Consept

haha yeah tik tok is next level, im not on it but my girl was on it heavy since lockdown started. Its like if you somehow didnt have the attention span for instagram. I will say for now anyway the content is a generally bit more positive than the other social media, its mainly just jokes and skits, no arguing about politics or whatever else.

Heres where i disagree, there isnt that much money in vaccines to warrant all this plandemic stuff, most pharma companies gave up on doing vaccines in the 80s, this is because of the cost and production time, with testing etc. Plus you only use a vaccine once, whereas other treatments can be ongoing. For perspective worlwide total sales of vaccines are 24 billion which represents 2-3% of the pharma industry, which is basically nothing, even in comparison to alternative medicines, homeopathy etc which is worth 34 billion. So what are we talking about here? http://www.boostoregon.org/arent-vaccines-just-moneymakers-for-pharmaceutical-companies If there was an expensive drug that they were trying to sell us as a cure that would make more sense. Amazon are profiting from this, but so are supermarkets and any other businesses that will thrive in these times, restaurants on deliveroo for example. Of course Bezos is too competitive in general but thats a separate issue. What we're looking it is are there people acting in bad faith and actively trying to exploit this situation such as Rose and i think from looking at it, I would say yes. Whats more insidious about what hes doing is that hes exploiting scared people and claiming its about freedom, while also spreading potentially dangerous information that could harm people or at least cause paranoia and division. So if Rose and whoever are not willing to debate these issues and their content properly or act responsibly, I can see why youtube took the action that they took. You might not agree but then as i asked before where is the limit for these theories?

@LfcCharlie4 Well if you do follow the money regarding the original topic, youll see all these guys Rose, Buttar, Mikovitz etc are making a shitload. Ive literally just seen a post on facebook that says Dr Buttar exposes that Bill Gates patented the covid, theres a graphic on it saying 'this will get deleted in 24 hours'. The claim itself is easily debunked, but you can see how it might have been purposefully misinterpreted - https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2020/the-gates-foundation-does-not-have-a-patent-for-the-coronavirus/. But whats annoying is the marketing on shock tactics thats used to promote these videos and spread them around. So I ask again what is the limit to spreading false conspiracies in which there is a financial incentive to do so? The other stuff you post is worthy of investigation and debate but I just want to narrow the focus, if we start getting into world control theories we'll go all over the place.

I agree with these points, ultimately human life has been about not wanting to face our shadows and not wanting to go inward, mainly because of fear. We live in the illusion of certainty day to day, this has pandemic has really shaken up that illusion and what we're seeing is a hanging on to that. Normally people wouldnt care but a lot are jumping on the bandwagon because its almost easier to believe the current government isnt providing the certainty or illusion that we want so they must be evil and have ulterior motives so lets get rid of them. Obviously things dont work like that but it probably gives some reassurance. Regarding youtube being the censor of content, possibly but they would have to be very transparent with it and unilaterally censor things regardless of political stance or whatever. It can get tricky with things like unproven truths, for example some doctors have brought up things on youtube that later came out as true which mainstream wasnt reporting but was very useful for the public to know. So i think who should regulate is still a difficult decision. Its not a right to post on youtube but youtube is so big that it does have a responsibility. Again its a tough one and very nuanced. At what point does something have to be proven wrong to be forgotten about? Lets say Mikovitz was proven wrong comprehensively, which most doctors believe she was, does she then have a right to go on spreading information that is factually incorrect? Many people will believe her and could be negatively affected by doing so, so what happens then? (keep in mind im not saying if shes right or wrong im saying imagine shes wrong). Buttar is another example where ive looked into him personally and can see that the claims he makes are ridiculous, just a quick one he claims the 0.5mg in some vaccines is very dangerous, when if you look into it theres 50mg of mercury in tuna and it is the dangerous type that bioaccumulates as opposed to in vaccines where it doesnt. Most doctors have a similar view on him, so going by our standards, should he not be blocked from youtube? Why should you be allowed to spread potentially harmful misinformation? This should be stopped before he goes on a platform because as we're seeing now people are believing what hes saying just because hes doctor, if you had someone on to debate him then fair enough but thats not whats happening here. What if in your neo-nazi example their speech leads to one of the followers killing someone? Do we still let others say the same thing? If you know what they say isnt right and arrest them after they say it and stop them from saying it again, then whats the point? Thats like saying dont stop a crime if you can let them hurt someone and then theyll be consequences after

The situation as I see it is we should have complete free speech in general, when it comes to using public platforms for this free speech we would have to regulate speech that is both provably untrue and also harmful, for example hate speech or calls to incite violence. This will also include things that act in bad faith, shouting fire in a packed cinema example, which is what i believe Rose has done here. Conspiracy theories can offer a problem, maybe for some of them there maybe some truth, but i think most can agree that majority of conspiracy theories dont hold water. Flat earth for example is not particularly harmful so theres no problem with that being posted publicly, however something like Sandy Hook can be dangerous as families of the kids that got killed were harassed constantly after the shooting. So i think that if a conspiracy theory either doesnt have enough evidence or is comprehensively debunked and is dangerous, i dont think that should be allowed to be shared publicly. This shouldnt restrict those that want to look at alternative theories but there has to be some criteria. If theres not you can have a manipulation of this freedom of speech as we've seen play out by Russia and America setting up fake facebook groups and using astroturfing to instigate and fuel peoples paranoia. The other question is who regulates this criteria and that is a tough one, youd really need some kind of independent body that reviews flagged up content. It wouldnt be right to have youtube or the government in charge of it. People could regulate themselves but i dont think that will happen as we've seen many will post controversial views just to get the hype out of it or, if theres a strong agenda and win at all costs mentally they may post up misinformation, so were not really there yet for self-regulation.

Well i dont anything about it to speak on it, but either way a workable solution for freedom of speech would still be needed

Are people physically attacking conspiracy theorists?

Theres so many issues with unregulated free speech, people could use a platform to condone rape, to condone pedophillia for example, people could start anarchy. In an ideal world we'd all be able to regulate ourselves and all be responsible but thats just not the case at the moment. If you look at it most speech is allowed now, but to say it should be 100% unregulated I just cant see how thats workable, youd have to show me how that model would work as we are now.

Lets say they do and are still attacked regularly, what then?

Well whats your solution for someone who says for example we should hate and try and attack Jews in a compelling way?

Theres no objective measure but you could only measure Europe and America say in relative terms. So North Korea would be an example of extreme restriction, China maybe quite oppressive restriction but not as bad as North Korea, Russia quite bad but not as bad as China and so on. So its basically a spectrum of the available free speech modalities we have at the moment, the worst of which is complete censorship and only pro leadership speech is allowed. So to say we've gone too far i dont think thats accurate as evidently it could be a lot worse. What we have really is the problems with unlimited free speech and the platforms to provide that free speech. The new technology has allowed anyone from anywhere to get millions of viewers for whatever they want to say, before this mainstream had a lock on media so it was never really a problem. I mean you wouldve been free to make an independent film or write a book or whatever but it wouldve been harder to get onto the same level as mainstream. So its a positive direction that we've moved in regards to free speech and not only free speech but platforms to get out to millions. But within that comes issues with how thats regulated. In my opinion thats the issue that we're dealing with rather than a fight for free speech itself.

Maybe, but then this irresponsible use of free speech is an argument for why there should be some restrictions

Heres the problem you have though. Can speech be dangerous? Yes, youve identified a couple ways. Should there be some restriction? Yes, youve also agreed. So as you say the problem is who decides, I agree in that youtube shouldnt decide, so if we ourselves are to decide which is fine there has to be a certain responsibility in that, there has to be every effort to make sure you are presenting the information in a fair way especially if youre claiming truth and claiming impartiality , of course an opinion is an opinion, but generally you should try your best to take responsibility for your speech. This means not shouting fire and not saying things that could incite violence or cause dangerous things to happen, i think generally if you keep away from these you should be able to say whatever you want. So with Rose you have a situation where everyone is scared because of this pandemic, he knows that if he has certain people on theyll get a lot of views and say controversial things. I would say some of the things that have been said by Buttar and Icke are a kin to shouting 'fire'. But even if you dont agree that what they say is dangerous Rose is not using his freedom of speech responsibly, theres no questioning of many of their points, theres no counter position and it is being presented as fact. Further to that Rose is deleting comments that are not supportive of London Real which is contradictory to his fight for free speech. Ive also seen him pull a video that gave a bad review of his courses a couple of years ago. So if this 'freedom platform' is setup it means no one can criticise it on the platform so how the hell is that providing freedom of speech? its just replacing youtube as the decider for Rose. Whats even worse is that Rose doesnt seem to give too many opinions on Ickes content, so its not like he really believes what Icke is saying, hes more focused on the results its bringing. Which then leads to taking over £1m in donations from his followers. I mean that coupled with the ridiculous amount of people claiming they were scammed with his courses over the last few years, would lead you to believe that he is definitely capable of something like this. The only question be was this some premeditated plan or did he just fall into this unconsciously

Yeah its a tough one in terms of implementation. Maybe there should be a real strategy on how to redress the balance, tech companies pay next to nothing in tax for example. Should also note the conservatives in the UK gave a lot of tax breaks to rich people to incentivise them to come to the uk, this is trickle down economics, the idea that the wealthy will supply jobs and make everyone else better off, but this has not been the case at all. There are many problems in the western economy mostly with favouring the rich over the poor and these need to be changed, im sure if they are they could probably even afford ubi off of the extra money they get. One thing that makes sense about ubi is that if you have it you no longer need state pensions, benefits or all the costs around that system. So really its something worth looking into, but it wont be a simple task to get a system that works

@LfcCharlie4 Most complaints ive seen are in the last couple years but there a few from 4+ years ago as well. I have actually been following him loosely for a few years, same as you i liked a lot of the guests he had on, but I never really got into his own videos where hes giving advice, just didnt really resonate with him, although i liked the ayahuasca content he did. The podcast normally does provide value i cant say it doesnt. But we really have to hold people accountable and i love Sadhguru and Mooji but if they were doing something shady like this i would feel the same way, id be disappointed but id think they should still be called out. Otherwise you will get cults when someone cant be questioned. He is stage orange and like you said nothing wrong with that but when it becomes unhealthy it has to be looked at. Obviously theres only so much we can do here but I think its worthwhile having logical debate and at least building up awareness for ourselves and others on the forum. I couldnt dispute the points i brought up which is why i brought them up in case someone had an explanation for them. But respect to you for keeping your mind open on this

@LfcCharlie4 I get what youre saying and like we've said before there are loads of issues with data protection, i sell on Amazon myself and yes it is obvious that they take private label seller items, similar to what supermarkets do when they copy brands, all of that isnt good, its a conflict of interest having a marketplace and also competing against sellers within that marketplace. But who we're talking about specifically is Brian Rose, all your arguments could be brought up whoever we're talking about to say 'well theres worse things going on'. Now why i think this is extra important is because the argument of who or what should be the authority on free speech is very, very important, as such if someone is acting in bad faith and trying to exploit the situation which is what is being claimed, then i think that is worth an honest discussion. You said you havent used his course, there are a lot of people who arent happy with it, ive posted links to them previously. I myself was considering doing his podcast course but i never got round to it, so im not against courses or him on principle, if i had seen the amount of negative feedback hes gotten because of it, i wouldnt have even considered it. Theres so many reddit threads devoted to it, so many reviews, its unusual to see that many honestly. Another thing thats concerning is that he deletes comments on his videos and hes even had bad reviews of london real pulled down, check this guys blog - https://yannwithayahuasca.com/2016/04/18/why-i-left-london-real-academy-against-my-will-review/ This seems very hypocritical to me and would imply its not about free speech at all or at least with the freedom platform he wants to be the authority on whats posted, so how is this a freedom platform? What hes saying his motives are do not correspond with his actions. If his motives were true then its a valid conversation to have and the idea of freedom of speech needs to be sorted out, but how hes going about it doesnt seem the best way, even if his motives were honest.

@remember I agree its hard to measure the sufficient amount of work thats required and how that correlates with how much you make. For example a multi-millionaire who makes money off clever investments with money left to him from his parents and works a 4 hour week, does he work harder than a nurse or a cleaner? Why is he more deserving? Being annoyed that lazy people dont work doesnt justify not putting through ubi because if someone doesnt want to work in the west, they wont, regardless of ubi or benefits or whatever. This number isnt that significant and i doubt those that are working will stop working because of ubi

Probably the basis of the teaching is to be in touch with feelings and feel your intuition more and all that but in practice, id say most people see it as a blocking of negative emotions. Whenever someone has brought it up to me thats how theyve explained it. So i think if youre coming into it not having seen any spiritual teachings before youre likely to take it this way, esp with things like the secret

@LfcCharlie4 @TrynaBeTurquoise Let me try and summarise your points for the sake of clarity - There are lots of good reviews therefore his course is not a scam (would need to see those) - He's put his reputation on the line talking to 'conspiracy people' this risk shows that hes legit - The claims put to him are all speculation - Other entities do similar or worse things than Rose such as the government, Gates, Soros etc therefore we shouldnt bother focusing on Rose - We should go through all of what mainstream do, facebook, media etc to work out whether they do things that we're not happy with - Youve done the online course yourself so you know its a good course and youve made money from doing it Is this a fair summary?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail

@TrynaBeTurquoise Not to attack you and just to encourage healthy debate because i would very much like to here opposing views on this, but youre going to have to answer the points that have been raised otherwise its just i like him you dont, which is pointless. I agree with you that he created a platform that i myself subscribed to and i wished him the best through his journey, however now he seems to have turned a corner in my opinion, although you might have a differing point of view which id very much like to hear. So the points ive raised are as follows - - Explain your view on his shady history with his business practices, namely his courses which have received a lot of bad reviews with people claiming they were scammed (before any of this free speech stuff)- https://www.scamguard.com/londonrealtv/ - Explain your view on his pyramid crypto currency scheme, of which he used his platform to promote https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/fqmy2s/a_new_creepto_pyramid_scheme_targeting_british/ - Do you think someone with such a history is capable of this kind of deception that we're seeing now? (note im not asking if he did it) - Do you think creating a 'freedom platform' for £1m gained through donations, which is hosted on 3rd party hosting solutions is a realistic spend of that money? The other points are to create a blockchain currency which will probably be the pyramid thing - What do you think of the fact he kept raising how much money was needed depending on how much he was getting? - Do you think its right to promote someone like Buttar who has many malpractice lawsuits for taking advantage of cancer patients who later died by promising a cancer cure? And espouses false and misinformation - Do you think there is a possibility hes milking this situation a little bit as he will get more exposure and money? Now like i said i didnt really have a problem with him before and im all for free speech, so as much as you want to, id ask for you not to attack me and just answer the points directly so we can actually debate this issue

Im not saying isnt complicit in this, he definitely is, i just dont think hes the driving force. If you look at Roses history this definitely within his remit. Icke seems more happy about this god status and promotion hes being given by Rose. Either way my predication is that this is going to heavily backfire on Rose, the crowd will eventually turn against him when all his history comes up/when he takes things too far or asks for too much. Theres a lot of people out there that seem to not like him for legitimate reasons. I feel compassion for him as he seemed to be making steps to evolve but unfortunately hes deep in this unhealthy orange mindset, i hope he learns from what i think will end up being a massive fuck up. Icke will just go back to doing his Icke stuff, i dont think anything will change in that regard. Hopefully Buttar doesnt come back i think what he espouses is truly dangerous, theres african youtube channels using his clips as reference point for them to stand up and refuse vaccines, which has the potential to kill millions of Africans, ironic that hes speaking out against Gates' so called 'depopulation'. Whole things a mess honestly and i hope the public wise up

Check out this as well, its Joey Diaz talking about his experience with Rose, its about 4 min from 15.10 -

@GreenWoods Id lean toward C. Icke has his own agenda, which has been pretty consistent for 30 years like i said, it seems as though he believes what hes saying and wants to get his message out, i dont agree with the way he does some things or how he frames things and how he jumps to wild theories, but in general I wouldnt say he scams people. Although i think he plays up certain points to get more hype. Rose on the other hand seems a bit more calculated. Whats interesting is that although he doesnt really question properly and presents things as facts, he doesnt seem to even have a strong opinion on what Icke is talking about, so allegedly hes thing is wholly a free speech issue. But how far does he want to take it, why not have fundamentalist muslims on or neo-nazis? So then its not really a freedom of speech thing its more he wants to post up certain content, in this case Icke is controversial, it would make a lot more sense if he had an interview with a traditional doctor or a scientist or something as well, its freedom of speech but just one narrative, which is what hes accusing the mainstream of doing. A funny thing with the video you posted is that he is priming his audience for the bad shit thats about to come out about him and theres a lot - https://www.scamguard.com/londonrealtv/ https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/comments/9om9fw/got_scammed_from_londonreal_business_accelerator/ This ones a crypto pyramid scheme he planned a few months back, notice that the crypto thing is in his plans for the donations - https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/fqmy2s/a_new_creepto_pyramid_scheme_targeting_british/ So the question is, is he capable of scamming people, i mean youd have to say yes looking at the evidence and these are historic incidences, so people arent just saying it now to try and shut him down. That doesnt necessarily mean hes doing it here, but i would say its quite likely just based off the tactics that hes using and how hes not being fully transparent because of the 'opposition'. At the very least you could say its a misguided crusade at the worst its a full on scam which could make him millions

Update video just released