Yall..LEO GURA WAS MOLESTED!!??

[Proserpina]

2 hours ago, Faith said:

 

Leo is a public figure by his own creation and he continues to post "personal"  juicy information about himself that people "will" talk about and let's be honest. He's not stupid. He knows ppl will talk about it and I don't think he really cares too much. It might not be the nicest thing to do, but it is what it is. I sorta think that Leo is happy as long as ppl are focused on Leo...good or bad. I personally don't wish Leo any bad vibes. He never did anything to me personally, except, "hem"...banning me. But, I deserved it.  😂

 

 

 

I don't think you particularly deserved the banning.  The fact that this forum exists is evidence enough that there is something loopy going on in Leo's thinking process in terms of banning and his doling out of punishments. Its just all very odd.  You don't see this dynamic play out very often with other forums for the same reasoning. 

Edited November 23, 2022 by Proserpina

[Faith]

1 minute ago, Proserpina said:

 

I don't think you particularly deserved the banning.  The fact that this forum exists is evidence enough that there is something loopy going on in Leo's thinking process in terms of banning and his doling out of punishments. Its just all very odd.  You don't see this dynamic play out very often with other forums due to the reasoning. 

Thanks. I can't speak for Phil, but I'm pretty sure if he hadn't been ostracized by Leo from Actualized, then this forum wouldn't have been created in the first place. Some ppl over there like to get it twisted that this forum happened first, but that's not true. 

[Proserpina]

15 minutes ago, Faith said:

Thanks. I can't speak for Phil, but I'm pretty sure if he hadn't been ostracized by Leo from Actualized, then this forum wouldn't have been created in the first place. Some ppl over there like to get it twisted that this forum happened first, but that's not true. 

I was given 10 points immediately for 'psychosis'  by Leo  and was threatened with banning.   Instead of being understood for an acute episode I was punished and I soon spiraled when my mum died.  Was given no empathy.  Leo can be very unfair in his approach in terms of his punishments and banning. 

Edited November 23, 2022 by Proserpina

[Reena]

Leo threatened me with a ban. But deep down I know he won't ban me. Leo leo leo. 

 

[Reena]

Leo never gave me any points though. 

He will usually tell me —"stop that." 

Sometimes he goes off at me and then after a few days he will act friendly with me. 

He is a bit moody. He can be hyper strict sometimes. 

But I'm usually loyal to him. Leo loyalist here lol. 

 

[Proserpina]

I really drove home into him whatever I meant to drive home.  He didn't like that.  In a way I knew the 10 points were incoming but still. I am loyal to him too.  However the situation was complex at the time in terms of energy.  His energy was off.  I was trying to help.  I was still in a vulnerable state and deserved empathy since I wasn't completely sober.  'Psychosis' isn't quite the label.  More like hyper sensitive to energies to where I no longer could see solid reality as well. 

Edited November 23, 2022 by Proserpina

[Reena]

5 minutes ago, Proserpina said:

I really drove home into him whatever I meant to drive home.  He didn't like that.  In a way I knew the 10 points were incoming but still. I am loyal to him too.  However the situation was complex at the time in terms of energy.  His energy was off.  I was trying to help.  I was still in a vulnerable state and deserved empathy since I wasn't completely sober.  'Psychosis' isn't quite the label.  More like hyper sensitive to energies to where I no longer could see solid reality as well. 

You're such a sweet human being. You don't deserve any warning points 

 

 

[Proserpina]

8 minutes ago, Cupcake said:

You're such a sweet human being. You don't deserve any warning points 

 

 

Thank you.  So are you.  ❤️

[Adeptus Psychonautica]

With all this talk of bans and points I think there is something interesting which occurs to me. 

 

Firstly a quick disclaimer - I am sincerely not saying this as a way of claiming any kind of superiority or that I did something better than anyone who was banned/pointed, so please don't interpret as such. Quite the contrary this is more intended to gesture towards Leo's mindset. 

 

I have never received any ban/point on Actualized, and I think the case could be made that I have challenged him there (and elsewhere) on par with anyone else who was banned/pointed. Not only that but my criticism has a reasonably far reach and generally receives positive feedback as having merit, although perhaps delivered in a slightly unsavoury way. So what gives?

 

I would propose that the difference in treatment comes down to how Leo perceives ownership of the person making the criticism. If you are one of "his" then you are not PERMITTED to speak against him, to do so would to be a TRAITOR, which requires PUNISHMENT, in order to bring you BACK IN LINE. I think its fair to say that Leo never viewed me this way as I did not have any dependency upon him or his forum, so the punishment would have been ineffective. It wouldn't have hurt me.

 

While the terms I have capitalized above might seem extreme or far fetched, I have actually seen them being deployed on his forum by the moderators during banning episodes. "This person is a traitor to the teachings... etc", "It is not permitted to say X about God...etc". I don't think I need to name any names about who says such things.

 

Its no secret that Leo often talks to his community as if they were the shit he just scraped off the bottom of his shoe, and that he is above them. I think this whole ban/points thing demonstrates a deeper hierarchy - he OWNS you, he OWNS your thoughts. You are not permitted to speak against him because that is treason, whereas with an outsider like me he has no power he can leverage, so he has to employ different tactics - which is mostly to get the faithful to parrot his chosen counternarrative, which in itself will usually be some form of falsehood. 

 

This is why the question about the cult-like behaviour of Actualized frequently rears its head - its because it does indeed use the cult playbook to control is membership. Whether this is intentional or not is a different topic, but the behaviour is clearly on display. 

     

Edited November 23, 2022 by Adeptus Psychonautica

[Serenity]

16 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Is there a possibility that Leo feels a strong need to reframe reality in the way he has done for himself and for others in order to cope with, escape, and/or heal from being haunted by his criminal molestation experience(s)? 

This is a significant and legitimate question to be raised regarding his motive imo and I don't think it's inappropriate to ask it in this thread.  I was conflicted whether or not to mention this possibility, but if we're going to have a thorough conversation here I think it's to consider.   It's the first thing that came to my mind after seeing his blog post.

In the relative from Man's perspective pedophilia is not love.  Pedophilia is reprehensible!  Probably the most reprehensible conduct of Man.  To put this obvious relative perspective into your shadow and to try to convince others of it too is only seeing half the equation of reality -- and now we understand why someone might be inclined to do this!   This is an interesting line of inquiry (at least to me); I'm not saying it's correct though.

I have made a few post that raise exactly these points earlier in this thread.

 

So I think this is correct.

[Faith]

7 hours ago, Cupcake said:

But deep down I know he won't ban me.

Oh, he definitely would, you just haven't hit the right ban button yet. 😂

[Serenity]

2 hours ago, Adeptus Psychonautica said:

With all this talk of bans and points I think there is something interesting which occurs to me. 

 

Firstly a quick disclaimer - I am sincerely not saying this as a way of claiming any kind of superiority or that I did something better than anyone who was banned/pointed, so please don't interpret as such. Quite the contrary this is more intended to gesture towards Leo's mindset. 

 

I have never received any ban/point on Actualized, and I think the case could be made that I have challenged him there (and elsewhere) on par with anyone else who was banned/pointed. Not only that but my criticism has a reasonable far reach and generally receives positive feedback as having merit, although perhaps delivered in a slightly unsavoury way. So what gives?

 

I would propose that the difference in treatment comes down to how Leo perceives ownership of the person making the criticism. If you are one of "his" then you are not PERMITTED to speak against him, to do so would to be a TRAITOR, which requires PUNISHMENT, in order to bring you BACK IN LINE. I think its fair to say that Leo never viewed me this way as I did not have any dependency upon him or his forum, so the punishment would have been ineffective. It wouldn't have hurt me.

 

While the terms I have capitalized above might seem extreme or far fetched, I have actually seen them being deployed on his forum by the moderators during banning episodes. "This person is a traitor to the teachings... etc", "It is not permitted to say X about God...etc". I don't think I need to name any names about who says such things.

 

Its no secret that Leo often talks to his community as if they were the shit he just scraped off the bottom of his shoe, and that he is above them. I think this whole ban/points thing demonstrates a deeper hierarchy - he OWNS you, he OWNS your thoughts. You are not permitted to speak against him because that is treason, whereas an outsider like me he has no power over, so he has to employ different tactics - which is mostly to get the faithful to parrot his chosen counternarrative, which in itself will usually be some form of falsehood. 

 

This is why the question about the cult-like behaviour of Actualized frequently rears its head - its because it does indeed use the cult playbook to control is membership. Whether this is intentional or not is a different topic, but the behaviour is clearly on display. 

     

 

Lots of great points here. This match my current observations on what is actualized.org's current state. I had noticed most of theses aspects prior to your posts.

 

Leo holds his perspectives as the only legit ones and will attempt to beat you out of yours until you align closer to his.  If you refuse to bend your mind, submit yourself, and date to treat him like he's just another random human being that holds a particularly take on a specific matter, that will infuriate him.

 

I have been lurking around and the way he treats his forum users looks more and more like how an organization like scientology would targets whoever is not cooperating and label them as a suppressive person if they start rejecting the "teaching"  and express different opinions. 

I was tempted to refrain making a comparison with scientology because it's such an extreme take, but after all, now he's talking about 'alien consciousness' and 'kangaroo mouses', he's getting closer and closer to a Xenu-like level of bullshit.

 

A few years ago, his forum was a thriving environnement. He wasn't nearly as dictatorial, rigid an openly narcissistic as of now.  There was plenty of brilliant people hanging around, but they all got alienated because of Leo's shadow, one way or the other.

 

Actualized.org is now a one man show, where he deploys his narcissism on his followers. For him to be big, everyone needs to be 'lower'. And the people who are falling prey to that vibration are people who have a pattern of attempting to seeking validation by a strong masculine figure who is all about conditional affection. And the catch is that he'll never be able to give it to you sincerly, because doing so diminishes his own sense of worth. It's really much a loop, a catch 22.

 

Overall, he is very lenient with the people he pities (aka never see as a threat), than with those who are actually excelling at a craft or see through his delusions. What he seems to feel for them is jealousy and a sense of threat. 

 

Anyway... You cannot grow healthy on Actualized.org. The forum is actually even defeating it's reason to be under that current leadership. It's more of a grow and self-actualize as much Leo's shadow allow you to. 

 

 

[Joseph Maynor]

9 hours ago, Adeptus Psychonautica said:

With all this talk of bans and points I think there is something interesting which occurs to me. 

 

Firstly a quick disclaimer - I am sincerely not saying this as a way of claiming any kind of superiority or that I did something better than anyone who was banned/pointed, so please don't interpret as such. Quite the contrary this is more intended to gesture towards Leo's mindset. 

 

I have never received any ban/point on Actualized, and I think the case could be made that I have challenged him there (and elsewhere) on par with anyone else who was banned/pointed. Not only that but my criticism has a reasonably far reach and generally receives positive feedback as having merit, although perhaps delivered in a slightly unsavoury way. So what gives?

 

I would propose that the difference in treatment comes down to how Leo perceives ownership of the person making the criticism. If you are one of "his" then you are not PERMITTED to speak against him, to do so would to be a TRAITOR, which requires PUNISHMENT, in order to bring you BACK IN LINE. I think its fair to say that Leo never viewed me this way as I did not have any dependency upon him or his forum, so the punishment would have been ineffective. It wouldn't have hurt me.

 

While the terms I have capitalized above might seem extreme or far fetched, I have actually seen them being deployed on his forum by the moderators during banning episodes. "This person is a traitor to the teachings... etc", "It is not permitted to say X about God...etc". I don't think I need to name any names about who says such things.

 

Its no secret that Leo often talks to his community as if they were the shit he just scraped off the bottom of his shoe, and that he is above them. I think this whole ban/points thing demonstrates a deeper hierarchy - he OWNS you, he OWNS your thoughts. You are not permitted to speak against him because that is treason, whereas with an outsider like me he has no power he can leverage, so he has to employ different tactics - which is mostly to get the faithful to parrot his chosen counternarrative, which in itself will usually be some form of falsehood. 

 

This is why the question about the cult-like behaviour of Actualized frequently rears its head - its because it does indeed use the cult playbook to control is membership. Whether this is intentional or not is a different topic, but the behaviour is clearly on display. 

     

It could also be that you've made some pretty effective videos targeting Leo and he knows if he messes with you you have a bite back you can employ.  He banned me because I was challenging him and I had no way to bite back at the time as I didn't have a YouTube channel then.  If someone pisses you off due to the popularity of your channel and prior videos building a case against Leo, you have a lot of leverage and audience to create quite a stir about it if you want to.  So, I think you were allowed to get away with more for the above reasons.  If you were a nobody, he could have easily banned you and problem solved.  You would have had no recourse.  I think he's afraid of you.  Leo isn't stupid.  He knows who to pick a fight with and who to leave alone.  The best thing for Leo is you never feel inspired to make another video targeting him.  He knows you're a smart guy and that you will go there if provoked and shoot him right between the eyes (metaphorically speaking of course).  That's bad for his reputation and business.  He wants to you stay away basically, but he's not going to take a real shot at you.  That could spark a war that he doesn't want to fight.  Just the fear of that happening has to weigh on his mind.  I give you props for your demeanor in your criticism on his forum.  I recall seeing your posts and never thought you were out of bounds behavior wise.  But if I were a betting man, my chips would be on the following: he definitely did not and does not want you on his forum, and if he could ban you without consequence from ever coming on again, my guess is he would take that action.

Edited November 23, 2022 by Joseph Maynor

[Joseph Maynor]

7 hours ago, Faith said:

Oh, he definitely would, you just haven't hit the right ban button yet. 😂

 

I'll augment what you said Faith with my thinking as follows: Start to effectively challenge Leo's beliefs and authority and see how long you last.  But you have to have a kind of credibility that he's scared of and be someone that can't or won't really fight back (or no real recourse to fight back).  A lot of people on the forum have been banned, they've simply created another account.  I refuse to do that.  I want Leo to reverse my ban.  I have one account.  Leo demoted and (I think ultimately) banned Phil because he didn't like that Phil was challenging him.  Notice he was hesitant to ban Phil because he was contemplating the fallout from that because Phil has a lot of power.  He's not a nobody.  But if you're a nobody with no reach to react to it, he'll simply ban you and that's that.  If you don't like it, as we say in law, you can "go pound sand" because he alone controls who gets to appear on his forum.  Leo will ban you if you disagree with his ideology.  I've seen it plenty of times.  But you have to be someone who is strong that he knows has a real bite on there.  If you're a little wacky he'll often let you remain because you really don't have the credibility to effectively challenge his authority.  You're not a real threat.  He definitely didn't want someone like Phil turning on him.  That was his worst nightmare.  Notice how he banned then unbanned then banned then unbanned Phil.  Phil put Leo into a true strange loop!  I get it.  I understand power and leverage pretty well having worked in the field of law for 15 years.

Edited November 23, 2022 by Joseph Maynor

[Blessed2]

5 hours ago, Serenity said:

And the people who are falling prey to that vibration are people who have a pattern of attempting to seeking validation by a strong masculine figure who is all about conditional affection. And the catch is that he'll never be able to give it to you sincerly, because doing so diminishes his own sense of worth. It's really much a loop, a catch 22.

 

👍

 

[Faith]

44 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Notice how he banned then unbanned then banned then unbanned Phil

Is that what happened @Phil? I didn't know that. 🤔

[Serenity]

56 minutes ago, Blessed2 said:

 

👍

 

 

Yup! Spot on!! Small human mouse seeking love from the big god alien kangaroo mouse in order to feel finally worthy!

[Reena]

1 hour ago, Joseph Maynor said:

 

I'll augment what you said Faith with my thinking as follows: Start to effectively challenge Leo's beliefs and authority and see how long you last.  But you have to have a kind of credibility that he's scared of and be someone that can't or won't really fight back (or no real recourse to fight back).  A lot of people on the forum have been banned, they've simply created another account.  I refuse to do that.  I want Leo to reverse my ban.  I have one account.  Leo demoted and (I think ultimately) banned Phil because he didn't like that Phil was challenging him.  Notice he was hesitant to ban Phil because he was contemplating the fallout from that because Phil has a lot of power.  He's not a nobody.  But if you're a nobody with no reach to react to it, he'll simply ban you and that's that.  If you don't like it, as we say in law, you can "go pound sand" because he alone controls who gets to appear on his forum.  Leo will ban you if you disagree with his ideology.  I've seen it plenty of times.  But you have to be someone who is strong that he knows has a real bite on there.  If you're a little wacky he'll often let you remain because you really don't have the credibility to effectively challenge his authority.  You're not a real threat.  He definitely didn't want someone like Phil turning on him.  That was his worst nightmare.  Notice how he banned then unbanned then banned then unbanned Phil.  Phil put Leo into a true strange loop.  I get it.  I understand power and leverage pretty well having worked in the field of law for 15 years.

I'm not getting your point exactly. Do you mean to say that he bans people because he perceives them as a real threat. And if they weren't a threat, he let's them stay. But then you said that he bans anyone who disagrees with him and he banned Phil. But why would he ban him if he perceived him as powerful? 

In one sentence you said that he will let you stay if he doesn't perceive you as a threat? 

In another you said he won't ban you since he perceives you as a threat. 

I'm not understanding this 

 

 

Edited November 23, 2022 by Cupcake

[Robed Mystic]

One thing in regards to the bans on Actualized  -The one thing that everyone is missing is that people do not remain the same.   Intelligent people evolve and change.  What you guys are doing is trying to pin him down to being a certain way.   I know for myself, I am not a certain way.   In life you go through phases or chapters.  For all you know, he may be in a whole different place now and  would do things differently today.   So you can say that was your perception  of what was in his mind, but you don't know for sure.  And now his mindset could be completely different about everything.   I'm not defending him here - when I see something I don't agree with I call him out directly to his face on the forum  - and I think I've demonstrated that.  I'm simply pointing out that people evolve and they can change.   

Edited November 23, 2022 by Robed Mystic

[Loop]

@Robed Mystic

 

Honestly, this idea of ‘intelligent people’ is actually a collective shaming and trying to be better than others. 
I left Actualized before the bannings happened partly because of this ‘sickness’. 
 

There are no people.
Just Love.