Jacobsrw

@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?

@LfcCharlie4 I feel we are coming from two different angles about the same matter. At the end of the day he clearly has researched and explored the mechanics of government and society. However, what I am trying to discern here is the dangers of assuming ones sophistication to be a sign of quality substantiation. He may be accurate on many things but that by no means eliminates the possibility that he is bringing forth a dangerous ideal for those without the capacity to competently evaluate. Many theories can be concocted to fit the narrative to suit any situation. It’s knowing when one is doing it appropriately and when one is not. I fear the later in his work. From my current knowledge, I disagree that he is awake. But as I said I will never know, it’s a subjective matter. All I can hope is that people gain some ounce of value from what he speaks. As I stated he highlighted important points but this does not render them validated. The push for freedom isn’t an ideology, but the manner in which one does, is. And Brian Rose is championing this very movement in an uncalculated way, which Icke is openly a part of. My hope is that this does not metastasise into a dangerous weapon, but I guess only time will tell. Hopefully it does not. And yes I agree, LOVE is the fundamental antidote.

@Camerong I can relate! It’s incredibly beautiful. And yes hyper focus for sometime enters you into a state consciousness quite more ascendent than and ordinary state. I find this happen for me with only 2-3 minute of focusing. I focus on a particular feature of an object (like the letter of a bottle) slowing my blinking and find that surrounding experience begins to breath, warp and move. It’s much like you said synonymous with a psychedelic state. Funny how we so ordinarily undermine such simple exercises. They can be so powerful.

@roar exactly. Yet everyone seems to be so consumed in them they fail to look at the underpinning nature of them all.

@LfcCharlie4 I agree with part of what you have said here. And you could be right, I may be being ignorant and naive to some degree, interpreting from a intuitive sense. But what’s funny and what you are assuming, which it quite clearly seems, is that Icke has got it figured, which I strongly disagree. He makes some good points, but on a meta perspective I feel completely misses the mark. I have researched into his intentions and as I stated earlier I do not believe he is ill intended at all, nor do I think a mindless terrorist is either. However, just because one sprouts some high level ideal does not warrant the right to mascaraed around proposing them in a uncensored manner. This could be extremely dangerous and further exacerbate the very issue one seeks to dissolve. Quite frankly I found him somewhat convincing at first after watching 2-3 hours of him speaking, but then I did some further research and my opinion has profoundly changed. You have again mistaken the point of this thread. It’s not what has been said but the manner in which it was said. I can tell you are already are stuck within your given position so as to not consider ideas outside of it, which you have right to be. But please, try and see this for more than just a good man on a mission with some sophisticated theories. Reality is complex and cannot be simply deduced as it has been through the dialogues these two men have previously exemplified, and any other person for that matter. I don’t believe I know more or have authority in this area, but I do believe dangerous ideologies can be spotted from a mile away, from which I see this as one. Also you are assuming one who experiences an awakening to be an authority figure. To what degree can you measure one’s awareness? You can’t, you can only intuit it. So you seem to be doing the very thing you are critiquing me for. Please be consistent in your arguments. Nonetheless, much love, I appreciate your contribution to this thread.

@abundance yes that’s right. The leftist positions they appear to resist. However Icke is slightly different in his ideas where he proposes utopian ideals. Railing against money, digital currency, vaccines etc. these are not really right wing views. Alex Jones, however, argues for almost anything that contradicts the left. He comes across like a instigator enjoying the fire that ignites controversy. @Chakra Lion You seem to be equating the validity of Icke with the invalidity of the mainstream media. This is obscuring. Just because Icke poses thought provoking ideals that stray away from main stream media doesn’t validate them anymore than the media. He invites critical thinking, granted, I think this is great. However, he also lacks the foresight in his words and over extends in his claims, over simplifying complex nuanced issues. Not only this but he neglects the ramifications of the way in which people in fear will consume his content. This is a dangerous move, and could create the very thing he claims to be fighting. @Bittu this is true. Media companies are unnecessarily censoring freeform dialogue. This could also create a violent backlash where those who use the platforms patriotically support content that undermines these media companies. There needs to be an equalisation across the distribution of content. @TrynaBeTurquoise people will always speak regardless of the platform it is on. The platform isn’t the problem but the way in which people speak from it. The inability to discern divisive dialogue will only precipitate further ideologues that fragment societies. @Parththakkar12 exactly my thoughts too. He makes extremely vague claims that seem to be circular in their reasoning, although that’s not the point. The point is like you said, he’s playing with fire. He’s trying to fight the very hand that feeds him, that never ends well. From what he proposes he supports a communist government, which never works in large populations and destabilises economic growth. Capitalism isn’t the problem, it’s the monitoring of that results in being. @Consept great observation.

@Jj13 you make a good point in distinguishing the differences between them. Although, I would almost say Brian Rose’s approaches are even more radical than Icke’s. He is trying to create a political civil rights movement. Rarely has this ended well. Almost all fundamentalism is derived from this. His free speech ideal contradicts what he espouses because it undermines that free speech is contextual. Not only this but the rigour used echoes divisiveness and subordination. Establishing a free speech army to tower over companies is no more conscious than a company using people as pawns.

Quite possibly. Something definitely to keep in mind. In fact, vaccine testing has always been problematic in the struggle for large sampling due to many experimental limits. Also true. However, words are more powerful than often acknowledged. And the way in which they are being used in the dialogue regarding this topic is nothing short of irrational.

@DivineSoda well to a degree it is about him, due to the expressions he is making being quite unique to him. I’m by no means downplaying the severity of what he is saying or denying he’s great contributions. But to blindly believe it or assume his theories sufficiently explain the complexity of global issues is naive. Mm I don’t know about that. There are many people to whom I admire but completely disagree with some of their propositional approaches. It’s not what one says but how they say it. The human mind is delicate and does not take much to disturb. One must be careful in how they choose to nourish it.

@LfcCharlie4 again, he may make some valid points, and to some of them I agree, vaccines being one. However, that’s not the point of this discussion, it’s the lack of foresight for the way in which he is speaking. He champions his ideas like a radical fundamentalist, speaking as if he is going to be waging war against the government. The consciousness and love he refers to or at the very least expresses, is filtered through the lens of his own ideological position not through consciousness itself. Eg. “I’m more powerful then them”, “I wont stop fighting them until my jobs done”. He contradicts himself. A conscious being would not fragment society in such a way to create an “us vs. them” mentality. This is extremely deluded and inconsistent to the very nature of consciousness. Consciousness is inclusive not conditional and fragmentary. Not only this but his solutions are that but of resistance which fundamentally is no different than a civil rights war, which unequivocally imparts violence. I just struggle to see the sense in the way that he speaks.

@Zanoni agreed. There are way too many blanket statements being made. @LaucherJunge unfortunately I don’t agree with you there. Icke is is projecting an idealistic ideology. He makes good points that should be valued for their critical thinking. However, to assume because one makes a point that it then substantiates evidence is absurd. That’s no more reasonable than assuming that Africa is discreetly rich but have not yet exposed it. I feel you are missing the point of this post it’s not critiquing his theories but the way in which he is proposing them. He is pontificating and proposing them as if they were a revelatory religious script. He’s over simplifying complex issues that cannot be explained away by finger pointing. The very government he critics is the same government created by the society he lives in beneath it. So it’s quite grand wouldn’t you say? Not only this, but he ignores the ramifications for his rhetoric. To publicise such ideas to people is dangerous and not congruent to the level of consciousness he assumes he has. One must speak to people via the level of development they are at.

@Parththakkar12 because he appeals to the ego-mind which is what this world currently operates on.

@TRUTHWITHCAPITALT Exactly! Could not agree more. Relativity is key here so as not become deluded by the romanticising of different ideals. Neither Brian Rose or David Icke I feel have negative intentions. However, neither of them seem to show an ounce of consideration for the consequences of the actions. Ps. Love your username haha

@DivineSoda yes Brian Rose is making this look more cultish than it needs to be. As for Icke, he as stating Love was the answer, but the love in which he espoused was contorted, conditional and ideological. He posed a love that supported his ideal, and that subordinated those he opposed. That’s not absolute Love. Absolute love contains that which you hate as well as that which you love. It is infinite, boundless and “un-conditional”.

I completely agree. There’s some sneaky monopilsation happening with the distribution and regulation of content. These big media companies needed to be carefully assessed so as to not abuse the very rights they were created to first support.