Parththakkar12

Won't really get to people cuz they'll think he's kidding. For people to really wake up, he's gonna have to do something like 'Hey everyone! I want to steal your money. Please put all your money in this bank account in the next 2 days or I'll send in the troops!!' Even then, I don't know.

I'm noticing something interesting. When you have a few mildly positive, mildly negative or even strongly negative things to say about someone, people will consider it. But when you have a lot of strongly positive things to say about someone, that's when the doubting begins! People assume you're 'under their spell' or something. This is why negativity sells so much on mainstream media. We're actually scared of positivity! Especially unexplainable positivity, which gives us no direct benefit. It's probably cuz we're scared of assuming they're perfect and idolizing them.

Lol no. My point is this is a really high-consciousness resource. Kinda underappreciated.

Read Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad Poor Dad. It is an awesome personal finance book and it will show you how to manage money. Going about finding your Life Purpose will also help. It will fall in line with your spiritual practice.

"The problem is the human mind is a dualistic, often ego-driven mind. Our mind is like a split-screen TV. It sees the world through the prism of right and wrong, good and bad, up and down, in and out, pretty and ugly. That is why all humans have a good side and a dark side. Many wonderful and magical human experiences are derivatives of our split-screen mind. So are wars, arguments, fights, divorces, crimes, unhappiness, addictions, depression, murders and suicides - all derivatives of the same dualistic mind." "For humans to evolve, the next education will require us to turn our minds off, shut up, and tune into God." "If humans do not learn how to turn off their split-screen, right and wrong, dualistic mental TVs, we will use our mind-created technology to destroy ourselves. If we do not learn to turn our minds off, humanity is finished." Quoting from the book Fake Money, Fake Teachers, Fake Assets.

This thread is about the media. Don't derail it.

Don't watch news. Full of coronavirus fear like 'Today 17,000 more cases' and 'Today 90,000 more cases'. That's literally what they do!

Ralph Smart did believe that George Floyd was really killed, that his killing wasn't staged unlike certain other 'conspiracy theorists'.

Massive trigger warning for this one. Triggers are the vehicle for higher consciousness and awareness. I trust yall to understand this and not shoot the messenger. You can do this. This is the exact opposite of Leo's opinion on Trump. It's a complete experiment on my part, I have no idea how the forum will respond to this.

@Annoynymous We can't really control the result of the election. What we must do is prepare for a Trump win in our individual lives, aka prepare for the worst. Here's what I suggest - Go under a rock, the most comfortable one, and sit tight. Sit tight, cuz fireworks will go down. The political situation is just waaaay too unstable right now to do anything crazy. There's potential for all sorts of shit to go down. For example, Trump does something stupid and he spoils the relationship with China. If that happens and if China stops buying US Treasury bonds, the dollar will go down in value cuz there's so many of them. When that happens, Chinese goods will become too expensive to afford and Chinese exports will no longer be tenable. This will be an economic catastrophe as the world depends on cheap Chinese products. Inflation will just get too bad. The COVID crisis doesn't help with this. Once chaos ensues, well, then we're on our own to fend for ourselves. I wish I had something more positive to say about this.

True. But the definition of proof even within the materialist paradigm is very complicated and it changes with time. There can be a lot of argument on what counts as valid proof, what counts as unquestionably true, what counts as 'enough proof', etc. The reality is that if someone wants to believe a conspiracy theory, they don't need to prove it to anyone. The question we're dealing with is how do we engage with them. If I believe that the Bible is the ultimate authority on the absolute truth, that's enough for me to believe in creationism. That's enough for creationism to be 'true' for me. I don't have to believe that the Bhagvad Gita is true. I will justify my creationism by calling a Hindu 'deluded' for believing that the Bhagvad Gita is the higher authority than the Bible. All of this will be 'true' for me. I don't have to consider the perspective of the Hindu as valid. In fact, I am free to invalidate the perspective of the Hindu to justify the believe that the Bible is the ultimate authority. Same goes for the Hindu who believes the Bhagvad Gita is a higher authority than the Bible. The question was 'How do we engage with people close to us who have become conspiracy theorists.' This was my answer. How they came to believe conspiracy theories would be something you'd do better to ask them. It's not simple. The best arbiter of whether you're using intuition or not is your emotions. How do your beliefs make you feel? Do they make you feel passionate, high-energy, anxious, fearful? How hard are you willing to fight to defend them? Or do they make you feel calm, stable and peaceful? The more heated someone gets in defending their beliefs, the less they're operating from intuition. People who are operating from intuition will not feel insecure and defensive about their position.

I'd frame it differently in this context - The truth of Oneness is that distinctions are imagined by the mind. We still have the option of doing the discussion past silence, we still get to decide whether it's meaningful or meaningless. Yes. We are talking about relative truth. Relative truth is subject to what you want to believe. Okay. The human body is oriented towards a 3D sensory reality. We will always have a part of us that believes the materialist paradigm, cuz the survival of the human body depends on us believing in it. The question is - What do you want in this specific situation? If you want to see how many tic-tacs are there, then the INTUITIVE way would be to use your senses and count them. Keep in mind that counting, as a method of determining how many of something we have, has also been intuited by someone! If we try to use some other method, that would not be intuitive because it wouldn't be pragmatic. The Universe is Infinitely Intelligent, therefore Infinitely Pragmatic. Your Intuition is the most Pragmatic thing there is! When you have a how-question, your intuition will come up with the most pragmatic way you know to do it. The Universe is in a process of Self-discovery or knowing itself. The way you discover yourself is through investigation. The Universe is constantly in a process of growing and learning about itself. Therefore, the Universe does not know whether a specific idea is true or false. However, the Universe will use it's Infinite Intelligence to find The Best, most Pragmatic ideas and techniques to know itself. So the ideas your intuition will come up with may not be the best, or the truest themselves. But, those ideas will be the most Pragmatic and Efficient way for you to find the Truth, or the Best Way. My point is that if I hold on to a belief that 'Statement X is true' and Statement X is outside the context of the materialist paradigm, you will not be able to prove me wrong. Proof doesn't work outside the materialist paradigm. And if proof doesn't work, who is the arbiter of relative truth? Yourself! If I believe in Pizzagate, I believe I have enough evidence. Who decides what counts as 'enough evidence'? Moreover, who decides what counts as 'evidence'? How much evidence do you need to be convinced of something? This is specific to you. Now how do you resolve this conflict? You will have to use your intuition to closely observe yourself and them to determine where their beliefs come from, where your beliefs come from, why they're holding on to a belief, why you're holding on to your belief, etc. This will have to happen once you've dis-identified from your perspective and are looking at both perspectives impartially. This is what I've been advocating for.

Intuition is an inner knowing. It's not speculation. They knew their theories before they were able to prove them! Proof is what you need to convince other people of your theories. When you're able to debate with them and answer their tough questions, that's when your theories have the potential of becoming the new 'truth', which is the new standard of 'proof'. Let's not forget that the scientific materialist paradigm is a paradigm, that too one which is constantly evolving. There aren't these rigid fixed standards of 'proof' even in science. A good example is that Galileo's telescope was shunned by the church as an 'Instrument of the Devil' well before it was accepted. Being a revolutionary intellectual is a very very dirty business. You will almost never be able to convince the status-quo of your ideas. A lot of times they'll shun you your whole life, then you die, then they'll recognize your greatness and foresight 500 years later. You are on the leading edge of thought, and you have nothing but your intuition showing you the way. Your intuition will not show you the Absolute Truth in the form of ideas, because the Absolute Truth is incommunicable. Rather, your intuition will serve as a guidance system for your mind to get the answers to its questions. Once all the questions are answered, there will be nothing but peace. How do you know it's their intuition talking? They may say it's their intuition saying that the earth is flat, but is it really? Or is it a rationalization? You can use your intuition to closely observe your interactions and intuit the answers to these questions. In a Universe based on Oneness, the intuitions of two beings cannot conflict with each other. My experience says that it isn't possible. If there is a perception of conflict, at least one party is deluding themselves. Now there is potential for gaslighting. This is because human beings are very good at being inauthentic. So we can fake confident behavior very easily. There is a big difference between fake confidence and real confidence. Fake confidence will show up as aggressive, agitated defense of one's position. Real confidence will show up as a stable knowing, where you aren't doubting yourself. Oh yeah proof isn't circular within the scientific materialist paradigm! But if you look at proof fundamentally, as it is, it is circular. Here's the kicker - There is no such thing as 'true' or 'false'. These are distinctions created by the mind. The materialist paradigm seeks to establish a monopoly over the truth, like so many other paradigms do. Here's another kicker - If I say 'Statement X is true', Statement X is true for me. No amount of proof will convince me otherwise. This is because Truth is fundamentally Infinite, so it includes everything. So when I say statement X is true, I'm technically right! I'm just not saying the whole truth. This is assuming Statement X is not a part of the materialist paradigm. If it is, it can be disproven using scientific experiments and sensory data. If it isn't, it can't. For example if I say 'A sphere has 4 sides', that can be disproven by sensory data. However, if I say 'Nazis are evil', good luck disproving that! Thus, your beliefs determine what's 'true' or 'false'. In such a situation, you get to choose what you'd like to believe is true vs false. This becomes logically tenable. Because your mind creates reality, it is in fact helpful to be able to choose what you'd like to believe. Your mind is not meant to defend someone else's definition of 'truth', rather it is meant to define it's own truth according to what it wants. Edit: The materialist paradigm is able to give us the convenience of consensus, because our sensory realities generally agree with each other. A schizophrenic's sensory reality will not agree with that of the mainstream. That is why they will be labeled as mentally ill by the consensus. This is what 'proof' is based on in science. 'Anecdotal evidence' is dismissed as unimportant as the consensus reality is more important than integrating all perspectives. This fundamentally disrespects the Truth of Oneness.

Proof is a fundamentally circular concept. The notion of proof holds only within the context of materialistic science, because you have experimental evidence to back it up. There are multiple ways of interpreting the data. For example, a climate change activist would look at some data on climate change and see that as a sign that our world will end in 10 years if nothing is done. But a fossil-fuel corporation's CEO will look at the same data and say 'It's not that big of a deal. I have my lawyers ready to protect my company from lawsuit.' All of these are rationalizations. Here's my claim - If both sides accessed their intuitions and self-reflected, eventually they'd arrive at the same answer and they'd agree on the truth they arrive at. All conflicts must eventually be resolved in a Universe that is One. Confirmation bias is mental rationalization, which is different from intuition. Your ego will use this mental tool to escape unsavory realities. Your intuition, on the other hand, will guide you to face those unsavory realities. Your example is one of a rationalization. Your intuition will not compromise with your ego, much less favor it. It will make you do things that your ego thinks are bad for it. Intuition is prior to your ego, as it is the Universe talking to you. So it will inevitably lead you to self-reflect. Intuition is prior to science. Science is the product of the intuition of people like Newton, Einstein, Pythagoras, Western philosophers, etc.

That's how you save taxes! You don't have anything you own under your name. It's under the name of your corporation. Same goes for 'philanthropy work'. He talks about this a lot.

You're at Green and Yellow. Green because Blue and Orange are strong triggers to you, Yellow because your mind tends to be more holistic as opposed to narrowly specialized. Your reactions to them are strong because you're past those stages, so you're starting to get out of your own narcissistic bubble. You're starting to really despise those who are still stuck in their narcissistic bubble. You're seeing their dysfunctionalities in the context of relationships and what's even worse is that other people may not be corroborating what you're seeing. In such a situation, it really helps to have a Green social circle of hippies, love-and-light spiritual people, SJWs, etc.

Your intuition will tell you where you're being biased and where you're headed in the right direction. The closer you are to the truth, the more peaceful and at ease you will feel about it because the Absolute Truth is peace.

Could you elaborate on what you mean? I didn't fully get you. As I said, it's a speculation until you've investigated it. As far as fear is concerned, I think you'll feel fear if you're speculating or assuming. It's the uncertainty that causes fear. It's the ghost chasing you that causes you fear. When you face your fear and look at the ghost, that's when you'll know whether ghosts exist or they don't! If you see that they do exist, you get the choice to fight the ghost. If you see they don't, then you'll be sure that they don't. Then you won't have a fear of ghosts anymore.

They will be able to explain why. It will be different reasons for different people, because our minds are different. It is a speculation up until you honestly investigate them. Once you reach your conclusion, that's when you will be clear on whether it's true or false. The first step to doing this investigation is to admit to ourselves that they are indeed speculations, i.e. neither true nor false for us as of yet. If we assume that they're true or false without investigating them, we will get defensive and insecure about our positions. Those who assume they're true become the prototypical 'conspiracy theorist'. Those who assume they're false will demonize the prototypical 'conspiracy theorist'. OP's question was 'How do we engage with someone who is in the Conspiracy rabbit hole'. Being in the conspiracy rabbit hole is not equivalent to assuming they're true. It could mean they're assuming they're true, it could also mean they're doing an honest investigation. Either way, if we want to engage with them, we must first resolve our resistance to conspiracy theories, then do the honest investigation. That way you'll have done your homework before engaging with them and you won't get heated in that engagement.

I respect your background. I'm not favoring 'subjective' experience over 'objective' experience. I'm saying there is no difference between the two, it's all One. Leo has a really amazing video on 'What is Perception'. Mind-blowingly amazing video. I'm not telling you to. I'm telling you my experience. You can do your own investigation on this. I disagree with you on this. They tend to want to defend their beliefs a lot, which is a sign of fake confidence masquerading as real confidence. Someone who is really confident will not need to defend their beliefs. Your intuition is with you at all moments of the day. It is talking to you through your emotions. Emotions are somatically felt. So, if you want to access your intuition, the way to do it would be to pay attention to somatic sensations. Things like buzzing, heaviness in the belly, lightness, etc. If you really want to go deep into this, I highly recommend watching Teal Swan's youtube channel. She goes into a lot of detail on this. YES!! That is the unbelievable part. Oneness is the Absolute Truth. So, if you have a disagreement, what this means is that at least one person is deluding themselves. If everyone does an honest investigation by accessing their intuition, my claim is they will arrive at the same conclusion.

@DocWatts @Dryas Your intuition is the universe talking to you. When you contemplate a certain question, the universe gives you ideas, or hints, or clues, or outright answers. It shows you the way to greater Self-Awareness, which is what the Universe (aka You) is ultimately after. Your mind creates your reality. The way it does this is through energetic frequencies, also known as emotions. Emotions are 'Energy in motion'. So, 'the external world' is a mirror of your internal world. This is something you can wake up to - On an energetic level, or on an emotional level, we are all One. To have empathy for someone is to be able to feel their emotions. Because of the Oneness on an emotional level, empathy is possible. So, in reality, there is no difference between 'your emotions' and 'someone else's emotions'. It's all You! There is a difference between intuition and rationalization. Rationalization is something your mind does, your mind comes up with possible explanations or theories on stuff. However, intuition is a somatic knowing. You will feel a deep, stable knowing relative to the topic at hand. This is why emotional awareness is such a key to accessing your intuition. Leo talks a lot about using psychedelics to gain this awareness. I know nothing about psychedelics, so I won't comment on them.

Your intuition is the ultimate arbiter of the truth. Rely only on that. The way you access your intuition is, ironically, through emotional awareness. I'm not saying that being irrational/emotionally carried away is more objective than being rational, rather I'm saying that it's only through sorting through your emotional attachments can you really find the voice of your intuition.

@DocWatts David Icke is the most obvious resource on conspiracy theories. You can find him on bitchute. There's a lot more, I don't feel comfortable naming too many names actually. I don't want to break forum guidelines. A lot of conspiracy theories are about 'elites' lying to the masses about a whole bunch of stuff. This seems impossible to someone who has never considered conspiracy theories, because most people lack an understanding of systems. I'd highly recommend studying how systems work, what high leverage points are there, who controls information, who controls the definition of 'truth' vs 'falsehood', 'fact' vs 'fiction', 'reality' vs 'delusion'. The question I want you to ask yourself is - Given the way our systems work, is it possible for the elites to get away with as much as the conspiracy theorists claim? Is it a valid possibility, or is it just logically impossible? That's where I'd start my investigation if I were in your position.

@DocWatts You're not gonna like my answer. The answer is to look at your resistance to conspiracy theories. Why are you so scared of them? What is it about the theories themselves (or the people who believe them) that terrifies you so much? Then the next step would be to consider them with an open mind. As Leo said in his last video on openmindedness, consider them with an open mind without having to fully believe them. If you really want to honestly conclude that they are indeed BS, you will have to consider the possibility that they could be right first. Then you can do an honest investigation to figure out what's what. A lot of the judgement and hatred comes from the fear 'What if they're right?'. If you're able to prove them wrong, you will not be scared of them anymore. However, if you're proven wrong by them, well..... that's a potential consequence you'll have to be prepared for before you do the investigation.

I like Windows and Android. I find it more user-friendly. I've basically grown up with it.