Making $46.343 Every Month with Spiritual YouTube Channel

[Lyubov]

21 hours ago, Realms of Wonder said:

Way to be!

What is the unique value you can provide through your work on YouTube?

Thank you!

I would hope that just my honesty and integrity and the entertainment value of my videos would help me find my audience who appreciate what I am creating. I'm hoping the value I could provide in terms of monetization would be through 1) youtube ads 2) special newsletter and videos through Patreon 3) consultation services for people who want to talk to me 1 on 1. What do you think?

[Realms of Wonder]

1 hour ago, Lyubov said:

Thank you!

I would hope that just my honesty and integrity and the entertainment value of my videos would help me find my audience who appreciate what I am creating. I'm hoping the value I could provide in terms of monetization would be through 1) youtube ads 2) special newsletter and videos through Patreon 3) consultation services for people who want to talk to me 1 on 1. What do you think?

What is your channel? I'd love to give it a look, I am building my own brand/channel/life purpose on YT (Here), and would be happy to give feedback if you're interested!

As for the honesty and integrity + Entertainment I think its solid. 

Why is this important to you? 

What kind of consultations do you see yourself doing?

[Butters]

12 hours ago, Lyubov said:

honesty and integrity

Hehe, those are usually the first to go when someone tries to grow on social media 😁 

Hats off if you can pull it off. 

[Schizophonia]

Oh yea indeed, he found the right vein lol.

At this point I wouldn't even know what to do with it.

[Thought Art]

@Butters Can you fix the title?

[RendHeaven]

On 10/2/2024 at 10:44 AM, Lyubov said:

I would hope that just my honesty and integrity and the entertainment value of my videos would help me find my audience

People don't care about your values, they care about their own values and how well you mirror that back.

So theoretically you could mirror honesty back to a crowd who values honesty, but that's not particularly compelling in itself for several reasons

• you're definitely not 100% honest to begin with, and unless you plan to share every downtrodden moment, it's not honest to build a brand around honesty
• honesty is a fluffy high-level value that flies out the window the moment survival is at stake. Real fans stick around when their biology is served. Hear their pain, mirror that back to them, and offer a solution. Honesty becomes frosting on the cake, but the actual cake is solving their pain

Furthermore, it's not actually a good idea to mix entertainment with education on youtube in 2024 (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVOubeXUcx0) people who want to learn from you generally just want immediate results (and these are the people who will PAY YOU), and going out of your way to be an entertainer actually alienates them.

On 10/2/2024 at 10:44 AM, Lyubov said:

I'm hoping the value I could provide in terms of monetization would be through 1) youtube ads 2) special newsletter and videos through Patreon 3) consultation services for people who want to talk to me 1 on 1.

youtube ads are extremely unreliable. It will be fun bonus money at best, but never a stable source of income.

Patreon works if you are an artist-type who makes cinematic videos (b-roll, c-roll, music, edits). But if you are just a talking head giving advice or sharing a story, Patreon generally goes nowhere

high ticket 1-on-1 coaching/consultation is unequivocally the monetization method to go all-in on (especially as a beginner). As long as you can earn their trust (be a mirror) and you can genuinely solve their problem, they will give you thousands in one sitting just to chat.

[Letho]

@Butters he's exploiting peoples vulnerabilities on the subject that's most important for people's development as humans, spirituality; classy dude.

He seems okay though, it's just something I'd never endorse. Spirituality needs to have the integrity of the level that we expect but aren't fully receiving from the medical field in the west. 

He's established himself as an authority on spirituality, without proving himself as an authority outside of the success he's had at exploiting vulnerabilities. 

When I view him, I view a human analogous to any other species on the planet, I don't dislike/like him, I don't know him; I see him via the cause and effect of his life weighed against the fragile cultural insecurities of the west by misinterpreting true and only partial concepts of the east. The west is drunk on pseudo-spirituality that supports their narcissism which then opens them up to exploitation by people like his. 

The thing with people like him, is that some people can genuinely change, and thus, to truly have an objective perspective we need to ask ourselves, what are the actual results are people changing and why, just in the same way as we're meant to accurately view someone like Andrew Tate. The actual results are sometimes impressive, however in order to address contexts like this with cultural precision we both need to understand underlying natures and future results therein, what are for example the potential pre-existing psychological issues of both the recipient (i.e. attachment issues - looking for an authority figure to tell them what's right about life that related creators partially fulfil for a little while but then what happens after this? What percentage of those actually have long term positive change that then positively in return impacts the development of culture?) and the creator (i.e. potential narcissism and dark triad tendencies). On the surface, 'everything is positive' just in the same way we thought everything was positive when we saw the dynamic between the invention of 'celebrity' and 'fans' until this evolved to the deterioration of cultural artistry to only appeal to achieving a certain end for those 'fans' like either or both dumbing them down and or satisfying their taste buds. And now, this deterioration has evolved so much to the extent where this kind of pseudo-spirituality has evolved as a byproduct of those cultural patterns where 'he's a celebrity' and 'you can become one too' and we've just got to collectively take a gentle law of attraction bite into the 'sound bite of the cultural algorithm' that's now converted the 'Elvis = Fans = Money + Cultural leverage' algorithm into a mathematical formula we can all capitalise on if we just have the right 'good intentions' without any thought on how the universe is going to respond to our lack of responsibility concerning the long term future outcomes of our decisions. 

 

People get into false comparisons as well when they source from these kinds of guys as well, they'll be like 'Well he's NOT Andrew Tate therefore he MUST be good!" but its  really not about that, it just comes down to whether the information being created is in alignment with the integrity of the direction. Like we need pharmacists to have the competency of the essence of pharmacy just as we need spiritualists to have the competency of what spirituality is, this guy doesn't have that. He comes across as a 'good' bloke though in the sense that his intentions are mostly hidden, and evolutionarily that's what people are buying into more presentationally as of course that's precisely what we see gets them activated or deactivated in the west with the politics, football games and Hollywood films as the perfect example. There's at least 50% of them that doesn't give a damn about truth and just evolutionary presentation and so the other 50% plus that does care gets manipulated into believing that "This is where its at, spirituality at the intersection of gold chains and fast cars". 

The biggest underlying issue I see presently in modern spirituality, is exploiting peoples lack of awareness especially in their self-perceived locus of control. In psychology there is a phenomenon that describes whether someone has an internal or external locus of control, well to be more accurate, there's Venn diagrammatically a few more intersections that derive that final output of each individuals unique expression here. In modern spirituality among these influencers, their followers are often exploited through the dynamic that's created between their desire for "Control, Empowerment, Ownership" (internal locus of control) as some mystical creator while at the same time, being totally absent of having any control by simply trusting in the universe to give you this if you simply align whatever selfish desire you have with this point of creation (external locus of control). That's precisely how a psychopath operates minus the lack of delusion all things being equal. They have a target, and they don't care what's in their way of completing it. I feel like in this sense, a lot of weak people are attracted to influencers like these because the empowerment they derive is a healthy response to their previous codependence, people pleasing and even naivety when it comes to listening to ignorant people around them about how the universe works and subsequently, how to actualise themselves within it. So the thing is, this kind of thinking DOES actually work, as its precisely how it works for psychopaths, however there's zero proper reality testing that goes on between point x and point y so they just say 'the universe did it' without adding any nuance to the equation which subsequently deteriorates their ability to objectively assess themselves and the cultural environments around them to build a healthy cause and effect that in return generates a more nuanced advancement to their locus of control. 

To benefit the reader in assessing this person or anyone like them objectively, my advice is to evaluate your own process via the filter as to whether you're maturely assessing for improvements in your own locus of control and subsequent personal creativity or whether you're potentially experiencing reductions. This person for example may actually make improvements to aspects of your locus of control depending on where its sitting, however can the potential improvements made also be viewed through the lens of where you're simultaneously able to see through the messenger? Because at the end of the day we're all just human, living our humble experience in this moment, solely differentiated mainly by our level of consciousness, which is not our self-perceived level but more than anything else the actual reading of our awareness and subsequent ability to differentiate our experience around us totally and utterly independent of our desires from the universe that have not yet found proper stability via an improvement in our cultural and historical education on our selves, our environments and where the intersection there leads to not only personal fulfilment but also cultural enrichment that benefits generations down the line.

Finally again stated in another way, the question here shouldn't be "Oh Letho you wish you could just seamlessly scrape the monetary icing off the cake of the millions of peoples insecurities and subsequent ignorance in spirituality or any subject for that matter as well, don't you?"

Instead, it should just be a subject of an analysis of ethics, integrity and analysing the intelligence surrounding where the highest future cultural maturity is likely to be resolved towards. To that end, he is a very, very unsurprising event of western culture and purely symptomatic of where the west is in its cultural development, however regardless, it's still a form of exploitative emotional slavery here that's at work which has more ethics to it than exploitive physical slavery that existed less than 200 years ago. Yep, just less than 200 years ago. When people become more self-educated and self-reliant therein towards their cognitive development, those emotional insecurities will reduce and influencers will be increasingly forced to re-measure their approach towards the public they're attempting to persuade. Just imagine a thought experiment for example where you instead were taking this guys information in from the perspective of being a part of a more advanced race 1000 or 10,000 years down the line from now, you'd see their information as totally misrepresentative of true spirituality, therefore you'd be assessing him in the same way as you would in determining the pros/cons of this kind of exploitation, finding the intellectual balance in your assessment where you could rather than being totally dismissive outside of holding your ground on the fact that its still very 'child like spirituality' with very little raw intellectual authority to it. You wouldn't condemn him though, you'd have compassion from the perspective of both his own weaknesses that have led him to this place and those of others that have blindly followed, and for both, without the maturity of sight that takes both potential perspectives and more into consideration in delivering your vision forward.

"Oh look at this guy! He's taking the moral high ground!" says the dark triad propensity person. Well yes that's right, that's exactly what a dark triad person that's not of the light and therefore of the light of the future would say, wouldn't they? Can you see through your own biases as I see through mine while still making my own personal judgements based on how I view the overall ground of nature? By comparison, moral relativism destroys collectivism and impairs decision making on individuality where it affords a false freedom while ignorant external results, moral absolutism on the other hand repairs it while inadequately informing individuality and collectivism to the extent it remains trapped in a lack of democratic thought that enhances intelligence and removes ignorance. 

"Oh he's belittling him!", no it has nothing to do with that. This is just a subject of as I said: Ethics, spirituality and intelligence; their unity is what gives us a picture to follow with our lives and their disunity and to the level people believe in that is how we become a fragmented society that doesn't even have any common sense when it comes to assessing the intelligence of spirituality and its purpose anymore.

So what are you waiting for?  Get out your drawing pad, figure out how to appeal to peoples evolutionary biases as best as you can then start crafting your next best idea for how you're going to exploit them in the best way you can to manifest your (next) dream car on the morally polished ground of peoples misfortunes. Subscribed and now paid monthly fan.

 

 

[Lyubov]

4 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

People don't care about your values, they care about their own values and how well you mirror that back.

So theoretically you could mirror honesty back to a crowd who values honesty, but that's not particularly compelling in itself for several reasons

• you're definitely not 100% honest to begin with, and unless you plan to share every downtrodden moment, it's not honest to build a brand around honesty
• honesty is a fluffy high-level value that flies out the window the moment survival is at stake. Real fans stick around when their biology is served. Hear their pain, mirror that back to them, and offer a solution. Honesty becomes frosting on the cake, but the actual cake is solving their pain

Furthermore, it's not actually a good idea to mix entertainment with education on youtube in 2024 (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVOubeXUcx0) people who want to learn from you generally just want immediate results (and these are the people who will PAY YOU), and going out of your way to be an entertainer actually alienates them.

youtube ads are extremely unreliable. It will be fun bonus money at best, but never a stable source of income.

Patreon works if you are an artist-type who makes cinematic videos (b-roll, c-roll, music, edits). But if you are just a talking head giving advice or sharing a story, Patreon generally goes nowhere

high ticket 1-on-1 coaching/consultation is unequivocally the monetization method to go all-in on (especially as a beginner). As long as you can earn their trust (be a mirror) and you can genuinely solve their problem, they will give you thousands in one sitting just to chat.

Thanks for this perspective. It’s really helpful. 

[Letho]

1 hour ago, Letho said:

@Butters he's exploiting peoples vulnerabilities on the subject that's most important for people's development as humans, spirituality; classy dude.

He seems okay though, it's just something I'd never endorse. Spirituality needs to have the integrity of the level that we expect but aren't fully receiving from the medical field in the west. 

He's established himself as an authority on spirituality, without proving himself as an authority outside of the success he's had at exploiting vulnerabilities. 

When I view him, I view a human analogous to any other species on the planet, I don't dislike/like him, I don't know him; I see him via the cause and effect of his life weighed against the fragile cultural insecurities of the west by misinterpreting true and only partial concepts of the east. The west is drunk on pseudo-spirituality that supports their narcissism which then opens them up to exploitation by people like his. 

The thing with people like him, is that some people can genuinely change, and thus, to truly have an objective perspective we need to ask ourselves, what are the actual results are people changing and why, just in the same way as we're meant to accurately view someone like Andrew Tate. The actual results are sometimes impressive, however in order to address contexts like this with cultural precision we both need to understand underlying natures and future results therein, what are for example the potential pre-existing psychological issues of both the recipient (i.e. attachment issues - looking for an authority figure to tell them what's right about life that related creators partially fulfil for a little while but then what happens after this? What percentage of those actually have long term positive change that then positively in return impacts the development of culture?) and the creator (i.e. potential narcissism and dark triad tendencies). On the surface, 'everything is positive' just in the same way we thought everything was positive when we saw the dynamic between the invention of 'celebrity' and 'fans' until this evolved to the deterioration of cultural artistry to only appeal to achieving a certain end for those 'fans' like either or both dumbing them down and or satisfying their taste buds. And now, this deterioration has evolved so much to the extent where this kind of pseudo-spirituality has evolved as a byproduct of those cultural patterns where 'he's a celebrity' and 'you can become one too' and we've just got to collectively take a gentle law of attraction bite into the 'sound bite of the cultural algorithm' that's now converted the 'Elvis = Fans = Money + Cultural leverage' algorithm into a mathematical formula we can all capitalise on if we just have the right 'good intentions' without any thought on how the universe is going to respond to our lack of responsibility concerning the long term future outcomes of our decisions. 

 

People get into false comparisons as well when they source from these kinds of guys as well, they'll be like 'Well he's NOT Andrew Tate therefore he MUST be good!" but its  really not about that, it just comes down to whether the information being created is in alignment with the integrity of the direction. Like we need pharmacists to have the competency of the essence of pharmacy just as we need spiritualists to have the competency of what spirituality is, this guy doesn't have that. He comes across as a 'good' bloke though in the sense that his intentions are mostly hidden, and evolutionarily that's what people are buying into more presentationally as of course that's precisely what we see gets them activated or deactivated in the west with the politics, football games and Hollywood films as the perfect example. There's at least 50% of them that doesn't give a damn about truth and just evolutionary presentation and so the other 50% plus that does care gets manipulated into believing that "This is where its at, spirituality at the intersection of gold chains and fast cars". 

The biggest underlying issue I see presently in modern spirituality, is exploiting peoples lack of awareness especially in their self-perceived locus of control. In psychology there is a phenomenon that describes whether someone has an internal or external locus of control, well to be more accurate, there's Venn diagrammatically a few more intersections that derive that final output of each individuals unique expression here. In modern spirituality among these influencers, their followers are often exploited through the dynamic that's created between their desire for "Control, Empowerment, Ownership" (internal locus of control) as some mystical creator while at the same time, being totally absent of having any control by simply trusting in the universe to give you this if you simply align whatever selfish desire you have with this point of creation (external locus of control). That's precisely how a psychopath operates minus the lack of delusion all things being equal. They have a target, and they don't care what's in their way of completing it. I feel like in this sense, a lot of weak people are attracted to influencers like these because the empowerment they derive is a healthy response to their previous codependence, people pleasing and even naivety when it comes to listening to ignorant people around them about how the universe works and subsequently, how to actualise themselves within it. So the thing is, this kind of thinking DOES actually work, as its precisely how it works for psychopaths, however there's zero proper reality testing that goes on between point x and point y so they just say 'the universe did it' without adding any nuance to the equation which subsequently deteriorates their ability to objectively assess themselves and the cultural environments around them to build a healthy cause and effect that in return generates a more nuanced advancement to their locus of control. 

To benefit the reader in assessing this person or anyone like them objectively, my advice is to evaluate your own process via the filter as to whether you're maturely assessing for improvements in your own locus of control and subsequent personal creativity or whether you're potentially experiencing reductions. This person for example may actually make improvements to aspects of your locus of control depending on where its sitting, however can the potential improvements made also be viewed through the lens of where you're simultaneously able to see through the messenger? Because at the end of the day we're all just human, living our humble experience in this moment, solely differentiated mainly by our level of consciousness, which is not our self-perceived level but more than anything else the actual reading of our awareness and subsequent ability to differentiate our experience around us totally and utterly independent of our desires from the universe that have not yet found proper stability via an improvement in our cultural and historical education on our selves, our environments and where the intersection there leads to not only personal fulfilment but also cultural enrichment that benefits generations down the line.

Finally again stated in another way, the question here shouldn't be "Oh Letho you wish you could just seamlessly scrape the monetary icing off the cake of the millions of peoples insecurities and subsequent ignorance in spirituality or any subject for that matter as well, don't you?"

Instead, it should just be a subject of an analysis of ethics, integrity and analysing the intelligence surrounding where the highest future cultural maturity is likely to be resolved towards. To that end, he is a very, very unsurprising event of western culture and purely symptomatic of where the west is in its cultural development, however regardless, it's still a form of exploitative emotional slavery here that's at work which has more ethics to it than exploitive physical slavery that existed less than 200 years ago. Yep, just less than 200 years ago. When people become more self-educated and self-reliant therein towards their cognitive development, those emotional insecurities will reduce and influencers will be increasingly forced to re-measure their approach towards the public they're attempting to persuade. Just imagine a thought experiment for example where you instead were taking this guys information in from the perspective of being a part of a more advanced race 1000 or 10,000 years down the line from now, you'd see their information as totally misrepresentative of true spirituality, therefore you'd be assessing him in the same way as you would in determining the pros/cons of this kind of exploitation, finding the intellectual balance in your assessment where you could rather than being totally dismissive outside of holding your ground on the fact that its still very 'child like spirituality' with very little raw intellectual authority to it. You wouldn't condemn him though, you'd have compassion from the perspective of both his own weaknesses that have led him to this place and those of others that have blindly followed, and for both, without the maturity of sight that takes both potential perspectives and more into consideration in delivering your vision forward.

"Oh look at this guy! He's taking the moral high ground!" says the dark triad propensity person. Well yes that's right, that's exactly what a dark triad person that's not of the light and therefore of the light of the future would say, wouldn't they? Can you see through your own biases as I see through mine while still making my own personal judgements based on how I view the overall ground of nature? By comparison, moral relativism destroys collectivism and impairs decision making on individuality where it affords a false freedom while ignorant external results, moral absolutism on the other hand repairs it while inadequately informing individuality and collectivism to the extent it remains trapped in a lack of democratic thought that enhances intelligence and removes ignorance. 

"Oh he's belittling him!", no it has nothing to do with that. This is just a subject of as I said: Ethics, spirituality and intelligence; their unity is what gives us a picture to follow with our lives and their disunity and to the level people believe in that is how we become a fragmented society that doesn't even have any common sense when it comes to assessing the intelligence of spirituality and its purpose anymore.

So what are you waiting for?  Get out your drawing pad, figure out how to appeal to peoples evolutionary biases as best as you can then start crafting your next best idea for how you're going to exploit them in the best way you can to manifest your (next) dream car on the morally polished ground of peoples misfortunes. Subscribed and now paid monthly fan.

 

 

 

 

TLDR - explaining these related cultural outgrowths symptomatically, quoted: "By comparison, moral relativism destroys collectivism and impairs decision making on individuality where it affords a false freedom while ignorant external results, moral absolutism on the other hand repairs it while inadequately informing individuality and collectivism to the extent it remains trapped in a lack of democratic thought that enhances intelligence and removes ignorance. "

 

Too tired to comment but , I should have waited until after I rested even though all of my points are still valid. If the reader just learned from that single sentence though, genuinely a lot of creative good can be generated from it to serve their ascendence. Otherwise click *here* to subscribe to more monthly quotations from me at an affordable price, generated from the unique special connection I've formed with the "Mother Universal Horizon" from years of meditating in the Himalayas with only the greatest of Buddhist enlightened masters. High Tier Clients get personally tailored messages where I reveal their unique destinies and as well as, free of charge, strongly aligning them to that path. You... Can do it too (but only after I teach you).

 

Edited October 5 by Letho

[Alex_R]

Law of atraction content will always work pretty well, the neville goddard niche is really deep, im sure Leo gura can do at least 6hs of content talking about them

[Lucasxp64]

It seems like those types of creators are regurgitating the same basic Personal Development stuff over and over again, and simply milking traffic at that point, like another person said here, basically mirroring exactly what people want to hear. This is exactly what is taught in copywriting/marketing courses.

It makes me remember of what Leo Gura said several times, that he got at a pivotal point once that he could have decided to milk actualized.org for money (in other words, going after the most 'feel good' stuff people want to hear), or to dedicate effort into the depth of the content.

Maybe there is a reasonable in-between?

Very """inspiring""", he couldn't decide between which car to manifest out of 3 options, and he manifested the 3 of them 🙏. It personally sounds to me like money glitch tutorials for GTA 5.: "Infinite money glitch: NO precise timing required, NO risk of ban, NO cool down... Look at all  the cool gear I already got, fully maxxed up"

Seriously, though, technically it seems like he's succeeding at manifesting. But it's nothing more than Tai Lopez packaged with pseudo-spiritual language.\

 

It's the YouTube's phenomem of mixing and matching different niches. Like how we obviously have for children's content: "Finger song + [LIST_OF_CHILDREN_STUFF.CSV]" lol.

 

Edited October 8 by Lucasxp64

[Alex_R]

If leo start doing such content it will be no longer Actualized.org. Maybe with a 2nd channel

[RendHeaven]

13 hours ago, Lucasxp64 said:

It seems like those types of creators are regurgitating the same basic Personal Development stuff over and over again, and simply milking traffic at that point, like another person said here, basically mirroring exactly what people want to hear. This is exactly what is taught in copywriting/marketing courses.

It makes me remember of what Leo Gura said several times, that he got at a pivotal point once that he could have decided to milk actualized.org for money (in other words, going after the most 'feel good' stuff people want to hear), or to dedicate effort into the depth of the content.

Maybe there is a reasonable in-between?

Yes.

Money comes from mirroring people's needs back to them. This is indisputable.

The problem is that most people's needs are myopic, selfish, and petty. This causes higher-consciousness people to get fed up with the whole system and they try to overhaul everything with "higher consciousness values." But then their business dies because nobody cares. You can't repress biology.

So we're in a weird spot where we have to dance that line between what they need (quick fixes, relief, feeling good, etc.) and what genuinely helps them (often overhauling their lives, painful reflection, facing fears, identity-level change. long periods of no gratification)

You have to lure them in with the former before having a genuine impact with the latter. But this is pretty hard to orchestrate as a novice entrepreneur, creator, or coach. Because you're broke and overly idealistic, it's overwhelming. It's so much easier to turn off your brain contribute to the cesspool, or to endlessly pontificate about grand benevolent schemes that never materialize.

[Butters]

@RendHeaven very interesting take. Also, 99% of people do not want genuine change in their lives, they just want the latest goodie. Trying to convince that group is not going to do anything.