Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[Leo Gura]

It's not about positive or negative. It's about Truth. In all cases what you seek is Truth, whatever it is.

Your job is simply to know and love Truth. That is the highest Good.

[ExploringReality]

@Eskilon that's a fairytale you have. Nothing wrong with Winning the lottery, but your basing it as a way out the rat race, it seems like a shining exit but it only traps you because your looking for a short cut out of survival but actually drives you deeper. 

Edited April 16 by ExploringReality

[Eskilon]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

physical survival.

How can survival be anything more than physical stuff? I mean, all human needs are physical, be it sex, power, fame, comfort, knowledge, success, money, family, psychological needs. The only thing that is non-physical is spirituality and awakening.

Edited April 16 by Eskilon

[Leo Gura]

@Eskilon Watch my series: Understanding Survival - Part 1 & 2.

[The Crocodile]

7 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

It's not about positive or negative. It's about Truth. In all cases what you seek is Truth, whatever it is.

Your job is simply to know and love Truth. That is the highest Good.

Yeah, that can be infuriating though.

 

In your solipsism days it was clear your present experience was Absolute, but the problem with that is that it's a sort of limited infinity, it doesn't account for understanding of True Absolute Infinity which is every conceivable configuration of consciousness happening at all in absolute relation to infinity.

Now we have that, but the nature of infinity could be questioned, leading to the infuriation of the proofs and inability to prove.

I wouldn't say you can't prove God, only that the nature of the proof's success is its 'alignment' with God such that the relationship between proof at all and God is undefinable.

 

Still you could try to have such an undefinable relationship that direct consciousness of God is true you could try to steelman an undefinable relation that being directly conscious of non-God is true. We usually have the experience of Absolutely recognizing that we this exists, that exists, they both have a non-finite nature which is God (ie. a Nothingness connects two formal phenomena so they may inhabit the same reality, or the past and present both are in Absolute contrast to each other as Eternity), but you could also try to reorient this back to the original unawakened perception as being equally true. Two parts can exist without formlessness connecting them, reality can be contracted into an absolutely finite state that works mechanistically.

 

 

Likewise with Truth, we could conceive of or imagine a world where the pattern we recognize as Falsehood is actually more fundamental to the nature of reality, and then extrapolate that in infinite directions, such that Truth is an Absolute Illusion.

[Davino]

[Ulax]

Bruh 5% is crazy

[Ulax]

1 hour ago, Davino said:

🤣

[Yimpa]

Gonna fry my brain so I can restore it later 

 

 

[integral]

The dentist also blast your face with x-rays

[Yimpa]

Starting this video in Shorts fashion was genius. I wouldn’t have been enticed to watch the video otherwise:

 

[Yimpa]

21 hours ago, Eskilon said:

How can survival be anything more than physical stuff? I mean, all human needs are physical, be it sex, power, fame, comfort, knowledge, success, money, family, psychological needs. The only thing that is non-physical is spirituality and awakening.

21 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

@Eskilon Watch my series: Understanding Survival - Part 1 & 2.

 

And then The Next Level:

 

[Bufo Alvarius]

Out of curiosity (and entertainment ), I fed ChatGPT Leo's recent blog posts—"We Who Wrestle With Demonic Rhinocerii"—and asked it to analyze it, no hand-holding, no trying to be polite or agreeable. Just full-on critique mode. I wanted to see if it could actually reason through the piece with clarity and rigor, instead of just spitting out buzzwords.

Here's a short summary of what it came up with:

"Dear Leo,
Your piece is intense, vivid, and hits on something real—human corruption as the central constraint on political progress. What works best is your unapologetic tone, thematic consistency, and moral clarity in confronting uncomfortable truths. But it leans heavily on sweeping generalizations, flattens complex histories, and verges on nihilism without offering a pathway forward. It’s not wrong so much as incomplete. It’s not ideological—until it becomes a kind of dark ideology of its own. More precision, more differentiation, and a pinch of humility would elevate it from a righteous rant to a lasting framework."

Then I asked it to rewrite the blog post using its own critique—while keeping your tone, style, and edge intact. Here’s the result:

 

"We Who Wrestle With Demonic Rhinocerii

Make no mistake: conservatism is, at its root, the justification of corruption and arrested development. It always has been. Always. That sounds biased and unfair, like some liberal insult—but truth doesn’t care about your balance reflex. That's just how the cookie crumbles.

Now, don’t get confused. This isn’t about “left good, right bad.” This isn’t a cartoon. Conservatism isn’t always wrong. In fact, in many cases, it's the only thing that works—precisely because humanity is so corrupt that better options are unworkable. Progress stalls not because the goal is wrong, but because the species can't handle the weight of it.

I’m not moralizing. I’m not tribalizing. I’m describing.

Human beings radically underestimate their own moral dysfunction. And I’m not talking about “there’s bad apples.” I mean systemic, built-in, tribal, self-serving rot that operates by default, under layers of rationalization and civility. We are at least 100x more corrupt than we pretend—and the pretending itself is part of the corruption.

And so, paradoxically, the corrupt systems we hate? They persist because they fit. They survive because they’re tailored to the animal wearing them. Corruption, inequality, authoritarianism—these aren’t bugs. They’re features, because they mirror us. So when progressives roll out beautiful policies that rely on decency, empathy, or foresight—they fail. Not because they’re “too radical,” but because they require a moral software update the species hasn’t written.

Progressives go wrong not by overestimating the opponent, but by overestimating the people. They imagine humanity wants what’s good for it. That we’re teachable. That we can grow up. But the track record is brutally clear: we can't. Or won’t. Or not fast enough.

Take immigration. Progressives want open borders, humanitarian compassion, shared futures. But they radically underestimate how racist and tribal ordinary people are. The average person doesn’t want to live beside the other. Most humans don't want multiculturalism—they want familiarity, homogeneity, status. They fear dilution. So progressives open the gates, and then wonder why there's backlash, nationalism, fascism.

It’s ironic. Progressives are accused of calling everyone racist—but the deeper problem is that they don’t believe it’s true enough. If they really believed most humans were racist, they’d design policy accordingly. They don’t. So they get blindsided when reality kicks the door down.

And so, bizarrely, conservatives “win” on immigration—not because they’re right, or moral, or wise—but because their policies line up with the degenerate instincts of the masses. Conservatism wins because it accommodates evil. It wraps its arms around it and says: "this is just who we are."

That’s why communism fails. That’s why environmentalism stalls. That’s why Israel-Palestine is an endless wound. That’s why immigration collapses. That’s why demilitarization flops. That’s why veganism doesn’t scale. That’s why libertarianism, drug decriminalization, and “defund the police” all fizzle. That’s why the UN is toothless. That’s why world peace is a slogan. That’s why free love turned into Tinder. That’s why the hippies sold out. That’s why strongmen—Trump, Putin, Xi, Orban, Erdogan, Netanyahu—rule.

Because the system that wins is the one designed for primates with delusions of grandeur. And conservatism, at its core, is realism in the language of fear.

This isn’t praise. This isn’t condemnation. This is modeling. This is understanding the beast.

Conservatism thrives because it reflects who we are. Not who we wish we were. It succeeds because it bows to corruption. Humanity is not misaligned with evil. Humanity is evil, in a slow-burning, soft-spoken, committee-approved way. And progressives fail not because they’re bad—but because they keep trying to build spaceships for creatures that barely stand upright.

If you don’t understand this, you’ll fail at politics, again and again. You’ll make the wrong predictions, throw your weight behind the wrong candidates, the wrong causes. Because you mistook the demon for a dog.

You must understand the beast you are wrestling with—or it will gore you.

Leftists see humanity as a cute puppy. But it’s a demonic rhinoceros with a God-complex and nuclear weapons.

We, those of us who still try—who still believe in decency despite the odds—we wrestle with demonic rhinocerii.

And real, clear-eyed conservatism—the kind not based in delusion or domination, but in insight—comes only when you’ve stared into the void and recognized that mankind, especially in groups, behaves like a cult of deluded demons, chasing pleasure and power and status at all costs.

This isn’t ideology. It’s observation, hammered into insight through failure, contemplation, and the painful burden of consciousness.

Stop underestimating corruption."

[Rafael Thundercat]

@Bufo Alvarius so, are you satisfied with the AI edition? More rigourous?more authentic? What is the point on editing the raw sharing of someone? 

[Bufo Alvarius]

@Rafael Thundercat good question, I was hesitant to share this at first, as this was done purely out of curiosity and I haven't really contributed much in that sense. 

I guess in the end, it was the excitement of reading a Chatgpt Leo 

[Yimpa]

13 hours ago, Rafael Thundercat said:

What is the point on editing the raw sharing of someone? 

Hallucination

Edited April 17 by Yimpa

[Lyubov]

 

I really like what Leo wrote here. I’ve been visiting my parents who I would say relative to me in my opinion are emotionally dysfunctional people. They are decent people but they are very controlling and on the carousel of despair, disconnected from the Tao. I’ve seen them as unsupportive and treating me poorly at times. I realized I’ve grown a bunch considering my dad doesn’t bother me so much anymore. I realized I’ve grown a ton by being able to accept them for who they are. And I’ve realized this is probably the best way things could of ever unfolded, because if my parents weren’t so harsh, I wouldn’t have started to take my life more seriously and look out for myself, set my life up in a way where I don’t need to rely on them for help. I know I’m valuable no matter what and just because my parents didn’t love or support me enough that doesn’t mean I’m not good enough and it doesn’t mean their approval or support makes me complete. They can be who they are and even if they are rude sometimes it doesn’t make me less valuable. Stay connected to the Tao. It will guide you through these challenging relationships.

[koops]

That Daniel Schmachtenberger video hits hard.

So smart. So so smart and still is blind to what Is.

Im greatful to Leo and his insistence on waking up.
Sometimes I just take it for granted, but man, even the smartest people on the planet can't even begin to see it.

This a clear demonstration that high IQ doesn't mean high degree of open-mindedness.
 

In a way he seems like a christian.
The content of his mind is radically different and more advanced, but still, structurally is the same. He is not going to drop all his beliefs and knowledgeability. Is just a more sophisticated ego.

[JosephKnecht]

I agree with this, but it's not broad enough. 

Please replace the word Christianity with any belief system, religion, or community.

You can start by replacing the word Christianity with Actualized.org.

Give it a try...  

[Rafael Thundercat]

On this topic of  Not Knowing, I was there sitted in my contemplations in the peak of Ayahuasca high. Letting my mind to go to a question that I avoided again and again. Contemplating on the day of my conception, the moment where sperm United with Egg. All this things I learned previous in life. Realizing this eyes that see the visions was created in some point and even if I call it my eyes, the eyes dont need a Me to work its magic. Dogs see,Lizards see fish sees, and no need of an I . I realized that I dont realy know how or when "I" was born. Something is here moving, speaking,smelling etc.. Something is existing and I cant say who or when it came to me. What is the difference of me and any other creature even coming into exsitence? I dont know.