About David Icke & James Redfield

[Argonaut]

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.

Like anart, I'm not irritated at all. I don't see irritation coming from anyone here, actually. When you point out how we're going astray and advise us to get on track, that's a good thing. And I think almost all of us see it that way.

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

I agree. At the very least, David Icke is undiscerning. This shows when he warns readers not to blindly trust info from a hyperdimensional source, yet he doesn't seem to grasp how this warning could apply to his own past decisions. He also looks to syncronicities for proof and guidance, and this is often how he determines the validity of information, including the testimonies of supposed "eye-witnesses." And like Nomad pointed out, he's determined to work alone, trusting solely in his own mind to process all the data properly. But like you said, we can't hang him for these things. If he really is sincere but misguided, he's no different than many of us were prior to encountering the ideas of the C's, Gurdjieff, etc... as well as the feedback network we have in this forum.

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.

"Holy cow!" That's great.

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’.

Also, in that thread SeekinTruth mentioned how Theosophy may have been founded as a way to counteract the impact of Gurdjieff, which reminds me a lot of what we're talking about in this thread. Laura seems to be filling the role Gudjieff had back then, while Icke may be her counteracting "Blavatsky." Of course, this in no way says that Icke is aware of this scenario being played out (and Blavatsky probably wasn't, either).

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.

These are key points. If Icke feels he's achieved "enlightenment," that shows by itself that he really doesn't grasp the scope of the problem or its solution. But like other claims he's made, it's near impossible to know if he actually believes what he's saying or if he's just making it up. The "stupidity vs. malice" issue really is a sticky wicket.

[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.

[/quote]

Thanks for posting this. So it looks like some of us were completely wrong - Icke does not totally dismiss channeling. And yes, he is very accurate in his warning to use discernment. But even so, he doesn't mention any good way to exercise that discernment. He himself says, "there are many entities in other realms that use 'channels' to mislead," so what standards does he use to determine if an entity is legit or not? Did he say why he was so impressed with "Magnu"? This also makes me wonder how he determined that he could trust the forces that acted on him in the beginning. Back then he had no experience or knowledge to draw from, yet he just let them move his body around, command him, and issue prophecies from his mouth. I could understand why he did this at the time, since he was so inexperienced... But these forces launched him on the path that he remains on today, and he still recounts it as a positive, life-changing series of events. At the very least, this shows an incredible disconnect between what Icke says and what he does.

Actually, he doesn't always recount those events as life-changing. During an interview with Bill Maher for the movie "Religulous," he seems to have forgotten it (interview is on YouTube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TidD_MnrfHI) Here's a written excerpt fo the parts in question:

...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's 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.

I agree completely. I've felt doubt about many of the things I wrote in this post too - I wondered how objective I'm being, if I should delete this, clarify that, etc. And I have changed or deleted several things. Did some non-objective sloppy things still slip through? I'm not sure. I know that I've speculated, and made claims that certain info possibly points to certain things... But I think that's fine. I've watched out for stuff like "this is proof" and "Icke is definitely a [fill-in-the-blank]" And I've tried to stay objective overall. So we'll see. We have quite a task before us if we're really going to do this, but I think we can, especially with the robust feedback and mirroring exchanged here. :)

 

[Laura]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

[quote author=E]
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.

As Nomad said, Vincent vs. Laura is a little different, because Vincent's nature can be plainly seen. We also know and trust Laura's account of what happened.

[/quote]

Just want to make a comment here. I don't want anyone to just "trust my account." I want notice paid to the fact that my account is backed up by data AND 3rd party testimony! Bridges came along, had an agenda, I didn't fall into his trap, so he went on the attack. He only met me twice and suddenly he is an "expert"? Geeze, after initially being taken in by Vinnie who convinced him I had evil intentions (another bit of evidence of the power of the pathological to vector people's thinking), even "Frank" does not support Vinnie. The ONLY people who have defamed me are people who do NOT know me, have spent no time with me, and who came under Vinnie's (and Storm Bear's) influence. Everyone who was ever involved with our project for any period of time has stood solidly behind me. On top of that, Tom French spent five years hanging out, looking for discrepancies, even did a background check/investigation before he wrote about me.

My point is, the weight of the evidence is what I want people to notice. It's not a "he said/she said" thing here. It's not two lawyers who can select and exclude evidence using their persuasion skills on a jury. It's not a "legal argument" in that sense.

Geeze, even my ex-husband, who Vinnie tried to crank up to say nasty things about me refused to.

Getting back to Icke, you can't always tell by public behavior, especially if you are dealing with pathology. Psychopaths do wear a "mask of sanity." And, by the same token, questionable public behavior isn't so easy to decipher either. A good example of that is the whole house raffle mess. There I was, trying like heck to do everything right, and 5 other people were coming right behind me screwing things up to make me look bad.

So, how do we know that there are not some people trying to make Icke look bad?

In the end, the only thing we really have is his body of work. As I have noted elsewhere, often, the only way to get to the core of a matter is to evaluate what Georges Dumezil referred to as the "line of force". When we have taken a particular text apart and have ascertained, as much as possible, the approximate legitimacy of each element, there still remains another question that actually constitutes the essence of the matter: What are the main trends of the whole? What are the lines of force running through the ideological field in which the details are placed?

Another way of saying that, which has already been noted: is what are the fruits?

Then, as Alderpax notes, once that is established, then the crucial question is: "Twhat's behind it - whether he's an agent by choice, mind-control, 4D influence/vectoring, or if he's a sincere researcher who's being taken advantage of by the PTB."

Ultimately, which of them it is really doesn't matter if the material leads people astray. Just as a person can be an "unwitting revealer of truth", so can an individual be an "unwitting disinfo agent." The most significant thing about disinfo is that MOST of it is true - it's just on crucial details or foundational assumptions that it goes offtrack

 

[Argonaut]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

[quote author=E]
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.

As Nomad said, Vincent vs. Laura is a little different, because Vincent's nature can be plainly seen. We also know and trust Laura's account of what happened.

Just want to make a comment here. I don't want anyone to just "trust my account." I want notice paid to the fact that my account is backed up by data AND 3rd party testimony! Bridges came along, had an agenda, I didn't fall into his trap, so he went on the attack. He only met me twice and suddenly he is an "expert"? Geeze, after initially being taken in by Vinnie who convinced him I had evil intentions (another bit of evidence of the power of the pathological to vector people's thinking), even "Frank" does not support Vinnie. The ONLY people who have defamed me are people who do NOT know me, have spent no time with me, and who came under Vinnie's (and Storm Bear's) influence. Everyone who was ever involved with our project for any period of time has stood solidly behind me. On top of that, Tom French spent five years hanging out, looking for discrepancies, even did a background check/investigation before he wrote about me.
[/quote]

I see what you're saying. I wrongly implied that your account is all we have to go on. Based on all the evidence, what happened with Vincent can be established as a fact.

[quote author=Laura]
My point is, the weight of the evidence is what I want people to notice. It's not a "he said/she said" thing here. It's not two lawyers who can select and exclude evidence using their persuasion skills on a jury. It's not a "legal argument" in that sense.
[/quote]

This is part of what makes the "court of law" analogy flawed when it comes to this thread. Courts of law really aren't that great. I do agree with E that it's a good idea in the sense of examining evidence thoroughly and staying objective. Which is what a court of law could be if they weren't ponerized. But maybe we can approach it with a different analogy. For instance, how would Sherlock Holmes go about solving "The Case of the Reptilian Researcher?" :)

[quote author=Laura]
Getting back to Icke, you can't always tell by public behavior, especially if you are dealing with pathology. Psychopaths do wear a "mask of sanity." And, by the same token, questionable public behavior isn't so easy to decipher either. A good example of that is the whole house raffle mess. There I was, trying like heck to do everything right, and 5 other people were coming right behind me screwing things up to make me look bad.

So, how do we know that there are not some people trying to make Icke look bad?

In the end, the only thing we really have is his body of work. As I have noted elsewhere, often, the only way to get to the core of a matter is to evaluate what Georges Dumezil referred to as the "line of force". When we have taken a particular text apart and have ascertained, as much as possible, the approximate legitimacy of each element, there still remains another question that actually constitutes the essence of the matter: What are the main trends of the whole? What are the lines of force running through the ideological field in which the details are placed?

Another way of saying that, which has already been noted: is what are the fruits?
[/quote]

Exactly. Whatever Icke might be, it's extremely hard to discern from the data we have available. Maybe impossible, especially if he's a psychopath. Something smells seriously fishy with him - yet we can't tell exactly where the smell is coming from. Which feels very frustrating to me.

However... This problem is arising because I've insisted on figuring out "why." So I've been looking at third-party sources, trying to find solid evidence that David Icke is this, that, or the other. And it can't be found, because we don't know if these sources are reliable. It's just a back-and-forth war between Icke and his detractors. So we'd definitely get much further sticking with Icke's own work. I was uncertain when E said "the best way to study Icke, is to 'study Icke'," because I was so hell-bent on digging up "dirt," and I thought only Icke's detractors could reveal what I was looking for. And that says volumes about where my head's been at on this. But after E's well-deserved "scolding," and then this "line of force" concept you mentioned, the direction we should take is clear - Study Icke!

[quote author=Laura]
Then, as Alderpax notes, once that is established, then the crucial question is: "Twhat's behind it - whether he's an agent by choice, mind-control, 4D influence/vectoring, or if he's a sincere researcher who's being taken advantage of by the PTB."

Ultimately, which of them it is really doesn't matter if the material leads people astray. Just as a person can be an "unwitting revealer of truth", so can an individual be an "unwitting disinfo agent." The most significant thing about disinfo is that MOST of it is true - it's just on crucial details or foundational assumptions that it goes offtrack

[/quote]

Yes, we should hold off on investigating Icke's nature until after we've studied his concepts, because it's his concepts that are the most crucial issue. Although this is very obvious to me now, I'm going to have to be vigilant with myself. Because even when the discussion in the thread has been about Icke's work I've tended to "drift" back to scrutinizing David Icke as a person. I wouldn't call it an obsession, but it's definitely a sort of fixation.

But to get down to it... I can go through my copy of "Children of the Matrix" and take notes. I can also sift through my audio/video content of Icke, which includes some of his interviews and public presentations. These may reveal some things as well.

 

[Erna]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

Thank you for your post, Alderpax. A lot of work went into that, and thanks for your honesty and sincerity…and objectivity :)

The murky area is about what's behind it - whether he's an agent by choice, mind-control, 4D influence/vectoring, or if he's a sincere researcher who's being taken advantage of by the PTB. Or it may be more than one of these.

Yes, I also think this is what it comes down to.

From the interview you posted.

ABTS asks:
Mr Icke, first of all let me thank you for all the work you’re doing for the people of this planet. You’ve often spoke about an energy or entity around you. What do you think this is? A spirit guide, a guardian angel? Have you had communications with this being?

David Icke:
Thank-you. I have come to understand this ‘force’ around me far more in recent times. It is consciousness beyond the ‘Matrix’, beyond the program, that is feeding in information to explain the illusion that we are caught in – and how to free ourselves. Anyone can access this level of knowledge, but most people don’t because they identify who they are with the programmed ‘world’ and believe it to be real to all there is. What we believe, we experience. This guiding force is getting stronger and stronger within me every day to the point where I don’t have to research as much in the ‘five-sense’ way anymore. Much of it comes direct.

This is last year! So Icke is essentially saying he’s acting as a ‘channel’. So the obvious question is: who/what is coming through, and what is he receiving? ...or...what are the results of it? I would imagine it's a one way channel maybe, and not Q&A. Don't know.

Are there any accounts of Icke's childhood anywhere?

I think this is starting to become a very important question. All Icke’s biographies start with: “soccer star, BBC presenter, Green Party blah blah blah”. That’s quite late in his life. Do we know anything about David Icke’s childhood, or his parents or siblings?

Sixy asks:
Do you think that you, and the beliefs that you hold, have been unfairly represented in the media? And do you see this as a conspiracy against you?

David Icke:
Yes, of course, they have unfairly represented, indeed often fundamentally mis-represented, what I am saying, but that goes with the territory. Anyone who has operated outside the box has been ridiculed, condemned and mis-represented by those in the box. And journalists as a profession, with honourable exceptions, are children of the box. Yes, there is an agenda to present me in a negative way to people, but those orchestrating this are a tiny few. The rest of the journalistic comedy club just do what they always do – take the piss out of those who are different and thus, ironically, serve the conspiracy they deny exists!

Icke kind of dodges this question with his explanation of ‘narrow-minded’ journalists. He knows very well they “take the piss out of him” because of all the famous people (Queen of England, George W. Bush (snr. + jnr.), Kris Kristofferson, and Boxcar Willie) that he accused of being shape-shifting reptilians – all these mostly because of Arizona Wilder’s hypnosis session (correct me if I’m wrong).

Excuse the content that follows, but we’re building a case…

Alex Houston, a rapist, paedophile, and drug runner, was an
“entertainer”, a ventriloquist and stage hypnotist, who himself had his
mind and mouth worked by someone else - the US Government’s mindcontrol
network. It was his job to maintain Cathy and Kelly in their
programmed mode by following the instructions he was given, which
included food and water deprivation and constant trauma. Houston used
his travelling to venues as a cover to transport Cathy and Kelly to their
“assignments” and this introduced Cathy to the truth about the United
States country music industry, and, indeed, the “entertainment” industry
in general. Country music, she discovered, was used by the US
Government agencies to distribute massive amounts of drugs into
American society and as a cover for its mind-control projects. It was
these agencies, she says, which paid for the promotion and hype that
turned a singer called Boxcar Willie into a country music “star.”
– Trance-Formation Of America, p111 -

Some of this promotion, Cathy says, took the form of high tech television
commercials designed to have a hypnotic affect on the viewer. He
became the leader, she writes, of the country music segment of the
“Freedom Train” - the internationally recognised code name for the
slave operations of Project Monarch. The name “Boxcar Willie” was
not selected at random. It makes a statement about the man and his
role. Cathy names Boxcar Willie as a paedophile rapist of mind controlled
women and children, including Kelly whom, she says, he
raped regularly in three different mental institutions.31 He is also
heavily involved in the cocaine operations controlled by the
government agencies and he was the man Bill Clinton’s friend, Bill
Hall, began to work with after Clinton persuaded him to become
involved.32 It was Boxcar Willie who inspired the moving of the
country music “capital” to Branson, Missouri, to be close to the CIA mind-
control and drugs operation based at Lampe, Missouri.

Many people in the entertainment industry are either connected with
the conspiracy or mind-controlled by it. One of the latter was Marilyn
Monroe, a “lover” of President John F Kennedy. Both were to be
murdered by the same force. Another mind-controlled singer, according
to Cathy, is Lorretta Lynn, a slave of the CIA. Her mental and emotional
problems were caused by this. Lorretta’s “road manager”, Ken Riley,
is a paedophile and best friend to Cathy’s handler, Alex Houston. Both
were connected with US Congressman, Gary Ackerman, the
“Democrat” from New York, who, Cathy reports, ran an elaborate drug
operation through Long Island Docks.34 Another mind-controlled
woman rescued by Mark Phillips was Seidina “Dma” Reed, the
daughter of actor-singer, Jerry Reed, of the group, Smokey And The
Bandits. Seidina had been used many times with Cathy in pornographic
films under the control of her husband, the sadist, David Rorick (also
known as Dave Rowe).

Rorick was trained in mind-control by Alex
Houston and Seidina’s famous father, Jerry Reed, knew all about it,
according to Mark Phillips. Seidina was a favourite sex slave of Prince
Bandar Bin Sultan, the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the US.35 The
singer, Kris Kristopherson, a drug-addicted alcoholic born into a CIA
family, is also involved as a seriously imbalanced controller and mind-
manipulator of slaves, according to Cathy’s book and public
statements. – Trance-Formation Of America, p156. -

She writes that she was tortured by him and Michael
Aquino, using high voltage electric shocks.37 Kristopherson, a Jesuit,
is an associate of Senator Robert C. Byrd, Cathy’s controller.38 In that
position, Byrd was, in mind-control parlance, said to be “married” to
Cathy even though she was officially married to Alex Houston. Cathy
says of Kristopherson in her book:

“...Kristopherson nearly strangled me to death with his penis, which
had further sexually excited him, late in the Summer of 1987 during
another incident related to Byrd.”39

Another world famous psychopath and drug runner for the
government is the rock and roll “legend”, Jerry Lee Lewis. Cathy says
she was threatened on many occasions with the words: “we’ll sell you
to Jerry Lee”. This was the background to Cathy and Kelly’s lives when
Mark Phillips came on the scene. He worked with Alex Houston on a
big business deal involving Hong Kong and China, but then he was
told by a representative of the Chinese Ministry of Defence about
Houston’s background and his involvement with the CIA, drugs, money
laundering, child prostitution, and... slavery. Phillips’s informant, who
produced documentary proo{ said Houston was a “very bad man” and
that his crimes were “of the White House”. Mark Phillips writes in
Trance-Formation Of America:

“My first response to this “officer” was that Houston was too stupid
and crooked to be connected with US “intelligence”. This comment was
quickly countered with a gut wrenching photograph of Houston. He was
smiling a demonic grin while apparently having anal sex with a small,
very young, frightened black boy. Later he was identified to me as being
Haitian.”

Now the content of this book is kind of shoved under the rug these days, there is something very strange going on here. I sometimes get the impression that Icke himself is trying to distance himself from this, but he can’t – or he can, but he won’t. He can say he made a mistake. He can say his understanding of the reptilian thing was off. He can say more data came to the fore, which changed his ‘hypothesis’. He can end all the ridicule in one fell swoop. Yes, he might lose credibility…or maybe he will gain credibility. This is where the whole reptilian thing got completely out of hand. But wait, then he repeats all of this in The Biggest Secret, and Biggest Secret is to David Icke, what SHOTW is to Laura - it's like his flagship book (in South Africa for example, it has been an enduring Top 5 seller, according to this http://richardkahn.org/writings/culturalstudies/reptoidhypothesis.pdf)

More revealing, however, about Arizona Wilder’s ‘evidence’ was that she demonised the ancient archetypes and occult images throughout. Osiris, Isis, Druids, even Harvest Festival. My own research tells me that there is a very positive side to these things. In fact these things are exactly what the Bible was written to obscure. AW’s testimony was overtly Judeo-Christian in its level of gross and blanket demonisation of the occult. Something which I had warned David about doing when I read his draft. Something which he promised to amend for the final version.

But of course, that was before he met AW. And as a consequence of her testimony, it seems, David decided not to balance out his demonisation, but instead increased it. If I was going to set David up to make that mistake, that’s exactly how I would have done it!

There is something very ominous about this Arizona Wilder ‘meeting’, well, apart from ALL THE OTHER ominous things in Icke’s life! It feels as if I’m dwelling in the twilight zone!...

I also registered on the Icke forum recently, without posting, just to see what happens when uncomfortable questions are asked:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=79781&highlight=Kristofferson

pleas help me out with this

black_label
Junior Member

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 19

warning: this kinda a long one. only read if you are someone who enjoys it.

As i go on learning more and more about the truth and what life is suppose to be about and what 'they' have made it, i am constantly questioning things. And as much as i hate it, i am questioning david this time. this bothers me. he seems like he is a honest, good guy who is only about the truth and love and not fear mongering, running with a fear and making money off it as some other so called 'thruthers' seem to be doing.

when i watched the movie religilous(which i thought was amazing by the way and had good points), the deleted scense had an interview with david icke. Now, Bill asked david about the whole reptilian thing, and started listng off people that david called retile shape shifters. one named he mentioned was Kris Kristofferson . David replied saying "no, i never said that." I was watching another movie called David Icke, the lizards, and the jews. Now i dont think that david had a whole lot of say in what the filmmaker out in it, for example it was still claiming that David thought he was the son of god. Anyone who knows david really well knows thats not what he ment and would have cleared it up. Even though the filmmaker basically followed david around for awhile, it seems the filmmakers research was horriable and inaccurite. it also mentions that david said that kris Kristofferson was a reptile. which one is right, cause if he has indeed on record said that Kris is a reptile, then that means he lied and flipped flopped on religilous. And that would be a great let down and dissappointment to me. But never the less, the truth is the truth and if he indeed said that, then i must face it and possiably rethink what david is actually all about. please clarify and help me figure this out cause man its bothering me.

**********
itsallinus
Senior Member

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 863

I can only imagine that david would be able to give you the answer and perhaps he did say it then forgot. I have denied things I said and then afterward I remember I did say those things, does not mean it was deceit. We should not judge anyone, only listen to what they say and take what resonates with us. Even if you can no longer trust him he has a lot to offer and is always worth paying attention, the research is a DIY part of truth seeking. I would give him the benefit of the doubt..

**********

black_label
Junior Member

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 19

i totally agree with you, and i would so hope to hell that david isnt flip flopping. i think he is a man who is honest and seems to be all about love and peace and getting this emergent human race back to what it was ment to be. But as far as listening to EVERYone, i gotta disagree respectfullly because if look at the book "the restitance manifesto", the book points out alot of true and revealing facts but alos makes all of us truthers or whatever you would call us, like we really just believe in everything that i mean even i went "what the -flick-?! that seems like a stretch" and i a ma very open minded guy. just my thoughts though. thankfully thinking isnt a crime yet.

**********

michael christopher
Senior Member

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 3,557

Well, the fact is that Icke has claimed that some individuals are reptilians. I can't seem to find a quote where he says anything about Kris Kristofferson, but it might be in one of his books. I've only listened to a lot of his speeches and appearances.

Regardless of whether or not it turns out that Icke is a little flimsy, it does not change the validity of the spiritual element of his work. I can see the holographic universe in action. I know at least for me personally that much of what he says is undeniable truth.

**********

michael christopher
Senior Member

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 3,557

I want to clarify, I am only talking about Icke's theories of a holographic universe. Some of the stuff he said earlier on is rather embarrassing, but it is because his mind was still evolving (and still is evolving as all of us are).

This website claims he mentions Kris Kristofferson was a reptile on his own website:

http://www.publiceye.org/Icke/Ickequotes.htm

They link to this page:

http://www.davidicke.com/icke/articles/listsatan.html

That page gives a 404 not found. But they link to it, and I doubt they just made it up. Seems like Icke deleted it...

It is worth noting however that the PublicEye site is extremely sensitive and doesn't like Icke having any opinion on Judaism whatsoever that is not extremely positive.

It’s hard to know where to start with this little thread, I just included it as a tiny little example of what I meant about the Icke forum being an insult to anyone’s intelligence. There was another thread I found the other night where someone asked 3 times about Kris Kristopherson and Boxcar Willie and everyone just chatters away about…whatever… This poor person had to ask 3 times if someone can please answer his/her question, without success.

It definitely looks like all the Icke followers are happy to shove the insensible things he utters under the rug. Take what you like, and discard the rest. This is cognitive dissonance in action.

Also notice how quickly ‘Black Label’ is satisfied with that totally ridiculous answer (Icke claims Kris Kristopherson is a shape-shifting reptilian in Biggest Secret and I am me...and he...forgot - no-one would let him forget this), not to mention the ‘senior member’ with 3,557 posts, who hasn’t read any of Icke’s books. Definitely a ‘different’ kind of network – sarcasm – they’ve got going…

Goat asks:
Have you ever read any of Robert E. Howard’s Cthulhu Mythos stories and if he has, what he thinks about them.
Specifically “The Shadow Kingdom”.

David Icke:
No, not seen those.

Cthulhu, that word again. Credo Mutwa calls the reptilians Chitauri – Children of the Serpent, very similar. … I did get the impression in Icke’s ‘Reptilian Agenda’ interview with Credo Mutwa that he wasn’t familiar with that word - might be wrong though.

Fletch asks:
And, can I join your religion?

David Icke:
Fletch, to those who have bothered to find out anything about me that is not provided by the mainstream media, the question must be hilarious. Religion is the greatest form of mind control every invented.

Beginning sometime between 2002 and 2005, there will
be a concerted effort to birth a new view of religion that is
designed to bring religion and science together again, but
without the emphasis on Christianity. Its primary dogma will
be based on universal rules or laws of the spirit. These new
religious principals will attempt to merge current scientific
belief with current spiritual thinking. This new religion will
address the ephemeral science of soul, or how man's interaction
with reality affects life, health, and well-being. It may
even be called something like The Metaphysical Church of
Science. This will be a rough birth initially, as it will be seen
as threatening in the extreme. However, in its design, it will
allow for individual variations of belief, and preach respect
for those individual variances. By the year 2050, it will have
established a firm base in both--alternative healing practices
as well as in comforting the dying or distressed.

The sign for this church will be the Infinity Symbol, superim-
posed on a circle:

Rather than be threatened by this, other denominations
should take warning from this prediction and begin now to
expand on the issues surrounding unconditional love, as well as
the need to integrate the morality of science into their dogma.

Okay, now this is just speculation, apart from Icke destroying the ‘reptilian’ (or rather hyperdimensional) hypothesis, he's also always attacking religion. I’m just putting this out here since we’re gathering evidence for a ‘working hypothesis’ – never underestimate the control system…

Which indicates that Icke may be dodging the issue completely while superficially appearing to address it.

Well, actually, Icke does this a lot when an interviewer brings up an uncomfortable question. He usually turns it into another tongue-in-cheek question to make the interviewer’s question appear ridiculous, or make it off as utter nonsense. It’s unfortunate though that he can’t remove his past statements from his books, video interviews, radio interviews and podcasts…ALL OVER THE WORLD WIDE WEB! Maybe not even stupidity or malice can account for these contradictions...maybe it's something far more sinister.

Like Nomad, I don't think anyone here has used Icke's high strangeness against him in the way you're saying. High strangeness in general does not originate with STO, because it tends to violate Free Will. David Icke - by his own account - was basically commanded and manipulated via high strangeness to begin his career as a "truth seeker," and this is highly suspicious.

Okay, okay, I agree, the nature of his high strangeness raises many red flags.

If we are to treat this as a lawsuit, then I know of two witnesses (so far) whom we can examine in regard to Icke stealing ideas. The first is Rixon Stuart, who claims to personally know reasearchers whom Icke has plaigarized. The second is Jordan Maxwell, a man who has directly accused Icke of stealing his ideas. I think the most reliable testimony on this comes from Maxwell, so we could start there.

Okay I will look into this.

The other way to examine this would be to comb through Icke's works, see what ideas he gives credit for and what he doesn't, then try to find where the uncredited concepts may have come from. But determining anything from this would be so "iffy" that the time and effort may not be worth it.

Well, combing through his works will be the only way to establish how his ‘brand’ of COINTELPRO works, to see what crucial details are left out and how it leads people astray. Icke is not someone with 3 or 4 followers, he is a social phenomenon with millions of followers. If only ‘one’ of them can benefit from this thread, then it makes this exercise worthwhile.

Although since him being a psychopath is one of the possiblities, we should definitely mention if certain information indicates this.

Okay.

This might not be something we can ever come to a conclusion on.

I think we will get to the bottom of this, but that means meticulously going through every single one of his books. As I mentioned earlier, since he has such a large following, it makes it worthwhile…methinks…

There may not be enough data available.

I think in Icke’s case it’s the opposite. There’s too much data to wade through.

I hope you've taken your vest off now, since you can see that it wasn't needed.

Prevention is better than cure! ;)

I agree. At the very least, David Icke is undiscerning. This shows when he warns readers not to blindly trust info from a hyperdimensional source, yet he doesn't seem to grasp how this warning could apply to his own past decisions. He also looks to syncronicities for proof and guidance, and this is often how he determines the validity of information, including the testimonies of supposed "eye-witnesses."

Yes, using the word ‘undiscerning’ is definitely giving him the benefit of the doubt. I think we all realised from the start of this thread, as Shijing also mentioned earlier in the thread; this is no small task.

This is a good point, and I think it's what I've been doing in this thread to a degree. Since I'm coming from a place of former devotion to Icke, I may be over-compensating in the other direction and following an urge to villify him. I did something very similar when I first left Christianity, actually. It was also partly motivated by anger that I was "fooled" by it for so long, which may be manifesting again against Icke.

There are many similarities between us here, so I understand exactly where you are coming from.

Very roughly, the subject of David Icke could be split up like this:

I. Concepts and Viewpoints
A. Human control agenda (politics, world events, etc)
B. Hyperdimensional control agenda (reptilians, etc)
C. Nature of humanity
D. Nature of reality (frequencies, "all is One," etc)
E. Proposed solutions
F. General esoteric/metaphysical ideas (kundalini, chanelling, monatomic gold, etc)
II. Sources and Influences
A. Other researchers and books
B. Eye-witness testimonies
C. "Insider" testimonies (Arizona Wilder, etc)
D. His own research and observations
E. Personal associates (Brian Desborough, Credo Mutwa, etc)
F. Hyperdimensional influences
III. Nature and Motives
A. What's been said by personal acquaintences
B. What's been said by other researchers
C. Clues from his own material
D. Clues from his history

Yeah, good summary. I think his thing with the ‘Jews’ is also worth looking into. I looks to me like he's deliberately playing into the Zionists’ hands, by screaming “Jew! Jew!” all the time. It’s just a hunch though, for now.

Actually, he doesn't always recount those events as life-changing. During an interview with Bill Maher for the movie "Religulous," he seems to have forgotten it (interview is on YouTube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TidD_MnrfHI) Here's a written excerpt fo the parts in question:

Bill Maher: I also read you said Kris Kristopherson?

David Icke: No, I didn't say that, I was quoting someone else.

No David, you were not just quoting someone else, you based you flagship book, Biggest Secret and I am me, I am free on her testimony, or hypnotic trance... or whatever went on there!

And this will be the second time I have seen Icke at a loss for words. The first time was when Terry Wogan said to him: “they’re not laughing with you, they’re laughing at you”.

Also notice how Icke corrects the questioner when he says ‘reptilians’, saying “well I call them inter-dimensionals”. Well it looks like he’s not going to let the ‘genetic reptilian bloodline’ go. One briefly gets the impression that he has a new understanding, but then he goes off on the ‘genetic shape-shifting bloodline’ again.

In the end, the only thing we really have is his body of work. As I have noted elsewhere, often, the only way to get to the core of a matter is to evaluate what Georges Dumezil referred to as the "line of force". When we have taken a particular text apart and have ascertained, as much as possible, the approximate legitimacy of each element, there still remains another question that actually constitutes the essence of the matter: What are the main trends of the whole? What are the lines of force running through the ideological field in which the details are placed?

Another way of saying that, which has already been noted: is what are the fruits?

Indeed, this is going to take some time though.

Then, as Alderpax notes, once that is established, then the crucial question is: "Twhat's behind it - whether he's an agent by choice, mind-control, 4D influence/vectoring, or if he's a sincere researcher who's being taken advantage of by the PTB."

Ultimately, which of them it is really doesn't matter if the material leads people astray.

We might never know which of the four, but if we can determine the latter, I’d say we’re there.

 

[Erna]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

Here's something else which may relate to this: I remember something about the Denver Airport mural photographs being taken by a member of SotT, and SotT being the first to really bring the murals to public attention. I know that David Icke has used these photos and this information without mentioning SotT as the source. But that said, they seem to have popped up all over the place, so it's hard to say where Icke got them or if he even knows where they originated. Maybe this is something we can explore.

I just found this in Biggest Secret, p. 34-35 (published in 1999)

One of Alex Christopher’s specialities is the new Denver Airport
which is reputed to be a cover for a deep underground reptilian-human base. It is certainly a
strange place. The first time I spoke on these conspiracy subjects in the United States was
in Denver in August 1996, and I’d landed at Denver Airport with no idea of its
background. Even so, as soon as the plane landed I’d felt a very strange energy, very
weird and unpleasant.

The airport was built at enormous cost on open land a long way
from Denver and it is full of Masonic symbols. There are also gargoyles, the wingedreptile
figures that you find on the stately homes of the reptilian aristocracy in Britain
and on the churches and great cathedrals of Europe which were built by the Brotherhood
network. There are also gargoyles on a building in Dealey Plaza where President
Kennedy was assassinated and now they turn up again in a modern airport built on an
alleged underground reptilian base.

Gargoyles are symbols of the reptilians and that is
why you will find them at Denver Airport. The capstone or dedication stone at the airport
is marked with the classic compass symbol of the Freemasons and it stands in part of the
terminal called The Great Hall, another Freemasonic term. On a wall is a grotesque
mural full of malevolent symbolism, including three caskets with dead females in them:
a Jewish girl, a Native American and a black woman. Another girl is holding a Mayan
tablet that tells of the destruction of civilisation. A huge character, described as a ‘green
Darth Vader’ by Alex Christopher, stands over a destroyed city with a sword in his hand
and women are walking along a road holding dead babies.

All the children of the world
are depicted taking weapons from each country and handing them to a figure of a
German boy with an iron fist and an anvil in his hand. Denver is apparently scheduled to
be the headquarters of the Western sector of the United States under the fascist global
state called the New World Order which is planned beyond the year 2000. Atlanta is said
to be the centre for the Eastern sector and I remember thinking some years ago how the
design of Denver and Atlanta airports were so similar - now I know why.
Colorado is a major centre for the New World Order and the Queen of England,
under another name, has been buying up land there.

As you will see later, the British
Royal Family are massively involved in this story and so is the murder of Diana,
Princess of Wales. One of Christopher’s main contacts was a guy called Phil Schneider,
the son of a German U-boat commander in World War II, who was commissioned to
build a number of deep underground bases in the United States. I saw some of his
lectures on video when he began to speak out publicly about the underground network
of bases, cities and tunnels throughout the United States. He later died in very
suspicious circumstances which were meant to appear like ‘suicide’. Schneider said that
Denver Airport was connected to a deep underground base that went down at least eight
levels. It included a 4.5 square mile underground city and a vast base, he said. Other
contacts who have been underground at Denver Airport claim that there are large
numbers of human slaves, many of them children, working there under the control of
the reptilians.

Two of the bases that Phil Schneider claims to have helped to build are
the infamous Area 51 in Nevada and Dulce in New Mexico, which is connected by the
tunnel network to the Los Alamos National Laboratory. I have been to Los Alamos and
the vibes are simply horrible. After speaking about the reptilian involvement in human
affairs on the Sightings radio show in the United States, I was sent an account by an
army private stationed on the surface at Dulce.

 

[durabone]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

Icke has made a spectacle of himself over the reptilian issue

... well put.

Thanks a lot, ya'll. E and Alderpax... wow. Hope my add is worthwhile.

I first met David Icke in 1997, before his reptilian idea was expounded very much. He liked to use the expression "Prison Warders" back then.

I read everything of his, all of his DVDs, etc. up until a few years back. I actually went to see him in San Jose last year to try and find out "what's new." I lauded him at least once for having such courage to speak to power, but then I almost said the same of Alex Jones once upon a time.

My input is related to one of Icke's central themes :

1) That we are being manipulated by unseen forces with unclear intent.
2) That these unseen forces are associated with certain, preferred bloodlines.

These two ideas, particularly the second, could use more of Icke's time and attention IMHO. But he has moved on as if they are successfully concluded. In particular, I would've liked Icke to address more of the specific family lineages that he casts aspersions about, and their method of organization and control. Bilderberg/Bohemian meetings aside, there simply must be more communications going on within any management organization of this kind. How? Where?

I also wondered once that if this highly unusual book: "The Dragon Legacy: The Secret History of an Ancient Bloodline" by Nicholas de Vere and Tracy R. Twyman, is correct in its assertion that current "Prison Warders" are not in the special bloodline, but rather merely "Merchant Class" mockery as de Vere essentially puts it, then please answer David Icke, who is really who around here?

That said, the idea that Icke is dis-information was met warmly by me, who had already lost faith partially because of the weak technical arguments that he now uses. To discuss a holographic universe, and invisible frequencies in Silicon Valley when you don't understand it yourself can amount to hand waving in front of a tough audience if you are not very careful!!! Microchips, mind control, police state, control tactics used by royalty, all are important topics, though as pointed out by Laura, UFOs seem to be scantly addressed. (Though I last year when I saw him, it was at a UFO conference!)

Right or wrong in his theories, he has burgeoned his scope too broadly now (IMHO) to accomplish much in the way of any detailed work. The questions above stated above by several posters about him possibly co-opted midstream are intriguing, and yes: he stated out right in San Jose in 2008 that he could tell that he was surrounded by positive forces that were shaping his work. Is that like the visitation dream had by Johnny Cash when Queen Elizabeth poured inspiration on him? :O

So... now my main point (also stated above by others): My mind was opened by Icke to a possibility, one which led me to "The Wave." Let me say that again. I was definitely more receptive to the Wave books once I had been "fertilized" by Icke. I wonder, as a font of dis-info, how many are only exposed briefly to Icke via one lecture or DVD, etc.? The take-home message for the one-timer may be that we are controlled by a highly organized hierarchical structure which, given the scope and effectiveness of the scheme, we argue might is operated by outside forces. (Outside the visible human race, that is.) This take-home message was huge for me in 1997, and ergo perhaps for others, despite what he may have done since. So I am grateful to him for that.

E:

I honestly can’t tell if David does this on purpose, but he’s a ‘saviour’ in the eyes of his followers, yet they are left powerless. He’s giving his audience the conspiracy ‘genre’ almost exclusively, and a vast majority of them are satisfied with it and will look no further.

That's is a tough one as you state very well, though I am one person who looked further.


His later development of the reptile theory continues to me to be - a let down. (Though the poorly produced DVDs of Credo Mutwa are high strangeness indeed, I agree with E & anart - they are disturbing both from an accuracy and an implications viewpoint)

Shijing:

I still fight with this program, and haven't expunged it yet, but I think I am winning the battle slowly but surely...

Me too. I wrote a short story about these 'lizzies' to try and clear my mind on the subject. It is entitled: "Back into the Meat" The scientist in that story goes from fear of the reptilians to pity. I posted it here two years ago, but chickened out and pulled it. (Now is has become a 450 page epic SciFi thriller, where the battle goes public!! How to publish?)


PS:

"Trance-Formation Of America" The original had no ISBN. I'd like to get my copy back for comparison with the later versions. Mona - I have not followed Cathy O'Brien since years ago, so thanks for the minor update. I'll search here, look around, etc.


PPS:

Is it just me or did I see at DIA: embedded copper symbols in the floor which smacked esoterica? I don't see them these days. Have these now been removed or strategically covered?


Thanks for the thread!!!

 

[anart]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

Hi E,

Just a note that this part:

Quote from: Session 24 October 2009
Beginning sometime between 2002 and 2005, there will
be a concerted effort to birth a new view of religion that is
designed to bring religion and science together again, but
without the emphasis on Christianity. Its primary dogma will
be based on universal rules or laws of the spirit. These new
religious principals will attempt to merge current scientific
belief with current spiritual thinking. This new religion will
address the ephemeral science of soul, or how man's interaction
with reality affects life, health, and well-being. It may
even be called something like The Metaphysical Church of
Science. This will be a rough birth initially, as it will be seen
as threatening in the extreme. However, in its design, it will
allow for individual variations of belief, and preach respect
for those individual variances. By the year 2050, it will have
established a firm base in both--alternative healing practices
as well as in comforting the dying or distressed.

The sign for this church will be the Infinity Symbol, superim-
posed on a circle:

Rather than be threatened by this, other denominations
should take warning from this prediction and begin now to
expand on the issues surrounding unconditional love, as well as
the need to integrate the morality of science into their dogma.

Wasn't from a session, as listed in your quote heading. It is from Remote View Joseph McMoneagle's "The Ultimate Time Machine" 1999 edition - Johnno found it. It was discussed in the thread with the heading 'Session 24, October 2009', which is probably why you listed it that way - but just reading that, it looks like that passage actually came from that session, so it might be confusing for readers. fwiw.

 

[Erna]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

Hi Anart, oops! Sorry! I've seen some people here linking to a specific post, which was what I actually wanted to do. What is the code for that functionality (instead of linking to the entire page listing all the posts)?

 

[Beau]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

Hi Anart, oops! Sorry! I've seen some people here linking to a specific post, which was what I actually wanted to do. What is the code for that functionality (instead of linking to the entire page listing all the posts)?

Go to the title of the post, in my case Re: About David Icke & James Redfield, right-click and select Copy Link Location (in Firefox). That will save the link to the specific post and you can paste it wherever you need it.

 

[anart]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

Hi Anart, oops! Sorry! I've seen some people here linking to a specific post, which was what I actually wanted to do. What is the code for that functionality (instead of linking to the entire page listing all the posts)?

No biggie, I just figured you might want that part to be accurate. I link to specific posts by right clicking on the little page icon right next to the post heading (to the left) and then choosing 'copy link location'. There is probably a simpler way to do it, but that's my technique.

 

[anart]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

Is it just me or did I see at DIA: embedded copper symbols in the floor which smacked esoterica? I don't see them these days. Have these now been removed or strategically covered?

They're still there unless they were removed within the last month. Not sure if they're copper or brass - and some are 'normal' symbols for the area, mining carts, mountain goats, skiers, stuff like that - a few are odd and don't make much sense, but not sure what they might mean, or if they're esoteric. I'll look around next time I'm there to see if I can find any...

 

[Erna]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

Thanks Heimdallr & Anart. :) I've been eyeing that functionality for quite some time - very helpful!

His later development of the reptile theory continues to me to be - a let down. (Though the poorly produced DVDs of Credo Mutwa are high strangeness indeed, I agree with E & anart - they are disturbing both from an accuracy and an implications viewpoint)

Well, speaking of Mutwa, I've always kind of kept my eye on him since him and Icke became so closely affiliated. Now, to put this into context, Credo Mutwa is to the Zulus what the pope is to the Catholics.

Credo Mutwa said this to the media end of last year:

http://www.dailynews.co.za/?fSectionId=&fArticleId=nw20081119170715817C604394

Go back to the drawing board, leaders told

19 November 2008

With a general election looming in 2009, one of the country's best known prophets and traditionalists has suggested political activity be suspended for a year, to find out what has gone wrong with South African democracy.

In an interview with the Daily Sun published on Wednesday, Credo Mutwa said the country's political leaders should go back to the drawing board to investigate "what has gone wrong in our democracy, which came at such a high price."

"Our leaders fight each other for power like roosters fighting for territory in the farmyard. Our nation is dying of Aids. Are they going to lead a nation of skeletons?" Mutwa was quoted as saying.

Speaking from his North West home at isolated Mothibistad, outside Kuruman, Mutwa elaborated:

"If they (leaders) can't see this now... by the time they do, it will be too late for them to open their eyes.

I have information that will make all South Africans, including our leaders, weak at the knees."

The report refers to the 87-year-old as SA's most famous sanusi - isiZulu for prophet.

He predicted tough times ahead, with big job losses to come: "I see tears falling to earth like rain.

2012 will not be a good year anywhere in the world - with much poverty and unemployment in SA."

According to the Daily Sun, Mutwa's predictions include foreseeing the murders of Hendrick Verwoerd and Chris Hani as well as Thabo Mbeki not seeing out his second term as president.

-Sapa

Hope he wasn't referring to a reptilian takeover. His accurate predictions kind of send chills down my spine.

 

[durabone]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

Credo Mutwa is to the Zulus what the pope is to the Catholics.

No E, thank you very much. I did not know that. Does this mean that the Zulus
accept his story about the Chitauli, their copper city under the Mountains of the
Moon in Zaire, the ritual of eating Chitauli meat ... as gospel??

Trying to remember ... Did CM state that he himself had eaten the Chitauli meat?
Now I am humbled, as I thought that CM was just some local that Icke had dug
up, not the 'spokesperson/figurehead' for an entire people. I am going to have
to think on that one a while.

 

[Erna]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

I have often underestimated their 'superstition', and I'm always surprised by what they believe. Any sangoma/sanusi strikes the fear of God into any Zulu, and Credo Mutwa is the 'makulu' (big one) of them all.

I have never asked Zulus about the 'Chitauri' in particular, I am more concerned with their beliefs which result in social problems, like the raping of virgins or infants as a cure for AIDS, 'corrective' rape as a cure for homosexuality, witchcraft accusations, and of course muti, resulting in all the muti killings.

The Tikoloshe is another 'unsolved mystery'. Everyone has apparently seen it with their own eyes. I have often thought it would make a great documentary - since the Tikoloshe is a belief across the whole of Southern Africa, and just mentioning it has everyone’s attention! I have considered the possibility that the Tikoloshe might be 4D...

We have a bit of a clash of civilizations down here...never a boring day! :) But I'll ask them about the 'Chitauri' and see what they say. Also remember that the country is now run by Zulus as well, and Jacob Zuma is a tribalist/traditionalist, who consults sangomas regularly (he mentioned this in a recent radio interview).

 

[Argonaut]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

From the interview you posted.

ABTS asks:
Mr Icke, first of all let me thank you for all the work you’re doing for the people of this planet. You’ve often spoke about an energy or entity around you. What do you think this is? A spirit guide, a guardian angel? Have you had communications with this being?

David Icke:
Thank-you. I have come to understand this ‘force’ around me far more in recent times. It is consciousness beyond the ‘Matrix’, beyond the program, that is feeding in information to explain the illusion that we are caught in – and how to free ourselves. Anyone can access this level of knowledge, but most people don’t because they identify who they are with the programmed ‘world’ and believe it to be real to all there is. What we believe, we experience. This guiding force is getting stronger and stronger within me every day to the point where I don’t have to research as much in the ‘five-sense’ way anymore. Much of it comes direct.

This is last year! So Icke is essentially saying he’s acting as a ‘channel’. So the obvious question is: who/what is coming through, and what is he receiving? ...or...what are the results of it? I would imagine it's a one way channel maybe, and not Q&A. Don't know.

Just a small correction - the interview was posted on warofillusions.com in September of 2008, but it actually took place (on rinf.com) in May of 2005. Still, it doesn't seem that anything Icke said then would be any different now.

What he said here sounds very ominous, especially the part you emphasized. Reading it actually gave me chills. He anticipates a time when all of his information will just get "beamed" directly into his head from this "guiding force." And he doesn't even show the slightest indication that he'd confirm this info in any way before believing it and teaching it to others. Just the opposite - he talks as if "five-sense" research is just an imperfect, temporary sustitute.

"Who/what is coming through, and what is he receiving" really is the obvious question. It's so obvious that it raises another question - why isn't ICKE asking the same thing? What's with the blind faith? This is the man who cautions his readers against the very thing he himself is doing. Since it seems such a clear contradiction, how does Icke confirm that he can trust this force? I think he gives a hint of the answer when he says, "What we believe, we experience." For Icke, his belief that there is more to reality than the "Matrix" opens him up to experiencing that greater reality. So to him, communication with the forces of "good" is a natural result of his own state of mind. And I'm guessing that he assumes his state of mind also "protects him" from channeling the forces of evil. In other words - David Icke is oblivious to the "terror of the situation." To him, enlightenment and flawless discernment require little more than changing your beliefs. Just stop "identifying with the programmed world" and hey presto! You're free! The final answer from that interview gives a perfect example of Icke's simplistic - almost cavalier - attitude in this area:

I just found this in Biggest Secret, p. 34-35 (published in 1999)

I searched the Cass site and found a page about the murals (http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/denver.htm). In a Nov 1997 C's session cited on the page, the following exchange happened:

[quote author=Nov 1997 Session]
Q: (T) Is Alex Christopher's general idea of the meanings of these paintings correct?

A: Close. You should learn what you can, discreetly, about masonic principles.
[/quote]

So Alex Christopher, whom Icke mentions as his source, was well-acquainted with the murals before the SotT photos were taken. What I remembered from before was likely just about other people using SotT's copyrighted photos, and not about SotT first bringing the murals to public attention.