rnd

I can't fathom this - why people on reddit think that a person can have a single account for the their entire life? And if one is downvoted, then it as if his life becomes more and more ruined. Man, create 10, 100 accounts on reddit and post there whatever you like, anywhere. You've never known that it's allowed and possible? I create a new one every other day, it takes me 5 seconds, while hearing idiots who tell me meanwhile "I'll down vote you and your life will go downhills!".

Last year Leo briefly mentioned a new psychodelic that was even better 5-Meo-Dmt, but he didn't reveal it - "when the right time comes I will...". Does Leo still remember to reveal it? For if he suddenly decides to merge with infinite infinity then it'll remain a mistery.

This question pops up all the time. Let's say I want to create a community and I'm interested in cars; and not only in cars but in, to a certain degree, in other types of vehicles as well. And, obviously, I don't like all the cars all the same as there're the ones that I like the most, let's say, they're Toyota and Ford. Given all that, what would the focus of my future community be, what would it be centered in? The main topic or focus? All of the cars in general? Toyota and Ford? Or certain models of Toyota or Ford? Or cars and some types of vehicles as well? Or cars, some types of vehicles, and how to drive them, and how to flip them for profits, and how and where to buy used cars that are a great deal? The difficulty is that one shouldn't get too narrow in such situations, and neither should one get too broad either. But how can one find the right balance? No matter how you slice it, any topic whatsoever can be a) futher divided into a yet more narrow one b) broaden into a yet wider one

Why do we watch your videos then? Are we all sheeps then? When you, let's say, take courses and thus listen to other coaches, do you become a sheep? On this forum we always ask and listen to each other, are those who ask questions sheeps? I've asked about general principles, a thought process to follow and not a concreate implementation.

Well, I know. But my ego wants more and more, and better, always. Namely, my ego wants to be discovered as something that doesn't exist with the best psychedelic out there, it no longer wants 5-meo-dmt if there's something even better. Ego-s... they are all this way...

Tim Ferris had a podcast last year, summer, where he described that after having taken psychodelics, at some point a bunch of memories appeared, and in those he found out that was sexually abused when he was 2 years or so, old, and regularly so. All the details. And he couldn't help himself but to reveal the story to someone, otherwise he'd go bananas. One may wonder then: Isn't it scarry, after having taking psychodelics, to find out that something might've happened to one as well? Besides, one might not be able to keep it a secret.

I'm aware that it's up to an individual, but I want to know different opinions also and perhaps it'll allow me to organize my notes better. How many notebooks, and what are they? Tabs in each? A new page every day in "main -> journal" or what?

Why disappoint? I've said precisely that in my question.

It works on Mac and it uses the same file format as OneNote, but it's far from OneNote in terms of functionality. And even OneNote itself on Mac is far from functionality from the one on Windows, and besides, it's not offline, hence, yet even more useless. Windows is shit in my opinion, but there's no alternative to OneNote, on Windows or elsewhere, whatsoever, the one I know of. And it's a joy to make notes in OneNote on Windows. The bottom line is, there're only OneNote 2016 on Windows and Outline on Mac, both offline, and that's it. Therefore, one has to have Windows on a flash usb drive to be able to run it with OneNote on it. For Linux there's OneNote, unofficial, but it isn't offline. And for some reason, after a recent update of Outline, OneNote on Windows couldn't open one page from a backup made by Outline - "corrupted".

1) How does iboga compare to 5-meo-dmt, in a nutshell? Better, worse, weaker, completely different, etc? 2) Is it safe for a newbie to start off with it as opposed to other psyhedelics? 3) Is iboga legal in some African countries and is grown there too?

If one describes himself "I'm smart..." (and, perhaps, other things) it already implies that one isn't smart, doesn't it? For if one was smart, one would release that: a) one is, probably, being biased towards himself b) smart compared to whom? is it a binary thing at all? smart in all circumstances? how can smartness be measured? and by whom? by IQ test? Is IQ accurate at all and does a high IQ score really means smartness?

In the context of entrepreneurship. I've watched youtube channels of 2 entrepreneurs for a while. Both are successful in business. But they aren't stars on youtube at all, and this is one reason why they're trustworthy in my opinion. When speaking about "skills, experience, confidence and what comes first", one of them claimns: first you have no skills and hence no confidence, and it's normal. There's no way to cheat here. As you do whatever it is you do in business, by trial and error and pain you become more skilful and thus, after a while, you gain confidence and success. The other claims the opposite: first you should make yourself believe that you're condident and/or that you'll succeed; only after that should go and do your craft. Your believe that you're confident and/or that you'll succeed will allow to actually gain both skills and success. Both opinions seem equally valid to me. What do you think? Which is correct, or more correct? Or both?

I think Leo, in the video about Liberalism, is also wrong about these issues: (1) Leo praises the response to the virus(!) of the very country, China, which has failed(!) to contain it within its borders in the early stage and thus has made the whole world suffer from it. Bravo. Why do you Leo believe the numbers of the amount of infected by virus and dead that come from China? The high numbers in, say, Europe are due, partially, to the fact the European countries are less likely to cover up the real numbers. Or to lesser extent. And to more testing. Whereas the numbers from China should be multiplied by at least 10, if not more, to get some sense of how many infections there have been there. For China is all about not loosing face, censorship, lack of transparency and lie. And no, there wouldn’t be “millions of deaths” in China because the mortality rate of the virus isn’t equal to the one, say, of the bubonic plague. (2) Why have Taiwan, Japan, Hong Kong (without taking into account the recent event regarding the security law) and Korea, for instance, that are way more democratic countries compared to China, been able to curb the virus? They don’t have as central and autoratarian governments as China does. Yet, they’ve been relatively successful. (3) Yes, the CCP may have lifted the people out of poverty. However, one shouldn’t forget who put the people in poverty in the first place. --- Guys, search for “serpentZA” on youtube - he lived in China for 14 years, speaks chinese and has a chinse wife. He has a lot of videos about China. And with no censorship because he no longer lives in China.

"No government, no rules, no regulated market, no taxes. At all". Do liberals want that? Some radical ones, maybe? Questions to Leo: * how come that the US can't afford relatively low taxes whereas some less reach counries can? 5%, under 10% are good taxes. * how come that Leo advocated taxes, however high they are, but the US, apart from other things, also bombs and invades countries, at the moment? Leo essentially pays taxes that, indirectly, fund the US army which then kills civilians from Iraq, Iran, Syria and other countries. * why do you assume that the government isn't corrupt and its laws are fare? * why do you view the taxes as a good thing but forget about the amount? * how come that an ordinary citizen that earns X amount pays Y of taxes, but giant corporations, that earn million times more, may pay 0? * in India there's a lot of bureaucracy. How come that the government isn't effective? Compared to... In the republic of Georgia, Singapore and Switzerland, for instance, there's less bureaucracy. And the structures of the governments are simpler, as far as I know. How come that they're less corrupt and more effective? * how come that the US can't afford free medicine services, whereas Russia, for instance, can? * how come that, despite a lot of regulations, the drugs and the medical services in the US versus India cost... I don't know... 10-100x times more. And it's not that the quality in the US 10-100x as better. It's just that the prices are inflated. * How come that the amount of prisoned people in the US is the highest in the world? The tax payers pay for those people. Yet, the US is far the safest country in the world. This is example of a big bureaucratic, high regulated governement which Leo wants to make even bigger, more bureaucratic and regulated. * In the "ease of doing business" rating some countries, at the top, are small ones with smaller, simpler governments and where there're not lots of regulations. Granted, there're the US and UK somewhere in the first 10-20 too. But not at the top, though. How?

@Leo Gura If I were you, I'd: a) move to a hot tropical country to deal with your cold sensitivity. There're dozens of cheap and decent hot countries. Not islands in the middle of nowhere. b) when there - fasting of 3-7 or 10 days c) optional - enema with your urine, in order to clean up your gut. It's done at home. I did it several times, as an experiment. And there're nuances of how to do it properly.

Youtube Premium you say? * Adverts? They never appear for me. Without Youtube premium. And I've been watching Youtube from different countries and for many years. * Downloading videos - there're 100 and one way to do so, for free, without Youtube premium.

..for developing the skill of eloquence. Spiritual books, on the other hand, aren't written in a way that allows one to develop it an effective way. Eloquence is useful in business. What do you think?

What's the movie called in english? Also, using urine

I think that full-fledged male-female equality is impossible. It's because with equality comes responsibility. Namely, if men and women were 100% equal, it'd mean I'd treat women the way I do men. A woman joged me, even involunteraly? Since we're equal, it's up to me how to respond to her and I may do so with jogging her and even harder. I may kick her in the face. Why not? We're equal, and it were a man there, I might've do it, if I decided that he did it deliberately. That's one of many possible examples of such 100% equality. You, as a female, don't like it? Well, that's 100% equality with men you all talk about. Yet the advocates go on about equality and the "rights of women" part, but forget about possible responsibilities of women. What do you think?

I did take into account gender differencies: a man wouldn't be allowed to come in into a woman's dressing room, and the like. Still I think that fighters for 100% equality between male and female have neglected that 100% equality in rights, treatment, would mean 100% equality in responsibilities as well. If a man commits a crime -- it's usually viewed as terrible. If woman -- not much so. With 100% equality women's crime would viewed equally terrible. Or vise versa -- men's would be viewed less terrible. Equality? Yes. Female body is persived too be more beautiful than men's. 100% equality would have to make such a perseption equal as well; female wouldn't have any special treatment when it comes to beauty. Equality? Yes. No matter what, one will never treat one's dog to be 100% equal to oneself. Yet, that doesn't mean that one may beat a dog. One may love a dog, but they'll never be equal.

Is there a phenomenon that if a person preaches X, he's himself more likely to do the opposite of X and secretely so? If yes, what's it called?

Hypocrisy - may be.

For instance, a person shouts from rooftops "we should love animals" but he himself secretly will abuse them, and also is more likely so, compared to people who don't actively spread the idea of loving animals. And he'll deny that or he may be more blind to the fact he really abuses them. At youtube, someone who eats junk food, sometimes, and hides the fact, will create a channel where he preaches and teaches others to eat healthy food always and that he eats only it always too. And maybe also he'll justify to himself why eats bad food sometimes. Is there a special, well-known single term for this phenomenon or behaviour? If it exists at all - I don't know, I heard somewhere.

Jusy topics about a) generating love in oneself b) radiating it

In some situations I realize that I can do or refrain from doing a thing that's considered low conscious behaviour. In internet, for instance, I, being driven by jelousy, annoied by grammar mistake, how naive, stupid is or a way a person speaks, or something like it, may leave a bad comment. I may not say bad stuff directly, but indirectly - doesn't matter. Or any other similar situation may occur where I get triggered. In such situations, provided that I'd still be willing to commit a bad thing, even if I chose not to commit it, would it - not commiting a bad thing - help me somehow to improve as a person? Not from the point of view "that misdeed would return to you eventually and byte you, therefore it's nice that you've not commited it". But from more direct point of view. I figure that whether or not I do a bad thing, as long as I'd willing to do it, it'd still be as if I did it. I just supressed my desire there's no longer a difference between "done - not done" - both are equally bad already. Therefore, I should focus on becoming more consicious of my motives. And not on "done - not done" thing.