gengar

You can recommend their books or free videos if you want.

You implicitly accused me of defending murdering women. you're a sicko.

You did so from a materialist's perspective, which is ironic coming from you. Man has both a beastly nature of flesh and a loving nature of consciousness. Both are of his nature, and his sex-drive is not merely from the beastly side. What is even your issue dude? I am saying women are more vulnerable because they are less physically strong and its much more of a crime to kill someone like that just like its more of a crime to kill a child. And then you proceed to post another article about femicide, again implying that I am in the favour of such wretched things. Who the fuck do you think you are to imply these things about me? If I were with you right now I'd knock your teeth out straight. You haven't even defined what you mean by patriarchy, although I know what your mean; the comical neo-marxists definition of it. A system where good men are the protectors of women against evil men is good and would cause less femicide. Liberal society causes more of it.

Because a woman is more vulnerable to a man. Great argument. Where did you understand that masculine qualities = women can't do it? men can and should learn feminine qualities, and women should and can learn masculine qualities, for when they are needed for their own spiritual growth and the growth of society. but only secondarily. Your liberal worldview has distorted your intelligence so much that you can't even recognize obvious realities anymore. If nazi germany attacks us tomorrow, the men will be responsible to defend the women and the children. This is so obvious to anyone except liberal epistemic perverts. This was too harsh and I take it back, my apologies.

Let's take a minute to contemplate on how an intelligent mind like Leo could write something so appalling as the following: (https://www.actualized.org/insights/art-with-a-capital-a) I think it has to do with his American nature. We Europeans are deeply entrenched and connected to art and its link to traditions of philosophy, sociology and metaphysics. And if you deeply study these traditions, you'd see that most of what Leo is talking about is already in there, albeit spread out and less direct. Nothing Leo is saying is essentially new; it is the way that he brings it in a direct, condensed and confrontational manner that is his genius. Even though I think Leo's work is absolutely life changing, genius and among the best of the last 100 years, and the most direct confrontation with reality of anything in modern times, to see this level of unintelligence from him is honestly repulsive. He does not respect art and unironically places his art above the art of all others, literally stating that one of his videos surpasses the entire corpus of Blow. the metaphysics of Blow's work are found and appreciated in the manner of aesthetics linked with meaning, no matter how simple. To expect other's people's art to also be as philosophical as his stream-of-consciousness philosophy lectures is laughably stupid and showcases a profound unawareness of fundamental facets of art, philosophy and their interactions with each other the world. The idea that Leo really thinks that you can even compare different forms and corpi of art in this way, is mind blowing.

Leo saying that men always view women as sexual object is also wrong. He is a superficial, quintessentially 21st century nihilist mind in this regard - akin to the likes of Michel Houellebecq. He doesn't even want to have a wife. In this regard, I agree with the feminists - People like Leo do not appreciate women much. Their superficial liberal mind is at the core of the rot of society. Most men want to have a wife and to actually love her, because they love the feminine. Of course sex is a big part but the love for her is a lot deeper than any merely sexual, platonic or other love. A love of deep trust and symbiosis between the feminine and the masculine. The feminist and gynocratic mating market and society of today is actually the thing causing men to be more animal-like, since their chances of marrying a chaste, men-respecting woman are basically zero. They are starved of love and sex and see that the only game being played is "dating" and "fucking", where the best looking and most narcissist men have the most success. Out of poverty, they conform to this market as their mind gets further corrupted by each passing year. Respect for women is disincentivized by means of a sick bro-culture on the one hand and a sick feminist culture on the other hand. All trust is lost between the genders and there are no winners. I am not saying the gynocratic mating market is caused by women; no, it has been enacted by evil men. Cheating and fornication are the destroyers of society and bonds between women. Reservation and chastity are not something bad or oppressive, but a contract of trust between all the people of a society.

Mechanical thinking, shutting off your emotions to protect others, violence, honor are big ones. Some can be extremely toxic and need to be held in healthy forms, like having a code for when to enact violence and when not.

Did you honestly just try to counter my argument about men and women's roles in society by linking an article about femicide, implying that that is what im defending? You dishonest ghoul. I think men who rape and murder women should be executed. A man raping/murdering a woman is worse than murdering a man. It's funny that in feminized societies like western europe, leftist parties are the ones who have made punishments less harsh. Yes, women's survival has been extremely harsh and vulnerable to mens behaviour, and that is a deep problem that needs addressing. On the other hand, women have a drive to select for violent, powerful and selfish men, not only for their own survival, but also because they select that as being superior to weakness and meekness, which is also a deep problem that needs addressing.

And what are women's justifications for not being better women? or does that not exist in your view? is a "good woman" just an individualistic, selfish person that exercises her freedom or do women have responsibilities to the collective just like men do? Just like men are supposed to be the ones sacrificing themselves on the front lines against intruders and threats, women have their own roles of doing morally good things for the collective. And yes, men who abuse their wives, men who rape, should be given no mercy and executed when proven guilty. The fact that you literally use these examples to smear the entire category of men shows how incredibly toxic and man-hating you are. Your feminist fantasies are fantasies, while traditional roles are based on history and survival.

In actuality the fascist feminine drive for extremely narrow natural selection of the very strongest and fittest is what is causing our current decline into epistemic poverty, chaos and fascism. "reversed patriarchy" is already our current situation since women completely control the mating market - catalyzed by the perverted dating apps. Motherhood is appreciated in traditional cultures while abhorred in feminist leftists spaces, seeing it as taking away power and autonomy of the woman. If western society doesn't return the respect of classical masculine qualities - these qualities will only allowed to be celebrated in toxic, andrew-tate esque cultures and society will continue to descend.

Hello @Leo Gura or other knowledgeable people, would you maybe mind giving a quick glance at my heavy metal levels and tell me if I should chelate or not. I don't know how to interpret the results since you warned in your video that the standard metrics of "healthy levels" are not to be trusted. I have many symptoms that are mentioned with heavy metals. I'm also a bit worried that I got ripped off with my test since it didn't require taking any chelation pills and most results are not measured per g creatine but mol/litre. Thanks in advance. (Kwik = Mercury, Arseen = Arsenic, I think the rest speaks for itself)

Fair.

Sure, but I'd actually agree with a woman for not wanting to be with such a man since a man who sleeps with a toy probably doesn't have the balls and/or ability to protect her from physical intruders and threats. Dating is about survival. You do you bro, but this world is not really cut out for the weak and frail. I hope you become stronger. Not that you have to let go of all soft qualities, but you're taking it quite far IMO.

Okay. Seems sloppy epistemology to assume that someone who claims to have cured a chronic lifelong ailment in one sitting due to his guru is merely self-deceived and not lying, since the claim is so outrageous. But who knows.

Not sure what you mean How can a world ever be nebulous? Nebulosity is only an appearance just like randomness. You might roll the dice and judge it to be random, but in reality no randomness exists. I think nebulosity works the same way - real in the practical domain but not absolute - while logic is absolute.

Are you sure you aren't the foolish one for following the secularist assumption that religion and politics are two separate things, and not one thing, like it has been since the dawn of civilization?

PUA and all this bullshit is just kowtowing to the gynocratic world that your cucked liberal forbearers created for you. The real solution is a return to patriarchy, and not jestering for women's lowly judgements. If it were up to the majority of women, the worst of the worst men would get out on top. And since it is nowadays mostly up to women that is what you get.

Honest question: How do you walk this earth for 28 years as a man and only just recently realized that women are offput by a grown men sleeping with a toy?

I think nebulosity is false, it only appears to be that way due to our human limitations, but in reality there is no such thing. God's total understanding is both formal and informal as they converge in his infinite intelligence and cognition. Nebulosity in cognition as a concept is only real for limited beings and thus an illusion in the end.

I never said I believed his stories, I made an inquiry into your stance on them, since you shared him. From your teachings, your stance about lying is not that you should just ignore the lie and look at whatever might be true from everything else that lying actor said, but that a lying actor is not to be trusted at all. - you said for example lying politicians should lose their job and it should be a punishable offense for them to lie. Plus, it baffles me that people with genius quotes like Yogananda are still dishonest or self-deceived in claiming their ailments to be cured. I guess there's no way around people's bullshit, they may share some gold and also lie, and you can't throw out the baby without the bathwater.

All Goggins does is work out with no goal except working out and bragging about how much he works out. It's a sick decadence, really.

False claims about huge things like healing ailments are not noise, but signals that they are full of shit. Your epistemological standards are just not as strict as mine, and that's okay.

What are the benefits, just baseline consciousness, or also less anxiety and clearer thinking and the like?

You're literally promoting his quotes and teachings. So your stance is now that people whose quotes and teachings you promote on your blog might be epistemic devils? That goes a 180 degrees against your pious claim of aiming to be the human most aligned and concerned with Truth.