About David Icke & James Redfield

[Erna]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

If Mutwa did not have the internet etc., or perhaps books, then what is his frame of reference for these ideas, and who are his peers on the matter?

Apart from his use of psychotropic plants, you must also remember that Credo is an extremely well read man, as I have learned with reading his book.

If any Black man with little knowledge of English, French or Portuguese wants to study the White man – as I have done – all he has to do is to go into the nearest town and become a regular customer of one of the second-hand bookshops there. He must buy and read at least twenty different kinds of books and magazines a month for a period of no less than ten years. He must read classics, philosophical works and even cheap murder mysteries and science fiction. He must read Homer, Virgil, Aristotle, and the rest. He must turn the pages of Walter Scott, Voltaire or Peter Cheyney. He must read the newspapers with great care.

Gradually, as the years pass, he will gain more or less of a clear understanding of the White man, his way of life, his hopes and ambitions.

He could have gotten his hands on H.P. Lovecraft’s Cthulhu mythos, which would explain the similarity to his word for it - Chitauri. It could just be his failing memory/senility. Combine his theory with his practise, psychotropic plants, and WHALA!...and of course his position as a 'Chosen One' and keeper of knowledge of the Zulu mythology, folklore, legends and relics. I don't dismiss their mythology, folklore and legends altogether, it had to have had its origin somewhere. He mentions in this interview that he "doesn't know what a website looks like", so we can exclude the internet as a source for him.

and your statement about the beds 3 ft off of the ground reminded me of it. I have the original hardback, I'll check this WE to see if I can confirm about the bed thing.

The bed thing I can personally vouch for, they all do it (all the Southern African black races) ;), because they say the Tokoloshe is short and won't be able to reach. That would correlate with Credo's explanation of the Tokoloshe in his book.

Happy 2010!

Happy 2010 to you too, potamus!

 

[Argonaut]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

Who is "Lincoln Lawrence"?

In response to the query 'who is Lincoln Lawrence?' I searched through the used books offerings, and acquired a copy of his 1967 book 'Were We Controlled?', an early attempt to explain the unresolved questions around the assassination of JFK. After just one pass through this remarkable collection of words, I would tentatively characterize him as a Jeff Rense of 1967. A disinfo artist weaving a narrative made from threads of truth and threads of lies, all spun together to produce a cloth which is unable to be validated or verified in total, and which results in anyone touching it feeling confused and uncertain and more than likely to leave it alone.

Very interesting. In your searches, have you found any mention of "Lincoln Lawrence" planning to write an expose on the New Age movement - focusing on the C's? I'm wondering if this "Chandra" person on the GLP forum was either making the whole thing up, or was planning to write the book herself under that name. Either way, it doesn't seem that the original "Lincoln Lawrence" ever mentioned such a book, if he's even still alive.

I agree it might be beneficial to "reverse engineer" disinfo methods based on comparing things we know now to what was known back then. I'm sure much disinfo from 1967 is pretty transparent today, thus easy to study. I don't claim to be expert at doing that kind of thing, so I'm not suggesting you mail your book to me, but I'd definitely like to buy a copy at some point just to see what I can find.

Here's what the writer has to say about David Davis specifically:

Yeah, and he was also for attacking Iraq apparently I read. But all these things about David Davis needs to be double checked, and not only be taken as fact from the Icke camp. We know that Icke gets away with half the stuff he gets away with because his followers doesn’t bother to do their research independently, and we know that his damage control team knows what they’re doing.

Very true. We can't just take someone's word when it comes to things like this. When it comes to politicians, it's usually safer to side with whoever's attacking them. But since Rixon Stuart appears to be helping our case against Icke, it's tempting to see David Davis positively, as Rixon paints him. Either perspective involve possible bias/programs. So we need to be extra careful. Besides, considering the somewhat snide tone of Rixon's article, we might just have narcissists on BOTH sides of this one.

If Icke (or at least Icke's "people") feels we are targeting him, who knows what could happen?

Back in early 2008 the Icke camp wanted to shut a website down:

<snip>

Thanks for posting this! The entire episode shows Icke's true colors. And especially that narcissistic rant of his. THIS is the man who claims to be "One with the All" and free of his human limitations? Slinging insults like an angry twelve-year-old? And if we are to believe Icke, the point of all this vile mud-slinging is that he doesn't care what they say or think of him! Yeah, right... and he thinks THEIR site should be called "Self-Delusion.com..." We've been coming closer and closer to concluding that Icke is narcissistic (at the very least). And this has now fully clinched it for me. Well done. I feel like I need a shower after reading what he wrote, but that's not your fault.

Honestly, if Icke tried something like this with us, I'd consider it a victory. And I have no doubt that Laura would thwart any attempt by the Icke camp to intimidate or threaten to destroy this forum. She's become very well-versed in dealing with such tactics. She'd not only thwart it, she'd turn it into an excellent lesson on Icke's true nature. And I'm guessing another nasty rant would then appear on davidicke.com... which could also be copied here for us to learn from. :) I don't think anyone should purposely goad Icke, of course. But if he were to come at us, it could benefit us far more than him.

The forum in question seems to have gone now, so you can't look at the referenced posts.

That's a bit strange, since this event with Icke just happened two years ago. Did they fight back against his attacks, then just end up shutting down anyway? I wonder if they simply moved elsewhere to escape harassment. I'd imagine that Icke followers infiltrating their forums would get pretty tiring.

The way he displays his narcissism, bites back with equally childish insults, seeks pity as if he's the victim, and deflects the fact that it was his team who were "doing the Illuminati's job", seems to go over the heads of his devoted followers.

It's painfully obvious to us, but his followers probably feel such tactics are justified. After all, someone dared to question David Icke! So of course they're sad, pathetic cowards with hearts full of hate! What else could they be? Besides, it's David himself saying this, so we have to trust his judgment, right?

I found a lengthy 1999 interview with Icke on the Metatech website: _http://www.metatech.org/david_icke_and_reptilians.html.

David Icke does not believe in Jesus, and I understand that he does not even believe in God. It is my experience that, while much of his information is HIGHLY valuable, his book “The Biggest Secret” is a little too overwhelming for some people, not necessarily because the information is too hot to handle, but because at the same time that he gives people information which can cause fear, he takesA away the very thing which gives many people freedom from fear, and that is their faith in and connection to God and/or Jesus. Most of his information is excellent. I recommend it, as long as this point is kept in mind.

You gotta admit that it's a little bit funny that Icke saw himself as 'the second coming' and 'the son of God' with a direct line to God himself, and now he's denying God's existence and telling the human race to "get off their knees".

That might be a tough one for him to explain, ya know - the 'son of God' is saying "get off you knees" and there is no God, while he had a direct channel to this 'non-existent God' at some point...

When Credo asked him "Mr. Icke, are you a religious man?" and Icke said "no", and Credo said "good" ... little did Credo know he's actually speaking to the son of God...

Stephanie seems to be coming from a fundamentalist Christian perspective, defining "God" very narrowly. So her warning could be translated as "Icke doesn't believe in OUR version of God." Still, I'm not sure what Icke thinks nowadays about the existence of a God. We know for sure that he says "there was no Jesus." But he talks about being connected to the "Consciousness outside the Matrix"... So does this count as "God" for him? It's hard to tell. He's so vague about this stuff!

He could have gotten his hands on H.P. Lovecraft’s Cthulhu mythos, which would explain the similarity to his word for it - Chitauri. It could just be his failing memory/senility. Combine his theory with his practise, psychotropic plants, and WHALA!...and of course his position as a 'Chosen One' and keeper of knowledge of the Zulu mythology, folklore, legends and relics. I don't dismiss their mythology, folklore and legends altogether, it had to have had its origin somewhere. He mentions in this interview that he "doesn't know what a website looks like", so we can exclude the internet as a source for him.

To me, it seems like Credo has taken the myths/legends of his people and "re-interpreted" them in light of things he's learned from all his reading and experiences. Interacting with Icke may also have caused Credo's interpretations to evolve further - maybe even "on they fly" AS he talked with Icke. I think part of this shows in his shift from calling the Tokoloshe "pinky pinky" to using that term for Gray aliens. As you and Anart have said, Credo is a storyteller. He may feel that his understanding of things has grown, and with that his stories have blatantly changed. But the trick is that he speaks as though his current understanding is the way he's always thought. Which gives an impression that he's always "known" this stuff. And he technically DID know the same basic stories... But they didn't always feature the same details, the same explanations for what things are or where they came from, etc. To him it may not be a big deal to change the story like this... But when it's brought to the West as literal history by people like Icke, it becomes a HUGE deal!

 

[anart]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

I remember that part. I know it's normal for one to say "she's in a better place now," based on whatever one's belief system is, but I just can't shake the feeling that Icke used his mother's death to push his ideas... Maybe the feeling's based on other things we know about him? This would be a pretty harsh accusation to make, so I don't feel comfortable even speculating until we have more to go on. But I think this is touching on some serious psychological/emotional areas which would say more about Icke than a lot of other things we've discovered. So it seems worth exploring.

Just a note that I don't think it's really possible to conclude much at all about any 'serious psychological/emotional' problems Icke might or might not have from the things he's written. One can note discrepancies and the line of force of his writings and even pick out the obvious disinformation, but you're treading on dangerous ground when you assume that you can diagnose or even approach an understanding of underlying emotional issues based on written information, especially the written information of someone who is 'on stage'. There are many reasons for this ranging from his 'stage persona' to misinterpretation - so I would suggest that you tread carefully here.

[quote author=E]
No for sure, the strongest evidence of that for me is the nature of his ‘solutions’. Ask any Icke follower what Icke’s solution to our dilemma is, and you will just get a blank stare. As an experiment, we can post the question on the Icke forum, and see what turns up. Do you wanna write the question, or shall I? If he’s joining hands with Jones now, the answer might be a revolution or rioting…in stark contrast to his earlier very vocal appeals ‘not’ to riot.

I'd be game for this, just to see if they grasp the main thing Icke claims as so important. Due to the free-form nature of the forum, I'm guessing that some will, some won't. Not all of them are Icke followers, really. Some just post because they think Icke is right about certain things. And some of these are also major Jones devotees. I do think it's interesting that Icke presents his solution almost as a "side note" to the conspiracy stuff, while claiming it to be the most crucial thing to grasp. Why say something is THE answer to it all, yet give it so little focus?[/quote]


Just another note that we really don't condone going to other forums and starting discussions just to 'find things out' - that's basically going to another forum with an agenda - something we do not allow others to do on our forum. So, again, tread carefully here. If you're going to other forums due to an interest in the material there and a desire to engage in sincere conversation, that's one thing. If you're going to 'set a trap', then please remember that we really dislike it when people come here to try to do that to us. Just a thought...

And on some level Icke must realize how shaky the info gained from this is, otherwise why would he ignore/conceal Credo's psychotropic influences?

You seem to be missing the possibility that he thinks psychotropic influences are valid and that he doesn't all at realize Credo's info is shaky.

I think this imagery does occur because it has basis in fact. If there's nothing real behind it, where would these people get such images from? They've never been exposed to Western alien/UFO concepts or mass media. But at the same time, the imagery doesn't convey literal events in 3D history. Which is how Icke would probably interpret them (and how Credo apparently DOES interpret them).

Argonaut, have you read this thread?

 

[Erna]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

Just another note that we really don't condone going to other forums and starting discussions just to 'find things out' - that's basically going to another forum with an agenda - something we do not allow others to do on our forum. So, again, tread carefully here. If you're going to other forums due to an interest in the material there and a desire to engage in sincere conversation, that's one thing. If you're going to 'set a trap', then please remember that we really dislike it when people come here to try to do that to us. Just a thought...

You're right. Bad judgement on my part.

 

[anart]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

Just another note that we really don't condone going to other forums and starting discussions just to 'find things out' - that's basically going to another forum with an agenda - something we do not allow others to do on our forum. So, again, tread carefully here. If you're going to other forums due to an interest in the material there and a desire to engage in sincere conversation, that's one thing. If you're going to 'set a trap', then please remember that we really dislike it when people come here to try to do that to us. Just a thought...

You're right. Bad judgement on my part.

Well, it's a fine line to walk, I suppose - if you're posting there to sincerely interact, it's fine. That's really my main point - it's not that posting there itself is a bad idea, just that posting there with an agenda isn't the best idea, imo (of course, I tend to see things from a moderator's point of view... ;) so perhaps I'm hypersensitive on that count)

 

[Erna]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

You're still right, Anart. I did interact on their forum anyway, to see how they see things solution wise, but I'll just use it for myself with regard to Icke's 'line of force' as you put it. :)

 

[Argonaut]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

Just a note that I don't think it's really possible to conclude much at all about any 'serious psychological/emotional' problems Icke might or might not have from the things he's written. One can note discrepancies and the line of force of his writings and even pick out the obvious disinformation, but you're treading on dangerous ground when you assume that you can diagnose or even approach an understanding of underlying emotional issues based on written information, especially the written information of someone who is 'on stage'. There are many reasons for this ranging from his 'stage persona' to misinterpretation - so I would suggest that you tread carefully here.

You're right, we're going overboard again. We're trying to draw conclusions which just can't be drawn based on the data we have. Lots of hints and clues and "maybes," but nothing certain. Besides, all of these attempts to diagnose him is drawing focus away from finding the line of force in his work. THAT we can work to determine.

I've been thinking a lot since I read your post. It raises (or actually RE-raises) two questions in me - Why do I have such a strong desire to categorize and identify Icke's "true nature?" And, why can I clearly see the flawed thinking in my own posts, but only AFTER someone else has pointed it out to me? I noted earlier in the thread how I tend to always drift back towards analyzing the nature of Icke, rather than just his ideas. And yet here we are once again, doing that very thing. I think the stuff we've uncovered thus far is valuable for an analysis of Icke's work. But we shouldn't be using it to label him. It amazes (and disturbs) me that we're gravitating right back to "let's diagnose Icke" after E and Laura set us straight on it earlier in the thread. Thank you for saying something.

So what DO we know about Icke for sure? Here are the things we've observed so far:

* He claims to be "One with the Consciousness beyond the Matrix," yet he displays an incredible lack of spiritual/esoteric understanding.

* He supports using psychotropic drugs to gain insight and also promotes the use of monoatomic gold.

* He claims to receive much of his information "direct" from higher forces, and says that these forces physically and mentally manipulated him into becoming a "speaker of truth."

* He accepts testimonies from dubious sources then integrates them into his work.

* He obscures the concepts of STO/STS, pathologicals, and OPs with his ideas about astrologically-mandated "life paths." His astrological views also portray Free Will as something bad to be avoided.

* He ignores Ponerology altogether, attributing political evil to shape-shifting reptilian bloodlines.

* He makes a huge deal about not caring what anyone thinks of him, yet when discussing or responding to something "anti-Icke" he gets extremely petty, making childish insults and ad hominem attacks.

* He seems to evade questions about certain topics (his past words/actions, criticisms raised against him, etc).

I probably missed some points, but I think this paints the basic picture. This stuff is enough to know SOMETHING is wrong, but we can't discern for sure what his true nature is. And like you said, this is all coming from Icke's public persona. Who knows if it reflects his actual nature?

Just another note that we really don't condone going to other forums and starting discussions just to 'find things out' - that's basically going to another forum with an agenda - something we do not allow others to do on our forum. So, again, tread carefully here. If you're going to other forums due to an interest in the material there and a desire to engage in sincere conversation, that's one thing. If you're going to 'set a trap', then please remember that we really dislike it when people come here to try to do that to us. Just a thought...

Yes, this was a huge lack of external considering on our part! I think the problem is that we HAVE been turning this into an agenda - to label David Icke. To learn what motivates him. And now this agenda is eclipsing core principles of the work (for me at least). The end never justifies the means.

You may be more sensitive to this because you're a moderator - But as E said, you're still right. :)

And on some level Icke must realize how shaky the info gained from this is, otherwise why would he ignore/conceal Credo's psychotropic influences?

You seem to be missing the possibility that he thinks psychotropic influences are valid and that he doesn't all at realize Credo's info is shaky.

I was jumping to that conclusion based on Icke not mentioning this aspect of Credo. I assumed (bad idea!) that if he doesn't mention it, he must realize that it's questionable. I think I made that assumption because I was "sure" that Icke is purposely deceptive. I know he thinks such influences are valid, because he claims to have learned a lot from his own psychotropic experience. Maybe he simply doesn't know about Credo's use of psychotropics. We know for sure that Credo has concealed certain info from Western audiences. If he were unaware of Icke's "open-mindedness" towards psychotropics - or simply wanted to package his testimony for Icke's Western audience - Credo may have deliberately kept this from him.

I think this imagery does occur because it has basis in fact. If there's nothing real behind it, where would these people get such images from? They've never been exposed to Western alien/UFO concepts or mass media. But at the same time, the imagery doesn't convey literal events in 3D history. Which is how Icke would probably interpret them (and how Credo apparently DOES interpret them).

Argonaut, have you read this thread?

Not previously, but I've read it now. Thanks! It really clarified this issue for me. One thing that stood out (in relation to this discussion) was the Mircea Eliade quote from Secret History:

Concerning the original shamanic experience … narcotics are only a vulgar substitute for “pure” trance.
The use of intoxicants is a recent innovation and points to a decadence in shamanic technique. Narcotic intoxication is called on to provide an imitation of a state that the shaman is no longer capable of attaining otherwise. Decadence or vulgarization of a mystical technique - in ancient and modern India, and indeed all through the East, we constantly find this strange mixture of “difficult ways” and “easy ways” of realizing mystical ecstasy or some other decisive experience.

I understood that taking psychotropics is a dangerous shortcut for true experience; I just wasn't sure on the details. But after reading that thread it makes sense. I think a lot of people fall for the old "noble savage" meme in this area. They might have trouble grasping how shamans could be totally wrong for using psychotropics. After all, they seem so "wise" and in touch with the true nature of things. How could they not know what they're doing? This is what I got hung up on for the longest time when struggling with the question. It's also been a bit of a stumbling block regarding Credo. I have to keep reminding myself that ancient and tribal peoples are still JUST people, part of an STS world just like we are. It's interesting just how deeply the "noble savage" idea is embedded in the minds of our civilization. It almost seems based in some cultural guilt complex, or something.

A big thing that's clear for me now is how people like Hancock and McKenna can believe all spirituality and religion began with psychotropics... and yet at the same time be way off base. If people DID have transcendent experiences that were natural, and it later degenerated to drug use, this can paint a picture of psychotropic use all the way back, for someone who doesn't dig deeply enough to really get it - or for someone with a bias towards using psychotropics.

Thanks for all your input, anart. Your insights are always valuable and appreciated. Well... appreciated by those who are open to some mirroring. :D

[EDIT - Clarification]

 

[Erna]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

I think the problem is that we HAVE been turning this into an agenda

Just a quick note here, Argonaut. It neither was nor is an agenda for me. All I care about is the truth, and I really am striving for objectivity here. It was precisely my issue (partly) with an apparent 'desired' outcome which I addressed here. As you've said, "to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail". We uncovered the most valuable information after we put the hammer away.

My undecidedness about Icke's COINTELPRO status over the years has always produced a little itch that would have required scratching sooner or later, so personally at least, I'm grateful for what transpired here, because at least 'I' could bury the matter for myself once and for all.

I'm sure this thread will still grow and grow, cause Icke is a busy man. But I have enough information by now, to lay the matter to rest for myself at least. And I can sleep soundly at night, because I think we were fair. I still maintain that I am not emotionally invested with Icke, I graduated from Icke long ago. With Icke the cul de sac comes up very quickly. I just wanted justice, that's all, and I got it.

 

[Argonaut]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

I think the problem is that we HAVE been turning this into an agenda

Just a quick note here, Argonaut. It neither was nor is an agenda for me. All I care about is the truth, and I really am striving for objectivity here. It was precisely my problem (partly) with a 'desired' outcome which I addressed here. As you've said, "to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail". We uncovered the most valuable information, after we put the hammer away.

I said "we" because the general focus became David Icke as a person, rather than Icke's ideas. But yes, this was mainly driven by me. We did indeed put the hammer away, but along the line I brought it out again. I apologize if you saw "we" as me pointing a finger at you personally. I should've been more clear.

That said, I'm reading the tone of your post as you feeling insulted at the thought that I questioned your objectivity. Almost an undertone of "how DARE yoU!" I also wonder if your sudden declaration that you're leaving the thread has anything to do with that, and you're only saying "I'm done with Icke now" to justify it (on some level, at least).

Saying that was hard for me, due to my own "people pleasing" program (which just wants to kiss up and make nice), but I'm trying to work past that and help mirror. I've been helped so much by it from others, including you, so I want to try and do the same. I feel a ridiculous amount of fear in saying it (practically shaking in my chair, actually)... partly because IT fears the response if I'm wrong. And partly because IT fears the response if I'm right! But that's my "people pleasing" for you. The program is going crazy right now. I realize that I'm probably wrong, but I wanted to let you know the impression I got just in case it was accurate. :undecided:

[quote author=E]

My undecidedness about Icke's COINTELPRO status over the years has always produced a little itch that would have needed scratching sooner or later, so personally at least, I'm grateful for what transpired here, because at least 'I' could bury the matter for myself once and for all.

I'm sure this thread will still grow and grow, cause Icke is a busy man. But I have enough information by now, to lay the matter to rest for myself at least. And I can sleep soundly at night, because I think we were fair. I still maintain that I am not emotionally invested with Icke, I graduated from Icke long ago. With Icke the cul de sac comes up very quickly. I just wanted justice, that's all, and I got it.

[/quote]

Indeed, all of the data we've uncovered has answered a lot of long-standing questions for me, too. And thanks to anart's post I feel the same as you do. We can now confidently say that David Icke IS COINTELPRO, even though the details of this are unknown. Case closed on that. But I think we could now move on to Laura's idea - which anart brought up again - which is determining his work's line of focus. It seems like this has been pushed into the background so far, and I take responsibility for that. Maybe determining the line of focus is no longer needed, but it may help to wrap up the entire Icke issue once and for all. It seems a somewhat separate concept from whether or not Icke himself is COINTELPRO, osit.

But if you feel that you're finished with Icke, that's understandable. Either way, your contributions have been very helpful and I've appreciated your input. :)

 

[Argonaut]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

E,

On second thought, disregard my comments about you having an insulted reaction. I was right that my "people pleasing" program was going into overdrive, but I think this started while I was reading your post, not after I began replying. IT perceived "displeasure" from you at what I wrote, so I saw your post as having an angry tone. I must have been trying to alleviate the self-hating feelings from this when I decided to "help" you by mirroring back the impression I had gotten. I'm sorry for the noise and the lack of external considering. I think I need to do the EE program more and grow in Knowledge and Being before I can objectively mirror others in the forum. Maybe before I can post objectively at all. I won't quit posting, because I think that needs to be part of the growing process... But I'm becoming more and more dismayed with what may actually be driving my posts, and with the fact that I make so many errors in judgment that are invisible to me until they're pointed out. Part of me doesn't think it's "fair" that others have to put up with this from me. Even if I'm growing, should I really be contributing a bunch of noise in the meantime that other people have to look at? Ugh... The program may even be in full swing right now, because I feel as if this post sounds like a pity party. But I suppose it may still be valuable to have it out there for all to view, in all its ugliness.

Anyway, the reason I'm posting this is to say that I'm sorry for making those comments. I hope the rest of this post isn't just noise. If it is, I'm sure I'll see it clearly once somebody tells me. :/

 

[Erna]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

I said "we" because the general focus became David Icke as a person, rather than Icke's ideas.

Icke ‘as a person’ is paramount, together with his ideas – the two can’t be divorced.

But yes, this was mainly driven by me.

No it’s not a biggy, I just wanted to clarify the matter. You have admitted that you have an emotional attachment and an urge to “vilify” Icke, so it’s perfectly understandable that you accidently…uhm … ’fetched the hammer’ again: ;)

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

I apologize if you saw "we" as me pointing a finger at you personally.

It’s okay, Argonaut. I just needed to clarify.

That said, I'm reading the tone of your post as you feeling insulted at the thought that I questioned your objectivity.

No Argonaut, I didn’t think that. I thought that you meant we ‘loosely’ as one does naturally, so I just felt like clarifying.

Almost an undertone of "how DARE yoU!"

No! I can assure you that you are mistaken. It was just important for me to not be included in your admission that you were turning it into an agenda, since it isn’t the case with me. That’s all. Silence on my part would have indicated that I was in agreement with you.

I also wonder if your sudden declaration that you're leaving the thread has anything to do with that, and you're only saying "I'm done with Icke now" to justify it (on some level, at least).

Argonaut, if I was cross with you, I'd say so - I'm one of those. I'm not leaving the thread. We have just uncovered enough information for us to come up with a hypothesis. I didn’t think so much information would come to the fore so quickly without us having to read all his books.

I just won’t be able to devote quite so much time to this, as I have of late.

Saying that was hard for me, due to my own "people pleasing" program (which just wants to kiss up and make nice), but I'm trying to work past that and help mirror. I've been helped so much by it from others, including you, so I want to try and do the same. I feel a ridiculous amount of fear in saying it (practically shaking in my chair, actually)... partly because IT fears the response if I'm wrong. And partly because IT fears the response if I'm right! But that's my "people pleasing" for you. The program is going crazy right now. I realize that I'm probably wrong, but I wanted to let you know the impression I got just in case it was accurate. :undecided:

Argonaut, it is extremely important for me to correct this misunderstanding of you reading ‘rejection’ in my words, because I really value your contribution to this thread. I was always looking to see if you responded. You made such a massive contribution to this thread, one that only an ex ‘Icke devotee’ can make. Sometimes I read your posts and thought to myself that you know Icke so well, like when you use those one-liners of his like “just a coincidence, nothing to worry about”. Only someone who was very emotionally invested with Icke, would be able to do that, coupled with a good memory.

On second thought, disregard my comments about you having an insulted reaction.

The emotional center in quicker than the intellectual center.

IT perceived "displeasure" from you at what I wrote, so I saw your post as having an angry tone. I must have been trying to alleviate the self-hating feelings from this when I decided to "help" you by mirroring back the impression I had gotten.

No, not displeasure, I just felt it necessary to clarify my position, since an agenda/desire was the VERY thing I addressed earlier.

I'm sorry for the noise and the lack of external considering.

No need to apologise. If you identified a program or two and possibly it’s origin, then its been worth it – much more important than David Icke!

Read this post.

I won't quit posting, because I think that needs to be part of the growing process...

You're right. Read this post.

But I'm becoming more and more dismayed with what may actually be driving my posts, and with the fact that I make so many errors in judgment that are invisible to me until they're pointed out.

What is driving ‘some’ of your posts in this particular thread, is an urge to vilify Icke, as you’ve mentioned, which stems from an emotional attachment, which is detrimental to your ability to be objective.

Part of me doesn't think it's "fair" that others have to put up with this from me. Even if I'm growing, should I really be contributing a bunch of noise in the meantime that other people have to look at?

Your posts don't quite strike me as noise, Argonaut.

The program may even be in full swing right now, because I feel as if this post sounds like a pity party. But I suppose it may still be valuable to have it out there for all to view, in all its ugliness.

If you can determine the origin of the program, then its all been worth it.

Anyway, the reason I'm posting this is to say that I'm sorry for making those comments.

No need to apologise, Argonaut. ;)

 

[Argonaut]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

E,

I remember a time when I saw anart's mirroring posts as being some sort of emotional reaction or judgment. I learned how wrong that impression was, and my entire perception of her posts changed. But I clearly have much further to go in how I read the words of others.

Now I know from your response that my second impression was correct - it was really an emotional reaction from ME when I thought I saw one from you. But even though I realized what was happening, that program stayed active even in my second "apologetic" post. Objectively, I know that my contributions on Icke have contained a lot of useful information. They weren't "all noise." So for me to attack myself in this way was just as wrong as accusing you of an emotional reaction. I swung from one extreme to another. Thanks once again for injecting some balance.

Icke ‘as a person’ is paramount, together with his ideas – the two can’t be divorced.

This is true, but sometimes there's a fine line between analyzing someone as part of a larger picture, and doing it to reach a diagnosis. I was using every bit of data we had to try and diagnose Icke - to label him as narcissistic, as psychopathic, as SOMETHING. I was driven to figure out WHY he's COINTELPRO, which is something we just can't know. I had completely "lost the plot," to quote one more Icke one-liner.

[EDIT: Fixed messed-up paragraph]

 

[anart]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

E,

I remember a time when I saw anart's mirroring posts as being some sort of emotional reaction or judgment. I learned how wrong that impression was, and my entire perception of her posts changed. But I clearly have much further to go in how I read the words of others.

Now I know from your response that my second impression was correct - it was really an emotional reaction from ME when I thought I saw one from you.

The fact that you can see that, even after the fact, is enormous. There was a time when you could not - yet you continued to work and learn and struggle - and look at what you can See now that was hidden to you before. Just think of what other things lie currently hidden that you'll be able to see, as a matter of course, if you continue to put in such effort?

 

[Argonaut]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

E,

I remember a time when I saw anart's mirroring posts as being some sort of emotional reaction or judgment. I learned how wrong that impression was, and my entire perception of her posts changed. But I clearly have much further to go in how I read the words of others.

Now I know from your response that my second impression was correct - it was really an emotional reaction from ME when I thought I saw one from you.

The fact that you can see that, even after the fact, is enormous. There was a time when you could not - yet you continued to work and learn and struggle - and look at what you can See now that was hidden to you before. Just think of what other things lie currently hidden that you'll be able to see, as a matter of course, if you continue to put in such effort?

Very true. Which means that it really would be detrimental if I quit posting altogether. Those urges to quit are just the predator trying to run away and hide.

 

[Erna]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

Argonaut, I noticed a program running in me during this thread as well, subtle, but present nonetheless. My mother and teachers always said to us “if you don’t have something good to say about someone, then you keep your mouth shut”. They were naturally referring to gossip, but it still installed the program. So much so that I sometimes felt guilty during this thread, for ‘speaking badly’ of David Icke. Of course it doesn’t apply to what were doing here, it’s just strange how it still made me feel guilty. For Pete’s sake, how many programs do we have running?!? “Keeping your mouth shut” is an ‘arrangement’ benefitting narcissists and psychopaths, or in this case, COINTELPRO agents. The bottom line is, that the lie should get what it asks for, the truth. In this case, the lie is David Icke.

and even pick out the obvious disinformation

Those urges to quit are just the predator trying to run away and hide.

I thought I'd add some "obvious disinformation" with regard to the 'predator' specifically. I don’t know if “losing the plot” even applies to what David Icke is doing here.

From Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster – Why the official story of 9/11 is a monumental lie – p. 472 – 474

Reptilian Brain

Figure 30: The reptilian brain or “R-complex” is an ancient part of the human brain. From here we get the character traits of cold-blooded behaviour, the desire for top-down hierarchy, and an obsession with ritual. These are balanced by other parts of the brain in humans, but not in the full-blown reptilians, which manipulate this planet.


The more we understand the reptilian mind the more we can understand both the behaviour of the Illuminati across the centuries and the global society they are creating. They have distinct character traits and they are seeking to make humans the same.

These reptilian characteristics and their connection to the human brain are fundamental to the perpetuation of the illusions of the five-sense world that I call the Matrix. The most ancient part of the human brain is known by scientists as the R-complex or “reptilian brain” (Figure 30). It is the most obvious remnant of our reptilian genetic history, along with those people around the world still being born with tails (see Children of the Matrix). This reptilian brain is vital to understanding the ways in which the Illuminati manipulate human thinking and perception. Most people have no idea of the reptilian heritage of the human body and its influence on our behaviour. Scientists say that the reptilian brain represents a core of the nervous system, and look at the character traits of the reptilian brain as agreed by scientists. I quote here from an Internet article by Skip Largent:

“At least five human behaviours originate in the reptilian brain … Without defining them, I shall simply say that in human activities they find expression in: obsessive compulsive behaviour; personal day-to-day rituals and superstitious acts; slavish conformance to old ways of doing things; ceremonial re-enactments; obeisance to precedent, as in legal, religious, cultural, and other matters … and all manner of deceptions.”

Add other traits of the reptilian brain such as “territoriality” (this is mine, keep out); an obsession with hierarchal structures of rule and control; aggression; and the idea that might is right, winner takes all, and you have the very characteristics displayed by the Illuminati and their agents for thousands of years. You simply could not describe them better than to list the traits of the reptilian brain.

Racism comes from the reptilian brain, also, and the aggressive, violent sex that the Illuminati bloodlines indulge in big time – ask Father Bush, Cheney, President Gerald Ford, and other Illuminati names I expose in my books. Can it really be a coincidence that the Illuminati manifest the classic traits of the reptilian brain while, at the same time, the evidence mounts that they are reptilian bloodlines?

Cosmologist Carl Sagan, who knew far more than he was telling, wrote a book called The Dragons of Eden to highlight the reptilian influences on humanity. He said: “…It does no good whatsoever to ignore the reptilian component of human nature, particularly our ritualistic and hierarchical behaviour. On the contrary, the model may help us understand what human beings are really about.” Other areas of the human brain balance the extremes of the reptilian characteristics in most people, but they can still be seen, for example, in those who live their lives as a daily ritual, such as going to the same supermarket at the same time every week and having the same meals on the same days.

The Illuminati have sought to turn society into a clock-watching, ever repeating daily cycle, because that locks the people who succumb to this into their reptilian level of perception and further activates the reptilian brain.They have also created a society in which most people are focused of physical or financial survival, and the survival mentality is a reptilian instinct. The whole Illuminati agenda is based on the terror of not surviving and they equate control with survival. Their survival where they currently reside in their inter-space plane is also dependant on humans continuing to be their energy source.

Their horrific agenda is based on survival in their reptilian minds. Those with the most dominant reptilian genetics, the Illuminati, obviously express more of the characteristics associated with the reptilian brain and this is why, as detailed at length in my other books, the Illuminati are utterly obsessed with ritual.

They also know better than anyone how to manipulate the reptilian brain or R-complex of humans and it is through that part of the brain that humanity is most controlled and directed. The human brain is in two parts, or hemispheres, the right brain and the left brain, connected by a mass of nerve fibres. The left side is rational, logical, and “intellectual”. It works closely with the physical senses and can be summed up by can I touch it, see it, hear it, smell it or taste it?

I communicates through spoken and written words. The right brain is where we manifest imagination, intuition, instincts, dream-states, the subconscious. It is the artist, musician, creative inspiration. It communicates through images and symbols, nor words. This right side is closely related to the reptilian part of the brain. Reptilians communicate through imagery and symbols – just like the Illuminati secret society network. They have an entire secret language based on symbols. This brings us to the most effective form of human conditioning by the Illuminati – movies and television. As Skip Largent writes:

“All movies and television are a projection of the reptilian brain. How so? Movies and television (video games etc.) are all undeniably dreamlike, not only in their presentation of symbolic-reality, but also in that humans experiencing movies, etc., have the same brain wave patterns as when they are dreaming. And guess where dreaming originates in your head? In the reptilian brain (although other parts of our brain are involved) … The “language” of the reptilian brain is visual imagery. All communications transferred by reptiles are done so by visual symbolic representations, each having specific meaning”.

[…]

Blah-blah-blah and so on and so forth. It just gets more ridiculous further on. So apart from me not having the time to spend on Icke any longer, I think it’s time wasted given that we have already ‘exposed’ him.

With regard to his particular brand if COINTELPRO, based on the above and his approach in general, I’d have to say that it looks like Icke is deliberately 'not' acknowledging the reality of psychopathology. Anyone exhibiting “cold-blooded behaviour” is a “full-blown reptilian” according to David Icke. And they ("cold-blooded" people) also don’t seem to be amongst us really, according to him, they’re practically all Illuminati.

...and to explain this, he uses THE REPTILIAN BRAIN?!? So yeah, enough is enough. ;)