Re: About David Icke & James Redfield
E said:
One thing that I always think about, is how everyone develops differently. Everyone comes from different directions, with different sacred cows which invariably lead to different kinds of shocks.
Yes, and what's good about a forum like this is that all those sacred cows can get shocked, because there are so many different people here who can collectively see through all of them. I like what Laura wrote, in a letter she quoted in
this thread. She stated that the "group mirror" here actually takes the place of having a single "master." She then added, "The individual must, however, be willing to submit to the consensus of the group as composing a 'Man number 5'." I read this just last night, and it caused a mini paradigm shift in me. Up until then, despite the great mirroring done in this forum, I thought along the lines of our teacher or "master" being Laura and/or the C's. So I've undergone a change in my thinking even in the short time between now and when I last posted!
This also demonstrates the vast gulf between Laura and David Icke. Icke not only works alone, he has also set himself up as the "master" of his followers - whether or not he admits this or even realizes it. For Icke there is ONLY ICKE. We are to submit to him for wisdom, and he submits to nobody. And why should he? He's already One with the Consciousness beyond the Matrix! It reminds me of something Dr. George Simon wrote in
In Sheep's Clothing about the narcissistic personality:
In Sheep's Clothing said:
Both [narcissistic and aggressive personalities] are emotionally independent personalities. That is, they rely on themselves to get what they need. Milton describes narcissists as passive-independent personalities because they think so much of themselves that they believe that they just don't need anybody else to get along in life. They don't necessarily have to do anything to demonstrate competence and superiority because they're already convinced of it.
A few of the manipulation tactics described in the book also fit Icke pretty well. We've noticed these two several times:
Diversion
Manipulators use distraction and diversion techniques to keep the focus off their behavior, move us off-track, and keep themselves free to promote their self-serving hidden agendas. Sometimes this can be very subtle. You may confront your manipulator on a very important issue only to find yourself minutes later wondering how you got on the topic you're talking about then.
Evasion
Closely related to diversion, this is a tactic by which a manipulator tries to avoid being cornered on an issue by giving rambling, irrelevant responses to a direct question or otherwise trying to skirt an issue. A subtle, but effective form of evasion is the deliberate use of vagueness. Covert-aggressives are adept at giving vague answers to the simplest, most direct questions. You have to have a sensitive ear for this. Sometimes the vagueness is not so pronounced and you think you have an answer when in fact you don't.
Icke's petty message about that dissenting forum (after his attempt to shut it down failed), seemed to involve ALL of the following:
Shaming
This is the technique of using subtle sarcasm and put-downs as a means of increasing fear and self-doubt in others. [...] Using rhetorical comments, subtle sarcasm and other techniques, they can invite you to feel ashamed of yourself for even daring to challenge them.
Playing the Victim Role
This tactic involves portraying oneself as a victim of circumstance or someone else's behavior in order to gain sympathy, evoke compassion and thereby get something from another.
Vilifying the Victim
This tactic is frequently used in conjunction with the tactic of playing the victim role. The aggressor uses this tactic to make it appear he is only responding (i.e. defending himself against) aggression on the part of the victim.
Playing the Servant Role
Covert-aggressives use this technique to cloak their self-serving agendas in the guise of service to a more noble cause. It's a common tactic but difficult to recognize. By pretending to be working hard on someone else's behalf, covert-aggressives conceal their own ambition, desire for power, and quest for a position of dominance over others.
I've noticed some of these tendencies in other things written/said by Icke - usually when talking to or about someone critical of him. But that one message he wrote was a very impressive display. And this isn't even counting the overt threatening and aggression while he was trying to shut that forum down!
E said:
Argonaut said:
I'm struggling with is, how much truth is enough? What criteria do we use to determine that the lie has fully RECEIVED what it's asked for? Exposing a lie can't be a neverending process, obviously.
No I hear what you are saying, and anyone can take the baton and run with it.
I just got closure.
Which is totally fine. I think I need to figure out if I'm too attached to this. Do I think I CAN'T leave because exposing Icke has become my responsibility? My duty? I know that you and I have become the main contributors to this thread, but that doesn't mean we have to keep plugging away. I don't feel yet that I have closure. But I need to stay alert and determine if I have a deeper, more personal motive than just getting closure. It may be something like a drive to make everyone happy, proud, impressed, etc. This sort of thing would be in line with my "people pleasing" program. This anxiety might be my Chief Feature, as it seems to be an underlying thread in so much of what I say and do.
E said:
Argonaut said:
So where is the end when it comes to exposing Icke? And how can we know when we've reached it?
Well, with a COINTELPRO agent, there is no end until he lays his head down.
To a degree this is true. But as far as determining the big picture, there's only so much one can "expose." Continuing beyond that point would just be repeating the same stuff - beating a dead horse. Even when Icke says/writes/does something new, it would fit within things that have already been said about him. Unless he completely shifts gears. Which I don't see happening, but he has done it once.
E said:
Are you sure you want to spend your 2010 sifting through disinformation, because what you are proposing is no small task. Is it really necessary to dissect his books for every single bit of disinformation.
Not at all. I think the disinformation angle has been pretty well covered. At least for us (Cass members), since much of it has involved comparing Icke to our own understanding of Reality. Which wouldn't really convince someone who
disagrees with our understanding. But this doesn't matter, because the thread isn't here to "convince the world." It's for Cass members who are unsure what to think of him. And I think we've done a good job of exposing his disinfo within that context.
But what I was talking about doing was finding completely different angles of approach. And also adding a bit here and there (if needed) to make what we've already said more "complete" - like the manipulation definitions I quoted above, or the "reptilian brain" info you posted. I don't intend to bury myself in Icke's work for months on end. Just like you, I have far more important things to focus on. :)
As far as I'm concerned, all the major angles have been pretty well covered, and you clearly feel the same. I do have some interest in digging up more on Arizona Wilder, but I think I'll put that on the back burner for a while. The line of force is the thing I plan to devote more study to right now, because there may be an important "key" in that idea. We also haven't specifically listed Icke's "fruits," but I think those are pretty clear based on what's already been discussed.
E said:
Don't you think there's enough information here to get anyone very far, and if they are still undecided they can bring their queries here?
Good point. It might be best to just let the info-seekers direct the thread; that way we know we're helping if we contribute further, as opposed to just "hoping" that what we're adding is helpful.
E said:
I'm not sure if I have much hope for anyone who finished this thread and are still undecided. I don't know. We haven't given the whole cheese, but we sure gave a large chunk of it.
Yes, and there's something else I thought of... We don't necessarily want to hand them everything on a silver platter, do we? There's benefit in people digging for themselves. It's what helped you and I so much. You know, "learning is fun" and so on. :D
I am entirely aware of how ridiculous this sounds...oh well...keeps life interesting...
