Gonzalo Lira: Astute Observer, Psychopathic Windbag... or?

happyliza

The Living Force
I kind of went off him once he 'resurfaced' and all just did not truly fit the scenario. Plus he kept talking about not wanting to talk about it.
Then finally how he put down Ritter when it was Ritter who was seriously trying to find out where was once he went missing. The final straw for me was listening to Ritter's wife having to explain all Ritter had done prior to Gonzalo slagging him off. And no thanks or awareness towards Ritter from Gonzalo. So not only his total ingratitude but slagged him off too. Stopped watching him after that.
 

Odin

Padawan Learner
Some very interesting points have been made in this discussion. Thanks for your initial post, BHelmet.

I have to admit that I was taken in initially by Lira and when he went missing(if that really happened) I hoped/prayed for his safety. After he resurfaced something just didn't seem right. When I think about it now he looks like a master of manipulation and I feel embarrassed to have fallen for it. But all there is is lessons so hopefully, I will have learned something from this.

Just the way he laughs in many of his videos is just plain silly.

The overall thing I hope he's right about is the success of the Russian military and how that will affect the future.
 

Turgon

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
I can't help but wonder if he never went missing to begin with. If he's all about the money and clickbaits, maybe he purposely didn't post any new content to garner attention and trend on social media to gain more interest and followers, only to suddenly reappear and have everyone wondering what happened to him.
 

genero81

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Yeah, even if he's under the equivalent of an NDA after his release, some kind of explanation would be in order. It doesn't make sense that he just picked up where he left off with what got him in trouble in the first place. When I first heard him, it was really nice to hear someone who was giving a more objective take on the whole affair from what the MSM was giving but even then, he was unnecessarily vulgar. Definitely not a role model.
 
Last edited:

Avala

The Living Force
Why is it all important exactly? He's just another voice on some mether. You listen to him or not. It is us who filter things and ideas for ourselves. Not for someone else and we should not exspect someone else to do it for ourselves. Lira has some good ideas, and some bad. No need to love or hate him, just to listen to him with critical thinking turned on.
 

Alejo

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Manipulation is like any weapon: It depends on how you use it. It can kill, or it can protect. The trick IMO is to just be aware of when you're doing it, and why - like all emotional stuff. If you run from it, you may never learn enough about it to master it.
This is true, I think people who have mastered some of their emotions tend to sound wise and reserved about such things, there's a level of maturity that is present in what one could call a real man, who needs not advertise his manipulation prowess, he just sounds like someone who is scared about someone else manipulating him.

And the trouble I have with most of what he says, is that conversations along the same lines probably take place all over the place, I can see something like that taking place in a pub or a bar somewhere and people discussing things with a similar if not the same tone. But most people who have ever participated or witnessed such conversations, know that at the end of the night, most people return to their "sad" lives to be not as awesome as they presented themselves to be.

But whatever sells seems to be his game I suppose, and he seems to be targeting an immature and shallow audience.

And the sad part is that kids these days either get this, or they get the total opposite: "your masculinity is toxic, so repress it!"
 

BHelmet

The Living Force
Why is it all important exactly? He's just another voice on some mether. You listen to him or not. It is us who filter things and ideas for ourselves. Not for someone else and we should not exspect someone else to do it for ourselves. Lira has some good ideas, and some bad. No need to love or hate him, just to listen to him with critical thinking turned on.
On one hand, yeah, much ado about nothing; a tempest in a teapot; YMMV.

On the other hand, if I am in a search for the truth or some form of objective relationship with life, why would I want to lend an ear to a guy whose aim seems to be mainly just selling himself, with no real interest in the truth? If my soul is at stake, why would I spend ANY time on a random B.S. artist? I don't want any truck with a goat if I am striving for sheepdom. That is not going to serve any aims I have.

I just meant to point out what appears to me to be an STS voice flying under the radar. I don't care if he guesses right a few times on his political spiel. I don't want anything to do with him. Sure, nobody asked. And if people want to keep posting his videos, so be it. I am fine with that. I had my say. I pointed out what I wanted to point out.

Let's make thinking with a hammer great again! (that doesn't really work as an acronym though...)
 

BHelmet

The Living Force
If Person A is going to commit suicide or shoot up a restaurant, and Person B manipulates them into NOT doing it, is that bad/wrong?

Manipulation is like any weapon: It depends on how you use it. It can kill, or it can protect. The trick IMO is to just be aware of when you're doing it, and why - like all emotional stuff. If you run from it, you may never learn enough about it to master it.
Hi Scottie. Is this not the very definition of a slippery slope? Is there a fine line here? I don't recall the C's saying Manipulation protects. I think they also may have said that STO does not determine the needs of another. I do get your point. It sounds good on paper. Really! I've probably said it myself. But... it feels like it is in a grey zone, as well.

How do you know that suicide was not the lesson that soul, for whatever reason, needed to experience? OR that they might have stopped themself without manipulation and so were deprived of a great lesson when on the precipice of that enormous chasm? OR that they might become the mass murderer for having been manipulated out of suicide?! We don't know any of it. (and that is partly why I dislike hypothetical questions in 'arguments')

We humans, myself especially, are very good at rationalizations.

Life is strange and the many incarnations of one soul are stranger still.

Good God, humanity is in the process of repeating an insane disaster of epic proportions! Somebody, please, manipulate us out of this! (Use Henny Youngman voice)

...No.

I know I/we chose it. At least that is my working hypothesis: we wouldn't be 'here' in this situation if we had not chosen it on some level. For whatever reasons...

"Humanity! Don't incarnate into flesh!!! Bad idea! I will give you ice cream and cookies every day for all eternity if you but abstain from this idiotic idea of the fast wave cycle! Take it easy, Bro! You'll get there in 117 gazillion years - but it will be much easier! Trust me, I know what's best for your entire soul complex in the context of the grand scheme of the great cosmic universe."

Thus spoke.... nobody.

And if they did, we refused to listen.

So here we are.

Just trying to be light.

PS - (I am trusting the good-natured looking icon that appears to have a sense of humor will be able to laugh at this)

(And, in the irony of ironies, it could be said I am trying to manipulate you out of the idea that manipulation can be a good idea!! LOL!! Well, that's life in an STS world for ya!)
 

cassandra

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
It seems he is definitely someone to be wary of.

In the video below GL claims that he gave documents ‘to the two Alexes of The Duran and other ‘online people’ proving he had been taken into custody by the SBU. He says they can vouch for him.

 

Bluegazer

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Hi Scottie. Is this not the very definition of a slippery slope? Is there a fine line here? I don't recall the C's saying Manipulation protects. I think they also may have said that STO does not determine the needs of another. I do get your point. It sounds good on paper. Really! I've probably said it myself. But... it feels like it is in a grey zone, as well.

How do you know that suicide was not the lesson that soul, for whatever reason, needed to experience? OR that they might have stopped themself without manipulation and so were deprived of a great lesson when on the precipice of that enormous chasm? OR that they might become the mass murderer for having been manipulated out of suicide?! We don't know any of it. (and that is partly why I dislike hypothetical questions in 'arguments')

19 Sept 98: (The session is not indexed in the list by date.)
A: "Giving" love is not giving, in such a case.
Q: So, if you give love when you have not been asked, you are
NOT giving?
A: You are taking, as usual.
Q: When you say you are 'taking,' what are you taking?
A: Energy, a la STS.
Q: How does it come that you are taking energy from someone
by giving them love when not asked?
A: Because an STS vehicle does not learn to be an STO
candidate by determining the needs of another.
Q: I don't understand how that means you are taking energy?
A: Because the act is then one of self-gratification. If one
"gives" where there is no request, therefore no need, this
is a free will violation! And besides, what other
motivation could there possibly be in such a scenario?!?
Think carefully and objectively about this.
Q: My thought would be that, in such a scenario, that if one
gives love to someone who has not asked or requested, that
it seems to be a desire to change the other, i.e. a desire
to control.
A: You got it!!
Q: Now he says further: 'Yes, everything is lessons and if a
person has chosen a specific path they should be allowed
to go and learn their way. But, let's say this is
happening to someone you really love. And let's say that
the person may be in a period of his life that his/her
thoughts are probably taking her/him to commit, let's say,
a murder. Don't you think that if you send this person
love, even unconsciously, that it may provide the
necessary energy (influence) to stop that murder?'
Comment please.
A: No, no, no!!! In fact, if anything, such an energy
transference even could enhance the effect.
Q: In what way?
A: Imbalanced waves could be drawn upon by the receiver.
Q: I think that this word he used is a clue: 'Don't you think
that if you send the person love, it could provide the
person the necessary energy' and in parentheses he has the
word 'influence' which implies control of the other
person's behavior, to 'stop that murder.' So, it seems
that there is a desire to control the actions of another
person.
A: Yes.
Q: But, his intent is entirely benevolent because he wants to
stop a murder which is the saving of a life, as well as
prevent the loved one from going to prison. So, it SEEMS
to be benevolent in intent. Does this not make a
difference?
A: Have we forgotten about Karma?
Q: Well, both Sylvia and I mentioned the fact that one cannot
always judge these situations because we don't know. We
cannot know. For all we know the potential murder victim
is an Adolf Hitler type or the potential parent of one, or
something like that, and then the murder would save many
lives with the sacrifice of two lives, or that this murder
is supposed to happen because of some karmic interaction
that is essential between the murderer and victim, and
that we simply cannot KNOW these things and judge them.
A: Yes.
Q: Any other comment about that?
A: No.
Q: He says: 'I believe that if we do not send love energy to
the world that the egocentric STS energy will be
dominating.
A: Why would one choose to send this? What is the
motivation?
Q: To change it to your idea of what it is supposed to be.
To control it to follow your judgment of how things ought
to be.
A: Exactly. The students are not expected to be the
architects of the school.
Q: So, when you seek to impose or exert influence of any
kind, you are, in effect, trying to play God and taking it
upon yourself to decide that there is something wrong with
the universe that it is up to you to fix, which amounts to
judgment.
A: Yes, you see, one can advise, that is okay, but do not
attempt to alter the lesson.

Manipulation makes use of ignorance. The only thing you can do in giving advice is to show the paths and the results of the actions. In this way you do not violate free will because you do not force a path. By showing the paths you leave the subject with the internal task of deliberation. His choice is informed and in this way he cannot accuse the other of: But I didn't know that! You tricked me!

The old saying: Ignorance of the law does not remove the punishment.

Similar happens with warnings. "Beware of the Dog" "This house is under CCTV surveillance" "If you violate this perimeter you will be shot" etc.

If you give the information and give freedom of choice you are taking care of free will and you are free of karma. You are free of any liability.

In the case of Lira, the manipulation will consist of him self-referring as a credible source or beyond doubt. And it is simply not the only information available.
 

Scottie

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Hi Scottie. Is this not the very definition of a slippery slope? Is there a fine line here?

I would say yes. I think most of the lessons of this life are about walking a very fine line.

I don't recall the C's saying Manipulation protects. I think they also may have said that STO does not determine the needs of another. I do get your point. It sounds good on paper. Really! I've probably said it myself. But... it feels like it is in a grey zone, as well.

How do you know that suicide was not the lesson that soul, for whatever reason, needed to experience? OR that they might have stopped themself without manipulation and so were deprived of a great lesson when on the precipice of that enormous chasm? OR that they might become the mass murderer for having been manipulated out of suicide?! We don't know any of it. (and that is partly why I dislike hypothetical questions in 'arguments')

I don't think we CAN know any of that ahead of time. It would depend on the specific circumstances. We also might end up doing nothing because of what you wrote above, and then the world collapses into chaos because that person who killed themselves was destined to save the world but was under some kind of heavy 'attack'. I mean, we just can't know.

Personally, if I saw someone who was suicidal, I would definitely try to help them. I don't know how - that would depend on the specific circumstances. Maybe I would fail, maybe I would make it worse... But if I didn't try, I'm not sure I could live with myself. I would always wonder why I was there at that exact time, and not somebody else. I would wonder how things could have been different had I tried to help them or get them help from someone else.

I know I/we chose it. At least that is my working hypothesis: we wouldn't be 'here' in this situation if we had not chosen it on some level. For whatever reasons...

Right. On the other hand, we also have a choice to do something about it (or not). We might be ignoring our lessons by saying, "Well, I chose this, so I'll just let it happen." We are also probably ignoring our lessons by saying, "By god, I'm gonna change this!!!"

So it seems to me that the proper path is somewhere in the middle. So we come back to the grey area / walking a fine line thing.

I watched the Lira vids and thought, "Oh, he's one of those... Well, it IS interesting what he says about manipulation, though. It's kind of true - but kind of not true." I ended up with something to think about more. His 'game' schpiel is pretty much Rollo Tomasi stuff. We have a thread about that somewhere. I ended up reading all 3 of his books (despite his public appearance) and got a lot out of them. Note that I took what was useful to me, filed away the rest, and moved on. Weeding! That's usually how I try to do it: even a psychopath can teach me something.

Children do manipulate adults in their lives all the time, and the parents manipulate back - but not many would say that's a bad thing. It's part of the growth process. It also doesn't mean that manipulating to get laid is a good idea, but there again it can be part of a growth process: play in the dirt until you learn that it really doesn't make you truly happy. Then, one day, you meet the Right Person. Ta-DA!

No, your relationship is not based on 'game', but it sure can help to understand yourself, the other person, and to focus on more important matters because you're no longer fooling yourself by being oblivious to subconscious drives. It's also possible to use 'game' in a loving relationship. Yes, the REAL connection is deeper, emotional, and even spiritual; But if you have an understanding of your own machine and your partner's machine, why wouldn't you also use that to bond?

So, I would say: It's all complicated! And definitely a slippery slope and often a very fine line. But then, that's one of the main reasons I think we're here: To learn all this crazy stuff.

Sometimes I think when the C's said we must 'surf the Wave', they forgot to mention that it's not like an ocean wave, but rather a razor-thin wire that threatens to chop our surfboard in half!
 

Cosmos

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
That's usually how I try to do it: even a psychopath can teach me something.

That’s an important point I think, even more so when what we try to learn is part of „the work“. After all, there is a good reason why Castaneda/Don Juan said, paraphrasing, that petty tyrants are one of the best (if not the best) things a warrior can encounter, if he wants to grow or become „impeccable“.
 

Keit

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Why is it all important exactly? He's just another voice on some mether. You listen to him or not. It is us who filter things and ideas for ourselves. Not for someone else and we should not exspect someone else to do it for ourselves. Lira has some good ideas, and some bad. No need to love or hate him, just to listen to him with critical thinking turned on.

Agreed. I think that many people listen to him because he represents an alternative view in a coherent and knowledgeable enough manner. Not many people dig people's past, and even if they do, they accept that people can change, and what is important is what the person has to say now. In this respect I don't see the mere fact of Lira being a pick-up artist as something alarming. And it didn't raise any alarms when I first learned of this fact.

As to why discussing his character may be important, it's because for some people he became not only "another voice". His analysis of the situation "on the ground" was coupled with a strong emotional component. The emotional component came from his viewers or readers. He was placed in a dangerous situation, speaking dangerous things. People were worried for him. And the dangerous situation escalated to the point of him disappearing. Which resulted in a very high drama until he reappeared again safe and sound.

It looks that many if not most people accepted everything at face value, and it is indeed very good that he is alive and safe. But there are some people who without even knowing his background questioned the whole story. Something wasn't right. Perhaps it was simply his personality. It's possible that some find him charming, like a good pick-up artist has to be, but for me, for example, this kind of behavior is rather off putting, so personal preferences should certainly be taken into account when trying to see if there is indeed something wrong with this picture.

At the moment I do have a feeling that I can't shake, that there is something wrong with his story, but I obviously don't have anything concrete to back it up. And just a note about the "documents" he presented to Alex from The Duran, apparently he showed the non-disclosure document to him over Zoom. That's it. Please someone correct me if I am wrong.

As for things that I found, it appears that he does live in Ukraine and probably in Kharkov. During one of the searches I saw that someone mentioned how he met with him in Odessa back in 2018. So he has been living in Ukraine for awhile.

There are videos out there that describe a Vincent Bridges type scenario. Start at the 12:50 mark of the video, to minimize the length:

In the second part of the video you mentioned above, there is a talk about Lira "being doxxed". Or at least there was a possibility of him being doxxed. The "exposé" video is from the end of 2021, but it's hard to say when exactly Lira made it, but it clearly was before the special operation.

And as a preemptive handling, he shared with others what the "exposed facts" could be. Not going to mention all 3 (you can check the video, it begins at the proper point), but will mention only the first fact. He said that the doxxing may expose his years long and close ties with Richard Spencer. As if Lira is some "alt-right secret agent". And in the video he explicitly admits that the close ties fact is true. Also here's an archived screenshot from Twitter when he and Lira played some game in 2013.

For those who don't know (and I didn't know), apparently Richard Spencer is indeed an"alt-right" activist/leader. Now, I didn't look into his persona too deeply, and a lot of things should be taken with a grain os salt, especially when liberals tend to put any Trump supporter into an alt right camp. But at least the official stance is that he is a neo-nazi and white supremacist.

After the beginning of the operation Spencer was mentioned numerously how he loves Russia and thinks that "Russia is the only real white power in the world", or something like that, Essentially, his name was used to emphasize Russia and Putin in particular being racist and evil. In the past Spencer expressed his fondness of Russian nationalistic ideas, was married to a Russian, and in general supported various neo-nazi or nationalistic interest in other countries, including Ukraine.

For example, I found this from the article titled "Azov, Ukraine's Most Prominent Ultranationalist Group, Sets Its Sights On U.S., Europe":

In November 2017, the two [Azov activists] traveled together to Warsaw and participated in the Europe Of The Future 2 conference organized by Polish white supremacist group and "ally" Szturmowcy (Stormtroopers), where they were meant to speak alongside American Richard Spencer...But Polish authorities barred Spencer from entering the country and he was unable to attend.

This is a very interesting connection. And not only because the impression Lira gives in his recent videos that he isn't in support of similar ideas.

What also was interesting is his video where he expressed his mistruss of Scott Ritter. Despite Ritter clearly being concerned for his safety back then, and also clarifying his first words that perhaps could be misinterpreted.

Don't know if this was posted on another thread, but when the video came up, I took a look at the comments and saw a comment from Ritter's wife. Here it is:

As Scott Ritter’s wife, I listened to this clip with interest. Several points: 1. a modicum of gratitude from you to people like Scott and others who raised an alarm about your disappearance is in order. The whole purpose of Scott’s article was to raise awareness of your disappearance.

2. Scott did not say that you were kidnapped, tortured and murdered. He said “when reports emerged that you were kidnapped, tortured and murdered….”. You conveniently omitted Scott’s reference to these reports. Scott further clarified in the same article “I have no direct evidence that Gonzalo has been killed, I was clear I was referring to reports emerging about his demise. But Gonzo said any disappearance of more than 12 hours should be treated as if something bad had happened to him. It’s been five days”.

3. As someone who once feared for his life at the prospect of being detained by the SBU during war time, you seem awfully jovial and nonchalant about your experience. As a former Soviet citizen, I know that security services do not arrest and release people suspected of treason during war time without some strings attached. After listening to your rant, I have a pretty good idea what those strings are.

4. With all due respect, Scott’s words stand on their own and they don’t need to be dressed up by the likes of you. In the article you quoted, Scott never once mentioned a Russian Vietnam or new Afghanistan. Those are your words, not his. 5. You assessment about Scott courting the mainstream media is fiction. I hope the SBU gives you a pat on your back for your efforts for attacking Scott. Your followers may not comprehend the true objectives behind your rant, but I do.

Here are some more thoughts. As far as I know (and I could be wrong), political detainees do not usually need to sign a non-disclosure document. But it could be necessary in cases of some other investigation. Either crime related or espionage. And if it is indeed political, people usually tend to disappear afterwards or don't talk about the subject that much. Perhaps SBU are feeling particularly generous, or there are indeed some strings attached. Or some sort of agreement was reached.

But considering his ties, and this is a mere speculation, perhaps he was indeed helped, and there was indeed some pressure to keep and release him safe and sound. But maybe it didn't come from the diplomatic sources, but actually the alt-right ones. Who knows. Another interesting thing to consider, that some on the internet say and provide proof that Spencer is actually "a controlled opposition". If so, maybe Lira's attempt to ridicule the doxxing by saying that he may be an alt-right secret agent isn't so ridiculous. We simply don't know. But my spidey senses are being activated on this one, go figure.

And I agree with you, Avala. It's really not a big deal. After all, we indeed can simply not watch his videos. And it's not like he is totally wrong. But then it could be a good learning opportunity. To learn how to read the signs and to observe, while keeping this new information in mind, and see if it actually fits.

If those concerns have merit, I feel for the Duran guys. I think they genuinely believe everything Lira is saying. And it actually fits with the pattern mentioned by the author of the "International Man of Contradiction" video. He mentioned how Lira always made sure to associate with bigger names/bloggers/channels, and this way provide more credibility or support for himself. But we will see how it goes.
 
Last edited:

Cosmos

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Here is my take on it so far:

- I watched the mentioned videos in the first post and from what I could see there is no way for me to easily vouch/check the validity of the claims made against Gonzalo. So, I can't judge on that basis. All I know is that it is quite easy to present a certain picture of a person (either positive or negative) via videos while the reality can be quite different. Context, a full account, timeline and evidence is usually needed to come to an informed conclusion about a situation/person, which is usually lacking in video formats that proclaim to "show the person/situation".

- From what I have seen from the provided Videos of Gonzalo himself in his "pickup artist" persona, I would agree that it doesn't paint a very nice picture of Gonzalo, and therefore it is quite justified to have reservations on how trustworthy and or "good" he is in general.

- I knew very roughly about his "pickup artist" persona in the past but gave him the benefit of a doubt; namely, that, "this persona is in the past" and: generally, that people can change.

- What I find interesting in watching his pickup artist videos is something rather peculiar. If you pay close attention to your own thinking when Gonzalo says something, you start to notice how you ASSUME things about "what he really means", based on your own way of judging/seeing things. What I mean by this is: It strikes me as something Łobaczewski talked about (and might apply here), which he called "selection and substitution" I think. There are many instances in Gonzalo's "Game" videos where you catch yourself thinking things like, "surely, he doesn't mean it that way", or, "he doesn't really see it that black and white", or, that "he sees it more nuanced, but just doesn't say it". For example: Gonzalo says something rather outrageous, without any hint of qualifying/nuancing that extreme position/statement, then you start to "fill in the blanks" with how you would think and nuance things. So, you assume that he thinks like you do and sees things like you do.

For example: If I would say something extreme like he does in those videos I would follow it up by a more detailed/nuanced explanation that is far less extreme and shows that things are more complicated and less black and white. But here is the interesting part: From what I have seen from Gonzalo in all the videos I have seen in his "game" persona, he NEVER says what I would think he thinks! So, if somebody is constantly expressing such extreme views that are heavily black and white, again and again, without any signs of him ACTUALLY nuancing that position, maybe, just maybe, he really MEANS it exactly in that black and white manner?!? Try it yourself and watch some of his "game videos" and see if and how often you catch yourself "filling in the blanks" of what he is not saying. It happens very often! He says something extreme, in a black and white manner, and you ASSUME that he thinks more nuanced because you are thinking more nuanced. Also, the same thing might apply to other "little" details in his body language and mimics, where you often see him laugh and visibly enjoying himself (quite extremely!) in inappropriate moments or in a quite over the top manner. So, maybe there are a lot of "little things" Gonzalo does that one tends to brush away? Another example: when he talks about manipulation of people, you "fill in the blanks" by assuming he/you/people can also do it not just for themselves but in benefit of other persons or a good/moral/higher cause. But actually, Gonzalo never says that or even sightly hints at that, even though he addresses it over and over again, which is quite something!

- That brings me to another point Łobaczewski talked about: Certain people seem to have a talent (I think he called them schizoids or something) to massively oversimplify human nature and reality and then put that oversimplified view into writing or speech while normal non-pathological people don't notice how it "infects" their minds. I think Lobajewski also warned that people like that often create very oversimplify political movements and slogans which discard the complexity of human nature, humanity and reality itself. Now, if you listen to Gonzalo not only in his "Game" persona, but also in his new videos and podcast/interviews from Ukraine, I'm beginning to suspect that what we can see might be that Gonzalo quite often says/exclaims exactly such oversimplifications. For example: Gonzalo is in a discussion with someone about western elites and Gonzalo exclaims emphatically "they are just stupid!", then the other person points out that there might be more to it than that, like, consciously lying/conspiring for example, or, doing "stupid" things on purpose, and Gonzalo again says/explains that he thinks "they are just stupid!". There are many examples of this. Gonzalo might be massively oversimplifying many things.

- In regard to his situation in Ukraine: From all I have seen, I think the likelihood is quite low that he's lying about his situation there. I think what he says has happened to him is basically what happened. Thinking otherwise is "conspiracy thinking over board" to me, at this point.

- Interestingly, I never heard Gonzalo say that he stopped his "pickup artist" "game". Nor that he regrets anything that he did there. From what I've seen, it could very well be that he still "advices" young man on "the game". If that is the case, it casts quite some doubts on my assumption that he might have changed since then and that that persona "is in the past".
 
Last edited:

Revolucionar

Jedi Master
FOTCM Member
There was something fishy abiut this guy to me from the get go, but he had a lot of interesting and accurate viewpoints to share, so I didn't think it was that important.

I wouldn't put it past him that he staged his kidnapping to gain notoriety and that he's in fact somewhere outside of Ukraine now.
He's definitely an attention seeker, ehich is evident from the way he comports himself in all of his videos. He likes to take the spotlight when on a show that involves other people, as well.
But still, I think he can be useful source of info, if you are able to separate the wheat from the chaff (would "meat from the bone" be a more apt expression in the context of this forum? :)
 
Top Bottom