About David Icke & James Redfield

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

Argonaut said:
I'd also never seen a solid examination of Credo Mutwa until E presented it in this thread.

Researching Credo wasn't punishment. I enjoyed it thoroughly, his book was just packed with information - I know, I know, grain of salt!

I might read his other books as well at some point.

Argonaut said:
I'm so glad we came together and did this.

Me too. I think I got the fun part of the project though; black magic, immortality, voodoo, cannibalism, witchcraft, psychotropic plants, zombies etc. etc.

Here's all his books. There was one other little thing about Credo which I kind of forgot about, which might have some relevance, or not. It might have some relevance given his connection with David Icke. One night while I was researching him, and had about 20 websites simultaneously open, I found an article which (if I remember correctly) appeared in 1999 in a Zimbabwean magazine, where Credo predicted the Bush presidency before he was 'elected', and the close companionship between Bush and Tony Blair, and also 9/11 if I'm not mistaken. I'll try find it again for us, I'm sure I will though. Accurate predictions can also be a red flag, given Jones’ prior knowledge of 9/11.

I think you're right about the Arizona Wilder 'source' that should enjoy some attention.

One thing that comes up with David Icke and Alex Jones as well, which is a GIANT red flag, is the amount of mainstream attention they both enjoy. I mean that in itself!! Look at this article about David Icke in the Times Online of June 27, 2008 - Reptilians beware - David Icke is back! + his documentary on mainstream television we discussed earlier in the thread.

And look how Alex Jones is backtracking on his 'David Icke and the blood drinking lizards' insults - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gx0jQAh0aaw

They first show the initial video of Alex Jones calling David Icke a 'turd in the punch bowl' and then go into Jones' 'backtracking' while interviewing David Icke later on.
 
Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

E said:
Argonaut said:
I'd also never seen a solid examination of Credo Mutwa until E presented it in this thread.

Researching Credo wasn't punishment. I enjoyed it thoroughly, his book was just packed with information - I know, I know, grain of salt!

I might read his other books as well at some point.

We may need to take the info with a grain of salt, but it at least helps us understand Credo himself, which is important. If you do read the other books I look forward to hearing how his ideas evolved over the years. And the books may even shed some light on why. Those seem to be the big questions with Credo right now.
[quote author=E]

Argonaut said:
I'm so glad we came together and did this.

Me too. I think I got the fun part of the project though; black magic, immortality, voodoo, cannibalism, witchcraft, psychotropic plants, zombies etc. etc.
[/quote]

Very true. :D Still, I've had some fun with my part, especially the Icke autobiography, since it's all totally new info for me. I'm at Icke's college football years now. Here's an interesting part of that, again relating to Icke's father:

David Icke said:
It had always been my ambition to play there on the ground where I watched Gordon Banks, the then England goalkeeper. But on the two occasions I had that opportunity I made mistakes and went through agonising disappointment, especially the second time when an Arsenal scout had come especially to see me. In those situations, as with the verbal attacks from my father, you either picked yourself up and carried on with even greater determination or you went under and fell apart. Sport is a microcosm of life and such a wonderful vehicle for learning or "triggering" because it is so full of highs and lows physically, mentally and emotionally.

My relationship with my father had changed through this period too. In those early years I was intimidated, but now I was coming back at him. There would be tremendous rows between us as he tried to control my life completely. On and on he would go with his criticism for doing this or not doing that. You could take his advice ninety-nine percent of the time, but on the odd occasion you didn't, off he would go "You never listen to anything I say..." These marathon lectures would often happen several times a week when things were particularly fraught between us and always when I let in a bad goal of had a bad game. Again he was venting his own frustrations on me. Something had gone wrong which he didn't like and so someone had to be to blame. When you think about it, this is how so many people, and, indeed, humanity as a whole, so often respond to events. Humanity always demands a scapegoat in every situation. Blaming someone else means we don't have to look at ourselves. I have come to see that the way we behave towards the world around us is really the outward manifestation of of what we think of ourselves. My father also had a problem letting his children go and allowing them to make their own mistakes in their own way. He always wanted to control, to be at the centre pulling the strings. When anyone rebelled against that, which I did frequently, then he erupted.

Three things in this stand out for me. First is that Icke's father appears to have used textbook manipulation techniques, in addition to overt aggression. Second is that Icke is again making excuses for his behavior, this time by generalizing it as the way "many people" and "humanity as a whole" behave. His psychoanalysis of his father - that he was actually unhappy with himself - would only apply to a non-pathological mind. And it appears that his father WAS pathological in some way. The third point is that Icke seems to have picked up some of the same traits as his father.

That last line of his led me to wonder if it's possible that Icke's entire career of exposing the PTB has something to do with him STILL "rebelling" against his father. Projecting his father onto authority figures, maybe? This could partly explain why Icke has a blind spot for garden-variety pathologicals - they may not register for him unless they're in positions of authority. This may also relate to why Icke goes on the attack when someone criticizes him, like he learned to do against his father. This is just a hypothesis, though, and it may be way off. Plus, like I said above, normal psychology wouldn't apply if Icke is pathological.

One more thing I noticed: at the end of the first paragraph, Icke's words about football are the closest I've seen him come (so far) to advocating personal growth by putting yourself in a situation to receive "shocks." Fwiw, although it's probably not worth much in light of the bigger picture.

[quote author=E]
There was one other little thing about Credo which I kind of forgot about, which might have some relevance, or not. It might have some relevance given his connection with David Icke. One night while I was researching him, and had about 20 websites simultaneously open, I found an article which (if I remember correctly) appeared in 1999 in a Zimbabwean magazine, where Credo predicted the Bush presidency before he was 'elected', and the close companionship between Bush and Tony Blair, and also 9/11 if I'm not mistaken. I'll try find it again for us, I'm sure I will though. Accurate predictions can also be a red flag, given Jones’ prior knowledge of 9/11.
[/quote]

This is an intriguing bit of info. It could mean Credo is himself an insider, or that he's being fed these "predictions" by someone else who is (via satellite, implant, etc). Or perhaps Credo truly does have some sort of psychic ability. We should keep in mind that "paranormal" abilities don't mean someone is genuinely spiritual or on the right path.

[quote author=E]
I think you're right about the Arizona Wilder 'source' that should enjoy some attention.
[/quote]

I'm definitely going to look into this at some point. One interesting thing I came across was a guy who claimed that AW and Patsy Ramsey (mother of Jon Benet) were the same person, and the woman had simply gained some weight to play the role of Patsy. His idea was that certain people are shifted around by the PTB and used to play various roles. He claims to have proof that this goes on. He also used photo/video evidence to show that AW and Patsy Ramsey are in fact the same woman. Personally, I noticed significant differences in the faces of the two women, but there was a resemblance. It's an interesting angle to explore, but at this point it seems a bit far-fetched. This sort of "role switching" has happened in the media on occasion, though. Guests on "reality" talk shows like Jerry Springer, Maury Povich, etc have been caught playing different characters. So such a thing is definitely possible.

[quote author=E]
One thing that comes up with David Icke and Alex Jones as well, which is a GIANT red flag, is the amount of mainstream attention they both enjoy. I mean that in itself!! Look at this article about David Icke in the Times Online of June 27, 2008 - Reptilians beware - David Icke is back! + his documentary on mainstream television we discussed earlier in the thread.
[/quote]

Yes, this is one of the biggest flags. It could be a matter of them becoming so popular that the media could no longer ignore them. So a "spin" had to be put on them instead. In Icke's case at least, the media was instrumental in him BECOMING popular in the first place. But this might be due to him already being a fairly well-known sports figure. Look what happens with celebrities like Charlie Sheen, Rosie O'Donnell, and Jesse Ventura when they decide to "speak out." The media never ignores them - instead they make a big deal out of it. So it's hard to say, although it does look suspicious. Icke and Jones each represent a different aspect of the "truth movement," and together they pretty much cover the whole thing. So their media exposure could easily be engineered.

[quote author=E]
And look how Alex Jones is backtracking on his 'David Icke and the blood drinking lizards' insults - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gx0jQAh0aaw

They first show the initial video of Alex Jones calling David Icke a 'turd in the punch bowl' and then go into Jones' 'backtracking' while interviewing David Icke later on.
[/quote]

Jones's turn-around on Icke is very strange. Maybe Jones had a "change of heart" and decided that "us truthers need to stick together." But watching him in that video, I noticed that he looks pretty annoyed whenever Icke starts talking about certain things. I got an impression that Jones is accepting Icke "reluctantly." Perhaps he was told to make nice with Icke, but isn't really "feeling it?"
 
Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

Argonaut said:
I'm definitely going to look into this at some point. One interesting thing I came across was a guy who claimed that AW and Patsy Ramsey (mother of Jon Benet) were the same person, and the woman had simply gained some weight to play the role of Patsy. His idea was that certain people are shifted around by the PTB and used to play various roles. He claims to have proof that this goes on. He also used photo/video evidence to show that AW and Patsy Ramsey are in fact the same woman. Personally, I noticed significant differences in the faces of the two women, but there was a resemblance. It's an interesting angle to explore, but at this point it seems a bit far-fetched. This sort of "role switching" has happened in the media on occasion, though. Guests on "reality" talk shows like Jerry Springer, Maury Povich, etc have been caught playing different characters. So such a thing is definitely possible.

Considering Patsy's public life and history (being Miss West Virginia and competing in Miss American in 1977), she's fairly easy to track, so I think you might want to remember to NOT believe everything you read. Then again, I don't know a thing about this Wilder character - but I think that comparing guests on a talk show, who are acting, thus can easily take on different 'character' personas, to people in 'real life' having multiple 'real' public identities is a bit of a tenuous comparison - so 'far fetched' is a polite way to describe it, I think. fwiw.
 
Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

E and Argonaut, I was thinking about this today, and was wondering at some point in the future, if either or both of you had the time and inclination, if you would be willing to take the research on this thread and write it up into an article of whatever length. I agree that there is a tremendous amount of good and original research that has been put together primarily by the both of you, and it would be valuable to have it in that kind of compact and accessible format; it could be posted somewhere and made accessible to people who are trying to decide what to make of Icke. At the same time, I don't want to volunteer either of you for something that you don't have time for or aren't in a position to do, so I thought I'd just throw the idea out and see what you think.
 
Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

Shijing said:
E and Argonaut, I was thinking about this today, and was wondering at some point in the future, if either or both of you had the time and inclination, if you would be willing to take the research on this thread and write it up into an article of whatever length.

No Shijing you are right. I think when we are finally done, a 'presentable format' would be the next likely step.
 
Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

anart said:
Considering Patsy's public life and history (being Miss West Virginia and competing in Miss American in 1977), she's fairly easy to track, so I think you might want to remember to NOT believe everything you read.

Oh, definitely. Patsy's history was on my mind too as I read this person's theory. And his claim to personally know of individuals who have been placed in multiple roles is iffy at best, since it's just his word. Also, this was a forum post on Above Top Secret. Not exactly a fount of reliable info. So I don't believe his claim, but I do wonder if it may be possible.

anart] I think that comparing guests on a talk show said:
Shijing said:
E and Argonaut, I was thinking about this today, and was wondering at some point in the future, if either or both of you had the time and inclination, if you would be willing to take the research on this thread and write it up into an article of whatever length.

No Shijing you are right. I think when we are finally done, a 'presentable format' would be the next likely step.

I also agree that it's a natural next step once we're done. It would be helpful to have everything summarized in one place. Writing an article could end up drawing attention from the Icke camp, so it's something we have to approach with care. But it's definitely doable.
 
Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

Argonaut said:
anart said:
Considering Patsy's public life and history (being Miss West Virginia and competing in Miss American in 1977), she's fairly easy to track, so I think you might want to remember to NOT believe everything you read.

Oh, definitely. Patsy's history was on my mind too as I read this person's theory. And his claim to personally know of individuals who have been placed in multiple roles is iffy at best, since it's just his word. Also, this was a forum post on Above Top Secret. Not exactly a fount of reliable info. So I don't believe his claim, but I do wonder if it may be possible.

If you don't believe it then why do you wonder if it might be possible?

By the way, looking for reliable information or ideas on abovetopsecret is kind of like looking for uncompromising truth in the US Congress. Discernment, argonaut - it really is important. ;)
 
Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

Argonaut said:
Writing an article could end up drawing attention from the Icke camp...

Oh, absolutely :) But I think with some forethought, we could figure out the best place for it so as to maximize the value to the world and minimize the crossfire. Assuming that it would be written objectively and respectfully, not with the intention to smear but to just lay the facts out as they have fallen out on this thread, I think the biggest decisions would be where to post it and how the authors identify themselves. If you had reservations posting it outside the forum on a blog (or some other venue) under your own names, then it could always be posted right here on the forum. If people in the Icke camp got their feathers ruffled, then they would need to register in order to lodge their grievances, and as you know we have a pretty robust mechanism to deal with new members who come here with an agenda. If they wanted to have a discussion about it, they would have to adhere to the forum rules.
 
Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

anart said:
Argonaut said:
anart said:
Considering Patsy's public life and history (being Miss West Virginia and competing in Miss American in 1977), she's fairly easy to track, so I think you might want to remember to NOT believe everything you read.

Oh, definitely. Patsy's history was on my mind too as I read this person's theory. And his claim to personally know of individuals who have been placed in multiple roles is iffy at best, since it's just his word. Also, this was a forum post on Above Top Secret. Not exactly a fount of reliable info. So I don't believe his claim, but I do wonder if it may be possible.

If you don't believe it then why do you wonder if it might be possible?

I was confused about your question at first, because to me "belief" means definitely thinking it's true, whereas to wonder if it's possible means ambivalence. So the question seemed nonsensical. But I know you wouldn't ask a nonsensical question. So I reflected on it for a bit. And now I get it, I think. To wonder about something is to give it thought and energy, which means there must be some degree of belief. In truth, I think this guy's claim is ridiculous, because I looked at the photos/videos and the "resemblance" between the two women is iffy at best. Their noses look different, their eyes are different, etc. But I wanted to be "open minded" about it. I wanted to be "fair." Now I'm starting to see that I was undiscerning, because the claim is blatantly silly. It didn't even deserve a second thought.

[quote author=anart]

By the way, looking for reliable information or ideas on abovetopsecret is kind of like looking for uncompromising truth in the US Congress. Discernment, argonaut - it really is important. ;)

[/quote]

And that's the other thing. The claim is not only ridiculous, the source is untrustworthy - and I KNEW this. This undiscerning "open-mindedness" seems to be a big program in me, masquerading as a positive trait. If some guy claimed that Wilder was really a shaved sasquatch, would I "wonder" about that one as well? Discernment is definitely something I need to work on. Thanks. :)
 
Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

Shijing said:
Argonaut said:
Writing an article could end up drawing attention from the Icke camp...

Assuming that it would be written objectively and respectfully, not with the intention to smear but to just lay the facts out as they have fallen out on this thread [...]

I think it would be the most respectful and objective to focus solely on his ideas, sources, etc... only mentioning his personal traits when they directly relate. For instance, since he claims to be fully awakened and basically "One with God," we can bring up personal traits which cast doubt on this claim. It might be best to just present it as "why David Icke and the Cass material are incompatible." It could answer questions that a Cass member may have, in a format that very few could find fault with - even from the Icke camp.

[quote author=Shijing]

[...] I think the biggest decisions would be where to post it and how the authors identify themselves. If you had reservations posting it outside the forum on a blog (or some other venue) under your own names, then it could always be posted right here on the forum. If people in the Icke camp got their feathers ruffled, then they would need to register in order to lodge their grievances, and as you know we have a pretty robust mechanism to deal with new members who come here with an agenda. If they wanted to have a discussion about it, they would have to adhere to the forum rules.

[/quote]

I agree that posting it on the forum would be a good idea. Posting it elsewhere on the Web may be okay, but it might also be going too far. The purpose would be to help Cass members who are unsure about Icke, not to write a general article for the public, osit. Although I suppose we could write a separate article for each purpose. No matter what, "be wise as serpents and innocent as doves" would definitely apply to this project.
 
Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

Argonaut said:
It might be best to just present it as "why David Icke and the Cass material are incompatible." It could answer questions that a Cass member may have, in a format that very few could find fault with - even from the Icke camp.

I think that would be a perfect central theme, and you have a lot of background to back it up with, with all the digging you and E have done about Icke's sources like Mutwa, Wilder, and so on.

Argonaut said:
I agree that posting it on the forum would be a good idea. Posting it elsewhere on the Web may be okay, but it might also be going too far. The purpose would be to help Cass members who are unsure about Icke, not to write a general article for the public, osit. Although I suppose we could write a separate article for each purpose. No matter what, "be wise as serpents and innocent as doves" would definitely apply to this project.

Sure -- since I'm not the one doing it, I think you should put it up however and wherever you feel most comfortable. It would be very handy to have right here on the forum, and in lieu of posting it elsewhere, whoever wanted to place a link to the article here could always do so from another site.
 
Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

Shijing said:
Sure -- since I'm not the one doing it, I think you should put it up however and wherever you feel most comfortable. It would be very handy to have right here on the forum, and in lieu of posting it elsewhere, whoever wanted to place a link to the article here could always do so from another site.

That's true. We should set some limits based on common sense, external considering, etc. But that still leaves many options open.
 
Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

Ok, I'm going to take a stab at Icke's line of force.

As far as what Icke himself claims, his whole point - why he does what he does - revolves around helping people to realize their potential as multidimensional beings, and thus become free. According to him the key to this is understanding that Reality is vastly different from what we think. He uses what's going on in our "five-sense world" as an illustration of this - it's something a person can witness directly and comprehend. Once a person groks this aspect of things, the "Matrix's" hold on their minds loosens and they become open to seeing further. So in that way, Icke treats the conspiracy stuff like training wheels for a bicycle. It's a "teaching tool," nothing more.

Here is Icke's explanation at the end of Children of the Matrix:

David Icke said:
I have been talking throughout this book about the multi-dimensional nature of existence.
That makes it hard, indeed impossible, to give the true picture of what is happening in
our world, our frequency range.

I mean, what is true? Once you enter the realms of multi-dimensional reality, you
see that there is no ultimate truth, except that we are all the same energy expressing
itself in infinite ways.
After that we are pretty much through with "truth".
Everything else is not so much truth, but our perspective of what we see. Or think
we see. What is true in my universe will not necessarily be true in yours. What you
have been reading is my universe, my reality, at this point. Or, rather, one of my
realities. We are imprisoned by the belief that if one thing is "true" the opposite
can't be true. But it can, and it is. It's just that they come from different perspectives
of the same event. For instance, if the world is not perfect, how, at the same time,
can it also be perfect? But it can and it is. When you look at the world from the
Matrix perspective, it is far from perfect, whatever perfect is. We see untold
suffering, abuse, conflict, and sadness. So the reality that the world is not perfect is
valid and supportable. But how can we evolve and grow into greater knowledge,
wisdom, and understanding unless we face the consequences of our actions? We
can't. If a child had no consequences of his or her behaviour, they would not change
the behaviour and make different choices. What Creation does magnificently is to
put the consequences of our choices, or more accurately the intent behind those
choices, in front of our faces. This imperfect world is the consequence of human
choices, the choice of those who wish to control and destroy, and the choice of those
who sit back and let them do it, or close their minds to what is happening because
they think it is easier that way. So in terms of our evolutionary journey, Creation is
presenting the consequences of our action and inaction and, in doing so, it makes
the world we live in absolutely perfect because we are experiencing what we need
to experience. Two apparent opposites, but both are true. Life is a paradox, but then
again, it's not, because these are not paradoxes, they are different perspectives. They
are not contradictions, they are comprehensions.

I have been told from time to time that I am contradictory in what I say and do.
But I'm not. That is just those people's perspective. And if you judge a multidimensional
being from one perspective, you are going to see apparent contradictions.
As we judge
what a person says or does, do we ever ask which level, therefore perspective, those
words and actions are coming from? No, we see one person and make judgements as if they
are one person. But we are many "people". If I am reacting or seeing something in that
moment from the view of my Matrix-level holographic "physical" image, I am going to see
things a certain way. But, in another moment of reflection when I open up the connection to
my higher levels of being, I will see the same events and experiences in a very different
light. That's not contradiction, it is the comprehension of the level that is observing. If
you watch one of my talks you will see me moving realities as I go along, always culminating
in the ultimate reality that we are all one and that one is love. So I have written this book
from one perspective of reality and it offers, I would submit, an accurate theme of what is
happening in that reality. But it's not the only one, and I see this same theme and story
from many other realities. At the highest reality I have accessed thus far, it's all just a
game. A cosmic game called evolution, a game called love.

The Matrix is like a cinema screen and we are the cast in the picture. Or, as
"Shakespeare" put it, all the world's a stage and we are the players. If the reptilians
and other astral manipulators did not exist, we would have to invent them. In fact
we probably have. They are other levels of ourselves putting ourselves in our face.
They are a level of our own infinite self, one of our realities, that we are being
challenged to face and transform. If we hate them, we hate ourselves. They are our
shadow, that part of ourselves that we do not want to face, acknowledge, or admit
to. While our shadow self is hidden from us, the reptilians will stay hidden and
continue to covertly control. As we acknowledge it, so they will emerge and we
will see what is going on. One is a reflection of the other. The more we deny our
shadow side, the more the consequences will be placed before us because that's the
way the game works. The longer we stay in denial, the more powerful and
challenging the consequences become. That is our choice. See it now or see it later.
Because we are going to see it. The question is how extreme must be the
consequences before we do? In this movie, The Great Illusion, we play our parts in
mutual service to the cosmic game. If Richard Warman did not determine to silence
me and suppress my information, I would not have the challenge to overcome that
frustration and grow from it. If Richard Warman did not have me, he would not
face the consequences of his actions and learn from the experiences that Creation
will present to him. If journalists like Jason Cowley did not misrepresent me and
my work, I would not have the major challenge to disconnect from Matrix
reactions and, again, feel the frustration at what is written. Nor would I be given
such a wonderful opportunity to see how journalists defend and underpin the
Matrix mentality. If Cowley did not have me, as the evidence emerges to show the
validity of what he dismisses and ridicules, he would not have the opportunity to
see what a prison he lives in and perpetuates for others. If we did not have the
Illuminati, we could not experience the consequences of what happens when you
give your mind away to someone else's reality and insist that everyone else does
the same. If the Illuminati did not have the human race, they could not face the
coming consequences of seeking to impose their will on others. We are all
providing experiences for each other. In fact, we are providing them for ourselves
because we are everything. There is no us and no them and no "we". There is only
one infinite "I". We are the reptilians and the "demons" and, at the same time, we
are those they manipulate because we are all the same "I".

So what I have presented here is one level of the Cosmic Game - the point where
the game interacts with dense physical reality. It is not the whole story, only part of it.
The challenge of the game is to see that it's a game. Once we do that and see
through the illusion, we hit the jackpot, the doorway opens, and we get out of here.

We can still be in it physically, but we are no longer of it. The experiences my life
have set before me since 1991 particularly, often extreme and played out in the
public eye in Britain, have not yet freed me from the Matrix. But they have made
me free-er than ever before. And I'll get there. I have yet to meet anyone who is
fully free of the illusion because we look it in the face every minute of our lives. I
have met many who think they are, but they are just caught in another facet of the
illusion. They are entrapped by the illusion that they are free of the illusion while
continuing to be controlled by it.
The more I disentangle my lower mind from the
Matrix, the crazier and more extreme people think I am. But I'm not crazy and
extreme. That is only the perception of those mesmerised by the Matrix and if only
they could step back and observe the world they believe is "normal" and "sane",
they would see just how extreme and crazy that is.

In my experience, and that's all I can speak from, the first step to freedom is to
realise that we live an illusion.
Without that, the Matrix always wins. Doing this is
not easy when everything seems so "real". Our senses deceive us and confuse us
because they are accessing such a tiny fraction of all that is. If our radio and
television could only tune to CNN or the BBC we would get a very narrow band of
reality. It would be a desperately limited and biased vision of life and possibility.
There would be so much that we would never know about. Our physical senses
disinform us in the same way, unless we balance that by opening ourselves to our
higher frequencies of perception and intuition that can recognise an illusion when
they see one. So the foundation of freedom from the Matrix mentality is to know
that we live in a dream world created by our own minds and those who condition
them.
More and more, I look at the physical world and see it as vibrating energy.
The numbers and codes in the Matrix movie is a good way to visualise it. I find
that this constantly re-confirms to me that I live in a virtual reality computer game
and what we see is whatever we think we see or are told we see. It keeps me on my
guard against falling for the Matrix mentality. When you perceive those who
harass you and situations that challenge you as merely vibrating numbers and
codes, it takes the sting from the experience and your emotional response because
you can see it's not real.
You know you are like the guy in the computer game
dodging the bullets fired by a spotty-faced 15-year-old sitting in his bedroom hour
after hour. If you get hit, the game just starts again. No one's really dead. They just
play dead and then continue their eternity. We live forever. We are the players in
the game and we are those controlling the game and observing the game. We are
the game. As Bill Hicks said of life:

"It's like a ride in an amusement park and when you go on it you think it's real,
because that's how powerful our minds are. The ride goes up and down, round and
round, it has thrills and chills, and it's very brightly coloured and it's very loud. And
it's fun for a while. Some have been on the ride a long time and they begin to
question: Is this real, or is this just a ride? And others have remembered and they
come back to us and they say: Hey, don't be afraid ever, because this is just a ride.
And we kill those people.

"Shut him up, I've got a lot invested in this ride, shut him up. Look at my furrows of
worry, my big bank account, and my family. This has to be real. It's just a ride, but we
always kill those good guys who try to tell us that and let the demons run amok. But
it doesn't matter because it's just a ride and we can change it anytime we want. No
job, no savings money, just a choice right now between fear and love."

And that's all it is. Fear in all its infinite expressions like guilt and resentment
and a desire for revenge, is the low-vibrational emotion that holds us in the pen, the
Great Illusion. Love, in its purest sense, is our highest vibrational state and one that
connects us with the highest level of all that is. All that we are. That transformation
of perspective, from fear to love, vibrates us out of the Matrix mentality and we step
out of the game and out of the illusion that it's all "real".
If you observe parts of this
book, particularly the chapter, The Gatekeepers, you will feel my Matrix level, my
holographic image, screaming inside with frustration at the way we control and
imprison each other. That's one reality and a valid one from that point of
observation. But when I open my heart to the love vibration and open my mind to
acknowledge the illusion, the frustration dissolves because it's just a game, just a
ride, just a movie of our own making. We can make it a nice picture or a horror film.
That's our choice. It is, always was, and will always be.

Based on the above, coupled with my reading so far in his autobiography, I'm starting to see that there is no sharp division between the mindset of "David of old" and Icke as he is currently. The differences appear to be merely a change in his methods for achieving the same end.

David Icke's line of force - according to him - is to set people's minds free from the illusion of separation. And from other things he's written he seems to hope that this will ultimately lead to "peace and harmony" - for the sake of both humanity and the Planet itself. He feels that a "shift" is coming (you know the drill) and that individuals like himself have chosen to incarnate at this time to help humanity prepare for it. His books are how he claims to be carrying out this duty.

But as we've already seen, Icke is severely deluded at best. I'm 3/4 through his autobiography now, and at this point I honestly don't think he's pathological. Throughout his account he's driven, prodded, and manipulated from place to place, encounter to encounter, via "signs," "amazing coincidences," prophecies that came true, euphoric experiences, etc. He's constantly told things by psychics, astrologers, and hyperdimensional sources, which he accepts - not because of any objective criteria - but because the high strangeness seems to confirm it for him. I think Icke has a sincere urge to "do something" about the state of the world, but also a tendency to be extremely gullible. He's the fool who "rushes in where angels fear to tread." He also has quite a large ego. And it appears that these weaknesses have been exploited to the hilt. And although Icke's primary (stated) goal hasn't changed since his old days, Icke himself HAS. He has become far less humble, far less gentle. It's as if whatever's been using him has eaten away at him over the years.

And his allowing for this "takeover" - this surrendering of his free will - is justified by him in the autobiography. In the following excerpt, explaining his "turquoise period," note that the person "Mari Shawsun" is the psychic Deborah Shaw, with whom Icke became deeply involved and eventually fathered a child.

David Icke said:
By now the change in me that I had experienced so strongly after that deep sleep on the floor of Mari's lounge was gathering pace all the time. I just didn't feel like me anymore. As I have said, it was like being hypnotised. We accept that it is possible for one person to hypnotise another, but it is also possible for our conscious level to be hypnotised by our sub-conscious and upper-conscious levels, if (and this is the point) all levels are in close enough synchronisation. In my case, that part of us I call "the brakes" which sees things coming and says "I can see where this will lead - no thanks," was no longer part of the decision-making process. It was the same as when you channel information. Your own personality takes a step backwards to allow other energies to come in and use your body as a vehicle to bring information down to this physical level. This is how I was feeling most of the time and it was the higher levels of my mind preparing to "take over" and make sure some extraordinary but necessary situations would unfold in a very public way.. A great deal of energy channelling was done around Canada and I just got higher and higher and further and further away from the driving seat. I took some automatic writing which said I was a "Son of the Godhead" which even at that time and in that state, I found astonishing. What exactly was meant by a Son of the Godhead I had no idea, but I accepted it because by now I would have accepted almost anything.

[...]

It also came through on that visit to Canada that Mari was being asked to return with me to live with my family in England and channel information for the next book, Love Changes Everything. [...] I had taken some automatic writing, backed up by Mari, which said I should announce to the world that I was a Son of the Godhead. The David Icke I had come to know would have said, "Up yours, sunshine," but by now he was at the back of the bus trying to make sense of what was happening at the front. My voice of "reason" was not in control. So I told them and the die was well and truly cast.

[...]

More communications said we should call a press conference and tell everyone what was going to happen to the world. We were also to dress in turquoise all the time! I know that colours had an effect on the energies and that turquoise was particularly effective so, again, I went along with it. The "take-over" of the rational me was now at its peak and it needed to be, I can tell you, to stand up in front of a room of tabloid journalists and announce not only that you were a Son of the Godhead, whatever that meant, but also a long list of fantastic geological events compiled overwhelmingly by Mari Shawsun. All this would happen, I said confidently, before the end of 1991. Standing there was a weird, unreal experience. I was speaking the words, but all the time I could hear the voice of the brakes in the background saying: "David, what the hell are you saying? This is absolute nonsense."

It made no difference, though, and the words just kept coming out. This was in line with that early communication which said: "Sometimes he will say things and wonder where they came from. They will be our words." The lower self, the "brakes," the personality called David Icke, stepped aside and the higher levels of the mind came in to make things happen that needed to happen for the plan to stay on course. If the higher self had not intervened in such a powerful and extraordinary way, I would not have done all that was to follow in the early months of 1991.

My feeling is that when you take on work on behalf of the whole, you have agreed to that before incarnation and our free will is somehow more limited than when you are here to deal only or mainly with personal karma and evolution. This is understandable when you think of the critical state the Earth is in and how little time there is to prevent a catastrophe. What needs to be done must be done by those who have agreed to come to trigger and ease the transformation of people and planet. In my case the Grand Cross ensures that the show stays on the road.

[...]

These times were sheer agony as I would survey the wreckage of my life, blown apart in less than two months. Talk about confusion. But there was no time to sit and think and try to work out what was happening. Always there were communications saying "Go here," "Do that." There was so much information it was impossible to process and analyze. It was like being blown along in a typhoon.

[...]

People also commented on how exhausted I looked in the papers and on television. This was because the energies working through me were so powerful my physical body was working flat out to cope.

[...]

Joan came to the Isle of Wight in the autumn to help to check the information in Love Changes Everything, which I compiled from information channelled by Mari over a period of three months, plus some other communications. When the book was complete Mari left to continue her life elsewhere and when she left, something left me also. Almost within hours of her departure I could feel my old self return in full. The brakes were back, the mist had cleared and the veil had lifted. I might have put this down to imagination, except that all my close friends were saying to Linda how nice it was to have "the old David back." Others said how I was even looking like my old self again. On reflection, that was the moment the experience came to an end for both myself and Linda and coping with the consequences of it were now to begin.

So there it is. Under the delusion that his own "higher self" (aided by astrology) guides his steps, Icke became a willing vessel for something else's control. And throughout his account, red flag after red flag pops up, and Icke makes excuses for every one (the same excuse each time, actually). Also note how Mari Shawsun's presence seemed linked to the "taken-over" state Icke was in. He himself uses the words "hypnotised," "mist," and "veil" to describe the state he was in while Mari was with him. He states how the whole thing started with "that deep sleep on the floor of Mari's lounge" and ended "almost within hours of her departure." And yet he fails to see any connection whatsoever.

After reading things like this all through his autobiography, Icke seems to be quite a tragic figure - someone who deeply cares and wants to do good, but who is being used instead for evil due to his own weaknesses. I think he's correct that he was "specially chosen." His life does seem to show that much. But he's gotten the details completely backwards. These ideas of "higher self" and astrological predestination were fed to him, and by trusting these lies he handed himself over on a silver platter.

Icke is unknowingly talking about himself when he says:

I have yet to meet anyone who is
fully free of the illusion because we look it in the face every minute of our lives. I
have met many who think they are, but they are just caught in another facet of the
illusion. They are entrapped by the illusion that they are free of the illusion while
continuing to be controlled by it.

And he will never realize that he's a victim of this trap himself.

[EDIT - typos]
 
Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

I would say that a "line of force" is something more subtle - like the driving impetus behind the stated claims. And the line of force in Icke's work is toward inducing delusions.
 
Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

Laura said:
I would say that a "line of force" is something more subtle - like the driving impetus behind the stated claims. And the line of force in Icke's work is toward inducing delusions.

The major subtle message I can think of is: You can wake up on your own - using your current thinking process - by simply believing the ideas in his books and thinking positive. And then you're fully protected from attack, feeding, or vectoring of any kind. Am I close? :)
 
Back
Top Bottom