My dearest brothers and sisters,
This is Tunia speaking. I love you very much.
Most Pleiadians have political views that from your perspective would be an integrated mix of Earth’s left-wing and right-wing views. Speaking about left-wing values: we care about helping others, we care about nature and animals, we care about culture and arts, we wish to live in peace, we don’t seek to conquer or to impose our way of life on others, we enjoy interacting with people who are different than us, we don’t force people to conform, we care about making sure that everyone has a good life and we care about providing for the less fortunate. We don’t allow people in our society to own means of production. In fact we don’t have money at all and if someone wants something, they can just ask and they will receive it, if it’s within reason. We are also members of the galactic confederation and we consider it important to work together with other races.
Yet we also care about the right-wing values of freedom, about safety, about letting our people do as they please so long as they don’t directly harm others and about having a system that is non-coercive towards people. We don’t want war, but we are willing to fight to protect the innocent, and unfortunately we have become good at war.
That said, our society is not militaristic and the vast majority of our people are not involved in the military.
We don’t want there to be hierarchies based on power or corruption, but we do think it benefits everyone if there are competence hierarchies. After all, some people just work harder and are more talented than other people. We consider equality of outcome to be more or less the opposite of having a competence hierarchy. We care about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
Due controversy, to avoid google's censure I blanked this article. Please click on the link below to continue:
http://violetflame.biz.ly/cgi-bin/blog/view_post/1200929
We care about progress, but we are not blind to the wisdom of our ancestors. There is a wonderful Earth concept called Chesterton’s Fence that we agree with. Chesterton himself described Chesterton’s Fence as follows:
There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”
Indeed, “don’t remove a fence until you understand why your ancestors put that fence there in the first place” is a wise principle.
Our perspective on Earth politics
We care about second-order thinking, which is to consider not just the consequences of our actions, but also the consequences of consequences. Or to put it another way, second order thinking is to consider not just how a change directly impacts a system but also considering how other actors might change their behavior in this new system. For example, the British in India offered a bounty for every dead cobra. The first-order effect was as desired: people indeed started hunting cobras. However the second order effect was that people changed their behavior to match this new system, and so people started breeding cobras, to get more cobra bounties. The third order effect was that again people changed their behavior to match this new system, and so the British stopped offering cobra bounties. The fourth order effect was that again people changed their behavior to match this new system, and the cobra breeders set their cobras free because there were no more bounties. The end result of all this was that the cobra population increased. A scheme that had the desired first-order effects eventually did more damage than it solved, because second-order effects weren’t considered.
From our perspective, it is shocking how few people on Earth take the time to consider second-order effects, including so-called leaders or elites. Admittedly sometimes they are just being willfully destructive, but at other times they are genuinely not taking the time to consider second-order effects
We Pleiadian humans tend to care more about what works in practice than about what sounds good. We care more about how people actually are and how systems actually function than about trying to push people to conform to some abstract ideal. For example, we are not afraid to acknowledge that men and women are different, in more ways than just their physical characteristics. We also value femininity and feminine people enough that our women don’t feel forced to act hard or masculine in order to get respect or feel safe or be able to meet their needs. And we don’t just mean that it would be good from our perspective if Earth men valued femininity more — it also means that it would be good from our perspective if Earth women valued femininity more. For example, one part of femininity is being universally and unconditionally loving, including towards so-called bad people.
To those who would reply that men should be universally loving too: as discussed in previous messages, universal love is more a part of feminine energy. Yes, men have some feminine energy too and can absolutely hence be unconditionally and universally loving too, just as women have some masculine energy and hence are able to do masculine tasks, such as having a career that involves working 70 hours, every single week, in some stressful environment that requires them to be always “on.” Still, most women have mostly feminine energy, of which universal love is a part. The most straightforward way to improve the situation on Earth would be for masculine people to make sure that more people are practically taken care of and safe, and for feminine people to love unconditionally and universally.
I absolutely love women. And I don’t think that women need to do anything in particular in order to be worthwhile or have value. I think women are great just the way they are. I love women and feminine people.
Of course, Earth humans are free to make their own choices. We are not saying that this is what you have to do. We are just sharing our perspective.
When we look at the mainstream political right-wing in the west on Earth, the things we personally would do differently are things that will likely not surprise you. From our point of view, the mainstream western right-wing is more money-oriented and more callous than we would be towards the unfortunate and towards animals and nature. The mainstream right-wing is sometimes a bit more warlike than we would like. They are at times either trying to keep things the same or go back in time, and while it’s true that staying where you are is better than going to a worse place (and there are a lot of powerful bad actors trying to push Earth into a worse direction), it’s also true that staying in place isn’t going to quickly lead to a love-based post-scarcity society.
Of course individual right-wingers do not necessarily have the same opinions as the mainstream western right-wing. Individual left-wingers also do not necessarily have the same opinions as the mainstream western left-wing.
The mainstream western political left also has things that we would do differently, but those are more subtle, and so discussing those distortions requires quite a few more words. On the surface, the left cares about love and about helping people and about tolerance, and how could that possibly be wrong?
Well, one issue is that love should be properly balanced with wisdom and strength, and this is unfortunately where the mainstream left-wing often falls short.
The love and tolerance of the mainstream left-wing is not universal or unconditional. If you disagree with them, the mainstream left-wing is often willing to insult, belittle and censor people. Those are not loving actions. The left will even insult or censor women or black people who disagree with them, while claiming to work in the interests of women and black people. But surely it’s not in the interests of an individual woman or black person to be belittled or censored. So then, who defines what the interests of women and black people are? The left does. So the left allegedly acts in the interests of women and black people, but the left also defines what those interests are. And if individual women or black people disagree with the left, they are sometimes steamrolled by the left.
This is part of the age-old pattern where a person or group first self-identifies as righteous and good, and then they view every bad action they take as justified because after all they’re righteous. And people who oppose them are automatically bad, because after all they’re opposing a person or group that is righteous, and it’s justified to do harm to bad people.
However, this entire construction is built on sand. It’s built on nothing but a self-assumption of the group or person that they are righteous.
In a sense, the left is less universally loving and more replaying the old tribal pattern of “harm the outgroup, help the ingroup.” It’s just that now the left’s outgroup are women and minorities, who indeed have in the past been treated poorly, and so this looks superficially nice. But they’re still at the very least callous towards the outgroup, namely right-wingers, men, white people, straight people, cis people, et cetera.
Needless to say, just because some men misbehave, and just because men misbehaved in the past, doesn’t mean that an average Joe today deserves to be treated poorly, just because of inherent characteristics that he was born with.
It’s not enlightened or moral to engage in tribal “harm the outgroup, help the ingroup” politics. It’s also not effective: this is not how you build a love-based society.
We are all in favor of love, but we’d rather have love be universal. That means not belittling or censoring people, even if they are considered bad or wrong. The only time when censorship may be appropriate is if they are calling for the literal murder of another person. It’s not loving to belittle or censor people, even if they have what you think are bad opinions. If someone says something that triggers you, then personally I think it would be proper to look inside yourself first, before judging the other person. And once you sufficiently look inside yourself, you may realize that you simply stop getting triggered by other people.
Censoring people isn’t just not very nice. It also tends to radicalize people and it tends to make people sympathize with the extreme right, who are after all in favor of everyone being able to say what they want. If you don’t want more people to become extreme right-wing, then it would be productive to censor fewer people.
Eventually Earth humans may want to move to a situation where femininity and masculinity, and both left-wing and right-wing politics are integrated. That means that censoring the right won’t ultimately solve the problems, because censoring right-wingers ultimately creates more extreme-right people. The solution is love, not censorship and not censoring supposed intolerant or unloving statements. While of course some opinions of some right-wingers and some men are unreasonable or wrong, a position of “right-wingers and men should be quiet” also isn’t productive. Naturally, the right also shouldn’t censor the left either, but currently it’s mostly the left that is trying to censor the right.
Stereotyping men and stereotyping immigrants
The following is one of the core frustrations that is driving people towards the extreme right . It can’t be discussed in polite society, because the left would immediately censor it. However, unexpressed pain and frustration just festers and worsens. And so I think it is important to bring the following to the light. If you are worried that the following argument will drive people towards the extreme right, I think it will do the opposite. I think letting pain and frustration fester will make people more right-wing over time, while an honest discussion will release some pent-up frustration and anger and so people will be less drawn to the extreme right-wing afterwards. May everything come to the light, even uncomfortable things.
After all, a large part of the problem why Earth humans are still not really free is that lots of people try to control the masses by withholding information that would cause those so-called stupid masses to develop the wrong opinions. However, if you want to live in a situation where everything has come to the light, then you can’t selectively withhold information, just because you would like to manipulate the perception of the masses. People trying to manipulate the masses is a large part of why we are in this mess in the first place.
So, let’s discuss this core frustration that is driving people towards the extreme right. Imagine you are a man in western society. People widely stereotype you based on the immutable characteristics with which you were born, i.e. as a man. Some of these stereotypes are correct: men are far more likely to rape people than women are (and of course, men shouldn’t do that). Other stereotypes are incorrect: people will assume that maybe 98% of domestic abusers are men. In reality, yes most domestic abusers are men, but the percentage is not nearly 98%. Women abusing men happens far more often than people think.
Also, it’s acceptable to say that a certain man has a tiny penis, or that men who drive big cars have tiny penises. Meanwhile you can’t get away with making a negative statement about a woman’s vagina.
It’s far more acceptable to stereotype men by saying “men are awful” or “men are dumb” or “men are pigs”, than it is to say “women are awful” or “women are dumb” or “women are pigs.” You really can’t get away with saying “women are pigs” while you sometimes can get away with saying “men are pigs.”
And if you want to reply to this with the argument that men simply are worse than women, then logically one of the following two things has to be true. Either men have to be just inherently inferior to women, which is a false and sexist position to take, and furthermore this position flies in the face of the conventional left-wing “everyone is equal and no one is born flawed” way of thinking. This position is also a bit ridiculous if you just look around you and realize that practically every single object around you has been built by a man. Or second, you have to accept that men somehow get damaged more by society than women do (indeed this is true, school is far more damaging to boys than to girls), and in this case you have to drop the idea that men are privileged.
Note that if any group misbehaves more than average, the left-wing solution is always: “apparently the system is somehow causing damage to this group or treating this group unjustly, we must reform this system”… except when it comes to men.
Let’s discuss another untrue stereotype about men. People stereotype men as being privileged, which isn’t really true in 2023 — yes in some ways men are privileged, but in other ways women are privileged. Men are often discriminated against as compared to women when it comes to divorce court, alimony, general court, places where people can get certain kinds of help, scholarships, hiring and female quotas. Furthermore school is set up in a way that’s sort of bad for girls, but it’s disastrous for boys. Often it’s also not acceptable for men to show emotions — and it’s not just men who don’t accept other men sharing emotions, lots of women too often lose respect or attraction for a man who shows insecurity or helplessness or anxiety. Sure, not all women, but certainly a lot of them.
Now sure, really successful and really handsome men have it good, but the vast majority of mostly average men really aren’t more privileged than the average woman.
People also stereotype men as unfairly helping other men and keeping down women, which in the year 2023 also isn’t generally accurate. I’m not saying that this has never happened, especially in the past, but it’s actually women who have an ingroup bias and not men. In other words, women will tend to try and help women as a group, while men don’t tend to try and help men as a group. This is a tendency, not a hard rule, and exceptions do exist. Yes, there are some rich old misogynistic men who would rather hire a man than a woman, even if the woman is the better person for the job. But it’s not fair to stereotype average men based on the actions of a few old rich men, just as you’re told that you shouldn’t stereotype any group based on the actions of a few individuals in that group.
Suppose it were true that men in power were trying to help other men. Well, wouldn’t they do something about the fact that a huge majority of workplace fatalities are dead men? Conversely if tomorrow a report was published that said that the vast majority of workplace fatalities are women, then immediately women as a group would start lobbying to make workplaces safer for women. But when it’s average, non-exceptional men dying, no one cares, including men in positions of power.
In fact, a male politician probably won’t do anything to stop male workplace deaths, but if tomorrow a report came out that said that suddenly it’s mostly women dying in the workplace, then this male politician may very well start lobbying for female workplace safety. In other words, men generally aren’t conspiring with other men to benefit men. In fact, men sometimes act in the interests of women, while it happens less often that Earth women act in the interest of the mass of average, non-exceptional men. More often, Earth women are indifferent to or sometimes even actively hostile to the perspectives and interests of average, non-exceptional men.
Few people also care about male circumcision. Now of course female genital mutilation is far worse than male circumcision. I’m not saying those two things are equivalent. Still, from my perspective it’s unacceptable that boys get a part of their body cut off. If adult men want to get circumcised, fine, but don’t cut off a part of the body of a young boy.
If society had a habit of cutting off some part of a girl’s body, even if all the pro-male-circumcision arguments applied to this as well, still everyone would be in an uproar and would demand that this practice be stopped. Despite all the claims of male privilege, average men are treated as disposable, far more so than women.
Now sure, Earth society also doesn’t treat women properly, in multiple ways. However everyone is already aware of those things and already accepts those things.
Okay, so suppose you are a man and at times you are openly stereotyped against. Even newscasters will stereotype against you, and sometimes these stereotypes are unfair and untruthful, as we have discussed. Of course, this is bad enough by itself. No one likes being stereotyped against due to how they were born. No one likes being treated as “suspicious until proven innocent” just because other people in the same group allegedly tend to do bad things.
However, it gets worse. As a man, you are stereotyped against, sometimes unfairly. And yet you are also told: don’t you dare stereotype against others, because if you do, you are a racist or a sexist piece of shit.
Of course, some stereotypes about let’s say colored immigrants are false. But it’s factually true that in certain countries, colored immigrants commit more crimes and commit more rapes than non-immigrants.
To be clear, I am not saying that people with melanin are inferior to white people. My argument will ultimately be that it’s inconsistent to stereotype against men, while banning stereotyping against other groups. And this inconsistency is what drives a lot of men to the extreme right.
So men are stereotyped against, sometimes unfairly. Men are also aware that some stereotypes about for example colored immigrants are factually true, but they’re censored or called a piece of shit if they say so out loud. If they are in a relationship with a woman and the man says out loud that in certain countries colored immigrants commit more crimes, then it’s not inconceivable that his girlfriend dumps him over that, even though it’s a factually true statement.
Wouldn’t you find it maddening to be in this situation? You’re in a romantic relationship with a woman who openly states negative stereotypes about your group, but don’t you dare share negative information about another group, even when that information is factually true?
Sure you might say “no one should be stereotyped against” and fine, that is a potentially valid position to take. But if people aren’t allowed to express the factual truth that in certain countries, colored immigrants commit more crimes and rapes, then similarly people shouldn’t be allowed to say that men commit more rapes than women. And if you go “wait, hang on, men do commit more rapes then women” then you’re right, they do — but it’s similarly factually true that in certain countries, colored immigrants commit more rapes. Why can you state one of those things, but not the other?
Furthermore, if you want to say that no one should be stereotyped against, again that is potentially valid, but then you also have to drop the statements that men are privileged, men tend to help out other men, men don’t take women seriously except as sex objects, et cetera. Again, if you want to argue that those things are true, I can retort that it’s also true that in certain countries, colored immigrants commit more crimes and rapes. So if your position is that no one should be stereotyped against, then also don’t stereotype against men, even if you consider those things to be obvious or just plain true.
And if you insist on being able to state truthful negative stereotypes against men, then who are you to say that men shouldn’t be allowed to state objective facts about colored immigrants, such as for example crime statistics?
You can’t stereotype against men and then tell men that they can’t stereotype against other people, even when those stereotypes are factually true. So either allow people to openly make anti-immigration arguments without censoring them — and yes, currently you absolutely would be censored for saying that in certain countries, colored immigrants commit more crimes and rapes. Or also censor anyone who stereotypes against men, even if those stereotypes are factually true. Those are the two logically consistent positions. And if people insist that they should be allowed to stereotype against men, while saying that men can’t stereotype even in cases where they’re factually correct, then what’s going to happen is that more people are going to go to the extreme right.
And this isn’t a situation that can be solved by telling men to do better or trying to shame or pressure men to stay away from the far right. The fundamental issue here is a fundamental unfairness, and the solution is to address that fundamental unfairness. And the easiest way to address that fundamental unfairness, from my perspective, is to not censor anyone, including when they research or share crime statistics about colored immigrants in certain countries.
Now some might argue here that it’s fine to stereotype against men because they are privileged. As stated earlier: in 2023, the average man really isn’t more privileged than the average woman. Yes, he is privileged in some areas, but women are privileged in certain areas too. Average men generally don’t get a lot of love or support or appreciation. Yes, society does at times work in favor of that small group of highly successful or very handsome men, but the vast majority of more average men aren’t very privileged and don’t receive a lot of love or support. For a lot of average men, the first bouquet of flowers they ever receive is at their funeral.
To make things even more frustrating for men: women blame men for committing too much rape (and fair enough). And then women more often vote pro-immigration, and in certain countries those immigrants then commit more rapes than average. So men aren’t allowed to publicly make anti-immigration arguments, and men more often vote anti-immigration and women more often vote pro-immigration, and the end result is that more immigrants come in and more rapes are committed. And then women say that men are shit because men rape too much. Even though men were censored when they tried to make anti-immigration arguments. How is that fair to men?
Also, women generally expect men to have a place of their own. And immigration, which men more often oppose and women more often vote in favor of, makes it harder to afford a place to live. Again, more frustration for men. Sure, it’s absolutely possible to make an economic system where everyone has a place to live, even with lots of immigration. But that would require a current system dramatically different from the current one. In the current economic system, immigration does increase house prices,
Yet another thing that makes this situation more frustrating for men is that most men have a protector instinct. They want to protect women and children. And while I’m not saying if and to which extent immigration should be allowed, at the very least it’s understandable that if a man sees that a certain group of people commit more crimes, then the man feels that this group should be kept away from the women and children. It’s frustrating to a man that he tries to do what he sees as protecting women and children, and in turn because of his anti-immigration position he is censored or insulted.
To be clear, I am not saying that colored people are inferior to white people. I don’t think that any country should deport people of a certain skin color. I don’t think that anyone, including colored people, should be discriminated against in any way. And yes, at times colored people are discriminated against, and that is not okay.
What I am saying is that it’s not fair to openly stereotype against men, but then censor men when they try to stereotype against others. And this unfairness is pushing people to the extreme right. From my perspective, the easiest solution to this would be to stop censoring people, including when they make anti-immigration arguments, and to also stop acting like anyone who is against immigration is more or less a fascist or nazi. Because yes, at the moment if you try to say that in certain countries, colored immigrants commit more crimes and rapes, you will be censored. Even if you have the statistics to back that up — there have been researchers who accidentally stumbled on that conclusion, and who could statistically prove it, but they were silenced.
It might seem like it’s a net benefit to censor people who speak out against colored immigrants, to keep the peace or to keep racism in check. However the reality is that this censoring does more harm than good, just like all censoring does. This censoring of anti-immigration arguments is a huge part of why a lot of men are drawn to the right or even to the extreme right.
Lots of people are trying to manipulate the masses by trying to withhold information from them, but the masses are not as stupid as you think they are. This withholding of truthful information is a huge part of the reason why so many men nowadays distrust authority, distrust the media and feel zero urge to contribute to society because they see society as corrupt and unfair against them. And they are right, society is unfair against them. This is not a problem that can be solved with more censorship or pressure or shaming or verbal bullying.
What I’m also not saying is to which extent immigration should or shouldn’t be allowed. In fact, in my own society, I have the equivalent of voting rights and the ability to make a speech whenever I want, but I personally am very happy to not do the equivalent of voting on immigration policy. I’m happy to let people with more masculine than feminine energy create our immigration policy. That’s because I trust masculine people to make the right choice there, because they have the masculine “protect our society” and “be willing to make tough choices and suffer for the benefit of our society” instinct. I, as a woman, simply don’t have this protect-our-society instinct to nearly the same extent. Instead I have the typical feminine instinct that I care much more about the man I love and my children than I care about my society. If I were single and I were to fall in love with a man whose actions were a bit harmful to my society, then I may side with the man I love and not with my society. Meanwhile men much more than women have an instinct to protect and maintain their society, even at personal cost. So I’m happy to let masculine people make the immigration decisions, and I love men for their society-maintaining instinct.
Similarly, I’m a feminine woman and I’m swayed much more by a story of how this one individual could be helped if only we changed the structure or rules of our society. That’s because I highly value love and care, and admittedly I also value being seen as a loving and moral person who fits in with the other loving and moral people. Meanwhile the typical masculine person has “keep our society stable and functional” much higher on his list of priorities, and isn’t as bothered as much by the thought of being seen as some unkind person. Masculine people (whether a man or woman) are a bit more likely to do what’s necessary even if that makes them unpopular or makes them look bad.
Sure, love and care are important, but the masculine “keep our society stable” instinct is also valuable.
Think of policies in the west such as insufficient care that specific dangerous immigrants aren’t let in, or covid lockdowns, or doing sex-change operations on minors. The proponents of these policies have clearly failed to engage in second and third order thinking. These policies are the result of a specific kind of unintegrated, non-divine, over-zealous feminine energy. People may balk at this, but if you picked seven random men off the street and had them vote, do you think they would vote in favor of those policies?
Sure, sometimes it’s men who signed certain bills or pushed through certain measures, but men can also be motivated by unintegrated and over-zealous feminine energy.
This unintegrated and over-zealous feminine energy is hyper-focusing on helping (or doing what it thinks is helpful) for certain individuals. However this unintegrated over-zealous femininity is focused so much on helping individual trees that it is not seeing that it is destroying the forest.
This unintegrated feminine energy is not sufficiently balanced out by masculine energy. To put it plainly, there are not sufficient masculine people (whether men or women) who stand up and say that certain things we’re doing are nonsensical and are also destroying the country.
This is understandable, given that masculine “protect our society” kind of voices are often censored. If you censor or demonize people who say: “this is nonsense and also this is doing far too much damage to society” then you end up with not enough masculine who speak up (or are widely heard), and society that starts to crumble. As we are seeing in the west. This ties into today’s core suggestion that we shouldn’t censor men (or people in general).
I’m not saying that masculine voices are the only voices that should be heard. Of course there can also be a situation where we need more female voices to push back against an excessive and over-zealous masculine. I just don’t think that is the situation in the west in 2023. I think the current west needs more masculine-energy voices, whether from a man or woman, who say: “let’s stop being nonsensical and let’s go back to doing something that actually benefits our country.” Conversely, the west doesn’t need another man or woman pushing an unintegrated over-zealous feminine message.
It’s easy to say that Western society is rotten and that it should fall. Clearly, a lot of things in Western society can be improved. But I think some Western people have gotten so used to there being food in the supermarket that they don’t quite grasp that there is no law of physics that says that there will always be food in the supermarket. If the system completely breaks down, then that means no more food in many supermarkets, and many people will suffer and die. This also means that if more and more measures are implemented that allegedly help individual trees while damaging the entire forest, then at some point everything breaks down and everyone suffers, including the individual trees that the over-zealous feminine people tried to help in the first place. You have to put on your own air mask first.
Now of course, women and feminine energy are absolutely critical. For one, it’s women who can do the lion’s share of providing unconditional love to people, which is what makes society worth living in and protecting at all. It’s the unconditional love that women provide that is the reason why men are willing to work hard and sacrifice for society in the first place. So women are still absolutely essential, even if you let men be men, even if you let men sort out the practical and traditionally-masculine stuff, even if you allow there to be more male than female CEOs and leaders.
Also, many women are automatically multi-orgasmic, while men have to actually practice and work at that. I believe the Earth meme here is: “look what they need, to achieve a fraction of our power.” So why be insecure when men step into positions of power and authority, why be insecure about the value of women and femininity? Again, without women those men probably wouldn’t even find that society was worth fighting for. The current crop of men in 2023 really aren’t looking to lock up women in the kitchen. Yes, there is past trauma, but that trauma should be observed and felt and processed directly. Trauma responses and fear shouldn’t dictate policy.
And this isn’t bad for women either. I half-joked in a previous message that my life consists of going on spa days to recover from my holidays, and going on holidays to recover from my spa days. Why do we have such abundance? Admittedly our situation is much easier than the situation on Earth, but it also helps that our women love unconditionally and are completely fine with men being masculine and letting men make a large part of the macro decisions. Hence our men are genuinely happy to work hard and create abundance for all. Whereas currently in the west on Earth, lots of men don’t trust or like the system or how they’re being treated. And so most men don’t love the system or want to strengthen it or want to generate additional output. Instead men often just seek to do the minimum amount of work that gets them a certain amount of money. That’s not a recipe for creating a huge amount of abundance for all. And one step towards a solution is just letting men speak without censoring them, which is my core suggestion of today’s message.
You may think that it is an unattainable ideal to get to a place where people more or less like their society and are willing to work hard and sacrifice for it, but this really isn’t as unattainable as you might think. Right now there are multiple countries in the world in which many people do mostly like their society and are willing to sacrifice for it. Also, Americans used to feel that way about the United States. Remember that at one time, an American president said: “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” And at the time, those words were well-received. Imagine Biden saying that today. It wouldn’t resonate today, would it?
Frankly, as a Pleiadian woman I kind of feel that I’m getting away with murder here, leading my incredibly cushy life while the average man of our society freely chooses to work significantly harder than I do. But those men are happy too, because us women are treating them and treating our children with unconditional love. I’m also not getting in their way or not trying to out-masculine them. I’m giving them the proper authority that fits with the expectation that I have of men — namely that they make sure that people are generally safe and have the practical things that they need to live their best lives.
Don’t underestimate how powerful it would be for Earth women to come together and say the following to men and mean it: “men, we love you. We trust you. We need you. Please help us women and children to be safe. Right now we’re not safe, right now we feel scared. If you suggest something to protect us that earlier on we might not have approved of, then this time we won’t criticize you, because you are the protectors, and you are better at keeping people safe than us women are. And please help us in making sure that well-meaning people in our society aren’t suffering from lack or from material scarcity. Again, you are the experts in the field of material abundance. We won’t fight you this time if you suggest a solution. We trust you. We need you. If you think anything in our society is unfair towards you, men, say so and we’ll have a discussion about how we can make our system work for you as well. We promise we won’t punish you for being vulnerable and we promise we won’t play zero-sum-games against you men, as us women so often have done. You are not alone, we are here. Because we are one, and us women need you men. We love you. Please work with us to make this society better for everyone and also for our future children.”
If you want to lower the amount of rapes and robberies, or if you want to make a quantum leap forwards towards a post-scarcity society, say that to men and see what happens. Just now the male channeler received these words from me, and he instantly stopped feeling tired. Instead he immediately felt alert and in the zone and ready to go help some people. Those words were better than coffee. Then the second time when the channeler proofread this article and he saw these words again, he had tears in his eyes.
Say these words, and mean it, and you might be able to turn an angry, detached, tuned-out man into a happy and productive member of society, who is diligently working for the benefit of all.
Thank you for listening. I am grateful that so many people are tuning into my messages. And again, I’m not saying what you must do or must believe. I’m just sharing my perspective. You are free to make your own choices and form your own opinions.
Regardless of what you do or believe or say, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with me, I love you unconditionally and endlessly.
Tunia
(too controversial to put this on youtube)
