Natasha Tori Maru

@Wilhelm44 also to respect your question - I do not think I am part of a cult. Is this place a cult, though? I am entirely undecided. This is why this topic is intriguing and enlightening to me. And not damning or negative. I remain neutral and open to both sides.

Yes that's what a spectrum is. I think you might have negative connotations with the word and concept of cult? But remember this is just my definition (that it's not a binary yes/no). I find the binary one to be reductionist, and a way to neatly draw lines so we don't have to deal with inspecting our own beliefs and propensity for deception.

@Wilhelm44 I think there is a large spectrum of variation regarding users and how entrenched they are in the community. You could very, very reasonably argue some members exhibit cult like thinking, behaviour and bias. This could point to a degree of rhetorical circular arguments and traps being present in teaching - or it could be that certain types of poeple naturally exhibit cult like thinking and they bring it TO the teaching themselves. This is further supported looking at how frequently people come to Leo or his teachings for help, for guidance, for someone to look up to. You could argue many are already in a primed and compromised state to be brainwashed. I good indicator might be looking at actualized.org followers as a whole and assessing for % of this type of thinking. One might reasonably infer, if there was a large or overwhelming portion of users who fell within this umbrella, that there was a problem with the teaching methods themselves that lends toward a mind control/rhetoric/trap like thinking. But the same again could be said regarding the type of people who go to Leo. Self help at first, then spirituality as a natural stepping stone (many users report this as their path!) Overall I think there are only a few members who present with belief systems instilled by Leo that follow a cult pattern. But Leo often reports to test everything for yourself. Not believe what he says. And then, as presented by @zurew, when cornered, he is often presents himself as the arbiter of knowing who is God realised. Who isn't. The Truth. This seriously undermines users soveriegnty after the conflicting statement 'find out for yourself, don't believe what I have to say.' There's an inconsistent message there that, I believe, does need to be addressed by Leo. On the one hand it's 'only you know, test for yourself' and on the other 'only I, Leo, know who is this or that'. He positions himself as authority regarding truth in this way. Which is the launchpad for the brainwashing argument.

Have a read of the warning details. Read it carefully, without assumptions or false inferences. You might find there are many in your line of reasoning. I've spoken to you about this matter previously. I consider it closed and resolved. Please DM Leo if you wish to take this further, or feel something is unresolved.

@Wilhelm44 Does the framing of the question refer back to 'this place' as a basis for answer? Cults or no - it's a spectrum. Not a binary thing.

I think it is exactly this type of thinking that could be the blind spot. I think this could be looked at as an 'in group' type of cognitive bias. The claim that we would be hard pressed to find another community better prepared, isn't strong to me. There are many closed of groups, communities and segments of society we don't have access to. We just don't know.

@Yimpa I think it could be one the 'Don't Die' necklaces he had as a limited release? Not sure As an aside, lowkey love Kate has COWBOY boots on in the tmi vaginal probe image - ride em' probes cowgirl!

@Julian gabriel I actually haven't one idea of what you are talking about or these assumptions. Have fun with them, though.

I bet you more than half the followers of Leo perceive themselves as too intelligent to fall into cult like thinking and behaviour. Intelligence has nothing to do with being deceived in another domain. The truth is always served up with a big side of horseshit along with it. And I suspect many users thinking they are too intelligent to fall into the clutches of a cult is the - exact - reason why the assumption remains uninspected, rooted in belief about themselves. And their character. This whole topic is why my signature is what it is.

@LordFall there appears to be an assumption behind all of your arguments & talking points with @integral that "My view is the correct way to engage in the world, anyone that is rational will automatically come to the same conclusions I do and if they don't there is something wrong". I'm not saying anything is incorrect, but it's possible someone could live the same life you have and come to completely different conclusions and meanings. You don't appear to want to consider that there might not be a right or wrong? Hey, I could be wrong here. Just appears this is the uninspected assumptions behind your entire dialogue with @integral here.

Who's gonna tell him? 😁

@Leo Gura his reversed aged mother that's the true experiment he will reveal later? 🤣 Bryan wants to see where he came from...

Fuck, I didn't realise we were looksmaxxing here. Misunderstood the assignment. @Joseph Maynor @integral cheers!

I didn't say that.

Part of Bryan's marketing tactic is shock and confrontation. But he also seems very unaware of appropriate boundaries. Kate should post an image of her inspecting his anus when he gets a rectal exam. Only fair.

@Davino I've laid out my case and investigation of Bryan and it has nothing to do with Leo's opinion or views.

@Julian gabriel cigarettes are the true lie.

He's also stated this multiple times. People seem to forget this. It's stated by him, reported as a driver by his father, and mentioned in his Netflix documentary. He admired and wanted to be on par with Joseph Smith. He is fascinated with people who were remembered. Reading autobiographies on historically remarkable people is a large portion of his time.

"You shouldn't publicly criticize or summarize a person's negative behaviour unless you first provide extensive context, qualifications, and positive traits." Does this need to then apply to everyone? Else it becomes rules for thee, not for me... or anyone else we arbitrarily feel we should apply this ruleset to..

@Joseph Maynor I am not sure I am being clear - I don't feel to be disagreeing. Feeling is the first instinct - I just enjoy deconstructing it. Which comes after, for myself. Maybe I am misunderstanding you, or you me. Oh well. It is in good faith nonetheless. In fact, I am steering toward there being no separation between thought, feeling and emotion. No clean one anyway. I am totally undecided on the matter. Thoughts aren't something we can detect with any external tools. Feelings have a body response that can be detected and felt. Are they one and the same? Can they be separate? I go back and forth.

I am sure there is more to deconstruct inside regarding tells you are observing. Sometimes it's quicker and cleaner to feel into how we respond. I go toward my gut, intuition and feeling initially - then I like to try to reverse engineer my feelings by re-reading responses, assessing exactly how I respond to certain phrases, and then recall previous context. Often I cannot put to words how I come to my conclusions. Sometimes the process is confrontational and torturous. But the pain is just in the learning. I try to intellectually understand how I respond. But there is a beauty and intelligence to feeling that the mind cannot grasp, I feel. I practice observing my responses when I am not so charged up as to be overtaken.

I normally steer toward that belief, if there is a systemic series of interactions or replies that take my general comments in the negative. On off comments here or there are not so indicative as a pattern of behaviour is. Everyone has their own perception and understanding of what each of us say. When a user takes all my posts in bad faith, or the majority - it is usually a safe assumption there is dislike or disapproval in some way. Or they dislike my conduct. Often my questions will be perceived as leading them or steering them toward some conclusion *I* want them to make. Like I am trapping them. When, almost all the time, my questions are to try to understand their POV. Sometimes I fall into traps where I am angry and it is coming through in text. I try not to post at all in that case. How about yourself? Are you able to discern when someone is taking you in bad faith? What do you look for?

@LordFall All g all g To be clear I didn't feel accused - I just felt like clarifying my position. I often joke around about being power hungry and loving to dish out discipline - but it is in jest 100%. My jokes about power, taken out of context (and if someone is a bad faith actor wrt me), could easily be twisted to believe whatever that person may wish. I cannot control that, but maybe I can steer the dialogue somewhat. Ultimately I have no control whatsoever. I feel quite bad when having to use corporal punishment via moderation tools or hard words. I like & respect many of the members more than they like me - which I am okay with. But all too often the moderation position is conflated with me as a person. Which is some of the essence of the topic at hand - the conflation around Leo as a person and the teacher position.

I can't speak for Carl but glory and status is the last thing I look for or want. I would prefer to be a mod without the green. I look at my position as a way to give back to Leo in a way that speaks louder than words

@LordFall Do you think the act of moderating and giving their time without pay (volunteers), is an action that might show gratitude, rather than words?