About David Icke & James Redfield

[Erna]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

;D Local is lekker!

 

[Argonaut]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

I've never read any of Icke's books. Most of what I knew about him was from reading here over the last 5 years or so. But a couple of years before finding the Cass site, I was discussing the 9/11 conspiracy and also the Oklahoma City bombing (and some of the similarities in these inside jobs) with a group of friends and aqcuaintances. For the most part this crowd was open to the idea that the official story is utter nonsense (a welcome rarity) but as conspiracies and how they work were being discussed, this Icke "reptilian" issue came up. I thought it was the most absurd thing I've ever heard, a really annoying distraction from the real conspiracies.

I first saw Icke's book "Children of the Matrix" in a bookstore many years ago, back when I was a Bible-thumper and hadn't even started thinking about conspiracies. The cover intrigued me so I picked it up, read the back... and immediately put it down, laughing at how insane he sounded. A couple years later, a website got me to start questioning 9/11. And through that I re-discovered Icke. But this time he didn't seem so crazy. I mean, he still seemed a bit loopy, but i was determined to remain open-minded. Over the course of several days I read through his website. And pretty soon I was hooked.

I'm just wondering though that because Icke denounces religions and such, but warns of a one world religion, it is out of the question that as the FOTCM gains more support that Icke will be there to vector people and warn them of this new religion....just a thought.

If Icke hears about FOTCM, I'm guessing he'll be against it just because it's a religion. But he might also use FOTCM quotes and such for his own benefit. As in, "Hey, here's this religion talking about hyperdimensional evil beings! More evidence that I'm right!" Because that seems to be how his "research" operates.

;D Local is lekker!

I had to look up that word, and it's apparently a pretty popular slang term these days. So now I feel old! But I do agree that local is lekker, now that I know what that means.

 

[Voyageur]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

eventually understood that Icke's stuff is totally incompatible, but I still saw Icke as a sincere guy who "meant well." I thought he might change his ideas if he read the stuff Laura has written. And that attitude lasted until the recent discussion on this thread. The truth about him has been clear to you since you read the C's stuff, but it's just become clear to me. It shows what a difference there can be between someone who's only heard of Icke's ideas and someone who is "recovering" from being an actual Icke devotee. David Icke - or at least his sincerity and devotion - became a sacred cow for me. It actually blinded me to the obvious.

That is a very interesting cognition on your part Alderpax – thanks for sharing that! :)

 

[Nienna]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

I'm not saying that David Icke is a psychopath, but we need to keep in mind is that psychopaths do seem very sincere and devoted and have many supporters who, even given evidence showing that their "hero" has lied to them and is a fraud, will still stand behind him and give him whatever support is needed. This is while the psychopath stands there with a feline-like grin and licking his chops, and having no fear of what is to come.

fwiw

 

[Laura]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

You said a mouthful, there, Alderpax. Couldn't have said it better myself. After all, I came from the "people who see UFOs are mentally ill" camp some years back.

 

[Erna]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

It has been bothering me that I have never heard David Icke say or write anywhere that he doesn't believe in channelling, so I looked at his book where Bringers of the Dawn is included in the bibliography.

I just think it's important that we stick to facts, and David Icke clearly believes in channelling.

Over a number of years, as I have sought to grasp the nature of the human
condition, a story has begun to form in my mind. When I read a book called
Bringers Of The Dawn,1 it cross-confirmed some of the themes I had written in The
Robots' Rebellion and other ideas that I had been developing in the months that
followed. It is a 'channelled' book, in that the writer, Barbara Marciniak, tuned her
consciousness to another wavelength of reality and acted as a channel to bring
information to this Earth vibration.

I am always wary of channelled books because, like everything, this process can
produce inspired understanding or a load of utter claptrap. It depends on the
competence of the channel and the level of the wavelength to which they are
connecting. As someone once said of contact with those no longer on this Earth:
"Death is no cure for ignorance". If you connect with wavelengths close to this
one, you can be seriously misled. the veil of tears 5

Bringers Of The Dawn claims to be the words of a consciousness communicating
from the star system we know as the Pleiades. I know if you are new to this, it all
sounds so fantastic and hard to accept. But all I can do - all any of us can do - is to
say what we believe and feel. I believe that this star system called the Pleiades, or at
least the more evolved groups from there, are part of a universal operation to set
humanity and this world free from the prison we have unknowingly lived within for
aeons of what we call time. We are the generation who are going to see this happen.
Planet Earth was hijacked, you could say, and taken over by another civilisation
or civilisations, which are highly advanced technologically, but pretty low on love
and wisdom. This is, as always, a telling and profoundly imbalanced combination.

I call it 'cleverness without wisdom'. We live in a free-will universe where, within
certain limits, we are allowed to experience all of the emotions, and learn from the
consequences of our actions. So taking over a planet does not bring in the 'father',
the Source of All That Exists, to immediately wrest control from the hijackers. It is
used as a period of experience from which all will learn and evolve. We live in a
time-space reality - "world" - called the Third Dimension and it is from some of
our "neighbours" in the Fourth Dimension that the interference has come.
Whenever I speak of the extraterrestrial consciousness or the Prison Warder
consciousness I am referring to manipulation from the Fourth Dimension via either
thought control or direct intervention. Both the hijacking extraterrestrials and those
with humanity's interests at heart were regular visitors to the Earth thousands of
years ago. They became the 'gods' in the ancient texts and legends which have
formed the foundations of most, perhaps all, of the major religions of today. If an
extraterrestrial landed on the planet in ancient times in an astonishing anti-gravity
spacecraft, or you saw a psychic vision of someone on another frequency, you
would sure as hell think he or she was a god! And they did. This is where the 'gods'
- particularly the angry, judgmental, fire and brimstone gods - originated: negative
extraterrestrials. The 'fear of God' was born, and this fear and resistance to change
(disobeying the gods) is still in the collective psyche.

Over time, as described at length in The Robots' Rebellion, these various god myths
became fused together to form 'composite gods', based on themes from many of
the earlier civilisations. So it is with Judaism, the Christian Bible, Islam, and most
of the others. Their version of; God relates to the type of extraterrestrials from
which their religion originated or the way many different extraterrestrial stories have
become fused into a composite God over the centuries. Dearly beloved, we are
gathered here today to worship a composite God made up of extraterrestrials. Amen.

Maybe he was planning to stop, but his "handlers" changed his mind?

Careful Alderpax, this is called ‘leading’, and if you were in a courtroom, the opposition would shout "OBJECTION"! Since there are obviously lots of emotions and influences involved in this thread, the only save and rational way to go about this is to stick to provable facts.

The facts alone in this thread builds a strong enough case that Icke should be ‘read with vigilance’.

It is best if you stay in your intuition - if you rely on what you feel and, even though it may not make logical sense, operate with trust. Impatience is a trap for many of you because you feel you need to move somewhere. Don't deny the virtues of the turtle who moves very slowly, stops to go inside and contemplate, is close to the ground, and sees very well.

I had to look up that word, and it's apparently a pretty popular slang term these days. So now I feel old! But I do agree that local is lekker, now that I know what that means.

I did it on purpose, to get you back for Ronald Macdonald! Now we’re even!

EDIT: And to be fair to Icke, I also have to take back my accusation that he is keeping the 'reptiles' physical - which the above demonstrates he isn't. I think the best way to study Icke, is to 'study Icke', and not his third party attackers - I did afterall afford Cassiopaea/SOTT the same objectivity.

 

[Argonaut]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

I'm not saying that David Icke is a psychopath, but we need to keep in mind is that psychopaths do seem very sincere and devoted and have many supporters who, even given evidence showing that their "hero" has lied to them and is a fraud, will still stand behind him and give him whatever support is needed. This is while the psychopath stands there with a feline-like grin and licking his chops, and having no fear of what is to come.

It's hard to say if he's a psychopath, but he could be. When Rixon Stuart reported his impression of Icke (from meeting him several times), he described him as a "rampant egoist." Stuart also noted that Icke steals the ideas of others and claims them as his own. These do sound like psychopathic tendencies, especially since they totally clash with Icke's public persona. Of course, it's hard to say if Rixon Stuart can be trusted, since he appears to view Icke as a rival.

You said a mouthful, there, Alderpax. Couldn't have said it better myself. After all, I came from the "people who see UFOs are mentally ill" camp some years back.

Very true. :) Most of us here have "slain" several sacred cows. And I personally wonder how many I still have to find. They seem to be very good at hiding... Fwiw, I used to think UFOs were demons trying to lead people away from Christ. I had trouble denying them because I saw a few when I was a kid. So demons were the only explanation that fit for me. The danger happened when I left Christianity, because I tossed out the belief in demons along with it. I read some Whitley Strieber and decided that the Greys might not be so bad after all; maybe they were just trying to help us in ways we couldn't understand. After becoming Wiccan, I decided that UFOs were the modern manifestation of the Faery folk. My concept of UFOs and aliens always changed to match whatever my belief system was. Now it almost feels like I've come full circle. The demon explanation had all the details wrong, but it did resemble the Truth. Even if the resemblance was accidental.

It has been bothering me that I have never heard David Icke say or write anywhere that he doesn't believe in channelling, so I looked at his book where Bringers of the Dawn is included in the bibliography.

I just think it's important that we stick to facts, and David Icke clearly believes in channelling.

Over a number of years, as I have sought to grasp the nature of the human
condition, a story has begun to form in my mind. When I read a book called
Bringers Of The Dawn,1 it cross-confirmed some of the themes I had written in The
Robots' Rebellion and other ideas that I had been developing in the months that
followed. It is a 'channelled' book, in that the writer, Barbara Marciniak, tuned her
consciousness to another wavelength of reality and acted as a channel to bring
information to this Earth vibration.

I am always wary of channelled books because, like everything, this process can
produce inspired understanding or a load of utter claptrap. It depends on the
competence of the channel and the level of the wavelength to which they are
connecting. As someone once said of contact with those no longer on this Earth:
"Death is no cure for ignorance". If you connect with wavelengths close to this
one, you can be seriously misled. the veil of tears 5

Thank you for setting this straight. Icke's words here sound pretty solid and balanced, actually, aside from his concept of "wavelengths" replacing that of densities and STS/STO alignment. But I wonder if what he wrote in that book is his position today. "...And the Truth Shall Set You Free" was written four years prior to "The Biggest Secret," which is the book he released after talking with Arizona Wilder. And according to Ivan Fraser, Wilder's influence caused Icke to become a different person. One aspect of this was an increased "villification" of ancient mystical concepts. I don't know if that included his views on channeling or not; we should check it out. I have a copy of "Children of the Matrix" at home that I'll browse through for any references.

[quote author=E]

Maybe he was planning to stop, but his "handlers" changed his mind?

Careful Alderpax, this is called ‘leading’, and if you were in a courtroom, the opposition would shout "OBJECTION"! Since there are obviously lots of emotions and influences involved in this thread, the only save and rational way to go about this is to stick to provable facts.

The facts alone in this thread builds a strong enough case that Icke should be ‘read with vigilance’.

It is best if you stay in your intuition - if you rely on what you feel and, even though it may not make logical sense, operate with trust. Impatience is a trap for many of you because you feel you need to move somewhere. Don't deny the virtues of the turtle who moves very slowly, stops to go inside and contemplate, is close to the ground, and sees very well.

[/quote]

Agreed. My statement was pure speculation, and I see how it's unproductive when we're looking for hard facts. Thanks for the correction.

I had to look up that word, and it's apparently a pretty popular slang term these days. So now I feel old! But I do agree that local is lekker, now that I know what that means.

I did it on purpose, to get you back for Ronald Macdonald! Now we’re even!

Ah, I see. Touché, then. :D

[quote author=E]

EDIT: And to be fair to Icke, I also have to take back my accusation that he is keeping the 'reptiles' physical - which the above demonstrates he isn't. I think the best way to study Icke, is to 'study Icke', and not his third party attackers - I did afterall afford Cassiopaea/SOTT the same objectivity.

[/quote]

Yes, if there's something wrong with what Icke teaches, it will be found by studying his own works. As for keeping the reptiles physical, he doesn't do that... He does tend to stick them a lot more firmly in 3D than the C's do - but the reptilian shape-shifters are hybrids between certain human bloodlines and the pure fourth-dimensional reptiles. So in that way, Icke's shape-shifters are merely a misrepresentation of psychopaths, not of the 4D Lizzies.

....

I decided to look up David Icke on Wikipedia, just to see what was there. I found a fairly good coverage of his career's beginnings. Some of this we've already talked about, but it may be helpful to see the whole thing in one place. I've removed certain aspects of the entry for ease of reading (mainly footnote reference numbers). And except for the headings, the emphases are mine.

Green Party

At some point during the 1980s, he began to flirt with fringe medicine and New Age philosophies in an effort to find relief from his arthritis. He wrote his second book in 1989, It Doesn't Have To Be Like This, an outline of his views on the environment, and became involved with the Green Party from 1988 to 1991, rising to the position of one of their four national Speakers, a position the party had created in lieu of a leader. He soon became the party's most alluring speaker, The Observer calling him "the Greens' Tony Blair." He became a household name, appearing on talk shows and in debates. He was invited in 1989 to debate whether animals should have rights at the Royal Institute of Great Britain, alongside Tom Regan, Richard Ryder, Andrew Linzey, Mary Warnock, Steven Rose, and Germaine Greer, and in September 1990, his name appeared on advertisements in national newspapers for the children's charity, Children's Vigils, alongside a cast of American and British celebrities, including Audrey Hepburn, Woody Allen, Cher, and Whoopi Goldberg.

Sessions with a psychic healer

Icke writes that it was when he was working for the Green Party, and particularly while he was writing the book in 1989, that he began to feel a presence around him, as though there was always someone else in the room, even when he was alone. He writes in Days of Decision (1993) that it was a time of considerable personal despair for him, though he gives no details. In March 1990, he had an experience in a newsagent's that felt as though a magnetic force was pulling his feet to the ground, and he heard a voice tell him to look at a particular section of books. One of the books was by Betty Shine, a psychic healer, or channeller, in Brighton. He decided to visit her to ask for help with his arthritis. She told him she had a message for him. He was a healer who had been sent to heal the Earth, she said, and would become world famous, but would face enormous opposition. The spirit world was going to pass on ideas to him, which he would then speak to others about, sometimes not understanding the words himself. He was told he would write five books in three years; that in 20 years there will be a different kind of flying machine, where we can go wherever we want and time will have no meaning; and that there will be great earthquakes in unusual places, because the inner earth is being destabilized by having oil taken from the seabed.

In February 1991, Icke decided to travel to Peru, where he visited the pre-Inca Sillustani burial ground near Puno. He writes that he felt drawn to a large mound of earth, at the top of which lay a circle of waist-high stones. As he stood in the circle, he felt his feet pulled to the earth as if by a magnet, just as he had experienced in the newsagent's in Ryde, and an urge to outstrech his arms. His feet started to vibrate and burn, his head felt as though a drill was passing through it, and he felt two thoughts enter his mind: first, that people will be talking about this in 100 years, and then, "it will be over when you feel the rain." He said his body started shaking as though plugged into an electrical socket and new ideas began to pour into him. Time became meaningless, he writes, and he has no idea how long he stood there, arms outstretched. Then it started raining, and the experience ended as suddenly as it had begun. He described it later as the "kundalini"—a term from Indian yoga describing a libidinal force that lies coiled at the base of the spine—exploding up through his spine, activating his brain and his chakras, or energy centres, triggering a higher level of consciousness.

He returned to England and began to write a book about the experience, Truth Vibrations, published in May that year. At a Green Party conference in Wolverhampton on March 20, 1991, before the book appeared, he resigned as one of the party's four prospective parliamentary candidates and Speakers—a position the party had adopted instead of leader—telling them he was about to be at the centre of "tremendous and increasing controversy," and winning a standing ovation from them after the announcement.

Turquoise period

What followed became what Icke calls his "turquoise period." He began to wear only turquoise because, he explained, it is a conduit of positive energy. He had met Deborah Shaw, an English psychic living in Calgary, Alberta, in August 1990, and after he returned from Peru, he struck up a relationship with her, which became close and led to the birth of a daughter, Rebecca, in December 2001. At one point, Shaw moved in with him and his wife. Shaw had changed her name to Mari Shawsun, while Icke's wife became known as Michaela, an aspect of the Archangel Michael, and they became known in the press as the "turquoise triangle," though Icke insisted at the time that he and Shaw were just friends. He answered reporters' questions about the relationship with, "if you resonate on this higher level then you see not two ladies, but two bodies with energy patterns."

In March 1991, a week after resigning from the Green Party, he, his wife, and Deborah/Mari held a press conference to announce that he had become a "channel for the Christ spirit," a title conferred on him by "the Godhead." He said the world would end in 1997, preceded by a number of disasters. There would be a severe hurricane around the Gulf of Mexico and New Orleans, eruptions in Cuba, disruption in China, a hurricane in Derry, and an earthquake on the Isle of Arran. Los Angeles would become an island, New Zealand would disappear, and the cliffs of Kent would be under water by Christmas 1991. He said the information was being given to the three of them by voices and automatic writing.

In In the Light of Experience (1993), Icke wrote that, at the time he gave the press conference, he didn't feel in control. He heard his voice predicting the end of the world, and was appalled by what he was saying. "I was speaking the words," he wrote, "but all the time I could hear the voice of the brakes in the background saying, 'David, what the hell are you saying? This is absolute nonsense'." His predictions were splashed all over the next day's front pages, to his great dismay.

Note that Icke's interest in "New Age philosophies" began because he was seeking treatment for his arthritis; this is also why he decided to see the psychic who officially launched his career. This excerpt also makes it very clear that Icke was under something else's control during every major move that advanced him on his current path. He and his critical mind were practically shoved out of the way by force. Icke's body was manipulated and moved around, his mind was fed information and given commands, and his mouth was used to speak, all without his control, and initially without even his consent. This strongly suggests 4D STS behind it all; possibly also extending to the arthritis which initially motivated him.

 

[Erna]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

I'm sure everybody here who has firmly cemented David Icke in their minds as a disinformation source or COINTELPRO agent must be a little irritated with this thread by now.

Anyway let's proceed. The first thing to remember, is if you want to find dirt on someone, you will. This is something which came up in the Pepperfritz Memorium thread as well. Everyone was in agreement that we all make mistakes, and that no-one is really in a position to cast stones. I see such a strong desire in this thread to make the case that David Icke is a disinfo agent, that it turns into a "oh look, in 1984 he did this!", "oh look, in 1989 he did that!", "Definitely damning evidence, for sure!" I've always been a bit of a straight shooter, and diplomacy has never been something I admired in people, quite the contrary. Let's just say I haven't mastered the 'poker face' yet (everyone always knows when I have a good hand!), and I don't desire to, either.

Having said that, when I want to get to the bottom of something, I have a tenacity matched by few, and David Icke is definitely not an open/shut case. I don't like being told something is so. If it isn't convincing enough for me, I put it in the 'unsolved' tray, which is where the David Icke file is lying now.

Let's take this group's history as an example. Did we say "look what Vincent Bridges is saying about Laura!" WHOA!! Open/shut case! ...Nope! We didn't. Everybody attacking Icke should be put under a microscope. And most importantly, what Icke says in response, should also be listened to, the same way Laura was given a voice to respond. It comes down to stroking everyone with the same brush.

I see people in this thread using Icke's high strangeness against him, but everyone brushing Laura's high strangeness aside. So basically, and this is where my straight shooting comes into play, I see a lot of hypocrisy in this thread. I see a lot of circumstantial evidence, and circumstantial evidence, as you know, builds a 'maybe' case, not a 'open/shut case. If this was a law suit, and I was your opposition, I would have floured by now (without a law degree – just common sense).

Stuart also noted that Icke steals the ideas of others and claims them as his own.

Let's pretend this is a law suit. I think it might make things easier. This is a very serious allegation, one which requires proof. I have never seen Icke use a source without referencing the source. So this is something I have been trying to accomplish throughout this thread, without success. If you throw something like this out there, back it up with proof. Bring the information to the fore which was 'stolen/plagiarised', and bring the source making the accusation.

People don't take kindly when their ideas are stolen, so this should not be difficult to prove if it is in fact so. Am I the only one here who is able to attempt objectivity here? It seems so to me. Let's also look at the concept of research. How does research work? People building on each other's ideas. This is how the entire scientific community works. If every scientist worked in isolation, well I think we can all figure out where that's going to lead. Let's not make ourselves guilty of propagating divisionism, without grounds, because then we definitely won't even get out of the blocks!

"He might be a psychopath" also isn't very constructive. It taints the credibility of this discussion. It's a bit reminiscent of "spot the OP", to me. When all else fails, let's play the psychopath card. I will stay on Icke, and I will take this project seriously, if only for myself.

By the way, I am not fighting. I am calm, and I am just speaking my mind. Sometimes I also need to step back from something for while, which is what I’m doing right now. We had a power failure all morning, since we are blessed with an electricity supplier without the gift of foresight, so I used the opportunity to start reading “Eat, Pray, Love” – a welcome reprieve from “spot the COINTELPRO agent!"

I will get back on Icke though, since I despise injustice… If it turns out in the end that we have to form a hypothesis on circumstantial evidence, it’s acceptable to me, and it’s a far cry from “he’s definitely a COINTELPRO agent, open/shut case!”.

...I'm just going to fetch my bullet proof vest quickly! ;) Be right back!

 

[vinny]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

E, I'm going to attempt to help you see what you might have missed here. I'm not admitting that I have the whole picture, but perhaps you will find my observations helpful:

I'm sure everybody here who has firmly cemented David Icke in their minds as a disinformation source or COINTELPRO agent must be a little irritated with this thread by now.

there is a lot of 'social programming' around David Icke, as has been evidenced by the various personal accounts here, so the aim is to try to cut through that in as effective a way as possible, and to get as close to the truth as we are able. Any discussion that contributes towards that, is useful. Anything that distracts, is not useful. So, let's see.

I also happen to think that, due to Icke's popularity, and also the nature of his situation which is like a huge 'case study' of other goings on in the alternative scene, it is really important that we get a handle on this, and bring some clarity, so that common traps can be avoided in future, and that those who are being misdirected on whatever path, may have the potential, here, to 'see' what is going on.

Anyway let's proceed. The first thing to remember, is if you want to find dirt on someone, you will. This is something which came up in the Pepperfritz Memorium thread as well. Everyone was in agreement that we all make mistakes, and that no-one is really in a position to cast stones. I see such a strong desire in this thread to make the case that David Icke is a disinfo agent, that it turns into a "oh look, in 1984 he did this!", "oh look, in 1989 he did that!", "Definitely damming evidence, for sure!" I've always been a bit of a straight shooter, and diplomacy has never been something I admired in people, quite the contrary. Let's just say I haven't mastered the 'poker face' yet, and I don't desire to, either.

Sure, everyone makes mistakes. I don't think that in itself is enough to 'condemn' someone, and I also don't think that is what is happening here. The important thing, is whether Icke's actions on the alternative scene are ultimately useful, or ultimately misleading. "By their fruits you shall know them". Whether Icke is a willing stooge or an unwitting dupe, is a different issue, which is harder to see. I think that the 'fruits' of Icke's work have already been discussed fairly unambiguously.

Having said that, when I want to get to the bottom of something, I have a tenacity matched by few, and David Icke is definitely not an open/shut case. I don't like being told something is so. If it isn't convincing enough for me, I put it in the 'unsolved' tray, which is where the David Icke file is lying now.

No one is telling you that "this is what you must believe". We are trying to gather all pertinent evidence for all to see, and to attempt to draw a conclusion based on all input.

Let's take this group's history as an example. Did we say "look what Vincent Bridges is saying about Laura!" WHOA!! Open/shut case! ...Nope! We didn't. Everybody attacking Icke should be put under a microscope. And most importantly, what Icke says in response, should also be listened to, the same way Laura was given a voice to respond. It comes down to stroking everyone with the same brush.

VB's motivations are fairly blatantly self-evident by his continued actions. Icke's situation is more difficult to see, I think, but again, what is important is the 'fruits'.

I see people in this thread using Icke's high strangeness against him, but everyone brushing Laura's high strangeness aside. So basically, and this is where my straight shooting comes into play, I see a lot of hypocrisy in this thread. I see a lot of circumstantial evidence, and circumstantial evidence, as you know, builds a 'maybe' case, not a 'open/shut case. If this was a law suit, and I was your opposition, I would have floured by now (without a law degree – just common sense).

It is not that Icke has experienced 'high strangeness' that is necessarily a problem. It is what he has done as a result of that. A big problem (and a fundamental difference to Laura's approach) is his uncritical acceptance of concepts as they are presented to him, without the appropriate critical distance, and also without the essential concept of 'cosmic cointelpro' as a necessary context in which to place it. This is a big 'gotcha' which is what fuels much cointelpro activity, and leads, as Mouravieff might say, many men who sincerely think they are serving God, to serve the Devil.

Stuart also noted that Icke steals the ideas of others and claims them as his own.

Let's pretend this is a law suit. I think it might make things easier. This is a very serious allegation, one which requires proof. I have never seen Icke use a source without referencing the source. So this is something I have been trying to accomplish throughout this thread, without success. If you throw something like this out there, back it up with proof. Bring the information to the fore which was 'stolen/plagiarised', and bring the source making the accusation.

I think that has been reasonably covered already, with Icke's concepts that superficially appear to mirror much of Laura's work, but do not stand up to scrutiny, as already talked about.

People don't take kindly when their ideas are stolen, so this should not be difficult to prove if it is in fact so. Am I the only one here who is able to attempt objectivity here? It seems so to me. Let's also look at the concept of research. How does research work? People building on each other's ideas. This is how the entire scientific community works. If every scientist worked in isolation, well I think we can all figure out where that's going to lead. Let's not make ourselves guilty of propagating divisionism, without grounds, because then we definitely won't even get out of the blocks!

but Icke does work in isolation. Even though he draws on the material of others, he does not recognise the absolute necessity of a sincere network, and does not recognise the inherent pitfalls of his approach. This is no small matter.

"He might be a psychopath" also isn't very constructive. It taints the credibility of this discussion. It's a bit reminiscent of "spot the OP", to me. When all else fails, let's play the psychopath card. I will stay on Icke, and I will take this project seriously, if only for myself.

I agree with that. I think it is not useful to play spot the psychopath in this case, it is simply a distraction. Much more important to understand that, at every level, we are drowning in a sea of disinformation that we seriously need to get a handle on, and the very first step to doing so is to realise it and to understand how it works. Icke does not seem to have taken this step.

By the way, I am not fighting. I am calm, and I am just speaking my mind. Sometimes I also need to step back from something for while, which is what I’m doing right now. We had a power failure all morning, since we are blessed with an electricity supplier without the gift of foresight, so I used the opportunity to start reading “Eat, Pray, Love” – a welcome reprieve from “spot the COINTELPRO agent!"

I will get back on Icke though, since I despise injustice… If it turns out in the end that we have to form a hypothesis on circumstantial evidence, it’s acceptable to me, and it’s a far cry from “he’s definitely a COINTELPRO agent, open/shut case!”.

...I'm just going to fetch my bullet proof vest quickly! ;) Be right back!

I wonder if, despite what you say, there is some emotional investment in your words, that is clouding your judgement somewhat? What could be the source of that? It might be worth examining - many here have had to work through blind spots and sacred cows, and that can be the hardest part of the Work, indeed. Again, this is kinda how cointelpro works, it plays on our programs and our tendencies to latch on to certain ways of thinking, and to create our very own little reality bubble blinds spots. All is needed is that we are 'wound up, and let loose' and we do most of it ourselves, mechanically. Gurdjieff tasked himself, in his life's work, with getting to the bottom of this conundrum:

George Gurdjieff had two aims: 1) to investigate from all sides, and to understand, the exact significance and purpose of the life of man, and 2) to discover, at all costs, some manner or means for destroying in people the predilection for suggestibility which causes them to fall easily under the influence of "mass hypnosis."

 

[Laura]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

I don't think E's judgment is clouded or that there is an emotional investment. I think that everything he said was spot on.

Yes, Icke has shown some really bad judgment himself, has evidenced a lot of wishful thinking, but you can't hang somebody for that!

It's like Graham Hancock, I think the guy is very intelligent and sincere, but I also think that he is not quite a thorough researcher. He researches with the intention of writing a book instead of with the intention of getting to the bottom of things. When you really want to get to the bottom of something, you may spend 20 years, more or less, working on it and still never write a book with a conclusion because you don't have one. Geeze, I spent over 30 years trying to figure stuff out and only in the past dozen or so do I think I have a good working hypothesis. But I'm always careful to make it clear that this is just the current working hypothesis based on probabilities and I bring forward the data.

There are a couple of things that occur to me in the case of Icke: 1) He sought out a career in broadcast journalism. Generally speaking, individuals who seek such careers are people who need a lot of attention and people who need a lot of attention are often narcissistic. Narcissists are often (notice that I am not saying always), IMO, socially adjusted psychopaths.

2) In the excerpt from wikipedia above, which may or may not be accurate, we pick up some significant clues about Icke particularly in respect of his marital/adulterous relations. A man who can convince his wife of all the things that he has apparently convinced her, even to the extent of having a menage a trois, raises a big, red warning flag in my mind. Reading Sandra Brown's "Women Who Love Psychopaths" is useful to understand what kind of personality can do this, what kind of woman who accepts it, and what dynamics are in play.

Now, as to using legal standards, there are a couple of things that need to be remembered about our Western legal system. I wrote about this on my blog and other places a time or two. It's worth repeating:

The Cult of the Plausible Lie

"Never ascribe to malice those things which may be explained by stupidity." That is an important phrase, and a necessary one; it keeps people from being paranoid. However, it has a corollary most people don't know: "One MAY ascribe to malice those things which stupidity cannot explain."

Robert Canup

{...}

The primary problem that I see humanity struggling with today is precisely delineated by psychologist Andrew Lobaczewski: it is an almost total lack of adequate psychological knowledge on the part of the masses of humanity - the population of ordinary, normal people.

{...}

Unfortunately, after so long a time of being subjected to lies and disinformation, the likelihood of society being able to overcome the social and cultural programming is difficult, but not impossible. And that is where things like COINTELPRO come into play: psyops agents are masters of triggering emotional programs that put people back to sleep. As a student on the subject, Robert Canup, has said, 99% of all of the problems confronting mankind can be traced to a single cause: the problem of the plausible lie. And the plausible lie is what COINTELPRO is all about.

Plausible lies are monstrous things propagated by evil people for the express purpose of deceiving good people into doing the will of those who do not have their best interests at heart. It's that simple. The most powerful of these lies are so plausible that nobody even dreams about questioning their validity.


If there is such a thing as a plausible lie, is it not also possible that there might be such a thing as an implausible truth? Using Canup's example:

Suppose that tomorrow when you walk out of your house, an alien spacecraft lands in front of you. Aliens get out and assault you, leaving physical traces. Next, imagine that this is not a hallucination, it is not dream; it really happens. You are now in possession of an implausible truth. What chance is there of you being able to convince anyone else of what happened to you? You know it is the truth, but no one will believe you. And the root of the problem is the fact that truth generally has a feeling of reality to it. However, that feeling of reality which makes truth generally plausible is NOT the same thing as the truth itself. Others who have not experienced aliens landing and assaulting them do not have the same feeling of reality about what you are telling them. If everyone else had experienced a similar event, with the attendant feeling of reality, the truth of that event would be accepted immediately.

In short, people believe what is "familiar," or what is part of a careful, long term program of familiarization of lies that become plausible simply because they are familiar.

When science first discoverd that solid matter was mostly empty space, many people reacted to this truth - this unfamiliar fact of our reality - with outrage. Debates over the "solidity" of matter and "kicking rocks" raged for years. It took a very long time, and a lot of work to gradually make others aware of this truth in order to make this "implausible" fact part of our awareness.

{...}

As psychologist George Simon says:

…[W]e’ve been pre-programmed to believe that people only exhibit problem behaviors when they’re “troubled” inside or anxious about something. We’ve also been taught that people aggress only when they’re attacked in some way. So, even when our gut tells us that somebody is attacking us and for no good reason, we don’t readily accept the notion. We usually start to wonder what’s bothering the person so badly “underneath it all” that’s making them act in such a disturbing way. We may even wonder what we may have said or done that “threatened” them. We almost never think that they might be fighting simply to get something, have their way, or gain the upper hand. So, instead of seeing them as merely fighting, we view them as primarily hurting in some way. [...]

The legacy of Sigmund Freud’s work has a lot to do with this. Freud’s theories (and the theories of others who built upon his work) heavily influenced the psychology of personality for a long time. Elements of the classical theories of personality found their way into many disciplines other than psychology as well as into many of our social institutions and enterprises. [...]

The malignant impact of overgeneralizing Freud’s observations about a small group of overly inhibited individuals into a broad set of assumptions about the causes of psychological ill-health in everyone cannot be overstated.[…]

We need a completely different theoretical framework if we are to truly understand, deal with, and treat the kinds of people who fight too much as opposed to those who cower or “run” too much. [George K. Simon, Jr., “In Sheep’s Clothing”]

{...}

As Robert Canup writes, we face a particular, even monstrous, problem in our world: that most of what we know or think we know is based on plausible lies. A person who is sincere and speaks the truth really has almost no chance against a plausible liar. Yes, I know that goes against everything we have been taught from childhood in the “Land of the Free and Home of the Brave,” but it is all too sadly true. We have been taught that "the Truth will always win" and that "anybody who believes a lie about you wasn’t your friend to begin with", and a whole host of other platitudes that actually would work in a different world: a world run by people who tell the truth!

But since our world is run by people who lie for a living, you might expect that they have set things up so that liars will always win. And that is, oh so sadly, the case.

“Our culture agrees on the signs of lying. Ask anyone how to tell if someone is lying and they will tell you that they can tell by “lack of eye contact, nervous shifting, or picking at one’s clothes.” Psychologist Anna Salter writes with dry humor: “This perception is so widespread I have had the fantasy that, immediately upon birth, nurses must take newborns and whisper in their ears, “Eye contact. It’s a sign of truthfulness.” [Anna C. Salter, Ph.D.]

The problem is, if there is a psychopath – or those with related characteropathies – who doesn’t know hot to keep good eye contact when lying, they haven’t been born. Eye contact is “universally known” to be a sign of truth-telling. The problem is liars will fake anything that it is possible to fake, so in reality, eye contact is absolutely NOT a sign of truth telling.

{...}

Consider our legal system. Here you first have to ask yourself just what kind of people were in charge of the creation and shaping of our “social norms.” Now sure, everybody will agree with the sayings that “you can’t trust a politician,” or “power corrupts” and so on, but have you ever really stopped to think about that and what it must really mean?

{....}

So, consider the idea that the ideas behind our social and cultural systems – including the legal system – were created by people whose agenda was to control society so that they could stay on top. And think about all the many ways they might go about doing that.

These are the same people who set up the legal system so that people would “get what they deserved”

Now, just think about that for a moment.

Imagine that you are a person at the top of the heap who knows that if you really set up a system where people got what they really deserved, you, yourself, would be instantly replaced - out the door in an instant! And so, if you are not just intent on staying on top and holding power, but cunning also, you will do everything in your power to insure that you and your kind are in charge of setting up that system, and that you remain in charge of it. You would make certain that evil was blended into the social and cultural concepts so seamlessly that nobody would ever notice.

And that is, quite literally, what happened. The individuals “at the top of the heap,” who had gotten there by being the most vile and rapacious, then set about figuring out ways to deceive the masses all the while keeping their favor and adulation. They knew they had to make laws to keep order, and they knew they had to make those laws seem fair and reasonable to the masses of people or they would lose control. Losing control was the thing to be feared as anyone who has read The Prince by Machiavelli realizes.

And so, Machiavellian manipulators at the top of the heap were deeply involved in the formation of our cultural and social norms, including our legal system.

In the earliest days of this “legal system” there was a form of “justice” called “trial by ordeal”. An example of trial by ordeal was holding a red hot iron to a defendant's tongue. The plausible lie used to justify this behavior was: if the defendant was telling a lie they would have a dry mouth and would be burned by the iron - while a truthful person would have a moist mouth and would be protected.

The fact is a NORMAL person who is telling the truth would most definitely have a dry mouth from fear, while a psychopath, who is incapable of feeling fear, would be the one with the moist mouth!!!

Now, just think about that for a few minutes.

{...}

Now, our current legal system is descended from “trial by ordeal” - and really isn't much different though it is much cleverer and simply not as obviously evil as that one was. You have already read a few examples above of just how the system works. As Anna Salter said, if she was accused of a crime, she would rather have a good lawyer than be innocent. That is a truly sad statement on our reality. Here’s a simple way to understand our legal system, adapted from the writings of Robert Canup:

Suppose that you are on a team that is engaged in a game and you discover that:

The other team gets to make up the rules. The referee plays for the other team. One of the rules is that you are not allowed to score - the other team is at no risk Only you can be scored against.

That is precisely how our social, cultural, and legal systems operate.

The conditions of our world are designed to create the maximum chance that evil will prevail and the good people will be punished by being good and telling the truth.

Punishing normal, decent, good people involves more than just creating a social system that acts against them. The system is designed to insure that these good people are subjected to as much pain as possible for the simple fact of being good and honest. An obvious example of punishing the innocent may be found in the way the victim in a rape case is treated; their reputations are dragged through the dirt - all in the name of justice of course. Note the case quoted above, of the fellow who raped his sister and her daughter and walked out of court after accusing her of being a mental case.

The system that controls our thinking is set up like the legal system. People are taught to assume that, in any conflict, one side is lying one way, and the other is lying the other way, and people can just form opinions about which side is telling the truth. They are taught that the truth will lie somewhere between two extremes.

That is a wonderfully plausible lie.

Canup suggests that, to see the evil behind that plausible lie, we must make a different assumption: let us assume that in such cases, one side is innocent, honest, and tells the truth. It is obvious that lying does an innocent defendant no good; what lie can he tell? If he is innocent, the only lie he can tell is to falsely confess "I did it."

On the other hand, lying is nothing but good for the liar. He can declare that “I didn't do it” and accuse another of doing it; all the while the innocent person is saying “I didn't do it” and is telling the truth.

The truth - when twisted by good liars, can always make an innocent person look bad - especially if he is honest and admits that he has faults. If someone is telling the simple truth, and the other side is lying through their teeth, the basic assumption that the truth lies between the testimony of the two sides always shifts the advantage to the lying side and away from the side telling the truth. Under most circumstances, this shift put together with the fact that the truth is going to also be twisted in such a way as to bring detriment to the innocent person, results in the advantage always resting in the hands of liars.

Canup points out that, even the simple act of giving testimony under oath is useless. If a person is a liar, swearing an oath means nothing to that person. However, swearing an oath acts strongly on a serious, truthful witness. Again, the advantage is placed on the side of the liars.

Proof is a familiar concept to those used to conventional logical thinking. However what passes for proof in cultural, social, and even legal terms often bears only a superficial resemblance to what would be considered proof by those who really use their minds to think.

For example: in formal mathematics, proof rules are established - postulates are set out and a structure is built based on the postulates and the theorem. Mathematical proof is pretty much inarguable: once a proof is accepted as true it is added to the pool of known truths.

In legal proof there is a set of rules and a theory which the prosecution presents, and attempts to prove the theory by clever argumentation rather than facts. Truth is not the objective. Getting other people to believe the theory IS the objective. However, the prosecution's theory is whatever the prosecutor believes that he can get away with based on what is known about the case, or what he can PREVENT from being known. What legal 'proof' does is serve as a structure for convincing a group of people of the guilt of a person, about whom they know nothing.

There is another significant difference: Mathematical proofs are judged by experts in the particular case who are free to study any and all information about the case. Legal 'proof' is judged by people who are guaranteed to be ignorant of the case, who are only allowed to study the information presented during the formal trial, and who are not even allowed to consult the texts for what the rules say.

Our culture is so permeated with this “legal argument” system that it extends into our daily experience: the one who is the slickest at using the structure for convincing a group of people of something, is the one who is believed. Very few people take the time to obtain hard facts by carefully studying any and all information about a situation.

What we see something here that is set up to deceive people by presenting a familiar structure which, upon examination, is a sham. And again, the advantages fall to the hands of the liars.

As Canup points out, in a courtroom, juries are prohibited by law from knowing anyone involved in the trial. If the defendant is a good person who is being set up and framed, people who know him well and who have had much opportunity to interact with him over a long period of time and observe him would have much more trouble accepting lies told about him. If the jurors knew the prosecutor and knew him to be a bullying liar, they might have trouble believing the lies he was telling. If the jurors knew the defendant, and know him to be a trouble making villain they might be more likely to convict him.

By the same standards, if a person who is guilty is accused of a crime that he DID commit, as we have seen above, it is all too easy to get off. Corrupt lawyers, ignorant "experts," and blind judges let guilty people literally get away with murder all the time.

But, none of the conditions conducive to finding the TRUTH prevail in a courtroom even if we have been brainwashed to think that we have the "best legal system in the world." It is not much different than "Trial by Ordeal," only the hot poker has been replaced by a system that works as effectively to the advantage of liars.

Here then we see the worst feature of the law: it is designed to make the world safe for evil people. In effect the law serves to take the horns away from the bulls, while leaving the lions their teeth and claws. Massive, overwhelming, advantage is placed in the hands of liars. Indeed, without the legal system insuring their safety, the world would be a much more difficult place for evil people.

The entire blog post is worth reading especially for the excerpts I've collected (warning, disturbing material is included there from psychologist Anna Salter).

 

[anart]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

I don't think E's judgment is clouded or that there is an emotional investment. I think that everything he said was spot on.

For what it's worth, this statement is true from my perspective as well. It seems to me that E has been making quite the effort to gather data as objectively as she can - and has come quite a way in her perspective from her initial posts on this thread - meaning she has shown herself capable of, and willing to, absorb information no matter where it may lead.

Also, as someone who does think Ick is COINTELPRO and that he knows it, on some level, I'm not at all irritated with this thread ;) - In fact, I find it quite fascinating, simply because watching people gather data and put pieces together is really interesting. Reviewing that data and putting pieces together is fun!

Ultimately, the only way to get at the truth is to 'dig for it' - and in order to see clearly, we have to get our predispositions and wishful thinking out of the way, which is often only made possible by digging for data, examining the data, and putting pieces together.

 

[SeekinTruth]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

It's interesting how people can reach similar conclusions through different paths. It took me a looong time after discovering the C's before I was willing to question Icke. I kept trying to synthesize his ideas with Laura and the C's. I eventually understood that Icke's stuff is totally incompatible, but I still saw Icke as a sincere guy who "meant well." I thought he might change his ideas if he read the stuff Laura has written. And that attitude lasted until the recent discussion on this thread. The truth about him has been clear to you since you read the C's stuff, but it's just become clear to me. It shows what a difference there can be between someone who's only heard of Icke's ideas and someone who is "recovering" from being an actual Icke devotee. David Icke - or at least his sincerity and devotion - became a sacred cow for me. It actually blinded me to the obvious.

It's pretty amazing isn't it, the way we can take different paths and can (with a little luck and lots of hard work and thinking) end up going in the same direction and reaching the same or similar conclusions.

That is a very interesting cognition on your part Alderpax – thanks for sharing that!

You said a mouthful, there, Alderpax. Couldn't have said it better myself. After all, I came from the "people who see UFOs are mentally ill" camp some years back.

Very true. Most of us here have "slain" several sacred cows. And I personally wonder how many I still have to find. They seem to be very good at hiding... Fwiw, I used to think UFOs were demons trying to lead people away from Christ. I had trouble denying them because I saw a few when I was a kid. So demons were the only explanation that fit for me. The danger happened when I left Christianity, because I tossed out the belief in demons along with it. I read some Whitley Strieber and decided that the Greys might not be so bad after all; maybe they were just trying to help us in ways we couldn't understand. After becoming Wiccan, I decided that UFOs were the modern manifestation of the Faery folk. My concept of UFOs and aliens always changed to match whatever my belief system was. Now it almost feels like I've come full circle. The demon explanation had all the details wrong, but it did resemble the Truth. Even if the resemblance was accidental.

Yeah, those sacred cows do hide in the darnest places, though they're rather large being cows and all, their hiding all around our person. Then you discover another one and exclaim "Holy cow!" and put another one out to pasture.

But seriously, it seems that this aspect is a common weakness in humans, especially as you say, when going from one belief system to another. Even when we can get agitated and proclaim that we will NOT believe in anything without thoroughly gathering data and making hypotheses that explain our experiences, and the situation permiting, reaching reasonable conclusions, etc. this is an ongoing struggle that doesn't end immediately but has to become habitual after a while; just like we were habituated to believe nonsense at some point. Plus, gathering data brings a lot of garbage that must be carefully examined and separated. No one can do this alone without this type of network. When you freed yourself from one false belief system, you were most vulnerable to be blind to just those things to question about another false belief system you were in the process of accepting.

It's sort of like when a car goes out of control, a common tendency is to over-compensate and spin out in the other direction. It takes a lot of experience to be able to get the car under control. Also many things influence the outcome -- pretty much everything in the surroundings, besides your own experience and abilities, will effect whether you crash or safely regain control of the car.

And as you mentioned, your concept of UFOs and aliens always changed to match whatever your belief system was and I think the whole phenomenon plays a crucial role in this tendency and has for eons. Your "demon explanation" DID have a considerable resemblance to the Truth of the phenomenon, but again, it's the problem of the 4th density STS forces actually manipulating and shaping/tailoring the belief systems of humans to perceive and interpret the phenomenon in certain ways. Now we interpret them as UFO's; this is fine as long as we keep in mind that all this term means is "unidentified flying object." I didn't even have any firm concept of UFO's or the whole phenomenon and how it relates to paranormal phenomena down through the ages. I only developed a pretty solid working hypothesis because of Laura's research/work, and this whole network, reading all the recommended material of other researchers, etc.

The whole point (at least for me) is to keep an open mind, continue seeking truth, and have a working hypothesis like we do here that best explains our condition. No matter how improbable something SEEMS, when all the lies are stripped away through the network's hard work, what's left must be the truth or very close to it.

Over a number of years, as I have sought to grasp the nature of the human
condition, a story has begun to form in my mind. When I read a book called
Bringers Of The Dawn,1 it cross-confirmed some of the themes I had written in The
Robots' Rebellion and other ideas that I had been developing in the months that
followed. It is a 'channelled' book, in that the writer, Barbara Marciniak, tuned her
consciousness to another wavelength of reality and acted as a channel to bring
information to this Earth vibration.

I am always wary of channelled books because, like everything, this process can
produce inspired understanding or a load of utter claptrap. It depends on the
competence of the channel and the level of the wavelength to which they are
connecting. As someone once said of contact with those no longer on this Earth:
"Death is no cure for ignorance". If you connect with wavelengths close to this
one, you can be seriously misled. the veil of tears 5

Bringers Of The Dawn claims to be the words of a consciousness communicating
from the star system we know as the Pleiades. I know if you are new to this, it all
sounds so fantastic and hard to accept. But all I can do - all any of us can do - is to
say what we believe and feel. I believe that this star system called the Pleiades, or at
least the more evolved groups from there, are part of a universal operation to set
humanity and this world free from the prison we have unknowingly lived within for
aeons of what we call time. We are the generation who are going to see this happen.
Planet Earth was hijacked, you could say, and taken over by another civilisation
or civilisations, which are highly advanced technologically, but pretty low on love
and wisdom. This is, as always, a telling and profoundly imbalanced combination.

I call it 'cleverness without wisdom'. We live in a free-will universe where, within
certain limits, we are allowed to experience all of the emotions, and learn from the
consequences of our actions. So taking over a planet does not bring in the 'father',
the Source of All That Exists, to immediately wrest control from the hijackers. It is
used as a period of experience from which all will learn and evolve. We live in a
time-space reality - "world" - called the Third Dimension and it is from some of
our "neighbours" in the Fourth Dimension that the interference has come.
Whenever I speak of the extraterrestrial consciousness or the Prison Warder
consciousness I am referring to manipulation from the Fourth Dimension via either
thought control or direct intervention. Both the hijacking extraterrestrials and those
with humanity's interests at heart were regular visitors to the Earth thousands of
years ago. They became the 'gods' in the ancient texts and legends which have
formed the foundations of most, perhaps all, of the major religions of today. If an
extraterrestrial landed on the planet in ancient times in an astonishing anti-gravity
spacecraft, or you saw a psychic vision of someone on another frequency, you
would sure as hell think he or she was a god! And they did. This is where the 'gods'
- particularly the angry, judgmental, fire and brimstone gods - originated: negative
extraterrestrials. The 'fear of God' was born, and this fear and resistance to change
(disobeying the gods) is still in the collective psyche.

Over time, as described at length in The Robots' Rebellion, these various god myths
became fused together to form 'composite gods', based on themes from many of
the earlier civilisations. So it is with Judaism, the Christian Bible, Islam, and most
of the others. Their version of; God relates to the type of extraterrestrials from
which their religion originated or the way many different extraterrestrial stories have
become fused into a composite God over the centuries. Dearly beloved, we are
gathered here today to worship a composite God made up of extraterrestrials. Amen.

Thank you for setting this straight. Icke's words here sound pretty solid and balanced, actually, aside from his concept of "wavelengths" replacing that of densities and STS/STO alignment. But I wonder if what he wrote in that book is his position today. "...And the Truth Shall Set You Free" was written four years prior to "The Biggest Secret," which is the book he released after talking with Arizona Wilder. And according to Ivan Fraser, Wilder's influence caused Icke to become a different person. One aspect of this was an increased "villification" of ancient mystical concepts. I don't know if that included his views on channeling or not; we should check it out. I have a copy of "Children of the Matrix" at home that I'll browse through for any references.

It's astonishing how close good disinformation comes to the truth, with crucial twists in all the right places. But as always, "the devil is in the details" (and I don't have the details of Icke's books). The average person first beginning to stir awake has no idea of the immense resources at the disposal of the control system -- not only on the part of the powers that be and their secret technologies, but the whole hyperdimensional STS factor. This is a VERY cunning, organized, and ruthless control system, otherwise we would not all be trapped in it for so long. As is said so often on this forum, you can't think about the way you think with the way you think. The truth WILL set us free, but the question is: what is the truth?

 

[Erna]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

I'm not admitting that I have the whole picture, but perhaps you will find my observations helpful:

Your observations have always been helpful to me on this forum, and this is no exception.

I also happen to think that, due to Icke's popularity, and also the nature of his situation which is like a huge 'case study' of other goings on in the alternative scene, it is really important that we get a handle on this, and bring some clarity, so that common traps can be avoided in future, and that those who are being misdirected on whatever path, may have the potential, here, to 'see' what is going on.

Oh absolutely, if anything, this thread and the other one I recently started, made me not underestimate the ‘dark t-shirts’.

I wonder if, despite what you say, there is some emotional investment in your words, that is clouding your judgement somewhat?

I can assure you I’m not emotionally invested with Icke. It would provide me with relief if I can get to the bottom of this.

2) In the excerpt from wikipedia above, which may or may not be accurate, we pick up some significant clues about Icke particularly in respect of his marital/adulterous relations. A man who can convince his wife of all the things that he has apparently convinced her, even to the extent of having a menage a trois, raises a big, red warning flag in my mind. Reading Sandra Brown's "Women Who Love Psychopaths" is useful to understand what kind of personality can do this, what kind of woman who accepts it, and what dynamics are in play.

If this is so, it’s definitely an avenue to explore, and yes, and a red flag for me as well.

I remember reading bits and pieces on ‘The Cult of the Plausible Lie’ here on the forum. Phew!

Ultimately, the only way to get at the truth is to 'dig for it' - and in order to see clearly, we have to get our predispositions and wishful thinking out of the way, which is often only made possible by digging for data, examining the data, and putting pieces together.

If anything, actually, I’m emotionally invested with Cassiopaea, so I also desired greatly to lay this to rest as quickly as possible. I actually had to check myself, and say to myself “don’t be such a half-wit. You are compromised!”.

What I can see, is that COINTELPRO agents are using Icke to discredit fundamental issues. His mistakes were enormous. This builds a very strong circumstantial case.

"Never ascribe to malice those things which may be explained by stupidity." That is an important phrase, and a necessary one; it keeps people from being paranoid. However, it has a corollary most people don't know: "One MAY ascribe to malice those things which stupidity cannot explain."

Robert Canup

This is the tricky bit – the former or the latter in Icke's case?

The average person first beginning to stir awake has no idea of the immense resources at the disposal of the control system

Indeed, something which should always be kept in mind when attempting something like this. Not underestimating one’s ‘opponent’ is a realisation which only comes after a few startling revelations and licking one’s wounds!

 

[shijing]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

I was busier than usual over the weekend and didn't have the chance to participate in this discussion at the time, although I was trying to keep up with it as best I could. I just have a couple of things to add for now:

I think the best way to study Icke, is to 'study Icke', and not his third party attackers.

I completely agree with this, not only in the case of Icke but with anyone who one wishes to examine. If you want to not only remain credible, but truly wish to get to the bottom of something, you need to just zero in on what the person themselves have to say -- if you quote inaccurate hearsay, someone will eventually be able to call you on it (and you will also be building your opinion on erroneous information, which is the worse of the two anyway).

Icke has made a spectacle of himself over the reptilian issue, but I think there are other core things about his belief system and (poorly-documented) research program which are more telling in terms of where his critical flaws are. The following is taken from the very last section of his most recent book (p. 601):

...When we are at peace with someone else looking, acting and believing differently to us, we will no longer be divided. Without division, there can be no rule by the few. The greatest transformation of life in this reality will come, however, as the eggshells crack and we remember who and where we are. We are everything (and nothing); we are everywhere (and nowhere); we are all that is, has been and ever will be, all existing in the eternal and infinite NOW. We have just been manipulated to forget that. There is no 'little me' unless we allow our belief to create the illusion of it, and thee is not even a 'we', only an infinite 'I'.

Compared to the work done here, the most egregious differences are really ontological more than anything. In the reality described by the C's, our existence is contextualized within an articulated structure -- there are seven levels of density, and lessons to learn at each level before graduating and moving on. No short-cuts are allowed, because the lessons are what counts -- that, in an ultimate sense, is why we are here at all. What Icke describes (and I know this has been mentioned earlier in this thread in so many words) is a fragmented perception of an ultimately unified reality; this unified reality does exist, but at a level so superior to us that it can only be understood as an abstraction from our point of view.

In my understanding, the fundamental flaw inherent in Icke's (and other New Agers') solution to the problems of our current reality is that if we all realized we are really just one in the complete sense he is espousing, then we essentially cheat the Cosmic Mind out of the lessons that validate our specific mode of existence in the first place. I really do have to wonder as well if Icke has achieved the state he describes where there is no longer a 'little me' but only an infinite 'I'. Moreover, as also noted elsewhere in this thread, a fundamental understanding of psychopathy is absent from Icke's work, and this is quite problematic.

[Regarding channeled sources] ...Icke's words here sound pretty solid and balanced, actually, aside from his concept of "wavelengths" replacing that of densities and STS/STO alignment. But I wonder if what he wrote in that book is his position today.

There is a section in the most recent book on this (p. 576-79). As I don't own a scanner, I'm only going to recreate enough to provide the main gist:

It is right to be careful about psychic or 'channelled' communications because much of it is tosh for many reasons. Some of the 'channels' are getting 'information' from their own psyche, not other dimensions, or higher consciousness, and what they say is constructed to fit their own beliefs. Some may be connecting with awareness beyond this reality, but there are many entities in other realms that use 'channels' to manipulate and mislead. You can often have a psychic or channel who is excellent one day and poor the next...A channel is taken over by another-dimensional awareness that speaks directly through his or her body-computer. The channel's role is not to communicate, but to withdraw from the conscious state to allow another awareness free access. The same principle is used malevolently by the other-dimensional Reptilians to dictate the behaviour of their Reptilian hybrids...

He then goes on to quote a channelled personality called 'Magnu' who communicated with him in 1990, and which he was impressed with and trusts. So in general, his thinking seems to have remained constant -- he doesn't completely disavow channeling, but states rather accurately that it can represent many different kinds of sources. He is also describing the specific kind of channel represented by, say, Jane Roberts, and not the kind that Laura et al usually do with the board.

 

[Erna]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

...When we are at peace with someone else looking, acting and believing differently to us, we will no longer be divided. Without division, there can be no rule by the few.

this unified reality does exist, but at a level so superior to us that it can only be understood as an abstraction from our point of view.

Well, funny enough, I have been thinking this morning about Icke's 'no mention' of STS/STO. Our galaxy became a galaxy of duality after the battle where STS won.

So there are 2 possible scenarios here:

• Either Icke is unfamiliar with the Cs and the Ra material, unlikely, but I think we have passed the point of assumptions by now. If he is unfamiliar with it, then he isn't a very thorough researcher, since both these channelled texts were discussed on the Icke forum. And how can someone 'specializing' in hyperdimensional realities miss this?!? ...or

• He is familiar with it, and he is deliberately avoiding it. Giant red flag, since it is core. In our 3rd dimension/density, this polarity exists.

So Icke stays very, very close to the truth, and then leaves out the fundamental bit.

I have hit the post button a few times in this thread, thinking, "you are taking this too far". But since I, and I'm sure many others, are struggling with this, the only way we can bury this matter for once and for all, is if we conduct this investigation properly, and come to a conclusion which will stand up to scrutiny based on Icke's work, and be fair in the process.