TRANSCRIPT
[Music]
I think a good place to start would be just imagining how people would be if they really resolved all their traumas. To me, this would be more than just idle speculation. This would be based on what I’ve seen, not just in my own personal life in terms of how I’ve evolved, but having watched other people evolve too, and then extrapolating it forward. So if I’ve come 30% of the way toward resolving my traumas and becoming 30% enlightened, if I extended that line out to 100%, what would I be like? What would other people be like?
[Music]
I’d like to take on several different topics and just imagine how people would be in relation to these topics. First of all, let’s just start with random ones. Alcohol. Would people want to drink alcohol? I think people would have no desire to drink alcohol because I think alcohol is a slippery way to try to connect with one’s Spirit. Again, that’s why certain alcohols are called spirits. If people are already connected to their Spirit, if their conscious mind is fully connected with their truth within their Spirit, they have no need to drink. They would find it repugnant. It would be like someone who doesn’t have a headache taking pain medication. It wouldn’t make any sense at all.
Drugs. I can’t conceive why people would want to take any drugs at all. I can’t imagine why they’d want to smoke marijuana. Why would they need to go to other realms to find things within themselves when they’ve already found them within? Why would anyone do heroin or smoke opium? It wouldn’t make sense to me because they would have no painful things that they would need to numb within themselves. No emotionally terrifying, horrible things that they’re trying to blot out of reality and take to the extreme of doing opiates.
Now, of course, one could start speculating. If there’s no need for alcohol, no need for marijuana, if no need for opiates, then that would rather kill the drug trade from within. People would have much, much, much less desire to have sex. I even think the biological side of sex would be radically diminished because I think so much of the biological quote need for sex is really just based on emotional needs that are playing out through the biological and physical lens of sex. So I think sex would actually return to being for procreation. I don’t think people would want to have sex to emotionally connect with other people. And I think that’s a prime reason that people have sex nowadays, be they gay or straight. They’re trying to get their emotional needs met, and the problem with that is you really can’t get your emotional needs met through [Laughter] sex.
Now, one could ask, what about gay people? Would they be having sex at all? According to my theory, if they didn’t want to procreate, and it’s really a good question, I really don’t know. I actually wonder if our whole human concept of sexual orientation would be completely different if the mass of humanity were enlightened. That there actually might be no such thing as gay anymore, and by the same token, there might be no such thing as straight. It might just be a moot concept.
People would have far, far fewer children, and many people would have none at all because I think people would instantaneously realize that a world of six billion people is simply far too many for this planet. It’s way beyond the planet’s carrying capacity. They would intuitively feel disgusted by seeing what we’re doing. So the idea of having two, three, four children would be a repugnant concept. People just simply wouldn’t do it.
People say, “Oh, I’m bringing the new generation. I’m creating someone who’s going to add something wonderful to the world.” And I would argue with them. Now, if you really want to add someone wonderful to the world, add yourself. If you want to really bring a beautiful child into the world who can really contribute something fantastic, then work out your traumas and give yourself to the world.
Now, I know people who strongly believe they have manifested their true self, and they argue it’s totally fine that I have children because I’m ready to now give back. And often those people are some of the most frightening to me of all because they have no conception of what their true self is, and they think they’ve already manifested it. They think they’ve already done their homework, and they’re completed. They’ve already got their degree, and the truth is they haven’t even gone to kindergarten.
[Music]
Yet, in a more enlightened world, or let’s say an ideally enlightened world, another reason they would have fewer children is they would spontaneously, radically empathize with the needs of their child. Although many people say, “Oh, it’s wonderful for a child to have siblings. It’s such a great thing,” really what it is at basic is there’s less going around for one child. If there’s two children, the parents can’t devote as much attention to both children.
Now, I know many cases where the parents are incredibly neglectful, and siblings were basically loved and raised only by their other siblings. They say that’s they use that as a profound argument for why siblings are a fantastic thing. Without my brother, without my sister, I would have been so lonely. I would have had nobody who loved me. But to me, that’s not an argument for having more siblings. That’s an argument for why parents who are radically emotionally unavailable should not be having children.
Would people want to be in romantic relationships? I think people might form strong partnerships with other people, but wouldn’t be with the same emotional desperation that most people do it nowadays, where they cling to their partners. Because really, their partner is just a replacement for the parent that they never had. If people connected with their true selves, they would have learned how to parent themselves and how to love themselves fully. So they’re not going to be desperately seeking love in someone else, and they’re not going to be compulsively falling in love.
The whole concept actually of falling in love, to me, is a very traumatized concept. When someone says, “I fell in love with someone else,” what they really mean is that they have fallen into the delusion that this other person can rescue them from their history of childhood pain and unresolved childhood trauma. That’s what falling in love is. And in many ways, it’s the exact opposite of loving someone. These two things are flip sides of the same coin. Loving someone is really nurturing them. Falling in love with them is desperately hoping that this person will nurture me. And there’s really not much love in falling in love.
Actually, it’s a very immature and sometimes even very hostile place to come from. The extreme examples of hostility are the stalkers who have fallen in love with some random famous movie star and believe that it’s okay to destroy this other person’s life. It’s interesting even what teenagers do, and adults too, having massive crushes on people, just so believing this person is completely perfect for me and will love me perfectly and thinking I’m in love with that person.
It’s actually a very apt word because people who aren’t crushed don’t have crushes on people. People who were not crushed emotionally in their childhood by their parents and by other people don’t form massive crushes on people. I think if people were loved fully, really were nurtured for their true selves and raised into the full manifestation of who they deserve to become, they don’t have crushes on people. They don’t fall desperately in love with other people. Instead, they actually give love, and they become wonderful partners spontaneously.
And I don’t think it would be with love now defined by need and jealousy and anger and desperation and terror that the other person’s going to leave me. I think it would be a very different concept of love, a much more caring, nurturing, respectful, boundary-laden concept of love and a boundary-laden concept of relationships. A true partnership in the true sense of the word. So many people nowadays, I know they are in partnerships, but if that’s a partnership, that’s certainly not what I want.