Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[ryoko]

It's not enough to run it, people will be pissed at it being so good, and it will self destruct. 

[Bjorn K Holmstrom]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

If everyone had the development level of a saint then libertarianism would be the proper form of government.

Obviously our average level of development determines what form of government is currently sustainable.

A Yellow government cannot work because less than 1% of the population is Yellow. Who's going to run it? Show me a single Yellow politician or congressman.

Thanks for engaging, Leo. I appreciate the pragmatic point about the current population's readiness. it's a crucial challenge.

I should clarify, because I may not have been specific enough. My speculation wasn't about installing Yellow people into the current governmental structure (I agree, you won't find them in congress).

I'm pointing to something more radical: the possibility that the structure itself could evolve into something entirely different, less like a top-down hierarchy of politicians making rules, and more like a distributed, adaptive network or a set of emergent protocols.

The question isn't 'Who would be the president?' but 'What would a societal OS look like that is designed by and for a more conscious populace?' It would likely be a system where 'governance' is so integrated into our interactions and systems that it becomes almost invisible, resolving issues at the most local level possible.

Your original post brilliantly argued that our current conception of freedom leads to exploitation. I'm just wondering if that's a function of the conception itself, which is rooted in a certain stage of development. It's a fascinating thought experiment to consider what 'freedom' and 'governance' might mean after a quantum shift in collective consciousness.

The pragmatic barrier you mention is the entire puzzle, isn't it? How does a species currently at (a mix of Blue, Orange, Green) develop the capacity to even imagine a Yellow system, let alone implement it? Perhaps that's the meta-work.

[ryoko]

Bjorn, don't stop at thought experiments. Alternative systems like that of Venus Project can work way better for the world. Sad thing, the current systems like Nations/Capitalism are sentient and it doesn't like getting destroyed. The reality check is, to see if there's enough energy going into the development of an alternate system, possibly the efforts of majority and surrender of government for greater good. 

I'd argue most of Leo's takes on the post are horseshit. That's not how you build something new. That's not how you approach something novel. It's clear Leo doesn't want anything to change. I mean imagine the cities getting demolished, private properties getting not private anymore. It threatens his survival. 

Edited Thursday at 07:19 PM by ryoko

[UnbornTao]

9 hours ago, ryoko said:

Bjorn, don't stop at thought experiments. Alternative systems like that of Venus Project can work way better for the world. Sad thing, the current systems like Nations/Capitalism are sentient and it doesn't like getting destroyed. The reality check is, to see if there's enough energy going into the development of an alternate system, possibly the efforts of majority and surrender of government for greater good. 

I'd argue most of Leo's takes on the post are horseshit. That's not how you build something new. That's not how you approach something novel. It's clear Leo doesn't want anything to change. I mean imagine the cities getting demolished, private properties getting not private anymore. It threatens his survival. 

I remember liking Jacque Fresco's ideas and vision. Probably too romantic or unrealistic at this point in time, though.

Edited Friday at 04:59 AM by UnbornTao

[ryoko]

@UnbornTao I've been following their articles on different topics to understand their perspectives better, their approach isn't as romantic as it might sound from Youtube content. Sowing seeds of true essence is a vital step before getting into the practicalities. You have to go "through" Green to reach the other end. 

Edited Thursday at 08:52 PM by ryoko

[Daniel Balan]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

It is an error in reasoning to regard all nationalization efforts as the same.

Airports in America are nationalized. They work just fine.

Obviously communism and even socialism is wrong. But that doesn't mean nationalizing some industries is wrong. It has to be done in an intelligent and selective way.

USSR is an outdated model. Study China instead. China proves that it can work.

It makes my skin crawl just when I hear the word nationalization. For me personally the communist regime gave me PTSD. I was born in 2000, 11 years after communism ended in my country, but even to this day I can still observe and feel the communist aftertaste all over the place. I've also been in Germany and it blew my mind to see how much more developed that country is. Also there I felt no communist aftertaste whatsoever. It felt all so capitalistic and fresh, whereas in my country everything still had that soviet shit vibe. Everything from the buildings, the cars, the philosophy of the average people, to the way business is done. 

I like the state to provide the infrastructure and the safety mechanisms necessary for the individual people to run businesses and manage them. From my experience a private owned factory will always deliver better products compared to a public funded and managed one. I still have a lot to learn about economy but I have a really strong bias against government owned factories and businesses because of my background of living all my life in what resulted of half a century of communism. I think that the government can only produce amazing services like policing, maintaining roads etc. I have the opinion that the government does a horrible job at producing goods like cars, chainsaws, tractors, excavators, trucks, goods made from steel and iron etc. Because the people that manage and work for the state owned factories don't really care about the end products, don't strive to work out of their way for the survival of that factory whereas if the factory is private owned, the owners work to make that factory profitable like their life depended on it, which usually generate amazing goods and products. 

Edited Thursday at 09:58 PM by Daniel Balan

[UnbornTao]

17 minutes ago, ryoko said:

@UnbornTao Agree. I've been following their articles on different perspectives from their telegram, their approach isn't as romantic as it might sound from Youtube content. I think sowing seeds of true essence is a vital step before getting into the practicalities. You have to go "through" Green to reach the other end. 

Oh yeah, I agree.

[Leo Gura]

9 hours ago, ryoko said:

I mean imagine the cities getting demolished, private properties getting not private anymore. It threatens his survival. 

That threatens everyone's survival.

Be careful that your revolution does not end up eating you.

Notice how people here push back on me even when I post a video on nationalization. And you think you can just abolish private property? That will start a civil war. You want me to advocate for a civil war in the middle of a fascist takeover of America?

You think Wall Street and DC will allow you to abolish private property? This is a joke. You don't understand how power works. You might as well charge the White House lawn in a full frontal assault with a shotgun. You'll get further. I'm not going to fill my audience's mind with pie-in-sky political ideas. This would be irresponsible for me to do.

Edited Friday at 04:14 AM by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, Daniel Balan said:

It makes my skin crawl just when I hear the word nationalization.

I understand.

But you are comparing historically underdeveloped Eastern Europe with Germany -- an industrial powerhouse and a top world economy.

[ryoko]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

That threatens everyone's survival.

See you in a thousand years. 

[ryoko]

You clearly undermined the values the project is built on. Instead of distorting this into your "dumb revolution with shotguns", how about we see it for what it is? 

I'm imagining a scenario where that is the case, what does it take to get there. IDK yet. But we'll see. 

Edited Friday at 07:39 AM by ryoko

[Leo Gura]

@ryoko You talked about abolishing private property, but with no indication of understanding how serious that change is.

Wall Street would literally rather assassinate you than let you make that change. I don't think you understand that.

If you lead a serious movement to abolish private property in America, the CIA will assassinate you. And I'm not sure I would blame them because you are barking up a very dangerous tree.

Edited Friday at 09:12 AM by Leo Gura

[Bjorn K Holmstrom]

13 hours ago, ryoko said:

Bjorn, don't stop at thought experiments. Alternative systems like that of Venus Project can work way better for the world. Sad thing, the current systems like Nations/Capitalism are sentient and it doesn't like getting destroyed. The reality check is, to see if there's enough energy going into the development of an alternate system, possibly the efforts of majority and surrender of government for greater good. 

I'd argue most of Leo's takes on the post are horseshit. That's not how you build something new. That's not how you approach something novel. It's clear Leo doesn't want anything to change. I mean imagine the cities getting demolished, private properties getting not private anymore. It threatens his survival. 

@ryoko, thanks for jumping in, this is exactly the kind of thinking the topic needs.

You're right to point to The Venus Project. It's a great concrete example of the kind of holistic, systemic redesign I was alluding to in my thought experiment. It's a vision that tries to leap beyond the left/right, capitalism/socialism debates entirely, which I appreciate as rare and valuable.

Your point about current systems being sentient and resistant to change is well put. It's the core of the challenge. It's not just about having a better idea; it's about navigating the immense inertia and active defense mechanisms of a deeply entrenched global system. The question of energy input, whether a critical mass of people can be mobilized, is the crucial question.

I appreciate your candid take on Leo's post. I think there's a useful distinction to be made. His diagnosis of the flaws in libertarianism (and human nature) might have some brutal truth to it, even if his prescription (implying a need for strong control) and his dismissal of alternatives feel limiting.

Your comment makes me wonder if the path forward doesn't require both lines of thinking:

The critical/deconstructive work (what Leo does): To tear down naive illusions about our current systems and human nature.

The visionary/constructive work (what the Venus Project, you and I are doing): To design and build compelling alternatives.

Maybe the conflict between them is a necessary tension. The critic keeps the visionary grounded, and the visionary pushes the critic toward something new.

Thanks again for bringing a concrete model into the discussion. It adds a crucial layer of practicality.

Your point about energy input and mobilizing a critical mass is exactly the bottleneck that occupies most of my thinking. It's why I'm less interested in perfect blueprints and more in what is called governance interoperability, how we can build protocols and frameworks that allow different systems (new, old, traditional, technological) to coordinate effectively without requiring everyone to agree on one monolithic utopia first.

This might be a long shot, but given your line of thinking, I wonder if you've come across or would be interested in the Global Governance Frameworks project I'm involved in? (github: https://github.com/GlobalGovernanceFrameworks / website: https://www.globalgovernanceframeworks.org).

It's trying to tackle that exact energy input problem you mentioned. It doesn't assume a blank slate or a global revolution. Instead, it's a open-source repository of ideas and patterns, like a toolkit, for how different governance models (including things inspired by The Venus Project, but also Indigenous governance, reformed UN structures, and new financial systems) could actually interoperate and coordinate.

A core part of it involves enabling the formation of Bioregional Autonomous Zones (BAZs), precisely the kind of prototypes you're talking about. And you've put your finger on the absolute core challenge: I share your skepticism about the willingness and energy to form them at scale. The frameworks are designed to make that initial energy requirement much lower by providing a supportive operating system and clear pathways.

I'd be genuinely curious to hear your perspective on it, if you have the time and interest. No pressure at all, just thought it might resonate with the systems-level approach you're clearly taking.

[Daniel Balan]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

@ryoko You talked about abolishing private property, but with no indication of understanding how serious that change is.

Wall Street would literally rather assassinate you than let you make that change. I don't think you understand that.

If you lead a serious movement to abolish private property in America, the CIA will assassinate you. And I'm not sure I would blame them because you are barking up a very dangerous tree.

To be frank I'd assasinate anyone who proposed the abolishing of private property. My grandparents worked their soul off to buy 2 acres of arable land, and I'd go to jail for life just to make sure I unalive any communist or fascist that proposes the nationalization of private property. Here in Europe 2 or 3 generations of people have been sacrificed for stupid retarded communist or fascist nationalization policies. 

How is this fairness that I get to live in a rat box of 2 square metters designed for me by the government while the socialist leaders live in 2000 square metters mansions? 

I've had enough of this nonsense.

Edited Friday at 10:20 AM by Daniel Balan

[Daniel Balan]

9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I understand.

But you are comparing historically underdeveloped Eastern Europe with Germany -- an industrial powerhouse and a top world economy.

You know why I compare Germany with Eastern Europe? It is because in 1945 both Germany and Eastern Europe were all leveled to the ground by the war.

For example the entire city of Warsaw was leveled to the ground, almost no building was still standing, that was the case for much of Germany as well.

Germany was also divided for half a century, yet after 1945 West Germany has started in the same place as my country, my country was in an even better starting point because Romania saw little fighting on its territory during WW2. Yet during the time that Romanaia was a vassal state for Russia, while it was under the most brutal form of Communism in Europe( National Communism) my country wasn't even able to develop even 20% of the success that West Germany has achieved since 1945.

I'd argue that the reasons for this are the brutal communist regime that was 1000 more inferior to the capitalist system of west Germany, and the second reason is the development of the people.

While in 1945 Germans moved from blue to Orange, Romanians just stepped into Blue, with many to this day at stage Red or even Purple. Development levels and the capitalist system is what allowed Germany to rebuild and develop into a giant powerhouse while the communist bloc was spiraling into deeper and deeper poverty. The 20th century proved beyond doubt that socialism and communism are obsolete, backward, regressive ideologies. 

[ryoko]

Okay Bjorn, it would have been a crime not to share your work with me.
I'm yet to read it in depth. And I'm already disagreeing with the whole structure. I don't agree with you on trying to bring about legal changes, and hoping it would reach anywhere. I find it a waste of time. I'm not saying it won't happen, it's fundamentally against some thing which certain entities need to protect.

The following structure has to alter completely into something entirely different, for true change to happen. Read on.

-------------
I need to establish some archetypes: the master, the slave and the third. There's many more interpolations of it (third is not a rogue, a rogue would be the master, but in the opposite direction) I'm not talking about individuals here, these archetypes, it's like a sentient entity, more like an energy fields resulting from human interaction.  

Master slave dynamics is what we have in this world, wide spread. There's structures of power and there's slaves they exploit/exploited. Majority of the world falls under slaves. They are hopeless about trying to change what the master decides, they have no strong opinion of their own, nothing. Mostly because it won't help them survive. This is why alternative frameworks get little to none energy. There's none to spare from slaves. They need all the energy they can gather, for themselves. And the master ensures it happens so(consumerism/materialism). 
(And when the energy gets mobilized, it's in the form of revolutions, when the slaves get very upset they don't care about dying. All civil wars and revolutions are caused by this. Yes, there may be actors who manipulated/influenced the masses to mobilize, this is just another iteration of master, just in a different direction. I'm not gonna argue on the morality of this. It is just a natural consequence)

Leo said, CIA will be out to get them if they really start making moves to abolish private property. But look at the hypocrisy of it.

Quote

"600 years ago, the land was nobody's property, they just started living there and started telling themselves it's theirs? Now they're hurt about giving it up. Look at the world economy right now, there's such a thing as purchasing power, it is a direct consequence of colonization, among many other factors. The value of the same thing is not the same in different regions. A water bottle in the middle of the desert can be "charged" more. Clearly the medium of money is never supposed to be there in the equation, it's not elemental. It's quite absurd. Human beings invented technology to survive from the world, now they can't get enough of creating trouble for themselves?"

this is the third. 
the third finds the whole thing absurd and tries to leave everyone be, to the best of their ability. It aligns closely with indigenous values. "There's no point in wasting time with the first two, they will only do what they want". third is close to an animal. They see everything, feel everything. They don't identify as part of this sharade. engaged disillutionment. 

You have to understand law is not for everyone. The law doesn't apply when they can justify killing someone in the name of "protecting national security". They're out to get Snowden's head. Do you see where I'm going with this?

Law is not concerned with what made the human a criminal, it's concerned with treating symptoms, and not getting to the root of the problem. It's that energy problem again. If we can lock all the criminals up in some place, it's much cheaper than solving the root causes. 

Any change which will ever happen, will be in direct response to a crisis to their masterdom. And not as a proactive response for the well being of slaves. That's not a priority. It will happen, only to the extent of certain baits. And don't get your head filled with fantasies now, revolutions and civil wars do not threaten masterdom, it just sows the seed for a new one, or temporarily gets halted. Because slaves cannot organize well, they never practiced autonomy. The enemy is not an individual here, we're talking about human dynamics. Monsters created by interaction. 

------------
Think about how the whole structure of this can change, while the monsters are still alive. Slaves here are not victims, don't feel sorry for them, they are participants.  

True change requires transcending the game itself

Edited Friday at 07:28 PM by ryoko

[Rafael Thundercat]

@ryoko why your whole narrative sounds like the whole narrative of Matrix Movie? 

[Raze]

Leo misunderstands the Bible and Judaism. It doesn’t actually say Palestine belongs to jews. And for most of jewish history it wasn’t considered to be land they should take. In the Talmud the three oaths actually say they shouldn’t retake it until the messiah returns. The idea of religious Zionism is relatively new and only formed after atheist Jews founded Israel.

 

 

[ExploringReality]

https://www.actualized.org/insights/actualized-quotes-296

What do you mean by that? Can you try to say something about that, trying to get a hit on that 

Seems like that insight hit you like a freight train. Throw me a Hadukan  

Edited yesterday at 01:52 AM by ExploringReality

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@ExploringReality

If you flip it, I bet you a Zen master would slap you with:

'There is no self to criticize, and no other to be criticized. Yet still words appear.' 

I had a think on it and to criticize you need a subject (the critic, the self), the object (what is being criticized) and a perspective.

If there is no self there, no one can be selfish. So, to flip it back, if there is a self - the criticism is selfish!

As always it is one of Leo's posts that isn't explicit and makes you dig for the answer...

Or so I perceive !