About David Icke & James Redfield

[Nienna]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

Hi Argonaut,

Knowing when and what to give is a bit of a sticky wicket, isn't it?

I do not "get it" anymore than anyone else here does, but I think that you are doing really good in your hypothesis.

I do know that people need to learn their lessons, that is why they are here. And us interfering in these lessons is abridging their free will. For those who think that Icke is THE ticket to freedom and knowledge, then that is their right. Until they realize that something just doesn't add up and start looking for the objective truth, then they should be left to their own devices.

The thing that we can do, is what is already being done. Find the objective truth about a subject and put it out there so those who start looking for it can find it - of their won free will. When they are ready to find it, it will come to them, more or less.

I never was "into" Icke. I never even wanted to read his books. I was into things like Sylvia Browne and Carla Rupert/L&L Research and the Ra Material, which led me, when I was ready, to one of Laura's sites - quite by accident I would like to add. And I have read introduction after introduction of others who have found her material by accident, too. This is why I say that it weill come to them.

As Laura has said, "There is a website out there for everyone." And, I might add, a guru for everyone. Which is what she was referring to, also.

So as far as I can tell, you don't do anything to try to stop people from reading who and what they like. You don't push it in their faces that what they are doing is ridiculous. You just put the truth out there for those who are ready for it to find on their own.

As for those who are children and mentally disabled, of course they need direction. That is a whose different kettle of fish. You don't let either one of them touch a burning flame because it is pretty.

Although this is not quite on the same topic as what is being discussed here, I would like to include it anyway. It is from session 980919:

Q: (A) I was also brainwashed in this way and I am changing.
(F) We are ALL brainwashed! (L) Okay, now Eddie says:
'Laura brought up several comments about Love that
confused me. I do not understand how could giving love when
not being asked could harm instead of improve.' Can you
remark on this?
A: "Giving" love is not giving, in such a case.
Q: So, if you give love when you have not been asked, you
are NOT giving?
A: You are taking, as usual.
Q: When you say you are 'taking,' what are you taking?
A: Energy, a la STS.
Q: How does it come that you are taking energy from
someone by giving them love when not asked?
A: Because an STS vehicle does not learn to be an STO
candidate by determining the needs of another.
Q: I don't understand how that means you are taking energy?
A: Because the act is then one of self-gratification. If one
"gives" where there is no request, therefore no need, this is a
free will violation! And besides, what other motivation could
there possibly be in such a scenario?!? Think carefully and
objectively about this.
Q: My thought would be that, in such a scenario, that if one
gives love to someone who has not asked or requested that it
seems to be a desire to change the other, i.e. a desire to
control.
A: You got it!!
Q: Now he says further: 'Yes, everything is lessons and if a
person has chosen a specific path they should be allowed to
go and learn their way. But, let's say this is happening to
someone you really love. And let's say that the person may be
in a period of his life that his/her thoughts are probably taking
her/him to commit, let's say, a murder. Don't you think that if
you send this person love, even unconsciously, that it may
provide the necessary energy (influence) to stop that murder?'
Comment please.
A: No, no, no!!! In fact, if anything, such an energy
transference even could enhance the effect.
Q: In what way?
A: Imbalanced waves could be drawn upon by the receiver.
Q: I think that this word he used is a clue: 'Don't you think
that if you send the person love, it could provide the person
the necessary energy' and in parentheses he has the word
'influence' which implies control of the other person's
behavior, to 'stop that murder.' So, it seems that there is a
desire to control the actions of another person.
A: Yes.
Q: But, his intent is entirely benevolent because he wants to
stop a murder which is the saving of a life, as well as prevent
the loved one from going to prison. So, it SEEMS to be
benevolent in intent. Does this not make a difference?
A: Have we forgotten about Karma?
Q: Well, both S and I mentioned the fact that one cannot
always judge these situations because we don't know. We
cannot know. For all we know the potential murder victim is
an Adolf Hitler type or the potential parent of one, or
something like that, and then the murder would save many
lives with the sacrifice of two lives, or that this murder is
supposed to happen because of some karmic interaction that
is essential between the murderer and victim, and that we
simply cannot KNOW these things and judge them.
A: Yes.
Q: Any other comment about that?
A: No.
Q: He says: 'I believe that if we do not send love energy to
the world that the egocentric STS energy will be dominating.
A: Why would one choose to send this? What is the
motivation?
Q: To change it to your idea of what it is supposed to be. To
control it to follow your judgment of how things ought to be.
A: Exactly. The students are not expected to be the architects
of the school.
Q: So, when you seek to impose or exert influence of any
kind, you are, in effect, trying to play God and taking it upon
yourself to decide that there is something wrong with the
universe that it is up to you to fix, which amounts to judgment.
A: Yes, you see, one can advise, that is okay, but do not
attempt to alter the lesson.

fwiw

 

[Al Today]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

... The thing that we can do, is what is already being done. Find the objective truth about a subject and put it out there so those who start looking for it can find it - of their won free will. When they are ready to find it, it will come to them, more or less. ...

Thank you for the thought provoking and I think profound statement...

 

[Erna]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

Thanks Nienna Eluch. This session is very appropriate! Something about the road to hell and good intentions...

 

[Argonaut]

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.

Very true. Solutions to culture-wide issues must evolve over time, and they usually arise naturally (and mechanically) from within the culture once the time is right. All we can do as individuals is share information with those who are open. We can "give the lie what it asks for." But the results aren't up to us. Still, if we happen to witness one person victimizing another, there may be some way we can intervene. It wouldn't change the entire culture, of course, but that's okay. The flow of history is what it is. But within it are individual beings who can still ask for help and receive it.

Hi Argonaut,

Knowing when and what to give is a bit of a sticky wicket, isn't it?

I do not "get it" anymore than anyone else here does, but I think that you are doing really good in your hypothesis.

Thanks, although I really feel like I'm missing something crucial, and it's bugging me. :/


[quote author=Nienna Eluch]
I do know that people need to learn their lessons, that is why they are here. And us interfering in these lessons is abridging their free will. For those who think that Icke is THE ticket to freedom and knowledge, then that is their right. Until they realize that something just doesn't add up and start looking for the objective truth, then they should be left to their own devices.

The thing that we can do, is what is already being done. Find the objective truth about a subject and put it out there so those who start looking for it can find it - of their won free will. When they are ready to find it, it will come to them, more or less.

I never was "into" Icke. I never even wanted to read his books. I was into things like Sylvia Browne and Carla Rupert/L&L Research and the Ra Material, which led me, when I was ready, to one of Laura's sites - quite by accident I would like to add. And I have read introduction after introduction of others who have found her material by accident, too. This is why I say that it weill come to them.

As Laura has said, "There is a website out there for everyone." And, I might add, a guru for everyone. Which is what she was referring to, also.
[/quote]


I totally agree. I like the signpost analogy - it doesn't force its information on anyone; it's just there in case somebody is heading that way and wants the help. And there are also other signs pointing in various directions. Some of which are covered in flashing lights and bright colors, yet lead into falsehood. But we can't control what sign someone wants to follow.


[quote author=Nienna Eluch]
Although this is not quite on the same topic as what is being discussed here, I would like to include it anyway. It is from session 980919:
[/quote]

I agree with E that this is relevant. To avoid violating Free Will, we can't anticipate and expect a certain outcome. And we especially can't act in ways which try to FORCE or shape things to our expectations. Changing the world by beaming "love" at people can be very attractive for those who feel helpless to do something physically. But as the C's point out so well, it's nothing but an STS trap. It's the same essential concept as CIA mind control. The road to hell and good intentions, as E said.

 

[Erna]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

[quote author=Argonaut]
[quote author=E]
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.
[/quote]

Very true. Solutions to culture-wide issues must evolve over time, and they usually arise naturally (and mechanically) from within the culture once the time is right. All we can do as individuals is share information with those who are open. We can "give the lie what it asks for." But the results aren't up to us. Still, if we happen to witness one person victimizing another, there may be some way we can intervene. It wouldn't change the entire culture, of course, but that's okay. The flow of history is what it is. But within it are individual beings who can still ask for help and receive it.
[/quote]

Well said.

Good idea, but I'm still glad you mentioned it here. It's interesting stuff. And now I'm aware of it and can check out the other thread. :)

I will post there when I have a moment. It's quite comprehensive, but very, very interesting! :) This book was an eye-opener in many ways. I never realized how deeply rooted their 'superstitions' are!

But the Bantu have never allowed anyone, however powerful, to distort history in any way because they strongly believe that by doing so they attempt to deceive the gods with the result that the Spirits of the Tribe would be highly offended. No words can ever describe the depth of this Bantu belief; nothing can ever show fully the unquestioning fervour and reverence with which the Bantu cling to their tribal religion. The worst fanatics are found in Africa, and should an African dream that his grandfather implores him to go and drown himself, he will go straight and do so the very next morning.

In fact, it shocked me.

[quote author=Argonaut]
[quote author=Nienna Eluch]
Hi Argonaut,

Knowing when and what to give is a bit of a sticky wicket, isn't it?

I do not "get it" anymore than anyone else here does, but I think that you are doing really good in your hypothesis.
[/quote]

Thanks, although I really feel like I'm missing something crucial, and it's bugging me. :/
[/quote]

Well, the only thing bugging me a little is the fine line between respecting karma and lessons to be learned and indifference. It’s a very fine line…

 

[Argonaut]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

Good idea, but I'm still glad you mentioned it here. It's interesting stuff. And now I'm aware of it and can check out the other thread. :)

I will post there when I have a moment. It's quite comprehensive, but very, very interesting! :) This book was an eye-opener in many ways. I never realized how deeply rooted their 'superstitions' are!

But the Bantu have never allowed anyone, however powerful, to distort history in any way because they strongly believe that by doing so they attempt to deceive the gods with the result that the Spirits of the Tribe would be highly offended. No words can ever describe the depth of this Bantu belief; nothing can ever show fully the unquestioning fervour and reverence with which the Bantu cling to their tribal religion. The worst fanatics are found in Africa, and should an African dream that his grandfather implores him to go and drown himself, he will go straight and do so the very next morning.

In fact, it shocked me.

Whoa, that's pretty shocking alright! At least their fanaticism leads to them preserving their history accurately. Of course, their understanding of "accurate history" may differ significantly from ours.

[quote author=E]
[quote author=Argonaut]
[quote author=Nienna Eluch]
Hi Argonaut,

Knowing when and what to give is a bit of a sticky wicket, isn't it?

I do not "get it" anymore than anyone else here does, but I think that you are doing really good in your hypothesis.
[/quote]

Thanks, although I really feel like I'm missing something crucial, and it's bugging me. :/
[/quote]

Well, the only thing bugging me a little is the fine line between respecting karma and lessons to be learned and indifference. It’s a very fine line…
[/quote]

I see the word "indifference" as a selfish thing - avoiding involvement because one doesn't care. But respecting another's lessons is non-involvement because one DOES care. So in that way they're complete opposites. But I do see your point, because it's easy for us to lie to ourselves - to say we're staying uninvolved for STO reasons when it's really that we just don't want to get involved. The Hindu approach to karma takes this to the extreme. They refuse to harm or help any living being, in an attempt to avoid infringing on their karma. But the overall affect of this is total indifference to the suffering of others. It's also led to their oppressive caste system.

Cassiopedia says this regarding karma:

From the 4th Way viewpoint, it only makes sense to speak of karma if man has evolved beyond being a chance combination of influences, possesses an I that survives physical death while maintaining some recognizable cohesion, enjoys free will and is not simply a reaction machine. Because the 4th Way teaches that man in the overwhelming majority of cases does not meet these criteria, it does not particularly emphasize any teaching about karma, but rather concentrates on making students such that the concept might one day apply to them in a true sense.

Karma seems to be similar to the concept of Fate/Destiny, in that it exists but doesn't apply to mechanical man. Sleeping humanity is under the Law of Accident, meaning things don't "happen for a reason;" they just happen. So we can't really interfere with another person's karma unless (s)he is awake - and at that point it probably wouldn't be an issue anyway.

 

[Erna]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

I am of course still keeping an eye out for any reptilians, since that's the reason I actually started reading the book, but as I said, the yummy plant kingdom changed everything!

Of course, their understanding of "accurate history" may differ significantly from ours.

Well...yeeeaah...Terry Pratchett my arse!

They were awakened by a blood-curdling scream such as can only be produced by a demon from the Underworld. The men sat up and jumped to their feet like one man. There, in the mouth of the great cave which Sozozo had named his 'Lion's Den', was the most hideous female demon ever seen. She was glowing a bright red all over and had only one huge eye in her otherwise featureless face. A large fanged mouth leered between her breasts.

Sozozo was the first to find a voice with which to scream and legs with which to run into the furthest interior of the cave. The newly appointed Indunas tried to hide themselves by digging their faces into the bat guano on the floor of the cave. The demon told the terrified girls to return to their families and, after beating up Sozozo and his Indunas with a heavy knobkierie, she said: 'Run, you carrion animals. Run and go straight to High Chief Lumukanda and surrender yourselves to him. Tell him the Red Devil sent you...'

Sozozo shot out of the cave like an arrow, with his ten Indunas anxious to do better. They dashed down the mountainside like feathers pursued by a tempest. They ran slap into another she-devil - a green one this time - and this hastened considerably their speed through the forest.

And the whole book is like this...of course this is entirely possible with the assistance of some umhlonyane (African wormwood)...or any of the other hundreds or thousands of 'delicatessens' nature has to offer...

But before we protest too much, the possibility that our Bible was also inspired by...uhm...the plant kingdom, has also been suggested.

 

[Argonaut]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

I am of course still keeping an eye out for any reptilians, since that's the reason I actually started reading the book, but as I said, the yummy plant kingdom changed everything!

For you AND for Credo.

But before we protest too much, the possibility that our Bible was also inspired by...uhm...the plant kingdom, has also been suggested.

I've read this idea before, and it sounds reasonable. Terrence McKenna wrote a book called Food of the Gods which explored the idea that the very CONCEPT of religion began when prehistoric man ingested psychotropic plants, and that they've been involved in varying degrees ever since. Religion's origins are probably more complex than that, but it does seem that psychotropics have been used quite a bit a bit along the way. Some researchers in this area tend to get a bit overzealous, it seems. James Arthur's book Mushrooms and Mankind claims that psychotropics are portrayed in a lot of religious art and architecture. Which may be true, but some of the examples he gives are pretty iffy - for instance, he says that the depiction of a halo around someone's head represents a mushroom cap (the halo's rays being the "gills" on the cap's underside). He also tries to make a case for the Holy Grail and the Philosopher's Stone being psychotropic mushrooms (Stones and goblets kinda look like 'shrooms, after all). A lot of these researchers seem to epitomize the saying, "to the man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

 

[Argonaut]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

Oxajil posted these three quotes in the "Am I Just Trying to Impress?" thread, and they are very relevant to the Free Will issue we've been discussing.

The idea that those of the STO frequency must not give without being asked is a subtle thing. The concept inherent in "asking" is that of willing exchange. The asking is the giving of the asker. The response is the giving of the askee. If there is anything in either of them that expects any change OTHER than the explicit asking and giving, the interaction falls into STS and not STO.

However, if one can ask, and one can give without expectation of any change of any kind in the receiver, the STO dynamic is operational.

If there is even a hidden motive that anything will be changed by the exchange, the result is damping of the STO frequency.

When you give in response to manipulation, which is a domination dynamic, you are also giving from a position of STS, which is further Self-damping to STO orientation and amplifying to STS. And then, on top of self damping, you are losing energy, because there is no willing exchange!

The end result of giving Love energy to the STS polarity is to gradually deplete the STO polarity in the self as well as in the grander scheme of things, and eventually, to deprive all those of that polarity from shared, symbiotic sustenance. One has then, by default, become part of the STS hierarchy and has lost any usefulness in terms of Service to Others. And if you are seeking to polarize in the STO mode, you must gain energy by alignment and amplification to move OUT of the STS realm into an STO dynamic where all give to each other and there is multiplication of force in the act, rather than depletion.

Another way of saying it is that the true object of the STO dynamic is to give to God in the role of the CREATIVE or FREE WILL FUNCTION; to establish frequency resonance in this dynamic.

The true object of the STS dynamic is to give to God in the role of Death and the Destroyer - the Thought of Non-being, to deny Free Will to Create or BE.

The STS side wants to give enslavement. The STO side must refuse in order to retain their strength and purity and ability to actualize Free Will for ALL.

[...]

Every choice that supports Free Will for any being, whether that being is using their Free Will to choose to deny free will to either themselves or others, to the extent Free Will is maintained for all involved, is a choice FOR Free Will at the deepest levels of existence. But notice the key: to support Free Will of others to choose and fully experience their own path - and that does NOT mean to support the choice they have made by participating in their lesson! To participate in the choice of orientation of another is to make it your own. It can then act as a damper to your own amplification.

Note what this is saying. A choice for Free Will is STO when it "supports Free Will for any being, whether that being is using their Free Will to choose to deny free will to either themselves or others"... But at the same time, Free Will must be maintained for all involved - victim included. So if we have a situation where the victim did not choose to be abused, and can't choose to leave the situation, then the ONLY STO solution is to restore the victim to a position where they can once again exercise Free Will. In other words, to remove them from the abusive situation. And we can be sure that this is a willing exchange (i.e. being asked for). So what about the perp? How is his Free Will supported if we intervene to stop him?

In fact, the idea that "evil/darkness" is a rebellion, a fault, a thing to be done away with, is the "twist" in all the teachings of history that have laid the groundwork for domination and absorption by the forces of Service to Self. In terms of monotheism, this idea of "saving the world" has manifested the fruits of the many slaughters that have been instituted in the name of Unity, and Love. Because of this perceived need to "fix" or "change" or "transform" other people or situations, those whose inner inclination is actually STO are induced to damp their own STO frequency. If, in the act of giving or sending love, or any act whatsoever you deny the Free Will of another, you are "damping" your STO FRV. And remember, we are not talking about Free Will in the simplistic terms of being able to "do as one chooses" without restriction. So we aren't talking about not putting criminals in jail for breaking the law! In fact, putting a criminal in jail so that he can fully enter into his freely chosen lesson can be PURE STO! It's the old "don't do the crime if you can't do the time" cliche. By doing the crime, the individual has CHOSEN the consequences at some level.

So Free Will isn't a simple matter of "being able to 'do as one chooses' without restriction." In the case of a person harming another, the perp has chosen the consequences by committing the act. And in our civilization, those consequences are taken care of by a legal system. Of course, there are variables which could change the appropriate STO response, such as a life being in immediate danger.

 

[Argonaut]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

The David Icke autobiography arrived in the mail today, and it looks like it'll be a very interesting read.

From the back cover:

In March 1990 a psychic passed on a series of "communications" which changed BBC sports presenter David Icke's life forever. In his autobiography In the Light of Experience he uses the story of his extraordinary life to explain why particular experiences have happened to him, why they happened with particular people, and how all our lives are constantly influenced in ways we are not ourselves aware of. He looks at every stage of his own life - from his boyhood in Leicester to life as a professional footballer; from his time as a newspaper journalist to when he was a television presenter and "celebrity"; from being a high-profile spokesman for the Green Party to his life today and the massive controversy (and sometimes ridicule) attracted by his diagnosis of how everything people have come to depend upon in this life is falling apart.

Readers of In the Light of Experience will understand for the first time the motivations and beliefs that have informed David Icke's life and placed him so visibly in the public eye.

I've started reading the introduction and first chapter, and right away I noticed that Icke's writing style feels different from his later books. He comes across as very calm and serene, whereas later on his writings have a more sensational flavor - with a lot of in-your-face "attitude." Not sure if that's an accurate way to explain it, but there's definitely a different tone. Maybe Icke just developed a more personalized style later on.

Another thing that jumped out for me was that Icke has relied on hyperdimensional sources - info from psychics, channels, and "direct download" - FAR more than we realized. In the beginning of his introduction he says:

So many of the communications I have received through many psychics and directly through myself have either happened or are in the process of happening and it is clear that the basis or what I and so many others around the world are saying is coming to pass.

In my first book, The Truth Vibrations, the communications talked of global economic collapse as the system that is destroying the world is removed before it's too late. They talked of unexplainable and extreme weather conditions increasing all the time. These would include great droughts in some areas, fantastic rains and winds in others, and the book also predicted great geological events, gathering in scale all the time through this decade. They said the energies around the planet were changing and how this would lead to more and more people transforming their lives as they rejected the destructive and the materialistic, and encompassed a life of vegetarianism and respect for all things.

The communications also said that those who were not ready to tune in to these changing energies, these quickening vibrations, would find themselves getting out of synchronisation with the planet and this would lead to more violence, terrorism, conflict, crime, social unrest and negative, inexplicable behaviour of all kinds in the period of transformation. We should expect immense and increasing political upheavals, they said, as people demanded control over their own lives in smaller units. The vast empires like the Soviet Union would go, the communications said, to be replaced by independent states which would, in the end, disappear themselves as all borders and boundaries ceased to be in the new world of love, peace and harmony that awaits us beyond these years of turmoil and change. So many things outlined in the earlier books have either happened or are happening.

In the first chapter, Icke briefly discusses channeling:

Sensitive people like psychics, mediums or channellers raise the frequency of their minds, their consciousness, and the communicators lower theirs enough for them both to get into synchronisation. This is why some channellers tend to go into a sort of trance. They have returned their consciousness so completely to another frequency that they lose consciousness, at least to some extent, on this one. Every time we think we create an energy field and at this point with the channeller and the communicator in sync, information in the form of thought energy is passed from one frequency to another through the channeller who decodes the energy and turns it into spoken or written words. The channeller will obviously choose their own words to interpret the thought energy and this is why some will talk of a God, others a Godhead, and still others the Infinite Mind. I have only used the term Godhead in my other books because that was the term used by the channellers I was working with at the time.

We are all capable of channelling to some level and we are receiving telepathic thought communications to guide us through our lives without being aware of it, although some people are more gifted in this area than others. It depends what we have come to do and whether we choose to develop these gifts. The number of channellers is increasing rapidly because there is so much information that needs to be passed to us in these decades of transformation. I have heard religious dogmatism condemn channelling as working with the forces of "evil" and yet they are quite happy to stand up on a Sunday and read extracts from the Bible which talk of an angel of the Lord speaking to so and so or God speaking to this or that person. How do they think these communications, symbolised in the biblical text, were actually passed on? By a loud voice from the sky? By telephone? It ws done, of course, through channelling, the very process the church now frowns upon. What's more, they only have to look around them to see what not communicating with higher intelligences, and not understanding who we really are, has done to the physical body of the Earth and all who live upon it.

I was floored to read "we are receiving telepathic thought communications to guide us through our lives without being aware of it"... This may be true, but it's interesting for Icke to imply that these "thought communications" are always from the good guys. Also, "The number of channellers is increasing rapidly because there is so much information that needs to be passed to us in these decades of transformation.". Did it not even occur to him that the number of channellers might be increasing for a completely DIFFERENT reason? And finally, "What's more, they only have to look around them to see what not communicating with higher intelligences, and not understanding who we really are, has done to the physical body of the Earth and all who live upon it." In other words, Icke was saying that we NEED to communicate with higher intelligences, and not doing so is why our world is falling apart. Wow... So it seems that Icke was very undiscerning of such things back in 1993. I'll note if he says anything later in the book about being careful.

By the way, Icke included his birth chart, as well as how the chart was interpreted to him. I can't reproduce the chart here, but fortunately Icke also supplied the info needed to draw it up ourselves. Here is Icke's birth info:

Time: 1815 GMT, 29 April 1952. Place: Leicester, England.

I entered this in at astro.com. I don't know how reliable that site is, but their "personality profile" of Icke does sound remarkably like him. A few interesting negative traits came up as well:

People with Libra Ascendant are basically motivated by feeling and emotion rather than intellectuality. Your life will demonstrate your keenness of observation, and a tendency to effect comparisons largely of an aesthetic nature. You will not display too much energy in your actions and, therefore, there is a tendency toward following routine and the lines of the least resistance.

[...]

Although you appear self-confident and assured it is difficult for you to stand alone. You work hard, although subtly, to make sure that people feel warmly toward you. You hope no one sees your negative qualities and discovers how insecure you really are.

Your best publicity agents are your friends, who freely extol your virtues when anyone asks them.

On the surface you are docile, gentle, and charming, but underneath you conspire and scheme to make a better life for yourself through the people you deal with.

[...]

You pride yourself on your good judgment, but you ignore the fact that you are a taker, not a giver, except when it suits your long-range purposes.

Your greatest problem is that you use people to serve your personal objectives. You must learn that being generous is as beneficial to you as accepting the generosity of others.

I haven't yet read the extensive interpretation Icke himself received, but I'll definitely add an update once I do.

 

[Erna]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

For you AND for Credo.

Only in theory for me though, which is more than I can say for Credo of course. I have never even taken any drugs, so you can imagine my…uhm…amazement? I am gobsmacked to say the least. So everyone’s high...it can only spell trouble! Don’t even get me started on the Bushmen and their ‘mind and mood’ plants…

We are going to go to the Origin Centre next weekend at Wits University in Joburg, where Ben-Erik van Wyk also teaches. I’ll see if I can hook up a chat with him about a thing or two, that man knows stuff! But there’s a lot of other stuff at the Origin Centre which I want to check out, the cave paintings Credo talks about in his book predominantly. David Lewis-Williams is also at the Origin Centre, who Graham Hancock talks about in Supernatural. If what Credo says is even remotely true, then our entire history is a farce, and that’s putting it mildly:

Yet some of the Bantu knew all along who built Zimbabwe, and the place in the Brandberg where the so-called ‘White Lady’ is still to be seen, has been for centuries a place of both Bantu and Bushman pilgrimage. We have known the meanings of most cave paintings since they were painted; they are our history books – our archives. But we have all along been under oath not to disclose their true meanings to foreigners. We have deliberately lied to camouflage the truth (that is, by design, not by nature) and this we have regarded as our one and only triumph over the White man.

So well have the Bantu hidden their knowledge from the White man that those, like my humble self, who try to break this centuries-old taboo of tribal secrecy, meet with open disbelief, and even ridicule, when they try to help keep the White man’s records straight. In another recent exhibition held by my employer’s daughter – a display of antique Bantu carvings – several prominent White scientists openly doubted whether I was telling them the truth. One of them said to me that ‘much of what you say needs to be taken with a grain of salt’. I did not know this idiomatic expression and only later discovered that it is a gentle way of calling me a ‘goddamn liar’. This is, to say the least, rather dampening to the enthusiasm of one who sincerely believes that a better understanding may come from this attitude I am adopting, even though it amounts to turning traitor against my own race.

The above all refers to the ‘Strange Ones’, the white race who was here before, and there are cave paintings depicting this. This is more than 2000 years ago, and before them, some oriental race (possibly Chinese) was also here, but that’s in Credo’s follow-up book.

Religion's origins are probably more complex than that, but it does seem that psychotropics have been used quite a bit a bit along the way.

For me it fits like a glove with the influence from 4D…if it is in fact so, that is…

Thanks for the bit about free will and STS/STO – handy piece of wisdom that.

I was floored to read "we are receiving telepathic thought communications to guide us through our lives without being aware of it"... This may be true, but it's interesting for Icke to imply that these "thought communications" are always from the good guys.

Indeed, it is a ‘big problemmo’. As I mentioned before, he may very well have been targeted because he had a voice and an already established public persona.

Also, "The number of channellers is increasing rapidly because there is so much information that needs to be passed to us in these decades of transformation. Did it not even occur to him that the number of channellers might be increasing for a completely DIFFERENT reason?".

Yeah, and the fact that whatever is ‘beamed’ at him isn’t directly passed on word for word as with the Cs, Ps or Ra, closes the door on any evaluation.

"What's more, they only have to look around them to see what not communicating with higher intelligences, and not understanding who we really are, has done to the physical body of the Earth and all who live upon it. In other words, Icke was saying that we NEED to communicate with higher intelligences, and not doing so is why our world is falling apart. Wow... So it seems that Icke was very undiscerning of such things back in 1993. I'll note if he says anything later in the book about being careful."

Yeah, to call this kind of advice to people ‘undiscerning’ is of course giving Icke the benefit of the doubt… I think we should focus on Icke’s solutions - or lack thereof – that will put his ‘fruits’ on display.

By the way, Icke included his birth chart

More evidence of narcissism – me-me-me-me-me!

:)

 

[Stuart]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield


Here's a Q&A Icke did shortly after his Wogan interview back in 1991. He seems to think that he was directly created by "The Godhead" and puts himself in the same camp as Jesus and others. I know he doesn't do such Q&A sessions like this anymore, and I can see why, with some of the audience saying they believe he's being manipulated by evil spirits or that he's downright dangerous because he's leading them into a new prison under the guise of freeing them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q9ncm2jotI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzKBSMLuflk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMuI2vpVm_4

(Runtime 25 mins)

 

[Erna]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

It’s interesting seeing him in such a Q&A context with a fairly hostile audience – quite a Christian one as well. He does come across a lot more humble in those days than nowadays.

He seems to think that he was directly created by "The Godhead" and puts himself in the same camp as Jesus and others.

Yes, but he doesn’t do it in a messiah-like fashion, as if to say ‘I am the one and only’. He says there are others like him as well. He puts it more in a context of a Christ consciousness – kind of reminiscent of the Ra wanderers and Marciniak’s ‘members of the family of light’. He also makes the distinction of some people created ‘directly’ by the Godhead (of which he is one), and some are created by the beings that this Godhead created.

…and what is this 3 beings in the Bible that he talks about being confused with one God? It’s not the trinity he talks about, excluding the son and the holy spirit, he says the Father is actually 3 beings instead of one due to translation errors?...oooookay

But I am actually more interested in these kind of things that he says:

When you’ve had messages over a period now of 18 months on a daily basis, and they have proved accurate time and time and time again. Get over at this place, you’ll find this. You go to a place you’ve never been and you find it, day after day after day after day…uh…in all parts of the world, then you’re a crackpot if you say..uh…this is not happening to me, not if you say yes.

David Icke:
“I am in contact and in communication with those at the highest levels of creation who are passing on this information. You see you’re shaking your head my friend…”

Audience member:
“Can I ask you then? You say you’re in contact with the highest communications. Would that be God or…”

David Icke:
“…with a being we call the Godhead, certainly. You see, how do you think…”

Audience member:
“…what Christians would call God. You are in direct communication with God. That’s where you get your voices from and everything else, yeah?”

David Icke:
“Correct”

…all I’m saying and all I’ve been asked to say.

Does anyone know when exactly he had his ayahuasca session? Was it prior to the Wogan show and this Q&A session, or afterwards?

…and then it comes up that he said Saddam Hussein is dead (this is 1991?)…okay…and then David Icke says Saddam Hussein is not in a physical body.

Then this:

Over the last 12 000 years, because of a being, which the Bible calls Satan, and this force of negativity does exist, my goodness, but he’s known to us as Lucifer, for various reasons too long to go into now.

Why is this important? Because he says he has been asked to relay information that was channeled to him, and it’s obvious disinformation, if we go by what the Cs said Lucifer is – us. We are the fallen angel according to the Cs.

So basically we can then assert that his ‘higher contact’ is feeding him disinformation. But again this is not watertight, because any channel has a percentage of corruption…but this is quite a big mistake, it’s not like time/space which is difficult and open to change. This is one of our fundamental understandings.

 

[Argonaut]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

Here's a Q&A Icke did shortly after his Wogan interview back in 1991. He seems to think that he was directly created by "The Godhead" and puts himself in the same camp as Jesus and others. I know he doesn't do such Q&A sessions like this anymore, and I can see why, with some of the audience saying they believe he's being manipulated by evil spirits or that he's downright dangerous because he's leading them into a new prison under the guise of freeing them:

Thanks for posting these, they're very informative! During that session Icke mentioned another interview he did on the radio, and after watching these videos a YouTube link popped up for this interview. Here are the YouTube links for all four parts:

_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQZWUE4ED6k
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrtrKf5w59o
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udC8BuWjgOk
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B34oyo_r5oo

Does anyone know when exactly he had his ayahuasca session? Was it prior to the Wogan show and this Q&A session, or afterwards?

It turns out that Icke didn't take the ayahuasca until 2003.

Here's Icke' account of this, from Tales From the Time Loop (full excerpt is at _http://www.2012.com.au/real_matrix.html):

I had long understood that our 'real' world was only an illusion generated from our: minds, but in January 2003 and the months that followed I was to 'see' this for myself in a way that taught me so much more about the 'Matrix' through which the human family is held in 'disconnected' servitude.

I was invited to speak at a gathering of people at a location in the Amazon rainforest about an hour's drive or so from Manaus in northern Brazil. The event, over ten days, would offer the participants the opportunity to experience the 'psychoactive' effects of a plant called ayahuasca, which has been used by South American shamans for hundreds of years (at least) to take people into other states of consciousness beyond the five sense realm. Ayahuasca is known as the 'teacher plant' because it allows people to experience these unseen realms where so much can be learned about self, life and reality. It is also dubbed the 'plant of the gods', no doubt because it can allow you to see those dimensions where the 'gods' of myth reside. In fact, it was the number of times that participants at these events had seen reptilian entities and imagery in their altered states of awareness that led the organisers to invite me.

Ayahuasca is much used in religious ceremonies and rituals in parts of Brazil and it is quite legal in such circumstances. Around the 'Western World' it is largely illegal to own or take the brew, as it is with potions in general that can transport our conscious awareness beyond the five senses. I wonder why?? I jumped at the chance to accept the Amazon offer, although I had some reservations at one point when I learned of the possible physical effects of vomiting and shitting with a vengeance. Once I was assured that the participants would be made wen aware of this before they proceeded, I agreed to be there. I knew this was the dimensional door I was looking for to take the next step in my journey I had reached the age of 50 without consuming a single drug or potion that was labelled 'psychoactive'; no magic mushrooms, no nothing. But I could go no further in my understanding without taking my conscious awareness to places beyond the veil. I also learned that even those who were regular experiencers of mushrooms and other such reality changers were aware that ayahuasca was immensely powerful. "You have
never taken anything and you are starting with that?" I was asked. Ayahuasca contains many powerful hallucinogenic properties including Dimethyltryptamine or DMT, a naturally occurring component of the metabolism of mammals and plants. DMT is known by some as the 'spirit molecule'.

In January 2003 1 arrived in the Amazon with my wife, Pamela. In the two weeks before, as we had travelled the Native American lands of northern Arizona, I had been hearing a clear 'voice' (thought transference or telepathy) in quiet moments communicating information that proved to be remarkably accurate. Some of the detailed messages I was given seemed blatantly at odds with the way events were looking, but the circumstances changed and the 'voice' was confirmed to be correct........

The 'One'

I was soon to understand why I was doing this first session by myself because I started to speak out loud and that would not have been possible with everyone else in the room having their own experiences. I remember most of the words and all of the themes quite clearly. As I lay on my back looking up at the pitch darkness, my arms stretched out, much as they did in a standing position on the mound in Peru. Out of my mouth, in a very different voice to 'David Icke', came the words, slowly and powerfully, "I am love". I then began to repeat: "I am everything and everything is me, I am infinite possibility." With that I felt a fantastic energy pour from my heart chakra and fill the room. A strip light on the ceiling began to flicker on and off. After a few minutes, three of the lights came on full power. I looked across and thought, "Why has Zoe turned the lights on?" But he hadn't. The lights were all switched off and they had come on by themselves without electricity. Then the equipment playing music switched off and came back on again after ten seconds or so. Weird stuff on the face of it, but I could understand why an energy of the power I was experiencing could effect the electrical circuitry. I clearly felt an energy coming out of my heart chakra and arching from there to my head. The words I was speaking came through this source I even called Zoe over to ask if this was what usually happened. He said everyone was different.

I began to speak fluently in my altered state. It wasn't that I had thoughts and then articulated them in speech. The words just came from my mouth and that is the first I knew of them. I will summarise what they said and what came to me even more powerfully in another form the following night. In the following two chapters I will detail some of the gathering wealth of evidence among open minded scientists to support what I was told. Some of the information can't be yet verified 'scientifically' and you will have to use your intuition to decide what you make of it. But much of it can. I was told in my altered states that all that exists is one infinite consciousness, which was referred to as 'The Infinite', 'Oneness' and the 'One'. In our manipulated, illusory, reality we had become detached from the One (in our minds, though not in fact) and therefore we viewed everything in terms of division and duality instead of seeing that all is connected, all is the same Infinite Oneness. This illusory sense of disconnection is the mind prison I call the Matrix.

Icke then gives a lengthy description of what was revealed to him during his experience, centering around the concept of the "time loop," which is a similar idea to Ouspensky's "reoccurence."

Here are few other interesting bits of info about Icke and ayahuasca:

Two articles by a guy who analyzes "EVP" phenomenon, finding hidden messages by playing recordings backwards. Which sounds pretty iffy to me... But he does note that Icke's ideas changed after his ayahuasca experience, making him unreliable. And this is someone who seems to respect Icke and who believes in the "reptilians."

_http://www.evpreversespeaking.com/2007/09/06/david-icke-great-man-but-why-did-you-have-to-take-the-ayawaska/
_http://www.evpreversespeaking.com/2007/09/07/david-icke-the-ayawaska-controversy/

Two threads about ayahuasca in the Icke forum. The first one is started by a man saying that Icke's reported ayahuasca experience is a bit suspicious, as it's not typical of what others have reported.

_http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=577
_http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3851

During the search I also found a comparison of Icke and the C's. This forum is run by the infamous Montalk, but some interesting things were still said:

_http://forum.noblerealms.org/viewtopic.php?id=1333

I'll respond more thoroughly later, but I just wanted to put this stuff into the mix. :)

 

[Erna]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

[quote author=Argonaut]
It turns out that Icke didn't take the ayahuasca until 2003.
[/quote]

Okay thanks.

[quote author=Argonaut]

Thanks for posting these, they're very informative! During that session Icke mentioned another interview he did on the radio, and after watching these videos a YouTube link popped up for this interview. Here are the YouTube links for all four parts:

_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQZWUE4ED6k
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrtrKf5w59o
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udC8BuWjgOk
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B34oyo_r5oo

[/quote]

I have just listened to these. This whole 'son of God' business is something David Icke 'contradicts' himself on tremendously. In this interview he quite clearly states that he sees himself as 'the second coming of Christ':

Nicky Campbell:
"Do you think if Jesus were alive today and you'd be alive then, he would be writing books and doing promo tours and appearing on television programs and so forth. Would he be promoting it the same way as you are?"

David Icke:
Absolutely. Tell you the funny thing Nicky, you know...uhm...the bible actually predicts the coming of the son of man, the coming of the son of God at this time, a great change...

Nicky Campbell:
What right now?

David Icke:
Yeah. While this time a great change...

Nicky Campbell:
So the bible predicts you in a way?

David Icke:
Yeah exactly. It calls the being the son of man.

Nicky Campbell:
Where is that so people can...

David Icke:
This is in the book of Revelations towards the end.

Nicky Campbell:
Right.

David Icke:
And it's also earlier on in some of the gospels too. Uhm, what do they expect this son of man to look like? They expect him to wear a beard and a white robe.

Nicky Campbell:
Well they don't expect him to be a hell of a United goalkeeper.

David Icke:
Correct!

He happily goes along here and intimates that he sees himself as the son of God or the second coming (otherwise he would have corrected Nicky Campbell). Didn't Icke say later on "I never said I was the son of God"? I will tell you one thing, I'm glad I'm not working with Icke's 'damage control' team, because they must have their hands full.

If we are going to explore possible narcissism or psychopathology with Icke, then this is one thing that sticks out for me with Icke. I read a thread here once (which I can't find now) where people (QFG if I'm not mistaken) were discussing someone's inability to say he's sorry. This person who was discussed never says he's sorry, and if he does apologize, he's reluctant and says yes but this or that, kind of justifying his actions, which is just an extension of an inability to say he's sorry.

Now that's exactly the thing with Icke as well. He never says he's sorry. I actually can't believe we missed this up to this point, when it is so painfully obvious. When interviewers confront him about things he said in the past, ridiculous things of which there is no shortage in this thread, he defends it in some way or other, or he denies it, or he tries to dodge the question like giving a lengthy explanation on journalists' narrow-mindedness.

This 'son of God' business is one example, and then in the Religulous interview he did it as well:

Bill Maher: I also read you said Kris Kristopherson?
David Icke: No, I didn't say that, I was quoting someone else.

Here's another example:

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!

Now this interviewer is actually playing right into Icke's hands. "Unfairly represented"! Never Icke's fault! Always somebody else's, and we know what that 'characteristic' indicates...

I realize I said earlier in the thread that I'm not happy with playing the psychopath card, but that's because it was speculation. In light of the above, and what Laura mentioned about his menage a trois it's really starting to look like a valid avenue to explore.

It would also explain his absolute silence on the subject of psychopathology or OPs. In fact, his message actually excuses psychopathology in a roundabout kind of way, using the bible no less:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrtrKf5w59o

David Icke:
The story of the prodigal son sums up what we've been talking about. That was Jesus talking 2000 years ago, and we were even more primitive people than we are now on the physical vibration. And this was the story of the son leaving the father, that's the thought form leaving the father as potential, the godhead, going away and learning lessons through mistakes as that son did, and then through learning from those lessons coming back to the God...uh...to the father in the story, the godhead in other words as a much more evolved knowledgeable being. And the father, the other aspect of the story, is the father welcome the son with open arms, and the other son, who had stayed with the father if you like, and hadn't gone astray shall we say, said "hold on dad. How come you're treating him like that when I've been with you all the time. I've been the good boy." And the father's reaction, and this is the godhead's reaction, is "hold on, he's learned from his mistakes. He's come back. He's evolved the same as you...

Nicky Campbell:
Karma.

David Icke:
He's taken a different journey to you to reach the same conclusion, but he's now here and all's fine. And this is why the sole of Saddam Hussein, the sole of Hitler, the sole of all these people will eventually become part of the godhead. They'll take a very long journey compared with some maybe, through the law of karma, but eventually they'll get there. As one message said which summed it all up. No sheep are left in the field, at the end of the day all are gathered in.

So yeah, it does look as if Icke is deliberately keeping silent on STS/STO polarities, psychopathology, OPs. He's saying everybody has a soul, and those doing nefarious things are just temporarily 'a little lost'. I really find the likelihood deplorable that he's unfamiliar with these concepts, maybe in those days, but NOW?

But anyway, as I mentioned, his inability to apologize is a biggy for me now. It's as if he can't conceive of his own fallibility. And the way he states things with such finality is also something I've noticed. He never says "my current understanding" "my hypothesis" "my understanding grew or changed". There's almost a disconnect with him when he's confronted with some of his rather unfortunate past statements, but admitting guilt is just NEVER an option with him! He cannot bring himself to utter the words "I made a mistake".