gengar

Europe's toxic, chaotic mix of worldviews, including an unstable concoction of premodern, modern and postmodern, collapsed any sense of shared culture and identity. Liberalism is falling, with only the most educated, privileged and decadent staying on it's pure form. Young people are either hard leftist, hard rightist, or have an incoherent, apathic form of late-stage liberalism infect with major amounts of conspiracy thinking. We deserve to fall.

Blackpill ideology is a trap, but there are many truths about it. At the bottom line, Women's suffrage, liberation and economic empowerment sliced the romantic and sexual propects of men in half. And that's just the hard truth about it. The reason men fall in these traps is because nothing is done in education to educate about your prospects as a man. Noone in school tells you that chances are pretty high you're unsuccessful and how to cope with that and still live your life. We are fed propaganda from a young age about love being iffy diffy and that there's a soulmate out there for everyone. Classic Lib mythology.

Owen could have done 2 things since the start of the culture wars in the mid 2010s: Carve out his own niche and seek truth, and guide dating in a healthy balanced way, without all the Russell Brand esque conspiracy matrix bullshit , or ride the MAGA conspiracy wave. He did the 2nd. He has millions and could have taken the high road. Calling it survival is too broad of a categorization. It's greed, insecurity and lack of epistemology. Leo and Peter Ralston could have both started a cult or done something like Owen. They both admitted it that they could do it and make 10x of their current business. Yet they stayed true.

Their guilt makes them insufferable, weak, lib n soy.

Yeah, I just expected wikipedia to be more vulnerable to change when confronted with real research

This dude claims that in his findings, psychic ability has a negative relationship with intelligence, and that the Quran was channelled psychicly by a Persian called Salman: It doesn't help much that he's a Persian nationalist who wants to denounce the developments and high tides of Islam and credit it all to the Persians, but hey, he also seems to have a general interest in psychic phenomena.

Why are you not sharing your military sources with us? Genuine question. I'm still doing the research myself I just don't have that much free time to have done it yet. What's the mindset here?

Except wikipedia and science is supposed to be a book that changes over time as new findings our found and proven, unlike the Bible.

In you guys experience, do the different levels of binaural beats actually work as advertised, with different levels giving different effects like spiritual, cognitive, etc?

I was under the impression that if hard material facts are true and proven over time, and known by enough people, the consensus pushes it through to be on wikipedia. Guess I was wrong, although I still don't understand how, when it is truly proven by enough people, it hasn't seeped through to mainstream consciousness if it's proven to have worked materially. I know wikipedia is the matrix, I just didn't expect the matrix to be so strong to even be able to deny proven things in consensus reality. It's not even like they ignore the issue, the entire article is a whole counternarrative about remote-viewing not being false. You'd expect the Truth to seep through especially now since enough people seem to have already proven it. If wikipedia denies it despite knowing the good research proving otherwise, they are in fact lying.

"US presidents and the highest ranks of the military know that remote viewing is used to gather intelligence." How do you know this. These claims are mind-shattering if true. This means Wikipedia is actively lying to us about empirical facts of the world. But this isn't about spiritual concepts, but about real, consequential material stuff in the real world. If remote-viewing has material consequences, wikipedia should not be denying it. There's a fundamental difference between materialism in the metaphysical sense and materialism in the denial of empirical world-stuff.

Yeah, just read your new blog post, sorry. made an edit to my OG post. Thanks for the extra leads. It's so weird to me that if you're right, than those materialists on wikipedia are actively spreading disinformation by deeming all remote viewing done by the government as a dud. What you're saying is there is real evidence that the army succesfully used it/is using it. If that is true, and that information is public and verifiable (let's assume Leo's research was correct) - It's clear cut evidence that they are literally spreading blatant disinformation on wikipedia. It goes further than denial of consciousness, because that's just because of a lack of consciousness. But denying actual research and facts just to shape a materialist reality for the masses is a true crime. Wikipedia goons' statement on the conclusions of the Stargate program Are the Wikipedia goons really claiming that if each time I snap my fingers, lightning shoots out of my hands, I still haven't proven magic or paranormal stuff? or am I understanding it incorrectly? I know you're not keen on sharing your sources (which again, with all due respect, I think is not a good mindset, all scientists and researchers share their sources, why would you refrain from it purely to teach us a lesson that we should not be lazy) , but those military sources you're talking about are probably hard to find out. If you'd share them, that'd be awesome. If not I guess I'll just have to dig in myself. Still don't see how you found out those military documents and verify their authenticity. Maybe my source-finding capabilities and empirical epistemology aren't that sharpened yet.

@Leo Gura I'm wondering why you said remote viewing is purely genetic and can't be learned. Why do you make that claim so strongly, like you know it for a 100% sure? What's your evidence for that? Moreover, the channel you recommended (Mishlove), and the speakers he invites on there, do not treat remote viewing in that sense at all, but all state it can be learned. This speaker even talked about skeptics coming to his course to debunk remote viewing but finding out that they can do it themselves. EDIT: Nevermind some of what I said, I just read your new post on remote viewing and I guess you do admit that some of it can be learned. Not that that was my stance to begin with, I'm just very interested in your evidence on the stance that it's mostly genetic. I'm really interested in your study of it. I'm making a study of it myself and it's pretty hard, I'm not a formal researcher and my epistemology, openmindedness and skepticism are being heavily tested. I hope you share a research report on your research on remote viewing soon or in the future. Not because I want to not do the work, but because I might miss something myself. I won't be looking at it till I finish my own research anyway. Plus, I think it's not really good scientific practice to gatekeep research in the name of "I'm not lazy like y'all, do your own research". If this is all true, we're up against a horde of materialists who even infiltrated wikipedia to state that the state-led remote viewing projects were all duds. Are they right or is Leo right in deeming it real? What an interesting empirical research question.

So how does that argument translate in your transforming into an alien mouse? did that violate material reality? and if it did, how come your human body still returned because the chemical wore off? That sounds like the alien experience was but a virtual experience, nested in material reality which was still running in the background. Or does taking the trip and doing the transformation actually change reality? If so, why do the limitations of the chemical wearing off still persist?

By stating this you've already answered the question why some form of logic is baked in to reality.

That's true, but my argument was also talking from that level. How can you point a philosophical, rationalist person towards the Truth? by saying Idealism is true. Because from the philosophical standpoint it is, because all Idealism says is that THIS is true, and no conceptualisations are like materialism. Idealism is the turning philosophy in on itself by "escaping" the conceptualisation, if you get what I mean. If you want to get a person lost in concepts out of their game you have to defeat them at their own game, so therefore, argue for Idealism. Which is always possible because God is infinitely real and thus all logical reasoning leads to it.

This is incorrect. We're talking about what is actually real and fully actualized. A part of a fractal doesn't exist - where do you pinpoint where one part begins and ends? You're missing the subtlety of what's being said here. The experience of "zooming in" is an illusion. you've never left the exploration of the full fractal. it's like going into a forest, and having the forest experience which is of course very different than the desert experience or the experience on the moon. yet all those things are only conceptually different, different to biased creatures, but not in actuality. So how can something conceptual (the subinfinity) be just as real as something that is actual? (the entire infinity) The arm of the fractal exists only as an idea, while the entire fractal itself does not exist as an idea, but in full actuality. God has never counted up the natural numbers till infinity. because if he would, he would still be doing it right now and not created this experience right here. The logic of Infinity demands there to be only one Infinity, and all others to be illusions, and the consequence of this is that a "subinfinity" can never exist. God is infinitely "choosing" aspects of Absolute Infinity, and that unending process is whats happening right now. Any zooming in on one part, like the set of all cheeses, is purely an illusion; it may seem that God is exploring the set of all cheeses but he is not, since the set does not exist at all. Were the set of cheeses be real, and the function of infinitely exploring it (actualizing the subinfinity) also real, then God would never get back to the exploration of Absolute Infinity. In computer science terms, Gods search algorithm is neither depth-first nor breadth first, but random (unbiased). because both a bias for breadth-first (choosing different sets), and a bias for depth-first (cycling through members of a set) would give an infinite bias to either a particular set or only the first member of each set. Gods search algorithm must therefore be completely unbiased which means all subcategories are absolutely conceptual and arbitrary. In a sense, Cantor's critics were correct in saying infinities are mere conceptualisations, except about one thing: Absolute Infinity. (nothing against Cantor he was genius but we're talking about what is ultimately real here)

Ah yes. However I would add that a sub-infinity doesn't actually exist. The only infinity that actually exists and can actually exist is Absolute Infinity. the sub-infinities may seem to exist, however they never actually do; in the same sense that you can never count up all the natural numbers. In theory and concept it exists, but never actualized. Absolute Infinity is the only Infinity in Actuality.

They're not concepts at all, at least not in the way you're denouncing them as. I'm using them as operators in absolute logic, which is the entire point of absolute logic. We're talking about the fundamental things of logic and reality here. all the operators i used are the bedrock operators of language. And you're basically telling me to touch grass lol. Logic is not in conflict with feeling and intuition. The closer you get to the absolute, they are the same. "Wisdom tells me I am nothing. Love tells me I am everything. And between the two, my life flows." I also don't see Wisdom as being fundamental just as Love, so the quote doesn't answer much for me. Love is the the attraction and repulsing of atoms, planets, people, EVERYTHING. it is the fundamental coming and going of the universe. Maybe Wisdom is as fundamental, but I don't see it now. Maybe you have more insight than me about it though. "all of which only exist within the mind via its conceptions and their apparent conflict with each other." Actually, I'm trying to point out that Leo's point leads to contradiction, while what I propose, namely that no infinity truly exists except for Absolute Infinity (so all "lesser infinities" are illusions and concepts and don't actually exist) , actually resolves all contradiction.

My logic tells me different. Nothing that is biased in essence (like evil) , can go infinitely high, because it blocks the other biased things in God's Infinity to ever sprout again, like a cancer growing infinitely. Imagine an Infinite, selfish being, and an Infinite selfless being, both imagined in Gods mind. The selfish being will try to destroy the selfless being, and will try with infinite power, because it is infinite. The selfless being will not try to stop it, because it is selfless. In the end this means Gods mind would be colonized by selfishness and no selflessness would remain. And thus the unbiased nature of God would be corrupted, and God would no longer be infinite, because his Infinity requires all biases to exist, including selflessness and selfishness. The only way for this to happen is for all evil and all other biased things to be of finite nature. An infinite selfish being does not exist. ---- Apart from the logical argument, take a look at this from a moral perspective, do you really propose the cosmos, the All, Gods mind, however you want to call it, to be something that can spawn infinitely evil things? How do you even come up with that being a possibility? Sure, the cosmos seems to be a constant duality of attraction and repulsion, an eternal conflict of evil and good. But Gods unbiased nature requires every ripple to be finite. Apart from the IMO clearly apparent logical truth of this, why do you entertain such moral evils to your followers? clearly it's not true, like I've just deducted to you using absolute logic which you also use. Why do you entertain such radical disinformation to your followers without thinking it through at first? What we're sharing here is no joke, but absolute seriousness.

no, because dualism is untrue, and material monism is saying that falsehood (namely a non-existing conceptual reality of material reality, a set of quantifiers) is true, while stating that truth (consciousness, current experience, field of perception) is false and doesn't exist. So the only thing that remains is idealism, because that is monism of what is true and states that conceptual realities are not true fundamental realities. In the end, Idealism doesn't even deny the existence of object in favor of a subject, it unifies them, since object and subject are the same; objects exist, but only as consciousness. the rock in my hand exists and is absolute truth but it is not separate from subjectivity. At first glance, it might seem that Idealism denies material reality, when in fact it doesn't, it actually supports it because it turns out material objects can only ever be conceived of in idealistic sense. Idealism supports both objects and subjects, although they are of the same substance in the end. While materalism (materliastic monism) denies both and plays vague mind games to come up with a set of quantifiers which ultimately make up reality without any quality. Materialists HATE qualia and the fundamental problem they propose for formal materialism, so they MUST deny their existence in some way or another. Some muffle them away and don't spend much thought on the problem, while the more hardcore materialists realize the problem of qualia and don't shy away from it, leading them to the inevitable conclusion that consciousness and qualia MUST be illusions (this is called "Illusionism", propagated by Richard Dawkins in "The Selfish Gene" and Daniel C Dennett in "Consciousness explained" (wish i could put another set of quotation marks around that). The ironic part is of course that qualifying something as an "illusion" by definition invokes qualia, which they deny by calling it an illusion. It's funny how materialism taken to its ultimate conclusion ends up in a mystical strange loop. The Illusionists do actually arrive at a conclusion that reality is an illusion, but in a twisted way to cope with their own biases.

so what happens to horror to the Infinityth degree? Does it get defeated by the infinity of God's love? Does a limited bias (such as "horror" or "pleasure") even get to have an infinite degree, or is the infinite degree only reserved for the totality itself? Think about it logically, if "evil" for example were to stretch itself into the infinityth degree, it would find a way to destroy all good. It also goes against neoplatonic logic of "ever-returning". What are your thoughts on this?

See, what Leo fails to realize about his own conclusions is that it doesn't go far enough. Let's examine the two true statements that seem to follow out of absolute logic, and thus have to be reconciled with eachother: - Reality is God and Love because it is all-embracing and has no outside, and ultimate Good - God is everything, including infinite horror Concluding that these statements are true, how do you not then realize that reconciling them is God's ultimate task and should be taken extremely seriously? It makes sense that both are true, and that for God to be ultimately good, it must include all evil things in itself, or it would not be whole and good. However, the inclusion of ultimate horror seems to contradict this goodness in itself, because a horrible thing by definition is not good - even though it is only an ego which deems it horrible - the ego's projection is absolute, the projection is what creates the thing and it's horribleness, and in the end there is no projection at all, since the ego is God, God is looking at it as a horrible thing and creating it as horrible experience by being the ego and being with the horrible. So you cannot use logic to escape the fact that it is in essence horrible, since the argument of "it's only a projection by the ego" doesn't exist in absolute logic, since all appearance and creation are one, the experience of a human being raped by an iron pick to death is not a projection, but absolute, and absolutely horrifying, since the experience of the pain, the ego's agony, and the "objective", "non-projected" experience of the pick, are one. We've basically arrived at the problem of evil again, which Leo refuses to tackle, in my suspicion because of his arrogance (laughing at his forum members for not accepting infinite horror as being part of infinite love, instead of guiding them towards accepting it - again, this is God's hardest task, since it is the loving of the things most unlovable - it's easy to love sex and cake but hard to love pain and rape - Yet Leo laughs at his audience for struggling with it) And where does it end? Does God ever conquer horror, or does he move in an experiential sine-wave from horror, to nothingness, to pleasure, and repeats this cycle forever? Is there any use in controlling our karma? If life is full of horror, why not kill yourself? Is there no honor in staying alive till natural death happens, no karmic reward for going through the suffering and not being a coward and killing yourself to avoid suffering? See, Leo has no answer to these questions. No, instead of using his superior knowledge (which he claims is even deeper about suffering than ours, claiming we don't even have a clue about how much suffering there is in life, but he does) to guide his followers, teach us how to open our heart or something, give a strategy for God to transcend the horror, unimagine it, any karmic path at all - he does not. No, instead of that he points his finger and laughs in your face, and calls you a puny human for not realizing infinite horror was true in the first place. The only conclusion I can make of it is that he has absolutely no clue how to deal with it himself. No clue how to cope or deal with this aspect of reality himself. And instead of admitting to that, he creates a shield of arrogance and superiority around himself, and loves to scare and blackpill you about horrors that we're not even aware of , but mighty Leo is. This is Leo at his worst. How can you be like this. THE ENTIRE FUCKING ORDEAL IS COPING WITH ACCEPTING AND LOVING HORRIBLE THINGS. and you dismiss and laugh? You're a clown when you're like this. Leo shows you reality and your own mind, through logic and investigation - yet does nothing when you arrive at the real premise, the reveal of the real ordeal of reality - dealing with infinite horror. No, he belittles you instead. Insane how someone can be of such high epistemological intelligence but have such a low spiritual intelligence, if those terms make sense. He gives objective truth but has now clue how the subjective should deal with it, and hides that fact by acting superiorly. Leo, if you dismiss this criticism about the fact that this way that you're dealing with the problem of evil, i.e. where several hard truths conflict, and laugh and point at your audience, that they don't see it, that they are just coping, and you're the one capable of seeing the real horror, while we are just puny humans, if you dismiss my criticism it's very clear. You lack the intelligence of the heart to deal with this shit and how to guide your humans. You reveal truth to them through guiding them through their own minds, yet have no, absolutely no clue on how to deal with it, what to do about it. This is God's imperative, this is God's quest. Conquering his own horror. Don't you have that imperative? Don't you have that intuition that even though horror is part of God, it will be defeated by Love because Love is greater, even though horror is also Love? You lack the feminine spiritual intelligence. Masculine spiritual intelligence, the logic, the revelation, you are the greatest on earth with it. But what is next, you have no clue. You're like a baby in the crib when it comes to this branch of intelligence. You lack to even understand the question, the imperative, just like Daniel Schmachtenberger doesn't even understand the question of "what is reality". THIS IS WHAT ITS ABOUT. THESE F**KING QUESTIONS AND POINTS ARE ACTUALIZED.ORG'S BLIND SPOT. EVERY SPIRITUAL TRADITION GIVES AN IMPERATIVE ON HOW TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM OF EVIL EXCEPT YOU. Buddhism recognizes infinite horror, and gives cessation and nirvana (total release from samsara and thus horror) as an answer. And so does every other tradition. Why don't you? This seems like an "emperor with no clothes" moment. Have you really never thought of this? Do you not fucking care about this aspect of spirituality, even though you realize with open eyes that the horrors are endless? why not care about it then? I would understand an atheist since he doesn't believe in infinite horror, but deems all horror to end on the death of the body - horror is merely finite and ends forever on death. Do you simply not know how to cope with it yourself? If you dismiss these questions again, or answer shortly or not to every point I've made, you have failed as a teacher and guide IMO, and I have no other choice but to conclude that your awakening is incomplete.

What type of horror are you talking about? You're clearly implicating that you've seen something which we haven't. What specific horror are you talking about? And why are you so sure none of us would believe you? Why are you so sure again that you're the only one who went this deep into something? This must surely mean that you're talking about something outside of the scope of human existence again. Are you talking about salvia torture realms you've experienced or something? If us puny humans don't know about how horrific life can get (which is weird since you're talking about human life) - why do you, Leo, a fellow puny human, somehow have knowledge about such horrors? Or are you talking about stuff again that transcends the human experience? Transcendental horror?

Yes, but simulation theory is probably still true, because the argument is sound; namely that any Universe has the power and intelligence to create a new reality, and therefore, according to Murphy's law, since we have infinite time, intelligence and space, we are always inside an infinite chain of realities, whether simulated, or our universe is inside a black hole of another universe, etc. Those "background realities" don't actually exist, since all that exists is the foreground, however the illusion of the Universe, which is all that the universe is, is just one universe in an infinite Russian doll of background universes. This fact simply follows out of the logic that reality is infinite. if you somehow escape this current universe, you will always reach a new universe. This logic of simulation theory is actually correct; however it doesn't explain reality itself, since all that reality is is of course the absolute. but the illusion of an infinite Russian doll chain of universes has to be there, because there is no reason that it is not. Maybe I'm not saying anything here, but I have a feeling it is, since it follows out of the logic of an infinite illusion. any universe has infinite intelligence > which will create another infinite illusion inside of it, forever repeating this process. Like I said the logic of simulation theory is actually correct, the error is just that it doesn't actually have to do with the nature of reality but only with the nature of the illusion.