Leo's Blog: Infinite Insights — Page 3

Where I agree with feminism:

• Women should have equal legal rights and moral worth as men.
• Women should be treated with respect and not abused or exploited by men. A woman's sovereignty is no less important than a man's.
• Women should not be treated as sexual objects or objects to satisfy men's desires and needs. That women don't owe men sex.
• Women should not be discriminated against in the workplace.
• Women should be paid equally well for doing equal work. (But only if they do truly equal work.)
• That women deserve credit and compensation for unpaid labor like childcare and so on.
• There is such a thing as a male-centric view of the world, a male-centric epistemology so-to-speak, which is a problematic bias to have.
• That women should have equal voting rights.
• That women should have reproductive rights, abortion rights. Men should not have the right to force women to carry babies.
• That sexual harassment and abuse is a real problem that need remedies. That rape accusations should be listened to and taken seriously, (but also with due process).
• That toxic masculinity is a real problem.

Where I disagree with feminism:

• Overarching narrative of an oppressive patriarchy. Everything framed through the monolithic paradigm of patriarchy.
• That men and women are equal in biology or psychology. That you can't even distinguish men and women.
• That men and women should be treated equally and have equal expectations.
• That matriarchy is a solution to our problems.
• That men's objectification of women and men's psychology is merely bad patriarchal social conditioning.
• That women are equally capable to men. That women are as capable as men at war, combat, policing, construction, sports, engineering, leadership, etc.
• That women should strive to be more like men, more masculine, more in leadership roles. Turning women into men.
• That traditional gender roles are merely a social construct and can and should be changed or equalized.
• That people are born as blank slates and can be socially molded into any gender, any role. That gender roles are somehow arbitrary and could be otherwise.
• That men are the source of our problems. That masculinity is bad or problematic.
• That inequality can be measured simplistically by looking at gender ratios in jobs, or annual salaries, and the like.
• That women are victims. Women need to be more responsible for sexual abuse. Women are not innocent victims in all this. Women need to be responsible for being attracted to abusive and corrupt men.
• Overemphasis on identity politics. That it is an absolute good when a woman is elected or hired, regardless of other factors. There are plenty of corrupt, ignorant, incompetent women in the world.
• The post-modernist aspects of feminism which deny the existence of truth, human nature, biology, gender.
• That women enjoy privileges which men do not, and this needs to be understood and acknowledged.
• The simplistic attitude of "Believe all women". Women do sometimes lie and distort reality. Deplatforming people, canceling people, demonizing people without any due process, just based on accusations, is wrong. Men must have a way of defending themselves against slander.
• People should be hired based on merit, not gender quotas. But diversity is still an important virtue as well.
• That men need specialized advice and training on how to be masculine. Feminizing men is not a solution. Turning men into women is a big problem.
• That women have equal orientation towards truth as men.

Of course there are various kinds of feminism so it is not possible to characterize all feminists as being this or that way. Mostly I agree with 1st and 2nd wave feminism. 3rd and 4th wave post-modern feminism is where I start to disagree because it becomes detached from material reality and starts to get silly and self-absorbed.

I recommend you read some feminist work and come to your own independent conclusions. Do not adopt my opinions just because they are my opinions.

Another cult documentary I'm watching. Very good.

I'll be sharing about a dozen cult documentaries with you over the next month here. I suggest you study them carefully and learn the lessons.

The brain is an imaginary engine running on imaginary fuel. The fuel is neurotransmitters. Different fuel produces different performance. The brain’s default fuel is the lowest kind, with the least conscious performance, the least spiritual. Higher fuels produce higher spiritual performance, higher consciousness. Psychedelics are not “drugs”, they are different neurotransmitters, high-octane fuels. But higher fuels are not free, they come with costs and trade-offs. You get a temporary performance boost but the performance is unsustainable and stresses the engine. However, it produces incredible consciousness which is absolutely impossible to attain on the default fuel.

Everyone takes for granted their default fuel. Unless you’ve tried other fuels, you don’t even know you have a default fuel. There is no such thing as a brain without fuel. You are always running on some fuel, the only question is what? The default fuel is the lowest one, so your “sober” state is the lowest state, the least intelligent state, the least spiritual state. Humanity does not understand this. They think their sober state is the best when it actually the worst. Yet all human thinking, sense-making, science, decision-making, business, action, and religion is happening from the lowest state, which is why mankind is so corrupt and spiritually bankrupt, to the point of demonizing and criminalizing most high performance fuels. This is one of mankind’s greatest blind-spots. Even spiritual teachers are dishonest and ignorant of this blind-spot, further misleading mankind. The simple reason that mankind is so ignorant of God is because they insist on using the wrong fuel and that the fuel doesn’t matter — when it is the #1 factor in all of spirituality. You are trying to understand Reality using the shittiest fuel. That's why your progress is so slow.

Scientists are like people trying to launch rockets with unrefined crude oil, when they should be using liquid hydrogen. They don't understand this, and when you tell them, they don't believe you and make excuses. They will even demonize and excommunicate any scientist who openly admits to using high performance fuels. It is no different than how they demonized the use of telescopes in Galileo's time.

One of mankind's greatest stupidities and barbarities is to demonize brain fuels they have never tried. It is as stupid as demonizing telescopes. The tool is demonized precisely because it expands the ego's finite horizon.

Don't forget, your brain IS drugs. There is no such thing as a brain without drugs. Don't kid yourself, you are a soup of chemicals and what those chemicals are matters a lot. There are better and worse chemicals, and you cannot assume that your current concoction is the best, the "natural", or the truest one. You don't know what the best is.

Note: There actually are lower fuels than the default fuel. So I am oversimplifying. Moreover, the brain's fuels are much broader in effect than car engine fuels. A car engine's fuels don't have nearly as much diversity of effects on the engine as the brain's fuels do. Changing the fuel in your car cannot turn your car into a submarine. But with the brain, it can. So this fuel analogy understates the point. Fuel for the brain is way more significant than fuel for a car engine. People do not understand this.

Another cult documentary I'm watching. Sick twisted shit. This is true gaslighting. This is a true cult.