Leo Gura

I wouldn't say that half agrees with his exact detailed justifications of white superiority. I'd say half leans right-wing. And I think plenty of right-wingers have a vague sense that white western civilization is better than the rest because it has historically been so dominant and successful -- regardless of how you explain it. I think at least half the country is ethnocentric, feeling like their race and culture is the best. Ethnocentrism is a more nuanced thing than racism. Stage Green SJW types would benefit from making that distinction. It's easy to call people racist when really they are stuck in ethnocentrism. They are unable to see beyond their bias towards their culture and ethnicity. Such people are not nazis, facists, or explicit racists. I would say, for example, that my mother is ethnocentric. She def has biases against blacks and others simply given her upbringing, but not in an openly racist way. It's subtle. I think A LOT of people are like that. At least 50% of the world population. You can call such people racist but you are going to turn them against you and make them stubbornly defensive. They will never admit they are racist. For example, if I married a black girl, that would def disturb her. I think that is super common in the boomer generation.

Alex Jones is a mentally ill, deranged stage Red narcissist. Far more dangerous than Molyneux. Thing is, you can't just ban all right-wing ideology, since roughly half the country agrees with it.

Actually a normal guy is better positioned because his mind is not so rigidly attached to an idealist philosophy. The average guy is not some absolutist about libertarian principles. Average guy just wants some basic stuff like healthcare, high minimum wage, etc. This is a tricky thing. The problem with any ideology is that it tends to radicalize people and things escalate quickly even when the original founders don't intend them to. Very tricky to regulate that. Lots of grey zone. Overall I'd say Molyneux was very much in the grey zone. Which makes it so tricky.

The thing about how worldviews and ideology works is that one is a true believer. One feels entitled and fully justified to one's worldview by definition. I don't think he was corrupted by money in this case. He's just a true believer in his ideology. He does not recognize it as an ideology. He doesn't see his worldview as useless or racist. He sees it as crucial and scientific/realistic. All this just boils down to a difference in worldview. And all worldviews are relative. The whole problem of racism is that racists never see themselves as racists, they see themselves as realists. It takes deep self-reflection to recognize one's own racists justifications as self-biased. This requires radical openmindedness and painful self-honesty. Being a philosopher, Molyneux fell into the trap of turning his philosophy into an identity which he is now committed to surviving and reproducing. It's not about money for him, it's about his pride and his identity. He's a very idealistic guy. Personally I wish him well. I think he has a good heart, although of course I don't agree with his ideas on race, IQ, and the superiority of Western European culture. He simply does not understand development psychology or how consciousness evolves. Banning someone like Molyneux might end up backfiring moreso than banning someone like Alex Jones. Molyneux is someone who could be debated and reasoned with. Driving this stuff underground could be like sweeping food under the kitchen rug.

I appreciate his commitment to non-violence. He is a cut above right-wingers like Alex Jones, etc:

Paradox is what happens when the dualistic mind -- which divided the world -- is finally forced to confront the consequences of that division in a sea of what is otherwise an Absolute Unity. Eventually all dualities collapse and all divisions get unified. Undivided = Infinity

It exists. It's just that existence is Eternal. Anywhoooo.... this cannot be understood without a radical change in your state of consciousness. So don't bother thinking about it too much.

Regardless of his white supremacy ideology, I can still empathize with him about his whole channel getting wiped out. That's a huge sting.

A race-baiter in the White House: Obama LOL - - - - - Well, that certainly seems to violate YT's 2019 policy:

Both

I'd like to see which video he got banned for. I mean, he was a right-winger, but overall I didn't consider him to be that toxic. Sorta in the ilk of Jordan Peterson.

Wait, Molyneux was banned from YT?? That is a pretty bold move.

Christian saints and mystics within the church.

Time is a projection of the human mind. Once you stop projecting it you will realize that the present moment is Eternal. No time = Eternity = every moment exists forever

A good example of how an otherwise smart and reasonable guy makes himself a tool of the alt-right by not understanding the Spiral.

The irony is that stage Blue is the type to hit a woman. Patriarchy explained by 007.

Lol, no! That singing is like a spiritual trance state. Like a mantra.

Notice, I didn't say it was valueless. I just said be careful. No teacher is all good or all bad. Except me cause I'm perfect

Why might a devil fear love?

Careful. Who the fuck knows what's in that pill?

Playing with fire there. I can see much of his macho male audience misuse such a notion and become abusive devils.

That line of logic only works on people who aren't sociopaths

As I said above, of course it can be a tool in that way. If some angry, pissy kid wants to use heavy metal music to overcome his homicidal desire to shoot up a school full of children, excellent! That is a good trade. There is value in that. But also consider that basically anything can be a processing tool, including violence and murder. Torturing kittens might help a homicidal person to not commit homicide. But that doesn't mean torturing kittens is a high consciousness activity. For example, when I was a kid, I liked to shoot animals with bee-bee guns. Killed some birds and things. Then one time I saw up close a bird that I fatally shot, but it wasn't dead yet. It was suffering. Seeing that made me feel so guilty that I stopped shooting animals from then on. So basically torturing animals made me a better more compassionate and conscious adult.

Of course not! You need to carefully think through what your words mean. "A single undivided item" << Okay, if you do that, you have Infinity. One thing. There cannot be two undivided things! You can't add together two undivided things, they must be divided to begin with for there to be two of them. You can add together two divided things. But what constitute "a thing" is already relative to how your mind carves up the world. The world is not made up of things. Your minds projects division on the world and calls those conceptual divisions things. But even if you get past all that, there is no guarantee whatsoever that by combining two random things you will be left with 2. There are many instances in nature where you add 1 and 1 and get something that isn't 2. Fundamentally there is no reason why you couldn't add two things together and get 0, for example. You could design a virtual reality in which 1+1=0. Or whatever you want. And none of this in independent of a sentient being because it's all happening inside your sentience. If not, where else is addition happening? Even just the very notion of addition itself, is relative. After all, what is addition and how do you even understand it? Is addition something found in the outer world? Of course not. Relative to: Language, semantics Your state of consciousness Your education Your culture Your worldview and entire schema of reality This physical universe Formal mathematics Being a human You telling yourself that it is true (you could, for example, deny it.) Etc. If you were a donkey, 1+1=2 would not be true for you. How is this not obvious to you? 1+1=2 cannot be true for you unless you are able to think it and tell yourself that it is true.