Scholar

I perceive this to be psychopathic. In the end I think the only way to change people like you from existing is to social human beings properly, and nourish in them a connection to all life, and not simply to human life. I think if you had been socialized in a particular way, you would cut off the heads of human beings with as little care as you cut off the heads of chickens.

Can you provide evidence that people who eat a well balanced vegan diet + supplements have a high rate of malnutrition? And no, videos on youtube are not sufficient to me.

This is not the study I remember but it is also good: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC7779846/ You can take a look at eTable3. And here: https://veganhealth.org/vitamin-b12/homocysteine-and-mild-b12-deficiency-in-vegans/#Homocysteine-in-Vegetarians

I don't get my information from random people selling diet books, on some random website. We have research that has shown veganism to be sustainable and healthy if done responsibly, I think the carnivore community is largely based around paranoid fears and diet fads. But either way listening to interviews to get at truth is just a really bad idea, that's the best way to actually get into some really harmful ideology. I will try to find the study but it was a long time ago and I don't keep them around, in the meantime you can get me that source on vitamin b12 supplementation being a poor substitute for avoiding b12 deficiency. One that actually includes all forms of supplementation and not just a particular form of B12, just as a heads-up.

Why do you say vitamin tablets are a poor substitute for B12? Vegans who take B12 have less occurance of B12 deficiency than omnivores. I simply do not understand why people are just so willing to misrepresent facts and misinform people on this forum. You are not doing your basic duty as a member of a conscious community when you just willy nilly spread ideas around that you probably didn't even research yourself.

@mojsterr Look, I think you are not being honest with yourself at all. I think you have fallen victim to the carnivore dogmatism and I don't have the time and will to engage with that because it's like talking to a broken record in my experience. I would urge you to inspect the idea that we need meat to survive, because that is where you are deluded in my opinion. It seems to me like you are motivated to believe that so you can continue with your behavior, or because you made some experiences in the past that make you dogmatically opposed to the idea of living without the consumption of meat.

I don't think you have stripped "all beliefs", you believe humans need meat to survive, which in my view showcases you have dogmatic belief systems intact, which infact makes your belief about having dissolved all beliefs all the more dangerous. Again, I do not think you accept suffering, you accept suffering where it serves you. You don't actually suffer, and you avoid suffering actively, and willing to cause it to others to do so. What you are saying a rapist could say too, imagine that as a defense in court. "My honor, we must accept the good aswell as the bad, which is why I raped this person, how could I not? It's the only possible logical conclusion, I know your ego won't recognize this your honor but, suffering must exist for joy to exist." If you don't want to deny suffering, why not cause suffering to yourself, and the accept it? Why is it suffering that is outside of you, that is not direct to you, that you claim to accept? Try to eat only vegetables, and suffer. And accept the suffering that will come with it. Put your grand ideas to the test.

I don't think you actually accept the dark sides of life. You accept the dark sides of life if they serve you. For example, if you want to eat meat, you accept the dark sides of life. If someone rapes you and cuts your limbs off, you'll call for the institutions to protect you real quick. In the end I think you will not apply your logic to humans and yourself because it wouldn't be self serving, and in my opinion all of this "contemplation" is about serving yourself rather than actually accepting anything. It's easy to accept suffering when it's not your suffering, and it's easy to accept death when it is not yours. That's just more devilry in my book.

And also notice this little story: None of you were ever interested in Truth. That's a lie you tell yourself. If you were interested in Truth, you would stare at Redness all day long in absolute bliss and satisfaction. All that is already is Truth. You have no interest in the Rawness of all that Is. Before you could be interested in truth you had to go through an entire quest of Recontextualizing Truth. You basically put a bunch of sugar on your Truth and now that you are "enlightened" you say "Oh look how wonderful truth is". If you had truly through Truth to be wonderful, you wouldn't have needed to recontextualize it at all. You only like Truth in a recontextualized state. You have a very particular kind of selective interest, and Leo in particular values "Understanding" more so than "Truth". If he valued Truth, he would look at Redness and be satisfied. His quest would have been over before it had started. This quest of Understanding is a result of a particulate incarnation. The Truth is this: It was deemed so. That's all. Notice how unsatisfying this is to an intellectual chimp mind greedy for understanding. That kind of chimp mind will naturally ignore this, and go on to seek more and more and more. And it was deemed to be given, as it was deemed to be sought after. It is in no way different from the ant, who has it's own selective desires. For the ant infact, a state of unseparation and grand totality of awareness might already be present and mundane. It might be much more interested in serving it's colony. That which is mundane to the ant might be the entire purpose of all of existence to the chimp mind. Why? Because it was deemed so. Causes don't originate Effects, rather: Causes are deemed to be Causes of Effects.

In my opinion there is an unawareness in this community in particular about the "deeming it so", because there is a biased focus on realization of the extradordinary kind. The "deeming it so" is something mundane, it is found in that which you are blind to because of how much for granted you take it, for example Redness. The bias towards God-Realization has created a particular kind of reaction of the particulate incarnation, a reaction which is very predictable and Leo is currently living out, which many of you will also live out due to following a similar path. Of course it will be Absolute, because it was deemed so. And that precise deeming it so is what many do not notice. There is a particular belief system here that is about "Increasing Awareness", and so forth. And the extraordinary insights that are sought, within extraordinary states, kind of blind the monkey mind and make it go a bit crazy over it. There is a reason why the human mind is so attracted to these realizations. Even within meditation practices these states are often sought, rather than looking at Redness and recognizing the Causeless Cause. The Causeless Cause is not just found in a God realization, it is that which deems God realizations. You can notice the Causeless Cause, pure Divinity, in any state. And once you see it in any state, it will be the same in all states. There is no state that will be more or less "Causeless", the deeming it so will be Mystery. And that Mystery the Deeming it so. Notice this: You can realize total awareness, and then increase that total awareness. That is because it is deemed so. It can be deemed so ad-infinitum, because that is the nature of the deeming it so. It is Causeless, it requires no reason, no limitation, it is pure Divinity. This particular incarnate had in interest in more intense and grander awareness, of "knowledge" and "insight", and that is what was deemed to be given, that is what is deemed to be. Also, there is this quest of "What is the fundamental Nature of Existence/Consciousness", and then one looks into it. Well, whatever one will find was simply deemed to be found. It can always be deemed to find more and more and more (if it is deemed so).

I do not need to notice it because I am fully aware of it being "Deemed so". What I urge you to notice is that to participate in any of this conversation, you have to participate in the "Deeming of it so", which you seem to be unaware of, as your questions would be rendered pointless. They are the process of "Deeming it so". The Idea of duality is "deeming it so", "deeming it so" is more fundamental. If it is not deemed so, there is no duality, no duality would need be required if it was not deemed so, but you do deem it so, which is why you say "Look, you created a seperation between Mind and God". Well, that is only the case if it is deemed it so. If it is not deemed so, nothing I said or thought or did created a subtle duality or separation between you and God. That deeming it so is what you could come to see, and then pointing these things out might be deemed as senseless.

You are not the only mind, that is a framing that was created as a reaction to delusions present within Mind. The monkey mind likes to make a story out of a realization, and then suddenly frame it as a new thing, a new delusion. The monkey mind will then say "Oh oh, look I am the only mind, no other mind but mine exists!". Being unaware of the function of the monkey mind will trap one in this delusion. The entire way you just framed "One Mind", is merely that, a conceptual framework of the monkey mind. That is what Leo tends to have issues with, he fails to distinguish Truth from truth that comes as a reaction from the monkey mind to Truth. Even this delusion can be "transcended". It's not "your" Mind, it's simply Mind. Mind is another word for Existence or Reality. The framework you are using in the first place is incredibly monkey based, notice this. Only monkeys know the concept of mind, and other-mind and so forth, and that is how the monkey is trapped after the realization. This happened because monkey-dynamics have not been dissolved. The fact that you chose words like "Mind" and "Imagination", is evidence for the bias you have, it is evidence of your particulate incarnation. It is not Truth, unless it is deemed so. You will be trapped helplessly in this until you realize the nature of "Deeming it so", which is not psychological, but metaphysical.

God shows ultimate compassion to all of Creation. God is so compassionate that he will feel every bit of suffering of every creature that exists. There is nothing for which he has no compassion for. He understands all suffering, because he is all suffering. His compassion is direct, his empathy is complete. That's why embodying the Essence of the Divine means to be compassionate. It means to learn how to suffer, not to learn how to escape it. To feel everything there is to feel. Compassion is Being, it is Connection and Union. Human empathy is nothing but a premature version of the Compassion of God, an imitation of a deeper truth. There is no illusion, other than illusion. The only thing that is, is this. Compassion and Empathy are perceptions, they are like your eye-sight. They give you insight to the structure of the world. If you are blind, notice how it is more difficult to traverse the universe and explore it. Compassion and Empathy is one way to experience Truth, and it is Truth itself.

Technology can be used for the good and the bad. But that will be the case either way, the only hope you have is that the individuals in these companies are conscious enough to use this technology responsibly. If humanity cannot figure out how to use measely technologies like these responsibly, we will not stand a chance to survive the next 1000 years. At some point, there might be a technology that could easily wipe out all life on earth. Infact, at some point anyone might be able to create such a technology in their garage, that's how much technology could evolve. Before then, we have to have these problems figured out and solved. And these small, insignificant technologies are a perfect way for us to explore this and make mistakes so that we can learn from them. If humanity stays as it is now, as simply evolves technologically speaking, it will certainly wipe itself out. We already are on that pathway, and we can barely motivate ourselves to act in our best interest. Mankind is deeply dysfunctional, underdeveloped, ignorant and selfish. Much to learn, we have. Be glad that you are not part of the generation that will have to worry about self-replicating nano-bots that can easily be programmed to consume all organic matter and turn it into toxic, radioactive waste, and that once you release them into the world are impossible to stop. If there is one bad or even incompetent actor in that world that has access to that technology, it would be the end.

This is war, and there is currently an asymmetry between the West and the East which gives the East (Russia and China) a significant advantage in information warfare. China and Russia control information flow within their own borders, therefore outside influence is significantly limited. On the other hand the West has very little control over information flow, allowing other state actors to project significant influence. The limitations on freedom are always set by the level of consciousness of the most underdeveloped individuals within any system. If all actors were highly conscious, restrictions on freedom would not be necessary. Because this is not the case, limitations on freedom are the most sensible and least destructive path. Remember, Russia and China already are at war with us. They already block every information that deem undesirable, and attempt to corrupt our systems through disinformation campaigns, which has so far worked very well. They are not communicating with us, they are manipulating us. In this case, pragmatics trump ideals. In my view the damage done by uncontrolled information flow is significant, and a far, far greater problem than covid and the current wars. The epistemic ground of a significant portion of entire generations of people have been irreversably damaged, what I mean by that is that there is no possible way to pull them out of their epistemic holes (conspiracy theories and so forth). The consequences of this are unpredictable and in my view could result in the greatest challenges humanity will face in the 21st century. The faith in institutions is being undermined and it is to the detriment of society and the future of mankind. In a similar manner, countries like China and Russia are playing with fire at this moment, abusing their ability to control their population, which at some point could lead to unintended consequences. Once you tell people over and over a lie, at some point when you decide the lie does not serve your own self interests anymore, it might be too late for you to correct it. At that point, you will have created something that is out of your control. The forces at play here are significant, and the idea that freedom will lead to Truth might simply be a false assumption. It might very well be the case that all that freedom in this landscape leads to is a regression into self-bias. If you give a biased person the freedom to choose their information, they will choose the information that serves them, not the information that is truthful. Look at how many people make this entire conflict about the US and the West. People do this because it serves their ideology. When they see Ukranians suffer, all they see is an opportunity to reinforce and project their own self-interests onto the world. Freedom of information to the unconscious is like freedom of food to a 8 year old child. If you give that freedom to your child, it will not grow up to be a healthy individual. What we are currently doing with society is absurdly irresponsible and unconscious, and I think future generations will clearly see our blind spots. "How could they have possibly thought this was a good idea?", they will say. "These poor animals, they just didn't know any better." We as a collective have not decided to take agency and responsibility for the future of mankind. We all just do our thing, and we think if everyone just does their thing, that society will be good. "If you leave me alone I will leave you alone!", that is the current limitation of our society, it defines the current stage of development. Self-interest as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. We have not yet grown up and realized that we are all responsible for the trajectory of all life on this earth. That you are responsible for this, and that what you do with your life will have a direct impact on every individual that will exist a million years from now. Mankind is barely future oriented, we do not find purpose in building a better future for everyone, we find most purpose in fleeting pleasures.

As far as I understand, if you want to experience actual Chinese culture you will be better to live in Taiwan, as it has it's traditions still preserved. In China alot of the authentic culture was eradicated through communism. You will also have an easier time to connect to the taiwanese as they are more compatible with western values. What you currently observe in China is very heavily Stage Red and Blue on the spiral, so you have a unique opportunity to understand these stages of development.

I think they in particular defined it as soldiers who are in Ukraine, and this is only allowed in Poland, Ukraine and Russia. They also allowed calling death to Putin but only if there is no credible reason to believe that these calls for violence have an intention to be actualized. Basically Facebook doesn't want to get involved in censoring people who currently speak up against the invasion, which considering how emotional of a topic that is will have language that falls outside of the norm. From what I understand imperialism in the past usually was a result of a genuine desire to unify and create a world of harmony and peace. This kind of desire was present in many of the great Conquerors, including Adolf Hitler. The desire for Utopia is an essential part of Imperialism. And it works, Imperialism actually served to unify the world. We would not live in the world we live in if there was no imperalism, if people hadn't been forcefully unified into a bigger identity. Imperialism was one of the main drivers of human progress. At this moment, Western and American imperialism is one of the main drivers of the unification of the world. Culture is being distributed, and thanks to that the ability to understand and communicate with each other. Remember, if cultures cannot relate to each other, they will tend to communicate and negotiate through conflict. There has to be one overarching world-culture, for the world to be at peace. Western culture will attempt to smother any other culture, and seek to integrate it into itself. This is a process of evolution. Western culture is the most likely to dominate the future because it is the most advanced and because we have reached a point of stability that makes it unlikely that a fundamental change will occur at this point. It is also unlikely that a completely new culture will emerge and define progress, simply because of the tendency of collectives to take the path of least resistance.

Why do you think NATO would have built missile silos in Ukraine? What makes you think that American leadership wanted to make Ukraine a battleground? What nations that joined NATO after the fall of the soviet union have missile silos, with what you presumably refer to having nuclear strike capabilities? Also, if American leadership wanted Ukraine to be a future battleground, I would assume they would be against them joining NATO, as it would not allow for the same kind of warfare. If Ukraine had joined NATO, any attack on Ukraine would be considered a declaration of war on all of NATO and require a full offensive response, which I do not think is in the interest of any NATO country, let alone the US. The fact that Ukraine is not in NATO currently plays in the hands of the US. A Ukraine that is not part of NATO is the perfect buffer zone. An invasion of the Ukraine will not lead to a full war, but cripple Russia and put an end to dying empire. Basically, what we have seen here was the perfect scenario. No direct involvement in the war, while defeating and humiliating your enemy.

Yes it's actually a good video to showcase the bias of some people, Mr Girl did a good job revealing that.

Ukraine wasn't going to join NATO and couldn't have joined NATO as long as it had border disputes, so nothing was actually gained. We even have official statements now that Ukraine had no plans to join NATO either, all it really wanted to do is join the EU.

He shits on western culture all the time and actually had held the anit-nato position before he did his research.

Minor differences.

I think it was revealed that it is a delusion, Putin wasn't tracking reality as it was, and his people are paying for it. Also notice how this is precisely the motivation that fueled Hitler and his ambitions for the Third Reich.

Hitler had the same aspirations, there is no difference. Hitler wanted good for his people, and he was willing to sacrifice others for that goal. Remember, Hitler came to power as a result of a previous lost conflict, similar to the fall of the Soviet Union. People have treated germany harshly, which gave Hitler the motivation to do what he did, aswell as allow for his people to support him. I think people genuinely didn't think Putin was capable of making such a sacrifice for the sake of his own delusions about the world and what it should be.