Consept

you can talk about them as in the pyschology of them or effect, as is the case with op, but we're not gonna have discussions about whether theyre true or not. Its not complicated. Im not telling you what to do im just saying have a bit of respect for the op and dont derail the thread

Whatever you say man, anyway look stop hijacking this thread to post conspiracies, we all get it youre enlightened and that has led to you finding the truth about covid, depopulation and whatever else, one day maybe all of us and Leo will evolve to your higher consciousness and post memes on the internet and try and awaken the other sheep. OP had real questions and observations that he wanted to discuss, your point is conspiracies are real, we understand your point of view, no one agrees but either way its not on topic

@r0ckyreed Youre right the government can and probably is full of a lot of people who are corrupt or are just in it for power and money. But i would say this almost a natural thing that would happen given the stage of our development as a human race, until we get to higher levels of green and then yellow, we will as a collective be quite self-serving and corruptible. What should give you some solace is that we have progressed immensely over the last few 100 years, imagine how corrupt things were 50 years ago or 100 or 500 years ago when humans were in deep purple and red, so things have and will continue to improve, you could even feel empathy for those that are stuck in lower stages. In terms of knowing who to trust and believe i would just say dont follow anyone blindly, the reason why most get into cult like situations with people like Ralph Smart is because he said some stuff you liked and that helped you and now he can do no wrong, hes become a false idol. Go by the content of what people say, if it doesnt make sense to you research it and find out why theyre saying it. I guarantee you most of Smarts followers are not even thinking about questioning what he says, that becomes cult behavior when if you question the leader youre thrown out of the group, its a known tactic. Try and look at things objectively without saying things like the government is all bad or is all good, what ive learnt is every situation is very complexed and is never binary, its important to learn the nuances of situations and how they fit into systems. But youre doing the right thing questioning things

That might be the best thing to do

Well two questions, do you think that you can be 100% certain about covid being fake? and do you think that money is not a factor at all? Bonus question, what do you think of the DMs Ralph left for that girl? Also just to say im very comfortable being uncertain about things, i always find it suspicious when someone is 100% certain about something that has not been proved and also when they are not even well versed in the subject area, those that are well versed in the area wouldnt even say theyre 100% certain but somehow this person whos watched a few youtube vids is, serious red flags.

Putting aside whether the conspiracy theories are true or not, there are a lot of people who have profited from talking about conspiracies over this covid period, specifically people like - Dr Buttar, Brian Rose(London Real), Teal Swann, Ralph Smart, Aaron Doughty. Now the question would be do they genuinely believe the conspiracies or do they not but know they will get a lot of views if they pretend they do? Who knows, but they must be aware of the uptick in views for this content, (you can check social blade, Buttar only had a few thousand subs now has nearly 500k), and they also must be aware that conspiracies are not 100% true, i dont think most are true at all but no one can say that theyre 100% sure theyre true as there just isnt the evidence for it. So keeping those 2 facts in mind there must be some awareness that they at least could be wrong and if they are wrong the damage caused could be serious even if its just creating stress for people who have now become convinced covid is fake from watching these videos. Also note that all these people have highly monetised themselves, Ralph Smart for example charges £350 an hour for skype coaching on top of an extensive merch catalogue and other money making outlets. I think it would be naive to think that money isnt a big factor in this. What ive noticed about youtubers in general, is that they jump on popular waves, whether they care about the subject or not. A recent example is the wave of 'apology' videos from youtubers where they apologise for some past bad behavior. Its not a stretch to think that these spiritual youtubers would do similar, at least with normal youtubers theyre quite honest and direct in saying that they want to make money. Personally I'm quite disappointed in Smart as although i never really resonated with him i felt he was a positive person and was probably helping others, but after seeing whats happened over the last few months im not sure thats the case, really i hope people move on to real spiritual teachers, i think guys like smart are no better than the prosperity preachers that ask for money from their congregation so they can buy planes and whatever else. I think for everyone on this forum working on their bullshit meter is very important, a good start is if a 'guru' is asking for crazy money be aware that might be their main focus. I came accross this expose vid about Ralph Smart, if you look at the messages he leaves youd have to say its very strange -

Im not really arguing for predestiny im just saying it would be hard to pin down how free will could actually work. If you didnt choose to be born and the circumstances of where you were born etc then every following choice has its root in those seemingly uncontrollable circumstances. Also you didnt choose your genetics, so you may have a genetic disposition to be athletic and like sports for example, you then make a career out of playing sports but the only reason you did that is you were genetically coded to enjoy those activities, so was that your free will to choose sports? I think what i would ask anyone who makes an argument for free will is, can you give me an example of a choice that can be made that is completely independent of any influence? and, bonus question, do you choose your thoughts, if you do where did the thought to choose a specific thought come from? (if you dont choose your thoughts how can there be free will?) This could be the case, who knows i havent had direct experience of it either, maybe no one will until we die. But even if it is the case, if you cant remember that youre God then whoever you think you are (ego, conscious mind) specifically doesnt have free will as only God would have free will. If you surrender to something higher then again the little you specifically doesnt have free will, potentially the higher you does.

What i think about in regards to free will is what does a choice completely of free will even look like? Lets say you want lunch and your choices are a sandwich or a salad, what determines you choosing one or the other would be lots of different things, like if you had either before and preferred one over the other, did you get some information recently that told you a salad is a healthier option? Does a sandwich remind you of something? There are so many factors that the choice could never be completely independent and therefore free of influence. You could say if you make a random choice that could be freewill but it wouldnt be as it would be random. if we take it further, any decision you make in your life is proceeded by the fact that you were born, as far as we know, without you choosing to be and without you choosing what circumstances or what type of personality, brain chemistry, upbringing, parents, etc. All these things have immeasurable influence on what your choices in life would be, so if your choice making function was developed without your input how could any choice you make be independent and of your own free will. If there was complete free will, why would anyone make bad choices? Why would anyone be poor or homeless or unhappy? Potentially you could make better choices if you are more conscious, but again its dependent on the information you have. For example i could read a book that teaches me how to eat healthy, if i follow that book ill change what i eat but im only changing what i eat because ive followed that book, so its not an independent choice, ive been influenced, it may not even be the best advice. So for me i dont see how there could be free will unless it can be proved and defined properly, what a choice that is completely independent and comes about through free will even looks like

Free will kind of falls apart when you consider that you had no choice or free will in being born, in what circumstances and with what brain type or personality. Let's say you were born into really bad circumstances, abuse etc which led you to become a criminal, where would the free will be in that? You may say, but you can build up awareness and get out of that criminal mindset, but if you're not aware in the first place how could you choose to suddenly be aware? Something may happen to make you aware but that again wouldn't be free will. If the root of every action you make didn't involve free will how can any proceeding action be because of free will?

I found this study very interesting and relevant to this topic

I'm an introvert but I've had great nights at clubs. The key for me was just enjoying the night girls or no girls, make sure I like the music, I have a couple good friends with me, I talk to lots of people not just girls I'm attracted to. If I get into that state it's really an amazing feeling and I'm just giving off good vibes and having fun, then girls are just kinda drawn to you. For me it feels like some transcendent experience, I don't know if day game is the same as I haven't really done it but I guess it could be.

Just to correct you, hes not saying dont approach, a woman will most likely not approach you so that wouldnt work. What hes saying is wait until you get some indication that the woman is interested and then approach. Choosing signal could be just looking at you for a second or two or playing with their hair or whatever but some kind of signal. The alternative would be a numbers game in that you have no clue whether the girl is interested but youre going to attempt to make her interested by saying something, more than likely if she was attracted she wouldve noticed you. Im not saying cold approach wouldnt work but its similar to sales, if you go knocking door to door you will get some sales but itll be tough, if you go to people that you know are already interested in your product your hit rate will be much higher. You can rationalise it and say 'yeah just hustle no excuses' but ultimately the best sales people dont go door to door their skill is sensing when someone is interested and letting that person almost sell themselves.

Theres a guy on youtube Alpha Male Strategies, his whole thing is be on your purpose and be the best you can be and the women will give you choosing signals, but never put chasing a woman first above your purpose and never play the numbers game of cold approach. hes a bit hardcore with the delivery but i think the core message makes sense -

Its a fine balance, if the girl finds you attractive and isnt threatened by you she will of course be open to an approach, so you need good level social skills to be able to work out if thats the case. If youre unsure you can still approach and read if theres any attraction, again you need good social skills for this. Its also important to not go into any interaction expecting something from it, you can go in just to have a conversation but there cant be any overt pressure from your side. Basically women will find you creepy if you have no social skills, you may get away with it if youre attractive but even then if your social skills are poor it will still come across creepy. Being needy in anyway is another way to come off creepy, if the woman feels threatened then its going to be very uncomfortable for both of you. Its understandable that women would have to be on guard in this way, considering men generally are physically stronger.

Didnt watch all of it, but in some ways i agree, i think one think thats definite is Trump has shaken up the system. For as long as i can remember there has not been a clear choice between candidates and they are able to carry a fake persona to get them into office and have been controlled by the funders. I always thought this needed to change and i think by having such an extreme president in Trump it can actually make getting someone like Bernie or AOC a possibility. Having said that I dont believe Trump is aware of this in any way, hes a Red level president and is about his personal power and wealth, thats quite obvious in his actions. The outcome wouldve been the same if any Red level person became president, so you can take whatever narrative you want, it could be that Trump is a light worker whatever that means, or it could be that peoples consciousness dropped to a certain level where they could be manipulated and now seeing that manipulation they can learn from that for the future, as many ex-Trump voters have learnt. Hopefully everyone takes on the lessons that this situation has brought up though.

Theres papers of him gagging people so its not a mainstream lie, it would be dumb not to look at both sides honestly. If youre saying employees shouldnt say bad stuff about their boss (in this case its them disagreeing with trump on issues) it means you believe in freedom of speech with regulations, if you believe in regulations who should set out these regulations? Like i said if Biden gagged those who spoke out against him youd say he isnt for freedom of speech, so whats the difference with Trump doing it? This seems to be a bit of a block for you

Do you see how even though you admit yourself you havent got the full picture you still have a strong stance for Trump, in fact you also say if you were to do research it would be explicitly to see where the media is lying. This is no where near being impartial or looking for the truth in the situation, if it was you would consider where Trump has lied as well but instead youre looking to reinforce whatever your original position was. Despite the fact that its completely contradictory ie Trump has demonised others for doing exactly what he has done himself, case in point banning governement employees from speaking on twitter while complaining that twitter is banning him, it literally makes no sense and you would need a lot of cognitive dissonance to make it make sense. Try to really see this from an objective view, if you take Trump out of the equation and lets say Biden was doing exactly the same thing, would you make the same argument for Biden and say its all lies?

Just to sum up @--George-- view of freedom of speech - Freedom of speech is a right and everyone should have 100% freedom of speech. The only exception is if someone is trying to smear your name and ruin your life, regardless if what theyre saying is true or not this should not be allowed and they should be gagged from doing so. However if you want to smear someones name this should be allowed because of freedom of speech, if they complain that you shouldnt be allowed to smear them or talk negatively about them you can claim that theyre trying to cancel you because cancel culture is a big problem. Also if youre the president, specifically Trump not any other president, you can gag your own employees if they speak out against you. Hope this is clear for everyone

Well most of the book is an opinion, her saying he wouldnt pass an intelligence test is an opinion, so are you saying that if the opinion is negative about someone it should rightfully be banned? How does that line up with freedom of speech? I can steelman you and say that shes trying to smear his name, so if thats the case and it would have to be proven, hasnt Trump done this with Obama with the birther situation? Hes also followed this by claiming Kamala Harris may not have been born in the US, these are both provably false, should Trump be banned from saying these types of things if its ok that his niece could be banned for saying an opinion? And again is preventing government employees from talking on twitter for or against freedom of speech?

You havent really answered the question, ill try again, Is preventing a book being published for or against universal free speech? Is preventing government employees from speaking on twitter for or against free speech?

Stick to the point though, would you say Donald Trump gagging and trying to prevent the Mary Trump book being published is indicative of someone who 100% believes in freedom of speech? Add to that hes tried to prevent many others from speaking out including government employees - https://news.sky.com/story/us-government-workers-defy-president-trump-gagging-order-on-twitter-10743813 https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/24/14372940/trump-gag-order-epa-environmental-protection-agency-health-agriculture https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-white-house-gags-three-us-government-agencies-epa-environmental-protection-agency-a7544781.html This isnt spin theres actual legal papers to this effect, so question is can you be for free speech while at the same time preventing those with differing opinions to you from speaking? Please stick to the question if you actually want to debate this. If you do think hes still for freedom of speech would you Biden also be for freedom of speech of he gagged employees that went against him if he was president?

If Biden dismissed questions that he didnt like from reporters but claimed he was for free speech, would you agree he was for free speech?

Trump is for His freedom of speech but anyone who has speaks against he wants to shut down. Good point is his own niece Mary Trump who wrote a book analysing him and Trump tried every way he could to have it banned, same with others that have written books against him. He sacks anyone who's not 100% loyal to him, he regularly shuts down, dismisses or even doesn't let reporters ask questions if he feels they'll be unfavourable to him. I don't really understand how someone can see these things and think trump is for free speech This modus operendi is very harmful as we're seeing play out with the pandemic

What party doesnt support 'democratic norms'?

Proof doesnt work outside of a materialist paradigm but if we're talking about conspiracy theories they are within the materialist paradigm, so to prove a conspiracy theory you would need proof as you would be the one asserting something not me. In the absence of proof you couldnt say that something is true. There is no arbiter but whatever you count as enough proof to be considered relatively true would then have to be applied to everything, so for example if you say that belief and intuition in the bible is enough to say that creationism is true you would then have to concede that if someone has belief and intuition in the Bhagavad Gita then multiple Gods are also true, obviously this can not hold up. If you are thinking critically and not tied to any belief or bias you will accept that this method of getting to a relative truth will not really work. In general i agree with you on this but i dont see how you can come to believe most conspiracy theories if you follow this method