whoareyou

Member
  • Content count

    337
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by whoareyou


  1. 42 minutes ago, Emerald said:

    Update: The results are still at 97% with Pete ahead in delegates by a razor thin margin of 0.1%. The satellite caucuses that Bernie did best in have still not been reported.

    Tom Perez, chair of the DNC is now calling for an “Immediate” recanvass of the votes from scratch... “immediately”  almost certainly meaning before the remainder of the votes are counted.

    Again. Do with this new information what you will.

     

     

     

    It is pretty obvious what is going on here.  If Leo wants to throw a "conspiracy theory" card, then let him so. MSM always loves to throw the "conspiracy" card out there.

    As long as the people are naive and gullible - the devils in the government will continue to be getting away with this.

    Thank you for all the updates that you are providing and for sharing your perspective.


  2. 2 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

    That has nothing to do with the present.  That's what got him into trouble jumping to conclusions.....there is zero evidence of a conspiracy here.  The stuff he was sending me were from people talking from a place of their OWN political bias.  But he was sure all over that.    When I'm sure if we provided the equal type of stuff on Russiagate he would have balked at it.

    Do you sense a political agenda here?

    You are not getting it. It absolutely has to do with the present. In order to prevent mistakes in the present, you have to learn from the past.

    People like Leo who are too naive, and gullible (majority of Americans are), are the ones that allow these things to happen - thinking that by default those devils should be given the benefit of the doubt, when the opposite is the case.


  3. @Inliytened1  There was no flip flop. There is 0 evidence to Russiagate. 

    With DNC, it is a proven fact in court about what happened in 2016 and what they did to Bernie.

    Based on this, it makes sense to be cautious and not give the benefit of the doubt, like Emerald pointed out.

    If somebody stolen from your or lied to you - would you continue to give them the benefit of the doubt? Of course you wouldn't, until they prove otherwise. And the same applies here - do you see this?


  4. 3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

    User @Bno has been banned. Warned him many times about using this forum in an ideological way. This clearly would continue.

    @Emerald I didn't say I had a definite answer, I said you make rash and ideological accusations.

    If you were calm and patient, the truth would reveal itself.

    The most important thing I have to teach is how to not be ideological.

    It's a real shame that you banned one of the few  really knowledgeably people here who had a different perspective from yours. Imo you made a very subjective call - a lot of people would disagree with the fact that he was being "ideological". From my POV, he had a very balanced perspective, and shared a lot of good information here. The fact that you ban those that criticize your views and provide really good reasons why - should be a concern from a long term perspective.

    While I respect you, I also think that your ego has gotten bigger - you always think you are right, never seen you admit on the forum that you are wrong, and don't consider point of views from other people here, just because you think you done the most amount of "work".

    Instead of banning very intelligent individuals who have a different perspective - why not consider what he said? Is there not a chance that you are biased and don't see your own blind spots? If growth and truth is your priority - I think it was a huge mistake.


  5. @Inliytened1  It's not a coincidence that mods on here have a clear bias towards Leo. I never see them (including you) challenge his views, you always tend to agree with him. In the case where your opinion is neutral or you are unsure - the mods still end up defending him. Clear survival strategy (to remain a mod on this site), weather you want to admit it or not. 

    The rigging that was done by DNC has an overwhelming amount of evidence, that for some reason you refuse to acknowledge or to look at. What is going on with the app is also a huge red sign - that it's laughable to say that it's just a "bug". 

    Leo may excel at other areas, but when it comes to politics - he has a huge bias with a lot of blind spots, and imho he is not competent enough yet to provide teachings to people in this area. Bno and Emerald both have far more better understanding of what is going on.

    Leo's ego tactics are very simple - when you provide him evidence that goes against his view point, he will just tell you that you have a "survival bias", or he will dismiss it as a silly "conspiracy theory". Yet he refuses to take his own advice and become conscious of his own blind spots.


  6. @Leo Gura You believe in Russiagate conspiracy, yet you are going to tell somebody who is suspicious of foul play going on (based on the evidence from the past) that it's a silly conspiracy such as being a flat earther? Your naiveness, bias, and ignorance when it comes to politics is becoming more and more evident everyday.

    I simply can't wrap my head around a guy who promotes consciousness, is so unconscious of his own blind spots/ignorance.

    You fall for MSM trickery, like a child does for a candy.

    Btw, if you do enough research, you will realize that a lot of so called "conspiracy" theories in history ended up being true, and not only that - the American government has a very large track record of screwing over it's citizens. 

    You always express your disdain for Trump, yet you don't realize that if DNC did not screw over Bernie in 2016, there is a good chance we would have him as president now. 

    Instead of believing hoaxes like Russiagate, you should be more concerned about fixing the corruption on the inside. No amount of foreign interference can compare to the interference that is going on inside. Contemplate this, and maybe you will have a new political awakening. Ta-da!


  7. 6 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

    @whoareyou

    A key is: I'm not saying you are wrong. I am saying that is true and false. If someone can only see the truth in it, it is helpful to show the falsity in it. If someone can only see the falsity in it, it is helpful to show the truth in it. 

    There is something underlying related to paradoxes. If a mind takes a position, it takes a view against not-that-position to maintain it's own position. This will contract the mind and prevent seeing a meta view of truths and falsities. . . . You can clearly see how the position you hold is true, no more "work" is needed. Can you also see how your position is false? This would require letting go and taking a meta view. One might call this realization a sudden realization that spontaneously appeared. Or, one might call this realization part of the "work". 

    To relate this back to the original thread topic: an agenda of pushing dogmatic ideology is "work" in the opposite direction to the work that leads to transcendent awakenings and meta views. If one cannot see a meta view, they can only "criticize from below", they will not be able to "criticize from above" - yet the mind will resist this due to attachment/identification to a position. 

     

    You always love to intellectualize everything, and go very deep into abstract concepts. At times it ends up working very much against you - you end up over complicating simple things, and end up confusing yourself.

    Try reading again what I said and seeing it for what it is.

    The key is this: When you make enlightenment/liberation into a future goal - you will never get there. It is precisely what Leo has done, which is very evident by the content that he released plus his forum posts. I don't have any issues nor I am against of doing the "work". It's the place of where it is coming from. If you are doing the "work" to achieve an imaginary goal that doesn't exist in the future - then you will be trapped and end up suffering.

    Since you love to go deep, take a look and maybe you can see why calling it "work" in the first place is very misleading. Work usually implies a chore or an action - which is usually being done for achieving a future goal.

    Since Leo has always seen enlightenment/liberation as something to be attained in the future, he came up with the term "consciousness work". If you go further, you will be able to connect the dots and see some of the things that I and other people are pointing out.

    The problem is that Leo took on a self-development approach to spirituality/liberation, which in here it doesn't work.

    If you want to improve in business, and achieve great results, you can do so by doing more work. If you want to be better at a specific skill or any area - it can be improved. But this approach doesn't apply to liberation/enlightenment - you will continue to chase your own tail, thinking that you are getting somewhere. This is the reason why there are so many spiritual seekers who have been seeking for 10s of years without finding the gold that they are looking for. Some have even search their whole lives. The recent "live awakening" videos is a great example of this - just watch it very consciously and you will be able to see the ego overtaking the trip - thinking it has awakened, a sense of superiority, etc.

    The issue here is with the approach, and not with the practices. It's a structure issue - and those that oppose his structure are a big threat to him. This is the reason why he banned people that promoted a different approach.

     

     


  8. 4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

    @Bno Turn inward in silence and observe your own biases and attachments.

    There is no need to have a discussion with me.

    The DNC rigged the elections in 2016 is a fact concluded in court. When you have nothing to say regarding the facts, you always respond with "watch your own biases". Like wtf?

     @Bno Keep spreading the truth and speaking your mind, as far as I have seen here, you are one of the few that has a balanced perspective when it comes to politics. It's unfortunate that a lot of Americans refuse to see election interference happening in their own country and the politicians use the Russia conspiracy as a distraction. It's mind boggling to me that Leo has so many blind spots when it comes to politics.


  9. 1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

    And how do you know Bernie isn't a reptilian?

    Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

    Your paranoia is not about truth, it's about preserving your survival agenda.

    As you stoke up fear, you become a tool of the devil.

    Leo , at this point, your bias when it comes to politics is very obvious. How do you ignore the fact what DNC did in 2016?

    You always tell people that about their blind spots and their "survival agenda", yet you don't see yours. Oh the irony.

    What happened with this app is a huge concern, and to throw the "conspiracy theory" card is beyond ignorant and lazy.

    Thank you Emerald for bringing this up.


  10. @SOUL @Leo Gura @Serotoninluv

     

    I 100% agree with Soul and understand what he is saying. I have also been saying this for the last few years regarding Leo - he is still in a trap of the ego where he believes more "work" needs to be done before he is "liberated or "enlightened", which can't be further from the truth. Chasing insights, and intellectual understanding is exactly what the ego desires, and it believes it will attain a salvation in the future moment - when "enough" work will get done, but that moment will never come.

    For those conscious enough of this, can easily spot a lot of ego involved in latest Leo's "live awakening" videos as well. From my point of view - it was a big ego trip, covered by all of the things he was describing there.

    If you want to take it further, there is a reason why LEO does not smoke 5-MEO, and prefers to rather have an intellectual understanding of his trip. Not even once out of all of his trips has he ever smoked 5-MEO. The next level of "awakening" will come for him, once he realize theres is no need to chase insights or to have intellectual understanding. 

    Although we still love and respect Leo for all of his contributions, I do feel like we have outgrown that paradigm. I still return from time to time to check this forum, and mostly browse non "enlightenment" related sections.

    It will be a real pity If LEO does decide to ban users for those that have a different and contradictory approach to his.


  11. Thank you Galyna, for providing a more balanced perspective from a woman. It's great to see that there are still women like you out there.

    Emerald seems to have a very biased perspective, that is based on her own negative experience. And a bit of social conditioning as well (feminism for example). I know a few people pointed this out, but I want to add that in as well.


  12. For those of you here who are opposing PUA and only believe in "relationships", and only sex in "relationships", imo  you are very delusional.

    A relationship begins only after sex! (unless if you are asexual). Like LEO said, after you bang a few times, then a relationship can be formed.

    In order to get to that point, mean who are incompetent, need to learn how to attract and bang women, and after they get that part handled, they need to work on relationship skills.

    There is nothing inherently wrong with Pickup techniques - it all depends on the level of consciousness of a person applying them. 

    The women will never be able to understand how hard it can be for struggling guys out there.


  13. Once you awaken and have a full god realization - you will see that weather you have sex or don't have sex, doesn't really matter. 

    In fact, when you know you are GOD - there is no need to be "religious" or "spiritual", those are the games of the ego.

    Weather you are monogamous or polyamorous, also doesn't matter, your "spiritual" ego of course thinks that it does.

    What I noticed is that a lot of the  "spiritual" people on this forum (green stage?) are moralizing and demonizing sex and non monogamous relationships, without realizing what they are doing. Must be very entertaining for Leo to read some of the stuff here.


  14. 10 hours ago, Keyhole said:

    The thing is, there is spiritual wildlife out there and there are things that you can encounter while doing this work.  There are abilities, proclivities and sensitivities that many people uncover that have to be addressed, managed, developed, used before a person can maintain a non-dual state.

    There seems to be a misunderstanding of how you go about finding and interacting with spirits and whatnot.  You do go inwards, and they reflect themselves outwards.  In order to experience them you need to have a change in your consciousness.

    You can have the experience of being God, but bypassing all of the other things that happen within the spiritual realms is not avoiding distraction - it is laziness and/or fear, because people who think that all they have to do is awaken to non-duality, they can then feel they have more control over the process.

    Well, it doesn't work that way.

    What Leo talks about is a facet of Truth, but he has said that he doesn't understand or experience psychic/unusual phenomenon very often, does not understand it very well, and relies heavily on psychedelics to have these experiences.  My opinion is this - don't go looking for these things - that's the distraction, but if they come to you - then you might learn a thing or two about how little we know about the other "life forms" that are on different waves of consciousness.  On top of this, within these other waves - is where the energetic battle between good and evil takes place and it would behoove all of you not to dismiss it so lightly.

    The devil rests within the energetic irony of a song like this being sung in a Gregorian chant.  Within your religions, your institutions - everything that you think is good and right and true.  Right sandwiched in between.
    That energy is within the details of what separates the black and the white.  If you all don't know both of those energies, then something isn't right.  If you think there is only one player influencing you and your life, dig deeper.

    Know thy enemy.

    Except you don't "experience being god", it's not an experience, it's a realization. And you clearly have not realized it, so from your current level of consciousness, my position doesn't make sense to you.

    There is no such thing as energetic battle that is taking place between "good" and "evil". In fact, there is no such thing as "evil" and "good", those are very relative terms which your EGO uses to divide things. 

    A lot of work lies ahead of you - in order to get rid of your current illusions and to realize that you are god.


  15. 18 minutes ago, Keyhole said:

    With mainstream spirituality becoming more
    and more psychologically-based (thinking that everything comes from the “self”)
    there is a lack of understanding of anything outer that may be having an impact on
    you. The truth is that most spirituality is centered around the belief that experiences
    are psychological because the person may not know any better (the teacher who
    espouses this sort of understanding may not be at a point of recognizing this, or
    wanting to), or more simply, because if you recognize that there are energies, spirits,
    and a whole wide world of different experiences, outside of the self, out there, there
    is no longer a sense of perceived safety.
    (Slight soapbox, but I always find this reasoning interesting, that inherently
    you are “safe” if you spiritual work is psychological. Anyone who has done real
    shadow work or has worked with not-so-friendly aspects of themselves will know
    that there are parts of ourselves that are dangerous, mean, violent, abrasive, or just
    not-so-cuddly. In general, people do more damage to themselves than most spirits
    ever will. But I digress).
    There is a loss of discernment in most modern day spiritual teachings, and an
    inability to recognize experiences as either outer or inner. This equals a lack of

    safety in doing spiritual work, work that is just in the “mental” realms (is more self-
    help oriented and psychologically based), or simply muddied, ineffective spiritual

    work. This sort of discernment is sorely neglected and really needed for anyone who
    is able to access anything remotely spiritual, which is what a wide variety of
    sensitives are able to do. This lack of education on how to do basic discernment with
    anything that is “outer” causes many people to act (or react) inappropriately to
    spiritual stimuli. For example, you would want to react much differently to a kindly
    spirit of a “former human” who was a grandmother in life who is just checking in on
    you to see how you are doing and how you are enjoying the home she lived in for
    thirty years... vs. a being of non-human origin that wishes to destroy any feelings of
    joy you have within you. You would want to take different action for something that
    is self-created, an aspect of your Self that wants some attention and healing, vs.
    something that is distinctly not an aspect of you.

    Mary Mueller Shutan - Shamanic Workbook Vol. 1

    I agree - essentially the beliefs of "spirits" and other outer influences are a huge distraction to doing the inner work, which is why from my perspective that those things (like spirits) are an illusion, and a huge distraction created by the ego. The same thing can be said about the "god" that Christians believe in - something outside of them - a huge illusion and distraction to doing the real inner work.

    What LEO talks about here is indeed the truth - and to add to that point, once you realize that you are GOD, being religious, or spiritual won't make any sense and will even seem silly.


  16. Just now, Serotoninluv said:

    I have not been referring to the OP. I have been referring to responses to the OP. 

    No I shouldn't. I am concerned about both depressed incels as well as women that are objectified, used for sex and discarded.

    If depressed incels end up committing suicide, it does not justify objectifying and using women for sex with no regard for their welfare.

    I would try to help the man in pursuing women in a way that involves mutual consent and mutual desire. If an incel is not in this place, he needs to work through his issues. It is not right to use women as sexual objects to treat one's own depression. 

    You are again spinning what I said completely - what are you doing?

     Nowhere did I say that incels should be using women to fix their depression, or that is okay in any way.

    My point, is the reason that closing is taught - is because it helps a lot of men who are struggling. The example about incels showed you the importance, and severity of this issue.

    Nowhere did I say or LEO said, that there shouldn't be mutual desire or consent. This is your own interpretation to which you are attached to, and at this point, I am just beating a dead horse here.


  17. 1 minute ago, Serotoninluv said:

    I am a full supporter for mutual consent and desire. 

    To me, sentences such as this do not sound like a place of mutual consent and desire:  "Even once you get her panties off, it's still not a lock. You can lose her at any point. You can even lose her while you're inside her!"

    You might interpret that as having full mutual consent and desire. I don't. 

     

    Yes that is your own subjective interpretation. To me, this is LEO figuratively speaking on how messy it can get for the struggling guys. Yes it is a non 0% chance that even with the clothes off, a woman may still decide not to proceed. 

    You are blowing this over nothing imo. 

     


  18. Just now, Serotoninluv said:

    We agree here.

    My main point is the orientation that doesn't care if it is healthy or unhealthy. If some asks "How can I close in a healthy way?" or "How can I close in a way in which there is mutual genuine consent?", or "How can I close in a way in which I am mindful of whether sex would have a negative impact on her?". These are very different orientations than simply asking "How can I close?" with no regard for why she might be resisting and no regard for her welfare. That is my concern. 

    Just because OP didn't ask this - doesn't mean that he has no regard. That is again your own projection - and you are failing to see this.

    OP asked a pretty straight forward question, and he received some very good advice for his question. It is up to him on how he will go about it.

    You should be more concerned about depressed incels, who end up killing others and themselves due to their troubles with women.

    There are plenty of public examples of this. And there are MANY who you haven't even heard of. This should be as concerning to you, as you are concerned about the women.


  19. 1 minute ago, Serotoninluv said:

    There are different orientations and intentions. You keep adding in qualifiers that assume mutual consent and mutual desire. I am not referring to that. If a couple is at a party hitting it off and they say, "let's find a place alone together to better get to know each other". That is a different situation because there is mutual consent and desire. I have no problem with that. 

    Why did you assume otherwise when you read LEO's advice? Like I said, you are too locked to your paradigm and creating things that simply don't exist in this thread. 

    All of my posts, were coming from a place of mutual consent and desire. This is why it was so confusing me to understand what your issue is.

    Imo, this is what LEO meant here as well - I haven't read anything that made me think otherwise.


  20. 1 minute ago, Serotoninluv said:

    it is not either / or like that. Transparency does not mean overtly saying "will you have sex with me?". There are other ways to reveal intention.

    What I am talking about is refraining from dishonesty and hidden agendas. Imagine I go on a date with a woman and she starts talking about how much we have in common, that she would like to find a guy with both a physical and emotional bond and something long-term. If my intention is a one-night stand, it would be misleading for me to respond "Oh yes, I am emotionally available and I'm open to something long-term". That is misleading and manipulative. . .  Or if I try to isolate a woman into a situation in which it would be harder for her to resist, that is manipulative and unhealthy. 

    You isolate a woman not  because "it would be harder for her to resist". You isolate her so that you both would have time on your own, and if there is a spark, mutual interest, you would have time to take if further.

    Like I said, that is your own projection and interpretation of these terms - your paradigm is dictating this and you are not seeing it.


  21. 29 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

    As I defined above it is manipulation because it is an effort to persuade a reluctant woman into sex, with non-transparent tactics. If the woman was not reluctant, things like "compliance" and "closure" would not be necessary. To me that is a key ingredient. And what was written early in the thread absolutely talked about tactics to get a reluctant woman to sex.

    I would say this has an unhealthy aspect to it. The other unhealthy aspect is lack of concern for impact. The orientation early in the thread is to persuade a reluctant woman to have sex with no regard for its impact on her. The impact could be positive, negative or neutral - yet it does not matter to the male with this orientation. He is hyper focused on achieving his own self-centered needs.

    The term "unhealthy" is relative to each person. To a male with this orientation, he may consider it "healthy". However, when both the male and female dynamics are considered, I would say it is an unhealthy orientation. You may disagree and that is fine if you want to hold the view that it is ok if you want to believe it is healthy for a guy to behave in this manner. 

    My view has been shaped by my direct experience, yet also speaking with many men, women, psychologists etc. It is not something simply projected by a past experience. Imo, to dismiss it as such is another avoidance technique to not look at one's behavior and impact. Again, you may disagree with me and that is your prerogative.

    . This is a recontextualization. This was not the original context. The question of "How can I close in a way that is genuine/authentic and has connection with the woman" is a very different contextualization. You have added in qualifiers that recontextualize. 

     

    Again, that is your own projection. In the advice the OP was given, it clearly said that "it cannot be forced". The guys from the very beginning learn, that if a woman is laughing, enjoying herself, they can continue to escalate, and if she says no - it's a no. At least that's how it was for RSD, I can't speak for other companies.

    Some women may be "reluctant" due to logistics, or external factors - and in some cases a man may remove them.

    Also, in majority of cases when a man acts awkward around women, and doesn't know the basic social cues - all women would be repelled and reluctant to do anything with him. If a man becomes confident and changes - and the women then would desire him - is that a manipulation? No obviously.

    So how is figuring out the logistics a manipulation, or knowing how to deal with "friends" who are making it difficult?

    Consider a scenario where a guy who doesn't know how to close - will miss out many women that actually WANT him. And there is many guys around like that - which is why the importance of closing is taught.

    At the end of the day - it is not possible without rape to force somebody to have sex with you. It is also not possible to "convince" them to go home with you, unless if they actually want to, or at the very least interested in you.

    This makes the notion of "healthy" vs "unhealthy" very relative and it heavily depends on the person.


  22. @Serotoninluv

    It can absolutely be a win - win, even from the perspective of a woman, it really depends on a guy.

    Here are 2 examples:

    1) A genuinely good, but very shy guy, - who the girl otherwise would have great time with, is unable to close (including exchanging contacts). He is too nervious, and unsure of himself - so everyone loses.

    2) That same guy actually learns how to close, has that fundamental down, and then will have no trouble connecting with women. Everyone wins , so it's a win-win scenario.

    Closing is an important fundamental for the struggling men to learn. Until you have had that experience yourself, and until you gone through it, you won't be able to understand or to relate to it.

    A scientist can create something that is very useful and a scientist can also create something very harmful (atom bomb for example). The science is a just a tool, it is up to the scientist on what to do with his knowledge.


  23. @Serotoninluv  Again, you continue to write a bunch of irrelevant stuff and miss my simple point.

    It's actually very simple and it's not so black and white. Leo did not mention manipulation or any "unhealthy" behavior in his advice. This is something that you projected due to your past experiences.

    You can learn to close, and still be genuine/authentic guy who connects, they are not mutually exclusive.

    No where did LEO or anyone here advocated to raping money - you are spinning it here as much as the MSM usually does.

    For the men who are struggling in dating, learning to close is a very important fundamental to learn. 

    Ravlondon is a good example I think.


  24. @electroBeam Something tells me that you are not being honest here, it doesn't add up.

    You claim to be "too dominant", yet you are okay with just laying in bed kissing, putting up with something that is clearly not okay with you, and you are here asking for advice on what you should do?

    You can play the cover of "values mis match" all you want, but something tells me it's more than that, and that you would most likely have similar issues in your future relationships, if you don't address them now.