lyra wrote:

Interestingly enough, a psychically gifted friend of mine shies away from David Icke, saying that she feels he's being used as a tool for the darkside.   I didn't agree or disagree with it when I heard that, was just like, "hmm.  Interesting!"

yeah, I subscribe to a Yahoogroups discussion list and there was a discussion about Icke not so long ago, a couple of women said a very similar thing, that they picked up very dark vibes from reading his material.

Personally I think there's definitely a lack of compatibility between what he actually writes and what I feel when I'm reading. For example he bangs on and on about infinite love yet I never feel any real warmth or love from his words. Whereas when I'm reading much of Stuie's material I often feel a lot of genuine warmth and love behind his words.

I AGREE!

I read 'Children of the Matrix' and I swear to Bob there was a real dark pall hanging over some of the chapters in that book. It made me feel sick and depressed for a few days. Especially how he went into great detail about the abuse concerning the mind-controlled slaves. I mean, I dunno... I suppose we should know but did he have to tell us in such horrifying, graphic detail?

Stuie's work does mention similar material, but it does have warmth and life to it. That even when it is gloomy, he offers a genuine light at the end of the tunnel.

EDIT: I must apologize for committing thread necromancy.

Maybe Icke is getting used by the other side. Probably unknowingly, I think he means well... it could be that he is being mislead. I mean just how reliable are all his sources? Can he be 100% sure they aren't lying about the good and important bits? But still, I think he's a useful wake-up call but once you get past the waking up, it's time to start something different.

In the Universe/Heaven there is no "time" but eternity. Take away birth and death and time has no relevance. Unfortunately we have been temporarily locked inside these human-animal/pre-programmed on a prison planet/lunatic asylum for the criminally insane. We can not be let out, back into the real world before we learn to behave again, and there isn't much time to learn anymore before the people who are running things on earth (the most insane ones) manage to destroy everything... time really is running out.

Time is running out:- http://i.am/jah/signs.htm

What's time?

Haven't we got an eternity to play with?

Time is running out:- http://i.am/jah/signs.htm

I spurn this concept like I would spurn a rabid dog. It simply encourages inaction, in the naive belief that if one simply sits around thinking happy love 'n' light thoughts all day, then the world can just go to hell in a handbasket, because it'll all work out fine in the end. And what does that teach us, ultimately? That it's okay to shrug off responsibility for ourselves, that it's okay to watch all of our potential get flushed down the toilet, and that it's okay for the nasty buggers in the world to run rampant across this planet tearing it apart and selling it off piece by piece by piece to the highest bidder? Count me out.

Well, it all does come down to mind/heart-stuff (and taking responsibility for this may actually be the ultimate challenge). Others are entitled to their choices, as well, no matter what we think of them.  I think a key concept to remember is that of probable worlds. Realities are branching off in different directions, and each person will experience the one that is in alignment with their vibration and soul needs. 

From Path of Empowerment:

I do believe we are in for a very powerful shift on 12/21/2012, but
how this works out is also up to each of us.  From Starseed, The Third Millennium, by Ken Carey:
http://www.awakening-healing.com/A-HNew … kening.htm

And:

I spurn this concept like I would spurn a rabid dog. It simply encourages inaction, in the naive belief that if one simply sits around thinking happy love 'n' light thoughts all day, then the world can just go to hell in a handbasket, because it'll all work out fine in the end. And what does that teach us, ultimately? That it's okay to shrug off responsibility for ourselves, that it's okay to watch all of our potential get flushed down the toilet, and that it's okay for the nasty buggers in the world to run rampant across this planet tearing it apart and selling it off piece by piece by piece to the highest bidder? Count me out.

see what will happen is that on some specified date in 2012, the earth will align with the milky way and some other big things and the frequency shall be raised by a notch

All of those hard core enough to raise their frequency, who have been preparing for the last 10 years, shall be then released on a sea of plentifullness, telepathy and teleportation, living amongst pretty smelling things, whilst all those with their dense frequency shizzy shall stay on the current plane which shall be by then ravaged by destruction somewhat similar to hell fires

of those who stay, there will ofcourse be all the new born christians, who funnily enough say that if we dont devote our frequencies towards their beliefs, we shall burn in hell fires!

...unless perhaps they are christians who eat organic food and don't wear shoes..coz then they may incidentally be instilled with the new earth frequency.....

naughty digresion, but your writing inspired me to comment on the mass' preference for salvation rather than self-responsibility

but in all seriousness, I won't quote you but i commend you on the maturity and wisdom in your answer to the problem and for sharing with all and for taking the time to think about it in the first place. I definately think that if more people come to the maturity and level of self-responsibility to put such a solution in to action, there is the possibility of some great positive change

KK

Whilst I still respect and admire David for his tireless work in helping people wake up to certain harsh realities of life on planet earth, I simply feel that he does place way too much emphasis on the problems we are facing, whilst offering little in the way of possible solutions himself. And the reason he does this, and the only thing I take issue with him over, is that he's simply found a niche market and is now writing for them as opposed to writing for himself like he did previously.

I'm sorry to say it, but he's actually done very well from the September 11th, 2001 event. Back when I first starting reading his web site, around the year 2000 or so, his audience was still quite relatively small. After 911 occured, his website traffic went into high gear almost overnight. Suddenly he had credibility. Suddenly his speaking events were sell outs, and he was requiring larger and larger venues within which to host them. People in their masses simply weren't buying into the ludicrous official explanations for the 911 disaster, and in their shock and confusion were turning to the conspiracy researchers - David being one of the most high profile - to tell them the real truth of the matter. But, rather than encouraging them to trust their own intuition - thus empowering them to do the same thing in future - he simply wrote another very large, 500 page book in which he dissects and disproves every facet of the official 911 story.

And that book sold by the truckload because it found the right audience at the right time. Finally he'd been vindicated. Memories of his bizarre early appearance on the UK Terry Wogan Show happily disappeared from many people's memories: "He was sick and a nut case, but he's better now - and how!" It didn't even matter too much that he believed all of that crazy stuff about blood-drinking, baby-eating reptilians. That was his perogative, and most simply learned to ignore that particular aspect of his work, too busy scrutinizing all of the other juicy tidbits. Finally, after so much time, people were willing to listen to him and his strange ideas.

But one thing that you'll never hear David Icke asking anyone (except in a somewhat patronizing way) is: what do you think? He's too busy telling everyone else what he thinks. That is his talent. And whilst I give the man kudos for having the guts to get out there in the face of such huge opposition back when he first started on his journey, it is that same opposition that has taken its toll on him and left him with a lot of pent-up anger, bitterness, and frustration towards humanity. His recent tone and attitude seems to indicate that he now feels he is owed some measure of financial success for all of his efforts on our behalf. If this is indeed the case, and I feel that it is, then the agenda has finally broken him down in the most ironic way: by rendering him impotent towards taking the next step on his own spiritual journey.

Now don't get me wrong here. I'm not trying to imply that it's up to him to save the world. He's no superman, after all. Hell, he's not even a very good writer. But, for all of his efforts in helping to awaken people, here we all still sit years later edging ever closer to a global economic meltdown. The problem here is now easily stated: we all now know what's going on, but what are we going to do about it? We can of course choose to do absolutely nothing at all with this information we are collecting. We can sit on our arses and simply await the day when the proverbial shit hits the fan. That is certainly a valid option, but if that is the path that we all wish to take then we shouldn't complain about the smell afterwards.

So, what to do? Well, the first change begins with us. And it's not enough to simply change our beliefs; we must also change our attitudes as well. If we're going to talk the spiritual talk, then we need to walk the spiritual walk. We would render ourselves hypocrites were we to do less. If we are going to espouse the ideals of universal love and acceptance, then we need to start practising these values as well. And that means having respect for other people. It means not shoving your opinons down their throat, or getting upset if they don't agree with you. It means not trying to excuse them from accepting responsibility for the outcome of their actions. It means demonstrating acceptance - not tolerance - of their uniqueness and individuality and of the choices they make. And it also means respecting your own uniqueness as well. None of us are more "special" or "chosen" than anyone else: we are all simply unique in our ways, and we all have our own gifts to share with each other and with the world.

And all of these are just mere words, of course. They mean nothing until we can actually take those words, and begin a process of integrating them into our existing mindset. Only when we can do this do we enable a new array of choices to present themselves at any given opportunity, allowing us to decide how we wish to respond to changing faces, places, situations and events, rather than simply reacting from old prejudices and programming as many still do now.

And that, I feel, is the first great challenge. Learning how to accept yourself, and learning how to accept others. But unless we can even begin to do that individually, we'll never make any progress with the bigger issues that face us all collectively - which is the second great challenge.

Some people are of the opinion that society, as it is now, is going to simply collapse in on itself. And given our species' inglorious history of self-destruction, that is an easy viewpoint to understand. And yet it is also a very pessimistic statement of defeat, an opinion that humanity is just too stupid to evolve, and that it is therefore preferable to walk away and hide in some remote place, far from civilization, in relative safety and seclusion. To me, this action is far more motivated by personal survival concerns than it is in returning to harmony with nature. But it is their choice, and their right to make it.

For those who choose to stay within the system, they are faced with an overwhelming set of problems that must all be confronted if civilization is to survive. By far the biggest problem is lack of sustainability within the current system, so the question that must be answered is how to replace the current, non-sustainable system with one that is? That question itself would be difficult enough to find a solution for, but the situation here is made even more complex by the presence of a global cadre of private financial interests that have a stranglehold on the world economic system, and therefore a tangible - but largely hidden - presence in the lives of every man, woman, and child within.

I think that part of the answer to that problem may be contained within the question: the current system is simply not sustainable in the long term, or even - for that matter - the short term. There is a strong possibility that its destruction will be inevitable within the natural course of events. The goal in that case would be to find and communicate with other like-minded individuals, slowly but surely growing both real and virtual communities of people who will be capable of helping to create a new, sustainable system once the existing, unsustainable system begins its inevitable spiral into oblivion. I certainly feel that the coming years will not be a time to isolate oneself from other people, but rather a time in which we desperately need to reach out and connect with people from all walks of life and all across the globe.

And that is why the first change, the change within, is the most important one to make. It is one we can all start working on right now, and our relative success or failure in that endeavor could well determine the type of tomorrow we are collectively creating....

Jen wrote:

czyx wrote:

a bunch of people who all believe the same thing, ("love and light" no matter the circumstances)

hi czyx,

well, if you read the site Christine linked us to, the New Age movement is about much more than what you described as,

I've only encountered a few people interested in metaphysical/New Age studies who are like that.   I believe this popular perception of the New Age is simply false.

Jen, no offense, and I'm not intending to get personal.  You do have some interesting ideas.  But with all due respect - do you ever offer more of a rebut to a well-thought out post (like czyx's), than just sidestepping it by only addressing some inconsequential part of it?

Yes.

czyx wrote:

a bunch of people who all believe the same thing, ("love and light" no matter the circumstances)

hi czyx,

well, if you read the site Christine linked us to, the New Age movement is about much more than what you described as,

I've only encountered a few people interested in metaphysical/New Age studies who are like that.   I believe this popular perception of the New Age is simply false.

Jen, no offense, and I'm not intending to get personal.  You do have some interesting ideas.  But with all due respect - do you ever offer more of a rebut to a well-thought out post (like czyx's), than just sidestepping it by only addressing some inconsequential part of it?

btw, Lewis Carroll was into Theosophy as well.  Clearly Alice in
Wonderland is veiled propaganda of the OSS.

And when I wrote it I knew it was woefully short -- and a bit nitpicky cause indeed what cryx says is true -- Blavanski-Theosophy was a group favored by the Nazis --- etc etc. and the OSS definitely was around at the time. 

But, perhaps we can agree that the CIA as a group represents that element of society who through the eons wants to control and manipulate the masses to do their bidding.

And back to the intent of this thread as I understand it -- the "leaders" of a movement should walk their talk ---

And we should work on ourselves to wake up, understand for ourselves, discern and not fall prey to what sounds good and lovely but actually is just a gentle "blissful" way to lead us into the slaughter house.

WR,
Christine

well, if you read the site Christine linked us to, the New Age movement is about much more than what you described as,

I've only encountered a few people interested in metaphysical/New Age studies who are like that.   I believe this popular perception of the New Age is simply false.

When you have a bunch of people who all believe the same thing, ("love and light" no matter the circumstances) it's easy to control their actions. When you pry their minds open to such an extent that their brains fall out, it's easier to control them and to experiment on them. The CIA is very interested in control and experimentation. I imagine many New Age cults are also quite lucrative, seeing as their adherents are not very discerning and are probably willing to spend lots of money on trinkets and seminars that don't work but are cheap to produce. Such cults might very well be black budget moneymakers for the CIA, not unlike their arms trading and drug dealing rackets.

The CIA is just as interested in the mainstream Christian movement, which you can clearly see by reading Christian propaganda. Go to a Christian bookstore and look for stuff published by Focus on the Family. What you'll find is a bunch of throwaway paperback books ostensibly covering a huge range of topics, but containing nothing but the same narrow groupthink message. These books are cheap to produce, easy to write, and they sell like hotcakes. The most interesting thing about these books is the way their message is transmitted: via "true" anecdotes. Almost every one is full of "actual stories" from pastors and other such Christian authorities. But the stories are obvious fabrications. They are clumsy and false, but they play into existing mainstream Christian beliefs. After you read the Christian propaganda, you'll find that it's easier to spot New Age propaganda--especially in cases where false testimonials and made-up anecdotes are used. It appears they are coming from the very same organization.

The New Age has been around for a long time -- actually the term predates the CIA - depending which "New Age" we are discussing.

Madame Blavansky is most often "credited" with this term -- and she was around just before the turn of the the twentieth century (1900) --

Check out this site:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/newage3.html

Thanks Christine, great site.  So are we to believe that the CIA
was behind all the books listed there (pasted in below)?  My, they are prolific!

The only one I've read is the one by David Spangler, I think it's great.

Literature:

    * Blavatsky, H.P.: The Key to Theosophy
    * Braden, Charles: Spirits in Rebellion; the Rise and Development of New Thought.(1963)
    * Darnton, R.: Mesmerism and the end of Enlightenment in France (1968)
    * Dutton, E.P.: The Theosophical movement
    * Faivre, A.: Access to Western Esotericism (1994)
    * Ferguson, Marilyn: The Aquarian Conspiracy (1980)
    * Freke, Timothy & Gandy: The Jesus Mysteries (1999)
    * Freke, Timothy & Gandy: The Hermetica (1997)
    * Godwin, J.: The Theosophical Enlightenment (1994)
    * Gurdjieff, G.I.: Meetings with Remarkable Men
    * Hanegraaff, W.J.: New Age religion and Western culture. Esotericism in the mirror of secular thought (New York 1998).
    * Hanegraaff, W.J. (ed): Dictionary of Gnosis ans Western Esoterism (2005)
    * Heelas, Paul: The New Age Movement. (1996)
    * Hutin, Serge: L'Alchimie
    * Israel, J. I.: Radical enlightenment : philosophy and the making of modernity 1650-1750 (2001)
    * Jackson, Carl T.: The Oriental Religions and American Thought (1981)
    * Johnson, K.Paul: The Masters Revealed (1994)
    * Lutyens, Mary: The Years of awakening
    * Meade, Marion: H.P.Blavatsky. Woman behind the myth.
    * Merkur, D. : The Psychedelic Sacrament: Manna, Meditation, and Mystical Experience (2001)
    * Needleman, Jacob: The new religions (1984)
    * Nethercot, Arthur H.: The first five lives of Annie Besant
    * Nethercot, Arthur H : The last four lives of Annie Besant
    * Ouspensky, P.D. : In Search of the Miraculous
    * Pagels, Elaine : The Gnostic Gospels (1979)
    * Pruyser, Paul W.: Between belief and unbelief (1974)
    * Rawlinson: The book of enlightened masters (1997)
    * Roberts, J.M.: The mythology of the Secret Societies (1972)
    * Schwab, Raymond: The Oriental Renaissance (1984)
    * Spangler, David: Revelation: The Birth of a New Age (1976)
    * Stevenson, David: The origins of Freemasonry (1988)
    * Stevenson, David: The first Freemasons. Scotland's early lodges and their members (1988)
    * Washington, Peter: Madame Blavatsky's Baboon (1995)
    * Wilson, Colin: From Atlantis to the Sphinx (1996)
* Yates, Frances A.: The occult philosophy in the Elizabethan Age (1979)