Jump to content

Actualized.org and Leo Gura must be stopped


Reena

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:


What's wrong with sounding a bit like Leo?  We both were philosophy majors in college.  I don't interpret people in a black and white, all or nothing way.  Things are quite nuanced in my world.  Sounds like you're using me as a way to outsource some issues you have and I'm sorry you have to do that, especially with me as your target.  But I'm not going to sit here and let you victimize me either without lodging a defense.  

you are choosing to be "victimized" because you (apparently) have a "victim" mindset.  i just gave you a little bit of shit, and told you why i disagree with what you said in your video, and that i thought it was a weird thing to post in this thread.  i don't think i broke any forum guidelines, so there is no reason for me to be banned.  now, i really don't want to take up more of this thread with this, so if you want to continue this, lets do it in your other thread on this topic.

Edited by sacredprofane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:


Don't pick on me man.  I'm a fighter by trade.  It's better to engage me with respect.

i'm just saying.  i didn't slander you.  if i did you'd be able to tell me how i did.  YOU referred to yourself as a victim first and then said you weren't.  maybe you need to be more careful how you choose your words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

 

I hate this shit.   These online forums are all problematic.   I'll never come back on here again.

dude.  really?  how are you expecting to be taken seriously when this is how you respond to criticism?  i thought you were a "fighter" what is this?  its like everything you say you immediately contradict...

Edited by sacredprofane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, MetaSage said:

Geez,you're seriously resented that you were banned for operating multiple duplicate accounts.

There's simply no need to read or reply to my thread if your goal is to leave a mean comment. I'm not in a proper mental state and if you cannot show empathy then simply do not generate unnecessary hostility on my thread. 

My disagreements with Leo had started long before the ban. Almost six months. He had made racist comments and i wasn't the only one to call him out on it. I directly called him a racist and objected to his regular sexism on the dating forum. 

I received warning points for calling a guy ugly. But that guy had been harassing me for months and months and nothing was being done about that despite reporting his behaviour to multiple mods. It had seriously degraded my mental health and Leo was using victim blaming language instead of addressing the guy's behavior. Leo often says that he wants tier 2 discussions on the forum then how is discussion on Andrew Tate a tier 2 discussion. When I objected to those discussions, he began threatening me with a ban. 

So banning me was already on his mind and a typical scenario that I have observed with him is that he first makes the decision to ban a member and then finds an opportunity when they slip up and bans them. This is very biased behavior for a man who talks about how pedophilia is love, how there is no good or evil, that we must forgive if someone hurt us, yes I hurt him, but he could have chosen to forgive me, as an embodiment of all the values that he keeps preaching. If he cannot forgive a small mistake or bad behavior on my part then he has no right to talk about evil, morality, God and forgiveness . 

There were situations where people name called me and I could have easily taken advantage of that and gotten them warning points but I let go and specifically told moderators to not give warning points. 

Regarding flouting forum guidelines, there are so many people on Actualized who flouted forum guidelines too. Why are the rules different only for me? 

There were people who were banned who came back and created new accounts. If they were openly breaking forum guidelines, then why didn't Leo ban them? There were users like Michael who openly used multiple duplicate accounts and even wrote different journals with them. He even messaged me through those multiple accounts. He was never banned. 

When I saw that, it obviously gives the feeling that there's no problem if I did the same. People copy and follow by example. 

For nearly 4 years I saw several members create multiple accounts. When I informed the mods, the mods told me it's not a problem as long as they are not saying anything harmful to anyone. 

 

So my question is - why did the rules suddenly change for me? Leo immediately makes a post on how duplicate accounts are not allowed. But then why were they allowed for so long? 

 

Leo's banning appeared to personally target me. Because if it were a real problem, he should have banned many people over the course of 4 years. Which he didn't. 

 

Also on multiple occasions, Leo would threaten me with a ban, when I would be engaged in fights with other members on Actualized. But for a fight, two people are needed right? A fight doesn't involve just one person. In fact in most situations, it's the other users constantly trying to get on my nerves and instigating fights and me reacting to them. 

Then why not warn them? Why only make me the target? 

 

The fact is this - when someone is attacked by many users on Actualized org (and personal attacks are equivalent to bullying and isn't it given in forum guidelines that personal attacks are not allowed, then why is Leo not too concerned about it, why won't he take that guideline seriously, yes obviously because he doesn't care if someone feels harassed on the forum since it's not a threat to his brand in anyway, because he doesn't give a damn about the mental wellbeing of people on the forum). So instead of warning people to behave right, he takes the better option of banning the person being disliked by many members because that saves him headache and not having to ban many people. Instead just ban the person facing a problem. His policy is not to address a problem but rather make the problem disappear.  Isn't this what happens very often to sexual assault victims in a corporation? Since they have to lay off all the men responsible for the sexual abuse, they instead try to target the complaining woman and get rid of her so they don't have to deal with the mess. Typical scapegoating. That's what happened to me. 

Instead of addressing the problem, I was made into a problem. 

And I was going through a huge mental crisis  when he banned me. I was released from the psychiatric hospital just weeks prior to the ban and I had personally told him that so he was perfectly aware of my situation. Why did he not show the least bit of consideration for my mental health when he constantly keeps preaching forgiveness and letting go? 

By the way, Leo always uses the benefit of the doubt when it comes to himself,... People are always supposed to forgive him, when he does something wrong. When members call someone stupid, they are banned for name callling. But Leo freely calls everyone stupid all the time, why aren't the rules applicable to him? If this is not a cult.... Why does he always get a pass, but not others? Talk about ethics lol. 

If Leo himself is unethical, then why talk about others disobeying ethics? That's because he engages in abuse of power on a regular basis, challenge him and he will ban a person just because he can. If this is not psychological abuse, then I don't know what is. 

Regarding my resentment, it's absolutely nothing to do with the ban. The ban only confirmed what I had been suspecting about Leo for so long. 

You know I'm extremely glad that I'm banned. Because if it weren't for the ban, I would have never contemplated hard on Leo's behavior, I would have never connected all the dots, I would have never understood the mental impact of a ban, especially after being banned from a community where you develop emotional attachment with the leader and the people for 4 years and then get treated like trash, the dangers of online communities where you engage for so long and then get discarded on a whim. All of this came to my realization only when I was banned. I saw how harsh it can be to treat a person like this. At this point, the reason why I was banned is mere semantics to me. Does it really matter why I was banned? I mean it would make some sense if Leo had been catching me in bad behavior multiple times and even giving me warnings and waiting for me to improve and I'm still not abiding by his rules and then him banning me out of frustration, would make perfect sense. But that wasn't the case. He caught me for the first time and banned me. He didn't even give me a second chance. I had even apologized to him before(just weeks before)and told him to give me time to improve. And he still banned me. I find it unfair because he waits for months and months for people to change and finally bans them if they constantly go against his rules. 

What's the point of self development if you don't give time for a person to develop and straight up punish them, especially when you are aware they are battling issues? This is where I feel Leo is lacking integrity because he calls it a self development forum yet it's not exactly serving that purpose in a meaningful way. I kinda feel like Leo was just waiting to ban me and I slipped up and he jumped. You can always say that I was on the forum for nearly 5 years, but you have to consider that I was battling a lot of issues in those  5 years, where was the space for improvement? The fact that I was bravely facing all my issues already puts me much ahead of the growth curve. I was beginning to solve my issues. 

I didn't even know that I had Borderline disorder when I first came to the forum. Over the years I worked on myself, did enormous self reflection and in 2022 after a long struggle and research I came to know that I was Borderline. It's so hard for doctors to even diagnose borderline and so throughout the years no psychologist was able to detect it in me. It finally took me going to a psychiatrist myself and providing them the suggestion of borderline disorder that they decided to run a diagnosis on me and finally I was diagnosed with it. 

So it would be utterly wrong to say that I wasn't trying to grow. In fact it shows the level of personal responsibility I have shown in pressuring doctors to diagnose me seriously. 

And with mental health patients, any growth is very slow and takes enormous amount of time. Leo is perfectly aware the issues with mentally ill people, that's the reason he keeps demonizing them, right? 

 

I feel like Leo is incongruent, inconsistent, lacking in integrity on so many levels. 

 

Also the hypocrisy that bugs me is how we are all supposed to give Leo a pass, to forgive him, to justify his behavior every time, he is always saying "I know I'm arrogant, I need to work on that. " Yet when users engage in same behavior, they're instantly banned and never given time to work on their issues. That's a Wow. He wants enormous leeway for his own misconduct and flaws yet gives zero leeway to his own followers who beg him for space and compassion. 

 

So yea, there's that. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Cupcake The dude has always been arrogant.  In 2014 we had an email exchange that had to do with philosophy, specifically the issue of truth, and he arrogantly basically scoffed at what I said and told me he would make a video on truth, and then the next video was his first video on spiritual enlightenment.  He thought he knew everything even back then.  That's a stable part of his personality.  And it's weird for a philosophy major to be like that because most philosophy majors are open to discussion and charitable to positions that they don't resonate with.  I've never in my entire life met someone so closed minded and black and white minded who is also so educated and eloquent.  It's just weird.  Most people I've met like that didn't go to college, and if they did they didn't major in philosophy.  The whole point of the general education in college is to create an openminded person.  But I think it's that overconfidence strategy that he learned in pickup artistry stuff that he found works and he just ran with that.  Overconfidence is superficially attractive especially if you're looking to position yourself as the top expert.  But in real life this only goes so far because people can see you and realize easier that you're full of it.  Online it's easier to only show people what you want to show them about you and keep the rest hidden from view.  The true top expert is known to be that in real life and doesn't need to be cocky about anything.  The cocky person is the person who's trying to control your thinking about them as the top expert when they may or may not actually in fact be that.  With weak minded people and impressionable people like young people or people who don't know your field, you can gain an advantage by pretending to know everything and be uber-confident, but if that's a tactic it's only going to go so far.   This is why he has to discredit universities and all other teachers.  He's defending against a wider criticism of his approach to how he treats knowledge and his own expertise in that field.  This is not something I would wish on my worst enemy to go down this road in life.  There's other people that come to mind who have created a kind of bubble around themselves that come to mind in order to live this kind of life.  Cocky yes, maybe lucrative in the short view, but not wise in the bigger picture and longer run.  Too many downsides and why would you want to play games with philosophy anyway?  Who would want to make a career out of doing that?  I know I wouldn't.  Philosophy is precious.  That's why I majored in it.  He openly said he realized at some point philosophy was all false.  He's doing philosophy but doesn't want to really engage with it because his most important goal in life is to feel right intellectually.  That's the opposite mentality you want to have as a philosopher.  

Edited by Joseph Maynor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

8 hours ago, MetaSage said:

Geez,you're seriously resented for being banned for operating multiple duplicate accounts.

And if you don't believe me then see what others have to say on his forum. 

 

 

 

7bmvla.jpg

 

 

 

7bmxd0.jpg

 

 

 

 

7bmxmh.jpg

 

 

7bmxrz.jpg

 

 

7bmy0g.jpg

 

 

7bmynp.jpg

 

 

 

7bn38e.jpg

 

 

7bmyv9.jpg

 

 

 

 

7bmyyh.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

7bmzc4.jpg

 

 

7bmzhq.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

7bmzl5.jpg

 

 

 

7bmzq1.jpg

 

 

 

 

7bmzul.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Cupcake
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

@Cupcake The dude has always been arrogant.  In 2014 we had an email exchange that had to do with philosophy, specifically the issue of truth, and he arrogantly basically scoffed at what I said and told me he would make a video on truth, and then the next video was his first video on spiritual enlightenment.  He thought he knew everything even back then.  That's a stable part of his personality.  And it's weird for a philosophy major to be like that because most philosophy majors are open to discussion and charitable to positions that they don't resonate with.  I've never in my entire life met someone so closed minded and black and white minded who is also so educated and eloquent.  It's just weird.  Most people I've met like that didn't go to college, and if they did they didn't major in philosophy.  The whole point of the general education in college is to create an openminded person.  But I think it's that overconfidence strategy that he learned in pickup artistry stuff that he found works and he just ran with that.  Overconfidence is superficially attractive especially if you're looking to position yourself as the top expert.  But in real life this only goes so far because people can see you and realize easier that you're full of it.  Online it's easier to only show people what you want to show them about you and keep the rest hidden from view.  The true top expert is known to be that in real life and doesn't need to be cocky about anything.  The cocky person is the person who's trying to control your thinking about them as the top expert when they may or may not actually in fact be that.  With weak minded people and impressionable people like young people or people who don't know your field, you can gain an advantage by pretending to know everything and be uber-confident, but if that's a tactic it's only going to go so far.   This is why he has to discredit universities and all other teachers.  He's defending against a wider criticism of his approach to how he treats knowledge and his own expertise in that field.  This is not something I would wish on my worst enemy to go down this road in life.  There's other people that come to mind who have created a kind of bubble around themselves that come to mind in order to live this kind of life.  Cocky yes, maybe lucrative in the short view, but not wise in the bigger picture and longer run.  Too many downsides and why would you want to play games with philosophy anyway?  Who would want to make a career out of doing that?  I know I wouldn't.  Philosophy is precious.  That's why I majored in it.  He openly said he realized at some point philosophy was all false.  He's doing philosophy but doesn't want to really engage with it because his most important goal in life is to feel right intellectually.  That's the opposite mentality you want to have as a philosopher.  

My impression is that Leo is quite open-minded as long as his vanity doesn't get in the way, but unfortunately, this happens quite often. It's a huge limitation to his open-mindedness. The moment he becomes personally vested, things can go downhill quickly.

 

While I find him to be an excellent thinker and speaker in general, he is not a good spiritual teacher at all. He belongs more in the philosopher category than in the spiritual guru one. I have a hard time not giggling when he refers to his advice and perspectives as "teachings".

 

His ego seems to be running amok and playing some nasty tricks on him. I haven't often seen such vanity in someone, so hearing him call himself the most enlightened master can come off as very funny... if he weren't leading young people in search of answers down a dangerous path.

“Know yourself as nothing; feel yourself as everything.” - Rupert Spira

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Serenity I'm of the mind and feeling that the philosopher and the spiritual teacher are two sides of the same coin in the best case scenario.  The Feminine is skeptical of mind (intellect) and the Masculine is skeptical of embodiment (body) -- but the wisest person has neither philosophy nor spiritual attainment in their shadow and is able to work with and interplay with both.  But a philosopher is not closed-minded.  We gotta be careful how we're applying the word philosopher.  You can play with philosophy and talk a lot about abstract ideas and not really be a philosopher.  A philosopher has a certain character that lends to doing philosophy.  It's not a know-it-all-ism character or type of person.  It's like a physicist pretending they know math and talking a lot about it but not really doing the math.  It takes a certain kind of character to learn and practice high level math.  The character of the philosopher is just as important of any philosophy they may or may not talk about.  A philosopher is a certain kind of person.  Ditto for a spiritual teacher, that's a certain kind of person too.  Not everyone has the character or patterns of thought and conduct to be a spiritual teacher.

Edited by Joseph Maynor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

He's doing philosophy but doesn't want to really engage with it because his most important goal in life is to feel right intellectually.  That's the opposite mentality you want to have as a philosopher.  

 

He is very dictatorial,  philosophy would be like a threat to him. Funny he calls his forum a democracy. When he dictates every little thing in that place. That forum is a dictatorial bureaucracy with all kinds of strategic social hierarchies in place. 

There's a position called "super mod." There's another position called "member plus. " It is very childish and weird. 

If it's not a cult, shouldn't all people be equal? 

But that's because, if you've researched cults, you'll see they always have someone with special positions, they're generally referred to as the "inner circle" because these people are super close to the owner/starter of the cult. They're also sometimes referred to as the "henchmen." They are very firmly trusted by the cult leader and usually placed above the rest of the members of the cult with special accesses and privileges bestowed upon them because they're more likable to the cult leader. Such social hierarchies are purposely arranged to instill a sense of general inferiority among the members and make them feel insecure and unworthy in comparison to the special circle. So that more members can aspire to reach such positions and one way to reach them would be to try hard to impress the leader. It's a subtle subliminal social incentivising scheme to make people weaker and more submissive to the system, this also helps in counteracting rebellion, anyone who acts as a rebel is treated like a pariah, an outcast, an offender, a criminal. 

 

 

You know I'm glad Leo calls me an offender. In the future when Leo will be outed as a cult, I'll proudly wear my badge as an offender, after all I was an offender inside a cult, that's actually a compliment rather than a crime. It means I dared to break the rules he made and I was actually shameless about it. I should have broken even more rules and pissed him off a bit more, he is too lucky I didn't figure him out too soon otherwise I would have been a real headache to him. I might even feel lucky that I escaped a cult somehow of my own volition and then people would imagine in the future that I was too smart that I had it figured way too early before Leo's collapse. However it wasn't really that way, I wasn't sitting and scratching my brain on Leo, this all happened by chance and I realized that I was a part of a greater conspiracy  of Leo's plan to brainwash millions of people. It was just an accident in the big picture and I happened to leak out and luck out by chance and hopped out of the cult. I just happened to be a small thorn that Leo had to get rid of. But this gave me a window into who Leo really is. The future is very bleak for actualized org, because I know from personal experience that whenever something bad happens to me, it usually because there's bad energy from a place impacting me. A bad energy place will always end up bad. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

@Cupcake He's backed himself into a corner with his need to feel intellectually superior.  He doesn't realize that the Divine Masculine and even the Human Masculine don't need to feel intellectually superior.

i would say the human masculine absolutely feels the need to be intellectually superior, and leo is coming from that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, sacredprofane said:

i would say the human masculine absolutely feels the need to be intellectually superior, and leo is coming from that.


Ok.  Well now you've made a point where we can have a discussion.  I disagree.  The Human Masculine who is trying to prove himself wants to feel intellectually superior, but the Human Masculine who has it can be humble because if you got it you don't need it.  The need to feel intellectually superior is a cover for an insecurity, a lack.  If the braggart had it he wouldn't need to brag.  He brags because he doesn't have it, he wants it -- but he wants you to think he already has it.  

Edited by Joseph Maynor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Joseph Maynor said:


Ok.  Well now you've made a point where we can have a discussion.  I disagree.  The Human Masculine who is trying to prove himself wants to feel intellectually superior, but the Human Masculine who has it can be humble because if you got it you don't need it.

ok, i guess that's the difference between being confident in what you are and insecure about what you are afraid you are not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, sacredprofane said:

ok, i guess that's the difference between being confident in what you are and insecure about what you are afraid you are not.


It's obvious when someone is overconfident.  Why is a secondary issue.  Overconfident is insecurity.  If you were truly confident you would have nothing to prove to anyone.  And paradoxically that's why the Masculine becomes humble as He develops -- He starts to exemplify embodiment which is the Feminine.  Even though the Masculine is about control, the more developed He becomes the less He needs to control.  Overconfident means you're not whole and complete within Yourself yet as the Masculine.  The Masculine is about the I, the Me.  If the Masculine were whole and complete as the I, He wouldn't be comparative in a kind of over-compensating kind of way.  That's thinking in terms of the relation which is Feminine.  Bragging means you're concerned about relation, the comparative, and you're not full and complete within Yourself.  There's no reason to be jealous or concerned with what others think of You if you've embodied the Masculine.  But keep in mind the Masculine is just a specialty, just an area to do development work.  There are other areas -- such as the Feminine, the Marriage, and the Integral -- to work on as well.

Edited by Joseph Maynor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:


It's obvious when someone is overconfident.  Why is a secondary issue.  Overconfident is insecurity.  If you were truly confident you would have nothing to prove to anyone.  And paradoxically that's why the Masculine becomes humble as He develops -- He starts to exemplify embodiment which is the Feminine.  Even though the Masculine is about control, the more developed He becomes the less He needs to control.  Overconfident means you're not whole and complete within Yourself yet as the Masculine.  The Masculine is about the I, the Me.  If the Masculine were whole and complete as the I, He wouldn't be comparative in a kind of over-compensating kind of way.  That's thinking in terms of the relation which is Feminine.  Bragging means you're concerned about relation, the comparative and you're not full and complete within Yourself.  There's no reason to be jealous or concerned with what others think of You if you've embodied the Masculine.  But keep in mind the Masculine is just a specialty, just an area to do development work.  There are other areas -- such as the Feminine and the Marriage -- to work on as well.

wait....feminine is embodiment, or relation?  the insecure man is thinking in terms of relation which is the feminine, but the secure man starts to exemplify the feminine embodiment?  i think of overcompensating as what the shadow does, and the shadow is usually the same gender as the person it belongs to regardless of their gender.  

Edited by sacredprofane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Cupcakesomeone there made the very good point that is the quality of the teacher can be seen in the reflection of the quality of their followers, and if you look at people on the forum and the comments on his videos, you get a much MUCH different picture of a general personality than you get if you look at eckhart tolle or spira or any number or quality teachers.  his followers consist largely, it seems, of very mentally unstable, depressed, incel-ish young angry boys.  and its no wonder he had that freakout where he called all his followers stupid and everything else, he is seeing the people he attracted to himself, and he does not like what it says about him.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Joseph Maynor @sacredprofane

 

I personally don't think Leo is an embodiment of masculinity. True masculinity tries to lead, and not control and dominate. True masculine doesn't brag about how many girls he slept with, if at all, it's the biggest sign of insecurity and immaturity. It shows that you're bragging about manipulating women. 

A true masculine will try to find a high quality woman and be loyal to her. He would want to be a great example to society rather than make excuses for his behavior. Leo is a sorry excuse for a human, let alone be considered anything of of a symbol for masculinity. His behaviour is insecure and childish. And he has a mammoth ego. 

 

Leo is not coming from intellectual superiority. He straight up comes from vapid egotism. He bullies people to feel better about himself. 

In this case he is bullying mentally vulnerable people. That's why he is so triggered whenever he is told he attracts unstable people. 

 

Yea because these are the people who are easiest to be bullied. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By clicking, I agree to the terms of use, rules, guidelines & to hold Actuality of Being LLC, admin, moderators & all forum members harmless.