Jesus on His Early Life and the “Lost Years”

Jesus on His Early Life and the “Lost Years”

By Steve Beckow

Posted on December 23, 2023

I promised to re-post some of the radio programs on Jesus’s life. Here’s the first.

In this interview on An Hour with an Angel, channeled by Linda Dillon, Jesus shares that he he was “in-filled” by the Holy Ghost at age 5 or 5 1/2 and that his baptism by John with the descent of the dove was symbolic.

He discusses his travels around the spiritual circuit of his days, his marriage to Mary Magdalene, and his daughter Sarah and the fact that she is what is being secretively referred to as the “holy grail.” He made many more revelations in this interview. Next week (posted tomorrow) he returns to continue the story.

---

From Jan. 2012: “Jesus on the Lost Years, the Holy Grail, Reincarnation and Much, Much More,” Dec. 24, 2013, channeled by Linda Dillon, at http://goldenageofgaia.com/2013/12/jesus-on-the-lost-years-the-holy-grail-reincarnation-and-much-much-more/.

---

A long time ago, when I did die, there was a great deal of mythology then as well. And the churches who liked to keep control said, “Well, he died for your sins.” That has always been distasteful to me, because it is mired in guilt and shame and blame.

During that period – what you think of as my death and then ascension – was a time then of great karmic dispensation, not just for those present but for all upon the planet at that time. And that gift is renewed during this period once again. And so that is why I ask to bring it to your attention right now. You cannot do this quickly enough. Let go.

---

“Transcript of An Hour with an Angel, with Jesus, Jan. 9, 2012,” channeled by Linda Dillon, at http://goldenageofgaia.com/2012/01/transcript-of-an-hour-with-an-angel-with-jesus-jan-9-2012

---

Steve Beckow: Thank you, Lord, for revisiting us today. I mentioned last time we spoke that it seemed better to reserve a time after Christmas to discuss some of the details of what have come to be called “the lost years,” and also other matters relating to your ministry on Earth. Our purpose is not to cause any heartache to your followers, but simply to iron out some of the mysteries that surround your life. Is that satisfactory to you?

Jesus: Yes, it is. Although I would not say that there are any lost years! But I welcome you, Steve, and I welcome all of you. And you may call me Jesus, or you may call me Yeshua. But I am pleased to be here with you this evening. …

I would like to begin with what [you] asked me about my early years, about my life as a child and as a young man, as an adult coming of age. And I want to begin by telling you, I had an incredible life as Jesus, as Yeshua. I had an incredible family. Yes, both above and below. And that is where so much confusion often occurs.

But I and my human family, and my beloved mother and my beloved father, and yes, my siblings, my extended family, they were so supportive since the day I was conceived. And yes, of course, it was known, although it was kept in many ways quiet – although it could not be kept that quiet, because I was quite adventurous. They supported my journey, and of course that is why I had been sent to this family in such exceptional circumstances.

At a very early age, around five, five and a half, I was completely, can I say, reunited or filled with the Holy Spirit. That full reconnection to Father-Mother One, what you think of as God or Source, what I think of as Mother-Holy Spirit, took place. (1)

And so that awareness and that connection, that knowing, and what you would think of as information, was available to me from the start, or from the very early age.

But I was also of a very educated family, and one that placed great value – not just my mother or father, but my entire family – who placed value on the learning, and what you can think of as the sacred learnings, of both Hebrew, certainly of the Laws, the Laws as a Jew, but also the universal laws. So I learned not just the languages of Greek, and I travelled.

There is – and I have spoken in other situations about my learning to assist my father in this, what you would now think of as construction business. He was far more than just a humble carpenter, although that is the job that he took or assumed when we first returned to Nazareth. But through these family ties I was brought to study and exposed to many scholars and many different points of view, including the Eastern philosophies.

My cousin, my beloved cousin John, who I loved as a brother, with him we studied and became familiar with the Essenes. So the exposure was brought. The difficulty was very often that I would correct my teachers, or I would challenge my teachers, not in a way that was offensive, for I was a very polite boy, and even a more polite young man. I did not ever wish really to draw great attention to myself. But what I could not understand sometimes was when there was a point of law or a point of philosophy that I knew was either incomplete or not rounded or even incorrect, I would ask about it.

And it was wonderful. This is the gift of being trained in a true scholastic environment: it is not just about obeying or obedience or adherence – and that is also the message that I would give to our fundamentalist friends, or any -ism – it is about exploring.

But it is about exploring from the inner knowing, and from your connection, because there is no being – no being – on Earth that is not touched or gifted with the wisdom, the energy, of the Holy Spirit. It is available, and it is truly gifted to many. Yes, you can turn away and say no, but that has never been understood – not while I was in human form, and not really now. It always comes back to this situation of self-loathing or self-worth, the lack of self-worth.

Now, you would say to me, Yeshua, if you were filled with the connection and the knowing, why was it necessary for you to be prepared in this way? My parents – particularly my mother, a very astute woman – it wasn’t just the value of education and culture. She knew that I would move in and amongst the people, in and amongst the cultures, and that in order to have credibility in my teachings, as I entered my more public life, that there would need to be a full understanding and an acculturation into these belief systems, even those that I did not completely agree with.

And that would be necessary in order for me to be accepted amongst my people. Because, although my message was universal, and always has been, it was to the people of the Jewish faith, those who had been promised and who were looking for a savior, a messiah, for a leader to take them out of this bondage, to make them what they thought would be leaders of the world.

But of course it is not of this world that I lead you. Yes, I teach you, I guide you, I help you. I help you every single day, whether you know it or not. I help you to maneuver and to deal with this world that you live in. Whether you feel that you are on top of the world, on top of your journey, on top of your game, or whether you are lost, I am still with you, and I am guiding you. And I have many voices, and even many faces, but they have always been the same message.

S: Lord, some people say you weren’t born in a manger or a stable, that you in fact didn’t come from parents of a humble and poor background – humble obviously – but that instead you came from a well established family. They weren’t poor by any means. Which version is correct, Lord?

J: We have known good times and bad. I was of a very well-established family. Let me make that very clear. And the establishment of our family was in the lineage, and yes, position, not just in terms of wealth, but in terms of heritage, of respect. Were my parents humble? Absolutely. For they could not have brought me forward if they were not. But as I was saying, in my family there was a tradition, and a deep respect, and yes, in your society you would say an expectation, of what an upbringing would be, and what that would be entailing in terms of training and scholarship, education, exposure, acculturation.

Now, when I was born, when I took form, let us put it that way, upon this beautiful Earth, it was during a time of mass migration and confusion. And it wasn’t what you would think of, has been romanticized as, a stable, a manger, but it was in a very humble situation, where there was a back room, yes, where animals were close by.

But that was not unusual, you know. So yes, in that situation, because of the requirements of government, I was born as [laughs] somewhat of a displaced person. But my family, my family was what you would think of as a very well-placed lineage.

S: Well, that’s very helpful. When your parents left Israel, where exactly did they go? What part of Egypt – I think it was Egypt – did they go to?

J: We went to a small village just outside what you would think of now as Alexandria. It was very humble. But then again there was family. So you have to understand, in our society, as in many of yours, the family took care of us. So it was not that I was in any way, or that our family was in any way, deprived. That simply was not the case at all. We had comfort.

My mother tended, in the beginning – well, always, really, but – to be what I would say would be very protective. She did not want to have me exposed to too many people in a strange and foreign place. She often feared that, should people know of the promise of my being, that it would place me in harm’s way. And so I was kept very close in the early, early years, not that I would wish to go anywhere anyway. But she kept me very close by her side within the family compound.

S: All right. And theAquarian Gospeldescribes you as coming into contact with the Egyptian hierophants. Did you in fact take a course of study with the Egyptian priests while in Egypt?

J: Yes, I did. But understand what I say, because I came into my knowing, into the fulfillment with the Holy Spirit, at a very, very early age. And so yes, I studied with the high priests and was exposed to their belief systems. The Egyptians, later the Greeks, the Romans to some extent, although that did not really have great impact at all, but the early times, and the understandings of the workings of the universe, the role of a priest in society was embedded from those early teachings in Egypt.

But it was – also there were studies with the Hebrew scholars as well. I learned Greek. I studied many cultures, and especially from the East, from that tradition, which was common, not unusual, in my family. But it did not – it did not cause contradiction, because there is no contradiction. Yes, you may ask your question.

S: Thank you. When you say that, “I studied with Greeks and Romans,” are you saying that you studied with them in Alexandria, or did you go on the same philosopher’s circuit that Apollonius of Tyana did, namely to Delphi, Egypt, Persia, India?

J: Yes, I travelled a great deal in my early years, as a young man – as an adolescent, and as a young man. My family felt that it was very important. My mother in particular knew the universality of the messages that I would come to share with many, and she wanted me to be fully prepared. Now, she did not always understand when I would challenge or debate, shall we say, some of my teachers.

But they always understood. They welcomed the conversations and different insights. There was no restriction. You see, this is what has been misunderstood. There has always been a feeling that the belief system was very constricted, and it was not. So yes, I was exposed and studied and went on many pilgrimages.

S: Apollonius of Tyana describes a circuit that many people followed almost as if it was well known in those days –

J: It was sequential.

S: Sequential. Did you actually set out to follow that same circuit?

J: Not step by step by step. But through exposure, yes, we did. And when I say we, I mostly mean that I was always accompanied by someone from my family.

S: All right. I know that we have many listeners in India, and I’m sure they would be most interested to know where you went in India at this time, whom you studied with, what lineage they were or what path they followed.

J: What you would think of is it would be the path of Hinduism. It is the path of the Masters, of the Teachers, of the Yogis.

S: Would you have made a distinction between, say, Vedanta [the non-dual path] or karma yogis [the path of service], or bhakti [the path of devotion], at that time?

J: At that time, no, we did not. There was very little. It was more preferential, but it would be more bhakti [devotion] than anything, if you were to look at it in terms of today’s. But it was also very rigorous in terms of also physical discipline and training as well.

S: And where did you go in India to study?

J: Everywhere.

S: I passed a marker outside of Pondicherry that celebrated the passage of Matsya, the fish prophet. Was that you?

J: Yes. Yes, it was.

S: That’s very, very interesting. What else should we know about these years before you started your ministry? What else would be relevant to us appreciating you as you began your ministry? What was important?

J: What I would want people to know – yes, in India, in Africa, in the Himalayas, certainly, in what you think of now as the Middle East – was the universality. My family obviously was in the Judaic tradition. But the level of sophistication – and yes, because I had the privilege to travel, to study, but also to work along side many fellow travelers, I was not alone. And I never thought of myself as the only voice, or the only teacher, or the only way. I was one. I was one where the Word, because of the Holy Spirit, was in flesh. But I certainly was not the only one.

So there are those who have said oh, yes, Jesus, another prophet. And then there are those who take great offense at that. I do not. Because each tradition that I have studied, whether it was in India or Egypt or in the temples, or at home, whether it was with the philosophers or the rabbis, they all were really telling me and teaching me the same thing.

And it was ironic in many ways. Yes, I understood – and it was rigorous! Do not think that I got to go on tour and live in the lap of luxury, because there was none of that. Yes, I was attended to. But it was far from luxurious. And there were times when my family depended on the extended family, always, for support. But it was considered important – because everyone knew that I was being prepared so that I know all paths.

So this is not meant in any way to say that what I taught came from here or there. And, yes, I have traveled, even further than most think. As I travel these days, amongst your star brothers and sisters. But it is the universality, it is the community spirit that I would wish to emphasize, it is the community of love.

And that was the message I received. I received it from the high priests. I received it from the yogis, I received it from the teachers and the masters, from the rabbis. They all had valuable teachings, and they taught me also not to be arrogant or conceited, to bring humility to my work, and to know that I was simply honored to be in service, as are each of you.

S: Well, you have mentioned the Holy Spirit in flesh, so I’m going to turn at this moment to another line of questioning. I’m quite sure we’re not going to get finished with our discussion today, so if you’d be so kind as to return next week, we can continue and I won’t try and rush through this, if that’s satisfactory to you.

J: Yes, and why do you think I have turned it in this direction, dear friend?

S: Very good. Thank you. I know I can rely on you to guide me. You mentioned the Holy Spirit in flesh, and that raises questions about your ministry. Do you consider that the word “avatar” applies to you and your ministry? Sri Ramakrishna says….

J: Avatar is not a word that I particularly cherish. (2) Let me put it that way.

S: All right.

J: There are those who wish to label me as an avatar. And I would accept that label, but I would not choose it. I would choose the label, or the description, of teacher.

S: Okay. Well, maybe we could creep up on it then from another route. Sri Ramakrishna considers you an avatar and publicly declared that. Can we talk about who was here then, please? You were here in bodily form. But –

J: Yes.

S: – Sananda was also here overlighting you, was he not?

J: Yes.

S: So that would be a second layer to your ministry, so to speak, the overlighting.

J: That is correct.

S: And then in addition to that, the Holy Spirit descended into your form. Is that correct?

J: That is correct.

S: And did that, by the way, happen when you were being baptized in the River Jordan?

J: No, it happened at a very early age, actually. The baptism was a symbolic refilling, if you want to put it that way. But, no, in order for me to go forward in my journey on Earth, there was an infilling of the Holy Spirit at a very early age, of about five, five and a half. And then it was renewed, or – symbolically renewed – so that the people would know that this was available to everybody.

S: All right. Well, if you were the human form that was overlit by a spirit as exalted as Sananda, and the Holy Spirit descended in you, that I would call an “avatar.” Would you disagree?

J: [Laughs] I do not disagree. I simply say to you that it is a designation that I am not so eager to claim.

S: Okay.

J: Yes, I will accept it. You know there was so much controversy, when I did walk the Earth, not only about my family’s position but about the politics of the “King of the Jews” and wanting leadership and political intrigue. So I am always very hesitant to give myself or to accept designations.

S: I accept that.

J: And I will tell you why. Because you, or your listeners, will then say, “Oh, well, he had this overlighting, he had this infilling, and that makes him different or separate,” and it does not. If anything, it allows me to be closer to you.

S: All right, I accept that, Lord.

J: All right. So I have made my point, then!

[laugh]

S: Yes, Lord.

J: And I want you to accept, each one of you, I have often teased this channel that you are M-in-Ms, masters-in-the-making, but now we will call you A-in-Ms, avatars-in-the-making.

S: [chuckles] All right. Were you in fact married to Mary Magdalene?

J: Let me put it this way: Yes.

S: All right. Formally married? I don’t know the customs of that age, so forgive me if I’ve asked an indelicate question, but married according to –

J: She was not my mistress, dear heart, so yes, we were formally married. She was my beloved wife. She was my sacred other. She was my divine other. She was my partner, that made my walk on Earth full with joy – and more human. It was anticipated, you know, that a young man would marry. But it was not simply because of custom, or because I wished to be part of or separate, it was because I wished to be in sacred union with my Magdalena.

The love that we have shared was deep and profound. And there have been many who have nay-sayed and made up many myths and stories about her. But she was my support as I was hers. She was my sounding board. It was a very difficult.

When we came together, she knew. We discussed very fully what the future held and the road that we would walk together. She was one who always prepared ritual, and helped to put ceremony, often, around our situations.

Now, as you well know from the Egyptians, and from the travels to India, I had learned about ritual and ceremony and the importance of it. But in many ways, even from the family that I was raised in, I was a very relaxed and casual person. I wanted to move amongst the people.

And often she would say, yes, we will move amongst the people, and we will have the joining and the teaching, but let us put some ceremony and ritual, for she had also been trained in this way. So yes, not only was I married, we had a family as well.

S: Why would the gospel writers neglect to mention that?

J: It was not considered particularly important, but it was also considered protection and reverence for her.

S: All right. Okay. So you actually had children, did you not?

J: Yes.

S: How many?

J: We had two children.

S: Two children? A girl and a boy, or – ?

J: Yes, we had a son. A son and a daughter.

S: Could you tell us about –

J: Our son died very young. It was very hard. But our daughter lived.

S: And is she the Holy Grail?

J: That is correct. Our Sara is the Holy Grail.

S: Sara. Where did she go after you left the Earth? France?

J: She went to the south of France.

S: And was she that which was revered by the Cathars?

J: That is correct.

S: Oh, it takes my breath way to hear you say this, Lord. I actually notice that the time is getting close to our ending, but again, I’m just going to continue next week, if you’ll permit me. So perhaps this could be a wind-up question. Did you teach reincarnation during your ministry?

J: Yes, I did. Now, is that not a radical statement for many to hear?

S: Yes.

J: But yes, I did. Because this was a very common understanding – not always agreed to by the rabbis, but in many of the other cultures. The continuity of life, the continuity of the flame of the soul. How could I teach that you did not die and not talk about reincarnation? How could I raise the dead and not talk about reincarnation?

S: Yes.

J: So yes.

S: But you also – you also say – you also speak about enlightenment conferring immortality. But I take it that by that you mean that someone would not need to be born again, not need to leave the temple and go more out. Is that correct?

J: That is correct.

S: All right. So we are immortal?

J: Yes, you are immortal. Every single one of you. And we will talk about karma and the requirements for reincarnation when next we meet, because this has need to be clarified.

S: And I’m looking forward to that immensely, Lord. Thank you for visiting with us tonight.

J: It is my pleasure. And I bless you, and I thank you. And I give you my love.

Footnotes

(1) The Holy Spirit is known in Hinduism as the Divine Mother or Shakti. The difference between the Father and the Holy Spirit is the difference between the transcendental and the phenomenal or between stillness and silence and movement and sound. The Father is not masculine and the Mother is not feminine.

(2) Because it might put distance between him and other people. But was Jesus also just being modest?

Steve Beckow 

• goldenageofgaia.com/

 

Treating Gods Transactionally

Treating Gods Transactionally

By A. S.

Posted on April 26, 2025

 

Credit to: britannica.com

Hello my brothers and sisters,

This is not a channeled message. It's simply a message written by me, the guy who normally channels these messages.

Today I want to talk about magick.

I spell magick with ck to distinguish it from stage magic. This is a convention that other people use as well.

But then, what is magick?

I don't claim to be an expert on the topic, and my personal views are influenced by things I've heard from people whose names I don't remember and can't easily find. So if some of these ideas originated from you, feel free to claim credit in the comment section.

But here's my personal view:

Scientists think that matter creates consciousness. Magick users (and perhaps others too) think that consciousness creates matter.

Magick, then, is consciously working with energy or spiritual beings. And because consciousness creates and affects matter, consciously working with energy can have impacts that the average person doesn't expect.

Often magick uses some kind of energy to powers a spell, plus an intention -- what you want the energy to do.

So for example, one form of magick is sex magick, practiced either by yourself (masturbation), with a partner, with multiple partners or even in an orgy context.

Some Pleiadians occasionally participate in sex magick orgies. Why not? It's effective and fun (for some people), so why wouldn't they? Magick isn't bad or good, it's what you do with it.

Sex magick works by the participants setting the same intention together, having sex, and then focusing on and visualizing the desired outcome before, during and after the orgasm.

So the energy being used during sex magick is sexual energy.

Crystals have an energy that can be used for magick as well.

You can also ask angels for help and if they think it's a worthy cause, they'll help you with their energy. For example, a spell could just be saying or thinking:

"I am having an amazing month [or replace this with another intention of your choice, using the present tense]. It's happening in accordance with the highest divine blueprint. I'm asking wise and benevolent beings, forces and aspects of existence to contribute to this, including Ganesha. Thank you, now now now"

Does this work? It works for me, so long as my intention is something that is indeed in accordance with the highest divine blueprint, and I'm not being blocked by what my soul wants (it might want something uncomfortable to happen in order for me to learn a lesson), or by subconscious limiting beliefs.

Here, the energy that powers the spells are just my own natural energy, plus "wise and benevolent beings, forces and aspects of existence, including Ganesha." This way I'm including angels, and many other beings besides.

Why am I including Ganesha? Well, I personally enjoy working with him and find him to be a great asset to my magick.

I'm not claiming that what I'm doing is the only or the best way to do magick. I'm just sharing what's working for me.

But then, if I'm saying "wise and benevolent beings, forces and aspects of existence, including Ganesha" -- does that mean that Ganesha isn't wise, or isn't benevolent?

It doesn't mean that. Ganesha is wise and benevolent.

I simply had a conversation with him.

I wasn't willing to worship Ganesha, or be devotional, in the conventional way that someone might worship a god.

And Ganesha wasn't willing to help if I just said "wise and benevolent beings, forces and aspects of existence." He's included in the definition, but he wasn't willing to help.

But Ganesha was willing to help me if I said "wise and benevolent beings, forces and aspects of existence, including Ganesha." Why? Because then I'm "paying" Ganesha with my focus / attention / energy.

Us Earth humans are incredibly powerful beings -- our power is just very unrefined. However, even just us thinking about a god or mentioning them, empowers that god.

So Ganesha considered it sufficient payment if I just said "including Ganesha", even in situations where no other Earth human hears my words.

The metaphor that Ganesha used to explain this to me is: "if you think or say my name, you're giving me a substantial amount of metaphorical iron ore (energy). I'm then happy to give you my aid, which you can think of as an iron pan. It's a good deal for you, because you have plenty of iron ore but have trouble making an iron pan out of it. And it's a good deal for me, because I can easily turn some of your iron ore into an iron pan, give you the pan and keep the remainder for myself."

Hence the title: treating gods transactionally.

Thanks, Ganesha.

To be clear, I'm not claiming my approach is the best or the only way. Being devotional has advantages, including for the person who is devotional.

In fact, not all gods or goddesses will accept or even tolerate this transactional approach. I talked to a goddess one time who demanded that I engage in an act of worship before she was even willing to have a conversation with me (I hadn't asked her for any favors). So I'm not saying that this transactional approach is a good way to approach gods or goddesses in general.

Some Earth human magick users will say something like: "if you want to work with a god, it's good to do a small ritual for them, or give them a small offering. Obviously the god actually bending the material world in your favor is a far greater thing than the ritual or the offering you're doing, however that minor thing you do for the god is just a sign of respect."

Now the respect might be one aspect of it, but from my point of view, the god is being well-compensated for their action. Namely, the payment is the energy that you give them by simply focusing on them during the ritual or offering. After all, where attention goes, energy flows -- so thinking about Ganesha gives him energy.

To be clear, Ganesha isn't parasitizing. So it's not like we only have ten kilos of iron ore in our lifetime, and if we ask Ganesha for a favor, we permanently spend one kilo of iron ore and for the rest of our lives we only have nine kilos left.

It's more that we're a constantly flowing fountain of iron ore (energy). So if we spend some time thinking about Ganesha and we mention his name and we ask for a specific favor, then he gets iron ore that he considers sufficient payment to slightly bend the physical world in our favor. But we lose nothing.

Now granted, I might be more energetically powerful than the average person, so in exchange for his aid maybe Ganesha would expect a small ritual, and therefore a lengthier amount of attention, from an average person.

And maybe Ganesha is willing to aid people who really need it, even without payment, and Ganesha merely wasn't willing to help me because I asked for something that I wanted but didn't strictly need. I don't know, I'm not channeling Ganesha here.

But what I do want to point out is: this is how powerful us Earth humans are. Us just thinking about a god for a few seconds, or maybe for some people a few minutes, is enough payment for that god to be happy to bend reality slightly in our favor.

So even our momentary attention is incredibly powerful, and produces a noticeable amount of energy.

It's important to realize that.

And how awe-inspiring will we be once we start learning to make iron pans ourselves?

And shouldn't we be able to just disempower undesired things simply by not giving attention to them?

With all my love,

A.S.

If you want to meet like-minded Earth humans, please see

• https://eraoflight.com/2024/06/19/hakann-local-meetings-for-those-seeking-first-contact-with-benevolent-ets/

If you want to learn about a useful healing modality, please see 

• https://channelings.substack.com/p/hakann-onion-healing

© 2025 A.S.
no business address

Biological Attraction is a Terrible Guide

Biological Attraction is a Terrible Guide

Tourmalayne trough A. S.

Posted on February 4, 2025

My dearest Earth friends,

This is Tourmalayne speaking. It is so good to speak to you again.

Today I will give dating advice that some of you will already know, but that may be beneficial for some people:

Don’t follow your biology-level attraction, because it will lead you to reject partners who would make you happy, and it will lead you to date partners who won’t.

So, let’s unpack that.

First of all, this advice applies to both men and women. I will mostly be discussing female biological attraction in this message because it’s less well-understood on Earth. Still, let’s first look at male biological attraction.

Men’s biology-level attraction pushes them to have sex with as many women as they can, especially if those women are pretty and young. After all, young women are fertile and pretty women have good genes. Good genes means less chance of the child dying during their childhood, which was a huge issue in previous centuries.

Men’s biology-level attraction also causes them to prefer women who are unlikely to secretly cheat on him and pretend that another man’s child is his. This leads men to preferring virginal, inexperienced, submissive, not super outgoing, not very flirty or promiscuous women.

Don’t blame men for this preference. Blame the women who cheated on men and then pretended that another man’s child was his, which apparently happened often enough that men now have a noticeable preference for women whose character traits indicate that they are unlikely to do that.

I’m not being too cynical. In France, paternity testing is only allowed with a court order. This was done to “preserve the peace of families.”

So yes, a small but not insignificant group of women does in fact cheat on their partner and then pretend that the child is his. While immoral, this makes biological sense — that way the woman gets the great genes from one man, and gets the stability and resources from another man. This maximizes her chance of having a child who will survive to adulthood, if she can’t find one man with both great genes and lots of resources.

Ultimately, biology doesn’t care about morality. Biology also doesn’t care about happiness. All it cares about is producing children who will reach adulthood.

Now, if a man just wants to reproduce, then it’s more or less okay for him to follow his biology-level attraction.

However, if a man wants to be happy, then it’s not a good strategy to let himself be led by those biology-level attractions. After all, his biology wants him to choose a prettier woman over a woman with a better character. His biology also wants him to have a ton of empty, meaningless sex with a ton of women. This is a great strategy for reproduction, but it’s not a good strategy for long-term happiness.

So, this is the first important principle: following your biological attraction is good for reproduction, but it’s bad for long-term happiness. Now your biology doesn’t care about your happiness, but you might.

And indeed, men are told to use their brain when selecting a partner, to not just go for the hottest woman, to not blindly follow their dick, to be faithful to one woman and to not just have sex with as many women as possible, et cetera.

This is good advice. Telling men to not just follow their biological attraction causes more men to make choices that lead them to long-term happiness.

The advice not to follow their biological attraction is just as true for women. But unfortunately, society doesn’t as often give women this warning. Hence women often do simply follow their biology-level attraction. As a result women often reject good partners, select horrible partners and get seriously hurt.

After all, in modern societies it’s not that important that a husband is able to fight well. But in primitive societies, that was absolutely crucial. Not being able to fight well could mean that the entire family gets murdered by a bandit, or gets eaten by a wild animal.

So a woman’s biology-level attraction likes it when men are able to kill an attacking bandit on a moment’s notice. Because that means the family survives. So it’s attractive when men are stoic, capable of violence and a bit psychopathic. It’s not attractive if he’s calm, humanitarian, emotional, empathetic, kind or excessively rational, because then he can’t kill the bandit who would otherwise murder his family.

You can’t have a husband who has a moment of weakness when a bandit is suddenly attacking the family. If he has a pang of anxiety, the entire family dies. Therefore men can’t show weakness, not even for a moment. If a man ever cries, forget it, dump his ass.

Now obviously, women have higher faculties too, and it is attracted to loftier things than her biology-level attraction. But when push comes to shove, modern women do often choose to follow their biology-level attraction. And so women might say they want emotionally open men, but when push comes to shove they reject such men in favor of emotionally repressed men who don’t show much emotion. Because that’s who can kill a bandit at a moment’s notice, and hence that’s what’s biologically attractive.

Your husband needs to be surface-level stoic for only the time it takes for your children to become teenagers. After that, you’ve achieved your biological goal, and your future happiness and relationship stability, or your husband’s psychological health, doesn’t matter from a biological perspective.

Obviously, choosing men who are capable of murdering a stone-age bandit is a poor choice for optimizing your happiness in the present day. But even though it sounds really silly if I say it like this, this is what women’s biological attraction is actually nudging them towards. Which means that following biological attraction is a terrible idea for long-term happiness.

Other than killing bandits, what’s also important and therefore attractive in prehistoric times is that the man will bring home food, even if there’s a famine. No matter what he needs to do to get that food.

So, what kind of traits will allow a man to bring home food, even if there’s a famine, no matter what he needs to do to get that food?

Well, violent tendencies, psychopathy, narcissism, perhaps poor impulse control, being stoic, not being too emotional or humanitarian or introspective or rational. The man shouldn’t be too moral or kind or empathetic, because that just gets in the way of him bringing home food no matter what.

Yeah, it’s not nice, but having your child starve to death isn’t nice either.

And that’s why bad boys and jerks and psychopaths and narcissists are attractive to women.

Don’t blame women, they just don’t want their children to starve to death during a famine. Doesn’t matter that those things no longer happen in the West — what happened in the Stone age is what women’s attraction is calibrated towards.

Now, there’s also a part of women that likes kind men and that doesn’t like bad boys and jerks and psychopaths. Yet biology-level attraction leads women away from kind men and towards bad boys and jerks.

This is why you have some women saying they want a kind man, and then they reject kind men in favor of a jerk. It’s a war between the more evolved parts of her and her raw, cavewoman era, biology-level attraction. And if a woman is just following her attraction, then the cavewoman often wins.

Women saying they want kind men, and then rejecting kind men in favor of jerks, is a sort of unintentional gaslighting that women inflict on men.

And obviously, choosing bad boys and jerks isn’t good for women’s long-term happiness either. No matter how much her biological attraction might appreciate that those guys can kill bandits and bring home food during a famine.

Women often see it as self-evident that of course they’re only going to date those men who are immediately attractive to her on a biological level. After all, love and attraction are requirements for a relationship, right?

Sometimes this isn’t even a conscious choice: many women simply instantly reject men who aren’t immediately attractive. Or women don’t even register such men as potential partners. Sometimes women get asked out during an event, immediately turn the man down, and then think to themselves at the end of the event that it’s a shame that no one asked her out.

Now on one level, it’s understandable that women only want to date men they’re immediately biologically attracted to. Don’t you need to be attracted to your partner?

Yet, attraction is actually something that can grow over time. It doesn’t need to be there immediately.

And there’s also the difference between long-term attraction to someone because they’re a good person and you’ve built something together, versus immediate attraction because that guy would be able to kill an attacking stone age bandit.

Insisting on only dating men who are immediately attractive means quite possibly rejecting good men in favor of jerks. Because that’s what women’s biology-level attraction points them to.

Or women insisting on dating men who are immediately attractive can mean going for genuinely good men who are also immediately attractive. However, only a tiny handful of men are genuinely good men while also being immediately attractive on a biological level. And pretty much all women would love a man like this. So those men are either already taken, or they have so many options that they’re willing to have sex but they’re unwilling to commit.

Immediate, biology-level attraction isn’t actually a requirement for long-term relationship happiness. In fact, the Ancient Greeks saw immediate, biology-level attraction as a type of temporary madness that just leads people astray.

They would be horrified to learn that many modern women refuse to date anyone except for those people whom they had an immediate, biology-level attraction to. To Ancient Greeks, that would be like saying: “I don’t date men unless I’m being overwhelmed by temporary madness for them.”

Of course, some women absolutely do use their brain or intuition and make genuinely good dating choices. It’s certainly not true that all women operate based on biology-level attraction. However, most modern women do.

So, those are some elements of women’s biology-level attraction: men must be able to kill an attacking bandit on a moment’s notice, and men must be able to bring home food during a famine no matter what needs to be done. Hence bad boys and jerks and psychopaths and stoic men are welcome, while emotional and weak and kind men are not.

And a women’s higher faculties have the complete opposite preferences, which can lead to almost schizophrenic outcomes, where women say they want one kind of man and then date a completely different kind of man.

But we’re not done yet. Another element of women’s biology-level attraction is a very high amount of pickiness.

After all, in primitive societies, being the second or third wife of an exceptional hunter is a better deal than being the only wife of an average guy. After all, that exceptional hunter will be able to provide for three wives, and besides he can actually win fights and thereby keep the woman and their children safe. The average man may lose the fight, which could mean that a wild animal or bandit kills the family.

If you don’t think that these types of consideration still matter, ask yourself why height still plays such an important role in female attraction. After all, height doesn’t matter in modern society, and height doesn’t indicate any type of virtue on the part of the man. It doesn’t seem logical for women to significantly prefer men that are a bit taller than her, to shorter men. Yet, women do have that preference.

This is because height is very important when it comes to fighting or hunting. And a man being good at fighting and hunting in primitive society could easily mean the difference between life and death.

So yes, women’s attraction is still being governed by what was beneficial in the stone age. Women’s strong preference for somewhat taller guys shows this.

So, women are picky and they want top men, even if that means sharing him with other women. After all, the top man can actually kill the wild animal or bandit who would otherwise kill the family.

Having a monogamous relationship with a more average man might be nice, but biology doesn’t care about happiness. Besides, it’s not nice if he can’t stop the entire family from being killed.

Plus the great hunter probably has great genes, which means that their children will have a better chance to not die in childbirth. Which was a massive issue in prehistoric societies. That is yet another reason for women to be very picky, even if that means becoming the third wife of a top man rather than being monogamous with an average man.

Indeed, your scientists have found evidence that 80% of women procreated while only 40% of men did. This shows that yes, for much of your history, women preferred sharing top men over being monogamous with average men.

Younger women grew up without social and economic and religious factors pushing them towards monogamy. As a result, young women are once again becoming so picky that they’re rejecting available single men and end up sharing top men with other women. This is more common among young women than you might realize.

Sometimes this is one man openly having relationships with multiple women, where those women know each other. And sometimes this is just one man dating or having regular sex with multiple women.

As a result of this, currently more than 60% of young men are single, while only about 30% of young women are single.

Of course, this also has something to do with women dating older men, but there is absolutely an element of women being so picky that they’re choosing to share the top men rather than being monogamous with the single men. And that is a great strategy for reproducing in a stone age tribe, but it’s a poor strategy for being happy in the modern world. After all, the women who choose to share a top man, are frequently unhappy because of the lack of quality time and intimacy and connection. But, biology doesn’t care about happiness, it cares about reproduction.

Hence my earlier statement that women are following their biology-level attraction, often to the detriment of their own long-term happiness.

Women see how dumb it is when men follow their biological attraction, for example when they choose a woman with large breasts over a woman with a good character, or when men blow up a relationship in order to have some casual sex.

But it can also be very counterproductive when women follow their biological attraction, for example by being so picky that she rejects all interested men and ends up alone. And while both men and women might be quick to claim that they’re happy alone, the fact is that most people aren’t fully happy without a relationship.

Or if a woman follows her biological attraction, it can lead to her sharing a top man with other women, which may not be emotionally fulfilling because his attention will be split and hence the connection might not be very meaningful.

Or it can lead to a woman getting repeatedly used for sex, because top men won’t marry average women but they will sleep with them.

If your dating experience is that men are only interested in sex, then likely you are trying to date up so much that that tier of man you’re dating isn’t interested in marrying you. But men won’t say no to easy sex.

Single men who actually are in your league typically will be interested in a serious relationship. Sure, a few men won’t, but most men will.

Women’s pickiness isn’t just bad for her own happiness, it also hurts men. Earlier we said that less than 40% of young men are in a relationship. Plus, some of those men are in relationships that are unhappy or unhealthy or that won’t last a long time.

Therefore, perhaps only one in five young men are in healthy, happy relationships that are going to last a long time. This is obviously awful for men. And it’s also awful for society, because if average young men can’t find a woman, then why would they work hard? Why not just indulge in video games all day? And this will cause a serious decline in society at large, because society needs young men to be ambitious and work hard.

Now, women at this point might argue that they’re actually not all that picky, and that all they want is a decent partner who is, let’s say, emotionally open and a good communicator.

Let’s say that 30% of all men are sufficiently emotionally open and good enough communicators for the woman’s tastes. Surely it’s not unreasonable to say yes to dating 30% of all men? That still leaves many millions of potential partners out there.

But in reality, there’s often a laundry list of unspoken criteria that women have on top of their stated criteria. And while those unspoken criteria might sound reasonable by themselves, due to the way probabilities work, any long list of criteria will eliminate the vast majority of men.

Suppose that a hidden criteria is that a man must make at least $30,000 per year in the US. This is a below-median amount in the United States, and about 70% of men fulfill that criteria, so this doesn’t sound unreasonable. We’re not even asking that the man makes a median amount of money, we’re merely asking that he doesn’t make significantly less than the median. Many women would be pickier than this. But let’s be as reasonable as possible.

Also, the man also can’t be short. Let’s say he has to be at least 172cm, or 5 foot and 8 inches. Again, we’re not even asking here that the man has a median height, we’re merely asking that he’s not significantly below the median. In other words, we’re merely asking that he’s not short. Again, 70% of men fulfill that criteria.

Now, let’s add the requirement that the man can’t be obese. We’re not being unreasonable, we’re okay with him being overweight, but he can’t be obese. Okay, about 60% of American men aren’t obese.

Let’s also say that he can’t suffer from mental illness, which is true for 80% of men.

So, what percentage of men fulfill these reasonable sounding requirements? Please estimate this before reading on.

Pausing to give people some time to guess…

Let’s calculate it. 0.3 * 0.7 * 0.7 * 0.6 * 0.8 = 0.07%. So we’re only accepting 7% of men and rejecting all the rest. In other words, even though our demands seemed reasonable, we’ve somehow stumbled upon a situation where we’re rejecting the vast majority of men and only accepting a tiny group of top men. At least, that’s what our simple calculation indicates; reality may be a bit more complex.

And note that the men we’re rejecting this way are men who will also be rejected by other women. Other women also aren’t looking to date men who are mentally ill, or obese, or very short, or broke, et cetera. As a result, even though we think we’re being reasonable, really we’re trying to fish out of the same small pool of the 7% most appealing men that pretty much all women are trying to fish out of.

Now sure, women have different preferences to an extent, however pretty much all women are trying to avoid men who are obese, short, broke, mentally ill, et cetera. So the general pattern still holds that a woman thinks she is being quite reasonable, but in actuality she is still trying to fish out of a smallish pool of top tier men that more or less all women are also trying to fish out of. She’s being a lot pickier than she realizes.

How can this be? We merely asked that the man makes $30,000 per year, which is a below median amount in the United States. So how can it be that apparently we’re now apparently suddenly demanding a top-7% man?

It’s because of how probabilities work when you stack them on top of each other.

Yes, if a woman would date any man who makes $30,000 per year, then indeed 70% of men are options to her. But in reality, she also had the hidden requirements that the man cannot be mentally ill, or obese, et cetera. And all of those requirements by themselves sound reasonable, but if you stack them on top of each other then suddenly the woman is actually demanding a top-7% man without realizing it.

And we’ve actually been quite reasonable, only demanding that the man isn’t short and isn’t broke and isn’t obese. If we’re actually demanding that the man is a bit taller than average, makes a bit more money than average and also isn’t allowed to be overweight, then the 7% shrinks even more.

That 7% would also be even lower if we added in more criteria that women may also have, such as that the man cannot have children from past relationships, that he cannot be seriously physically ill, that he cannot be in serious debt, that he must have a certain level of education, that he must have decent social skills and humor, et cetera. And all those demands, while all seemingly reasonable by themselves, still stack on top of each other, and reduce the pool of acceptable men to even less than 7%.

Now, obviously I’m not saying that women should date just anyone.

But now it becomes perhaps easier to see that it may be hard to find a man who checks all your boxes, due to the way that probabilities work. And that suggests that it may not be productive for women to insist on a man to whom she’s immediately biologically attracted.

For example, a man’s height was important in the stone age, but may not actually be that important when it comes to long-term relationship happiness in the modern world.

If you’re one of the relatively few women who does give short men a try, then it’s entirely possible that you will get a good husband whom other women rejected for shallow reasons.

And also, if you do have the attention of a man who has one or two great qualities and he isn’t short, isn’t broke, isn’t obese, isn’t mentally ill, et cetera, then you likely have a top-tier man on your hands, even if it doesn’t seem like a top-tier man to you. After all, we did the math, right? People are just quite bad at correctly guessing probabilities.

Even if he doesn’t immediately set your world on fire, I would strongly consider dating such a man, or maintaining the relationship with him if he’s already your partner. Because after all, odds are that you will not find a better man.

You can be genuinely happy even with a non-exceptional partner. Happiness comes from within, after all, and it’s inner work that will ultimately fulfill you.

Sure, it would be great to have a kind, good-hearted man who is also immediately attractive to you on a biological level… but that’s a few percent of men at most, and all the other women want those men too. You’re almost certainly not going to get him. Because why would that man with infinite options choose you over all the other women he could marry?

Which means that if you do only go after men who are immediately attractive to you on a biological level… Almost certainly those men either have severe character defects and they won’t make you happy long term, or they have so many options that they will sleep with you but won’t commit to you.

If you’re still not convinced: on Tinder, women only respond to 4% or 5% of men. Which is pretty much in line with our calculation of our hypothetical woman only being satisfied with 7% of men.

Another indicator is that research shows that women rate 80% of men as below average. You can imagine how that works: a woman sees a man who isn’t amazing, but he has one or two great qualities and he isn’t short, isn’t obese, isn’t broke, isn’t mentally ill, et cetera. The woman labels that as average, but as we’ve seen, these kinds of men are actually somewhere near the top, just by having some genuine qualities and by also not having any of a laundry list of significant defects that some men have.

Now on one hand I can sort of see where Earth women are coming from. But on the other hand, labeling 80% of men as below average is of course very picky. By definition, 50% of men are below average, not 80%.

At this point, women might say that if the dating situation is like this, then they’d rather be single. And that’s of course a choice you can make, and in fact for some women being single is indeed the optimal choice.

However, you genuinely can be happy with a man who is not immediately attractive to you on a biology level. If you let some of those biology-level criteria go, and give men a chance who aren’t immediately attractive to you, then it’s quite possible to find a good partner whom other women didn’t give a chance.

Furthermore, most people, men and women, won’t be fully happy unless they have a partner.

And the idea that some women have that they can’t find anyone is not necessarily based on reality. It may be merely based on the experiences that they had while following their biological attraction. And sure, they probably didn’t find a happy relationship while following their biological attraction, but women can also date while not doing that.

In other words, some women (and some men too) dated exclusively by following their biological attraction, got burned by that, and then swore off dating entirely. But it’s also possible to date while mostly following your brain and intuition, and de-emphasizing the desires stemming from your biological attractions.

Just like men may have to accept a partner who doesn’t have large breasts or isn’t in her twenties, you too may have to accept a partner who for example is short. And such a partner can still enhance your life.

And I would realize that the type of man who has a few good qualities and who doesn’t have any significant flaws is actually a significantly above-average man already. I wouldn’t be too quick to reject such men just because they aren’t immediately attractive on a biological level. After all, attraction and love can grow over time.

There are also qualities you can cultivate that make you more attractive towards men. Obviously a slim body is nice, but you can also sort out your own life, work on healing your old wounds, practicing kindness and patience, et cetera.

The good news is that men actually on average aren’t excessively picky. Sure, some men are, but most of the female idea of men being picky stems from women all trying to get commitment from the same small pool of top men. Sure, those men are very picky because they have infinite options.

However if an average woman expresses interest in a man who is actually average, most likely he’ll be interested.

Most men are also good people. Sure, not all men are, but the idea that most men suck is mostly just women following their biological attraction and thereby dating all kinds of jerks, and then concluding that most men are jerks as a result.

If a man says that all his girlfriends were crazy, then you would likely think that this man must be attracted to crazy women, right? Similarly, if all your experiences are that men are jerks, then maybe you’re attracted to jerks.

Furthermore, most men are quite easy to please. Sure, men are different, but it’s mostly the men who are either jerks or who have infinite options who are likely to be unsatisfied, to cheat or to dump their wife. Most men are genuinely happy and faithful if they just have a decent, kind wife.

Now, let’s give some dating advice to men.

Choose conscious women with a good personality, over women who are younger or prettier. After all, that is what will lead to long-term happiness.

If you go for unconscious women, then likely she will see that you’re too kind or too insecure or too emotional to be able to murder a stone-age bandit. And the relationship won’t work. Therefore choose conscious women, because you won’t have this problem with them.

Alternatively you can be a selfish bad boy with a fit body or large bank account, and try to sleep with as many women as possible. But if that’s the game you want to play, be aware that the prize you’ll win may ultimately be meaningless. Lots of casual sex may seem appealing at first, but it won’t nourish your soul. It will ultimately be empty.

Finally, let’s add one more piece to the puzzle.

Namely: women undervalue femininity.

It is absolutely not true that having a career is somehow a worthier pursuit than being loving, being caring, being people-oriented, taking care of people around you, having children, supporting your partner, taking care of the house, engaging in spirituality, making art, teaching, volunteering, gardening, et cetera et cetera et cetera.

In other words, masculine-energy pursuits aren’t better than feminine-energy pursuits.

However, many women have been convinced that they only have value, or that they only are financially safe, if they’re excelling in masculine pursuits. This is why being a stay at home mom is considered uncool or dangerous or detrimental to feminism, while being a career woman is seen as a good thing and as the safe choice.

However, career women tend to have a very hard time dating, and ultimately relationships are much more a source of happiness than jobs are. After all, the vast majority of work isn’t glamorous or spectacular or fulfilling. So, is being a career woman really the road to happiness and safety?

Different roads will appeal to different people, but most people will only be happy if they’re in a relationship where the woman is feminine and the man is masculine.

Well, women pursuing masculine pursuits is poison to that arrangement. There is no polarity or natural attraction between a masculine man and a masculine woman. Those people won’t feel much attraction towards each other because frankly they don’t need each other — they’re already both masculine.

Theoretically it could work if the woman is masculine and the man is feminine, however very few people will be happy long-term being in the energy of the opposite gender. Most men also aren’t attracted to masculine women, and most women aren’t attracted to feminine men.

I get needing a job to survive. But this whole phenomenon of women thinking that masculine pursuits like careers and independence are good, and that feminine pursuits like being a devoted mother or supportive wife are bad… to me that looks like metaphorical penis envy.

My beautiful sisters, you are already fully worthy of love, as you are right now. You don’t need to become masculine in order to have value or be safe. You already have value — good men already value you as you are, and good men are already happy to contribute financially and keep you safe. Those men exist, they’re out there.

If you disagree with my stance on gender dynamics, please consider that what your society is currently doing isn’t working. At all. Pretty much everyone is unhappy and your society is deteriorating and unraveling rapidly. Sticking with something that very clearly doesn’t work can’t be the solution.

If you favor a type of gender dynamics that leads to women having below replacement level children, then you’re also advocating for gender dynamics that will eventually lead to the extinction of your species.

Meanwhile, if you admire us Pleiadians and want to meet us and want to pluck the technological and spiritual fruits of our society, then it may be good to consider that it was pretty much traditional gender dynamics that helped us to cultivate those fruits.

Now obviously our women aren’t banned from our form of university, and aren’t banned from any careers.

However, yes, most of our women are focused on the home, on their children, on supporting their husband, et cetera. They’re not forced to do that, but that is what most Pleiadian women choose. And there really isn’t anything wrong with that.

In fact, men tend to love those kinds of women and value them and be happy to marry them. And why not? This is a type of life that makes the average woman happy, that raises healthy children and that contributes greatly and very positively to society.

And obviously, as a family-oriented woman you absolutely can have your own garden, or your own podcast, or your own side project, or make art, or whatever you choose to do. It’s a secure basis, not a straitjacket.

And with that, and with all my hopes and wishes for positive male – female interactions on Earth, I will leave you for today.

Your star sister,

Tourmalayne

Channel: A.S.

 

For Era of Light

 

These channelings are exclusively submitted to EraofLight.com by the channeler. If you wish to share them elsewhere, please include a link back to this original post.

If you are interested in local meetings with other people also seeking first contact with benevolent ETs, then please see https://eraoflight.com/2024/06/19/hakann-local-meetings-for-those-seeking-first-contact-with-benevolent-ets/ . If you search with control-F for @, then you can quickly find email addresses of those who are organizing local groups. It’s also not too late to post a new (secondary) email address yourself to start a new local group, because we plan to keep linking to that post for the foreseeable future.