Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[gengar]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

History backs up that your revolutions end in misery and evil for all.

Yes, you can mobilize a mob of 100M morons. And they will destroy more than they create.

That doesn't mean "social change" is not possible.

Also, the French Revolution destroyed more than it created? Lol. It was basically the beginning of democracy and liberalism in the west.

Slave revolts are social activism as well. 

The general claim you made is just incorrect IMO.

[AION]

7 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

No.

An iPod is not luxury.

You guys here are so poor that you don't even understand what luxury is.

When you spend $20,000 a month on fine wine, then let's talk.

Luxury is not a fixed term. What is deemed as luxury in India is different than what is luxury in California but that is a side point.
 

A good stoic exercise is this: Sometimes I do live as a poor man: as an Indian would so to say. Simple food and no luxury. I hang out with poor people. 

Especially hanging out with poor people and how they think and have this scarcity mindset is very enlightening. 

I try to hang out with rich people too. Social interactions are a good diet for the brain. I try to talk to many different people as I can. 

[gengar]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Felix Dennis has a great quote in his book. Something like: If you have $100M, you're barely scraping by.

If you have less than $10M in the bank you are poor.

What's that hyperbole supposed to mean? some profound truth? I really don't get it, is it supposed to point at the fact that the top of people have so much money even 100M is nothing compared to it?

[Greatnestwithin]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Felix Dennis has a great quote in his book. Something like: If you have $100M, you're barely scraping by.

If you have less than $10M in the bank you are poor.

@Leo Gura are you poor or barely scraping by?

[AION]

To have lived life you should experience both poverty and richness to really appreciate and depreciate both. Luxury is not something bad if you have the right mindset. 

Edited May 30 by AION

[gengar]

Just now, AION said:

To have lived life you should experience both poverty and richness to really appreciate and depreciate both. 

Bullshit.

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, Greatnestwithin said:

@Leo Gura are you poor or barely scraping by?

I am rich in Mind 

[Extreme Z7]

1 minute ago, AION said:

To have lived life you should experience both poverty and richness to really appreciate and depreciate both. Luxury is not something bad if you have the right mindset. 

It's assymetrical, I think. . . Generally speaking, though. Poor people have a better idea of what it's like to be rich than Rich people know what it's like to be poor. Even rich people who were once poor generally lose touch of what it was like to be poor and struggling.

 

[Greatnestwithin]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I am rich in Mind 

@Leo Gura that´s true wealth - I aim for that too. Plus money too!

[AION]

Just now, Extreme Z7 said:

It's assymetrical, I think. . . Generally speaking, though. Poor people have a better idea of what it's like to be rich than Rich people know what it's like to be poor. Even rich people who were once poor generally lose touch of what it was like to be poor and struggling.

 

Being poor or being rich are just  identifications by the mind. Last week I was talking to a guy and I was talking about a certain amount of money and I said it wasn’t that much and that poor guy told me it was a lot for him so I got humbled. And I identify as not rich but for him I came across as rich because I compare myself to people who are richer than me. Being rich is extremely spiritual. I’m not rich but I can live it because I have some rich friends and I was allowed to drive a Porsche and I had a leather jacket like Tate. People look at you very differently when you own status products. I was at the gas station and some people where looking at me like I was a predator lmao. Everybody should experience it. It gave me a lot of material to contemplate about myself and society. 

[Leo Gura]

21 minutes ago, gengar said:

That doesn't mean "social change" is not possible.

Of course it's possible but serious people do not sit around hoping for a social movement to come along and save their ass.

Serious people build what they want. Which is why powerful people do not join protests and social movements. Social movements are for the weak and inept.

One man can build more than every Marxist in the country combined. Which is why Marxism fails.

Good luck getting a leftist to understand that.

Edited May 30 by Leo Gura

[gengar]

26 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Social movements are for the weak and inept.

Most people are weak and inept, because of innate and environmental factors. Not being weak and inept is for the lucky few. which means doing socialist action is their best bet.

Just because you are one of the few eagles flying around who can even contemplate making a 100M business doesn't mean you can expand this idea to everyone. Moreover, eagles are only possible if there are rats walking around for them to feed on.

Women didn't have rights and use socialist action to gain them. No other action or business would have done it for them.

[Extreme Z7]

5 minutes ago, gengar said:

Most people are weak and inept, because of innate and environmental factors. 

Harsh environmental factors are supposed to harden you to the core. It's mega-rich people I see who become comfort-chasing snowflakes.

8 minutes ago, gengar said:

which means doing socialist action is their best bet.

As someone who comes from a harsh 3rd-world background, if I took socialism seriously I would either be homeless or dead.

[gengar]

11 minutes ago, Extreme Z7 said:

Harsh environmental factors are supposed to harden you to the core. It's mega-rich people I see who become comfort-chasing snowflakes.

As someone who comes from a harsh 3rd-world background, if I took socialism seriously I would either be homeless or dead.

With weak and inept I don't mean being hardened by life, I mean your ability and intelligence to create such businesses.

And like I said, don't look at socialist action from the individualist standpoint. You would be dead if only you became socialist, but if even 20% of working people in your country organized themselves as socialists, the government would be dead. Which is precisely the reason they kill you for becoming a socialist. Classic divide and conquer. 

[Leo Gura]

29 minutes ago, gengar said:

which means doing socialist action is their best bet.

Working harder and smarter is their best bet. Even if socialism wins, it will be a cold day in Hell before it puts money in your pocket.

Wealth is actually created for average people when they run small businesses, like hotdog stands, village shops, small farms, bazaar shops, cafes, bike repair shops, candy stores, etc. Marxism confiscates and kills these small businesses.

Edited May 30 by Leo Gura

[Extreme Z7]

1 minute ago, gengar said:

but if even 20% of working people in your country organized themselves as socialists, the government would be dead.

Why would I want that? If the government would be dead then what would follow is everyone would be dead.
You actually want anarchy, dude? C'mon, take this seriously.

[gengar]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

Working harder and smarter is their best bet. Even if socialism wins, it will be a cold day in Hell before it puts money in your pocket.

You're evading the examples I provided. Women should have worked harder and smarter in the 20th century, and not marched for rights and equality? Get real.

And I'm not even a socialist, but this is just centrist drivel.

[gengar]

2 minutes ago, Extreme Z7 said:

Why would I want that? If the government would be dead then what would follow is everyone would be dead.
You actually want anarchy, dude? C'mon, take this seriously.

So you're justifying your authoritarian government? I'm not at all saying socialist revolutions are the answer. I'm actually making a nuanced point here, while you and Leo are not.

Edited May 30 by gengar

[Leo Gura]

4 minutes ago, gengar said:

You're evading the examples I provided. Women should have worked harder and smarter in the 20th century, and not marched for rights and equality? Get real.

There are rare cases where mass mobilization grants rights. But it does not grant wealth.

Women's rights, black rights, gay rights were good movements. But we already got those rights. What next? Rights are mostly legally equal at this point.

Edited May 30 by Leo Gura

[Vynce]

@Leo Gura By the way, do you still have clients occasionally on personal development issues, here and there? Or did it become too much work eventually?