Xonas Pitfall

Got it! It's a beautifully strange loopy, haha. You want the love to be so real, so limitless, that you dissolve all that is "real" into illusion - so that love isn't bound by form, condition, or structure. In doing so, it becomes more real than "reality" itself – transcendent. Illusion becomes necessary for beauty. Because for beauty to be eternal and unending, everything else must become illusion - fleeting, ever-changing, unable to confine it. Only then can beauty remain alive and infinite. You're trying to make love and beauty so real, so absolute, that in the process, you render everything else illusionary.

Personally, I love that everything is illusory. I have no issue with it. But I'm not entirely sure if I'd call that the highest beauty... unless that’s exactly the point of the quote. There seems to be an inherent link between reality and beauty; the more real something beautiful feels, the more beautiful it becomes. The more truthful, the safer it feels to trust, to surrender to, to love. There's something deeply compelling about what is raw, unfiltered, and pure. But on the other hand, if there were no illusion, there would be no otherness, and without otherness, there would be no love, no contrast, no connection. And love, in all its forms, is arguably one of the most beautiful aspects of human experience. So in that sense, illusion is the highest beauty, because it makes love possible. It seems to form a kind of strange loop: All is one, undivided, unified → So separation, otherness, and love become what God craves and values most → Which makes illusion precious, because it creates that experience → But illusion can lead to distortion, suffering, and insecurity → Which makes us seek truth and reality again, and see that as the ultimate beauty And the cycle continues... ⟳

The way I like to look at it is through the metaphor of Local vs. Cloud Storage. Cloud storage allows your data to be shared, while local storage means your data stays on your device. In local mode, you are the Godhead, omnipotent, singular, solipsistic. It's pure self-contained divinity. There’s no one else, no comparison, no competition, no reflection. In that state, you don’t experience interaction, connection, or even love, because there's only you. It’s absolute, but also absolutely alone. In local storage, there's no external verification or syncing, so you can alter your data freely, meaning scores, identity, or progress can be faked, manipulated, or cheated without consequence. You have total power. Then comes cloud mode. Here, you accept contrast. You’re no longer the only one, now you have a username, an identity. You play within a system, follow rules, and build a track record. You can succeed or fail, be better or worse than others. But in return, you gain the richness of experience: connection, love, rivalry, community, victory, loss, and otherness. The trade-off is clear: Local gives you total sovereignty but no relational depth. Cloud limits your omnipotence but offers the beauty of interaction and connection. The same principle applies to dream vs. reality, and god-mode vs. multiplayer in games! 🐈

I’m trying to think this through - wouldn’t this be equivalent to saying: The highest love is the one that loves evil the most. The truth that everything is evil is the highest love.

I suppose it depends on how you define it. The truth is everything real, because if something isn’t true, it can’t be considered real. Anything outside of that would just be filtered through a false or distorted perception. In that sense, all illusion stems from truth, and more deeply, all illusion is held within truth. Illusions can only exist because they are rooted in something real. Fragmented perceptions, when seen from the highest perspective, all point back to the absolute. The same principle applies across many dualities: Same Principle With Self And Other Same Principle With Love And Evil, Goodness And Devilry Same Principle With Limitation And Infinity Same Principle With Illusion And Reality Same Principle With Materialization And Potential I think what threw me off was the use of the word "highest". It made me wonder if there was a deeper layer I wasn’t seeing... and still does 😅

Is it true that everything is truth? 🤔 Is it true that everything is held within truth, however misconstrued?

2 895 000 000 views (Posted 1 Hour Ago) !!! 98%+ Click-Through Rate (CTR) 195,000,000 Likes / 0 Dislikes 3.1 billion Comments Subscriber Gain +412,000,000 Subs Retention Rate 103% Revenue $93,000,000 USD 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

I’d genuinely be curious to hear more, because this is something I often find confusing in these spaces. There’s a lot of talk about how women are supposedly cruel or have a "dark" nature compared to men. As if all they want is to constantly jump from one richer, taller, more attractive guy to the next, with no regard for the person they’re currently with. But in reality, men can be just as dark - it’s a human thing, not a gendered one. You see husbands leaving their wives when they get sick, gain weight, grow older, or start earning more. There are also higher rates of domestic violence and violent crime committed by men. So it seems clear to me that both genders have selfish tendencies and biases when it comes to relationships. Humans naturally want what they want, and that can lead to cruelty or manipulation, regardless of gender. It ultimately comes down to character and whether someone chooses to act with integrity. So when people frame this as a uniquely “female” issue, I just don’t see it. Female hypergamy is about what women tend to find attractive. Male hypergamy is about what men find attractive. Both genders try to get the best partner they can, and both fear being the one who’s settling, or worse, being settled for or cheated on. That’s why I question the heavy focus on "female nature" being darker. It feels like it misses the broader point - that this is all part of human nature. I’d be curious to hear your perspective on that!

Obviously, there’s a lot more nuance to this, I’m not saying it’s that simple at all. Plus, I wouldn’t want Leo to change his style, as he’s clearly aiming for authentic and truthful expression. That’s why I was suggesting other approaches, like collaborations. Many people think they’re following this kind of advice, but there’s actually a lot of research involved - understanding which titles, topics, and thumbnails perform well, what the current “meta” is, and so on. It’s a whole field you could study. I’m really sorry if I came across as oversimplifying things; that’s not my intention at all. YouTube is a brutal, competitive space.

Just a quick tip on the YouTube algorithm! YouTube doesn’t necessarily blacklist topics like spirituality, self-improvement, or psychedelics. Plenty of channels covering those areas, including psychedelic education, (more controversial) conspiracy theories, and psychic podcasts, get tons of views. The real game on YouTube largely comes down to thumbnail design and title format/clickability. While your thumbnails are unique, certain proven formats tend to perform better. For example, your video on proofs of God could’ve had a much higher reach if presented in a “tier-list” format - similar to videos like these: Your content is less overstimulating by design, which naturally filters out more casual viewers, especially in the first 30 seconds. That said, I’m not suggesting you change your format in a way that feels inauthentic. If anything, I’m sure both your viewers and you would hate a complete format shift, so it’s just about approaching things more strategically. Once you have a more consistent viewership, even your niche-style videos can perform well, and you’ll still be able to spread your ideas genuinely. One idea: do more conversational content like your discussion with Curt. Someone who comes to mind is Dan Koe – he’s a big fan of Actualized.org and has openly praised it as one of the most insightful and high-quality channels on YouTube. A dialogue or podcast episode with him could expose you to a broader audience of people aligned with your style. His channel has been growing like crazy over the past few years. Another approach might be offering commentary on trending topics, but from your higher-consciousness lens, similar to your Andrew Tate video, which pulled significantly more views than your surrounding uploads. Which also proves your channel isn’t really blacklisted, per se. The YouTube formula is: Thumbnail + Clickable Title + Solid Hook + Evergreen or "Trending" Topic. Of course, I don’t know how much you care about view counts right now - this is just a small suggestion in case you’re looking to better navigate the algorithm. Either way, I love Actualized.org and will be a consistent viewer! The content is incredible, and the blog has also been an especially juicy addition lately. Thank you a lot!

Recently, a discussion around a spiritual couple and their take on polyamory sparked a broader topic - the subtle (and not-so-subtle) self-deceptions that psychedelics can create. Whether it's illusions that surface only during a trip or ones that linger and distort your everyday thinking, the line between insight and delusion can blur fast. As I said in that blog post, at least for me, once I started practicing psychedelics, I was genuinely shocked by how much mixture and distortion my reality was getting from the drugs, and I had to pull myself out of it. I feel like in some communities, psychedelics are marketed as truth-revealers, or that only the wild, obvious delusions are insane, and they don’t follow you into real life. I had to battle through that, and still do to some extent. Even Leo said, "I have fooled myself in the past that a girl was my divine soulmate when she was not even close. And psychedelics made that illusion five times worse." That’s why I wanted to open this thread. If you’ve had experiences with psychedelic delusion, insight vs. illusion, or spiritual fantasy spirals, feel free to share them. The more honest we are about this, the better equipped we’ll be to use these tools responsibly!

This mindset is totally valid. But my only question is: why does that somehow mean women have a "dark" or "ugly" nature? How does this differ from guys? They might not value traits like masculinity, competence, or strength in a partner, so naturally, their version of "hypergamy" won’t be based on those qualities, simply because they don’t prioritize them in a potential woman. Aren’t guys just as "hypergamous" in their own way? Most men want the most beautiful, sweet, caring, kind, and feminine woman they can find. And if they eventually meet someone who feels like a better match, a lot of them will move "up", too. That’s literally why so many guys in the Red Pill sphere idolize the Leonardo DiCaprio lifestyle. That’s also why there’s a classic social cliché of a wife being left for a “younger” woman (the babysitter, a coworker, or someone new). Both men and women can be equally ruthless in choosing partners or even leaving relationships and marriages in pursuit of someone they perceive as "higher value" - it's not gendered, it's just part of human nature. Yes, you should value yourself and enter conversations feeling like you bring something to the table. But that’s just basic self-improvement and social dynamics 101. It’s not some deep insight into male or female "nature" - it's human nature. People who see themselves in a more positive light tend to feel more confident, more relaxed, and naturally more charismatic. That kind of energy draws others in, no matter your gender.

Absolutely, my point is that this mindset isn’t about gender - women aren’t fundamentally different from anyone else in this regard. Think about it: would you rather walk into a business deal confident they want you, or nervous and trying to prove yourself? In a job interview, would you believe you’re the perfect fit, or doubt your worth and seek their approval? At a networking event, do you show up as a magnetic presence or as someone hoping to be noticed? Which approach do you think gets better results - coming from a place of self-worth and confidence, or self-doubt and neediness? This isn’t some “dark secret red pill” myth exposing female nature, it’s simply a self-improvement strategy for building confidence and charisma. Believing in your own worth (I am the prize!) is a powerful way to make that happen. That's why it works for you.

No one’s saying you shouldn’t have confidence. If your mindset is something like “She’s amazing and I’m nothing,” then of course that’s going to hurt your chances. That kind of frame naturally works against you. I think you might be overcomplicating it in your head. Think about how most of your friendships formed - probably because you found the person interesting or cool, you were relaxed and friendly, you had some fun banter, and things just clicked. There weren’t power games. The more lighthearted, confident, and charismatic you are, the easier it becomes to build rapport and naturally vibe with someone. The "I'm the prize" mindset can be incredibly helpful for building a strong frame/confidence, and if it's working for you, absolutely keep it. Just be careful not to twist that into thinking women have some dark or manipulative nature for being drawn to confidence. You're human too - you probably enjoy being around people who carry themselves well. Ask yourself: when was the last time you were genuinely drawn to someone who acted like a doormat or was extremely insecure? Probably not often. It’s not about gender.

I’m not sure why so many guys in these circles take it to such an extreme, as if women have some dark or malicious nature just because they don’t respond to men they find unattractive. The same applies to men, too. We’re all drawn to what we find attractive - it's human nature. Attractive things naturally grab our attention and get acknowledged. It’s just how perception and desire work. There’s no need to polarize it or claim that one gender is more biased or more virtuous than the other. We're all working with the same underlying instincts.

Would you say this applies to men, too? I recall a study suggesting that men often experience feelings of disgust or irritation when viewing images of women they perceive as unattractive. [1] A study published in Frontiers in Psychology found that sexual arousal reduces men's disgust judgments of potential sexual partners, particularly those deemed less attractive. This suggests that, in a non-aroused state, men may have stronger negative reactions toward unattractive women. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02602/full

It’s actually kind of funny since many of the qualities often associated with God tend to align more with what we typically define as feminine traits - things like purity, love, absolute beauty, peace, selflessness, and the creative force (especially symbolized in the ability to give birth, which is unique to women). At the same time, I try to avoid rigid gender stereotypes, because God is often described through traits we associate with the masculine as well - power, omnipotence, all-knowing presence, structure, and order. Ultimately, it feels like both sets of qualities are just different facets of the same source. We’re all made in the image of God, we are God!

The filters in Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) can be thought of as analogous to our human biases - whether genetic, physical, or psychological. They shape how we process and interpret information. In this analogy, the material world as we experience it would be the final "render".

Ego wants what it can barely hold onto. Like a bird trying to swallow the biggest rat that can fit in its mouth hole until it chokes. Then bird blames the rat for nearly killing it. But bird refuses to swallow small rats. Bird looks for another rat it can barely swallow. The Rat is the Other! The Bird is the Self! The Swallow Operation is Love!

Honestly, I find these kinds of questions very silly, haha Humans are naturally selfish - we want the best we can get. When someone calls another person a "prize," they usually just mean that they see a lot of value in them. But value is subjective. What one person wants in a partner can be very different from what someone else wants. There are some gendered patterns, sure, but it's still highly individual. You can imagine a relationship where the guy is unemployed, plays World of Warcraft 18 hours a day, eats cereal for every meal, and has no real goals - but the girl is stunning, intelligent, skilled, and driven. Objectively, she would be considered the "prize" in that relationship. But maybe she genuinely loves his humor and charisma, so it works for them. Flip it - imagine a woman with no ambition, no direction, and a lot of baggage, and a man who's successful, emotionally stable, and has his life together. In that case, he might be seen as the "prize" by traditional standards, but maybe he struggles with emotional attachment, and she has a unique personality or emotional strength that helps him feel safe and supported, so the relationship works for them. High-value, attractive people are seen as the "prize". One common narrative I hear from men is the concept of "hypergamy" - that women are always looking to date someone above them in status. But men are just as selective - they just prioritize different traits. While women might value ambition, drive, confidence, or resources, men often seek femininity, softness, emotional vulnerability, beauty, agreeableness, purity, etc. Some guys end up thinking they're more valuable just because what they offer takes more "grind" or work to develop. But if you think those traits are inherently more valuable, then logically, you'd be attracted to highly masculine women, and most men aren't. So the whole argument falls apart. Men and women are playing completely different games when it comes to attraction and value. The irony is, a lot of men pursue these feminine traits but don’t genuinely respect them. They see value in women for those qualities, yet still place themselves above them, which creates a weird internal contradiction. If you chase those traits but don’t actually appreciate or respect them, you're dooming the relationship from day one. Thinking you're always the prize is dumb. That mindset kills any chance at a healthy relationship. You don’t want to be the one who settles, but you also don’t want to be the one someone else settled for. It’s a tough balance to find, but let’s be real - the ideal relationship is one where both people feel happy, lucky, and like they got the prize. Everything else is just ego talk to justify your lack of appreciation or care for the partner/opposite gender. That said, there is a time and place for the "I’m the prize" mindset. If someone’s coming from a place of low confidence, feeling unworthy, always pedestalizing men/women, or entering the dating world feeling defeated or intimidated, then flipping the script can be helpful. Believing you're the prize can give you the needed boost, optimism, and self-worth. Just be careful not to overdo it to the point where you stop appreciating the very traits you’re attracted to. If you lose that respect, the relationship is doomed.

Very interesting analysis. What do you guys think is the cause of this?

I love it!

I genuinely think play is one of the most underrated pillars of self-improvement – it's deeply tied to happiness. I wanted to create this thread for any fun personal tips or little hacks you guys might have. Let's play together!

Why do you think that is?

Power Plant... 😡