GENIUS FORUMS

it throws you into a state of witnessing, it disassociates you from your mind. this is the goal of all meditation. so what is being instructed here is a kind of meditation.

Atum wrote:it throws you into a state of witnessing, it disassociates you from your mind. this is the goal of all meditation. so what is being instructed here is a kind of meditation.

I agree it's a form of meditation - indeed, the best form - but I'm not sure it disassociates you from your mind. It's more that it puts you in touch with what your mind really is. I guess one could say it disassociates you from your false mind.

I dunno Dan. You are apparently not among the Wise Five.

I think you had better flex a little muscle and show who's the alpha male around here. The betas are getting uppity!

Its not about flexing muscles, its about recognizing that there are better writers than others, and the best writers on GF are the ones that best represent the core values of the forum. Moreover, the best writers are also the ones with the most consistent level of mental clarity for the longest periods of time.

In my opinion, off the top of my head, there are probably less than a ten regular posters on GF that are even worth reading as far as wisdom is concerned. And Dan makes some good consistent points on a regular basis, but many times, he can become quite distracted emotionally, even quite sentimental on occasion. We all have imperfections, but some emerge more consistently than others, and therefore it is possible to measure consciousness. As spiritual teachers, it is our responsibility to collectively recognize that there is superiority and inferiority as far as quality of thought goes.

Anything less would be dishonest, immoral and an insult against everything masculine. In essence, it would be a feminine impulse to want to view everyone in a community as equals, and not pass judgment on them. Such an impulse is ultimately feminine and unconscious.

Such herd group acceptance may have worked for centuries of woman-lead communities, but this is a male-lead philosophical battle-ground of ideas, and the best male minds meet up from around the world to serve humanity through the spreading of rationality. And the only way this can be done is through active confrontation, through challenging values, through judgment, through criticism, through metaphor, analogy, and a hundred other techniques of the spiritual teacher. In essence, this sort of place is what separates the spiritual gods from the emotionally minded children. Btw, casuality as a state of wisnessing? I don’t know what that means? Very obscure, how about this -

To fully accept causality destroys ones desire for emotional happiness. It destroys ones desire to take big risks that result in tragedy over the long-term. It destroys the desire to identify, and attach oneself to particular people, ideas, and possessions as a means to derive security, pleasure and comfort from them. It destroys the idea that there is a free agent who decides what to think. Essentially, a full understanding of causality destroys the emotional“You”. Hows that for witnessing ?

You're right, Ryan.

Like you said in that other thread it's pretty much you, me, Diebert, Kevin, and David. But I do agree, Dan makes some good points now and again.

Carl G wrote:You're right, Ryan.

Like you said in that other thread it's pretty much you, me, Diebert, Kevin, and David.

To be honest, Ryan actually never mentioned you. Probably because, like me, he has witnessed your promotion of new age leader David Icke, your denigration of cause and effect & A=A, your mindless submission to Gurdjieff, and your advocacy of free will. These are all traits which suggest that you pretty much have nothing in common with the values of this forum (with exception to your opposition to mainstream values).

Cory Duchesne wrote:

Carl G wrote:You're right, Ryan.

Like you said in that other thread it's pretty much you, me, Diebert, Kevin, and David.

To be honest, Ryan actually never mentioned you. Probably because, like me, he has witnessed your promotion of new age leader David Icke, your denigration of cause and effect & A=A, your mindless submission to Gurdjieff, and your advocacy of free will. These are all traits which suggest that you pretty much have nothing in common with the values of this forum (with exception to your opposition to mainstream values).

Or maybe it's because he is a wet-behind-the-ears sage wannabe, like you, and cannot recognize real thinking. Your off-the-mark drivel above speaks volumes.

I do not promote Icke. Icke is not a new age leader. I do not denigrate cause & effect & A=A (I mostly just find them trivial). My study of Gurdjieff cannot be accurately described as mindless or submission. And my advocacy of free will, well, let's just say I disagree that we are necessarily complete robots, and my experience just plain trumps all logical theory).

Like Ryan, you obviously have trouble with discerning truth from fantasy, and are regularly given to all sorts of generality and exaggeration. The both of you posturing like sages is both hilarious and pathetic.

Carl G wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote:

Carl G wrote:You're right, Ryan.

Like you said in that other thread it's pretty much you, me, Diebert, Kevin, and David.

To be honest, Ryan actually never mentioned you. Probably because, like me, he has witnessed your promotion of new age leader David Icke, your denigration of cause and effect & A=A, your mindless submission to Gurdjieff, and your advocacy of free will.

These are all traits which suggest that you pretty much have nothing in common with the values of this forum (with exception to your opposition to mainstream values).

Or maybe it's because he is a wet-behind-the-ears sage wannabe, like you, and cannot recognize real thinking.

Your thinking as of late boils down to: Gurdjieff said so - and so that's what I believe.

Your off-the-mark drivel above speaks volumes.

As does your affiliation with David Icke.

Like Ryan, you obviously have trouble with discerning truth from fantasy

Ironic, coming from a guy who respects someone who literally believes that a shapeshifting race of serpents from a neighboring constellation rule the world.

Cory shows more of his intense fantasy side:

Cory Duchesne wrote:Carl: You're right, Ryan. Like you said in that other thread it's pretty much you, me, Diebert, Kevin, and David.

Cory: To be honest, Ryan actually never mentioned you. Probably because, like me, he has witnessed your promotion of new age leader David Icke, your denigration of cause and effect & A=A, your mindless submission to Gurdjieff, and your advocacy of free will.

These are all traits which suggest that you pretty much have nothing in common with the values of this forum (with exception to your opposition to mainstream values).

Carl: Or maybe it's because he is a wet-behind-the-ears sage wannabe, like you, and cannot recognize real thinking.

Cory: Your thinking as of late boils down to: Gurdjieff said so - and so that's what I believe.

You don't know what my thinking of late boils down to. In any case my posting definitely does not reflect your absurd claim.

You really do love to exaggerate and make up stuff, don't you.

Your off-the-mark drivel above speaks volumes.

As does your affiliation with David Icke.

I have no affiliation with David Icke, turkey.

Like Ryan, you obviously have trouble with discerning truth from fantasy

Ironic, coming from a guy who respects someone who literally believes that a shapeshifting race of serpents from a neighboring constellation rule the world.

You do not know that I respect David Icke. And, what has this particular belief of David's have to do with me?

Do you subscribe to Otto Weininger's belief that one should kill himself if his first book is not met with instant success and one's words are not listened to? Do you think we should throw out all his work because of it? What about Nietzsche's descent into madness. Should we throw out his work, too, the guy was a nutcase, right?

You are one of the most emotional and least logically thinking people on this forum.

A devilish storm's a-brewin'! I saw these omens in the sky over my house a week ago!

Usually, when these sorts of forces get riled up---connected as they are to unconscious currents---a scapegoat has to be identified, and the surfeit of negative animus directed in that direction.

Dan Rowden wrote:

Atum wrote:it throws you into a state of witnessing, it disassociates you from your mind. this is the goal of all meditation. so what is being instructed here is a kind of meditation.

I agree it's a form of meditation - indeed, the best form - but I'm not sure it disassociates you from your mind. It's more that it puts you in touch with what your mind really is. I guess one could say it disassociates you from your false mind.

the "false mind," the mind which goes round and round constantly, making one dizzy, confused, and very nauseous. i have noticed a lot of mental "throw-up" here.

if the false mind is like a circle, then the real mind is like a straight line.

Well, yes, one could think of it geometrically - the false mind is the samsara mind, caught in the cycle (circle) or rebirth. The true mind is the nirvana mind, which ploughs on through the same reality but which engages it differently; truly.

Carl G wrote:

Ironic, coming from a guy who respects someone who literally believes that a shapeshifting race of serpents from a neighboring constellation rule the world.

Do you subscribe to Otto Weininger's belief that one should kill himself if his first book is not met with instant success and one's words are not listened to? Do you think we should throw out all his work because of it? What about Nietzsche's descent into madness. Should we throw out his work, too, the guy was a nutcase, right?

Weininger and Nietzsche, in the crux of their work, did not advocate the particular weaknesses which marked the end of their lives. On the other hand, the crux of David Icke's work is a bunch of new age baloney.

Weininger and Nietzsche, in the crux of their work, did not advocate the particular weaknesses which marked the end of their lives.

Did not advocate, but it is reasonable to surmise that at least in part thinking as they did resulted in an ugly demise.

On the other hand,

On the other hand David Icke's does? Er, he's not dead yet. Why not think things through a bit before spouting off?

the crux of David Icke's work is a bunch of new age baloney.

How does this logically follow? In any case, false again, turkey. The crux of his work is provable conspiracy.

Carl G wrote:

Weininger and Nietzsche, in the crux of their work, did not advocate the particular weaknesses which marked the end of their lives.

Did not advocate, but it is reasonable to surmise that at least in part thinking as they did resulted in an ugly demise.

A reasonable premise. But are you going anywhere with it? Are you insinuating something? Go ahead, do tell....

On the other hand,

On the other hand David Icke's does? Er, he's not dead yet. Why not think things through a bit before spouting off?

Actually, it was you who first tried to relate Icke's psychotic beliefs with those particular weaknesses of Otto and Nietzsche, so really, you're not making any sense.

the crux of David Icke's work is a bunch of new age baloney.

How does this logically follow?

1) Do you think it's reasonable to conclude that Bush and Gore, and hundreds, perhaps thousands even, are lizards who need to drink human blood to perpetuate their "human" physical appearance? (New age people, in my experience are suckers for far fetched fantastical conspiracy theories)

2) When an author consistently refers to sources THAT CAN NOT BE CONFIRMED (as Icke does) do you not think that this is a good sign that the author is delusional? (new age people, in my experience love to refer to sources that cannot be confirmed - they love magical stories of secret groups, good or evil, who conspire in exotic or 'extra dimensional' places)

I'll give you some examples. Icke introduces the reader to "The Children of Mu", by James Churchward! (another nut case) Icke admits that Churchward's "facts" came from "hidden monasteries in Asia". Amusingly, these monasteries are referred to as secret in that no one can confirm their existence - Icke uses "facts" from Churchward's nutty book to prove his own, equally non-verifiable, crackpot theories.

Another of Icke's sources is W.T. Samsel's "The Atlantis Connection". Icke admits early on that Samsel got his "facts" by channeling the information from another dimension. Of course, conveniently, this means that no one, not even Icke, can confirm Samsel's "facts". Yet, this does not stop Icke from moving on to use Samsel's "facts" to "prove" his own, equally non-verifiable, claims.

3) I think that Icke's beliefs in the spirit world are a vital part of his work, and in a classic new age tradition, Icke writes that he received a message from the spirit world through a "medium" named Betty Shine. Do you know who Betty Shine is Carl?

In my experience, new agey people love David Icke and Betty Shine. They are powerful leaders in the New Age movement.

I would go so far as to say that Betty and Icke are evil people whose works are a conspiracy.

The crux of his work is provable conspiracy.

Conspiracy? Well yes, it doesn't take a genius to see that there are very deluded people who attempt to employ their own esoteric ideas to lead the public. Icke and Betty Shine are prime examples of that.

I've read three or four of David Icke's books. One of them did go into the reptilian thing for a bit, and one was mostly spiritual in nature. But for the most part they are exhaustively referenced expose's of the rich and powerful who manipulate events to their liking.

If half of what he exhaustively references is true, nay if a tenth of it is true, we have a very different country and world than your average joe would love to think we have.

Taken from the ten worst decisions in the history of sport

In 1990 David Icke was a TV sports reporter/commentator tipped for the top. Then he visited a medium in Brighton called Betty Shine who, having chatted to Socrates (the philosopher not the footballer), was able to pass on the information that he was the Son of God.

Humbled, Icke instructed all his followers to wear turquoise tracksuits and travelled the world making prophesies (e.g Teesside and Kent would shortly be underwater following earthquakes measuring eight on the Richter scale). None of his prophecies came true.

'My predictions were meant to be wrong on a massive scale because I have always been scared of ridicule,' said Icke. 'Unless you have experienced hot and cold you cannot know what lukewarm is.' In later years he modified some core beliefs: 'Turquoise is an important colour,' he revealed, 'but you don't have to wear it all the time.'

Hilarious.

Cory Duchesne wrote:Cory: Weininger and Nietzsche, in the crux of their work, did not advocate the particular weaknesses which marked the end of their lives.

Carl: Did not advocate, but it is reasonable to surmise that at least in part thinking as they did resulted in an ugly demise.

Cory: A reasonable premise. But are you going anywhere with it? Are you insinuating something? Go ahead, do tell....

Yes. Basically this is about knowing how to separate, and not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. If we do not dispense with Weininger and Nietzsche for their weaknesses, why must we cancel Icke for his?

Cory: the crux of David Icke's work is a bunch of new age baloney.

Carl: How does this logically follow?

Cory: 1) Do you think it's reasonable to conclude that Bush and Gore, and hundreds, perhaps thousands even, are lizards who need to drink human blood to perpetuate their "human" physical appearance? (New age people, in my experience are suckers for far fetched fantastical conspiracy theories)

That doesn't answer my question. You said "Weininger and Nietzsche, in the crux of their work, did not advocate the particular weaknesses which marked the end of their lives. On the other hand, the crux of David Icke's work is a bunch of new age baloney." In other words the crux of the work of W. and N. does not advocate suicide or madness, on the other hand -- or, however, -- I.'s work is baloney. That to me is non sequitur, not logical progression.

Nor does this support your claim that Icke is a new age leader. You equate the Lizard idea with the new age. It is instead a fringe conspiracy idea. In my experience generally new agers do not delve into conspiracy studies. It's 'too negative' for them.

2) When an author consistently refers to sources THAT CAN NOT BE CONFIRMED (as Icke does) do you not think that this is a good sign that the author is delusional? (new age people, in my experience love to refer to sources that cannot be confirmed - they love magical stories of secret groups, good or evil, who conspire in exotic or 'extra dimensional' places)

Logic would tell us that unconfirmed does not necessarily mean baloney.

I'll give you some examples. Icke introduces the reader to "The Children of Mu", by James Churchward! (another nut case) Icke admits that Churchward's "facts" came from "hidden monasteries in Asia". Amusingly, these monasteries are referred to as secret in that no one can confirm their existence - Icke uses "facts" from Churchward's nutty book to prove his own, equally non-verifiable, crackpot theories.

Now you are going off on an emotional tangent. I actually have forgotten why you are going off on Icke. Oh yeah, it's some sort of slam on me. Personally I don't give a fuck about Churchward.

Another of Icke's sources is W.T. Samsel's "The Atlantis Connection". Icke admits early on that Samsel got his "facts" by channeling the information from another dimension. Of course, conveniently, this means that no one, not even Icke, can confirm Samsel's "facts". Yet, this does not stop Icke from moving on to use Samsel's "facts" to "prove" his own, equally non-verifiable, claims.

What do I care?

3) In a classic new age tradition, Icke writes that he received a message from the spirit world through a "medium" named Betty Shine. Do you know who Betty Shine is Carl?

No.

4) In my experience, new agey people love David Icke and Betty Shine. They are powerful leaders in the New Age movement.

You must be the only one on the planet who thinks this.

I would go so far as to say that Betty and Icke are evil people whose works are a conspiracy.

Ridiculous. You think Betty and Icke are in cahoots?

Carl: The crux of his work is provable conspiracy.

Cory: Conspiracy? Well yes, it doesn't take a genius to see that there are very deluded people who attempt to employ their own esoteric ideas to lead the public. Icke and Betty Shine are prime examples of that.

I don't think you've made a case. Funny, you probably think you've laid it all out here.

Cory Duchesne wrote:Taken from the ten worst decisions in the history of sport

In 1990 David Icke was a TV sports reporter/commentator tipped for the top. Then he visited a medium in Brighton called Betty Shine who, having chatted to Socrates (the philosopher not the footballer), was able to pass on the information that he was the Son of God.

Humbled, Icke instructed all his followers to wear turquoise tracksuits and travelled the world making prophesies (e.g Teesside and Kent would shortly be underwater following earthquakes measuring eight on the Richter scale). None of his prophecies came true.

'My predictions were meant to be wrong on a massive scale because I have always been scared of ridicule,' said Icke. 'Unless you have experienced hot and cold you cannot know what lukewarm is.' In later years he modified some core beliefs: 'Turquoise is an important colour,' he revealed, 'but you don't have to wear it all the time.'

Hilarious.

What's hilarious is you trying to hold a guy to what he said 18 years ago, when clearly he's changed since then. And then to pin that on me.

Carl G wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote:Cory: Weininger and Nietzsche, in the crux of their work, did not advocate the particular weaknesses which marked the end of their lives.

Carl: Did not advocate, but it is reasonable to surmise that at least in part thinking as they did resulted in an ugly demise.

Cory: A reasonable premise. But are you going anywhere with it? Are you insinuating something? Go ahead, do tell....

Yes. Basically this is about knowing how to separate, and not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. If we do not dispense with Weininger and Nietzsche for their weaknesses, why must we cancel Icke for his?

Because he offers almost nothing worth knowing combined with a shit load of stuff that will rot your brain.

You said "Weininger and Nietzsche, in the crux of their work, did not advocate the particular weaknesses which marked the end of their lives. On the other hand, the crux of David Icke's work is a bunch of new age baloney."

Basically, Weininger and Nietzsche offered a wealth of valuable insight before succumbing. Whereas, Icke succumbed to madness the moment he started trying to think.

Nor does this support your claim that Icke is a new age leader.

Check out his message forum. The Categories Icke has chosen are quite telling....

Astrology / Mysticism / Tarot
Illuminati / Secret Societies
UFOs / ETs / Orbs / Crop Circles
Mythological Creatures / Cryptozoology / Mysteries
Psychic Ability / Channelling / Remote Viewing
Ascension / 2012 Mayan Calendar

I mean, if that's not new age, then I don't know what is.

You equate the Lizard idea with the new age.

I also equate interest in astrology, astral projections, 2012 mayan calender, remote viewing, channeling spirits and mediums with new age as well.

It is instead a fringe conspiracy idea. In my experience generally new agers do not delve into conspiracy studies. It's 'too negative' for them.

In my experience, new agers, because they are not very mentally stable, seek a sense of heroism or self esteem by identifying a cartoon-like enemy, as well as a cartoonish ideal of good. The reason it's cartoonish (reptillians for instance) is to distract them from facing up to the enemy that lies before them in the mirror. The preoccupation with New Agers is to achieve 'vibrations' (as you like to say).

2) When an author consistently refers to sources THAT CAN NOT BE CONFIRMED (as Icke does) do you not think that this is a good sign that the author is delusional? (new age people, in my experience love to refer to sources that cannot be confirmed - they love magical stories of secret groups, good or evil, who conspire in exotic or 'extra dimensional' places)

Logic would tell us that unconfirmed does not necessarily mean baloney.

If you strongly believe in certain empirical views (or worse 'hearsay'), then what you believe is baloney.

4) In my experience, new agey people love David Icke and Betty Shine. They are powerful leaders in the New Age movement.

You must be the only one on the planet who thinks this.

Well, one thing I will admit is that Icke Represents an unprecedented fusion of New Age beliefs and Nazi philosophy. Icke embraces the classic paranoid Nazi conspiracy theory, alleging that the world is controlled by a secret cadre of "The Elite." He openly endorsed The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the Tsarist anti-Semitic forgery (the same notions that informed Hitler's notion of a global Jewish conspiracy).

I would go so far as to say that Betty and Icke are evil people whose works are a conspiracy.

Ridiculous. You think Betty and Icke are in cahoots?

My point is that all people, when they share egotistical values together, are engaging in a conspiracy to influence the world to some degree - whether it's Robert McNamara & John F. Kennedy, Leo Strauss & Abram Shulsky, John Nash & Clifford Truesdell, Kris Kristofferson & Willie Nelson or two teenagers plotting to get drunk on the weekend.

People do indeed set out to achieve their own personal conspiracies (longing for that idaho in the distance) - but do they ever end up like they're supposed to? Of course not. History is a series of unintended blunders resulting from frightened, myopic actions. People with egotistical values are always too much in competition with each other, too stupid, too self absorbed to ever effectively conspire to do anything. If you've ever read transcripts or detailed descriptions of what goes on at high level policy decisions (I'm sure it’s true of the Kennedy administration, I'm sure it’s true today in the Bush administration) The arguments, the self-absorption, the disagreements and the narcissism are incredible and a bit hilarious.

Cory Duchesne wrote:

Yes. Basically this is about knowing how to separate, and not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. If we do not dispense with Weininger and Nietzsche for their weaknesses, why must we cancel Icke for his?

Because he offers almost nothing worth knowing combined with a shit load of stuff that will rot your brain.

Ah, okay, personal opinion.

Nor does this support your claim that Icke is a new age leader.

Check out his message forum. The Categories Icke has chosen are quite telling....

Astrology / Mysticism / Tarot
Illuminati / Secret Societies
UFOs / ETs / Orbs / Crop Circles
Mythological Creatures / Cryptozoology / Mysteries
Psychic Ability / Channelling / Remote Viewing
Ascension / 2012 Mayan Calendar

I mean, if that's not new age, then I don't know what is.

Cory, you sad creature -- and I don't even know why I'm engaging you on this, as I've already said that I am not affiliated with Icke --you pull out selective topics out of many and say "look, new age!" Even most of these topics are not necessarily new age -- and why are we even discussing new age -- there have already been threads here wherein we found that there is no common definition of new age or new ager.

I mean, if that's not new age, then I don't know what is.

Remote Viewing: tell it to the U.S. Army and the Russians, who conducted a remote viewing espionage war during the 1960s.

Crop Circles: a empirical phenomenon, still under scientific study.

Psychic ability: not affiliated with any age; simply a human ability

2012: Mayan Calendar: an actual calendar constructed on astronomical data.

UFOs: Unidentified Flying Objects have been seen by people of all walks of life for decades if not millennia.

Mythological Creatures: have been part of myth in all cultures since before recorded history.

ETs: Extraterrestrials, if they exist, would surely predate the new age movement. Interest in the possibility engages people of all walks of life.

Illuminati and Secret Societies: as I have already said, study of this represents the antithesis of most new age thinking; most new agers find it "too negative."

Clearly, Cory, this list is just your personal list of new age ideas.

You equate the Lizard idea with the new age.

I also equate interest in astrology, astral projections, 2012 mayan calender, remote viewing, channeling spirits and mediums with new age as well.

Right, exactly. And who fucking cares.

It is instead a fringe conspiracy idea. In my experience generally new agers do not delve into conspiracy studies. It's 'too negative' for them.

In my experience, new agers, because they are not very mentally stable,

See, here is some more of your bullshit generalizing. You are so emotional.

seek a sense of heroism or self esteem by identifying a cartoon-like enemy, as well as a cartoonish ideal of good. The reason it's cartoonish (reptillians for instance) is to distract them from facing up to the enemy that lies before them in the mirror. The preoccupation with New Agers is to achieve 'vibrations' (as you like to say).

And given to fantasy. This is why I say you are one of the least logically thinking people on this board. Seriously, give some thought to refraining from posting for a while, and spend more time pondering about how to actually think.

2) When an author consistently refers to sources THAT CAN NOT BE CONFIRMED (as Icke does) do you not think that this is a good sign that the author is delusional?

Have you proven that he "consistently refers to sources THAT CAN NOT BE CONFIRMED"? No you have not.

(new age people, in my experience love to refer to sources that cannot be confirmed - they love magical stories of secret groups, good or evil, who conspire in exotic or 'extra dimensional' places)

Fuck the new agers. Okay, can we stop harping on them now?

Logic would tell us that unconfirmed does not necessarily mean baloney.

If you strongly believe in certain empirical views (or worse 'hearsay'), then what you believe is baloney.

You did not refute my statement. You did not even address it. You threw some more bullshit at the screen.

You must be the only one on the planet who thinks this.

Well, one thing I will admit is that Icke Represents an unprecedented fusion of New Age beliefs and Nazi philosophy. Icke embraces the classic paranoid Nazi conspiracy theory, alleging that the world is controlled by a secret cadre of "The Elite."

Hmm, alleges, eh. Never gives any evidence whatsoever?

He openly endorsed The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the Tsarist anti-Semitic forgery (the same notions that informed Hitler's notion of a global Jewish conspiracy).

Okay, we get it, you don't like Icke. At all.

You think Betty and Icke are in cahoots?

My point is that all people, when they share egotistical values together, are engaging in a conspiracy to influence the world to some degree - whether it's Robert McNamara & John F. Kennedy, Leo Strauss & Abram Shulsky, John Nash & Clifford Truesdell, Kris Kristofferson & Willie Nelson or two teenagers plotting to get drunk on the weekend. People do indeed set out to achieve their own personal conspiracies (longing for that idaho in the distance) - but do they ever end up like they're supposed to? Of course not.

*yawn* zzzzzzz.

History is a series of unintended blunders resulting from frightened, myopic actions. People with egotistical values are always too much in competition with each other, too stupid, too self absorbed to ever effectively conspire to do anything. If you've ever read transcripts or detailed descriptions of what goes on at high level policy decisions (I'm sure it’s true of the Kennedy administration, I'm sure it’s true today in the Bush administration) The arguments, the self-absorption, the disagreements and the narcissism are incredible and a bit hilarious.

Ah, ending it with some more personal opinion. You don't know.

All right. I'm done talking about Icke and the new age for now.

I notice Cory didn't answer my post, in which I have read a few of David Icke's books and each page usually has several references that could all be confirmed, and names names and dates sources, many of which we know. All the stuff he discusses is political/financial.

Iolaus wrote:I notice Cory didn't answer my post, in which I have read a few of David Icke's books and each page usually has several references that could all be confirmed, and names names and dates sources, many of which we know. All the stuff he discusses is political/financial.

You're right, some of Icke's political/financial views are not necessarily all wrong - although we can't know for sure they are right. Basically, the issues that concern him are outside the realm of what I consider spirituality.