Jacobsrw

@LaucherJunge conspiracy theorists who purport unmonitored free speech need to be realistic in what they are asking. Information will be monitored depending on the distribution of what has been delivered. We don’t live in a utopian world where words are not dangerous. They have a right to be protected, but they also have responsibility in how they conduct their speech. Rather than attesting free speech regulations. People should be more concerned in the rigour of their communication. This is far more important. One should speak in relation to the context they are speaking not the idea they are proposing.

As @Serotoninluv stated, all objective measures of what constitutes one’s measure of a thing is completely relative. In this instance, free speech needs to be applied relatively not objectively. @DrewNows it’s not so simple as you say. People don’t operate in such ways that warrant the ability to speak as they wish without precipitating consequences. And letting consequences unfold naturally is almost as absurd as relentlessly enforcing a fascist state. There needs to be a balance. Each context requires regulation according to its locality not its nation. Also watch @Leo Gura episodes on conscious politics. It provides good rationale as to why a government requires regulations in order to ascend the consciousness of its people. Similar to what @gswva said, you will never satisfy each person while people continue to operate at the level of ego. What’s more important is developing conscious beings opposed to civil citizens. Civility will become the product of consciousness ascending in humanity.

@DivineSoda Just as a pointer before responding to each of your points: very little was stated about “conspiracy theories” in this thread, in fact I don’t even remember using the term. It’s completely besides the point. My purpose in this thread was to delineate the way in which one conducts the manner of their content distribution and how this effects the recipients in which receive it. Brian Rose and Icke are curating information in such a way it’s delivery becomes a weaponising movement that could create more damage than necessary. And secondly, their approaches are not only dangerous but also misleading in generalisability and overstatements that do not fully account for the complexity of global issues. This isn’t a balanced approach. The point here isn’t to deconstruct conspiracy theories (although some may have done so) it is to assess approaches to content distribution and how it effects the consumer, Rose and Icke in specific. To address your points: 1. Free speech is important, no one denied that. However, it is also contextual, which has not been accounted for throughout this whole movement. What is freedom of speech in one locality is not in another. You wouldn’t go up to the queen and wilfully assert your own opinions, because that context is governed and underpinned by a regulated set of rules. Neither would you crusade in someone else’s house and assert an ideal that undermines their founding family structure. These media platforms may have made a big mistake regarding the censoring of information. However, there needs to be limit to what one can say. Otherwise, the freedom one espouses becomes the very impingement of others, which inevitably stimulates incivility. And if there is no limit to such ethical concerns good luck conducting a relatively civil society. Your above comment undermines the power of words. It’s not as simple as “let all speak as they wish as long as they don’t hurt anyone”. Many wars have begun off very few words people have first propagated. Also I disagree with Brian’s approach to this issue. It is not a binary approach in whether you fight for freedom or you do not. It’s the way in which you conduct your approach toward it. He is doing it quite insensibly, egoistically and uncalculatedly, trying to violently dismember the very hand that feeds him. This not a smart approach. People require education not blatant civil war and discriminative protest. You will never persuade anyone if your ideal is “I must fight them”, you will only aggravate them. 2. You are over simplifying what has been said here. No one disputed the quality of content Brian Rose has provided. The argument was regarding the ethics around his platform in producing money, please research this before pontificating. He is extracting godly amounts of money from people who really need it by persuading them of a hysteria complex. Not only this but he is decentralising the money so as to not be transparent of its use. Which to some who looked into it, have discovered it all links back to a consecutive profiting to London Real. Leo is completely a seperate matter, why you insist on bringing this up is beyond me. He provides so much free content that’s incomprehensibly and profoundly in-depth more than probably any existing platform (you and I would not be here conversing had he not). Further, he charges an insanely low price for his course, with next to no marketing except for a one page listing. Not only this, to my knowledge Leo’s course (the only payable product he provides) has not one bad review listed online. Brian Rose on the other hand, has accumulated many. Your argument and analogy to use Leo is a complete straw man on your part, and completely disrespects the endless hard work he has amounted. He may have constructed marketing tactics to compete with relentless competition but its insignificant to the value he provides. 3. Ive already covered this. The main point here is not conspiracy theories. It’s the manner in which people conduct the content they produce and effect their target audience as a result. Neither Brain Rose or Icke are calculated in this regard. They are using inflammatory blanket statements in a means to persuade people in to listening to them. This only preys on the vulnerable presently experiencing fear and social instability. Not calculated at all. At least deliver it in such a way people can calmly and fairly evaluate it, so as to not have to asses it based on the psychological turmoil they are currently experiencing. Additionally, Brian never contests Icke’s views, while in the same breath states he doesn’t agree with them all but responds as if he does, this is a passive oxymoron. 4. You’ve contradicted yourself. If you are going to criticise people for discerning “conspiracy theories” at least provide the same rationale to yourself. Icke is definitely shady and I completely disagree with the way he conveys his points. However, he is not completely wrong on everything. The government has definitely got a monopoly over society, the question is, to what to degree. He oversimplifies this by neglecting the contribution average citizens play in destabilising a government. These issues are nuanced and complex. It’s not just a select few people governing many, it’s each constituent individual influencing the way in which their government governs them too. 5. As I stated sometime back “ in so far as we constantly point the finger outside of ourselves, we become deluded by our own efforts to avoid delusion”. It’s not as simple as critiquing everyone you deem shady, this has to be done mindfully, hence why this thread discusses two people in particular, not ten. I agree, to understand complex issues we must put aside the term “conspiracy theory”. However, by that same merit we must distinguish between credible sources and those that do not appear to be. Research is not enough, reading books is not enough, one must systematically confront educated people, examine their own society and contemplate with impartiality. These issues are not a simple one 1, 2, 3 formula. They must be delicately compartmentalised and considered and considered in every possible way. We must at least begin exploring your own biases and prejudices before assessing others.

@LfcCharlie4 that is all very true. @andyjohnsonman agreed. I’ve been following him for quite some time now. At first I thought oooh great content and dialogue. Then, I began to see the business capitalism that pervades the entire platform. Relentless media posts, desperate share requests, endless email notifications and just an overall weird vibe when it comes to presenting as a speaker. Something is off and inauthentic. I feel it’s not just Rose that’s now a concern, but the platform from which he has established that’s now adopted a mass of ardent followers and protesters as a result. Haven’t watch the above video as of yet but intend on doing so.

@LfcCharlie4 that’s definitely true makes it harder for newbies that have talent to share. That’s awesome man! Well done hope you progress in your work. Also agree, some shady work is definitely happening. At least there are are many interested in exploring possible the influences.

@Tom T cool thread! For me several things. 1. The endless narrative of the mind to “do do do” when all that is required is to BE. 2. The senselessness of human life. It’s fundamentally, meaningless but in essence it’s deepest meaning is that there is no meaning, so I guess that’s the liberation. 3. The inability to maintain higher states of consciousness due to being consumed by the miniature of everyday life. It seems as if a high states of consciousness are easily obscured but the responsibilities of everyday life, unless of course one has already liberated themselves. Apart from this, life is utterly astounding and beautiful. I could not have been more fortunate to come across the depth and profundity that this work provides ?

@LfcCharlie4 I agree, businesses have been majorly effected by these developments. I too am a self published author and see the difficulties you speak of. It’s all to worrisome when the advertising systems on these platforms also only promote those with enough capital to be on top to begin with. Look Rose is far from innocent when it comes to his movements. I don’t feel he should be provided a free pass just because he is rallying an important aspect of democracy. He’s approaches in this are extremely inflammatory and aggravative. I feel they will only backfire. Not all patrons of free speech approach it this manner and that’s important to note. Regarding COVID-19 we need to be careful so as to not simply jump to convenient explanations or those that fit the most suitable narrative. These issues are extremely complex, nuanced and counterintuitive, beyond many of us to evaluate. I feel there are many aspects at play here. Some of what has been recently proclaimed may be true, however, there are many governmental and societal processes not considered. Societies operate by a homeostatic pattern which when you pull one way you will inevitably be pulled from the other, when removing one cog you effect another. It’s not as simplistic as the government controlling people. Average citizens are involved in this too by the very practices of their everyday life, which only perpetuate the instability of globalistic issues. This is not as mechanistic and systematic as people are assuming. There are a lot of uncontrollable variables in the mix. As for Brian’s courses and capitalisation, it’s something to be aware of. Something shady is going on.

@Verdesbird Everything you speak of here is an activity of consciousness. I’m more curious in how you have come to the conclusion an experience can occur outside of consciousness ? You must be a special kind of being, since no human has ever exited consciousness as if to observe it free of being within it. Point to an experience where you have not had consciousness? Every experience you point to is governed by your conscious being from which you can never escape by its very design. Anything you point to you is using consciousness to be pointed at and is at the same time consciousness that is receiving the pointing.

@LfcCharlie4 we can discuss that if you. I specifically targeted Brian Rose and Icke due to the exponential hijacking of consumer attention. All individuals who propose such ideas should be equally inquired to. Zuckerberg has had this recurrently, and I respect is admission in the matter. Other media giants require maybe the same treatment, however, most of their efforts are equalised throughout their platform. Brian Rose is using this pandemic as leverage to expand the capital of his business, that to me is completely unethical. As many of those interested in his courses and content already succumb to social instabilities, such finances and mental health. The only other individual off the top of my head that fits a similar criteria is Jeff Bezo’s. He has single handily manipulated the distribution and regulation of consumer products. Leaving small business to the expense of incomparable competition from which they are left dissolute.

@here-now Haha you scratch my back I’ll scratch yours

@Verdesbird Where is the Akashik records and astral plane occurring? Your own consciousness, consciousness itself. Your are missing an important point. All locations and existing perceptions are mind oriented. You cannot seperate the mind from your experience of consciousness. In fact, you cannot seperate mind from consciousness because mind is consciousness and experience is the activity of mind. It’s like superposition of mind/experience/consciousness. There are no locations within them but they all reside in consciousness. This is very difficult to understand logically because it is beyond the mind.

@Verdesbird that’s an oversimplified example that doesn’t very well represent what you are saying. No I don’t know my past grandfathers life, and to that fact whether or not I did is irrelevant, it still remains as a figment of imagination within consciousness. “Past grandfathers life”, is a concept you concoct in the mind. See this right now, where does the existence of a past grandfather reside? Your mind. And further, even if you believe there is a past grandfathers life, where does it exist? Your imagination. You’ve never experienced it and therefore could never validate it, it’s a pictorial image in the mind. Whether it’s been experienced or it hasn’t the mind imagines it. The inability to see this is not a limitation of consciousness but of your own capacity to interpret consciousness itself, which is your inability to interpret you.

@TrynaBeTurquoise You provided no justifiable response to the questions that were posed. You are just informing your judgement by the subjective opinions you hold not evidence that seamounts. Appreciate your contribution, but it has by no means progressed the dialogue in this discussion. Nobody is trying to keyboard jockey. There are questions to be answered, which cannot be done away with by asserting blanket statements “there are tons of credible reviews”. He has not clearly explained the underpinnings of his motives. And clearly, you lack the foresight to see the possible concerns in his approximated actions, this I hope you begin to expand. Anywho, when one is convinced on a belief, they are bound to the very notions that maintain that belief. No words here will suffice in opening one up to otherwise. I wish you all the best.

@Verdesbird Actually it’s no different. It’s just the way you are explaining it. You seem to be creating a duality between consciousness and a parallel universe. But how can you assert this parallel universe without having a consciousness to interpret it? In other words, how is there this parallel universe you assume exists without it requiring consciousness? You require consciousness for every fragment of your experience. In fact, your experience is completely made up of it. So to say there is a parallel universe is only to suggest a secondary universe within consciousness not one outside of it. The idea that reality is imaginary is the explanation that all experiences or perceptions are a product of consciousness. God is just a term to explain the source of all this, which is consciousness itself.

@Consept now that’s how you conduct a healthy dialogue. Good job. I too would like to hear responses to these ambiguous issues. Ps. It’s not about defaming the guy but more clearly understanding his underlying motives.

@Verdesbird If you are convinced of the infinity of consciousness, you shouldn't need to contest Leo’s descriptions about it because they too would be included. Infinite consciousness means all things rest within it. Realising this would cure your dilemma of who to listen to what path to choose. No matter the path you will irrevocably arrive at infinite consciousness. Consciousness is the very fabric of your experience, not something you choose how to perceive.

@TrynaBeTurquoise Clearly, you have already adopted a position to which is sensitive to opposing views. This exemplifies more than I need to explain. I respect your view and you have right to do so. However, you seem to be assuming that Brian Rose is the authority of such an idea you are speaking. This is a misconstrued assumption. Many are doing great things regarding freedom of speech which does not involve desperately draining the money out of average citizens. And your belief about Brian, clearly demonstrates how little you acknowledge his privilege. He had plenty of money before London Real without the risk of no business capital. Don’t frame his situation to be something it is not. A good man maybe so, this does not justify his approaches to freedom of speech. The ramifications will speak, people can then make their judgments. I apologise if this came off rude, that was not my intention.

@here-now this is awesome!

@TrynaBeTurquoise the thread is up for debate. Some see it as a cult some do not. Many here see Brian’s movement as a toxic ideology, in that regard the thread title is congruent to the dialogue that is being spoken about it. Also freedom of speech is not a problem. However, Brian’s approach to this is extremely contentious. Freedom of speech is not binary. It depends on how you espouse your ideas in relation to it.

@LfcCharlie4 I agree with you there, he is likely using Brian’s platform for exposure but that doesn’t dispute his London Real affiliations as shady. I feel he knows what’s going on, he’s a smart guy. If you watch the recent video he at the beginning congratulated Rose for establishing his new platform, stating it a great move for humanity. He is aware of the censorship problem and claims his disapproval to be a part of his government renaissance. But in the end I don’t know the guy. I just see his media personality. Which I find concerning. I wish him all the best nonetheless, I’m sure he is a genuine human on a deeper level. Rose is the main problem here, purporting a revolution through resistive motives. Not a smart move, the guy will get demolished. @Consept he’s definitely not a driving force, but he is a cog in the wheel playing his part. Denigrating media companies along with Rose. Will soon see what happens there. As for Brian Rose and London Real, he is headed for implosion in my opinion as you said. He’s trying too grow to quick and riding a temporary wave which will subside and come crashing down upon him. I too feel for him, but if your going to extract ridiculous amounts of money from people and delude them into a paradigm of hysteria, consequences need to be learnt. Hopefully he learns from this and develops a more refined, authentic and higher quality platform in the future.

@Verdesbird it seems you haven’t had a breakthrough in your psychedelic experience. Which could be due to egoic attachments or not the right dosage for your particular threshold. Also you don’t need a psychedelic to confirm whether consciousness is infinite. You can do it now. What is the limit of your consciousness? Go directly to your experience right now. Where does consciousness begin and where does it end? You can’t discern this because the end and the beginning are one in the same. You need consciousness to infer an end and using it only proves its continuity. I invite you to explore your experience further rather than drawing definitive conclusions about reality.

@roar please elaborate, I don’t understand the point you are making?

Why even bother commenting if that’s your conclusion? @DivineSoda @Consept good question. I personally feel there should be more concern around London Real at the moment than Icke, after all the basis of this issue is stemmed from it. Brian Rose to me appears to be founding a new capitalist ideal to try and destabilise large media companies. However, the way in which he is doing this seems very aggravative. Taking shots at YouTube, Facebook, and LinkedIn is likely to backfire and have his company blacklisted. Not only this, but his motive seems unclear. He claims to educate and provide free content, but then builds a million dollar independent entity off the donations of others. If anything that’s the beginnings of a dangerous ideology. That clip you shared only highlights the desperation that Rose seems to have for spreading his platform, also a concern. If you believe so much in what you do people should willingly take part. You shouldn't need to relentlessly drag them along. @Consept @GreenWoods regarding Icke, he is definitely in on this. He continues to flamboyantly mock media companies for the censoring they expound. Further, he congratulated Brian on his new media platform for free speech. He may not be single handily endorsing Rose but he does support this new ideal. Danger of this? Well people could become so deluded and hysteric so as to infer everything is censored to the point ridiculous money is spent to create independent entities for crowd sharing. This will likely get locked down and further exacerbate censoring measures. Resisting the government like a macho will never end well. And clearly, none of this is reminiscent of Love.

@LaucherJunge True, sharing thought provoking information is imperative for raising consciousness, but also knowIng how to interpret and asses it without being consumed by it is even more imperative. “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it” - Aristotle

@LaucherJunge Well it depends on how you look at sociopolitical issues. One could propose that the government is the very product of the people that exists beneath it. So the nuke would really be the citizens and the pistol the government. Also depends on how you think a government works. Naive people assume that government can just eradicate a population in mere seconds, not accounting for the deep complexity that goes into such an act. These things are not as simple as it is led to be believed. Would your statement not also suggest foolishness in trying to attack someone with bigger artillery than you?