About David Icke & James Redfield

[Erna]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

This may be, but why would so many Zulus side with the malevolent polarity? Unless they don't realize they're doing it.

Now that I’m reading Credo’s book, I starting to have a much better understanding of these things. It is not so much a matter of siding with the malevolent polarity. It is their religion. It is not ‘wrong’ per se, see it more as appeasing the gods.

Wow, that was an eye-opener. I agree that if it's a matter of religion, it's pretty much set in stone for them.

[/quote]

True, with regard to the clash of civilizations, one of our Mail & Guardian bloggers wrote a great piece about this.

So as you can see, the only solution is more water into the sea. The colosseum came to an end, the Spanish inquisition came to an end, this will also come to an end.

It still floors me how these religious atrocities and Credo Mutwa can fit together.

No, as I said, Credo absolutely abhors these practises. The biggest mistake one can make, as I have also made, is in thinking they have a hierarchal structure where those higher up command those below them. This is not so. Credo is regarded as the most ‘powerful’, but he has zero influence over the witchdoctors ‘below’ him. Each one can do as he/she pleases, each one is regarded as a sovereign entity.

I still follow him from time to time, and it its extremely interesting that the 'new comers' to the new age yak scene, ie-
jones, tsarion hold him in high esteem as their reference point in the articles/books that are now being written.

This sudden ‘joining of forces’ is definitely worth exploring, especially since the one insulted the other one publicly in the not too distant past…

 

[Erna]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

Which reminds me of David Icke's little closing speech at the end of the Credo Mutwa video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCvgOkzGBtU&feature=related – 5:40

Are we gonna go on fighting each other? Are we gonna go on being divided and ruled because someone else has got a different religion than us, oh my goodness call the police. Someone’s got a different colour to us, someone got a different creed to us, someone got a different spin on life than us.

Are we gonna go on doing that? Cause if we are we deserve to be in a global fascist state, because we are acting in our own lives as individual fascists against those around us, that don’t share our view. We can unite on what, I hope, we believe in. Freedom.

We can celebrate the diversity of human expression, of human ability, of the human sense of reality, the way we see the same thing in so many different ways. We can celebrate the diversity of race, the diversity of all things in this glorious web of life that we call the creation. And if we do that, we will not agree, but we will have harmony, and therefore we will have peace via respect for each other.

I actually forgot about this little speech of his, and couldn’t help smiling to myself about his over-simplification of pressing African (and world) dilemmas. It reminds me a little of his solution to humanity’s dilemma.

Rinf.com asks:
Finally David, thank you for taking the time to answer our questions and do you recommend any aura cleansing / meditation techniques to prevent these negative energies of from tuning in or clinging to our psyche?

David Icke:
Live with joy and without fear. Aura cleansed.

Now his little ‘rant’ comes across as well intentioned and from the heart, but what is he essentially doing? He’s telling us we’re all the same. He’s closing the door on the prospect of a communal realization that pathology exists amongst us. He blames it on religious intolerance and racial intolerance, ignoring the fact that the intolerance is the result of a religion with pathological fruits (amongst others).

He’s closing the door on activism. He’s closing the door on all the animal rights activists and human rights activists saying this has to stop, it’s pathological (those calling the police, David...). He closes the door on all the hard work of people educating and educating saying female circumcision is wrong, human sacrifice is wrong, human bodypart consumpsion is wrong, animal cruelty is wrong. Icke turns around and says: stop your religious and racial intolerance?!?

Thanks David, we would never have thought of it ourselves. How could we have been so blind! I’m going to meditate right now and send buckets of love and light to everyone!

David Icke also needs to be informed that respect is not a human right, it is earned. He should also ask all the victims of these barbaric cultural practices if they are celebrating the cultural diversity as much as he is...

 

[Argonaut]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

This may be, but why would so many Zulus side with the malevolent polarity? Unless they don't realize they're doing it.

Now that I’m reading Credo’s book, I starting to have a much better understanding of these things. It is not so much a matter of siding with the malevolent polarity. It is their religion. It is not ‘wrong’ per se, see it more as appeasing the gods.

Wow, that was an eye-opener. I agree that if it's a matter of religion, it's pretty much set in stone for them.

True, with regard to the clash of civilizations, one of our Mail & Guardian bloggers wrote a great piece about this.

So as you can see, the only solution is more water into the sea. The colosseum came to an end, the Spanish inquisition came to an end, this will also come to an end.
[/quote]

Indeed... Your earlier post and that blog really show the futility of it. One simply can't dictate "truths" from one paradigm into another. To use the words of one of the blog commenters, we "live in different cultural/ethical dimensions" entirely. What made me really think about how widespread the futility is - this commenter made that statement about the debate between vegans and meat eaters. The same could be applied to any of our personal lives directly, me and my fundamentalist Christan dad, for instance. And it could be even more loosely-defined: like us here vs. those who say chanelling and UFO's are beliefs of an unbalanced mind. This stuff is why Strategic Enclosure exists - and, to a degree, External Considering. It's a matter of respecting the right of others to have their paradigms, while simultaneously guarding ourselves from those paradigms infringing on us. And it's a big, complicated mess. Of course, paradigm shifts can happen, as most of us can attest... But they're extremely rare and on an individual basis. There's no way the paradigm of an entire culture is going to be changed. By anyone. As you said, all things must come to an end, and sometimes we just have to let them run their course.

Which reminds me of David Icke's little closing speech at the end of the Credo Mutwa video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCvgOkzGBtU&feature=related – 5:40

Are we gonna go on fighting each other? Are we gonna go on being divided and ruled because someone else has got a different religion than us, oh my goodness call the police. Someone’s got a different colour to us, someone got a different creed to us, someone got a different spin on life than us.

Are we gonna go on doing that? Cause if we are we deserve to be in a global fascist state, because we are acting in our own lives as individual fascists against those around us, that don’t share our view. We can unite on what, I hope, believe in. Freedom.

We can celebrate the diversity of human expression, of human ability, of the human sense of reality, the way we see the same thing in so many different ways. We can celebrate the diversity of race, the diversity of all things in this glorious web of life that we call the creation. And if we do that, we will not agree, but we will have harmony, and therefore we will have peace via respect for each other.

I actually forgot about this little speech of his, and couldn’t help smiling to myself about his over-simplification of pressing African (and world) dilemmas. It reminds me a little of his solution to humanity’s dilemma.

Rinf.com asks:
Finally David, thank you for taking the time to answer our questions and do you recommend any aura cleansing / meditation techniques to prevent these negative energies of from tuning in or clinging to our psyche?

David Icke:
Live with joy and without fear. Aura cleansed.

Now his little ‘rant’ comes across as well intentioned and from the heart, but what is he essentially doing? He’s telling us we’re all the same. He’s closing the door on the prospect of a communal realization that pathology exists amongst us. He blames it on religious intolerance and racial intolerance, ignoring the fact that the intolerance is the result of a religion with pathological fruits (amongst others).

He’s closing the door on activism. He’s closing the door on all the animal rights activists and human rights activists saying this has to stop, it’s pathological (those calling the police, David...). He closes the door on all the hard work of people educating and educating saying female circumcision is wrong, human sacrifice is wrong, human bodypart consumpsion is wrong, animal cruelty is wrong. Icke turns around and says: stop your religious and racial intolerance?!?

Thanks David, we would never have thought of it ourselves. How could we have been so blind! I’m going to meditate right now and send buckets of love and light to everyone!

Yes, he definitely glosses over all the complexities of... Well, EVERYTHING, pretty much. And you're right that this could undermine people who actually try to make a difference. We're one of the groups "calling the police" - on the pathocrats in particular. Hell, Icke is technically doing the same, even though he has their nature completely wrong. One could make a case that his shape-shifters, with their blood-drinking rituals and sacrifices - are practicing THEIR religion. Same with the elite romping at Bohemian Grove beneath an owl statue. So why can't he see that "intolerance" is not always a dirty word?

This is partly why I chafe against the fact that the paradigm bubbles of others are so inpenetratable... Technically, what the Zulus do is wrong. Will the ever be convinced of that? Nope. Will it ever be stopped? Nope... And that's just the Zulus. What about researchers torturing animals to test some new beauty product? Or psychopaths, who view us as ignorant beasts that need to be controlled? Paradigms take many forms, and almost all have rock-hard shells. It can start looking pretty hopeless, sometimes. In general, a policy of free will is fine and good - let people believe what they choose. But when those beliefs lead to severe harm, it gets extremely difficult.

[quote author=E]
David Icke also needs to be informed that respect is not a human right, it is earned. He should also ask all the victims of these barbaric cultural practices if they are celebrating the cultural diversity as much as he is...
[/quote]

I'm sure that if we took David Icke to witness a muti killing, he wouldn't just stand there and say, "well that's their religion, they have a right..." He would likely be appalled (giving him the benefit of the doubt, of course). He's spoken out before against horrid things done in the name of religion... And in fact, Icke is the one saying that ALL religion is a mind-prison, no exceptions! So in his way, he's among the LEAST tolerant of all. But it's easy for him to put his blinders on from his comfy home in Britain. That's the paradox of David Icke. He oversimplifies on all sides of an issue, and can sometimes contradict himself.

 

[Erna]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

And it could be even more loosely-defined: like us here vs. those who say chanelling and UFO's are beliefs of an unbalanced mind. This stuff is why Strategic Enclosure exists - and, to a degree, External Considering. It's a matter of respecting the right of others to have their paradigms, while simultaneously guarding ourselves from those paradigms infringing on us. And it's a big, complicated mess. Of course, paradigm shifts can happen, as most of us can attest... But they're extremely rare and on an individual basis. There's no way the paradigm of an entire culture is going to be changed. By anyone. As you said, all things must come to an end, and sometimes we just have to let them run their course.

I hear you. You see how complicated it gets?

I can be a bit slow, but I catch on eventually. :)

Don’t worry, I’m also still figuring it out, and I live here! :)

One could make a case that his shape-shifters, with their blood-drinking rituals and sacrifices - are practicing THEIR religion. Same with the elite romping at Bohemian Grove beneath an owl statue. So why can't he see that "intolerance" is not always a dirty word?

Because ‘intolerance’ is only a dirty word when you ignore psychopathology…

In general, a policy of free will is fine and good - let people believe what they choose. But when those beliefs lead to severe harm, it gets extremely difficult.

Yup, our world isn’t black and white.

He oversimplifies on all sides of an issue, and can sometimes contradict himself.

Sometimes?!?

 

[Mountain Crown]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

I would like to express my gratitude to and admiration for all who are participating in this fascinating thread.

[quote author=Alderpax] But when those beliefs lead to severe harm[/quote]

Then free will has been infringed, has it not?

 

[Erna]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

[quote author=MC]
I would like to express my gratitude to and admiration for all who are participating in this fascinating thread.
[/quote]

It has taken a few wild turns, but it's all good. :)

[quote author=MC]
[quote author=Alderpax] But when those beliefs lead to severe harm[/quote]
Then free will has been infringed, has it not?
[/quote]

That's the million dollar question. There are two parties (perpetrator & victim) desiring opposing outcomes. Getting involved infringes on the perpetrator's free will, but at the same time the party interfering also has free will and chooses to interfere. So are you infringing on someone's free will if you are obeying your own free will?

...and where does the bit come in that says someone who hasn't sufficiently developed esoterically doesn't 'have' free will?

 

[Mountain Crown]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

[quote author=E]So are you infringing on someone's free will if you are obeying your own free will?[/quote]

There are those who serve only their own free will. There are those who serve the free will of others.

Getting involved infringes on the perpetrator's free will, but at the same time the party interfering also has free will and chooses to interfere.

Interesting choice of words – interfere. I guess it depends on precisely what response is given to the perpetrator’s action. To declare something to be wrong on the fact that it is a violation of the free will of the victim, would not be infringing on the free will of the perp, but rather revealing his/her nature; explaining the third force as it were.

There’s also the issue of failure to do something about evil is to be complicit with it, and thereby violating free will, which the evil is.

 

[Mountain Crown]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

...and where does the bit come in that says someone who hasn't sufficiently developed esoterically doesn't 'have' free will?

It is my understanding that here in 3D there is always the potential to choose, and that we are the battleground; that free will can’t be taken, only given away.

 

[Erna]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

[quote author=MC]
[quote author=E]
So are you infringing on someone's free will if you are obeying your own free will?[/quote]

There are those who serve only their own free will. There are those who serve the free will of others.
[/quote]

Indeed, but those who serve the free will of others don't exist in 3D - only in potential. You are also separating my question from what precedes it, meaning you are taking it out of context.

Getting involved infringes on the perpetrator's free will, but at the same time the party interfering also has free will and chooses to interfere.

Interesting choice of words – interfere.

Why is that?

I guess it depends on precisely what response is given to the perpetrator’s action. To declare something to be wrong on the fact that it is a violation of the free will of the victim, would not be infringing on the free will of the perp, but rather revealing his/her nature; explaining the third force as it were.

There’s also the issue of failure to do something about evil is to be complicit with it, and thereby violating free will, which the evil is.

Yes, the issue of interfering has come up before. Is this why you say it's interesting?

It is my understanding that here in 3D there is always the potential to choose, and that we are the battleground; that free will can’t be taken, only given away.

And then there is also the issue of karmic dept... the consequences of a choices made in a previous incarnations...

 

[Mountain Crown]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

Why is that?

Only because that word can have the connotation of to meddle, which wouldn't do justice to the issue of whether to take a stand against injustice. The answer, I thought, would be in how that's done.

Yes, the issue of interfering has come up before. Is this why you say it's interesting?

No.

 

[Erna]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

[quote author=MC]
Only because that word can have the connotation of to meddle, which wouldn't do justice to the issue of whether to take a stand against injustice. The answer, I thought, would be in how that's done.
[/quote]

Sorry MC, you are a little ambiguous for me, but if I understand you correctly, then there's not many ways to take a stand against injustice without interfering/meddling. As to how, yes, that's an even bigger question than should/should not.

 

[Mountain Crown]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

but if I understand you correctly, then there's not many ways to take a stand against injustice without interfering/meddling.

I'm sorry if my words were confusing. Actually I was trying to say that taking a stand wouldn't be violating free will, depending on how it's done of course.

After some thought, since the word interfere doesn't have to mean meddling, my comment about it wasn't necessary, and I apologize for that too.

 

[Erna]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

No it's 100%. I was a little puzzled there. :)

Actually I was trying to say that taking a stand wouldn't be violating free will, depending on how it's done of course.

Yes, that was how I understood your first post.

would not be infringing on the free will of the perp, but rather revealing his/her nature

 

[Argonaut]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

Hokay... I'm gonna give this a shot. Hope there's something helpful in it. :)

[quote author=Alderpax] But when those beliefs lead to severe harm

Then free will has been infringed, has it not?

[/quote]


Yes, it has. The difficulty isn't in deciding whether or not to intervene, it's in deciding how to. We know that ANY violation of Free Will is STS... Yet we also know that standing up against direct violations of others' Free Will is STO. So how can we reconcile these two things?

E raised some good questions about what constitutes a Free Will violation. So is it STS to stop someone from harming someone else? And what if the perp is mentally deficient or unstable? I work in a group home for the developmentally disabled. And although we strive to give residents as free an environment as possible, there are many restrictions in place for their own protection. Also, I'm sure any parent would stop a child from running into traffic or some other dangerous act. So are these protective measures Free Will violations, and therefore STS? Objectively speaking, what's the deal here?

As E mentioned, one who is asleep doesn't really WILL anything. They are acted on by outside forces. One who is insane or mentally disabled is obviously at the mercy of their limitations, but a "normal" person is just as mechanical. So what's to keep us from forcing anybody we want to do whatever we wish, then? If everyone's a machine then Free Will doesn't even exist for most people, right? Well, this is obviously not the way to look at it, otherwise we wouldn't be called on to honor Free Will. Since we ARE called on to do this, how can we reconcile it with the fact that mechanical man has no Free Will to honor?

I think the key may lie in something the C's said: "STO gives all to those who ask." And the nature of this "asking" must be considered deeply. We want to give what the STO PART of someone is asking for, or WOULD ask for if it could, and not necessarily what the mechanical STS part wants. Laura has said that when a lie is told, we must give the lie what it asks for - which is the truth. In other words, when the "asking" is done by STS means, the STO response is to view this as a cry for the opposite. If someone "asks" for help in a manipulative, STS way, then they're ACTUALLY asking for you to refuse their manipulation, etc. To refuse manipulation is an act of STO/LOVE towards the manipulator, because it frees him to possibly receive a lesson and grow a bit. It frees him to make a different choice than the programmed pattern he's used to following. This seems to have a lot to do with balance, too. An expression of STS may "ask" for an expression of STO to balance things out.

So to apply this to the question of stopping someone from harming another, I think that an act of harm "cries out" for an STO act to balance the equation - while a helpless individual BEING harmed "cries out" to be helped. So no Free Will is being violated, because the only entity who "wills" the harm is an STS machine. We must read between the lines and see that an extreme expression of STS is often a direct request for STO intervention. In other words, to stop a person from harming another can be an act of honoring their true Free Will as well as the victim's. The helplessness of the "victim" is an important factor, though. If someone is being harmed because they choose to remain in a situation where they KNOW they will be harmed, intervening can be the wrong thing to do. In that case, the choices and the lessons are up to the individuals involved. The perp is "asking" for the VICTIM to stop him, while the victim is "asking" HERSELF to give aid. And yes, this situation demonstrates that it IS possible to violate ONE'S OWN FREE WILL by placing one's self in that position.

This kind of thing can almost cause a brain ache to think about, and I probably explained it pretty poorly... But I think the key to the dilemma is to be found by considering this line of reasoning. So maybe someone who "gets it" more than I do can put it more clearly and accurately? :)

[EDIT - Separated the part starting with "Yes, it has. The difficulty..." into its own paragraph and added clarification, since it's a separate idea from the part beginning with "E raised some good questions...]

[2ND EDIT - Clarified the text explaining the first edit, since it was a bit hard to undestand exactly what I changed. I'm trying very hard to clear the noise; hopefully soon I'll be doing so BEFORE I post. ]

 

[Erna]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

I think you made some good points, and I am in agreement with you. You shouldn't however give yourself a hard time about this, because many have struggled with this question before us. I have read African scholar upon African scholar and when you close book after book, this question hangs in the air and remains unanswered.

I'm almost done with Credo's book, it's a very good read. I am understanding a great deal now. This book should be compulsory reading for all non-blacks in Africa. Psychotropic plant consumption was rife, apart from being done recreationally on an individual basis, it was/is compulsory practise with so many of their rituals. The West loves to place the blame for Africa's problems squarely on the shoulders of colonialism, but these folk tales cover the period before colonialism, and tribal wars, cruel public executions and punishments, cannibalism (now I know where the idiom 'in the soup' comes from), bloodshed, power struggles, witchcraft, superstition, injustice, murder and mayhem were at the order of the day.

From an archaeological perspective, this book also gives many clues. It tells where the Zimbabwe ruins come from (amongst others), an archaeological question still quarrelled over today. It was nice to see where a lot of the modern day country and place names also originate from. One of the biggest things in this book, is that a white European race came here millennia(?) ago. My jaw dropped! It's hard to pinpoint the time or era, because the book isn't according to a timeline. It's just a semi-chronological series of folktales. We also can't know which European race exactly, because the natives called them Ma-iti - 'The Strange Ones'. I think they might have been Greek. Conquer and pillage was unfortunately also their main modus operandi, and after centuries of cruelty and slavery they were finally overpowered and defeated.

They were first spotted coming up the Zambezi river from the East in their Viking-like ships (so they might also have been Scandinavian), and the locals thought they were gods or wizards. It was the first time they had seen white skins and straight blond, red and black hair. Anyway, this is a story I will post in the Ancient Human Metropolis Found in South Africa thread! ;) ... since we're still in the David Icke thread. I also know now why the Zulus and the Xhosas hate each other so to this day.