Amphiist Weekly: Three Samples

Happy Valentine’s Day! In honour of the day, I’d like to share others’ romantic advice. John Gray wrote a book that’s become famous: Men are from Mars; Women are from Venus. Meaning, of course, that men and women think very differently.

One example he shares, right at the beginning of his book, is that his wife, after having had a baby, was in a good deal of pain. She’d run out of pain pills. John was at work, but his brother was visiting Bonnie, John’s wife. He left to go get her some pills, but for an unexplained reason, he didn’t return to the Gray home. When John returned from work, Bonnie got angry with him and they got into an argument. John was just about to storm out of the house when Bonnie begged him to just hold her. She cried and then felt a lot better. The lesson that John learned was that he shouldn’t be a ‘fair weather friend’, happy and nice only to Bonnie when she was happy and nice. If we feel unconditional love, then we need to be there for our partner even when they are upset, justifiably or not (obviously in this case Bonnie was understandably upset). It’s easy to be loving in return for being loved. It’s harder (and here is where the real joy comes in) when we’re patient with adversity and treat our partner the way they wish to be treated, rather than just with our own selfish pride. Sometimes we will be unfairly blamed. Sometimes we will have a partner who is in a ‘mood’ and we won’t even understand why.

But we can always be natural aristocrats.

­­­­

If you ever commit a crime, it is a very wise decision to admit it as soon as possible to whomever is relevant. If you have done a criminal act, go to the police and confess (but never, ever snitch on someone else; perhaps they are on their way to the station and get in trouble because you have talked too soon). The police look far more favourably on someone who confesses, especially when there’s no immediate need to do so. Your punishment will likely be far less, barring any extreme circumstances.

In 1974, U.S. President Richard Nixon was forced to resign his office because it had come out that he had illegally wiretapped several places, including Democratic National Convention headquarters. Actually, that’s not true. His men who worked closely with him, or for him, never told him about their plans to break into the Watergate Hotel in order to access information about Democratic plans in the next election. But when Nixon did eventually discover their crime, instead of firing them (which would’ve been far better than snitching on them), he directed his subordinates to get the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) to put a stop to the FBI’s (Federal Bureau of Investigation) investigation. This was, in other words, a cover-up. Tapes existed that proved his being an accessory after the fact. If Nixon had confessed at this stage, he might not have had to sacrifice his Presidency. If you’re interested in this issue, type Watergate into Google or wherever you do your searches and read about one of the most fascinating political incidents in American history. Part of the problem was that Nixon was a Republican and the media who covered the whole scandal were mainly Liberal (as most media is and was), but regardless of that reality, Nixon was certainly not a natural aristocrat, and not emotionally intelligent, either. Most politicians aren’t, to be fair.

H.W. Brands wrote a biography of American Founding Father Benjamin Franklin. In it, Brands shares some fascinating information, especially from the point of view of amphiism. He states that many politicians, during the time when slavery was being questioned, publicly proclaimed that they were against slavery, but behind the scenes, they were making deals to make money off slaves.

So we cannot always assume, and should not always assume, that when politicians espouse a particular idea, that they are being sincere. Always look behind the scenes and try to ascertain their ulterior motives, if any. Don’t just take what they say at face value.

Recently, the London Times had an article that really surprised me. Certain findings have shown that a person being sued cannot offer as a defence the idea that their victim consented to violence during sex.

While it’s understandable and praiseworthy that authorities wish to crack down on anyone using this previous law as a get-out-jail-free card regarding violence during sex, no doubt a lot of men took advantage of this scenario. Imagine the potential for abuse this law used to allow in that country (England).

But there’s a story behind the scenes here as well, in my opinion. Governments in various countries seem to be trying to drive a wedge between men and women. The world’s elites are against the nuclear family and we see the evidence in a lot of different places. This is just a conspiracy theory, but there are indications it might be correct, such as the passing of this new law. On the other hand, the Canadian government has shown a commitment to families of all types with the Child Tax Credit. So who knows for sure?

By the way, I’ve been proven right about the situation between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni. Although no legal finding has occurred yet (the lawsuits are still pending), an increasing amount of evidence illustrates that Baldoni is the victim of Lively’s dishonesty. Her lying ways have a lot of whistleblowers explaining what she’s really like. My views on women are sometimes very unpopular, especially with regard to young, beautiful, privileged women, but if you examine enough cases and examples, you will detect the pattern I discuss: these women are entitled and narcissistic. The women who don’t fit this description, and there are many, should be sought after by straight men everywhere because they make far better wives and mothers.

However, to defend women, I should point out that it’s human nature to take advantage of the power one possesses (and we should all try to overcome it). Men have done it for centuries. See above example of Watergate!

We can manifest reality. I discuss manifestation a lot as it’s one of the main pillars upon which amphiism is based. Bernstein has stated that manifesting is more about allowing than is popularly supposed. And she argues that in order to get what we desire, we need to be on that level of energy, as I’ve said before (based on what others have written). One way to do this is to act as though it’s already happened. Please note that this involves more than just pretending something is going well when it’s not. We need to imagine and visualize what our lives will be like when we have what we want. Which practical details will result from having it? Imagine conversations you will have once that occurs. Be a fantasist, someone who fantasizes a lot. If you are manifesting money, what will happen if you get a very nice-paying job? Imagine yourself, visualize yourself getting a performance appraisal and being excited about your high marks. Imagine going into your boss’s office and feeling the concomitant excitement that comes with his congratulating you on your innovation.

Suggested Reading: https://gabbybernstein.com/dos-donts-manifesting

Anna Nicole Smith, Whitney Houston, Michael Jackson, etc.are all examples of celebrities where, in each of these cases, it seems like these people were exploited for their money. They were never told no if they wanted something because people were afraid that they would be cut out of the financial benefits of being associated with these people. Especially in Houston and Jackson’s cases, these were superstars, some of the most successful people in their chosen profession.

But this applies to people’s everyday lives, too. How often have you wanted to be honest with someone but you were afraid that they would be mad at you? I’ve noticed that this is especially true with the male/female dynamic. It is very hard to get a man to tell the truth to a woman, even if the issue is small, because men realize that women have the power in relationships. Think about it: if men said half the things to women that women say to men, there would be immediate war. But that is no reason why men should not be honest.

If someone is doing something that you sincerely think they are going to regret, big or small, you should care enough about that person to tell them the truth. If that hurts the relationship temporarily, then that is the other person’s decision. They will hopefully realize that if you like them enough to be honest, that is a relationship worth keeping. Someone once told me that he thought something I was doing disappointed him. I wish he had told me at the time, because I would have improved in that area. But since he never told me, I wasn’t aware that what I was doing was disappointing him so he did not allow me the opportunity to change for the better.

Most of us will never be famous, especially to the degree that people like Houston and Jackson are, but we still have some of the same problems. The Bible says that we are our brother’s keeper. We have a responsibility to help our fellow human beings. It could be a big problem or a small one, but if we are not honest with the people we associate with everyday, then who are we going to be honest with?

The same issue exists for politicians to a degree. They lie to constituents and voters, because they do not want their own career to suffer. But what the country needs, what the world needs, is for people in small and large situations, to tell the truth about the negative things that are happening in their friends’ lives. Otherwise, how are people going to learn? In the case of famous people, who are used to always getting what they want, it can be hard to convince them to go on the right path in life. So telling the truth is only one part of the equation. The other part is allowing others to tell you the truth without making them feel bad about it. Create an environment where people feel comfortable being honest with you, and you (and I) will have a much more satisfying, fulfilling and progression-filled life.

Emotional Intelligence

I hear a lot of people say, “Oh, I don’t care what people think of me. I know I’m a good person.” Regardless, many times it’s a good idea, if someone criticizes us, not to get angry, but to ask if what they say could be true. The emotionally intelligent thing to do is to thank them. Don’t get angry. Think with honesty about whether or not they are right. They could be right some of the time, but wrong other times. You won’t know until you analyze each situation separately without any preconceived notions. If you reach the conclusion that they are wrong, then you don’t need to do anything. If you find that they might be right, then change and grow according to the timetable that works for you on an individual level. If you try to overcome the problem, but fail, no worries! Just pick yourself up and try again. That is true liberty. Don’t be proud of ignoring others’ opinions. They could be help from the universe.

Wokeness

One of the best ways to show we’re woke is to not automatically accept what people say just because they describe themselves as being woke. George Soros is a philanthropist who created the Open Society Foundation in order to spread democracy across the globe. The conspiracy theorists in the alternative media believe that he is one of the most evil people in the world, and pretty much accuse him of anything that goes wrong. It must be tiring for him to keep up with all of the different cheques he writes, considering all of the different causes he allegedly financially espouses! Recently, at Davos, Switzerland, he gave a speech at the World Economic Forum, where President Trump also spoke. Soros is depicted in the mainstream media as a philanthropist, far removed from the more selfish lifestyle lived by Donald Trump.

In his talk in Davos years ago, Soros outlined the dangers of ignoring North Korea’s nuclear capabilities. He also warned about the dangers of climate change. In other words, he is a responsible global citizen, unlike Donald Trump. Soros rightfully warns about Trump’s escalation of the North Korean crisis, and stupendous ignorance of the realities associated with climate change. Soros also discussed the dangers posed by Facebook and Google’s monopolies. Specifically, such companies violate freedom of mind and contribute to an ever-decreasing attention span. The market for Facebook is quickly reaching a saturation point, and so it is looking toward countries like authoritarian China for new customers, which will encourage more censorship and less global freedom. The EU as regulator is the answer to protect the common man. Concern with the common man..now does that sound like Soros is some kind of deranged, evil madman bent on world domination?

When writing about controversial figures like George Soros, it is better to move past the stereotypical view of him as a globalist intent on establishing a New World Order, funding both sides of wars so he derives pecuniary benefit, while ignoring the plight of those he supposedly exploits. This is the whole point of Amphiist Weekly. We need to move beyond knee-jerk reactions and see that there is a lot of sophisticated layers to a man like Soros. He is not what the alternative media make him out to be, a caricature of a man.

Self-Actualization­­­­

 There are three separate concepts that scholars have discussed over the past few centuries that I would like to bring together because I think they are all part of the same aspect of human nature. This serves as a reminder because of the importance of these principles. The first idea I would like to talk about is the oldest. When the Founding Fathers of the United States created America, they rebelled against the idea that a man should be respected just because he was born to certain parents. For example, if a child was born into the Royal Family, they never had to worry about money. They had people bowing or curtseying to them. They never had to do anything themselves that they did not want to do to a large degree. And they were called heroes just because of the circumstances of their birth. The Royal Family of England still exists today. Thomas Carlyle is the scholar who came up with the idea of natural aristocracy.

At the time of the American Revolutionary War (in the 1770s and ’80s), George III was the reigning monarch of England. The Founding Fathers, men like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, believed that men should be respected for the contents of their character, not the circumstances of their birth. They believed that a man should be a natural aristocrat, not just an aristocrat. An aristocrat is someone who is connected by birth to the Royal Family. The Founding Fathers believed that men should be aristocrats based on their level of morality. Men should be heroes only if they behave heroically over the course of the small affairs of their days, in other words. Not because they are related to the King of England, as we would say in current or contemporary times.

         The second concept that I’d like to discuss is emotional intelligence. This concept was popularized by the scholar Daniel Goleman in the 1980s. Emotional intelligence refers to how good we are at controlling our emotions. If a person is emotionally intelligent, Goleman says, they will be good leaders in the workplace. They will master their emotions. They will be good team players. They will see the big picture, the long term. If someone does something wrong to them, they do not want revenge. They are not interested in punishing the other person. They remain calm. There is Biblical encouragement of being emotionally intelligent. As Jesus Christ instructed us, “A soft answer turneth away wrath,” meaning that if someone wants to argue with us, if we remain calm, and do not match their anger with our own, then we will prevail. We will win. We will be victors. Christ also importunes us to pray for those who do spitefully use us. It’s all part of the same thing.

         Tying the two concepts together that I have discussed so far, someone who is emotionally intelligent would be a natural aristocrat. They would have integrity and character. They might be poor and have few of the world’s financial resources. But they are rich in character. They might not be good looking. But they are emotionally intelligent natural aristocrats.

Now, the 3rd concept that I’d like to discuss is Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Like Goleman’s discussion of emotional intelligence, the context of Maslow’s was the business world, and what would motivate employees to do the best job possible. However, it can also be applied to everyday life, in the personal sphere. For example, the lowest level of Maslow’s hierarchy is physiological. It means a person’s desire to have food, sex, water, etc. His next level, safety, refers to feeling secure. His next level is love/belonging, which has to do with the universal need to be part of a group. The next level is esteem, where we have a need to be respected and to feel like our own unique contribution to the world is actually being appreciated. The highest level of motivation in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is self-actualization. This is where a person reaches their maximum potential. They are their best self. If a person’s need for food is not met, then the lack of this basic need means that they will be too distracted to bother about being respected. This is just common sense. For example, if someone is starving, they are not going to be in any mood to discuss the finer points of Plato’s philosophy—or amphiism! If someone tries to explain Plato’s concept of a cup to them, the starving person will just want the cup given to them, full of food.

There is a clear connection between being an emotionally intelligent natural aristocrat and being self-actualized, according to Maslow’s model. An emotionally intelligent natural aristocrat can be self-actualized, according to the top practice of the gifts God has given them. Each time someone makes a decision not to become angry with an enemy, they achieve a higher degree of self-actualization. If they stop behaving like a natural aristocrat who’s emotionally intelligent, then they lose their self-actualization. Any human being can regress, or progress, depending on the content of their actions, and their characters.

We can manifest reality. If we wish for something according to the correct procedure, the universe must grant our desire to us. If we have thought it and felt it, then it already exists in reality. If it already exists in the universe, then we just need to align ourselves with the correct frequency. If we’re emotionally intelligent natural aristocrats, then we are far more likely to be experiencing the correct and effective alignment. We need to be specific and clear about what we want, also. There’s no need to be so specific about how it will come to pass; that’s up to the universe, who’s aware of everything, or which is aware of all, to decide. If we take over that job, we may restrict ourselves too severely. We can’t fear success. We can’t be down on ourselves. We can’t be insecure. If those thoughts come, kill them.

            In this section, I sometimes describe people whom I feel are not natural aristocrats. Elon Musk has been called the anti-Christ. Whether you agree with this assessment or not (it’s quite the accusation!), there is no doubt that his recent behaviour especially, now that he has more power than he seemingly ever has, is problematic.

Bill Gates, a fellow billionaire, has taken Muskrat, I mean Musk, to task over his gleeful association with far-right (Nazi) activists. Musk seems to feel as though he’s running the world, which has led to criticism of him as representing the anti-Christ (not specifically by Gates).

Musk was recently captured on film as offering a Nazi salute at one of his rallies. Germany recently had an election, and Musk supported the losing Alternative for Deutschland party (thankfully losing!). Musk is anti-Muslim (Muslims love Jesus Christ). Every once in a while, a shiver runs through me as I contemplate what Musk might be up to and what he might do in the future.

Suggested Reading: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/27/bill-gates-elon-musk-far-right

When it comes to emotional intelligence, there are many nuances concerning how we should act in specific situations. This is one of the most important bits in my newspaper because of the practical effect(s) it can have on our everyday lives, as well as our future overall potential. If we aren’t constantly thinking about our behaviour, then we are doomed to failure in life. Here are some examples:

Don’t say anything negative about another person, especially behind their backs. Not only could the person to whom you are speaking repeat the negativity to another person, hurting your own reputation, you could also be unwittingly sharing lies which would undermine someone else’s reputation. And your sincerity could easily be questioned. Why do damage to yourself? You are the most important person in your own world.

As much as possible, always speak with a measured tone, never showing anger, especially when you are indeed angry. Take a deep breath, pause, do whatever you need to do in order to maintain your calm. Otherwise, you give power to the person with whom you are interacting. You are a god; you have it within you to overpower any toxic temptation you have. Many people are duped in not giving into sexual temptation but instead give free rein to far more toxic and damaging behaviours. It’s better to have sex with 100 different people than to be unkind to someone, after all.

Don’t allow the women in your life to be passive aggressive (men can have this quality, too, but it’s far more prevalent in women). When it occurs, put your foot down at once. Challenge them that you won’t put up with this behaviour. Do this whether it’s your mother being passive aggressive, your wife, your girlfriend, your daughter, your friend, etc.

There’s a reason that the Golden Ages in detective fiction and television shows and movies are way back in the past. The period between the two world wars (1918 and 1939 inclusive) represent the best years according to many in the film and detective novel fields, while the 1970s and ‘80s comparatively are better with regard to television shows. The reason for this seems to be craftsmanship.

For example, plot lines made more sense. Writers didn’t insult the viewer or readers’ intelligence. Nowadays, the emphasis is on special effects, and has been for quite some time. The 21st century has definitely not been kind to entertainment. They had censors in terms of the Hays Code for films and Standards and Practices for TV during those times, both of which are no longer applicable. Although I’m against censorship in the big picture, there’s no doubt that writers are creatively challenged (great writers are, anyway) by having to come up with ways to express scenes that get across certain themes that might be considered non-mainstream but need to be shared to have the plot be authentic. A classic example is how Cary Grant and Ingrid Berman, in one of their films together, Notorious, kissed with pauses for almost a minute or two. They couldn’t sustain a kiss this long in the mid-1940s, due to the Hays Code, but breaking up their kisses into seconds-length intervals, heightened the sense of passion and placated the censors, leading to a very creative scene that affected viewers’ moods more than had the kissing just gone one for a full minute in one fell swoop.

I would prefer it if there were absolutely no censorship because I think the unvarnished truth helps us to understand human nature better. Be that as it may, I’d like to make the point here that in showing sex as they do in today’s entertainment, the writers get it totally wrong, offering some weakness in the middle, not being strong enough sexually. But at the same time they go too far for appropriate family viewing. It would be better to be less sexually revealing with the appropriate rating, or far more sexually revealing with the appropriate rating so that people would know more what to expect. Now it seems to be all confusion, and no one is sure what they will end up seeing on the screen.

     In Tim Weiner’s 1987 article, entitled “The Dark Secret of the Black Budget”, the CIA is discussed. This has to do with covert (or hidden knowledge of) operations that everyone should be aware of, particularly Americans. It’s specifically a defense program. The secret applies to the secret weapons that form part of these covert operations. The billions of dollars necessary to fund these weapons is hidden in the Pentagon budget, which means it is not transparent as it should be. Americans, since they live in a constitutional republic (not a democracy as popularly supposed), have the right to know where their taxpayer money is going at all times, but operations such as these mean that their dollars are being spent on weapons that would horrify the average American if they ever really knew what was going on. In order to not be duped, and to be really woke, Americans need to be aware of these issues, and so do all international citizens, particularly as what happens in America does not stay in America.

We can manifest reality. There are many ways to heal in life; here are a few sound frequencies that encourage healing. HealersoftheLight, on Instagram, is responsible for this information, so thanks to them! Her specific name is Johanna Bassols. To help heal the brain and balance out the system, 315 Hz is helpful. To assist with the adrenals and/or thyroid function, 492 Hz is ideal. For the lungs, 220 Hz works well. For the liver, 198 or 317 Hz are recommended. For the kidneys, 330 Hz are invaluable. For the bladder, 352 Hz are invaluable. 281 and/or 586 Hz are helpful with regard to circulation, sex, and/or the intestines. Muscles and bones can at least partially be healed by sound frequencies of 324 and 418 Hz respectively. A good idea is to look these up Hz on Youtube and see if you can play these particular frequencies.