The New Cult of Brian Rose and David Icke

[LfcCharlie4]

@Consept Yeah, I agree the guy clearly has quite a shady past. 
 

When were these claims all filed? 
 

ive only been following Brian this year, and mainly since he’s been interviewing high level people like Wim Hof, Sadhguru, David Icke etc. 
 

It’s clear he has a stage orange shadow for sure which is blocking his development. Like I said I have nothing wrong with people making millions even businesses making billions, but like we both said it should be through providing incredible value, I’m not sure if all his courses are doing that right now. 
 

I agree, if he wants to advocate free speech he has to be an example of it.

[Jacobsrw]

@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. 

 

Edited May 6, 2020 by Jacobsrw

[Consept]

@LfcCharlie4 Most complaints ive seen are in the last couple years but there a few from 4+ years ago as well. I have actually been following him loosely for a few years, same as you i liked a lot of the guests he had on, but I never really got into his own videos where hes giving advice, just didnt really resonate with him, although i liked the ayahuasca content he did. 

The podcast normally does provide value i cant say it doesnt. But we really have to hold people accountable and i love Sadhguru and Mooji but if they were doing something shady like this i would feel the same way, id be disappointed but id think they should still be called out. Otherwise you will get cults when someone cant be questioned. 

He is stage orange and like you said nothing wrong with that but when it becomes unhealthy it has to be looked at. Obviously theres only so much we can do here but I think its worthwhile having logical debate and at least building up awareness for ourselves and others on the forum. I couldnt dispute the points i brought up which is why i brought them up in case someone had an explanation for them. 

But respect to you for keeping your mind open on this 

[LfcCharlie4]

@Consept  Yeah his podcast is all I watch, and I have to admit it's one of the best for getting a huge range of people on. 

But, he is defo far from innocent, can't argue there, I do sense he is growing the last few days, I feel he needs to integrate healthy Orange instead of the orange he probably inherited from his banking days, but I get that can be tough, I imagine it's a very toxic industry.

Like this guy- 

 

@Jacobsrw  Yep, You need at least 10-20k capital to get started and play ball these days. I'm lucky to have partnered up with an amazing pair of guys and we luckily have a fair amount of capital to grow a huge company in the niche we're in, but I've been there when it's fighting an uphill battle. 

Agree, it is more complex than we know, but I always trust my Gut and my heart, and to me it feels something VERY fishy is going on based on my research and that of others. 

 

 

[Jacobsrw]

@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.

[LfcCharlie4]

@Jacobsrw At the end of the day: 

 

Love is always the answer. 
 

it always boils down to maximising love and consciousness. 
 

A society built on love, is a society worth living in. 

[andyjohnsonman]

 

I was very interested in this after Rebel Wisdom brought up his cultish behaviour. I honestly think he is acting out all this unconsciously from a stage orange worldview. He just wants his business to do better and cant see the subtle self deceptions he has fallen for. His questioning is too open ended and doesnt challenge any of his viewpoints which is important in jounalism. He is also using the established media as an enemy to enlargen his business model.

[Scholar]

 

[Jacobsrw]

@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.

Edited May 6, 2020 by Jacobsrw

[DivineSoda]

Okay here are some thoughts I had:

• Freedom of speech is of the utmost importance in a free society. For decades there has been a growing trend to suppress speech under the guise of arguments such as "hate speech" or "dangerous speech". Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram are all doing it under the direction of government. Regardless of what your opinions are of David Icke or Brian Rose, they are allowed to say whatever the hell they want. And it's important that we protect that right, otherwise we will continue down this slippery slope towards a complete elimination of our natural rights. 
• Regarding Brian Rose, he's a businessman. I don't like his tactics either, but that doesn't automatically make him shady. Look at Leo's Life Purpose Course marketing page: https://www.actualized.org/life-purpose-course . It doesn't get more "shady" looking than that. But that shouldn't automatically discredit the quality or truth of his content. Now personally, I think Brian Rose is too focused on his business. What he's doing in this fight against censorship is much bigger than him and his business. So that's a shame, but again, that doesn't automatically discredit him or the content he provides. 
• Regarding conspiracy theories,  nobody likes conspiracy theories or those who discuss them. We've been programmed to feel this way about them (you might dismiss this as another "conspiracy theory"). The term is used to sweep controversial topics under the rug. We hear the word conspiracy theory, and instantly we make associations in our mind.. fake, crazy, tin-foil hate, fake moon landing, reptilian overlords, flat earth. And so we laugh them off. But this is a mistake. Our history is riddled with things we could easily label as "conspiracy theory". And yet they happened in plain sight. It's why we had (and still have) the Iraq War. It's why we will never further investigate the death of Jeffery Epstein. It's why Wall street is corrupt, corporations continue to exploit loopholes in the system, our elections are completely manipulated, our medical system is shit, our education system is shit, 99% of our media is shit, and the list goes on and on. Behind every one of these problems we have are what people laugh off as "conspiracy theories". And it is precisely this way by design. You were never meant to think freely. Even those on Actualized.org who think they are "radically open-minded" have fallen prey to this same indoctrination. 
• Regarding David Icke.. his entire delivery of the things he talks about is a mistake. He goes straight to the larger agendas and connections he's made in his head, without giving enough practical context and history. It's no wonder why he rubs people the wrong way. What he's essentially trying to call out is the inner workings of the Matrix we live in. The corruption, lies and cover-ups. These are all very real, very common happenings among the rich and powerful (governments, corporations, wealthy individuals, institutions, etc). And they don't get talked about in 99% of the news you're exposed to. Why? Well that's a much larger discussion. But it's not as simple as "conspiracy theory". 
• If you want to understand "conspiracy theories", first of all stop viewing them from that lens. What you really want is the truth. If someone in a position of power is doing something corrupt and is trying to cover it up, you would want to know about it right? We all would. Even the mainstream media has exposed hundreds of these in our past. Those we accept. Because they are approved for you to believe. But keep going. Think for yourself. There's more they don't talk about, and those are even more important than the ones they do. But, they are a bit harder to find. So you can't be lazy about it. Your google searches aren't going to do it. Browsing reddit and reading comments to see what other people think is not going to do it. Merely watching YouTube videos is certainly not going to do it. You have to research this stuff. Read books. It takes a lot of time. It's no easy task. But the information is all there. There's nothing ambiguous about it. You will start to see that there is a sort of agenda going on, even if you can't 100% prove it. Something is happening because the coincidences, lies, cover-ups and corruption is just too much. And the state of this world reflects this perfectly. When you look around, do you like what you see? Do you like the direction of humanity? No? Well there's a reason behind why we got here. Of course we are also to blame as individuals, but there's a reason why even good people and activists struggle to get basic rights established. Okay, that's enough for now. But I'll leave you with a little Carlin: "It's a big club. And you ain't in it." 

 

 

 

[Forestluv]

@DivineSoda Just curious: are you advocating for free speech without any restrictions or consequences?  

[DivineSoda]

3 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

@DivineSoda Just curious: are you advocating for free speech without any restrictions? 

Basic restrictions are fine. Like I get the whole argument against yelling fire in a crowded theater. That's fine.

But the problem is we're constantly moving these goal posts further and further apart. I don't believe in any of the compelled speech regarding gender pronouns for example. Or any of these other moves to "protect us".

I don't believe in "dangerous ideas". Some can become problematic, like Nazism.. I get that. But there are ways to deal with that. You mitigate it as best as you can. But don't touch the speech. Because that's a slippery slope. Then the issue becomes, who decides what is "dangerous". I know "conspiracy theories" are starting to fall under that category. This is not a good thing if you want a free and prosperous society. 

 

[Jacobsrw]

@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.

Edited May 6, 2020 by Jacobsrw

[Consept]

56 minutes ago, DivineSoda said:

Basic restrictions are fine. Like I get the whole argument against yelling fire in a crowded theater. That's fine.

But the problem is we're constantly moving these goal posts further and further apart. I don't believe in any of the compelled speech regarding gender pronouns for example. Or any of these other moves to "protect us".

I don't believe in "dangerous ideas". Some can become problematic, like Nazism.. I get that. But there are ways to deal with that. You mitigate it as best as you can. But don't touch the speech. Because that's a slippery slope. Then the issue becomes, who decides what is "dangerous". I know "conspiracy theories" are starting to fall under that category. This is not a good thing if you want a free and prosperous society. 

 

Heres the problem you have though. Can speech be dangerous? Yes, youve identified a couple ways. Should there be some restriction? Yes, youve also agreed. So as you say the problem is who decides, I agree in that youtube shouldnt decide, so if we ourselves are to decide which is fine there has to be a certain responsibility in that, there has to be every effort to make sure you are presenting the information in a fair way especially if youre claiming truth and claiming impartiality , of course an opinion is an opinion, but generally you should try your best to take responsibility for your speech. This means not shouting fire and not saying things that could incite violence or cause dangerous things to happen, i think generally if you keep away from these you should be able to say whatever you want.

So with Rose you have a situation where everyone is scared because of this pandemic, he knows that if he has certain people on theyll get a lot of views and say controversial things. I would say some of the things that have been said by Buttar and Icke are a kin to shouting 'fire'. But even if you dont agree that what they say is dangerous Rose is not using his freedom of speech responsibly, theres no questioning of many of their points, theres no counter position and it is being presented as fact. Further to that Rose is deleting comments that are not supportive of London Real which is contradictory to his fight for free speech. Ive also seen him pull a video that gave a bad review of his courses a couple of years ago. So if this 'freedom platform' is setup it means no one can criticise it on the platform so how the hell is that providing freedom of speech? its just replacing youtube as the decider for Rose. 

Whats even worse is that Rose doesnt seem to give too many opinions on Ickes content, so its not like he really believes what Icke is saying, hes more focused on the results its bringing. Which then leads to taking over £1m in donations from his followers. I mean that coupled with the ridiculous amount of people claiming they were scammed with his courses over the last few years, would lead you to believe that he is definitely capable of something like this. The only question be was this some premeditated plan or did he just fall into this unconsciously  

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, DivineSoda said:

Basic restrictions are fine.

But the problem is ________

I don't believe in ________

I don't believe in ________

Some can become problematic

But don't ________

Because _________

Then the issue becomes _______

I know _______

This is not a good thing

Different people would fill in the above blanks similar or very different than you. It’s a tricky issue since each person wants “free speech” through their lens of what they believe in, what they perceive as problematic, what they perceive the issue is and what they perceive as good and bad things. There are many filters that shapes where one believes lines should be drawn. It’s very difficult a mind to put down it’s own view and hold another view as if it were it’s own. That would feel very ungrounded to the mind.

As you suggest, who/what decides where lines should be drawn? Who/what decides what is inappropriate, dangerous and harmful? A god? you? me? the majority of society? A president? Billionaires? Scientists? Mystics? ISIS soldiers? Priests? Felons? . . . If there is no external, universal, objective reality, it becomes very tricky.

[DivineSoda]

@Jacobsrw ? I appreciate that you have your own perspective on these issues. I think at the end of the day, we all want the same things.

@Consept @Serotoninluv There's definitely nuisance to the issue of free speech.. but what we have today has gone too far. Way too far. That's my main point. What it "should" be is of course more complicated. 

 

[Consept]

10 minutes ago, DivineSoda said:

@Jacobsrw ? I appreciate that you have your own perspective on these issues. I think at the end of the day, we all want the same things.

@Consept @Serotoninluv There's definitely nuisance to the issue of free speech.. but what we have today has gone too far. Way too far. That's my main point. What it "should" be is of course more complicated. 

 

Maybe, but then this irresponsible use of free speech is an argument for why there should be some restrictions 

[Forestluv]

24 minutes ago, DivineSoda said:

 

 @Serotoninluv There's definitely nuisance to the issue of free speech.. but what we have today has gone too far. Way too far. That's my main point. What it "should" be is of course more complicated. 

This assumes what we have today is too far. I’m pointing prior to that assumption. 

If we assume that what we have is not too far, then what it “should be” takes on a new context. As would the assumption that what we hav today is not far enough. 

That’s the tricky part. There is no external, objective measure of what is “too far”. 

I’ve noticed this type of deconstruction can be helpful for holistic views, yet its annoying when the mind is constructing within a view. And it can be impractical.

[Consept]

22 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

This assumes what we have today is too far. I’m pointing prior to that assumption. 

If we assume that what we have is not too far, then what it “should be” takes on a new context. As would the assumption that what we hav today is not far enough. 

That’s the tricky part. There is no external, objective measure of what is “too far”. 

I’ve noticed this type of deconstruction can be helpful for holistic views, yet its annoying when the mind is constructing within a view. And it can be impractical.

Theres no objective measure but you could only measure Europe and America say in relative terms. So North Korea would be an example of extreme restriction, China maybe quite oppressive restriction but not as bad as North Korea, Russia quite bad but not as bad as China and so on. So its basically a spectrum of the available free speech modalities we have at the moment, the worst of which is complete censorship and only pro leadership speech is allowed. So to say we've gone too far i dont think thats accurate as evidently it could be a lot worse. What we have really is the problems with unlimited free speech and the platforms to provide that free speech. The new technology has allowed anyone from anywhere to get millions of viewers for whatever they want to say, before this mainstream had a lock on media so it was never really a problem. I mean you wouldve been free to make an independent film or write a book or whatever but it wouldve been harder to get onto the same level as mainstream.

So its a positive direction that we've moved in regards to free speech and not only free speech but platforms to get out to millions. But within that comes issues with how thats regulated. In my opinion thats the issue that we're dealing with rather than a fight for free speech itself.  

[DrewNows]

9 minutes ago, Consept said:

So its a positive direction that we've moved in regards to free speech and not only free speech but platforms to get out to millions. But within that comes issues with how thats regulated. In my opinion thats the issue that we're dealing with rather than a fight for free speech itself.  

Why be regulated?