Jeff Rense EXPOSED!!

[Magus]

What Rense.com is not talking about

Bonjour, Gentle Sibling Forumites and Reader Friends,

In reply to the somewhat heated exception one Forum poster seems to have taken to Lucy's descriptions of Pamela Ickes's appearance and behaviours, the observations did not seem to be at all tainted by Lucy's own "judgements" or other subjective reactions. To this trained behavioural analyst and observer, the post seemed quite objective, and it was very informative. She wrote with the same eye and clinical detachment that would be used by a skilled professional psychologist, IMO. I have in fact read far less clear, concise and neutral descriptions than Lucy's that were written by professionals.

Donald J. Hunt's remarks to this point were spot on. To what he wrote, I would add that Lucy's keen observations need to be viewed in the context of clinical, psychological data, to avoid having them again be misconstrued. As psychological, clinical observations, noted with well-maintained objectivity throughout, Lucy's descriptions were far removed from either like or dislike. They were very informative precisely because they did include the kind of socio-cultural observations, the "stage setting" that is utterly essential to conveying such information meaningfully. In point of fact Lucy's post does present a clinically significant behavioural profile which strongly suggests the presence of characteropathy, or worse.

There is little that can or will be more revealing of underlying disorders of character, or personality, than an individual's behaviours and social interactions within a group, and this is doubly true of those behaviours displayed in public. Recall, please, that we, most of us, are going to be on our "best behaviour" whenever we are in the public's eye. To the maximum degree of which we are capable and the fullest extent to which we have knowledge of what is considered acceptable within the surrounding socio-cultural context, we will do our best to be acceptable, likable and "presentable." Someone who displays a wide variety of behaviours, expressions, dress, grooming and other mannerisms that are at odds with that context, is either deliberately seeking to be provocative, or else is incapable of adapting and/or controlling his/her behaviour well enough to remain within the norms, or both. Major sources of grossly inappropriate socio-cultural interactions and responses are cognitive and emotive deficiencies or derrangements. These can be either organic or induced impairments affecting those areas of the brain, or those capacities for thought, which would normally facilitate the individual's essential abilities to accurately absorb and mirror what the society views to be "polite" and "good" public behaviour.

We Human Beings almost invariably have three distinctly different sets of behaviours: the first level behavioural set is engaged when we are "on stage," in public places and/or in the company of those who are not our intimate friends or family members, and usually we will put our "best foot" forward, behaviourally, whenever we are "on stage." The second set are the range of less formal, to distinctly informal, to downright intimate "off stage" behaviours that we share with our close associates, friends, families and significant others. The third set is that which we reveal only to and with ourselves, when we are alone and feel certain that we are not being observed. We, most of us, cannot divorce ourselves from this three-tiered behavioural reality. What we can do is to decide whether or not we will develop the level of self-awareness to know it, observe it, keep it as honest as is humanly possible at all times, in all three behavioural modes, and to have the personal integrity to admit it, at the very least to ourselves, when we fail in that lofty goal of maintaining our essential honesty in and with all persons and situations.

Lucy noted, with remarkable precision, exactly those behaviours, in Pamela Ickes, that are indeed cause for those with a good knowledge of psychology to sit up and take notice. What she has described are a set of strong indicators that something is deeply amiss, and they were behavioural warning signs that she indeed should not have disregarded, and did not. At the least, IMO, Lucy's post about Pamela Ickes presents a good example of how to describe the surroundings and social contexts that are essential to accurately conveying complex behavioural observations. It was a good job of making and reporting detached, factual, precise and truly clinical-quality observations of a person who presented with a disturbingly atypical and/or inappropriate affect and response to the surrounding environment and stimuli, during very public appearances planned well in advance.

I now return to the topic of Mr. Rense. Having read the C.V. particulars that Maestra Laura has so wisely requested from him, it will be most interesting, as the days pass into weeks, to See whether any reply is forthcoming, and, if so, what it contains.

A thought had begun to "tickle" at my mind regarding "Jeff Rense" a while back, and Maestra Laura's C.V. request is decidedly a step in the right direction, IMHO. One begins to wonder if he may possibly be one of Cointelpro's "constructed" characters, a "front" that has been built of aether and wholecloth. Is it possible that the "Jeff Rense" persona might actually be a collaborative and/or pseudonymic effort, and another prime example of the intricate Cointelpro Business of Lies and Subterfuges? It strikes me that, as is the apparent case with one "Christian Bailey," there is with Mr. Rense an enigmatic lack of direct, verified participation in public activities, of old photos or documents, to soundly establish the records of a real man who has for a lifetime had "Jeff Rense" as his legal, "belly button" identity.

The history given at the web site, of his pre-web-site years, asserting his apparently outstanding achievements in both broadcast and press journalism, has evidently not been verifiable, and that is odd indeed. Those who've attempted to follow the leads provided in the claims made about Mr. Rense's past, on his web site, if I have understood the previous information posted in this thread correctly, have come up with nothing that is solidly documented. One wonders if we might then be looking at more "smoke and mirrors" in the Jeff Rense persona? Most intriguing.

What say you, Good Forumites and Reader Friends?

M

 

[Ruth]

What Rense.com is not talking about

In reply to the somewhat heated exception one Forum poster seems to have taken to Lucy's descriptions of Pamela Ickes's appearance and behaviours, the observations did not seem to be at all tainted by Lucy's own "judgements" or other subjective reactions. To this trained behavioural analyst and observer, the post seemed quite objective, and it was very informative. She wrote with the same eye and clinical detachment that would be used by a skilled professional psychologist, IMO. I have in fact read far less clear, concise and neutral descriptions than Lucy's that were written by professionals.

I for one would like to know what Lucy thinks Mrs Icke should be wearing... something more serious, perhaps, like a business suit or preistess robes.....ect, ect. This is now the burning question for me! It's a fashion question not a psychological question!

Could it be that people expect others to look or act a certain way? Are they meant to be the 'same' as their spouses? Come to think of it, many married couples are quite similar in the way they behave and look, rather than being different. I wonder if they are 'imprinting' on each other? Wouldn't it be odd if this was not the case for Mrs Icke.

 

[Fifth Way]

What Rense.com is not talking about

It's a fashion question not a psychological question!

Could it be that people expect others to look or act a certain way?

Maybe for you it is a fashion question. Personally, I like the hole cowboy/cowgirl look.

However you are missing the point here. I the context of this thread we are looking at the dress code in the context of extended COMMUNICATION and it's PSYCHOLOGICAL relevance and therewith has little to do with expectation.

 

[Guest]

What Rense.com is not talking about

I think Magus' take on this is very to the point. And so is Fifth Way's. The point is the whole of the person is noticed, and that includes what they are wearing, their little habits and mannerisms, the way they talk, BUT NOT ONLY THAT.

It is not that I stand for Mrs. icke, the only thing is that i dont like it when woman are judged upon what they are wearing. Like waering a cowgirl outfit doesnt make her serious.
And that is the whole point: you are only taking seriously if you are dressed propperly. And that means: not a cowgirl outfit because wearing that you cannot be serious. I guess Mrs. Icke is serious although others might find her not serious.

The point is OTHER things have pointed to Mrs. Icke not being sincere (she may very well BE serious). And that is also a point: Mrs. Icke is not what she seems either in appearance or ideas. Come on, there are a lot of flamboyant people expressing in this forum, and nobody judges them. We are describing the many faces of Mrs. Icke, through everything we know about her. And Lucy added her surface mannerisms and "look" in that assessment.

Manipulators often project a look to make an impression, and do so in a calculating fashion. It's useful to take that into account. Nobody is judging the Cowgirl look, IMO. I think it is interesting to compare immediate outward appearance with public image, to get a better idea of a person, but that does not mean one jumps to conclusions just from that.

Mrs. Icke could easily have been wearing a business suit, and acting quite solemn, and THAT could have been pointed out in comparison with real indicators that she is not sincere. GW Bush wears a suit, and projects an image of a normal guy of limited IQ, riding his bike and falling off, and making dumb statements. He is allegedly a devout Christian. Yet, the man is a very clever liar and a psychopath. His psychopathic profile is complemented by his normal guy religious image. We understand it better, so it pays to point it out. It does not make us predjudiced to do so.

United States Americans have been so besotted with political correctness that only affects people with a conscience, by the way, that those with a consciouse are afraid to think critically because of it, and those without do what they will. To me, this is a BAD thing.

And "serious" is not really the issue here, I think. It is sincerity. That Mrs. Icke is more than likely not sincere is indicated elsewhere. Her whole image (and it is projected image we are discussing), however, whether serious or not, qualifies and elaborates on the established (or at least highly likely) insincerity.

If you've ever been fooled, attacked, or hurt by a manipulator posing as sincere idealist, you would know that it is precisely upon guilt that these people play to get their way. Mrs. Icke could project this image of not being serious, to project playfulness, to make herself sympathetic, to be likeable and to trigger people like you to give her points (which you are even if you don't support her openly) when her sincerity comes into play.

You don't label someone a manipulator because of what they wear. You notice their tactics, and then look at what they wear to understand where that fits into the manipulator profile. If one exhibits traits of insincerity and manipulation, nothing they do or express is random.

Just think about the damage such manipulation can do compared to the damage of trying to understand a person in every way possible, including external appearance. In the first case there is malice, and in the second case there isn't. Making observations such as Lucys, taboo subjects, is nothing less than imposing censorship on others, and assuming that all such observations are based on biased judgment.

Where did I say that the Universe or creation was perfect?
Even better I think the universe is not perfect.

And where did I say that I disagreed with this? I was emphasizing what is a truth here. BECAUSE the universe is not perfect, we are not perfect, and must understand before we judge. And this includes judging what we think are the judgments of others. There is evidence that Mrs. Icke is not on the level. The observation of her external appearance was a comparison with THAT assessment, not a cause of it. I just wanted to say that you see judgment where there is observation.

Perhaps Lucy should have qualified her sentence by stating that she is not judging appearance. But think on it. If we take that route to its extremes we will be constantly second-guessing ourselves, making exuses for everything we say, and getting nowhere.

Maybe there was some bias in what Lucy said. Maybe not. If you look at the context of the discussion previous to that statement, however, (as has been pointed out by others) you can see that you read much more into her statement than what others did, because you took it in isolation. And you have become the judge based on appearances, just as you accuse Lucy to be.

 

[mareiki]

What Rense.com is not talking about

Mrs. Icke could project this image of not being serious, to project playfulness, to make herself sympathetic, to be likeable and to trigger people like you to give her points

Well thanks Esoquest for this sentence. You just dont know how I think about Mrs. Icke. You just dont. So better you leave that alone. I agree it is a quostion about sincerety! I totaly agree but........I dont care what Mrs. Icke wears in those circumstances, I sense her incorectnes even through the net if I see pictures of her let alone if I would see her, feel her, better talk with her................................
Because that is what i have learned trhough the years and years.................
'To read between the lines'
And to trust what I feel when seeing someone!!!

For now I have said enough about this.
So for me the discussion is closed.

 

[Guest]

What Rense.com is not talking about

I understand you want this discussion closed, but it's hard for me to leave it on a misunderstanding. So let me clarify it for the record. I completely understand you may not want to even consider viewing someone's outward behaviour as contributing to any extent in the understanding of their psychology.

You quoted me out of context. I was saying what Mrs. Icke COULD be doing, using her outward dress and behaviour to present an image, that to you might pass off as innocent. You thought I was telling you how you think. What I was generally pointing out is that you cannot presume that Lucy's comment came from a prejudical perspective.

Regarding the assessment of others you may be well able to read between the lines and leave it at that. Others, however, may want and need to make further observations, and these can be valid. For me judging someone as intolerant, when they were being observant, is practicing intolerance. And this, I felt, should be pointed out. I'm sorry you took this view as some kind of presumptuous affront.

 

[Laura]

What Rense.com is not talking about

For now I have said enough about this.
So for me the discussion is closed.

Excellent! Now the rest of us can carry on.

There is little that can or will be more revealing of underlying disorders of character, or personality, than an individual's behaviours and social interactions within a group, and this is doubly true of those behaviours displayed in public. Recall, please, that we, most of us, are going to be on our "best behaviour" whenever we are in the public's eye. To the maximum degree of which we are capable and the fullest extent to which we have knowledge of what is considered acceptable within the surrounding socio-cultural context, we will do our best to be acceptable, likable and "presentable." Someone who displays a wide variety of behaviours, expressions, dress, grooming and other mannerisms that are at odds with that context, is either deliberately seeking to be provocative, or else is incapable of adapting and/or controlling his/her behaviour well enough to remain within the norms, or both. Major sources of grossly inappropriate socio-cultural interactions and responses are cognitive and emotive deficiencies or derrangements. These can be either organic or induced impairments affecting those areas of the brain, or those capacities for thought, which would normally facilitate the individual's essential abilities to accurately absorb and mirror what the society views to be "polite" and "good" public behaviour.

Indeed this is the case. Years ago when I was doing hypnotherapy under the tutelage of a very fine psychologist, I had the opportunity to read a great many case records. Among the primary list of things to be noted about the individual was grooming, appropriateness of dress, (and here appropriateness was evaluated according to season, locale, and even AGE appropriateness. An old woman who might come in dressed like a sex bomb or a little girl was duly noted and this style was a very good way to tell a great many things about the individual. A young girl who dressed seductively in a way that was inappropriate to her age was gave very good indicators of problems.

Also many years ago, I had a psych professor (Dr. Rose Frank) who discussed this matter during one class session and said that clothing and hairstyle were similar to message flags that ships fly... I've never forgotten that metaphor - and one should be careful what flags one flies.

For the wife of a guy promoting the weird message that Icke is trying to further, and be taken seriously, to dress up in a costume tells us a great deal about how seriously SHE takes the subject.

 

[Ruth]

What Rense.com is not talking about

However you are missing the point here. I the context of this thread we are looking at the dress code in the context of extended COMMUNICATION and it's PSYCHOLOGICAL relevance and therewith has little to do with expectation.

Then what do you do when you come across somebody who doesn't care how they appear to others? Or a person who doesn't know they are 'supposed' to be dressing (and behaveing) a certain way?

How can 'dress code in the context of extended communication and its psychological relevance' not have anything to do with expectation - especially for anyone who is judging the way someone dresses and behaves and relating it to something else. It is very subjective and is often in the eyes of the beholder. Besides, I think Lucy said it was not what she expected.

Much of what we learn about humans is an objective look at their subjective behaviour (and even our own). I don't think we can do better than that especially for research.

 

[Laura]

What Rense.com is not talking about

Then what do you do when you come across somebody who doesn't care how they appear to others? Or a person who doesn't know they are 'supposed' to be dressing (and behaveing) a certain way?

This one is quite obvious, Ruth. I'm surprised you don't see it.

Generally, you can assume that this is an individual who is moving in an egotistic or autistic direction, caring for no one but themselves.

Making observations and assessments of everything in our reality is part and parcel of learning the lessons of this density which we speculate are the things that must be accomplished in order to move to the next one. As we speculate, this can be done one of two ways: via the STO path or the STS path.

And this brings us to what the Shaykh Ibn al-'Arabi calls "perspicacity." This is the special development of the "eye of insight," or "seeing the unseen" that is crucial to the Seeker. Just as the physical eye, with the refraction of light from the Sun, can discern between the large and the small, the beautiful and the ugly, colors, the moving from the still, high and low, the ability to see the unseen is a property of an "inner light." This light reveals to the seeker things about external objects that are NOT apparent to the five senses. It reveals to its possessor when a choice that may appear to be benevolent, is a step on the path of Evil. It reveals when a choice that may appear to human estimation as negative is actually a difficult step to felicity for all involved.

The Sufis tell us that some individuals have achieved such a level of "seeing" that - upon seeing a person's footprint on the ground, even if the person is not present - they are able to say whether he is following a life of felicity or wretchedness.

The light of perspicacity seems to be a gift that not everyone has, and those who do have it, may not have developed it to the same degree. What is evident is that those who have it possess an immutable nature of Being which is able to "see" good and evil - they do not see "only good." Thus, they are able to discern between the "calls" of Nonbeing and Being, and therefore, are able to strengthen their Will along the path of intrinsic Being. It then follows that individuals who are not able to see - or who choose not to see - both Good and Evil, are formed in the mold of subjectivity, which is the human expression of the Call of Non-being.

The C's have said that the important thing about a person, in terms of esoteric development is:

"Who you are and WHAT YOU SEE."

SEEing = perspicacity.

And what you see, combined with who you are, determines what you DO.

Let me quote a bit from Secret History:

It is at this point that we begin to understand the idea of esotericism better. Esotericism is the accessing of facts and actions that are accessible to the field of consciousness of the Soul. When we consider our state in the "real world," we find that this is a very difficult path.

Knowledge is everywhere, but most of it is external to us. When we pour something into a cup, it can only contain an amount equal to its capacity. We are only able to understand according to the capacity of our Being. To be able to evolve esoterically, we must constantly seek to enlarge and enhance our Being, to develop the "vessel."

Esotericism seeks to develop consciousness of the Divine. The problem is that our consciousness is, for the most part, simply a program that runs in our machine. The higher consciousness that is sought in terms of ascension is the real "I" or the soul; it is the theorized permanent point that exists within us throughout many incarnations. This real "I" is something like an impartial referee whose small voice is mostly obscured in the roar of external events and personality programs. Nevertheless, it is this tiny spark of the real self that is the seed of the possibility of esoteric development.

Most human beings rarely - if ever - experience contact with the real "I." Yet, the personality pretends that it has achieved this level of consciousness. We should note that an individual who has actually reached such a level of firm contact and expansion of the real "I" will also possess attributes such as the ability to accurately judge the consequences of his or her actions, the constant exercise of his own will, an ability to do - to initiate acausal events - as well as a bearing or attitude that is consistent with itself in all situations and conditions. Most of all, such a person does not lie to himself.

An objective examination of many of those who claim such qualities is sufficient to demolish such pretensions.

There is so vast a chasm between the qualities that people ascribe to themselves, and what they can really DO, that careful consideration of this point ought to be undertaken before one attaches belief to any such claims or any such teacher.

Nevertheless, to establish contact with the higher self, for lack of a better term, this very small seed of the soul connection that exists within us is the object of esoteric science.

It seems that the only people who have a real hope of accomplishing this process are those who are "bankrupted." In other words, all the beliefs, all the programs, all the lies that have been part of the self from childhood, must collapse or be stripped away.

We are all corrupted by the exterior world of matter - the domain of Non-being and its gravitational lures. Even when experience contradicts what a person believes about him or herself, they are seldom able to make the cause and effect connection because of the serious deficiencies that are programmed into us from birth.

We generally explain our failures as "lack of will." What people do not realize is that failure is not generally due to a lack of will or desire, but to a lack of BEING. It is only with the development of BEING that we begin to understand the knowledge we have acquired. Only then, with understanding combined with BEING, do we have the ability to Do.

Our personality is the interface between our body and spirit. Because of the nature of our reality, the personality is mostly "programs" of the flesh, or genetic body so to say. The Machine runs on the "do it again principle." Most contemporary human beings are far more concerned about "experiences" that give them a buzz than they are about their Being.

The intimate relationship of the personality to the physical body and its interactive programs is little understood, yet it is crucial to development of the "I" that is more than a "ghost in the machine." We can note that when the average person experiences serious pain, all of their noble instincts fly out the window. Some people, of course, have the ability to master pain and to work on no matter what. They are considered to be heroic, and it is certainly a similar nature that succeeds in esoteric work. It is not a path for the weak.

The interdependence of the personality and the body - the machine which we have to operate with in this reality - leads us to the logical conclusion that it is this very machine and its programs that are most important for us to study in order to learn perspicacity, to learn to distinguish between the real and the false.

It is at this point that we begin to learn about the "tolerances" of our machine. We begin to discover that we spend most of our time swinging between action and reaction with no real input of the true "I." We discover that we have an ideal image of ourselves that has very little foundation in actual fact or "results." However, we cover all of this up by "faith" in our ideal image and our lies that we ARE that illusory self.

We come back to the fact that we attribute to ourselves qualities that we do not possess because if we possessed them, our lives would exactly mirror our image of ourselves. Our lies about what is really happening in our lives are what we use to "patch up" our egos with rationalizations and justifications, all of which conceal from us the fact that we cannot really DO anything because we have no Being.

Generally, to avoid facing the pain of this realization, people will take drugs of both the chemical and spiritual variety. It is only a matter of type and degree.

An individual who has undertaken the process of developing perspicacity in terms of the self, once he has learned to discern between his lies to himself and what is true about himself, can then begin to extend this ability to external knowledge. At that point, the information and observations he or she has been collecting without prejudice will make a "knowledge unit-ligand." When that happens, when a "piece of the puzzle" finally jumps into the right slot of understanding, THEN a whole cascade of things begins to happen just as it happens in the body when a ligand binds receptors.

The objective of acquiring perspicacity, then, is to utilize it to "see the unseen." The best way to begin to learn this is to practice on simple things and find a way to get feedback. A small example is to observe the way a person dresses or behaves in certain circumstances, and then to try to find out more so that one can check the assessment.

We should know that everything is written on the human face; but one must know how to read it. The same goes for the human body; its attitudes, its behaviour, its walk, or the poses it strikes in different situations, all betray the inner content of the man.

Learning to "read" these things is a primary aim of esoteric work.

Magus notes above, and I have experiences that confirm it, that psychological evaluations consist of assessments that include external appearance and "affect," or behavior in response to the environment, including the people in the environment.

So again, what to think about a person who simply does not care.

How can 'dress code in the context of extended communication and its psychological relevance' not have anything to do with expectation - especially for anyone who is judging the way someone dresses and behaves and relating it to something else. It is very subjective and is often in the eyes of the beholder. Besides, I think Lucy said it was not what she expected.

Certainly it was not what Lucy expected. She probably thought that Icke was serious. It was the dress and behavior of the wife that gave a clue to the underlying reality and helped Lucy to "see the unseen".

Now, keep in mind here that assessment is not JUDGMENT. Many people seem to lack a clear understanding of the term, and this relates, again, to a psychopathic program imposed on normal people by our society. We are so afraid of being labeled "judgmental" that we fail to assess and use information to make important choices of what to do, who to associate with, and so on.

How many times have you met someone whose appearance or behavior put you off and you argued with yourself "oh, I'm just being judgmental... I don't want to be judgmental, so I'll just shove that feeling under the rug and go ahead and interact with this person openly..." to your great regret later??? Well, I have done it more than once.

I finally "got it" that there is a HUGE difference between assessing and assigning probabilities and "judgment."

Judgment implies a legal relationship, where one has the power to inflict punishment on another and does so. A Judge determines "guilt or innocence." That's not what we are talking about here.

It is perfectly okay for a person to be egoistic, to be autistic, to not care about anyone else.

It is also perfectly okay for another person to avoid interactions with the first person or to limit contact or the influence of that first person in his or her life.

Is that judgment?

No. It is making a choice based on an assessment based on experience and collected and shared knowledge.

When instincts are strong, we intuitively recognize the innate predator by scent, sight, and hearing... we anticipate its presence, hear it approaching, and take steps to turn it away.

In the instinct-injured the predator is upon them before they register its presence due to the many programs that have been created as the underpinning of our social experience, generally designed by psychopaths to make us vulnerable. One of these is "if you make an assessment and choice to not get involved, you are being judgmental."

We have been taught to be nice, to behave, to be blind, and to be misused.

The young and the injured are uninitiated. Neither knows much about the dark predator and are, therefore, credulous. But, fortunately, when the predator is on the move, it leaves behind unmistakable tracks in dreams. (or in appearance and behavior) These tracks eventually lead to its discovery, capture and containment.

Wild Ways teaches people when not to act 'nice' about protecting their souls. The instinctive nature knows that being 'sweet' in these instances only makes the predator smile. When the soul is being threatened, it is not only acceptable to draw the line and mean it, it is required.

Pinkola Estes, June 1997; Ballantine Books ISBN: 0345409876

And in the case of Icke and wife and cowboy outfits and "bopping around," it all seems to fit.

 

[Fifth Way]

What Rense.com is not talking about

It is very subjective and is often in the eyes of the beholder.

... for the untrained eye (insight)! This is what the forum is for - to train yourself. Of course it is just an offer. Whether you are willing to take and utilize the offer is up to you. Magnus, Eso and Laura elaborated on it very clearly and broke it down for you.

Much of what we learn about humans is an objective look at their subjective behaviour (and even our own). I don't think we can do better than that especially for research.

...and that very believe could be the root of a limitation.
Maybe the Discernment thread would be a good read for you ("Crisis of the Republic" and Pathocrats - An Exercise in Discernment http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=395))

 

[Ruth]

What Rense.com is not talking about

Then what do you do when you come across somebody who doesn't care how they appear to others? Or a person who doesn't know they are 'supposed' to be dressing (and behaveing) a certain way?

This one is quite obvious, Ruth. I'm surprised you don't see it.

Sorry Laura, but these were rhetorical questions! I should be able to answer them myself.

I find it much more surprising to find a person who doesn't appear to care how they look to others (the first question) rather than someone who, by ignorance, doesn't even know that they are supposed to 'come across' in a certain way.

The thing is, I'm not prepared to make that call unless I know more about the person, their circumstances in order to 'see' a little more about who they really are. Perhaps 'seeing' is really all about figuring out a person's motivations (or if they even have these). Its about looking past how people 'appear'... behind their 'front'.

 

[Ruth]

What Rense.com is not talking about

It is very subjective and is often in the eyes of the beholder.

... for the untrained eye (insight)!

No, for all humans, who are to a certain extent (some to a lot) influenced or controlled by subjectivity.

This is what the forum is for - to train yourself. Of course it is just an offer. Whether you are willing to take and utilize the offer is up to you.

I'm already doing this, thank you. I don't need you or anyone else to to offer this to me, lol. Offer and acceptance of this is done internally.

Magnus, Eso and Laura elaborated on it very clearly and broke it down for you.

The thing about 'training yourself' is that you don't rely on what other people tell you and you don't contantly take your cue from others (Good God!). This tends to give the impression of a heirachy and 'following the herd' mentality and, of course, I loath heirachies! Others are neither above me, nor below me. Therefore, I do not pay more attention to some people over others - unless what they say makes sense. A person doesn't learn by being indoctrinated or didacted to. Thats not for me, thank you.

Much of what we learn about humans is an objective look at their subjective behaviour (and even our own). I don't think we can do better than that especially for research.

...and that very believe could be the root of a limitation.

Its basis for pretty much all qualitative research. An objective look at subjectivity. They may as well try to look at this objectively, because they can't get rid of it! (subjectivity, that is)

Maybe the Discernment thread would be a good read for you ("Crisis of the Republic" and Pathocrats - An Exercise in Discernment http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=395))

I'm coming to the conclusion that I already 'know' a lot and the reason that attracted me to the web site in the first place was that Laura put into words what I 'felt' was real (already knew). You may already be 'preaching to the convered' here, but maybe aren't aware of it. That's the problem with hierachies. The people who 'think' they are at the top believe the people they 'think' are at the bottom - know nothing. And they've got to lose this sense of intellectual/moral/spiritual superiority before they actually 'see' anything at all. And that's up to them. Its a real humbling experience but its not something I have to do as I am neither better nor worse than them inspite of what others do or say.

 

[Fifth Way]

What Rense.com is not talking about

Ruth:
Thanks for your kind replay.

This is how it appears to me at this point:

First you view Lucy's statement as judgmental. By doing this you judge her.

Than a number of (quite sharp) forum members take great and polite effort in explaining to you your error of thinking.

You response is to view this process as some kind of hostile display of hierarchy. Followed by you being further judgmental, assuming that I or others "'think' they are at the top believe the people they 'think' are at the bottom - know nothing".

Whatever your issue, you seem to project it on to us.

Therefore, I do not pay more attention to some people over others - unless what they say makes sense. A person doesn't learn by being indoctrinated or didacted to. Thats not for me, thank you.

I may be wrong, but it seems to me what you are saying is that none of what Laura, Magnus or Eso said in this context made sense to you and therefor I must be following that heard, from a assumed position of "intellectual/moral/spiritual superiority"? Hmmmm...

I don't think I have neither the clarity nor the arguments nor - to be honest the patience - to say anything more to you that may go past your seemingly rigid and fixed opinion. Good luck.

PS: One word of encouragement though: I did feel like you couple of times in the past on this forum. I felt inferior and I too projected assumed superiority on to others. However, I found out over time, that some members in fact are superior. But not in a context of hierarchy (as I reject hierarchies just as much as you do) but in a context of obtained knowledge, understanding, awareness and the capability to apply all this. It was (and still is) up to me to overcome this feeling. But I CAN, by taking all what is offered right here. It's hard work though and rejecting other peoples posts is often the easy option.

 

[Lucy]

What Rense.com is not talking about

I've been trying to catch up with reading and posting on this thread for a couple of days. As I was writing my first post I lost my internet connection for no apparent reason (while still logged in....so I remained 'logged in' for a couple of days although I was actually offline). Then, after getting the internet back I tried to post again, but then we had some wild weather (storms, hail, tornadoes) and the internet went down again! Finally, things are calm, the internet iis working and I have the time to respond to some 'concerns' about my earlier remarks regarding Pamela Icke.

She was wearing a fringed cowgirl outfit and was impossible to ignore. I'd noticed her bopping around, and remember being surprised when I realized she was David's wife; I guess I was expecting a more serious looking type of person.

i find it quite inapropriate to describe someone's outfit and someone's expression of behaviour and then judge this person not being serious.

I'm surprised to hear that. Could it be that you've fallen for a concept of 'political correctness' that inhibits you from using observation and critical thinking to figure out the truth about the people you deal with? That is a very useful ploy of psychopaths; they just love it when we believe such 'pronouncements' as you've made above. After all...it's to their advantage to tell us what we can and can't 'use' to figure out who and what they are.

Everything we notice about a person, consciously or unconsciously, gives us information that we can, and should, use to come to "conclusions" about them. Clothes and behavior are some of the most obvious clues, which, put together with everything else we can observe and discover, will help us to make necessary conclusions about people. To not do this is to leave yourself wide open to be victimized.

I would like to remind you that it is your very own perception and your very own projection you describe here.

Well of course! Actually, I have been fully aware of that all along. If you go back and look at my post:
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=1093.msg6130#msg6130
You will find I ended it with this:

Just a few of my personal Pamela Icke observations (and opinions)....for what they're worth.

I shared an anecdote and made it clear that it contained "my observations and opinions." I did not attempt to tell anyone they must agree with me, and I didn't attempt to give my "personal observations and opinions" any more 'worth' than what the reader might 'find' for themselves. And, when asked, I'm quite willing to clarify or expand on what I shared, as I'm doing now.

Since this is of concern to certain readers, let me go into a bit more detail on the "cowgirl outfit," my awareness of it, and why it was included in my anecdote in the 'way' it was.
:
I was seated in a large banquet type room in a hotel...as is typical for such seminars. I arrived early to get a decent seat, and thus had a lot of time to observe what was going on while waiting for the seminar to actually start. I'm a people watcher, and was glad to have an opportunity to 'check out' and observe the other people who had chosen to attend. Also, this was an 8 hour long seminar which included several breaks, and I had a lot of time to observe and interact with quite a few people over the course of the day.

There were all kinds of people there, from all walks of life. During the course of the day I spoke with engineers, students, housewives, teachers, newagers, etc., from different socio-economic backgrounds, and from all age groups...which I found interesting. This diverse mix dressed in all kinds of ways, everything from jeans and tee shirts to professionsl dress, such as suits. The majority were dressed casually. nothing particularly remarkable about their clothes. Most seemed to be dressed for comfort...which means something a bit different to each of us.

I was about 2/3 of the way back in the middle section, on the right near the aisle. Up front near the stage I noticed a woman in a white cowgirl outfit. It consisted of white boots, a short tight white skirt, a matching shirt with a lot of fringe, a white cowboy hat (which she later removed), and a silver and turquoise belt and jewelry. From a distance, across a large room, the woman appeared to be very young, in her early twenties. She was very slender with long curly hair, which no doubt added to that first impression. This is what was observable from a distance.

She stood out not only due to the flamboyance of her outfit, but also because she was the only person in the entire room dressed in such a noticeable way. So basically I noted it, and then didn't think anything specific about it....at that time...but I didn't at that time know who she was. However, I continued to notice her because she made herself very visible. She would sit down, jump up, walk around, talk to people, used a lot of hand gestures, things like that. It was simply impossible not to take note of her.

After awhile this 'cowgirl' came down the aisle near to where I was sitting, and I noticed that up close she was older than I'd thought, probably in her late thirties or early forties. I was a little surprised, and I admit, at that time I found myself thinking that everything about this woman seemed geared to make her appear younger than she was. And it wasn't just her outfit, it was also the way she wore her hair and her mannerisms....later when I said hello to her I also noticed her voice sounded "girlish" rather than that of a mature woman. To get an idea of what I mean you can listen to her being interviewed at http://www.enlighteneddating.com

She was very busy the entire day, running all over the room, up and down the aisles, as I said "bopping" around, much in the way a teenage girl might "bop" around. This was how I perceived her actions, and I used the "bopping" phrasing deliberately to present a picture to the reader of my perception.

After every break she stood up in front and waved her arms around, "shooshing" the audience until every one was quiet. She would give a us huge smile, her arms up with her hands out and her palms down, lowering them as if giving us a benediction. Then she'd give a decisive nod, 'twirl' around, 'plop' down, and the seminar would proceed. Very strange, or so I thought. I even found myself squirming in my seat out of embarassment "for" her. The way one sometimes feels when they see someone else making a fool of themselves in public.

Imagine my surprise when my sister came back from the book sale out in the lobby and told me she'd met David Icke's wife, and points across the room to the cowgirl! Huh? That's his wife? I was surprised. She did not present herself in the way "I thought" the wife of a serious researcher/seeker/author/speaker would be "likely" to present herself. Instead, I thought she looked like a rather rather silly woman, certainly not someone I would be inclined to take seriously, or that I would have thought David Icke would be married to. This is subjective, but it wasn't the first time I'd encountered a woman who presented herself in such a way...so I didn't come to my conclusions without some background experiences to draw upon. I also thought to myself that she was hardly being supportive of her husband "and his work" by dressing and acting this way, and...IN MY OPINION...wondered why he would be attracted to this type of woman. Frankly, it reflected rather badly on him. Also my subjective opinion....yet also valid, I think.

Later in the day when I had a chance to say hello to her, I noted her rather breathy girlish voice, and also that she spoke to me without making eye contact, which seemed 'off'. In fact, her eyes were scanning the room rather than looking at me. I thought this odd.

Now, I didn't have any preconceived ideas about Pamela Icke before I saw her that day. I'd never seen a photograph of her. I wasn't 'expecting' to see or meet her. Frankly, I'd given her absolutely no thought at all. I was looking forward to seeing David Icke in person, because, after being exposed to his books I wanted to get an "in person" impression of him and was expecting something that would add to what I'd already gleaned from his books. Sadly, he didn't add anything new, other than briefly relating his ayahuasca experience. On one hand I could have saved myself a lot of trouble and expense (I drove several hundred miles) by not going...because I didn't learn anything 'new' about his research, etc. HOWEVER....what I 'picked up' that day turned out to be invaluable. The impressions of both him and his wife, and their interactions (as noted in my first post), 'told me' a lot, and left me feeling rather disquieted. I had picked up clues that something wasn't 'right'.

BTW-- David Icke himself 'comes across' very well as a public speaker, and is very charming. For the fashion record, I remember him wearing dark pleated slacks and what appeared to be a black silk shirt....casual but nice. I thought he was appropriately dressed for the occasion, and it only made his wife's outfit look even more outlandish by comparison. That is "my opinion."

When I got home another sister who wasn't able to attend asked me to relate to her what he'd said. As we went over my notes we realized that he'd essentially restated things she already read in his books. There were no new or special insights, no clarification, nothing of great import..

It was the "beginning of the end" of my interest in David Icke. I didn't expect that to happen, I thought seeing him in person would bolster my interest in his work, not lessen it. It left me feeling a little lost for awhile. Fortunately, that 'lost feeling' propelled me into a more serious and dedicated 'searching' mode, and shortly thereafter I found Laura and the C's. And, interestingly enough, it was the subject of OP's that lead me to the cass site, where I was immediately and drawn to the psychopathy material.

I don't regret the time I spent reading his books, they were an essential part of my personal path of awakening. However, at a certain point, I could no longer ignore that there are serious problems with him and his work. I think Pamela and her cowgirl costume actually helped me to see this.

Since attending that seminar I've learned a lot about psychopathy that I wasn't aware of at the time. My impressions/opinions from that seminar were made from the perspective of having had a couple of basic psychology classes, reading some pop psychology books, and drawing on my life experiences. I knew things seemed odd to me, but it was later, in retrospect, that I more fully was able to realize 'why' I felt so uncomfortable about Pamela Icke, and why her interactions with her husband (those that I observed) made me uncomfortable.

TO RUTH:
If she'd been wearing jeans and a tee shirt, slacks and a blouse, a skirt and sweater twinset, a business suit, bermuda shorts and a tank top, or just about anything other than the cowgirl outfit, I probably wouldn't have taken much notice of her clothes because she'd have 'fit in' with everyone else in the room. She was, however, dressed in such a way that it was impossible for me not to notice her clothes. Personally, I'm not very inclined to notice what people wear UNLESS for some reason it doesn't seem to 'fit' the occasion...as was the case with Pamela Icke. That outfit being worn to a serious seminar is somewhat comparable to wearing a cocktail dress to a backyard BBQ or a bathing suit to a wedding. Now, certainly, anyone has the right to make that kind of choice, but, why would they? And wouldn't it be reasonable that everyone else at the BBQ or the wedding might come to certain "conclusions" about that person?

I want to make it clear that this is an anecdote, a memory, it includes the things I remember, the things I personally found significant in some way, what I felt and thought. Since the subject of Pamela and David Icke had already been introduced on this thread, I 'shared' my anecdote because I thought it was possible some others here might find my observations of interest. That I do not hold a high opinion of Pamela Icke I also shared. But...I gave the reader some of the 'clues' I had used to form my opinion of her.

Once again, these are "Just a few of my personal Pamela Icke observations (and opinions)....for what they're worth."

PS-- For the record: I think the cowgirl look is cute, especially in a club with country music and line dancing. And when I see old photos of Patsy Cline dressed up cowgirl style, I think she looks truly fabulous. If I'd have had the chance to meet her I'm pretty darn sure I'd have taken her seriously. :)

 

[Guest]

What Rense.com is not talking about

The thing about 'training yourself' is that you don't rely on what other people tell you and you don't contantly take your cue from others (Good God!). This tends to give the impression of a heirachy and 'following the herd' mentality and, of course, I loath heirachies!

Good God!? :O

Sounds, like a pretty defensive position to take.

Actually, the thing about discussions is that you do consider view-points different than yours, and think about them. Also discussions are for communication, meaning feedback needs to be meaningful and if there is disagreement it needs to be supported somehow so even if you think you have all the answers you must convey them in a way others can understand. That implies understanding other points of view.

Your reaction implies that you did not understand what Magus, for example, was clearly communicating. And even if you reject it out of hand, you did not say why. Instead, you say that considering the viewpoints of others is submission to a hierarchy. What hierarchy? This is a discussion, and what you are saying is that you are simply here to have your say without considering what is said in return. In other words, what's the point of discussion?

And I guess what you are implying here is that "training yourself" means networking is not an option, because to network you have to meet with others on common ground somewhere. Otherwise you're just spouting to the four winds, until people end up shutting you out, because you have shut them out.

Others are neither above me, nor below me. Therefore, I do not pay more attention to some people over others - unless what they say makes sense. A person doesn't learn by being indoctrinated or didacted to. Thats not for me, thank you.

So you are always right, and when someone disagrees with you they are always wrong, and only what agrees with already you makes sense. And you shut out anything else, because if it's not part of your current paradigm
it's a dictation. If being open to expanding your viewpoint is not for you, then your "training" probably doesn't involve growth, which basically expanding your viewpoint, and considering where it might be limited.

I just want to know why you think that ANY attempt to understand a person through their behaviour, which includes their external presentation is ALWAYS a judgment? Isn't THAT view a judgment?

Regarding the thing about learning about others through the objective looking at their subjective behaviour, aren't preferences subjective? Isn't one's clothing style a reflection of subjective preference? Shouldn't that subjective preference be compared to the rest of the subjective behaviour to provide a more complete picture of the person?

What about body language? Maybe I like to flip people off all the time (for example) because that's just my "style". Or maybe drooling is my style, or winking at every woman I see? I'm not hurting anyone. Why should they judge me? Yet body language is meant to send a message. And clothing is a form of body language. To understand it, we compare that message to other information about the person, so we get the context.

And the bottom line is that a person serious about STO is not concerned about making a "statement", which to me is shoving a glaring picture of themselves in my face, and trying to draw attention. "Bopping around" also draws attention. Little kids bop around to draw attention. Is it a judgment to assess that this is STS behaviour? And isn't it relevent to wonder about someone trying to "enlighten" people about the dangers of "lizards", yet consistently projects a message of "Look at me! My I'm on the goodship STS! That's my way".

To me someone who tries to draw my attention, and then makes me feel guilty for making an assessment about it, is like a fly buzzing in my face and making me feel guilty for wanting to shoo it away. It could be just harmless selfishness or an attempt to manipulate while discouraging self-protection.

You mentioned hierarchies. I'll use your quote and paraphrase it because it easily applies to you.

"That's the problem with conceit. The people who 'think' they are "right" believe the people they 'think' are "wrong" - know nothing. And they've got to lose this sense of intellectual/moral/spiritual superiority before they actually 'see' anything at all. And that's up to them.

And here is the clincher:

Its a real humbling experience but its not something I have to do as I am neither better nor worse than them inspite of what others do or say.

So you define this hypothetical hierarchy and assume whoever disagrees with you has a superior attitude and is part of it. But your hands are clean, and you can 'see' quite well all the time. What you don't see is that you often express yourself as a hierarchy of one, right there on a pedestal, expecting everyone to bow their heads over what you say, even if it doesn't make sense to them, even if it sounds downright ludicrous.

Instead of asking yourself WHY people react as they do, you fabricate this fantasy, and then righteously (or rather defensively) pass judgment.

The reason some people reflect you in an abrupt manner, is because you are abrupt yourself. You make declarative statements out of the blue, that contradict a series of posts attempting to communicate something, invalidating everything everyone said previous just because you say so.

That's why people react the way they do. You trample all over them simply invalidating, and painting over any opinions not yours. To me that's conceit, and people tend to react to that because it reveals a subtle manipulation or rather a lack of consideration. It's that lack of consideration that's reflected back to you. And instead of wondering why, you make up stories that always make you right and everyone wrong.

We try to discuss, and if you can be convincing most people will listen. If you are not convincing they will not agree. If you are not convincing and then just keep pressing the issue forcefully, you will get force in return. What else do you expect? You are looking in a mirror here, when you see others treating you unjustly. We are here to see the unseen. Look a little closer.