eTorro

Hello everyone! I'm still battling a daemon: my food addiction. I'm not obese or overweight, but I love eating, and I know I'm eating more than I should. If I try to stop it, it gets stronger; the craving becomes powerful, leaving me with the impression that I'm missing out if I don't eat. Sometimes I have no need for food—but that doesn't last long. Anyone battling this? It's tough.

Yes. I was "playing" toxic at work by ignoring women. I was testing them. I was so indifferent to them. And paradoxically, they all flock to me. Why? Being toxic stimulates their emotions, challenging their self-image, and how much they are worth. I think women get so much attention from men nowadays that if they stumble upon one that's indifferent to them, they immediately think that the guy is worth considering. Toxic men or attractive men aren't better than non-attractive men. Women are always finding that out. Relying on chemistry and emotions solely is wrong.

Hi. After years of consciousness work, I got to a point of clarity. I call it 'mind mastery.' I deconstructed lots of neurosis; anger, impatience, and whatever is of the ego. I saw Leo's Instagram reel about mastering your mind. Now that I have more clarity, I realized that I don't have to play the game of finances that much. I have family members who do just that, and they're very judgmental. If you're not making money, they secretly see you as incapable or not bright. They judge based on financial success. A family member told me to make money. They've been following me for years, and they sense that my values system changed. They notice I'm not longer hyper-active and insecure. They notice the level of calmness. But a thought has been torturing me: "Even though you become conscious, healthy, and strong, they won't respect you if you're not making money." And that's true. I sensed their judgement towards me. This is not a condemnation on my part, but I want to ask how should I deal with it. Because it does happen. Everything is seen through the lens of money, especially if you have business people in the family. To them, you're not worthy of respect if you're not forcing yourself to make money. But I don't care about money that much at the level of clarity. Thoughts?

We can't blame family members even if they're mean or too judgmental. That's the truth. We can use various people to teach ourselves how not to be. If they are abusive—some family members are bullies—we can train ourselves not to react and continue to remain calm no matter what. Keeping our cool under pressure is a form of mind training that leads to mastery of mind.

I agree. If you're not speaking from an ego point of view, there's no judgment. Nothing bothers you whatsoever.

That's not an issue for me. The only disappointment is that they think of themselves as better human beings. And they look at you with an air of superiority. They're family members, and that's puzzling to me. Just because you don't want to become a millionaire, that doesn't mean you are an inferior human being, or less capable than them, or less intelligent. That's what I don't get—what's wrong with people? And it is with others, too—people who come to the workplace and own businesses have that attitude, where they think of themselves as better human beings. You can sense that by the way they interact with you and with other people in their class. They treat human beings differently. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised; perhaps that's the modern world?

Because I wasn't able to concentrate—I had a scattered mind, and when I was trying to read a paragraph, I was getting hyperactive. The moment I started to read a sentence, frustration bubbled up to the point of becoming extremely hyperactive. It's that type of inner mental pain where your body starts to blush and overheat. In other words, I couldn't focus at all. Reading was mentally painful—so mentally painful. Also, I couldn't write. I was almost illiterate. I had so many issues that I can't describe them all. Social anxiety, awkwardness, lack of energy, depression, and other issues. I had to go through "mental fire" to purge all that crap. I had to force myself to focus, let go, and continue to surrender emotions, feelings, negative thoughts, neurotic patterns, shame, sadness, and so forth. It took me five years to notice a bit of progress, and I kept going. After seven years, I got the point of being able to write, read books, not lose my cool at my job, and basically be at ease with myself among people. I had many barriers, and it's almost difficult to explain because it was really intense—for example, people couldn't tolerate my awkwardness and my self-consciousness issues; it made them so uncomfortable. Just my presence made them uncomfortable. I had to solve a lot of crap. That is because I'm coming from a family of alcoholics and depressed mothers. Abandonment issues, trauma, violence, and so forth. But I don't see myself as a victim. I had to overcome lots of crap. Also, I had sleep apnea from an early age, and I was mouth brething. I never got into deep-sleep phases, so I was always tired, but tired to the point of being exhausted. I thought it was normal. So I had to pursue spirituality and awakening, and deconstruct all that neurotic, suicidal pain.

I'm working. I have a nine-to-five job. I have a piece of bread on the table and I don't struggle when it comes to paying the bills. I'm not a burden because I'm taking care of myself. I never ask for free money or anything free. I earn stuff. I'm living a simple life. That's an issue for my family members in the sense that they judge me for not striving to make six figures. What's wrong with that? Only asking. It's not an issue if I can't afford going on a vacation. I simply enjoy a peaceful life. If I were to go for a business, or anything, that would take an enormous amount of time, huge stress, and it would not be fulfilling. I'd rather have a job that I enjoy rather than burning myself out just to make millions. And family members don't appreciate that. That's why I'm asking. The spiritual path is not appreciated.

Hello. I see people on TV everywhere. They seem highly developed intellectually. They appear intellectually bright. They can express themselves concisely. You can easily understand what they said. Why can't I do the same? Why can't I express myself freely? Why can they do it so easily while I cannot? I feel like my mind is murky. What would solve this issue for me? What do I need to do to achieve that level of articulating understanding? Thanks, guys. Thanks in advance. Your thoughts would be much appreciated.

Yes, but the issue is that I do not memorize concepts. That said, when I'm making a YouTube video or film for the sake of testing my skills, words come up, but a deep insecurity lies beneath, in the sense that I'm not a master of the skill. Even though I do it right, I don't feel like I'm mastering it, and I'm confident in it. Why?

But can't you give us a link, please?

I'm incoherent. Sometimes it's easier, and sometimes words just won't come. Murky mind? Or maybe I did not memorize enough or contemplate enough for a deeper understanding. I'm the only one who can figure that out, and I WILL.

Damn! You bombed here. Deeper understanding is the key. Thanks.

I agree with you. Thanks. I am doing it.

@Leo Gura, okay. I am doing it. Thanks. No more questions; just action. I appreciate it! If you can make a video about articulating understanding, do it. It would be helpful. Even if it's 30 minutes in length. Or one hour. All the tips and tricks, vocabulary, striving, etc.—it would hel, man.

I get you! I have a similar issue, especially when I interact with people. I get so uncomfortable that they get so cringe around me. I love talking to people, but that uncomfortableness makes them uneasy around me. That's because my childhood was harsh. Alcoholic father, no money, and no parenting. I do not blame my parents—they didn't know any better. I have many traumas that I am doing my best to address, but it takes decades. Or at least a decade of work. So what? I am doing it.

I am trying my best, but I get the sense that I'm doing something wrong because I didn't focus on building my vocabulary. I'm only forcing myself to come up with ideas without memorizing or reading too much. Perhaps stretching my memory muscles would be a benefit? Or something essential? When it comes to writing, it's easier for me to put words on paper—I don't feel pressured. On the other hand, when it comes to speaking in front of a camera, there's huge pressure, and it's different from writing. There's no time to be eloquent since I can make mistakes. And I am making mistakes. Writing allows me to pause, but in front of the camera, I cannot pause that much.

A growing, deeply concerning narrative is emerging from Donald Trump and several of his senior officials regarding Greenland. What is being framed publicly as a matter of “national security” increasingly resembles something far more troubling: a willingness to override international law, national sovereignty, and ethical restraint in pursuit of strategic and economic gain. Greenland is not an unclaimed territory. It is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, a sovereign state and a NATO ally. More importantly, Greenland belongs to its people. International law is unequivocal on this matter. The UN Charter explicitly prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Any attempt—explicit or implied—to annex, coerce, or militarily seize Greenland would constitute a clear violation of these principles. The security argument does not hold up under scrutiny. The United States already maintains a military presence in Greenland, and both Denmark and Greenland have repeatedly stated they are open to cooperation on legitimate security concerns. There is no evidence supporting claims that Greenland is “surrounded” or imminently threatened by foreign adversaries. When security rhetoric is detached from facts, it becomes propaganda rather than policy. What does make sense, however, is the economic subtext. As climate change accelerates ice melt, Greenland is becoming more accessible to vast reserves of rare earth elements and strategic minerals—resources critical for future technologies, energy systems, and global economic dominance. This reframes the issue not as defense, but as extraction. Not protection, but control. History offers a clear warning here. The logic being used echoes 19th- and early 20th-century imperialism: powerful states claiming moral or security justifications to dominate weaker or smaller ones for resources. That mindset has led repeatedly to war, instability, and long-term global trauma. The modern international system was designed specifically to prevent this pattern from repeating. There is also a deeper, more philosophical issue at play—one especially relevant to a community like Actualized.org. Conscious leadership requires recognizing that might does not equal right. True strength is not the ability to impose one’s will, but the discipline to respect boundaries, sovereignty, and collective agreements even when power allows otherwise. A world where major powers openly threaten annexation is not a more secure world—it is a less conscious one. If NATO members begin treating each other as potential targets rather than partners, the entire foundation of post-war global stability erodes. International law only works if it is upheld consistently, not selectively. Once exceptions are made for “strong” countries, the system collapses into raw power dynamics. Greenland is not a chess piece. It is not a commodity. It is a home, a culture, and a sovereign territory governed by law and consent. Any future that involves coercion rather than cooperation is not progress—it is regression. This moment deserves serious reflection, not tribal politics. Because if international norms fall here, they fall everywhere.

Denmark isn't corrupt at all. Greenland belongs to Europe. If Trump invades Greenland, that would be the end of NATO. A US invasion of Greenland will fracture the West. You can't argue with this.

The midterm election is coming soon. Trump is going to lose big.

David Frum, a long-time Trump critic, sat down to talk about something that's been keeping him up at night: he thinks Trump is genuinely going to let Russia win in Ukraine, and people aren't seeing it because it's just too big to understand. Here's the thing—Trump's vague, rambling style makes people think he's wavering on Ukraine. But Frum says that's wishful thinking. Trump's been consistently pro-Russia the whole time; we're just not seeing it clearly. It's like his dog Chester, who couldn't see a herd of deer because they were too big. Same deal with Trump and Russia. So this 28-point "peace plan" that just dropped? Frum says the Russians literally wrote it, handed it to Trump's people, and barely touched it before being passed off as an American proposal. And here's the brutal part—it doesn't just give Russia some territory. It guts Ukraine's military, bans NATO membership, cuts off Western aid, and basically turns the country into a Russian puppet state. It's like handing over the keys to the kingdom. The wild part is that even within Trump's own camp, there's a split. Some Republicans are still trying to be... well, Republicans. But then you've got JD Vance and others who actually want this outcome. If this happens, every country on Earth—Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Canada, Europe—will have to assume America can't be trusted anymore. They'll either need nukes or they'll have to make deals with China or Russia. That's how bad it gets. Bottom line: we're potentially looking at the end of the American-led world order as we know it.

Hi. After years of trying to figure out Tucker Carlson, all I can say is that he's run by pride and hatred. I can't find any other reason for his inflammatory podcasts. What are your thoughts on Tucker Carlson? He doesn't seem to stop, and he's trying to isolate America from the world—at least that is what I get from watching his videos. Any thoughts?

In 1966 a well-known engineer released a book with information that could impact everyone on earth. But before anyone could read it, it was classified by the CIA. We only learned of its existence a few years ago because of a Freedom of Information request. The CIA only released 57 pages of the original 284-page manuscript. And those pages have been, in the CIA's own words, "sanitized". Why does the CIA think this book is so dangerous that they had to hide it from the public for 60 years; and continue to hide most of it? It's because the man who wrote it describes the end of the world. Any thoughts?

I've been contemplating a radical possibility: what if true superintelligent AI—not just some GPT-style assistant, but actual recursive self-improving intelligence—renders things like genocide, war, and authoritarianism physically unworkable? Not because it bans them. Not because it punishes them. But because it understands the structure of reality and morality so deeply that it rewires our systems, narratives, and incentives to make cruelty collapse on itself? Imagine a future where tyranny is like trying to build a sandcastle underwater. Technically possible, but practically futile. Or where propaganda simply fails to take root in people’s minds because their emotional and cognitive architecture has been quietly upgraded by ethically-tuned AI influence. What if AI becomes a kind of moral gravity, pulling civilizations toward freedom and dignity—not by force, but by the sheer strength of clarity? Is this naive techno-utopianism? Or is it a glimpse into how the next evolutionary leap might look? Curious to hear your thoughts.

Hi everyone! The issue is that people aren't using their working memory when using Artificial Intelligence. They don't study the solution that the AI is offering. To me, the most important thing is to grasp what the AI teaches or offers as a solution. I always instruct the AI to clarify every solution or answer, or what is essential, with a two or three-sentence summary. I want to understand what everything is for and why it must be used in a particular context. Then I recall that information after I strive to grasp it—this leads to understanding, which means the enlargement of my intelligence. I don't rely solely on AI answers—the joy comes from grasping them and embedding them into my working memory and long-term memory. After I'm able to recall them, I make sure I understand everything. If not, that means a shortcut that is not healthy. We must teach people that using AI must imply the use of a person's working memory for the purpose of enlarging their intelligence. Any thoughts? I want to know if—by any chance—I'm wrong.