• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Nightwise

  • Rank
    - - -
  • Birthday 12/16/1994

Personal Information

  • Location
  • Gender
  1. Hi Leo (and all the rest). Watching your most recent video (regarding Andrew Tate) has been somewhat sobering, as it did make me realize I thought of Andrew Tate a little bit higher than I should have, although I never considered him to be some sort of god and I was aware of many of his (potential) flaws right from the beginning. I found myself disagreeing with. This point isn't so much about Andrew Tate but rather, it's more about a general principle. At some point in the video, you mentioned that sometimes you get messages from people willing to offer you a $1000 or more donation without you needing to do anything in return (at least I assume they don't ask for anything in return), and then you happen to decline their offer, saying that it's not necessary and that their biggest repayment of gratitude would be to do the work you're talking about in your videos. You frame it in your video as if you would be leeching off of them if you actually were to accept their donation. First of all, I find it strange you would consider it a form of leeching off someone if they offer to donate you that money completely out of their own volition without you pressuring them to do so. To leech off someone is to pressure them in subtle or overt ways to do something in order for your own benefit, and since you did none of that and that they were after all the one initiating the conversation, I don't see in what way you're leeching off of them. The only possible way I can think of is that you're too easily making use of their actions in an overly emotional moment, and that you're unwilling to remind them to stay objective and detached in order to prevent them from making a decision they're going to regret later. May you be leeching off of someone in that way? Possibly, in some way of looking at it. But we'll get back to this point later. The second thing is that there is a double standard here: Why do you have a Patreon account which you advertise at the end of your videos, yet then refuse someone to make a big donation to you? The third and probably most important point: Why would you automatically consider this a win-lose situation? I'm not sure if this is one of your reasons you refuse their donation or you're just merely or mainly doing it for the reasons for what you would consider to be integrity, but I do think it's important to elaborate on this point, as there is a very significant misunderstanding here in our culture People often think that refusing someone's unconditional offer in the form of goods, services or money is the noble and right thing to do and that to accept it would make them a selfish and insensitive person. Yes, there certainly are people out there who accept the gestures, help and donations that other people give without considering the other person at all and simply just caring for what they can get for themselves, but there's also a totally different way of looking at it. People often just like to be able to help others. To refuse someone's offer is often literally to refuse the possibility of making someone happy by them being able to help or serve you. An example: Some months ago I was going to a festival with some buddies of mine. I was going to travel by bus to an entry point of a highway, which would be the place these buddies of mine would pick me up with the van they had. I was talking about this when my neighbour happened to be in my home talking to my mother. This neighbour then offered to give me a ride to the place I needed to be at rather than me taking the bus to get there. I could've acted 'humble' at that moment and refused her offer, saying that it wasn't that much more of an issue to take the bus instead (which it wasn't. It would've only bought me about 10 minutes in time). But instead of doing the 'humble' thing, I accepted her offer and therefore the next morning, she drove me to the point at the entry of the highway I needed to be at. Why did I accept her offer? Was it only because I merely cared about myself and didn't care about the fact that she needed to sacrifice something? No. It was because I saw this was going to be a win-win situation. In the words of my mother: "How on earth is that a win-win situation?". I answered her that my neighbour was very glad to be able to offer this service to me, and she enjoyed being able to help me. It wasn't on an emotional level truly something that was a loss or a negative experience, even though she did need to sacrifice time and energy. Just because she needed to sacrifice time and energy doesn't mean I put my neighbour through a negative experience. She liked to do it and I liked to receive her offer. Therefore, it's a win-win. In fact, even if it were a hypothetical situation where accepting her offer would practically be putting me at a disadvantage, I might have STILL accepted her offer because I would've realized that me accepting this offer would've literally provided her with a pathway to be able to express her heart. I in fact still think to this day that me accepting her offer to help me was probably a greater gift to her than it was for me. Therefore, refusing someone's offer can in fact be MORE selfish than accepting it at times. Because this sense of nobility you get after refusing someone's offer, making you think about yourself as a good person, can in fact just be another way of the ego to inflate it's own sense of self and superiority. And by acting on your kneejerk reaction to refuse someone's offer to help you, you might lose sight of the big picture and end up disappointing them more than you are being a burden to them. By the way: I know that the way I'm putting this might sound pretty accusatory right now, Leo, but I'm just making a general point. This is not meant to be an attack. Something to mention still: It is possible of course that these people who want to donate to you want to do it so out of a moment of emotional infatuation. They might not properly understand the significance of the amount they're about to donate and they may indeed come to regret it later on if they were to follow through on it. This is indeed a proper issue to be wary of, because sometimes people get overly emotional and get in that sense pretty stupid (no offense) and end up doing something that ends up putting them in a very difficult situation later on. That IS indeed something to be careful of and it IS indeed a sign of integrity to be cautious with that and to have preventative measures in place in order to prevent people from making overly hasty decisions. However, I do think people generally won't end up regretting it and I think that most people who want to donate such amounts consider the money being better off in Leo's wallet than in their own pocket because Leo may end up doing great things with it where as far as themselves are concerned they may not have great plans for it or a great need for it. Just check in with these people and make sure they don't make overly rushed decisions, that's all. Otherwise, consider that them donating to you, Leo, may end up being a win-win situation for the both of you and that refusing their offer may in some sense even create a lose-lose situation for the both of you. Don't do something like that in the name of 'humility', because doing something like that isn't true humility if it's an action that is not in accord with the bigger picture or the greater good.
  2. Some of you may know Wes Watson. He has around 430K subs on Youtube now. For those who don't know him, let me give you a quick overview He's probably one of the most extreme people you will ever witness. He's an ex-convict who now is an entrepreneur, a fitness coach, and Youtube personality where he usually shouts, screams, yells and swears at you with his shirt off, showing his ripped, bulging, vein-covered torso full of prison tattoos. He can come across as extremely aggressive and angry, yet there's a silver lining in his over-the-top appearance and that is the things he talks about and the way he talks about it I stumbled upon his channel I think about 2 years ago. My initial impression? I think it is an impression or an initial reflex so many of us have when we're familiarized with the higher stages (green, yellow, turquoise): "Wow... this guy is waaaay too much over the top". Nevertheless, I was intrigued because I could also sense that despite or irregardless of his extremely aggressive style and his constant swearing this guy has a lot of integrity and has an important message to share with the world. Over time, when I let go more and more of the biases that come with the (self-)conditioned habits of valuing a soft, gentle approach to life over a more tough, militant approach to life, I started to appreciate the character of Wes Watson more and more, whilst still being aware of his limitations and his partiality. To me, Wes Watson is exemplary of what an (extremely) strong and (generally) healthy combination of stage Red (Energy, Vitality, Aggression), stage Blue (Integrity, Discipline, Virtue, Work ethic) and stage Orange (Ambition, Purpose, Achievement-orientation) is supposed to look like. His (stage) Blue makes sure that his Red isn't totally chaotic, impulsive and out of control. With discipline, integrity and virtue, he makes sure that his stage Red energy and vitality finds a pathway in which it supports and strengthens both himself and people and society at large rather than destroy it with his impulsiveness and blind selfishness creating a dystopia. Likewise, his Red energy makes sure his Blue isn't dull, uninspiring and mediocre, giving you the jolt that may just be required to get you to see the significance of what he's saying. His Orange ambition makes it so his Red vitality finds an extrinsic meaning and purpose to life (whereas blue was about finding intrinsic or 'spiritual' meaning and purpose) and makes it so he can be strategical, creative and clever with the Red energy that he has. Meanwhile, his Red energy and vitality gives his Orange ambitions an extra edge, makes it so he can push himself even harder towards his goals and therefore making him evolve and grow faster than he otherwise would have. It also makes him a much more effective motivator and source of inspiration because his free-flowing aggression, passion and emotionality can strike people much more at their core than rational, cold logic could do on its own. And his Orange ambition also makes it so that his Blue integrity and discipline can expand and manifest something great into the world, rather than stay stuck in a mediocre 9 to 5 job or alike. Meanwhile, his Blue integrity and discipline for one makes sure that his Orange doesn't become overly self-indulgent, narcissistic and indifferent towards other people, and it also makes his Orange ambitions more structured, stable and secure rather than making long-term (or even short-term) errors because of greed and myopia. I think both conservatives and progressives can learn a lot from Wes Watson, but I think progressives in particular can learn a lot from him because it is not uncommon for progressives to have failed to properly integrate lessons that needed to be learned from the stages lower on the spiral. I also think he's a very good example to teach the mid-range stages of the spiral properly (assuming Red falls into that category, which it may not but lets assume it does). He's not a careless, selfish entrepreneur who acres about nothing but his own gain, because Wes has integrity and strong sense of personal and collective responsibility. He's also not a religious ascetic who is very keen on adhering to moral dictates and being disciplined, because Wes has materialistic ambition. He also doesn't even fall into the category of a responsible, integral entrepreneur, because due to his stage Red traits, Wes has the vitality, embodied passion and emotional impact on other people that those other entrepreneurs don't have. Wes Watson also made me think about the difference between being mature and being evolved. Wes Watson isn't super evolved. He primarily oscillates through the regions of stage Red, Blue and Orange. Although interestingly, I've also seen him talk about vibrations, energy, love, law of attractions and other topics that would suggest he would have some proficiency in one or more of the higher stages (Green/Yellow/Turquoise). This is however hard to pinpoint for me because his Red/Blue/Orange is so overshadowing that it makes it very hard to detect expressions from the stages above it. If he's got some Green, Yellow or Turquoise energy present at all within him, it's at the very least not very dominant. I'm at least not going to treat him as a teacher or embodiment of stage Green/Yellow/Turquoise lessons. But even though he's not super evolved, I do think he's far more mature than most people, including most people who have a lot of proficiency of the higher stages within them. You're not going to convince me that a neo-marxist hippie who lives in his parents' basement smoking weed all day is going to be more mature than Wes Watson (and by the way, I myself actually live with my parents being kinda hippie-like), even though he may be in some way more conscious and spirally evolved. I myself don't consider myself more mature than Wes Watson, even though I know I'm quite deep into stage Yellow. I do consider him to be more mature than me, even though I feel there's also a lot of lessons he could learn from me. But I feel like there's just as much lessons I could learn from him. What I would wish for Wes Watson over the coming years and decades is that he starts to let go of his obsession with being extremely tough and hard on himself, and that he would allow himself to explore his feminine side more, and to soften and loosen up a little bit and become more compassionate both towards himself and towards other people. I wish for him that he would start to see the value of being more soft even as a man (he actually has made several video's saying that people and especially men should never allow themselves to become soft), without him necessarily losing his capacity to be really tough and hard if he feels like that's what's called for. I wish for him that he would stop seeing the world so black-and-white and that he would start seeing that there's value and meaning in every perspective. In essence: I wish he would start to embody more stage Green and Yellow qualities in himself without him necessarily losing his Red/Blue/Orange edge, and I feel like this is what's required for him to make the greatest possible impact on the world. Let me know what you think of the character that is Wes Watson. Here's a link to his Youtube channel, by the way. Seems like he's just bought a new mansion at the time of writing this. Good for him
  3. I've had this happen a lot when trying to set up a date or meeting with a girl, and lately I've had this happen again and it's seriously starting to make my fucking blood boil with anger and frustration; additionally, usually there also is a lot of confusion present because most of the time I have great difficulty finding out what exactly I have done so wrong that makes her not respond anymore, and the anger and frustration comes with the fact that I find it just very unfair that she —I'm consciously speaking from emotion here and not from a fair, impartial assessment— that she does not have the basic sense of respect and integrity towards me to at least tell me why the hell she stopped answering me so at least I don't have to be so incredibly confused. As may not be a surprise when you read my posts on this forum, I tend to be very prudent, precise, thoughtful, explicit and also respectful when it comes to the way I choose to communicate to others, especially when it comes to written text (although at times I can be very confrontational, or I can intentionally choose to let go of my prudency and just deliberately let myself go, writing from emotion). When I try to set up a date or meeting with a girl or woman, I take this habit with me. I like for things to be arranged properly. I like for the conditions to be set up in such a way so that things may work out in the most optimal way possible. Therefore, I tend to be very prudent, lengthy and precise in my communication style, sending a good bit of messages and text beforehand so that the conditions are set up properly. Many may consider me a control-freak for that reason, and arguably there is some trouble here of me having some difficulty letting go of control at times, but I'd say more than that it's a combination of me just being a very sensitive person who has an autism and ADD diagnosis, and experience has told me that I'm just very easily uncomfortable and distracted if some factors or circumstances are a little bit 'off' and/or unpredictable. It's not just that I'm afraid of things not being managed properly; It's that I've noticed from experience that things often turn out as well if I don't take certain precautions or if I don't make certain agreements. Yes, going too far overboard with being a control-freak also gets you just as stressed out as things not being predictable or arranged properly, but for me the point of balance where I feel most comfortable and relaxed on the scale between being totally careless about everything and being an extremely precise and prudent person tends to skew much more in the direction of prudency that the average person. On top of that, my way of being very prudent and thoughtful also comes out of a core desire to want to give a lot of quality to many of the things I do in life; Especially when it comes to the social domain. I'm a very creative person and part of the joy of expressing this creativity is coming up with original, creative out-of-the-box solutions to make the best out of a certain situation so that as many people as possible are benefited by my creativity. But when it comes to the domain of dating, almost no girl seems to understand or respect that my prudent and therefore sometimes lengthy and explicit form of communication is often a form of me wanting to give a lot of quality to our situation and our potential date. It's really frustrating because I actually take a lot of care to communicate respectfully with a genuine intent to elevate both my own and her growth (although I do have to admit there's selfish reasons behind this), but then most of the time what I seem to get is literally nothing, or otherwise a very despondent form of communication in which she doesn't really properly and respectful responds to what I text her At least this is how I currently understand as to what is going on. It's very confusing and frustrating. And what happens usually it that this confusion and frustration just overwhelms me so much that I'm too triggered and stressed out that I don't want or can't even manage or think of ways to recover the situation in a wise manner. There's just too much emotional upset to even continue, and even if I tried there's too much confusion to really even know what to do. However, as opposed to in the past, I've been arranging some appointments with a friend and some coaches to can help me to emotionally process this frustration, but I felt the desire to kind of type this out on the forum. Some feedback to clarify some things for me here would be appreciated, although I do have to admit I have a habit of typing stuff here and not looking back to what the responses to my comment or topic are (or just not really being able to absorb it properly) because I for some reason feel uncomfortable in doing that. But I'll see if I can manage to read and and hopefully also properly absorb and process what's being said.
  4. From a relative perspective, nobody is perfect, and perfection can never be reached. It is a noble thing to want to only get a girlfriend once you get your shit together, but why not get a girlfriend whilst you are in the process of getting to that point? You may not be perfect, but so won't your girlfriend be. Is that a bad thing? I would say not. What's wrong with going into a relationship where both of you have some aspects of yourself that are a little bit thwarted and a little bit messed up? You will encounter those aspects within yourself and in the relationships and there will be conflicts, but that's how you grow. Why would that be a bad thing? In fact, if you do want to get the perfect girlfriend (and again, perfection doesn't exist except from an absolute perspective), then it's almost impossible for yourself to be perfect if you haven't had the chance to practice yourself in the area of dating, relationships and intimacy. Just because you get your finances, health, general confidence and so forth together, does that mean you will automatically also be good in relationships if you never have given yourself the chance to practice it? Maybe, but maybe also not. It's a big gamble to take at least, and it's a gamble I feel like you shouldn't have to take.
  5. Somewhat coincidentally (or maybe not?) Leo just made a video about the topic of double standards and hypocrisy. Here's another one for you. I wanted to make a separate topic for this since I've already held the idea to post this longer in my mind and i think it's a very significant counterargument to the idea that there would only be one life; That hte body is just all you are, and that after you die, there will be nothing. Even more interested that I am by providing my counterargument against that, I even relish more in the fact of pointing out the hypocrisy and the absurdity of someone who considers themselves to be an atheist and a rationalist at the same time, which is a very common combination. Most likely, someone who is an atheist is probably also a rationalist and vice versa. They tend to go hand in hand. So what is this so-called absurd hypocrisy I'm talking about? And why do I dare to go as far as to call it absurd? Because the notion that there is only one life is statistically completely impossible. The same actually also goes for the notion that you would end up either in hell or in heaven after this life, even apart from the fact that there is is no fairness or logic whatsoever in the fact that you would either be in a place where everything is stunningly awesome and blissful or absolutely awful and horrendous for eternity for whatever you're able to do or not do in this finite lifespan. But at least these religions that claim that there is a heaven and hell are at least not hypocrites; Or at the very least not at the same level as people who are both Rationalist and Atheists. Rationalists claim that reality can be best understood by using rational logic. Atheists belief there is no God, no afterlife, and no soul that lives on after death. But think about this though: How is there statistically even more than exactly 0% chance that in this 80 years or so that you're alive on this earth that you would even happen to exist at all were it not for the fact that you as a conscious being existed for eternity? Because existence is eternally long, and something finite —no matter how much of that finite thing or quality there is— it still will always be 0% compared to infinity or eternity. Let me repeat that just so it sinks in: Statistically, the chance that you would be alive right now in this body is exactly 0% if you would only have one life. And I don't care about your argument that existence started with the Big Bang. The Big Bang as far as I'm concerned is just a fallacy of an argument to cover up that existence can only be eternal. How can somehow something come out of completely nothing, but then actually absolutely completely nothing? I'm not even talking about nothing in a material sense, but also nothing in an energetical sense, and nothing in a metaphysical sense, and really nothing in any sense whatsoever; Not even out of Godly potential or whatever, because even THAT is a something in the way I speak of it now (and atheists don't believe in God anyway so what does that matter?). How can then suddenly something arise out of absolutely, ABSOLUTELY nothing? That's totally absurd. And even if you were to dismiss all of what I just said the chance of your existence if there were only one life would still not be more than 0.000000001% or something like that. So that's where the absurd hypocrisy is at with people who would consider themselves to be both Rationalist and Atheists. They believe there is no God and no Afterlife and no soul that lives on after their body is dead, and they also believe that if there were some reason to belief in a life after their body has gone that there needs to be proof of it, but they completely forsake the fact that mathematically speaking the chance of them existing right here right now is exactly 0%. But isn't Rationalism supposed to be... rational? And isn't the argument I just made about the chance of them existing that it is 0% if there was only one life, isn't that argument fully and completely rational? And isn't mathematics and logical linear thinking like I just did part of what rationalists consider to be so valuable and sacred? I think it is. And if that is so, then either these so-called rationalists who are also atheists have three choices if they want to drop their absurd hypocrisy on this point. Firstly they could drop their rationalism, and just be atheistic and be happily ever after completely irrational about the notion that there would only be one life Secondly they could drop their atheism, meaning they still maintain their right to call themselves rational, but they have to abolish the idea that there would only be one life which will be gone after the body has died. Thirdly, and I would recommend this one, is that they can drop BOTH their atheism and rationalism, and open themselves up the the notion that not everything in existence and not everything of Truth can be grasped and accessed through reason and logic alone, and that there is also no need to reduce themselves to just something material without anything deeper going on here. Fin
  6. @Ulax Although I think I know what you mean, can you be more specific? What exactly in your idea is being mastered?
  7. @Aleister Crowleyy It can be. It depends whether positivity is grounded in Truth or not. Positivity in and of itself is not self-deception
  8. My signature is aimed at the very intellectual, hesitating, doubtful people amongst us (which on this forum I'm sure there are a lot). It is also addressed towards those who tend to guilt themselves a lot after they have done something they considered to be 'bad'. Basically, my signature is about taking conscious ownership in regards to whatever decision you decide to make, despite whatever hesitation, doubt or even outside judgment might be there. It means to take a stand and say: "This is what I decide to do, and I will stand for it and accept the consequences!". It then doesn't matter whatever decision it may end up being, as long as it has been consciously considered and chosen. I know from myself that I tend to hesitate and doubt a lot and ask myself a lot of "Is this right or not? Is this truly proper and ethical? Is this acceptable? What will others think of it?". But at some point, I need to say: "Even though I don't have 100% clarity on this issue and even though there is doubt, at some point a decision needs to be made, and since a decision is required, I will consciously decide and take ownership of this decision and whatever consequences may come out of it. I am not going to back out of my decision or apologise just because other people may judge me for it or it might have other unwanted consequences that I didn't foresee or expect; Because at the moment I made my decision, I did the very best I knew how to at that particular moment". For example: I was at a festival just over a week ago which was for men only which is about coming into your mature masculinity, but I already had a lot of hesitation going there, and already at the first day I noticed I could just not get along with the practices and ways of the festival. I just felt a constant sense of unease and restlessness, and already after the first day i decided it was best to leave the 4-day festival I had paid almost 300 euros for after taking a walk in the evening and making a very conscious and deliberate decision that it was best to leave, even though there was still some hesitation and doubt in the background and feeling guilty towards the idea of leaving because perhaps I would be missing out on a good or learnful experience, but still after seriously and consciously weighing out all my options deciding it was best to leave indeed. But I decided it wasn't right to just leave through the backdoor without first announcing in the group that I was to leave. So that's what I did: In the morning circle that consisted of about a hundred men, I at some point when the opportunity arose decided to take the talking stick and I informed the group that I was to actually leave the festival 3 days to when it would actually be over. There was quite a bit of difficult feelings both from myself and the other men, but this is is the decision I decided to take ownership for. This is the decision that I made right by taking a stand for it. That's what it means to stand for something, and that's what it means to "make your decision right". It means to take conscious ownership over your decisions, even when there is doubt, even when you have tried very hard to "make the right decision" and perhaps still haven't come to a place of clarity or certainty about what is truly the right decision. Even then, you can still just choose and take conscious ownership over your decision and in that way "make your decision right" even when there is still doubt, and even when it is unpopular or even frowned upon.
  9. Let's see. I would say (not a complete list)... Erwin Raphael McManus Osho David Deida
  10. Dude, your reply is examplary of exactly that which concerns me. I'm not influenced by Russian propaganda. I have literally seen zero of it. And neither have I seen any chinese propaganda. I'm making an epistomological point here. I'm not interested in taking any sides.
  11. I've been thinking about this issue for some longer time. I see everywhere, including on this forum, that western people almost without exception believe that the narrative that they've been told about what is going on with the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is true, at least in the overarching theme of it. That is: That Russia attacked a sovereign nation that is Ukraine without provocation, without a proper justification (but a lot of ungrounded ones), and Russia's or Putin's actual motive is simply expansion drift; To expand the Russian territory out of territorial greed. On top of that, we westerners believe that Russia's military is bombing cities with thousands of innocent civilians being stuck there. Earlier this morning I read an article in the newspaper that the chinese (social) media lets its people believe that Ukraine is the country that provoked Russia to attack them by attacking Russia first. I also read that the Chinese media frames it that the Ukrainian military is attacking its own civilians, and that they are using very dirty tactics to gain the upper hand on the Russians. Yes, there is an assumption here that the news I've read about this story about what the Chinese media is doing is indeed correct, but let's for the sake of simplicity and convenience indeed assume for now that that news is indeed correct, just so I am able to continue my topic and make my point . This made me think. How do we really know what is true and what is not in regards to the information that we're being fed? How are we any different from the Chinese or Russian media that frames it in this way that the people of the Russian military are the good guys and the Ukrainian military are the bad guys? We (as westerners) are simply doing the reverse. We are simply taking the information that we're being fed for granted. We trust the news sources that we are getting our information from, just as Russians or Chinese people trust the sources they get their information from and don't question them. I can guarantee you that we as westerners are being manipulated by the media on this whole issue. I'm not even saying that the information that we're being fed is necessarily incorrect, but the stories that the media tell and the images that they showcase on television and on social media sites like Youtube or Twitter, and really the whole algorhytm of Youtube, Twitter, Facebook and so forth are essentially manipulating our mind and emotions to more and more adopt this attitude of shock, upset, outrage and to become more and more polarized against not only Putin and the Russian military, but in many cases also Russia as a whole. Again, even if we're to assume that the information that we're being fed is indeed correct —And how can we be so certain about that if Russian and Chinese media are doing the same thing with all the justifications that they have to believe that (just as we have all of our justifications)— But even if we assume that the news we get is actually true and valid, notice that what we get to see from the (social) media is very selective and partial. We for instance get to see and hear from the Russian military bombing a Children's hospital, but we don't hear from the Ukrainian military or certain individuals from Ukraine or its military committing the same kinds of despicable war crimes. You might say that if they were to do that it would be justified, but this again is just another narrative and justification, you see? We humans are capable of committing the most horrendous and despicable acts if we tell ourselves stories that it is justified. And so continues that cycle of hatred, violence and fragmentation. The Russian military is doing it, and I'm sure Ukrainian individuals out there are doing it as well. Justified or not, it is essentially the same dynamic, the same pattern. I simply wrote this topic because I want to prompt a cognitive intervention for those who have gotten all caught up in all the narratives that the news and (social) media has been feeding you, and now you've adopted this deeply rooted victim-perpetrator mindset where the Ukrainians are the good guys and the Russians or Putin and its military are the bad guys. On a last note, I actually have a request for you guys on quite a (but not completely) different topic: Does any of you guys know a movie, documentary or (audio)book or some other source of information that really goes in-depth on the mental attitudes that war criminals or other (would-be) hateful and sadistic people adopt? I for instance am really interested in knowing what goes on in someone's mind of someone who used to be a vicious concentration camp guard, for example. Or a documentary about a military unit in training who later become the kind of people who will do anything that their leaders tell them to do, such as bombing cities with thousands of civilians in it like we're (seemingly) seeing happening right now. Who are these kind of people who commit and justify such actions? What is their background? How did they grow up? Why are they willing to do anything their superiors tell them? Is it hatred? Is it fear of punishment if they don't follow orders? Is it just a mechanical act they are capable of doing simply because they have convinced themselves that what they're doing is proper and justified? Is it just pure moral apathy? What lead up to the point until they became desensitized to the suffering of those they are attacking? I'm also for instance curious about the difference between people who commit violence and torture to others with a sense of passion and without a sense of passion. As f*cked up as it may be, some people actually enjoy and delight in torturing others and seeing others suffer, and others simply do it out of a sense of obligation or to remain a sense of control over their environment. So I'm also curious to learn about people who commit violence with a sense of passion and delight because it's something I really can't understand from personal experience what's so attractive about that (except when it comes to sexual encounters, but only then when I know my partner is genuinly willing and ready to experience it). I hope you guys can help me out on that .
  12. I've really got mixed feelings about Elliot Hulse. If you actually watch his videos he can (emphasis on "can") be actually quite nuanced. I do think he has some Spiral Dynamics stage Yellow thinking. I especially like his older videos, in which he showcases himself much more energetically as well. But what really annoys me about him is his total lack of nuance and respect in the titles of his videos and the youtube memes he posts. When Leo did a video about Jordan Peterson he talked about that Jordan had a "stage green shadow". Elliot has that too, but even worse. At least Jordan still makes an attempt to be respectful whilst he criticizes certain left or 'stage green' ideals and values. Elliot just goes full-on ridicule and mockery mode, especially in his video titles and in the Youtube memes (in picture form) he posts. That being said, if you're conscious enough and you know how to filter out the gold from the dirt, Elliot has same very valuable material for both men and women on his channel.
  13. Stage Beige also isn't there because Leo didn't find it worth the time. Youtube removed the stage Turquoise video. but it should be reuploaded through other channels
  14. Maybe men and women can be friends up until a certain point. If there is polarity (which there almost inevitably always is), either these two persons should see each other very infrequently in person (not more than a couple of times per year, I'd say), if it all. Or these people agree (preferably from the very beginning) upon having certain set roles in their relationship to one another. For instance, a client and a therapist of the opposite sex may experience polarized attraction towards one another, but they agree upon not acting upon that because otherwise the professional relationship would get really weird and skewed. If they can manage, at least. I have a female 'friend' in my friends' group whom I actually really like not just in a sexual way but also for her soul, so to speak, but I deliberately choose to not meet with her in private even for activities that would generally be seen as 'innocent' (such as swimming) because she has a boyfriend in the same friend group, and it might really skew with the dynamics if I were to start seeing her privately for certain activitities. It makes me actually uncertain of what to do right now, because on one hand I have the desire to just meet her to go swimming or something and chat up with her a little bit just to talk about how things are going and how things have been going the past few months, but even meeting with her very infrequently (not more than a few times per year) feels already like a break of my personal integrity to me because of the boyfriend she has. I may not intend to get anything started between us, but just the very seeing of each other in private and the bonding may cause it so that certain emotions may start to happen or intensify and become problematic. I would actually really dig having a sexual relationship with her but because she's taken out of integrity I won't interfere and I will look elsewhere. After all, she prior to the boyfriend she has right now used to have another boyfriend in the same friend group (let's call him guy A). Then she started to get feelings for guy B, but she didn't want to cheat or be disloyal to guy A and she got really conflicted about it because she couldn't just turn off her attraction towards guy B. She eventually decided that she wanted to talk about it with guy A not to state that she was going to be with guy B but just to confess that she had feelings towards guy B, in which guy A became very upset and even hostile instead of feeling compassionate for her situation, and eventually it all span out of control and guy A eventually left the friends' group and all attempts to reestablish contact with him (at least for what I tried) ended up failing. It's funny because she's the only girl in our friend group consisting of only dudes but her. I see the potential trouble here but my friends don't really want to admit that and want to act like it's all fine like this because of the feminist conditioning that supposes that all of this should be perfectly fine and problemless. I think part of the reason why I prefer to be polyamorous is because of that monogamous relationships are really hard to remain loyal to if they don't have a very strong grounding in a virtuous or higher cause. It's a bit unfortunate that monogamy is assumed to be the default even for very young people who simply naturally have a much deeper yearning to have a wide array of sexual experiences instead of having a deep experience with on particular person. It's actually really hard to remain monogamous for a man when a really attractive woman starts hitting on him, or when he starts bonding with his attractive female coworker. On the same note, it's really hard for a woman to remain loyal to a man when a more high-value man comes around and starts hitting on her because of her biological wiring to be hypergamous. When the relationship between the two monogamous partners isn't going well, it's all too easy and convenient for them to divert from their ideal of loyalty out of wanting to feel love(d) and desire(d) or even just for the sake of revenge. That's why two partners should only choose to be monogamous if their reasons why are very clear and grounded. Monogamy should be chosen consciously; It shouldn't be the default IMO.