About David Icke & James Redfield

[shijing]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

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".

E, I think the importance of this can't be understated, and its the kind of thing that you just won't realize about Icke unless you go to the trouble to dig around and connect some dots. Thanks a lot for raising this particular point, since I think it carries at least as much weight as the technical things that Icke believes and teaches.

 

[Voyageur]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

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".

E, I think the importance of this can't be understated, and its the kind of thing that you just won't realize about Icke unless you go to the trouble to dig around and connect some dots. Thanks a lot for raising this particular point, since I think it carries at least as much weight as the technical things that Icke believes and teaches.

Very astute observation E, and Shijing for echoing it forward. Great digging by you folks, have learned much.

Thanks

 

[Argonaut]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

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.

<snip>

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.

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.

This is all very incriminating stuff. In a way, Icke's own fans do their own internal damage control for him. Just like that interviewer you quoted, asking him about being "unfairly represented." Another example comes from the YouTube comments below part 2 of the radio interview:

its important to bear in mind that this is david of old, talking about heavy spiritual content. david later went on to a groundbreaking career debunking religion and exposing governmental manipulation on a transnational scale AFTER the phase he was going through here.

But the thing is, "david of old" wasn't just going through a "phase." He's never portrayed it as such himself. As you said, he's never disavowed anything he talked about back then. Despite glaring contradictions with much of his current info, he claims that he's been in contact with a "higher source" who's fed him his info from day one. I think this is why he never apologizes or admits he was in error. He would be undermining the integrity of his source - or even casting doubt on its existence. Now we clearly see that he was NOT misrepresented when he claimed to be the "son of God" in a messianic sense. The only mistake was attributing this to the Wogan appearance, which has helped him cover things up. Because now he can point to that one appearance and go, "See? Never said it!" And this tactic worked well on us until we dug a bit deeper.

Based on the info we've got now, I think we can safely "upgrade" Icke from undiscerning to narcissistic. Whether or not he's a psychopath is still up in the air, but if we could find stronger evidence that he's just plain lying about all his "voices" and experiences, that would go a long way. We already have some decent evidence of this, since a sincere researcher would freely admit that his views back then differed from what he says now. And I'm sure Icke - liar or not - WOULD admit this, if it didn't cast doubt on his hotline to the Godhead. Which makes it look very much like a calculated deception. In a way Icke has screwed himself over, because thanks to his claim that his info has always come from a higher source, any of it can be used against him.

The quote about Lucifer is another perfect example. Back then his source told him about "a being, which the Bible calls Satan, and this force of negativity does exist..." And later this concept morphed into Reptilians from the lower fourth dimension. Fine and good if his understanding has changed, but this is supposed to be direct-channeled wisdom, here. It doesn't "morph." And the thing is, if Icke is genuinely in contact with a hyperdimensional source, HE should realize this too and start questioning that source. But he doesn't. So unless he's flat-out mind-controlled, he almost has to be lying.

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.

It's hard for me to believe we missed it too. It reminds me of how easily a psychopath can talk around things in a very convincing way. The words themselves don't hold up, but he relies on our brains to "fill in the blanks" and make assumptions in order to give sense to them.*

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?

Yes, it's absolute nonsense if we try viewing him as a researcher. But I don't think we can even call him that anymore... If he's not lying, then he's just following whatever his voices tell him. If they don't talk about STS/STO, psychopaths, or OPs, then Icke won't talk about those things either.

I found something else interesting, too. Icke has his own explanation for our mechanical nature - astrology! And it gets even more insidious than that. From Icke's autobiography:

The birth chart patterns within us will also pre-programme certain responses which will lead us into pre-arranged situations. We will react in ways that will start a chain of events that will take us into the situations we have come to experience. The programming can often suspend the conscious thought processes if they are preventing a life plan experience from being set up. This is why we often look back at things we have done and say, "What on earth was I thinking of, why did I make such a stupid decision?" It is often because we were meant to. It was the interaction of pre-programmed energies which ensured that we did and, as a consequence, had a life plan experience to face. If this programming was left to itself we would all complete our life plans perfectly every time. There are, however, other forces that can pull us off course.

First of all there is free will to react to these situations in different ways and so affect the next stage of the life plan. This free will is fuelled, obviously, by all the information we receive through the senses from the media and the mis-guided world around us. It can, and does, encourage us to make decisions that can take us way off the life plan. There is also the free will of others which can change our lives in ways that make the life plan more difficult to complete. These forces can be very powerful, but all the time the birth chart programming will be trying to pull us back on course and for this reason so many people find themselves constantly facing the same situations. This is the programming offering us the same choices over and over again in the hope that the choice appropriate to the life plan will eventually be made.

The "battle" between the life plan programming and the other forces pulling against that programming can cause such inner conflict, as people are pulled in two directions, that it can manifest in scrambled emotions, mental problems and serious physical illness. But let us not get the idea that everyone who is acting in self-serving and destructive ways has lost touch with their life plan programming. Many will need that experience to make them and others think. The time of birth, and therefore the programming, is decided by us and for reasons that will become clear later in the book, many minds in this part of Creation have so lost touch with understanding that they design life plans which will lead them to serve themselves rather than the whole or even to work for the destruction of the planet.

I'm sure you've noticed the insidious aspect of this... Icke takes the concepts of "programming" and "free will" - and flips them around. For him, programming is GOOD and free will is BAD. We must go blindly along with our programming in order to align with our Destiny. But those evil media and the "misguided world" lead to horrible free will, which gets us on the wrong track! So this is a complete reversal of Truth. At least this explains why Icke has never questioned his hyperdimensional sources (assuming they exist). He thinks it's great to be manipulated and controlled by "positive" external forces. It also explains why he has no concept of man being a machine and needing to work on himself. In Icke's universe, mankind is manipulated and controlled from all sides, but it's only bad when the forces of "evil" are doing it. Makes me wonder why he talks about "freedom" so much. Unless the Godhead changed its mind on all of this.

Another thing - it seems that Icke's really abusing astrological concepts to make this crazy reversal "work." Which indicates that it's all contrived in order to deceive. It might be Icke or his sources who are lying - but it's starting to look more and more like it's just Icke.

[EDIT - I just realized that the last paragraph of that excerpt is as close as I've seen him come to explaining STS polarity... Although his description is extremely off-base, naturally.]

E, I think the importance of this can't be understated, and its the kind of thing that you just won't realize about Icke unless you go to the trouble to dig around and connect some dots.

Exactly, and Icke (or his source) counts on the fact that most people won't do the digging. Even most of his detractors don't. I haven't seen an analysis of Icke yet that even comes close to what we've been doing here - which is sad, because the info is right out there for anyone to find.

[quote author=Shijing]
Thanks a lot for raising this particular point, since I think it carries at least as much weight as the technical things that Icke believes and teaches.
[/quote]

I totally agree. It looks like we CAN determine a lot about Icke personally from just studying Icke. :)

* [EDIT - originally posted with part of this line missing - originally said "It reminds me of how" with the rest gone.]

 

[Erna]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

I think the importance of this can't be understated, and its the kind of thing that you just won't realize about Icke unless you go to the trouble to dig around and connect some dots.

Yeah, now possible narcissism or psychopathology is really starting to take shape, isn't it? I’m thinking of many things in his past interviews. I’m very glad about my own brush with a psychopath in my career, because apart from having to lick my wounds afterwards, I had numerous meetings and discussions with him that led to many observations.

One of the things I noticed was his inability to ‘see the world in colour’ and consider all the possibilities with regard to an individual or a situation, even if an immediate conclusion isn’t ready at hand. It’s either black or white for him.

One example with Icke that comes to mind is when Cecil John Rhodes came up in the conversation with Credo Mutwa in the Reptilian Agenda. Icke commented on what an evil illuminati agent Cecil John Rhodes was and how he pillaged the country. He wants it just so or so. Credo on the other hand, was able to look at it from so many different angles, noticing all the subtle nuances, even if it doesn’t support Icke’s claim that Cecil John Rhodes was an evil man.

Credo said let’s be fair, look at all the low cost housing developments Anglo American was involved in, in Soweto. Credo was talking about how very little people know that Cecil John Rhodes was a seeker of esoteric knowledge. Icke’s silence and discomfort was obvious, because it’s not what he wants to hear, don’t introduce things that contradicts Icke. Icke made it painfully obvious that he’s not willing or able to pursue that avenue, because Icke thinks in absolutes. It’s this or that, not a complex mixture of a wide range of considerations. He blocks out what doesn’t fit, and only tunes into what he wants to hear.

As soon as Cecil John Rhodes’ choice of gravesite comes up, Icke’s happy again, because it supports his agenda. It’s that ‘disconnect’ again with him, when he’s confronted with what he doesn’t want to hear.

have learned much.

Thanks

You’re welcome. :) Isn’t this just turning into quite a learning experience for us all.

Based on the info we've got now, I think we can safely "upgrade" Icke from undiscerning to narcissistic.

Which makes it look very much like a calculated deception.

So unless he's flat-out mind-controlled, he almost has to be lying.

It really is starting to look like that, isn’t it.

I haven't seen an analysis of Icke yet that even comes close to what we've been doing here

Yeah but I mean even with our knowledge and tenacity, look how long it’s taken us with all the twists and turns.

Good digging, Argonaut.

 

[Kimber]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

It was mentioned that it appears that Icke's new book has a different writing style than his prior work. This is a major point that I have noticed for a long time.

The (Icke) articles on his website are of a particular style that do not match his books. In my opinion, TWBS has Two threads of opposite writing styles. Now, with this book if one does not read any of the chapters which involved his 'reptilian agenda' but other topics such as the founding of the usa, mind control experiments, and astrology -- this subject is brief,, to me it looks like 'Tsarion's thumbprint', it is exactly his style. Icke probably wrote with a lot of heavy editing the chapters concerning A.Wilder. Because the flavor is a 'true believer' almost worshipful rant. I would advise anyone who would like to get a better handle of Icke's state of mind (or lack thereof) go to Disclose TV.com and search for A.Wilder. I will provide the link, hope it works. Laura mentions a technique in the Wave Series on objective observation, I would suggest utilizing it in this case. Watch this woman on mute. And then watch with normal volume. Icke wasn't quite to the point of 'nut job' prior to meeting her. After reading All of Icke's references and credit he gives this woman, I would defiantly call her a mentor at the very least. It is interesting to watch Tsarion on mute. Icke has been driven for several years by handlers.

The A.Wilder Link--http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/29472/Illuminati_Mind_Control_1_10__Arizona_Wilder_/ This woman is dangerous.

My copy of the TWBS was loaned out and has yet to return. I am going to make a call in hopes that it will be returned. My notes, bookmarks and highlights were done on the chapters. I would like to share observations and examples as to contribute specific examples instead of general details.

Edit - Paragraphs

 

[Erna]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

I haven't seen an analysis of Icke yet that even comes close to what we've been doing here – which is sad, because the info is right out there for anyone to find.

Funny you would mention that. You know what is one of the most ominous things about the notorious original 1991 Wogan interview where Icke said “I’m am the son of the godhead”. That interview is strangely missing from the internet.

All we have of that interview is snippets from the Wogan follow-up 15 years later.

From the Icke forum:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1136703

I just asked a friend of mine who has a massive Icke archive stretching back to the early 1990's and he told me that there is no full reproduction of the Wogan interview available anywhere outside of the BBC's own archives. Apparently there never has been and he's been trying to source a copy for the last two decades.

Isn’t it just the strangest thing that the most notorious interview of Icke’s life is withheld by the BBC, and Icke used to be a BBC anchor. I don’t know how the BBC operates with regard to archived footage, but I really doubt they would deny Icke his own interview. I don’t know, that just sounds too convenient for Icke.

It's the very absence of that interview that enabled Icke & co. to concoct this story:

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=1242.msg117463#msg117463

I want to jump in the discussion and address this one point really quickly -- my understanding about the infamous 'Wogan show' is that it has been the premier incident used to slander Icke, and that much of the information is anecdotal and has been taken out of context. This is actually one unfortunate thing about the article that Laura posted recently, because the information about Icke in that article is only partially accurate and related with a sizable bias. In the case of the 'son of god' comment, it was actually taken out of context and used to make Icke appear as though he did have a messianic complex (or at least a more serious one than he actually has):

David Icke ran head on into this lot without any training whatsoever in how to defend himself. The rest is history with the infamous appearance on the Terry Wogan Show. Wogan, who was brought up a Roman Catholic, was out to destroy David and everything he stood for. It's the old story, David had sat with a medium who was linked up to the usual patronising rubbish coming through from the religious etheric wavelengths. You know the sort of stuff:

"My child, you are the son of God, we are all sons of god."

With careful editing the Wogan Show made David Icke out to be completely bonkers, that he was claiming to be the only son of God! They cut the bit out about us all being the sons and daughters of God.

(_http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/background/ickedestruction.html)

So the "premier incident used to slander Icke" is withheld by the BBC, mmmmmm.

But let’s get back to Icke’s apparent inability to get his hands on that interview. I remember many years ago, Icke was interviewed in his London apartment, and on the TV he was looking at that very interview (the original Wogan interview). He was playing the part where Terry Wogan said “they’re not laughing with you, they’re laughing at you”. Icke was talking about how the interview changed his life, and how it enabled him to not worry about what other people think. He said since it happened, he had been looking at it over and over again, and we know the follow-up was only 15 years later, so what had he been looking at over and over again – the original of course (the one he “can’t obtain from BBC!)”.

And to make matters worse, if I recall correctly, that interview where he was interviewed in his London apartment and discussing the Wogan show was titled 'David Icke - Was he right?'. So it looks like the context in which he called himself the son of God spesifically, needed to disappear, to enable them to concoct the story Shijing referenced.

And isn't it just too convenient that the tables were so drastically turned in the Wogan follow-up 15 years later, with the audience laughing at Terry Wogan, and David Icke "redeeming himself" so well...

 

[Erna]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

Found it!

David Icke: Was he right? - 2:11

He's looking at the original Wogan show here, because he's showing bits that isn't in the Wogan follow-up.

The only bit I can catch from that original interview is this:

Terry Wogan:
Let me get this story right. The press claim that you claim to be the son of God.

David Icke:
Uh-hm (affirmative)

Terry Wogan:
Is that true?

David Icke:
Yes you see the thing is that (audience laughs) you see it's quite funny really, you know 2000 years ago... [rest is cut],

One can barely hear the "2000 years ago", but I would imagine he said something to the effect of 2000 years ago when Jesus proclaimed that he was the son of God, he was also condemned for it.

**************

And to get back to Alex Jones' turnaround regarding Icke, here Jones says:

http://www.infowars.com/david-icke-on-the-alex-jones-show/ - 00:22

As we talk to one of the most prolific researchers, one of the most prolific minds out there in challenging the established, false reality. He is a great dispenser of hundreds of millions of red pills to humanity, and he has taken a lot of people very, very deep down the rabbit hole indeed where we're not in Kansas anymore, and you can question and debate the perceptions through the rose coloured darkly that David Icke looks through, but be careful that when you're getting the speck out of his eye, you don't get the giant beam out of yours. It's important to get that beam out. We all see through different perceptions, but certainly the perception of David Icke is proven to be much more clear than the average man or women out there [...]

Phew! Quite a leap from "conman", "opportunist" and "turd in the punch bowl"...

 

[vinny]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

And to get back to Alex Jones' turnaround regarding Icke, here Jones says:

[snip]

Phew! Quite a leap from "conman", "opportunist" and "turd in the punch bowl"...

posted in Jun last year, shortly after the Icke discussion started to gather pace on the thread here. coincidence? damage control?

 

[Erna]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

[quote author=Nomad]
posted in Jun last year, shortly after the Icke discussion started to gather pace on the thread here. coincidence? damage control?
[/quote]

Yeah I know, but even this David Icke: Was he right? documentary. They are playing very strongly on people’s emotion, and people's natural ability to emphasize (normal people at least).

You can only watch like 7 minutes into it to see what they're doing. They're using the Wogan show to basically say "you laughed then, but look at him now", so they show Icke watching it and Pam (his wife) almost bursting out in tears next to him saying "there's something so powerful in what you were saying". I mean just the title of the documentary, David Icke: Was he right? on mainstream television! His own 45 minute documentary on TV (just before Prison Break). And then I'm also reminded of Laura talking about them only attacking someone they want attention drawn to, from Red Symphony or something.

And the end is just, serious tissue stuff, with David Icke practically bursting out in tears saying - 44:36

David Icke:
I remember my daughter Cary saying to me: "you know dad, one day I'm going to be able to walk down Union Street (David Icke close to tears), and I'm gonna be able to say, my dad's not mad, look at what he said, look at what is happening, he was right. We are now at a point where she is close to be able to say that.

I mean this is heartwrenching stuff, and showing him with his family like that was also a clever tactic. His ‘damage control’ team is good.

 

[Argonaut]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

I think the importance of this can't be understated, and its the kind of thing that you just won't realize about Icke unless you go to the trouble to dig around and connect some dots.

I’m very glad about my own brush with a psychopath in my career, because apart from having to lick my wounds afterwards, I had numerous meetings and discussions with him that led to many observations.

One of the things I noticed was his inability to ‘see the world in colour’ and consider all the possibilities with regard to an individual or a situation, even if an immediate conclusion isn’t ready at hand. It’s either black or white for him.

Yes, that was a valuable lesson. I don't know of any psychopaths I've encountered. I'm sure I have, but the traits I observed could've been due to narcissism or something else. I didn't know them well enough to tell. But a couple of them employed strong psychopathic techniques. One was callously using my friend, always lying and making excuses, then became angry when my friend put a stop to the feeding. This person is now doing cruel things to make my friend's life difficult, as revenge for her standing up and saying "enough." Seeing this stuff in action helps in a way that just reading about it doesn't (although the reading helps one know what to look for).

Your Cecil John Rhodes example is perfect. The "David & Goliath?" article by Rixon Stuart is also about this tendency (how Icke unfairly demonized Parliament member David Davis). But I didn't even consider the implications of that until now.

I haven't seen an analysis of Icke yet that even comes close to what we've been doing here

Yeah but I mean even with our knowledge and tenacity, look how long it’s taken us with all the twists and turns.

True. It wasn't obvious at first, and even now things are just starting to really "pop out" at us. Once we feel we've got enough to reach a solid conclusion, maybe we can turn it into some kind of article.

Good digging, Argonaut.

Thanks, same goes for you. And several others in this thread.

It was mentioned that it appears that Icke's new book has a different writing style than his prior work. This is a major point that I have noticed for a long time.

The (Icke) articles on his website are of a particular style that do not match his books. In my opinion, TWBS has Two threads of opposite writing styles. Now, with this book if one does not read any of the chapters which involved his 'reptilian agenda' but other topics such as the founding of the usa, mind control experiments, and astrology -- this subject is brief,, to me it looks like 'Tsarion's thumbprint', it is exactly his style. Icke probably wrote with a lot of heavy editing the chapters concerning A.Wilder. Because the flavor is a 'true believer' almost worshipful rant.

Good observation. The two writing styles may be due to Icke having written the draft of TBS prior to meeting Wilder, then "revising" some of it afterward based on Wilder's influence.

I haven't seen an analysis of Icke yet that even comes close to what we've been doing here – which is sad, because the info is right out there for anyone to find.

Funny you would mention that. You know what is one of the most ominous things about the notorious original 1991 Wogan interview where Icke said “I’m am the son of the godhead”. That interview is strangely missing from the internet.

All we have of that interview is snippets from the Wogan follow-up 15 years later.

Wow, this is odd... I remember watching the "original Wogan appearance" online back when I was an Icke follower, and I could've sworn this was prior to 2006 when he did the follow-up. And I'm pretty sure it was somewhat lengthy (10-15 mins). I also recall seeing Wogan introduce Icke; then Icke came out, shook Wogan's hand, and sat down. Which wasn't shown during the follow-up. But even so, the ONLY version I can find online now is the "Then and Now" 2006 interview. So it seems that there were copies floating around online at one time, but they all got removed. Unless I'm just remembering wrong, which is possible.

[quote author=E]
And isn't it just too convenient that the tables were so drastically turned in the Wogan follow-up 15 years later, which the audience laughing at Terry Wogan, and David Icke "redeeming himself" so well...
[/quote]

Yes, very. It was really nice damage control.

Speaking of Icke then and now, I think that since we've been visiting "david of old" so much lately, it may provide some contrast to read a more recent interview (2006). I found this one interesting because it really illustrates the difference between the "new Icke" and the older, gentler version. It also shows how prickly he gets when his past ideas are brought up. The full interview is here: _http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/jan/22/broadcasting.observermagazine.

Everything is an ocean of energy. Take a droplet of water and hold it in your hand, it appears to be individual. You put it in the ocean, where does the droplet end and the ocean start? Everyone is a son and daughter of God if you want to call the ocean God. Call it Ethel, I don't give a shit.

Because of what was reported, everyone thinks David Icke thinks he's Jesus, which is kind of ironic, as my books show in enormous detail that there was no Jesus.

[...]

The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it. The bigger the truth, the more we'll say it's too far-fetched. I just made that up, it sounds quite good.

[...]

When people read my books, they are shocked at what's in it in relation to what's happening in the world today. This is not prophecy. Once you realise the goal is an Orwellian centralised fascist state, a global version of Nazi Germany ruled by a world government, world central bank, world army, and a microchip population, what unfolds becomes extraordinarily easy to read.

How many turquoise tracksuits do I own? We've descended from the nature of reality, mate, haven't we? After 16 years of seeing what's going on in the world and meeting the victims of it ... when I pick up the mainstream media every day I could vomit. I'm trying to share information with you. I don't want to talk about tracksuits. End of bloody story.

An interesting red flag from this too:

"...my books show in enormous detail that there was no Jesus" - compared to everything we've heard the "old Icke" say about Jesus, including that he "certainly did exist." Oh, and of course that stuff about Icke himself as the second coming prophesied in Revelation... So did the Godhead give him wrong info back then?

On another topic, I found a bit more about Icke's father in the autobiography. From the chapter called "The Nervous Child:"

My father was such a complex man and the product not only of his own past lives, but also of the experiences of the present. He had so many rows with other members of the family that, even today, I am still learning of relatives I didn't know existed. He had and unfortunate way of having an argument with someone and then just cutting them out of his life. At the same time he was kind, compassionate, and full of love in his own macho kind of way, but he was also capable of verbal, though not physical, violence. When he wasn't pleased you would be sat down and blared at for what seemed an age before he calmed down. He would say many things that he regretted, but some of them stuck.

I feel he always struggled with a large chip on his shoulder which resulted from the way the life he really wanted - that of a doctor - was snatched away from him by poverty, circumstance, and war. But when he left the physical body he would have realised that he had chosen to experience that frustration and cope with it.

My mother Barbara also had a significant influence on me in another way because she was so different from my father. This, let me tell you, is some woman. There can be few women who would have taken what she took from my father at times and still stayed there to take some more. Throughout her married life she was dominated by him, just as I was as a child. It was always "do this, do that," and the way he spoke to her when he lost his considerable temper was quite astonishing. Again there was never any physical violence, only verbal, and despite these occasions he and my mother were extremely close. Behind all the front and the words, he depended on her as much as she did on him, more so in fact.

Now it's pretty easy to see some serious questionable traits in Icke's father, just from this brief description. But notice how Icke keeps making excuses for him, even stressing twice that it was "verbal, not physical" abuse, as if that makes all the difference. But Icke's justifications get even worse in the next two paragraphs:

It is often those who put us through difficult experiences who love us most on a higher level. They are not consciously aware of this in a physical body, but they love us so much they are are putting us through what we have decided we need to balance out past behaviour or prepare us for a role later in this life. In my mother's case I think my father was either providing an experience to teach patience, acceptance and unconditional love, or perhaps to encourage her to break out of a rut of subservience to others and refuse to bow to another's will.

There are so many reasons why we choose to experience such situations. That is not to say that everyone who behaves badly towards us is doing so out of love. They could be using their free will to be unpleasant and it may have nothing to do with our own life plan or theirs. But we don't know and we should not judge because the way we are treated by others can look very different when viewed from the wider perspective of our eternal evolution. What I would say is that as the mind has total control over where it incarnates, the overall way our father and mother treat us is almost certainly the way we chose to be treated, unless they go way off their own life plans once we have incarnated which is always possible.

So to sum up, everything our parents do to us is out of higher love, ESPECIALLY if they're abusive. Unless they're using that pesky, horrible free will. Then their motives are anyone's guess. Yeeeeshh....

 

[Argonaut]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

[quote author=Nomad]
posted in Jun last year, shortly after the Icke discussion started to gather pace on the thread here. coincidence? damage control?

Yeah I know, but even this David Icke: Was he right? documentary. They are playing very strongly on people’s emotion, and people's natural ability to emphasize (normal people at least).

You can only watch like 7 minutes into it to see what they're doing. They using the Wogan show to basically say "you laughed then, but look at him now", so they show Icke watching it and Pam (his wife) almost bursting out in tears next to him saying "there's something so powerful in what you were saying". I mean just the title of the documentary, David Icke: Was he right? on mainstream television! His own 45 minute documentary on TV (just before Prison Break). And then I'm also reminded of Laura talking about them only attacking someone they want attention drawn to, from Red Symphony or something.

And the end is just, serious tissue stuff, with David Icke practically bursting out in tears saying - 44:36

David Icke:
I remember my daughter Cary saying to me: "you know dad, one day I'm going to be able to walk down Union Street (David Icke close to tears), and I'm gonna be able to say, my dad's not mad, look at what he said, look at what is happening, he was right. We are now at a point where she is close to be able to say that.

I mean this is heartwrenching stuff, and showing him with his family like that was also a clever tactic. His ‘damage control’ team is good.
[/quote]

Yes, I remember watching that one. It was shortly after I had "crossed over" from being an Icke fan to heavily reading stuff from Laura and the C's. That video is one reason I kept hanging onto the idea that he "means well" but is just mistaken. He seems so genuine in that video. Even now it makes me waver on the whole psychopath angle. It's powerful stuff. It's not that he's emotional which makes me doubt. For me it's more that if all the emotion were a "mask of sanity," wouldn't his wife know he was faking on camera? Would she play into it like she is? Narcissists can still have emotions and a sort of conscience, so that's where I'm leaning at this point. But maybe that's only because "damage control" like this are just that effective. This video makes me feel sorry for Icke. Does that mean I'm easily manipulated, or just human? :/

 

[Erna]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

[quote author=Argonaut]
He seems so genuine in that video. Even now it makes me waver on the whole psychopath angle. It's powerful stuff.
[/quote]

I know that last bit had me swallowing hard as well.

[quote author=Argonaut]
But maybe that's only because "damage control" like this are just that effective.
[/quote]

How do you think the rest of Britain reacted to that. You'd have to be rock not to be affected.

[quote author=Argonaut]
This video makes me feel sorry for Icke. Does that mean I'm easily manipulated, or just human? :/
[/quote]

It means you are human. I guess for me it comes down to this; Icke is still crying for himself here. Psychopaths/narcissists do cry for themselves. It really is all about himself, always. If Icke cared for others, it would have reflected on his forum. It doesn't. Last night I watched him interviewed after another one of his public appearances, and he said "I'm as well known in South Africa as I am in Britain". It really is all about him, always. There is no 'we' or 'us' for him.

 

[Erna]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

I observed could've been due to narcissism or something else. I didn't know them well enough to tell. But a couple of them employed strong psychopathic techniques.

Well that’s just it with Icke. We don’t know him personally, we are judging him from a distance – his public appearances. It’s easy to uphold a ‘mask of sanity’ in public. The biggest thing I’m noticing with him, is an extreme self-centeredness.

Seeing this stuff in action helps in a way that just reading about it doesn't

That practical experience is priceless, but the theory helps one to not doubt one’s own sanity!

The "David & Goliath?" article by Rixon Stuart is also about this tendency (how Icke unfairly demonized Parliament member David Davis). But I didn't even consider the implications of that until now.

I’ll read that tonight, but to come out on top in Parliament and be labelled the ‘Tony Blair’ of the Green Party, means you gotta possess some qualities that we don’t deem admirable over here.

Once we feel we've got enough to reach a solid conclusion, maybe we can turn it into some kind of article.

Yeah, imagine the damage control then?

How many turquoise tracksuits do I own? We've descended from the nature of reality, mate, haven't we? After 16 years of seeing what's going on in the world and meeting the victims of it ... when I pick up the mainstream media every day I could vomit. I'm trying to share information with you. I don't want to talk about tracksuits. End of bloody story.

You see, that short fuse again. What did Gurdjieff say again about rubbing someone up the wrong way.

…and once again, evading the question. He just cannot and will not address the issue, because he can’t admit that he made a mistake.

"...my books show in enormous detail that there was no Jesus"

Yeah this is just a shocker!! God must have lied to him!!!

My father was such a complex man and the product not only of his own past lives, but also of the experiences of the present. He had so many rows with other members of the family that, even today, I am still learning of relatives I didn't know existed. He had and unfortunate way of having an argument with someone and then just cutting them out of his life. At the same time he was kind, compassionate, and full of love in his own macho kind of way, but he was also capable of verbal, though not physical, violence. When he wasn't pleased you would be sat down and blared at for what seemed an age before he calmed down. He would say many things that he regretted, but some of them stuck.

I feel he always struggled with a large chip on his shoulder which resulted from the way the life he really wanted - that of a doctor - was snatched away from him by poverty, circumstance, and war. But when he left the physical body he would have realised that he had chosen to experience that frustration and cope with it.

My mother Barbara also had a significant influence on me in another way because she was so different from my father. This, let me tell you, is some woman. There can be few women who would have taken what she took from my father at times and still stayed there to take some more. Throughout her married life she was dominated by him, just as I was as a child. It was always "do this, do that," and the way he spoke to her when he lost his considerable temper was quite astonishing. Again there was never any physical violence, only verbal, and despite these occasions he and my mother were extremely close. Behind all the front and the words, he depended on her as much as she did on him, more so in fact.

There is definitely narcissistic wounding with Icke then. I remember when he talked of his mother’s death, which also had quite an effect on me. But it’s again him talking about himself, always.

So to sum up, everything our parents do to us is out of higher love, ESPECIALLY if they're abusive. Unless they're using that pesky, horrible free will. Then their motives are anyone's guess. Yeeeeshh....

I just really get the impression that he’s adamant not to recognise pathology.

 

[Erna]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

Project Camelot Interviews David Icke – 00:21:05

[…]and for 3 months, I didn’t know what planet I was on, right? In the middle of this, my book came out, uhm, and I went on the biggest, uhm, chat show, live chat show in Britain at the time, it was called the Wogan show, uhm, in a complete bloody daze about what was happening to me, and it had all been in the national papers that basically I had gone crazy, and uhm, I was sitting in this chair in the chat show, uhm, and the audience were laughing within a minute, 2 minutes, and they basically laughed for…I think I must have been on for 15, 16, 17 minutes, and from that moment on, cause I was talking about what was happening to me, except I didn’t understand what was happening to me. And what that did was trigger the most extraordinary levels of ridicule, and it cleared me out of that fear of what other people think…

Okay so here’s David Icke latest account of the Wogan show to the Project Camelot crew. Firstly, I never knew the original Wogan show interview was quite that lengthy, 15 or so minutes. I don’t think we’ll ever get our hands on that interview again, so what exactly transpired there remains a mystery.

David Icke is also very ‘selective’ in his account of that interview to them. He never says he called himself the son of God, which was the reason for the ridicule. He says he was in a daze and had no idea what was happening to him. Okay, I suppose anything’s possible, but he looked very coherent to me in that interview… It's a very easy way out to say "I had no idea what was happening to me", and the going on about how he was released from worrying about what other people think. He never ever addresses the fact that he called himself the son of God.

So it looks really strange that the original Wogan show disappeared from the internet, replaced by the Wogan follow-up where Icke redeems himself. Of course if Icke needs to be repackaged for the American market, then “I am the son of God” won’t fly. A fairly secular British society will laugh and ridicule, but an Alex Jones Christian audience will be another matter altogether.

So that’s the only reason I can think of why the original Wogan show had to disappear…

...and even more shocking, these two from Project Camelot, Bill and Kerry if I remember their names correctly, say that the most emails they have had in the past, was requests for David Icke to be interviewed, and they don't know about the Wogan show? Is that even possible? I mean...seriously? Have they not researched the person who they "get the most emails about"? Oh and then Kerry chimes in and says "sounds like you had a Kundalini effect"...

 

[shijing]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

Oh and then Kerry chimes in and says "sounds like you had a Kundalini effect"...

In one of his books (I think its the 9/11 one), that's the exact explanation that Icke gives for his behavior during this period -- a kundalini experience.