Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[Lila9]

6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

And your group of sovereign mothers would not survive 5 minutes with a psychopath.

Mothers can be ruthless when they protect their children. Women can be very ruthless when they are pissed off. There are many women in prison for killing their psychopathic, abusive partners.

 

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, Lila9 said:

Mothers can be ruthless when they protect their children. Women can be very ruthless when they are pissed off. There are many women in prison for killing their psychopathic, abusive partners.

Not ruthless enough to run the world.

[AION]

Women are not less violent, they are just less capable physically. That is why most women power trip if you give them some power. 

On the other hand, in psychological warfare and social games, women are ninja's. So every sex has its pros and cons.

Most violence against women are done in a household and I don't think women are innocent at all. They constantly use psychological and social games against the men and a lot of men are not good at dealing with that so they lash out in a stupid way that is prohibitted. 

A group of men usually get a long with each other. While a group of women always ends up in drama and fights. So that tells you something. Obviously some men show problematic behavior too but usually it is because they had a toxic mother.

 

Edited 3 hours ago by AION

[Lila9]

7 minutes ago, Rafael Thundercat said:

Recently 5 boys raped a 17 years old girl in Copacabana Brasil. They are influenced by Redpill culture. The motivation to do it was not erotic, is power, is a way to show dominance and pose to other man since they filmed it, the father is a politician and in an interview he dissmiss the crime saying ",Why she didn't screamed" . So is not women who raise monsters, they exist beacuse the system is for a long time dominated by a frame of impunity. In a sane society men would be raised to respect life ,to respect women  of course  to love them and make love with them, but not to violently take possesion in a objectivication way. 

Very sad and not rare, unfortunately. And then those men are praised by other men, never held accountable, and free to commit more rape, while women carry trauma and shame for their entire lives and are slut-shamed.

In my country, there is a recent story of a woman whose partner took naked pictures of her without her permission, which is illegal and she went to the police to complain. Then they came to her partner to hear his story, who claimed that she was crazy and lying and that she hit him in an attempt to take his phone. It ended with the woman being arrested for attacking her partner, while they didn’t even search his phone. They automatically believed the man.

Even when he actually was the one who committed the crime.

Policemen hate women.

[Lila9]

9 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Not ruthless enough to run the world.

Because we are too intelligent to seek power for the sake of it.

True leadership is not about dominance but service.

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, Lila9 said:

Even when he actually was the one who committed the crime.

Why are you so sure?

[Leo Gura]

1 minute ago, Lila9 said:

Because we are too intelligent to seek power

Hahahaha

[Lila9]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

Why are you so sure?

Because she said so, and that is enough. Very few women do false accusations. It is not easy. 

Besides, this is a famous case, and when the police checked his phone, he really did have naked pictures of her.

 

[Bogdan]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes.

Truth.

Such an amazingly beautiful answer

I'm tearing up

[Lila9]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Hahahaha

Women as a collective are not interested in dominance over men. If they were, they would have committed serious crimes against men on a large scale. 

 

[Yimpa]

Just now, Bogdan said:

Such an amazingly beautiful answer

I'm tearing up

 

[Franz_]

@Leo Gura  hey leo,in alot of religion there is that common ground that when you commit you will go to another place than you would go normally when you do  passing  normally. i know this is kinda off topic,but what do u think about it?i've been meaning to ask that from you. is it just fear mongering or has some truth to it? what do u think

[Rafael Thundercat]

20 minutes ago, Lila9 said:

Mothers can be ruthless when they protect their children. Women can be very ruthless when they are pissed off. There are many women in prison for killing their psychopathic, abusive partners.

 

Also women in Integrity dont need to protect their children alone, men in Integrity stay with them. If psycopahts exist, the non psycopaths cant be neutral and let the psycopats reing. This apply on a micro level like "defending child and woman in our daily life ( I has one experience last day where a strangers was misogynist and I refused to engage and called him into his behavior immediately) and also on macro level ( maybe we will need to actually figth against the corrupt system) 

[Rafael Thundercat]

3 minutes ago, Lila9 said:

Women as a collective are not interested in dominance over men. If they were, they would have committed serious crimes against men on a large scale. 

 

Cut dicks are easy. Man should be gratefull women want justice not vengance. But I still think prision is to soft for the Epstein Class. Life for life.

[Leo Gura]

9 minutes ago, Lila9 said:

Because she said so, and that is enough. Very few women do false accusations. It is not easy. 

But many women are crazy and delusional. Her POV is not necessarily reality.

9 minutes ago, Lila9 said:

Besides, this is a famous case, and when the police checked his phone, he really did have naked pictures of her.

What man doesn't have naked pictures of his girlfriend on his phone?

6 minutes ago, Lila9 said:

Women as a collective are not interested in dominance over men.

Of course. Because they would lose.

[Lila9]

1 minute ago, Rafael Thundercat said:

Also women in Integrity dont need to protect their children alone, men in Integrity stay with them. If psycopahts exist, the non psycopaths cant be neutral and let the psycopats reing. This apply on a micro level like "defending child and woman in our daily life ( I has one experience last day where a strangers was misogynist and I refused to engage and called him into his behavior immediately) and also on macro level ( maybe we will need to actually figth against the corrupt system) 

Yes, if a man does something to a woman and another man holds him accountable, it neutralizes him at the moment. Basically, the abuse thrives because of men who don’t actively abuse women but remain silent and don’t hold abusive men accountable.

 

[Butters]

I've been to Epstein island and I enjoyed it 🏝️

[Leo Gura]

@Butters You should apply to the CIA, they would love to have you.

[Xonas Pitfall]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Point out the bias with concrete details. This conversation has become too abstract.

Sure!

You claim masculinity is more predisposed to truth. Yet much (most) of the corruption you’ve described, and much of what we see historically and today, has been driven largely by men operating within systems shaped by male power. Women and minorities were often prevented from acting freely and forced into subservient roles, while men had far more freedom and authority. If masculinity is supposedly more oriented toward truth, why has that power so often produced corruption instead? In fact, if you were truly a caring guru, wouldn’t you want to open education and retreat centers to share that truth with everyone, especially those you consider more vulnerable or emotional? You wouldn’t seek to control or subordinate them. What kind of “God's Love” would that even be?

You even said it yourself:

Quote

 

“Your group of sovereign mothers would not survive five minutes with a psychopath. We live exactly on the planet I describe. Welcome to Planet Psychopath. I see you are new here.”

 

But who are these psychopaths you’re talking about? If they are mostly men, how does that support the claim that masculinity is more truth-oriented? And who, historically, has restricted women from pursuing truth in the first place? In fact, didn’t many religious leaders, spiritual gurus and philosophers either prevent women from participating or genuinely believe they were incapable of it? That often justified greater subordination while restricting women’s access to knowledge and agency. Does that really sound like a system made up of people more aligned with truth, love, sovereignty, and autonomy?

You can’t claim masculinity is more spiritual or more oriented toward truth when many of the corrupt systems we see today were largely built and run by men with power and freedom to shape them. You can’t selectively highlight positive traits while ignoring the disproportionally negative ones.

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

From the monsters women birth.

And you can’t rely on the argument that “well, women gave birth to them.” Just as you might thank your mother for care, safety, and love, but you wouldn’t usually credit her as the sole source of your spiritual identity or beliefs. In the same way, you can’t fully credit or blame women if children turn out antisocial. Are you seriously going to argue it’s their mothers to fully or mostly blame who turn them into power-hungry antisocials? That argument doesn’t hold.

--
You argued in your blogposts that there have traditionally been more male gurus because women wouldn’t leave their children behind to pursue enlightenment. You said: 

Quote

 

So, anyways, this is the ultimate reason why there have traditionally been more male gurus and enlightened masters. Because what woman is going to leave her newborn children behind to seek enlightenment in a cave? That action is far more suitable for a man than a woman. To prioritize truth over everything and everyone else — is a hell of a thing, and it comes more naturally to men than women.

 

How is this a good point for men?

Imagine if we flipped the scenario: women are far more suited for truth because which woman would go fight a war to protect her family? That action is far more suitable for a man than a woman. To prioritize truth over everything and everyone else is a hell of a thing, and it comes more naturally to women than men. That’s why nature allowed men to be stronger, to fight and protect, while women focus on spirituality, and actual truth-seeking.

Who’s really facing the true, harsh reality of survival here? The one who’s protecting something so vulnerable, just after giving birth, in a jungle, while struggling to keep a newborn alive? It's funny how convenient it is to abandon your wife and children in the name of "spiritual seeking," and then turn around and claim she’s the delusional one.

You can’t flip-flop and nit-pick these arguments. You can’t say men are "more hardcore" because they go to war "Grrr... raw survival, protection, pragmatism, guns, bombs, aghhh!" and value truth for that, but then say that they leave their families to go sit in a cave, abandoning the women to take on the brutal, life-or-death responsibility of caring for the child. How does that make sense? How does that follow?

---
You seem to shift between frameworks. Sometimes masculinity is aligned with Truth for ruthless realism (war, domination, survival). Other times it is praised for detachment from survival (leaving everything behind for truth). These standards conflict with each other.

In the Zionism example as well, you were quick to dismiss identity as “silly”. If brute realism is the rule, then the stronger side asserting control is exactly what your framework predicts. So telling them to “just drop it” contradicts your own premise. You are being idealistic. It’s their own hierarchy of identity and culture that shapes what they believe should belong to them. But when someone critiques hierarchies like patriarchy for causing harm, you frame them as pragmatic, necessary and inevitable.

There's more, but for now . . . 

Edited 2 hours ago by Xonas Pitfall

[Basman]

3 minutes ago, Butters said:

I've been to Epstein island and I enjoyed it 🏝️

Me too. 

My question to the haters is, are you mad that I went to Epstein Island, or are you mad that you didn't?