Consept

Good point, if you are expecting one person to be the source of all your info then you will always ultimately be disappointed in that person. Self actualization means actualize yourself. Like I said Leo does have his blind spots but he is a human and if you learn from someone else they will also be a human. As he develops maybe these blind spots will close but really that's his own journey and not really anyone's business but his own. Thinking about it this is a very open forum and he is dealing with ideas that can become dogmatic so I think he's done very well in terms of not turning this into a cult, everywhere else seems to have some strong die hard narrative trying to red pill people, at least its not like that here

@integral Interesting, as an intp myself i can confirm it can be like that. Theres definitely the urge to think that you know something definitely, mainly because were in our heads so much that we've just thought about things more than the average person and we pride ourselves on having sound logic. But what ive found is that there are a lots of blind spots and things you have to make a conscious effort to develop, the video talks about socially, thats definitely true, ive had to do that and its still not great. In Leos case youre saying he speaks with too much certainty, taking the intp personality someone would only do this if they had thoroughly researched or whatever method was used and then come to a conclusion. What i think hes missing is that even if he is 100% sure (which i dont think you can ever be but i understand how you can feel like that with mystical experience) he should appreciate that hes speaking to someone whos not 100% sure, its like a scientist saying ive studied this so its true with a lot of certainty. To really explain hed have to come down to your level and speak without so much certainty because it can be off putting even if it is the truth

@Leo Gura What do you think is happening in terms of all these libertarian ideas becoming quite mainstream in political discourse now, as well as things like brexit here in Britain exhibiting nationalistic beliefs? Are we regressing as humans or is it a kind of ego backlash on a population level? Thought this article from gq was interesting, it's about rich Conservative people using their own charity funds in dubious ways that progress their own interests such as spreading misinfo on climate change so their businesses wouldn't be affected. Starts with the trump fund as well https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.gq.com/story/philanthropy-political-tool-rich/amp

Trump is not a good business man at all, I'm not even sure he's a good con man. Someone like Jordan belfort (wolf of Wall Street) is a great con man, trump could've never done what he did. What he is good at is getting the right ruthless people around him, people like Roger Stone, who I think is actually going to prison soon not sure. Anyway check this out about his business dealings (it's a comedy so you know do your own research)

I know dragons exist and i know this because there are multiple stories from people online of their experiences with dragons and lots of evidence and you just have to look at the past myths and todays fantasy to see dragons are always in plain sight, its a way of hiding them in plain sight so the public get used to their existence. The BBC have even admitted that they could exist - http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160929-how-evolution-could-give-rise-to-real-life-dragons. Its also been reported cave dragons exist - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science/cave-dragons-exist-and-saving-them-could-protect-drinking-water-180963797/ So you might ask where is all the hard evidence, well this is the thing, the powers that be are going to use the dragons as weapons of mass destruction they may even use them to depopulate the world and blame it on the dragons, so because of this plan they suppress all mention of dragons in the mainstream, in fact ive personally asked members of the government and the 1% and they deny this is the case, thats right they are dragon-deniers. You might also say scientists and evolutionists have proved that dragons dont exist and actually could never have existed, but again theyve obviously all been paid to say that or at least adjust their results. Then on to the media, they never report anything about dragons, what does that tell you? Theyre feeding you garbage because they dont want you to see the truth, the powers that be own the media so of course if they had dragons they wouldnt report it in the media, come on. There are some real dragon truthers on youtube who have podcasts where they discuss these points in more detail, however its hard to tell the truth about it, in fact one of them got shutdown because youtube said he was spreading misinformation, which of course they would because who owns youtube? Google, whos behind Google? Thats right, Sergey Brin a billionaire in the top 1% of wealth in the world, he has the means to do it and all he cares about is power. If you truly have an open mind you will look into this for yourself, if your mind is closed i hope one day youll open it up and go down the dragon hole

@Mu_ This guy gets it. Great point and also how do we know some of these so called 'dinosaurs' werent in fact dragons? How would they check if they could breath fire?

We're like batman and robin taking down one lizard person at a time!

You know what as a half nigerian half british, london born 35 year old male i often get mistaken for David Hasslehoff, unfortunately no it isnt him. Sleep easy grashopper

OK cool thats noted i will have a look for connections, this is a relatively new theory that has been suppressed for many years, which is why there are only loose strands. One thing we can say is dragons are real, so i have a feeling that theres a connection to the lizard people, which would make sense with the hunger for power. I didnt believe the lizard people but now thinking about it there must be a connection as theyre from the same kind of lizard species so maybe the dragons are a more primitive version of the lizard people, kind of like the pets of the lizard people if you know what mean? Logically i think that makes sense

Come on bro open your mind, this was back in 2001 so of course there wouldnt be as much proof now especially with the global elite suppressing do you really think this will get out when they own all the mainstream media? I have 2 theories on the girls either they are relatives of the elite and they know the truth so theyre trolling or theyre fellow dragon truthers who are trying to get the word out and they knew it would cause controversy and make people open theyre eyes to the truth. I havent seen them in the dragon community so not sure but id lean toward the second theory. But you have to admit its something it cant be a coincidence. Also we cant focus on 9/11 too much it just builds up a picture but i have a feeling its connected to 5g and possibly covid 19, im not sure exactly how, do you have any ideas?

Good question, i can see youre very open minded. OK so of course theres no hard evidence the elite have covered that up for years, but once you know that this has happened youll see signs everywhere. For example In welsh rugby theres a team called the Newport Dragons, the national flag of Wales is also a dragon btw, The dragons were beaten by Cardiff in 2015, you know what the score was? 9-11 - https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/jan/01/newport-gwent-dragons-cardiff-blues-pro12-match-report Another big clue was in 2016 2 girls dressed up as the twin towers being burnt down at a convention, obviously very bad taste dont condone it, but guess what the convention was called, Dragon Con - https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-think-of-the-Cosplayers-who-went-to-the-2016-Dragon-Con-in-Atlanta-dressed-as-the-burning-World-Trade-Center-buildings-from-9-11-complete-with-jumping-victims In fact it appears they deleted that original story, probably the global elite. Theres other bits and pieces but i think even logically the fire was not hot enough to sustain and burn for that long that would have to be a prolonged source. If you look at this -https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/ they debunk the demolition theory so that only leaves one plausible theory, Dragons

Ive been researching dragons all day, what do you know about what they can or cant do? Its most likely they kept the dragons at the top of the towers and then released them when the planes crashed. They burnt the towers from the inside, demolition is harder to prove because they wouldve had to set that up before and it might have been too obvious, or maybe they did the demolition as well but either way dragons are obviously involved

What are you talking about, dragons do kill people did you not read my post? I mean i dont know but obviously if theyre planning to depopulate the world they would have to test the dragons and of course they would do that with people. Think about it 9/11, how would it have got that hot to tear down the towers? even with the traditional planned demolition theory it doesnt make sense something wouldve had to make it hot enough. The official theory says that jet fuel burned really hot but im sure it was the dragons its the only thing that makes sense. Of course they wouldve covered it up thats why you havent heard anything about it, but the real dragon truthers know, open your eyes bro

Dont let the dragon owning elite fool you my brother, free your mind!

@Zanoni Sorry bro, i thought you were one of those dragon deniers so i had to appear as a normie. But youre right this has to be linked to covid-19 and probably 5g in some way. Ill have to research a bit more

Well the point is that you can replace the word dragon for anything and make it true at least to yourself using this logic, which is a logic I've seen a lot of recently

@LaucherJunge bro you have got a long journey ahead of you, I really hope you get past this block that you have.

I think it's pretty impossible to get to an absolute universal truth, our reality is constantly evolving and we perceive the world through our finite senses and mind. Like Eckart Tolle says you know you're aware of something and that's pretty much all you know for sure. Having said that there is such a thing as relative truth within this game of life. I have found the best way to discern that is to work out what's not true and to do that I believe epistemology is probably is probably the best way, so this looks at how you got to your belief. It does have its limitations of course but it can make you see through biased thinking or circular logic very well and you can even go through you own beliefs using this method. This video will give you a much better idea of the process as it's quite long to explain fully -

OK so youre saying its impossible to come to truth at least in this government because the evidence will always be skewed to fit an agenda. So that means any evidence that has an agenda should be thrown out as well, ive come across many youtube documentaries that definitely have an agenda such as 'out of the shadows' for example, this is not to say theres not some truth in these docs but to deny they have an agenda would be dishonest. To come to this theory that they have an agenda I use my intuition in noticing the rhetoric is similar to right wing rhetoric, its heavy on christian fundamentalism and it appears to be backed by right wing people. (keep in mind im not saying theres anything wrong with any of the standpoints or that they should be dismissed simply because they take these standpoints) I know for a fact some people have come to conclusions about the government with documentaries like these, im not sure you brought up this particular one but there is another thread on it. So by your logic because this has an agenda behind it shouldnt this and most other documentaries should not be looked at as valid evidence? Also there is at least a chance some of these documentaries couldve been produced by people in government, thats not an ascertion, i really dont know but its definitely in the realms of possibility You might also say, of course docs are not valid evidence, but again the question remains, what is a good way to get to truth?

Fully get you what i was trying to do is come to a way we can establish truth that we can both agree in. Of course evidence is the default because it seems quite obvious if were dealing with material things ie we can see this person killed that person because theres video footage and dna at the crime scene. So if we are throwing out hard evidence which i dont mind doing at all, that has to be the case for any conspiracy you might have, lets stick with vaccines. We'll throw out the scientific evidence but that absolutely has to go both ways meaning, any evidence you have that can be considered scientific that says vaccines are dangerous also has to be thrown out as essentially its from the same source if its peer reviewed etc. So then what are we left with to determine truth? Youve mentioned intuition, ok so the question would be do you think thats a good way to establish truth, like if i had an intuition that vaccines are relatively safe and you have an intuition that theyre unsafe how do we determine who is right?

Well yeah obviously, there couldnt be an agenda that either side is trying to push, that goes for both government and any other stakeholders. Heres where you might run into problems if your belief is binary, on the other thread we had a truther (at least in standpoint) supplying evidence on vaccines, as well as someone looking on both sides. The evidence was scientific based and accepted as a legit foundation of truth, so if the evidence presented against vaccines was true that would be accepted and of course the evidence for vaccines would also have to be accepted. So the result like anything, was nuanced, overall vaccines are a positive but there are some issues with metals in some vaccines specifically for those with pre existing conditions. Looking at about 99% safe i might be wrong about that exact number but it would very high nonetheless. So using this model of aiming for truth we've come to a conclusion in our new government that we have to keep going with vaccines, however we need to work tirelessly to make sure theyre 100% safe, get rid of any that are potentially dangerous and make sure that anyone who has pre-existing conditions that could be affected by a particular vaccine does not take it. How does that sound for you?

Maybe I didnt get my point across clearly. Im talking about nuance as in grey areas so of course i wouldnt say for example 'the government does some good things so therefore it doesnt need improving'. What im saying is that to really know what improvements need to happen you have to unbiasedly look at say the government in this case, and say whats working and whats not working. To be able to do that, truth (real relative truth) has to be stuck to, what can get in the way of that is if you already have a binary belief that government is bad, as i believe 'truthers' do for the most part. If you have this belief its likely that you just want to rip and destroy this thing that has been improving and progressing for 100s or even 1000s of years. If you think about it most of the political debates we currently have are because of black and white thinking, abortion is a very nuanced subject, so is healthcare, so is welfare, having politics that just says one side is good and one is bad is completely ridiculous, but it exist because thats what most people vote in. If you have candidates that see 'yes i can see both sides and we need to find a solution based on the truth that we will investigate', who will vote for that candidate? You get the system you deserve and at the moment we think in this way which is why we have this system

I was trying to look but couldn't find anything just interested if anyone had some kind of list of Icke predictions and whether they came to pass or not. Even if they didn't I'm not saying he doesn't have value, I'm just wondering how accurate he actually is as hear a lot of people referring to him regarding conspiracy theories. He's been doing this for 30+ so there should be results by now

Great list and advice

I really believe you have to get past conspiracy theories if you want to grow as a person, not just conspiracies but any linear narratives you might have and hold on to, be it religion, politics, or anything. Why i say that is you have to be able to hold more than 1 idea in your head at a time. Could you look at the government and say they could be seen as both good and bad? Theres bad stuff they do but theres good stuff that is absolutely essential that they do. There doesnt have to be a binary decision, the conspiracy point of view is that they are unilaterally bad, thats why if i were to say at least in the UK, 'we have a national health service, if they were completely evil that wouldnt exist' people who believe the government are bad would call me a sheep and say i dont understand all the bad things theyve done, but im well aware of what theyve done and their colonial history. We're dealing with super complexed systems with millions of people and plenty of nuance within each person let alone the country, i dont even see how its possible to just make overarching statements. What we need to focus on in this context is whats true and whats not, having the opinion that everything is bad or good would cloud you from seeing any truth, which is ironic for a group called 'truthers' but is definitely true when you consider the confirmation bias that occurs. If you look at the other thread about Bill Gates that will be very clear