Drama Alert! Another YTber is calling us a cult! 😈☦️

[Wilhelm44]

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

 

 has Leo displayed psychotic symptoms and other unstable concerning behavior on his journey?

What psychotic symptoms are you referring to ?

It sounds like you are anticipating Leo to lose it one day and take actualized.org down a dark path ?

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, Wilhelm44 said:

What psychotic symptoms are you referring to ?

• Insta images of playing with guns seemingly under the influence while later implying he was "so close" to deleting himself.
• Claiming to be able to turn into an alien on camera, never being able to show proof of that despite trying.
• Claiming to be the most awake person in existence.

There are some posts on the forum I did not include in the Leo thread because they were so disturbing and simply sad and clearly indicative of some mental crisis (it did not seem proper to group it with his other behavior).

 

3 hours ago, Wilhelm44 said:

It sounds like you are anticipating Leo to lose it one day and take actualized.org down a dark path ?

That day was somewhere in late 2022 - early 2023. That we are honestly discussing whether some dude is the most awake person in the universe is dark. That people are defending unhinged personal attacks and threats, even when they were condemned by the leader himself, is dark.

Whether or not it becomes a literal Manson situation is not much of a concern of mine to put a number on. It only takes one thought anyway.

Edited 19 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Thought Art]

@Carl-Richard You are dark.

[Carl-Richard]

12 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

@Carl-Richard You are dark.

Takes one to know one

[Thought Art]

@Carl-Richard I’m not here Moaning about the forum and Leo. The darkness is your perspective 

Edited 19 hours ago by Thought Art

[Carl-Richard]

31 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

@Carl-Richard I’m not here Moaning about the forum and Leo. The darkness is your perspective 

But you're here moaning about moaning. Moanception 👻

[Natasha Tori Maru]

 

Quote

THINK FOR YOURSELVES. But do not get the dumb idea that you have outsmarted me. Recognize that if you think you have outsmarted me on spirituality, you have not taken the position of humility, you have taken of arrogance. 

I don't understand the outsmarted part and the fixation on being outsmarted. I also don't understand what it has to do with spirituality.

-----

@Thought Art I was just about to raise it but Carl did - you are doing exactly what you are accusing Carl of.

[zurew]

2 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

I don't understand the outsmarted part and the fixation on being outsmarted. I also don't understand what it has to do with spirituality.

I dont understand a lot of things with respect to the bigger post that that smaller quote is embedded in. (There is a reason why I emphasized that post, I just didnt want to immediately spell out my take on it)

But here is what I see in that bigger post and in his other posts [1, 2 , 3, 4]in that same thread:

 Aside from the fact again, that in the bigger post Leo starts with undermining the validity of your cognitive a spiritual faculties , and he tells you that you are in a cult and you are not thinking for yourself (as long as you disagree with him on spirituality and "arrogant" enough to entertain that he might be wrong on spirituality) and aside from the fact that 1) thinking for yourself, 2) not being a in a cult, 3) being properly AWAKE and 4) not being self-deceived and 5) "Properly" caring about the truth (encourage you to give up/undermine your own personal boundaries related to teacher-student ethics and justifies why the dissing rhetoric needs to be used on you and why you are the one who is reponsbile for and to be blamed for the harshness of the rhetoric and methods anyway)  - disagreeing with his judgements related to the 5 listed things is tied together with the negation of all the 5 things being applicable to you (if you disagree with his judgement related to the 5 listed things, then that automatically means that you dont care enough about Truth,  you are not AWAKE, you are not thinking for yourself and you are in a cult and you are self-deceived all at the same time.

He created a scenario under which he made the students necessarily reliant on him on all sorts of things (as long as they disagree with anything related to the 5 listed things)  and  he gets to directly control the narrative and be the exclusive judge of all the things that are related to the listed 5 things -  he gets to directly control and be the exclusive judge of what kind of teacher-student ethics you need to be okay with, he gets to control and be the exclusive judge of how AWAKE you are, he gets to control and be the exclusive judge of when you are "thinking for yourself", he gets to control and be the exclusive judge of when you are in a cult and when you are not, he gets to control and be the exclusive judge of when you are self-deceived and when you are not.

He also gets to control whats the "right" and "correct" interpretation is of that very post - The post very carefully justifies itself in a way where only his 1 spelled out interpretation of that very post is accurate and is valid, and any negative interpretation of that  post under which he would be seen in a negative light just automatically means sheer lunacy and an utter disrespect for his work.

So you either agree with all the things related to the 5 listed things ( you give up your sovereignty and your control and your alternative interpretations related to the list and related to the content of that whole post) or the negation of the 5 listed things are all applicable to you and you are engaging in sheer lunacy and you are also disrespecting his work and you are gaslighting him and you gets to be a deluded fool like Nahm, WinterKnight, Frank Yank, TJ Reeves, and all the others.

 

This is a lot more than just him using improper rhetoric and him not choosing the right set of words to express himself and him just not caring about your suffering (which are the main things that he apologized for in his original apology blog post).

To my understanding - He never apologized for the gaslighting , for the mind games and for making everyone reliant on him and for him dictating all the narrative related to everything and for him banning and threatening people. (but he doesnt need to apologize , imo he should rather change his behavior and stop sliming around and he should acknowledge the gravity of his mistakes)

And again, this is all aside from the other things that I mentioned and laid down in my main, long post.

Edited 16 hours ago by zurew

[AerisVahnEphelia]

On 5/12/2026 at 1:14 AM, Carl-Richard said:

The only serious thing Actualized.org has going for it regarding the cult accusation is that the "leader" claims to have knowledge that exceeds anybody else in (as far as he claims to know) the entire world (and that this is the highest knowledge you can seek). This is different from merely claiming you have access to some Absolute truth.

 

On 5/12/2026 at 0:28 PM, Carl-Richard said:

There is like a spectrum of the alleged authority of the leader:

• At the very top-end, nobody is like the leader and nobody will ever be like them. That's like the peak Heaven's Gate type cult (not sure how accurate this is, but you get the point).
• Then under that you have where nobody is like the leader currently but that may change or is promised as a possibility. That's where Actualized is at.
• Then you have where the leader does not treat themselves as supreme and there are other examples of the same level of realization or teachings (but they still claim to be pointing to an Absolute truth). That would be perhaps some contemporary non-duality communities (maybe Sadhguru, Spira, Tolle).
• Then you simply have leaders or communities that claim special knowledge that is not necessarily absolute (or the leader is just charismatic) and they draw people in and exist on the margins of society. Perhaps Charles Manson's cult (I'm actually not sure of that example either, but again, you get the point).

Regardless of this, the point is that the more power is given to the leader, deliberately or not, the more cultish the dynamics become. The siloing from the larger society and the various psychological dynamics become stronger. And it doesn't matter that the concrete teachings are about independence of thought or becoming aware of self-bias or whatever clever and virtuous teachings that make the members feel like they're in control. The fact that the leader proclaims to be in that position of power, creates conflict with such teachings, and it will play on the members' psyches in pernicious ways. And such teachings will be used to protect the teacher. "You're just not openminded enough". "Be aware of your projections and biases". "You're too attached to your survival story". You can watch the Bentinho testimonies for all this.

Cult dynamics are notoriously tricky and shifty and may play in large part under the surface in line with ego defense mechanisms of the members (suppress, deny, accommodate) and systemic effects across members (scapegoating, keeping the peace, maintaining group harmony, etc.). And again, the concrete teachings can create a false sense of security and even perpetuate the very cult dynamics they are purported to prevent.

Wrong Leo recognized me as superior being of light. 

I've had breakthrough beyond alien mind

[Carl-Richard]

22 minutes ago, AerisVahnEphelia said:

Wrong Leo recognized me as superior being of light. 

I've had breakthrough beyond alien mind

Psychosis stamp of approval.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

2 hours ago, zurew said:

To my understanding - He never apologized for the gaslighting , for the mind games and for making everyone reliant on him and for him dictating all the narrative related to everything and for him banning and threatening people. (but he doesnt need to apologize , imo he should rather change his behavior and stop sliming around and he should acknowledge the gravity of his mistakes

The best apology is a change of behaviour. It's the only one I accept. Words can be potential contracts for betrayal, and often are, especially for those less mature. 

I don't even mind if the words are wrong, as long as the action communicates the right message. Although I view words/actions aligning as a solid marker of integrity in a person. 

Thanks for the effort that goes into the evidence based analysis 🧾🧾🧾

[Wilhelm44]

18 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

This ≠ "the best place".

Where is the best place on the internet, for people who are serious about spirituality, to hangout ?

[Wilhelm44]

16 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Insta images of playing with guns seemingly under the influence while later implying he was "so close" to deleting himself.

I wasn't aware of this. I think most people here have had suicidal moments at one point or another. Using that as proof of psychotic tendencies is a bit of a low blow.

If you're comparing Leo to a cult leader who lost it and decided that one of the members needed to be killed because they have negative energy, then my sense is that you might be underestimating him a bit.

As far as the members that got banned, the only name I recognized there was Nahm. From what I recall he seemed to struggle to string together two coherent sentences at times. However conscious or not he may have been, he was mostly confusing to people, so I was not that sorry to see him go.

As far as the other issues go, I hope you and Leo sort things out, because my gut says he still has some valuable stuff to teach.

[zurew]

17 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

because my gut says he still has some valuable stuff to teach

Having issues with Leo's behavior and ethics is comaptible with thinking that he is a smart and intelligent guy.

17 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

I wasn't aware of this. I think most people here have had suicidal moments at one point or another. Using that as proof of psychotic tendencies is a bit of a low blow.

He gave you more than just that , but you curiously havent responded to those other things and you havent taken into account those other things  - when it comes to him trying to establish the point that Leo has psychotic tendencies. He even gave you bullet points there.

See, this is why I think you are not approaching in good faith.

You respond to 1 thing from a list of things and you make it seem like you managed to address all the points or that someone's original point was just about that one particular thing that you picked out and responded to.

Quote

 

• Insta images of playing with guns seemingly under the influence while later implying he was "so close" to deleting himself.
• Claiming to be able to turn into an alien on camera, never being able to show proof of that despite trying.
• Claiming to be the most awake person in existence.

 

You see this and then this is your general approach:

" Okay, so you are telling me that having insta images of playing with a guy and implying that he is so close to unalive himself is sufficient to establish psychotic tendencies? Really? - dont you think I couldnt find some guys who do that and then live a completely functional and normal life? "

And then someone tells you that that wasnt the whole argument and then you continue with:

"Okay, so you are telling me that claiming to be able to turn into an alien on camera and never being able to show proof of that despite trying is alone sufficient to establish psychotic tendencies? Really?  - dont you think I couldnt find some guys who think that or joke about it while they live a normal life? "

And then someone tells you that that wasnt the whole argument and then you continue with:

" Okay you are telling me that someone claiming to be the most awake person in existence alone is sufficient to establish psychotic tendencies? Really? "

---

No, you take all of those things into consideration together and given that conjunction of factors you can still disagree, but be honest about what argument was given.

Edited 3 hours ago by zurew

[Wilhelm44]

@zurew  Stop being so arrogant/controlling as to how I should respond.

I am under no obligation to respond to every every single point.

I speak to what I feel I can speak to.

And if you recall I acknowledged the issues I did not respond to by saying: "As far as the other issues go, I hope you and Leo sort things out, because I feel he still has some valuable stuff to teach."

I made no claims that I somehow solved the whole thing.

Ultimately the issues that you have with Leo's behavior, you will only be able to solve directly with him. Your beef is not with me.

(Notice that in my interactions with you that you have used this as an excuse to ignore some of the points I made, by simply stating that I will not interact with you until you address all the points I have made, or something to that effect.)

Also, I think Carl Richard can speak for himself.

[zurew]

1 minute ago, Wilhelm44 said:

And if you recall I acknowledged the issues I did not respond to by saying: "As far as the other issues go, I hope you and Leo sort things out, because I feel he still has some valuable stuff to teach."

That doesnt target the issue that I outlined, because the lack of responsiveness and acknowledgement was related to a different argument that you made and responded to.

This is the general problem with how you do things:

25 minutes ago, zurew said:

Quote

 

• Insta images of playing with guns seemingly under the influence while later implying he was "so close" to deleting himself.
• Claiming to be able to turn into an alien on camera, never being able to show proof of that despite trying.
• Claiming to be the most awake person in existence.

 

You see this and then this is your general approach:

" Okay, so you are telling me that having insta images of playing with a guy and implying that he is so close to unalive himself is sufficient to establish psychotic tendencies? Really? - dont you think I couldnt find some guys who do that and then live a completely functional and normal life? "

And then someone tells you that that wasnt the whole argument and then you continue with:

"Okay, so you are telling me that claiming to be able to turn into an alien on camera and never being able to show proof of that despite trying is alone sufficient to establish psychotic tendencies? Really?  - dont you think I couldnt find some guys who think that or joke about it while they live a normal life? "

And then someone tells you that that wasnt the whole argument and then you continue with:

" Okay you are telling me that someone claiming to be the most awake person in existence alone is sufficient to establish psychotic tendencies? Really? "

---

No, you take all of those things into consideration together and given that conjunction of factors you can still disagree, but be honest about what argument was given.

Edited just now by zurew

 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Wilhelm44 it's not that @zurew is being arrogant and controlling.

He is pointing out you haven't sufficiently provided proof and logical counter arguments to the case presented as a whole. Rather, you fixate on a small line of argument, pivot to the positives Leo presents, and then phrase the conclusion like there is an incompatibility with the conclusion and Leo having good qualities also. Meanwhile you ignore the myriad other reasons needing to be addressed to sufficiently argue a case.

It appears to be an either/or fallacious line of reasoning. Or a false dichotomy.

Edited 3 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[zurew]

41 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Using that as proof of psychotic tendencies is a bit of a low blow.

This is where you were dishonest, because you only picked out the insta images point and then you implied that Carl's original argument was that that one point alone is sufficient and good enough proof to establish  psychotic tendencies.

Edited 3 hours ago by zurew

[Wilhelm44]

2 minutes ago, zurew said:

This is where were dishonest, because you only picked out the insta images point and then you implied that Carl's original argument was that that one point alone is sufficient and good enough proof to establish  psychotic tendencies

I did not imply that all his points might be invalid.

I implied that one of his points might be invalid.

That's all.

[Wilhelm44]

Someone else might come along and wobble another leg of the table, who knows, it's a collective debate.