What Rense.com is not talking about
Forgive me for seeming to play moderator. I do not wish to do so, just to observe something.
I noticed that a member often gets a harsh response (and I admit that atreides response was a bit harsh) when they have previously also replied harshly to another. I guess that is what they call the inverted reflection.
You have quoted atreides response above. Let me quote yours:
mareiki said:
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 would like to remind you that it is your very own perception and your very own projection you describe here.
Notice that those words in bold can come back to haunt us, if we speak them without empathy.
Actually, Lucy judged the person as not serious-looking, and even the term "bopping around" was probably an apt description. And I think her observation was to compare the image Ms. Icke publically promoted with her apprearance, which were at odds. I agree that the observation was spontaneous, but it was also an honest impression that only emphasized all the previous. If it was made in isolation, and conclusions were drawn for Ms. Icke because of it, it would be invalid, and I think that would be pointed out by more than just one person.
The point is, if you examine your own response, it carries quite a bit more judgment and is more cutting than Lucy's, which (again) was an impression, although a subjective one. We all have such impressions when something out of the ordinary confronts us. You could have commented on it , saying the same thing with an understanding attitude that may have allowed Lucy or someone else to elaborate on her impression, and then maybe Lucy would have admitted that this was an impression, and that certainly one cannot base conclusions of Ms. Icke on just such an impression.
Instead, your reply was a bit righteous, and a tad politically and spiritually correct. Must we constantly police ourselves and lose our sense of humour, especially when poignantly describing people we know are causing harm to others through the delusions they spread?
Or is your version of spirit such a tight-"left behind" (boy, who thought up the "bootay" term?
) that it refuses to poke a bit of fun at itself? I admit, when I read Lucy's comment I felt a cringe, but that was because of Ms. Icke's inconsistent personality presented graphically, not because I felt Lucy was being malicious.
I also felt a greater cringe when I read your reply. Lucy, I think was describing an impression, which was superficial, but it was also sincere. You, however, cast the first stone. And when you do, you often end up in a rock fight.
That said, you expressed this:
Arent we the universe? Arent we all? All and All. not perfect of course.
Arent we divided by concer and rule?
Why this comparision with the neighbour and the knife? Such and old cliche.
Do you know there are people that dont do eye for an eye.
Not because they would love the neighbour but because they just dont want to go there.
The comparison between the neighbor and the knife is an old cliche. But then again is the old adage regarding us being the universe. And both cliches (a word meaning "key") are true. The task is to reconcile them, and more cliches such as "turn the other cheek" and "an eye for an eye" really don't help.
In the end, however, you say it is not love of neighbor that motives refraining from the alleged "eye for an eye" attitude, but not wanting to go there. Ah, but we ARE there. That is the point. We are ALL there, and we must deal with it, and understand it. To assume we are NOT there is a dangerous misconception, because those who are also the universe but think themselves our masters would take advantage of our naivete.
It is denial of the state of affairs that has allowed "divide and conquer" to propagate so well in our reality. And righteousness is a funny thing here, because those who seek to stomp it out are usually the ones carrying it to a greater degree. I understand the outrage, but just imagine a world where we denied what we spontaneously perceived because it was "spiritually incorrect".
That would be a world of the well-meaning but guiltridden and the righteous arrogant. That was the world of witch trials and genicides and inquisitions. That was and is the world of divide and conquer.
So look at what you yourself stated
...All and All. not perfect of course.
...and take it to heart, because when we observe the imperfection in ourselves in real-time, and practice what we preach instead of demanding others do in our stead, we are one step closer to turning the old spiritual cliche into reality, even though there are many in this All who would never do so.
