Leo Gura

Well, don't come crying when the autocrat you poked decides to give you a taste of your own medicine.

How can you trust nature if nature made man? Checkmate.

@AdeptusPsychonautica Good luck with your work. My work stands on its own. I am happy to have people compare my work with your work and discover for themselves which gives them a deeper understanding of consciousness.

What claims need verifying? He's presenting a perspective. Have you verified whether NATO is actually a thread to Russia? How about you start there.

I have not, but I have listened to Vaush's and Destiny's critiques, and I was not impressed.

Here is an alternative, pro-Western perspective:

You really need me to prove to you that the US uses its global hegemony to benefit itself first and foremost? The entire point of becoming a global hegemon is that you get to set the rules to favor you country's economic development and security. This is what all international politics is basically about. It's about posturing to become the top dog with the leverage to overpower all other countries in negotiations. The more power you have the better negotiating terms you get.

Taking Crimea was not self-defeating. Russia gained important strategic access to military ports in the Black Sea.

But I live in the West. I don't benefit from Russia overturning the US-led world order. I benefit from US hegemony. If anything you should be accusing me of a pro-US bias since that's where my bread is buttered. It's that since I was born in Russia it's easier for me to see how biased Western media is when it comes to world perspectives. It's very hard for Western media to see their own biases and to see the world from a non-Western POV.

Perhaps you are right. We'll have to see what is gained and lost. The biggest question will be: Will Putin gain preventing Ukraine from joining NATO? It's not merely my opinion. The US has tried to depose Putin, probably more than once. Hilary Clinton's position was basically to overthrow Putin. Which is why he hated her so much. And I'm sure it wasn't just Hilary Clinton. There are probably plans right now in the CIA for how to depose Putin.

That depends on how you choose to look at it. You see Ukraine as aggression. Putin sees it as a necessary defensive positioning. I'm not saying one is right or wrong. I'm saying it's relative to your survival agenda. What you might want to see is that the Russian perspective is not represented almost AT ALL within Western media. This should make you suspicious. I don't really care much about Russia or Putin. My bias is in understanding the situation as deeply as possible. I don't really care about the morality of it. I care about understanding it. I think Western media has also misunderstood what Putin means by Neo-Nazi's. I don't think he means anti-Semites. I think he means Ukrainian nationalists. Maybe I'm wrong about this. I don't know exactly what Putin means. Is he overblowing his justification? Probably. That's what most countries do when they start a war. The threat is usually over-exaggerated and the other side demonized.

You are asking Putin to give up Ukraine to the West for that. I don't think you understand how important Ukraine is for Putin geo-politically. You are asking Putin to trade an oil pipeline for nukes and missiles pointed as him from Ukraine. I don't think he likes that deal. Putin is the richest guy in the world (by many accounts). I highly doubt that what motivates him is a few billion more dollars. He's beyond needing money. Something deeper motivates him.

Well, this is exactly where you and Putin differ. You have accepted that Russia is to forever remain less powerful whereas Putin believes that Russia should be a great world power and will rise again. You have to really understand Putin's perspective here: He truly believes that Russia deserves to be very powerful and he's willing to do whatever it takes to make that happen. This is no different than what the US or China believes about itself. Also, Russia is not less powerful in the sense that it has enough nukes to destroy any country or the whole world. It's less powerful in specific ways such as economically or in conventional warfare.

It's not less hostile, but it's a matter of principle. Is someone punches you, you punch back on principle. Not because it will make things less hostile but because you need to show that you will not allow yourself to be bullied. Who in the West will want to fuck with Putin after this war in Ukraine? Now when he negotiates he's taken more seriously. Yes, it's not a good situation because it's an arms race. So both sides are stuck in a losing situation. NATO feels more justified in expanding now, which makes Putin feel more justified in being aggressive. This is a classic arms race.

NATO doesn't want to destroy Russia, NATO wants to corner Russia and force Russia into a US-lead Western world order that serves the US first at the expense of Russia. The US sets the rules of the Western world order which are of course most favorable to the US. Obviously this is not in Russia's interest. Within the Western world order Putin's government would be overthrown because it doesn't serve US interests.

1) I agree that the West is more developed than Russia/Soviet block. However, from a purely pragmatic POV it doesn't matter because just because the animal you've backed into a corner is rabid does not make the animal any less dangerous to you. It does little good to respond with, "Yeah, we backed this dumb rabid animal into a corner, but we are so much more evolved than this animal. No one wants to be friends with this animal anyway." Okay, fine. You are morally superior. But now war. Yes, Russia is much weaker. Which is exactly why it is more easily threatened and needs to take its security much more seriously than the West. 2) NATO and the West played a big part in the collapse of the Soviet Union and the pillaging of Russia. This is a bit like beating a handicapped kid and stealing his money. Some day the kid will fight back. 3) You are sorta dismissing the point about NATO expansion. Russia's point is that if NATO expansion had stopped there would be no war with Ukraine. Now, you can dispute that. You could say that Putin would have invaded his neighbors anyway. Maybe that's true. But also consider... maybe it's not true. How do you know? In recent negotiations between Biden and Putin before the war, Putin's demands were pretty clear and simple: Stop eastward NATO expansion, stop moving missiles to Russia's boarder, legally promise that Ukraine will not join NATO. This is what he wanted. He was effectively laughed out of the room. So what would you do if you were Putin?

Give it some time and you feel forget about. Awakening strips life of all meaning. Because all meaning is a fabrication and a function of survival. Yes, life feels empty without meaning because it is empty.

I can easily tell from your talking and your own trip reports your level of consciousness and understanding of spiritual truths, or lack thereof. So I don't need your life story. It's not so simple. They were not just in the moment utterances. Profound truths were communicated to you which went over your head because you are more interested in critique and nitpicking than understanding how consciousness works. You're not a malicious troll. You just don't understand the depth to which consciousness goes.

Vaush underplays the fact that in a nuclear arms race (which NATO vs Russia is) strengthening defense is an escalatory move. One side cannot just keep raising their defenses and then acting surprised when the other side counters by raising their offenses. It would be foolish in this scenario for the defense-raising side to cry, "But we were just being defensive! We weren't hurting anyone. But you guys are the bad guys because you started going offensive!" Defense and offense are entangled. If the West has overwhelming defensive capabilities and keeps raising them every year, Russia will be forced into an offensive posture, and start looking to create a defensive buffer zone. Yes, NATO is primarily defensive. However, what is not acknowledged is that raising defense in such an overwhelming way is legitimately threatening and perpetuates an arms race. "But Russia has nothing to fear!" is not a serious position. If Russia was not proactive the US and NATO would certainly stage a coup and depose their government. This much is obvious. The US is not going to stop until it has a pro-US government in Russia.

Make up your own mind. But what you should notice is that the narrative of Western media is so one-sided that it's not surprising that Mearsheimer's perspective gets dismissed or rationalized away. It doesn't fit the pre-existing narrative that is hammered in the news every day. There is of course also little desire for the West to take any responsibility for the images coming out of Ukraine, so it's understandable why Mearsheimer's perspective would be quickly dismissed. But again, make up your own mind. There is no one to tell you who is right. The fundamental blindspot that I see in the West is that no one wants to acknowledge that NATO could be seen as a legitimate threat by anyone. The Western narrative is: anyone who sees NATO as a serious threat is crazy, psychopathic, or evil. Anyone who feels threatened by NATO is a bad faith actor. Well... that kind of view is exactly what could start a war. If Mearsheimer is just wrong, how come he was able to predict that Russia would go to war over Ukraine over 5 years ago? That's a pretty impressive prediction. Was he just lucky? Overall, the West was very surprised that Russia invaded Ukraine. Is that because Putin is a madman, or is that because the West failed to understand the geo-political situation? It's not like Russia has not been warning about this and raising concerns about it for over a decade. The record is clear on that. Russia's warnings were just never taken seriously by the West. The situation reminds of this scenario: guys at the corporate office have a culture of groping women's asses. They grope ass every week. The couple of women who work there keep telling them to stop, it's hurtful, but the guys think it's all just fun and games and that no one is getting hurt. So they keep groping ass for 10 years. Then some woman finally get fed up and tells them, "If you touch my ass one more time I'm going to fight back." But they laugh it off. Then one day they grab her ass and shes stabs one of the guys in the dick with a letter opener. All the guys are shocked, surprised, and horrified. "OMG! How could this woman be such an insane psychopath! What's the big deal? All we were doing was just grabbing some ass. That isn't hurting anyone. Ass is great for grabbin'. That's what ass if for. Anyhow boys... let's get back to groping that ass. Let's grope some titties too. I hear a few boys in accounting want join in. What's the big deal? Every man has the right to freely choose to be part of our ass-grabbin club. Let's throw them a welcome party. And in the future if any woman complains about us, we'll have our boys in accounting cut her salary in half. That'll make her think twice."

This has turned into yet another solipsism mental masturbation thread, so shutting it down. You guys are not going to get it with your questions. So just stop.

They seem delusional to you because you fundamentally don't understand how spirituality works. So you lack a larger context for some of the radical things I have said. That which your mind cannot fathom, that which is beyond your direct experience, you call "delusional" because that's the only way your mind knows how to make sense of reality. You also are not taking into account the raw nature of my awakening reports. Things are reported as they occurred for me without polishing them up for critics and the spiritually clueless. There is a difference between a formal teaching vs a report of profound awakenings happening as I go through the process and describe the process as it feels and occurs for me while in the midst of it. It's the difference between talking about WW2 as a historian in a university vs being in the front lines of WW2 with bombs falling on your head. You have taken some of my most radical awakenings and experiments in consciousness -- which you have no intellectual understanding of -- and made a mockery of them. I have watched your criticisms of my work, and it is based on some basic misunderstandings of how spirituality works. Anyways, the sum total body of my work speaks for itself. I feel no need to justify or defend it. Not really. The behavior on this forum is not out of line for how online forums work, or for how the internet as a whole works. We do a lot of moderation to stop toxic behavior here. You have to learn to make your own decisions in life. I am not the CEO of your life, you are. And until you start taking responsibility for being the CEO of your life you will continue to suffer not just at my hands but the hands of many other humans who you give your authority away to. The thing is, you don't want to take this responsibility. You want someone like me to tell you what to do in life. So you can just paint by numbers. Well... that's not how a good life is created. I would tell you to go walk off a cliff -- just so you stop following my words blindly -- but I'm afraid you might take me seriously.

That doesn't mean what you think it means.

No

Lol