Consept

@DrewNows The problem is not changing what's around you because as I said from the top what's around you is literally the best it's ever been in human history (please dispute that if you don't feel its true) the problem is that you can't see that and you also can't see the progress that's been made. Your glasses have shit on them so everywhere you look it's shit. Do you say how tightly you and others hold onto this paranoia that your disputing this very thread, your intention, I'm assuming from the direction of your argument lol, is that you want to convince us that we are too positive and your view of being suspicious, fearful and paranoid is the correct view. People will always have theories about things its happened since whenever, people were probably skeptical of ww2 at the time. I found conspiracies interesting on a more psychological meta level like what is the over riding context of why people are so interested in them and obviously as you're within this paradigm you can only see the story of government hiding shit that will harm and destroy everyone, me and some freedom fighters need to warn everyone. But actually there are so many bias' mixed with fear of uncertainty, mixed with attaching your ego to theories. But anyway I'm sure you'll dispute everything I say and try and convince of my close mindedness in not researching the sky is falling down. I personally am grateful that not only was I born in the best time in history so far but in one of the more developed countries within that time and am able to access more accumulated knowledge than has ever been available in history. One day you'll see but I hope for you that you die before you die

@DrewNows if you take a step back from your perspective you'd see you're actually arguing that fear and paranoia is the right or realistic place to be at. You're also suggesting that those not in that place are wrong and you either want them to be there or feel sorry for them that they're not. There's also the assumption that maybe I'm not aware of the 'evil' side as you call it, or I haven't researched anything. Fear and paranoia only exist within the mind. But anyway its your journey and I don't want to be hard on you, this is the experience you need to have so embrace it fully if that's what you feel.

@DrewNows it's not a case of distracting yourself with fake positivity, it's looking at the enteriety of the picture. Fear and paranoia is in all of us for survival, just because it focuses on potential dangers in the world it doesn't mean that is the world. If you were born a king 500 years ago you couldn't even fathom the life of the average person now. As much as you want to hold on to whatever you want to hold on to you can't deny progress has been made. It hasn't been made through fear and paranoia it's been made through people that are able to see through it, those who were fearful have started wars and have generally slowed down our evolution because their view is narrow. But of course you maybe unconscious of this dynamic at play and think that everyone who doesn't see what you see is blind, but maybe they do see it they just see more of the picture

@Jacobsrw Yes good points, intuition is a tricky thing, because something can definitely feel right or feel true but then later be proved wrong, I mean this happens constantly and in a way should happen as we develop both individually and as a collective. I mean look how many people were 100% positive that Lance Armstrong didn't take drugs or that OJ didn't kill anyone. I'm always weary of any anchoring to one type of thought or one person because it limits growth. You're right about bias, they are so influential and there are literally 100s of bias' that affect us at all times, so to even make a bias free judgement you'd have to be aware of all of these. Consciousness is everything, and pratically its the perceiver, so to view something from this perspective would have no bias but there are not many people on the planet that can do that all the time and the ones who can, probably can see the pointlessness of even having or arguing a perspective. The best we can do is try and look at things objectively as possible, which even that is difficult but there should be a conscious effort to put truth above everything even yourself and your bias'.

I think you can have an intuition that someone is awake, but that doesn't mean that everything they say is coming from a deeper place or that their ego doesn't take over sometimes. They are human so different states pass through them as it does us. I think a good skill to develop is not working out who's awake or not but to use your intuition on everything they say. For example Osho says some crazy materialistic things but he also shares deep profound insights, why even label him as awake or not? We can't look inside people's minds. I particularly like Mooji and Paul Hedderman but just because they often say things that resonate with me, if they said something crazy like the earth is flat I wouldn't think it might be true because they said it. I see a lot of bias toward certain people and I get that maybe they made you understand something or took your consciousness higher and that's a good thing, but you have to see they are just people and you particular experience with them may not be them at all, furthermore we are all constantly changing. No one is sacred, anyone can get it even Leo

Hahaha funny (I'm going to be careful of how my English sounds as I don't want to be on your list). I'm from the UK and I guarantee you there are accents here that even if you had a full conversation with the person you wouldn't catch one word.

Yeah this guys amazing, i saw a couple of his vids a few years ago but he didnt really post regularly, would definitely recommend though

Its kind of like Vine if you remember that. The pace of it is more frenetic so it probably messing up your attention span, but the actual content isnt really toxic, id go as far to say its less toxic than fb and insta.

Its not really an oversimplification its just that im not speculating. Even if you are right and lets say they double what vaccines currently make to 48 billion lets even say they make 10x more so around 240 billion its still not even 20% of total income from Pharma per year. Realistically the vaccine will most likely be taken by over 65s as it is now with flu shots, maybe more people will take this one but either way its not gonna make much money relative to other pharma activity. The extra payment for corona diagnosis is a payment by medicare to cover the extra costs in America, im assuming in places with socialised healthcare that will come from the government, so are we saying to make money the government is paying hospitals that it funds anyway extra money, who is benefiting in that situation? In the US in 2017 the average medicare would pay for someone who had a respiratory disease was 13k anyway going up to 40k depending on treatment, there is an extra 20% with covid but thats about it, not exactly a genius money making scheme that warrants losing billions in the economy. https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/04/24/fact-check-medicare-hospitals-paid-more-covid-19-patients-coronavirus/3000638001/ https://www.factcheck.org/2020/04/hospital-payments-and-the-covid-19-death-count/

Teach me enlightened one

I mean the uptake rate for vaccines is usually around 90% anyway, so youre saying all this for an extra 10%? which would be what maybe 4%, not even that, of what pharma make per year as a whole and still less than what alternative medicine makes per year. Add to that because of the financial crash Glaxosmithkline for example dropped to its lowest share price for 2 years, although its recovered now its still not back to where it was before the crash. So I dont really get the money making angle thats being proposed, is there anything other than speculation youre using to back this?

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