
Years ago groups of young men listened to Charlie Kirk. He told young men to be good Christian husbands. And recently Charlie Kirk got assassinated.
Years ago young men listened to Jordan Peterson, who said people shouldn’t be forced to use transgender people’s pronouns. Jordan also told young men to go and be responsible husbands.
Years after that, groups of young men started listening to Andrew Tate, who told young men to go make money and sleep with lots of women, with almost everything being allowed so long as it achieves those goals. Andrew Tate has been charged with human trafficking and rape.
Years after that, groups of young men are listening to Nick Fuentes, who thinks Hitler is cool and who doesn’t think women should have equal rights to men.
So young men went from listening to two married men saying “be good husbands”, to an alleged rapist saying “go sleep with multiple women, and pretty much all means are allowed”, to a virgin saying “women shouldn’t have the same rights as men.”
So from the perspective of the average person, the people who young men are listening to are getting more and more despicable and extreme over time. (Well, some people might think Tate is worse than Nick. However both are clearly worse than Jordan and Charlie, from most people’s perspective.)
This also illustrates that women’s arguments are going to be listened to less and less in the future:
- a man who has a wife and daughter (Jordan, Charlie) is going to listen to women.
- an alleged rapist and womanizer (Andrew Tate) isn’t going to listen to women nearly as much, but he still has a sexual interest in women. So that’s one lever of influence that women theoretically have over him: “displease me and no sex for you.” Now obviously that’s not much, especially considering the rape allegations. Obviously I disapprove of Tate. Still, Tate has one clear incentive (sex) to listen to women. That’s certainly not great, but one thing is more than zero things. Speaking of which:
- Nick has no wife and no daughter and isn’t trying to get laid (due to being a no-sex-before-marriage catholic). And most women aren’t going to like him anyway, and his reputation is already destroyed in the mainstream, so that also doesn’t give him an incentive to listen to women. And from his point of view, women mistreat men, so “address women’s concerns because of common decency” isn’t going to sway him either.
If you want to argue that Nick desperately wants to get laid but no woman will touch him -- that’s just not a reality-based statement. Sure, most women don’t want to sleep with him, but some women think he’s a hero for making pro-white, anti-Israel statements that almost no one else is willing to publicly make. After all, some women are pro-white and anti-Israel themselves. And you only need one woman to like you in order to get laid.
Even more moderate women may appreciate that Nick’s speaking out against immigration in unusually blunt ways. People don’t need to agree with someone on every single point in order to like them.
Not to mention that Nick’s somewhat famous, self-employed, well-dressed, well-groomed, not bad looking, confident, he says what he thinks, and he’s likely a millionaire. Nick certainly could find someone to sleep with, if he wanted. He just chooses not to. Which means that sex also isn’t an incentive for Nick to listen to women.
So. I get that people don’t like that young men listen to a person with these kinds of views, especially because Nick also has little incentive to listen to women’s concerns, or moderate himself.
Still, disliking this doesn’t solve anything.
Back when Jordan Peterson was the role model for young men, lots of people criticized Jordan for his right-wing views. And did that criticism make young men less right-wing? Not at all. In fact Jordan’s “be a responsible husband” brand of conservatism looks angelic in comparison to Nick Fuentes’s positions, from the perspective of most people.
Back when Charlie Kirk was popular, people were acting like he was evil incarnate due to his right-wing Christian views. He was literally assassinated. And did Charlie’s assassination cause young men to moderate? Nope, they’re listening to Nick Fuentes now.
What young men learned from Charlie Kirk’s assassination is: “if you’re a young man and you’re reasonable and you try to be a good husband and talk to people, they’ll kill you. And then they’ll dance on your grave. And they won’t take any measures to prevent the next assassination.”
Hence, just opposing Nick Fuentes isn’t going to solve anything. In fact, opposing him (without fixing society) might create someone even extreme.
Nick doesn’t advocate for deporting literally all non-white people. However, treat him unfairly enough (without fixing society), and the guy who comes after him might.
Nick doesn’t advocate for banning women from the workplace or university. However, treat him unfairly enough (without fixing society), and the guy who comes after him might.
For now older men are holding the zoomers down, but old men are going to die from old age at some point.
Shaming tactics and censorship and outlawing zoomer’s speech and deplatforming them and refusing to hire them into high positions, simply isn’t going to work when older men die and zoomers get into power. Because then zoomers control who gets censored, they’re obviously not going to censor themselves. If they censor anyone, they’ll censor people who oppose them.
The weapons you wield against zoomers today, they might wield against you when they get into power.
Emotional appeals and “us women deserve equal rights” arguments work pretty well on the older men who are currently in power. However that’s not going to work on some zoomers, who are often hostile to non-traditional women.
People already complain about the patriarchy. So why shouldn’t young men take away women’s right to vote? What are people going to do, complain about the patriarchy?
From young men’s perspective, society mistreated them first. Plus from their perspective, they’re merely reverting back to what actually works, as opposed to everyone else who is pushing some ideology that might make things even worse.
Centrist men can be kept in check via the threat of calling them a nazi. However, young men get called Nazis just for being average Trump supporters. So why shouldn’t they say Hitler was cool? What are people going to do, call them Nazis?
Nick admits that he’s a racist. So you can’t control him by calling him a racist.
Nick openly says that he doesn’t want women to have equal rights. So you can’t control him by calling him a misogynist.
Finally, thank you
I want to thank you for having the courage and perseverance to keep reading two long and possibly uncomfortable messages.
Especially because I think too many people in the spiritual community just look away from unpleasant things.
The spiritual community has this idea that if you look at low-vibration things, then “your vibration is lowered too”, or then you “manifest bad things.” This fails to understand that looking away and not knowing what the real world is like, will make you subconsciously scared. And being subconsciously scared lowers your vibration too, and manifests undesired things too.
Your vibration doesn’t just mean what’s going on in your conscious mind. It also means what’s going on in your subconscious. And if you just look away from the world, then that’s really scary for your subconscious because it doesn’t know what’s going on.
Ultimately you’ll be less scared if you actually look reality in the eyes.
That doesn’t mean you must spend hours per day researching. It doesn’t mean you must know every gruesome detail. But it does mean you should know the broad strokes, as I shared in these messages.
Frankly, I don’t see much difference between “I won’t look at that because it’s a conspiracy theory, you see, I’m better than you because I believe in science” versus “I won’t look at that because it’s low-vibration / divisive / because I choose to focus on love, you see, I’m better than you because I’m more spiritually advanced.”
In both cases, you have people in survival mode caretaking their own emotional well-being, by not looking at the truth and by elevating themselves above others.
Now yes, people in survival mode need to do what they need to do. If you need to survive, you need to survive, and if that means not looking at the truth then that’s what you have to do.
I’m just saying that refusing to look at reality isn’t that spiritually advanced.
Similarly, some spiritual people say that if you don’t look at the negative and only focus on the positive, then you are “matching your reality to the future you desire, and you are there.“
Okay, by that logic, people who refused to look at “covid jabs are harmful“ evidence and only focused on how covid jabs would protect everyone, smartly and wisely “matched their reality to the future they desired“ and hence they automatically arrived at the future where everyone was protected by safe and effective covid jabs.
But of course, that didn’t happen, and lots of people died or became unwell from the covid jabs. Even though they “matched their reality to the future they desired“, didn't look at the negative (jabs being harmful) and only focused on the “positive” (how jabs would protect everyone).
Okay. So clearly that idea of “don’t look at the negative, focus on the positive and then you will automatically arrive in a good future“ idea doesn’t help.
Now yes, the love-and-light path is valid, but it means seeing reality first and then choosing to focus on cultivating and sending out unconditional love. (As opposed to the valid alternative, which is seeing reality first and then focusing on practical action. Also, the action path can do spiritual practice and inner work too — the love-and-light path doesn’t have a monopoly on that.)
You live in a society that is basically on fire. Now yes, it is valid to do the love and light path (which, again, means looking at reality first). It is valid to let someone else take the practical action.
However, if that’s your choice, you have little room to complain that you don’t like the actions that other people take.
Your house is on fire and someone has to actually go out there and put it out and then build a new house, after all. And if you don’t take action during these times, then the house will be built but it might not be built how you want it built.
If you want a specific kind of society to be built, you might have to take action yourself.
If you actually want to fully do the love-and-light path fully, go send unconditional love towards white patriarchy, and also go send unconditional love towards an inclusive multicultural future. The love and light path unconditionally sends love to all, without trying to achieve a specific outcome.
The idea of “I only love good things” isn’t enlightened. That’s the consciousness that’s been around on Earth for thousands of years already. And you’re experiencing right now what that leads to.
So if you’re an action-oriented person, then look at reality and go take action. If you don’t want white patriarchy, then work towards building something better. And occasionally criticizing things is valid, but only ever criticizing things won’t build New Earth either. At some point you have to make a realistic plan and then build something.
Whereas if you’re a love-and-light oriented person, then send unconditional love towards everything, without trying to achieve a specific outcome. Yes, even send love towards things you think are evil. And if you can’t, it’s ok, but then do more inner work.
I honor your courage to engage with these ideas, and not just take the easy path where you declare yourself and your ingroup to be the only smart and moral ones in the room, while labeling the rest of humanity as evil or immoral or inferior.
With all my love,
Sua irmã estelar,
Tunia
A. S.
Fonte: channelings@substack.com
Estas canalizações são submetidas e publicadas também em EraofLight.com pelo canalizador. Se desejar partilhá-las noutro local, por favor inclua um elo de retorno a este post original.
