Xonas Pitfall

I am really caught out by how God has happened when I haven’t taken God in God. I am God partially putting this in God so I stop God myself, and partially doing it because I want to God something. Over the last God God I really ramped up the God and started actively pushing for God. I had no God initially, but the God of all God and no God became too much. The last God God have been something I don’t really have God for, it’s been mostly God and lonely God, I connected a lot of God is the best way to put it for God. Other than the initial God, I’ve been working through a more interpersonal God of this God. It started with me God through God, and obviously seeing thousands of God. I’d been really practising staying with the simple God that I am everyone else a lot beforehand, and the raw God of God acted as a God. I was fighting back God it hit me so God. Moreover, recently I caught the God frame, the best way I can put it is I zoomed out just enough to see that this is akin to a God set, and even my God are like a God. It’s kind of scary how little there is behind the God, I guess I understand what God said about realising that the God you were looking for is absolutely God. Finally, its reaching God I wasn’t really ready for, sometimes I can’t even look back at God because the God is just too God. Asking where I know them from is taking me to God I’d forgotten about for a very long God. I’m obviously God, and that’s God. I’m going God trying to separate God from unvalidated God. Frankly I can’t even believe that I am God this. I’m mainly concerned about God, so I guess it’s definitely time for some God. It would be nice if anyone could God this train of God for any obvious God I’m misinterpreting or God, but I’ll find out for myself either God. God are starting to look like they did for a very long God 10 God ago after I took 600-700ug. It’s terrifying yet God, I’m honestly completely gobsmacked (or Godsmacked).

All good! My point was more directed at AION and guys with a similar mindset. I think my only critique on your end was that I recall you talking about wanting a deep connection and praising genuine, selfless love, but most of the posts about femininity seemed more focused on criticizing it as ungrounded, irrational, and illogical, and mainly praising the sexual and beauty aspects instead. I also remember asking you the same question: “How do you plan to have a long-term relationship and maintain attraction as looks change?” and your only answer was “I don’t know, we’ll see,” while continuing to emphasize how important beauty and attraction are. Which, don’t get me wrong, I agree with, but it does feel a bit inconsistent considering the amount of talk about “deep love” and connection. But I think you understand this, so I don’t want to make it a bigger deal or anything Bottom line: if you want a genuine long-term relationship with a woman, you need to respect the feminine. You can’t see it as something irrational, illogical, or purely emotional, while only cherry-picking sexual attraction and physical beauty, and hoping that somehow it will glue and sustain the relationship forever. You can start there, sure, but the bond eventually has to deepen and build over time. Otherwise, you’re setting yourself up to fail from the start. And again, if you simply don’t care about that or cannot ever imagine it, that’s fine. But then that person probably shouldn’t claim authority when talking about what femininity is, the differences between men and women, what love is, or the state of the dating market and relationships in general. It becomes inconsistent and hard to take seriously.

@Natasha Tori Maru I agree fully! My only point was that it’s often disheartening seeing people like AION preach about the corruption of women, how they aren’t modest, feminine, "being hypergamous," and so on, but then live and be proud of the exact lifestyle, which directly contributes to the further corruption of the dating market. I don’t think you should really have the right to complain about the state of the dating market and "deep loving relationships" if your approach is short-term, opportunistic, and hedonistic. That's all!

To clarify, no issue with liking it, of course. I just meant that it very much becomes a mockery of what a real, deep relationship is over time. You can’t really talk about “the desire for a deep, long-term relationship”, “selflessness, pure love“ without being okay with, or at least addressing, this simple fact of life. That being said, I’m not really addressing this to you. I was referring to Aion’s tendency to be very opinionated about “the fall and corruption of women,” while he himself has made multiple accounts of living the same pickup/red-pill lifestyle and never really conceptualizing the possibility of being with someone older. That’s why I asked how he expects to have a proper long-term relationship this way, even though it’s something he speaks about so highly, and, in his worldview, he mostly blames women for this fault.

I think I’ve written this before, but my main issue with @AION is that one can preach about “Love, respect, modesty,” while criticizing women, yet when asked questions like “Can you envision yourself with a woman who is older, as you gradually become less conventionally attracted to your partner as you both naturally age, get sick, through thick and thin, etc?" you get absolute crickets. Again, I don’t mind if you want to live the “Red Pill Leonardo DiCaprio lifestyle”; you’re free to do whatever you want. But you can’t claim that you understand, love, or respect femininity, or that you know anything about deep human relationships, if this is your entire perspective on it. You simply cannot complain about a system that you are actively reinforcing. Leo sometimes falls into this category, too, to be honest. He occasionally says in his videos that he desires a deep relationship and talks about how to truly love another person. Yet if you even mention to him the concept of slowly becoming less attracted to your partner in a long-term companionship, you get more crickets. It’s very clear where the main value lies: beauty and sex. Which, hey, is fine and understandable. But this is a complete mockery of what a genuine, deep connection is and can be.

The title says it all! Inspired by some of the recent blog posts shared, I thought it would be valuable to open up a space for reflection and discussion on the darker sides of human behavior - selfishness, corruption, underdevelopment, and the systems that perpetuate them. Of course, we'll aim to keep everything within the forum's guidelines - and moderators, feel free to step in or close the thread if it veers off course. On a balanced note, I’ll also be creating a companion thread focused on humanity’s goodness, love, selflessness, and progress - both aspects are real and worth exploring.

Sure, but you said this: Doing heroin is less bad than weed in my eyes because it has a huge stigma and barrier to entry, which is good. ?

I want to be charitable to this argument, but I just don’t see it. OF definitely has a stigma, and it’s not like if you say you do OnlyFans, people will assume you’re doing something honorable. Most people will assume you’re doing porn and being a whore online, whether that’s softcore or explicit content, especially if you’re earning a lot. If anything, the porn industry probably has more toxicity involved once you start considering recruitment practices, trafficking, and agencies that have control over these women, along with shady contracts that strip them of ownership over their content and push their boundaries further for content they cannot easily say no to once in the system. I don’t necessarily know which is worse, but I don’t see a strong argument for why traditional porn would be better or worse than OnlyFans. Both carry a significant stigma. Plus, it’s not like porn agencies don’t use OF arguments to recruit women, “You’re gorgeous, Abigail, you’ll make so much money, so easy, so fast!” It’s kind of like saying pimp street prostitution is better than high-end security prostitution in Las Vegas clubs, because at least on the street you’re more likely to face violence, get raped and beaten, and be asked to do more nasty stuff, which would discourage more women from getting involved. “If I can just strip and dance in strip clubs with high-end security for money, then Actuzlied.org wouldn’t even exist!” It’s also more fair from a purely business perspective. When you want to jerk off, you jerk off and "enjoy" the model, and what she does, you are not jerking off to the agent, the cameraman, the tax advisor, or anyone else behind the scenes. Therefore, most of the value is in the model. So most of the power and control should lie with the creator. It’s similar to if YouTube suddenly called you up and said, “By the way, Leo, we’re taking an even bigger cut of your earnings, and also earnings from your course and forum now belong to us too. You are part of our ecosystem and agency, hence we can do it.” If a new platform offered the same opportunities but gave you more control over your content, you’d likely switch immediately and view it as less toxic and more fair overall. Also this, yes.

I do wonder if people would have the same reactions toward the owner of Pornhub or other well-known porn sites. It seems like OnlyFans carries a certain sting for some men because it’s seen as “empowering” women. But when women are coerced into porn or are part of an agency run by a man, those same men are often viewed as legends, "cool chill guy", or just neutral. Hm . . .

I think a helpful way to look at this is through specialization. Adults generally know more than children, but that doesn’t mean any adult is qualified to teach any subject. We ideally still want to rely on trained experts in specific areas. The same logic applies to governance. Wealthy or corporate elites might have deeper knowledge in certain domains, like business or finance, but that doesn’t mean they should have broad, unchecked authority across all areas of public policy. In an ideal system, decision-making would be more “policy-specific.” People with demonstrated knowledge and experience in a given area would have more influence over decisions in that area, rather than power being concentrated in a small group or tied to wealth alone. Right now, democratic systems often end up revolving around electing a single leader or "a vibe", and voters are frequently influenced more by charisma, identity, or surface-level messaging than by careful evaluation of actual policy. One way to think about it is that instead of relying mainly on a human representative system at the top level, you could have a more direct, structured participation system, where people engage with policy through, let's say, for a fun example, a web or mobile platform. On that platform, users wouldn’t pick leaders, but would be presented with policy proposals and asked to respond to them directly, through written input. Before participating, the system could also gather relevant context about each person, such as their experience in specific fields, how much of it is tangible and verifiable, years of work in those areas, relevant certifications, and possibly general knowledge assessments. Based on that, different aspects of policy input could be weighted differently depending on relevance and demonstrated expertise. The idea is that this could filter out low-effort participation to some degree, since many people would not spend the time engaging deeply unless they care about the topic. It could also help distinguish between different levels of understanding, where someone with direct experience in a field might have more informed insight into that domain than someone without it. A.K.A You can see whether the person wrote to “Should immigrants be allowed in the US?” “no because they are gay lol, death to all Mexicans,” compared to a properly written, logical, well-phrased opinion, that would be far more helpful both for data quality and for the actual informational value of the vote. That is much more useful than simply circling the name of a president they like to watch TikTok videos about. Of course, there are serious problems with this kind of system. One major issue is governance: who designs and regulates the system itself? How do you ensure the people defining what counts as “relevant experience” are honest and not biased actors? How do you prevent manipulation, cheating, or people gaming the system by faking credentials or optimizing for whatever increases their influence score? So this kind of system might be a kind of idealized direction; it is very much utopian for now. In principle, though, it tries to move toward a model where specialization, multi-perspective input, and reduced bias and polarization lead to more informed collective decision-making, rather than relying purely on broad, undifferentiated voting or personality-driven leadership. TLDR: I don’t think pure one-person-one-vote democracy works that well because it treats everyone’s input as equally informed. I think voting power should be weighted based on things like experience, domain knowledge, and how much someone actually understands a specific issue, so people who are more informed or experienced in a topic have more influence over decisions in that area. Obviously, you’d need really solid, fair ways to measure that; it could get gamed or corrupted.

"But Leo, You're So Privileged!" blog post is amazing. Thank you.

Unironically, Actualized.org videos

Try it yourself. Do exactly what you’re asking: remove all your assumptions and beliefs. What is anything you can be sure you know? Try to remove everything. The only thing you will be left with is pure “is-ness.” This is now, therefore it is. This is in my direct experience, therefore it is. This “is-ness” is truth, or pure correspondence that things are just what they are, not some other way or with some filter, assumption, or perception added to them. Just A = A. This is what it is. It won’t have any thoughts or any further veil of perception. It really does feel like pure nothingness, or a vacuum of existence, just pure being.

One thing I’m really grateful for with social media is that it exposes more transparently the kinds of people who run for these positions. Before, you’d assume, “Oh, well, hopefully these people have at least some knowledge and level of awareness before running for president, right… right?” How naive of me

Love You!

🤣🤣🤣

Women were very much at the mercy of men who financially supported the family. When you lose power, and someone has that much control over you, it’s easy to imagine how things can become abusive and toxic in a relationship or marriage. The laws used to be much worse, too, and you can still see horrible laws in some parts of the world, such as marrying off girls at 10-12, a lack of access to education, and extreme restrictions on freedom. There are even places where older men genuinely cry for and protest against higher ages of consent. On top of that, we still have pedophilia and sex trafficking rings. So to deny that toxic masculinity doesn't exist, or to claim it is only a reaction to feminism, is unreasonable. Toxic masculinity existed long before women had any real say. A lot of feminism emerged as a reaction to prevent these kinds of horrific outcomes and to give women more power and autonomy. I just wish people understood that when someone identifies with a certain idea, it doesn’t mean they embody the most extreme version of it. You can absolutely appreciate men who are kind, honorable, and genuine, while also not wanting to return to a time where women had to marry young, have children early, and depend entirely on one person for survival or derive all their value from that role. The same applies to men. You can value traditionally feminine traits in women without falling into toxic “red pill” ideologies that glorify power imbalances or assume feminism is simply about making men weaker or useless. People need to stop over-polarizing these issues, because doing so only deepens bias and fuels bitterness about society. There are genuinely good men and women out there, and there are also many who are trying to do better. This really shouldn't be that outrageous to say.

:,)

That’s very true! Let’s lead by example then: a new thread where we eternally terrorize Leo with superior taste. We should also hit his spiritual ego, how God is infinite, and how he’d find beauty in the filthiest of deathcore breakdowns. This ultimately proves his low to low-moderate (8/9) arousal level, mid-tempo (7/9), predictable harmonic complexity with no surprises, atmospheric sonic aesthetic, and soft electronic production (7/9) music touches nowhere near the expanse of infinite love. Bully him into submission. Kriya yoga with metal, guys?

Leo is just a drowsy hipster enthralled by his next safari expedition at heart. Leave the bald man and his mid-tempo (7/9) decibels alone.

What Is Real?

It’s more like asking, ‘Why is it impossible for an ice cream not to be made out of ice, water, milk, and flavor?’ When you ask, ‘Why is it impossible for God not to have others?’ it’s not that it couldn’t happen, it’s that then it wouldn’t be God by definition (its essence, nature). Or saying: ‘Why is it impossible for a cloud not to be in the sky and made of water vapor and tiny water droplets or ice crystals?’ I could imagine a cloud that’s as hard as a rock, sitting on the ground and made of stone!’ That’s fine, you can do that, but that wouldn’t be a cloud; it would be a rock by any common definition.

It’s an even more basic reason. Why do you want to be in a room that is cleaner and smells nicer rather than one that doesn’t? Pure sensations that you can tolerate. Why do you keep listening to a song that is more harmonized instead of one that’s a mess, like something a toddler made with spray paint? If someone is aesthetically pleasing, that’s what it means: it’s easy on the eyes. You want to keep looking at it, being around it, being immersed in it. You allow it to impact you as deeply as possible because it’s so beautiful. Something like that . . . That being said, people definitely find different things and cues more appealing than others, but there are some general qualities that point to survival, comfort, safety, and indicators of health. For example, we tend to find wider smiles more attractive because they can signal a broader airway and better breathing capacity. Because of that, your speech is naturally clearer, your energy is higher, and you’re seen as more attractive; you become more confident and expressive. That increased confidence makes you even more attractive, which people respond to even more, creating a self-reinforcing loop. If you start off attractive, you’re usually treated better, which boosts your confidence and makes you more magnetic.

I'll try my best to explain this. It's very loopy! 😵‍💫 Most words we commonly use refer to finite concepts. When you say “cat,” you are pointing to a defined idea, whether it’s a specific cat or a general concept. That concept includes attributes like whiskers, four legs, and the ability to meow. These attributes define and limit what a “cat” is. Because of this, you cannot reasonably convince someone that a pig is a cat, since their attributes differ. Each term is constrained by its defining characteristics. However, some words behave differently. Certain concepts, like “everything” or “all,” point to something infinite or highly flexible. They are not limited in the same way as ordinary concepts. Instead, they function more like variables or all-encompassing categories. Their definitions are infinitely elastic, you could say. Take the word “everything.” By definition, it must include all things. If you ask whether a box containing “everything” includes a cat, the answer must be yes. Otherwise, it would not truly be “everything.” The same applies to a pig, or any other imaginable object. If something is excluded, then it is no longer “everything,” but rather “everything except that thing.” So, if you ask, “Does a box containing everything include a cookie?” the answer must be yes. If it did not, then it would not truly be a box containing everything, but rather a box containing everything except a cookie. These words have a unique property: their very definition requires them to include all possible things without exception. In a sense, they act like a conceptual container that cannot exclude anything without contradicting itself. Enlightenment reveals that God is defined as “everything,” so God must include all things. If something were excluded, then that definition would no longer hold. It would not be “everything,” but something limited. If God is defined as “everything,” then God must include all things. If something existed that was truly separate from God, then God would no longer be “everything,” but instead “everything except that thing.” That would contradict the definition. Basically, when you ask, “Why would it be impossible for God to create other minds?” it’s like asking, “Why would it be impossible for a cat to not have four legs, whiskers, and meow?” It’s not that it “can’t” or that it’s impossible, it’s that it would stop being a cat. It would be something else entirely, like a pig or a donkey. In the same way, if God could create something completely separate from itself, then God would no longer fit the definition of being all-encompassing. It wouldn’t be “everything,” but something limited. God would not be God if it had an Other. It feels strange because, in everyday language, most things we talk about are limited and distinct. But here you’re talking about a concept / "Being" that, by definition, cannot exclude anything at all. And by the way, when I’m talking about words and definitions here, it’s VERY important not to think of it as just wordplay or language games. This "being" is VERY real, and you can become conscious of it. It’s creepy, but also really cool. Basically, try to first conceptually understand these ideas and paradoxes, and then imagine that it is actually real. What would that being be? A being that is truly all-encompassing? You would call it God.