David Icke 2012

[9eagle9]

You can't change the nature of either of them simply by 'saying' or thinking they are the same thing .If Icke wants to use them interchangeably he will have a very hard time showing what he means to get over to people. He may, quite inadvertently mislead people. He can talk and tell all he wants, but he's not showing the difference between his version of conscious and contrast between consciousness and awareness. He's a creating a new language and the 100 monkeys will tell us how fast that will spread.

We are creating a new language where different things suddenly mean the same and this is not helpful to people who have been decieved over and over by the introduction of new languages created everytime we want to support a concept. This is not helpful to people who have not had the experience of multi expressions.

Icke can create a new language and he will be entertaining some correction because it's misleading.

Everyone knows they have conscious, but if they think that their conscious is their awareness they will not be prompted to seek what they think they have access to...One of the biggest matrix traps there are. To not seek out somethign because you think you have acess to it. At one time everyone in America thought they were Free because someone said so and we weren't. We didn't have access to freedom. They just created a huge language to support an idea of freedom. An idea of freedom is not freedom, nor more than Earl Grey is a meal.

Indeed the 'dangers' of allowing others to think for you.

Tea is tea. Someone made the choice, the agreement, to create a new word or language where tea was suddenly a meal. Dinner and supper are just different names for meals. Who put the gun to our head? Did we have choice to say...nah, gonna keep calling my 4 oclock meal a ...meal.

One goes to the gas station to get gas. But its not a gas that one is purchasing.

This is how the powers that be got us in the first place. We accept concepts for what they really are not. The mind makes agreements , agreements are based on language. The subconcious while unable to separate fact from fiction takes agreements and follows them to a T. (No pun intended) . Any first level hypnosis therapist could demonstrates (show) what Icke is not showing..he's telling.

So tea as a meal has become a reality for people. Because they created it. They accepted that tea was a meal, it was by their agreement to agree to this new language. The essential nature of tea as a drink is still the same. You can call it a meal if you want, you can create an alternate reality around because that is what consciousness does....but tea is still tea. A very basic primer in how 'they' used consciousness to create our own reality. We just accepted, or agreed to the change in language, until it become a reality for us. Its right there in front of our face but ...we agree otherwise. But the essential nature of the article remains unchanged. Considering Ickes association with Jordan Maxwell who demonstrates that the 'language' used was what decieved ---I have to admit I am rather suprised.

But it shows how the twisting of language immediately becomes a truth for people. It can be twisted any which way. However the essential natures of awareness and consciouness remain the same, so people in accepting a new language will not seek out what they percieve they are already expressing.

.

Consciousness cannot go beyond what it is composed of. Which are concepts, without them consciousness would have very litttle expression. It needs language to express itself and the alteration of language is a matrix trap as Jordan Maxwell has demonstrated. It is what we make our subconscious agreements with.

We agree that tea was a meal. Did that change anything? Did all our tea bags turn into scones and clotted cream? Certainly it confuses people who have not made this agreement, the ones who are invited to tea and end up with finger sandwiches.

In knowing that consciousness and awareness are two different expressions-- no one has lost anything, one does not have to give one or the other up. It's the language and the concept that has more importance to people than the actual expression of it.

To say one is conscious while asleep is just creating yet another new language,to prop up a concept, an ida. We are then trained to think other than what we know.

Edgar Cayce became more aware when he was asleep and he was not conscious in the least of what was exchanged during this time. We know we are more aware in some altered states of consciousness. What was altered to allow the heightened awareness?

This is how humanity has been decieved making what we know into something different creating false standards for people to attempt to step up to.

We know this....then the first authority that stumbles in with a new language --we just give up what we know in favor a new language that 'seemingly' makes things what they really are not.

[gripreaper]

If I don't See YA, Good Afternoon, Good Evening...and GOOD NIGHT!!

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=-1LM7Q3Hqi4

[Jenci]

Posted by 9eagle9 (here)
You can't change the nature of either of them simply by 'saying' or thinking they are the same thing .If Icke wants to use them interchangeably he will have a very hard time showing what he means to get over to people. He may, quite inadvertently mislead people. He can talk and tell all he wants, but he's not showing the difference between his version of conscious and contrast between consciousness and awareness. He's a creating a new language and the 100 monkeys will tell us how fast that will spread.

We are creating a new language where different things suddenly mean the same and this is not helpful to people who have been decieved over and over by the introduction of new languages created everytime we want to support a concept. This is not helpful to people who have not had the experience of multi expressions.

Icke can create a new language and he will be entertaining some correction because it's misleading.

Everyone knows they have conscious, but if they think that their conscious is their awareness they will not be prompted to seek what they think they have access to...One of the biggest matrix traps there are. To not seek out somethign because you think you have acess to it. At one time everyone in America thought they were Free because someone said so and we weren't. We didn't have access to freedom. They just created a huge language to support an idea of freedom. An idea of freedom is not freedom, nor more than Earl Grey is a meal.

Indeed the 'dangers' of allowing others to think for you.

Tea is tea. Someone made the choice, the agreement, to create a new word or language where tea was suddenly a meal. Dinner and supper are just different names for meals. Who put the gun to our head? Did we have choice to say...nah, gonna keep calling my 4 oclock meal a ...meal.

One goes to the gas station to get gas. But its not a gas that one is purchasing.

This is how the powers that be got us in the first place. We accept concepts for what they really are not. The mind makes agreements , agreements are based on language. The subconcious while unable to separate fact from fiction takes agreements and follows them to a T. (No pun intended) . Any first level hypnosis therapist could demonstrates (show) what Icke is not showing..he's telling.

So tea as a meal has become a reality for people. Because they created it. They accepted that tea was a meal, it was by their agreement to agree to this new language. The essential nature of tea as a drink is still the same. You can call it a meal if you want, you can create an alternate reality around because that is what consciousness does....but tea is still tea. A very basic primer in how 'they' used consciousness to create our own reality. We just accepted, or agreed to the change in language, until it become a reality for us. Its right there in front of our face but ...we agree otherwise. But the essential nature of the article remains unchanged. Considering Ickes association with Jordan Maxwell who demonstrates that the 'language' used was what decieved ---I have to admit I am rather suprised.

But it shows how the twisting of language immediately becomes a truth for people. It can be twisted any which way. However the essential natures of awareness and consciouness remain the same, so people in accepting a new language will not seek out what they percieve they are already expressing.

.

Consciousness cannot go beyond what it is composed of. Which are concepts, without them consciousness would have very litttle expression. It needs language to express itself and the alteration of language is a matrix trap as Jordan Maxwell has demonstrated. It is what we make our subconscious agreements with.

We agree that tea was a meal. Did that change anything? Did all our tea bags turn into scones and clotted cream? Certainly it confuses people who have not made this agreement, the ones who are invited to tea and end up with finger sandwiches.

In knowing that consciousness and awareness are two different expressions-- no one has lost anything, one does not have to give one or the other up. It's the language and the concept that has more importance to people than the actual expression of it.

To say one is conscious while asleep is just creating yet another new language,to prop up a concept, an ida. We are then trained to think other than what we know.

Edgar Cayce became more aware when he was asleep and he was not conscious in the least of what was exchanged during this time. We know we are more aware in some altered states of consciousness. What was altered to allow the heightened awareness?

This is how humanity has been decieved making what we know into something different creating false standards for people to attempt to step up to.

We know this....then the first authority that stumbles in with a new language --we just give up what we know in favor a new language that 'seemingly' makes things what they really are not.

I don't think anyone is being deceived here, 9eagle9.

We are talking about something which cannot be named. So how can we say there is a correct word for it? We can't.

I can equally say here that the PTB have kept people trapped in trying to find the right word for centuries. This is what the different religions have been arguing over (what is God, which is the right God)

It's an impossible task - there is no right word.
The words are just the signposts pointing to what it is.
When we realise this ultimate reality, we realise the words or signposts are no longer relevant.


Icke uses the word Consciousness, so do many others. I use the word Consciousness sometimes.

I think Icke gives a good message on this subject and he is reaching many people who wouldn't normally be interested in the spiritual aspect of truth seeking. Videos like the one in the OP are helping.

I shall leave this with Icke's explanation of Consciousness and how he applies it. We can note the use of small and capital letters for both consciousness and awareness to differentiate the emphasis on the word - when we are talking about God we use the capital letter.

People talk about conscious and sub conscious mind and they use phrases like 'regaining consciousness', and such like. I am using the term in a very different way, not least with a capital C to emphasise all Consciousness is one Consciousness expressing itself in infinite ways.

When I talk about Consciousness I mean the level of awareness that is eternal and infinite - our primary state.

It is All Knowing, All Possibility, Infinite One-Consciousness in awareness of itself. Everything is an expression of that One Consciousness; it has to be because that is all there is. But not everything is in the same state of awareness and, compared with Consciousness in awareness of itself, Mind is a village idiot.

It is said that self-awareness, being aware of one's own existence, is the definition of being conscious. I disagree.

Self-awareness may mean you are more aware of your own existence, but it doesn't mean that you are Conscious in the sense that I am using the term here.

Mind has self-awareness, not least through its false identity with being Ethel Brown or Charlie Smith and the 'life stories' which go with them; but if mind becomes a closed circuit, a 'closed mind', as it is with most people, it will not be truly Consciousness in the sense of eternal Consciousness, or Infinite Awareness.

It will be operating with a fundamentally limited sense of awareness, possibility and self-identity.


David Icke - Human Race Get Off Your Knees p4

Jeanette

[9eagle9]

People talk about conscious and sub conscious mind and they use phrases like 'regaining consciousness', and such like. I am using the term in a very different way, not least with a capital C to emphasise all Consciousness is one Consciousness expressing itself in infinite ways.

So ..as I suggested..you are creating a new terminology, reframing language. The difference between SELF and self?

You can call it whatever you want and you can do whatever you want. But for for those people who have not had the experience of awareness versus conscious, I'm going to make sure they know they have a choice. That when simply being 'conscious' doesn't do it for them, they will know why.

We are talking about something which cannot be named.


Why? Why can't it be named. We are all powerful and infinite, right? But we can't find a name in that all empowering infinity? Lol.

We are not looking for a name we are defining two different expressions . It already had a name before it was clumped under conscious. If we had not it clumped under one label we'd have a name for it. If the name gets pushed back under where it doesn't belong, who would know the name?

The whole point is that someone is attempting to rename it.

Somehow relabling it as 'cannot be named' is going to make the concept Icke talks about more accessible to people?

Of course it can be named. It had a name and it wasn't 'conscious' well before the new age circus of re-labeling everything began. If one sticks the name in under conscious we wonder why we can't find the name?

Does it a need a name? it shouldn't....but Sure people have been exposed to so much bull**** that if someone yet again tries to create another mystery school around this , (and I firmly do not place that creation of mystery school at Icke's feet) then the entirety of Icke's point will be ....dismissed. If someone is going to blur the lines of definition here and tamper with what doesn't' need to be tampered with, yes it needs a name.

So how can we say there is a correct word for it? We can't.

YOU can't find a more correct word because you've already slid it inder the definition of consciousness. You are insisting that conscious is the correct word. But it is evidential that the two are not the same thing. That can be proven. The unknowable, unknown name cannot . How could we if we don't know it. It's not that we don't know it, its been clumped under another definition.

This is just another facet of ourselves, its not mysterious and un-knowable but as you have done a very good job of demonstrating, its hidden in or under conscious.

If we are going to tirade against the PTB that kept matters blurred and hidden, where ' this' meant 'that' in one public codex, and 'that' meant 'this' in the established codex...... we very well should not be doing it ourselves.

Obviously it can be named, because its already been done. The new age has this concept that if it changes the name of something, something has changed. Which is why nothing seems to change, there's no progress, just belief hopping. The word light had to be changed to mean something other than what it was. And the dimensions had to be changed to accomadate the fact we are hung up in consciousness and not awareness.

Now we are changing the world conscious to make it seem interchangeable with one's awareness. For those who have done the work to shift consciousness ....hey not a problem.But those aren't people reading or viewing Icke's works. For those who have not done the work.....it's misleading.

And your right it doesn't matter, it will only lead to people who think that because they are conscious they are enabled to acces multiable expressions of themselves.So they are not challenged to dig deeper. And that just proves itself right now. People are conscious but people are not aware.

I use the word conscious all the time, but I don't use interchangeably with awareness or higher expression.

[Sebastion]

9eagle9 is spot on in what she has to say for that has been my experience as well and I back her up completely. This is the entrance to the more subtle and powerful understandings regarding consciousness. The next step regarding how powerful these more subtle understandings can be is to take notice of the focal point of your awareness or "attention". You cannot be aware of something until your attention is drawn to it in some way. Where ever your attention goes, you bring awareness as well, if you pay attention, lol!

[another bob]

Posted by 9eagle9 (here)
Obviously it can be named, because its already been done. The new age has this concept that if it changes the name of something, something has changed. Which is why nothing seems to change, there's no progress, just belief hopping. The word light had to be changed to mean something other than what it was. And the dimensions had to be changed to accomadate the fact we are hung up in consciousness and not awareness.

Now we are changing the world conscious to make it seem interchangeable with one's awareness. For those who have done the work to shift consciousness ....hey not a problem.But those aren't people reading or viewing Icke's works. For those who have not done the work.....it's misleading.

http://www.pbase.com/1heart/image/140803132

[9eagle9]

I get your point but one has to either work around people's belief systems or their labeling system, so just saying it has no name is ...

1) You're preaching to the choir.

2) or you can talk to the congression who has not a clue what this means until they are shown the difference.

Posted by another bob (here)

Posted by 9eagle9 (here)
Obviously it can be named, because its already been done. The new age has this concept that if it changes the name of something, something has changed. Which is why nothing seems to change, there's no progress, just belief hopping. The word light had to be changed to mean something other than what it was. And the dimensions had to be changed to accomadate the fact we are hung up in consciousness and not awareness.

Now we are changing the world conscious to make it seem interchangeable with one's awareness. For those who have done the work to shift consciousness ....hey not a problem.But those aren't people reading or viewing Icke's works. For those who have not done the work.....it's misleading.

http://www.pbase.com/1heart/image/140803132

[another bob]

Posted by 9eagle9 (here)
I get your point but one has to either work around people's belief systems or their labeling system, so just saying it has no name is ...

1) You're preaching to the choir.

That's OK, especially if it's the Cricket Choir . . . It's all like that anyway -- all our talk, it's one big song, one singer with infinite voices, all in perfectly synchronous harmony, layers and ripples of resonance and dissonance, and not a note out of place, not a whisper unheard.

2) or you can talk to the congression who has not a clue what this means until they are shown the difference.

We all have our work to do.

[9eagle9]

Until the day we all can speak another non verbal language to each other I guess we'll have to make do by not screwing the verbal one we are currently depending on too much.

[jorr lundstrom]

They are severe mixed in the tin can, but I still know that the small cubic, orange

ones are called carrots and the small round green ones are called peas. Right? LOL

[another bob]

Posted by 9eagle9 (here)
Until the day we all can speak another non verbal language to each other I guess we'll have to make do by not screwing the verbal one we are currently depending on too much.

Or maybe sobering up and weaning away from our dependence on it.

[Carmody]

define: "Conscious".

Aye.....there's the rub.

[Jenci]

Hi 9eagle9

Posted by 9eagle9 (here)
You are insisting that conscious is the correct word.

No I am not saying that. This is a difficult subject to grasp so it is easy to be misunderstood.....I'll shall try again to illustrate what I am saying, hopefully it may help.

Why? Why can't it be named. We are all powerful and infinite, right? But we can't find a name in that all empowering infinity? Lol.

In the context that you have described it, we have consciousness. Consciousness can come and go and has different levels or aspects to it. All of this consciousness is seen from awareness.

So here we have two things - awareness being aware of consciousness (and everything contained in it - people, places, things, thoughts, emotions, etc etc.)

But something is prior to awareness which is not a thing - no-thing.

This no-thing cannot be named because it is prior to awareness, consciousness and everthing else. Even words arise within it, so therefore are secondary to it - what is prior to all.

Any word or a name we use is dependent on the no-thing to exist, so therefore cannot be the no-thing.
So this is why, we cannot name what we are referring to.

When a person moves beyond consciousness and awareness to realise the no-thing, then the words 'consciousness' and 'awareness', are seen as irrelevant. In other words, neither of them are more important than the other for a person to realise the no-thing. At best, all the words can do is serve as signpost, pointing to the no-thing, prior to everything.

All of us view life through filters of our conditioning, ideas, thoughts, beliefs so when a teacher introduces us to the idea of 'awareness' or 'consciousness', regardless of what our teacher means, our filters may distort the words to mean something else. There's nothing wrong in this but what it will mean is some people will resonate with the idea of 'awareness' which you talked about and get what it is about and for other people it will make no sense.......and yet the word 'consciousness' may trigger some deeper understanding for them which means they become "aware".

And this is why teachers will use many words to point to what they are talking about. It's got nothing to do with a new age conspiracy to deceive (although I am in agreement here that there is a big one!).

These words may be interchanged if necessary. For example an individual may come to a real understanding of experiencing awareness but get stuck there, so the word consciousness or nothingness or emptiness could be introduced to help them move on by getting them to the realisation that awareness is not "it", not the Ultimate Reality, so keep going.

Jeanette

[Jenci]

1st Verse - a translation from the Tao Te Ching

The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao

The name that can be named is not the eternal name

The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth

The named is the mother of myriad things

Thus, constantly without desire, one observes its essence

Constantly with desire, one observes its manifestations

These two emerge together but differ in name

The unity is said to be the mystery

Mystery of mysteries, the door to all wonders

Jeanette

[Star1111]

Dear Avalonians

I know its an article from the Daily Mail but imo they do get some things right and have exposed some things of importance.........not all the time but some of the time!

So here is an article on David Icke from his soon-to-be ex-wife. Truth or fiction, I don't really care. It could be a 'story' from a woman scorned (hell hath no fury) or there could be some truth in it.

So what !! you might say.

So what indeed!! Its not important is it, but its food for thought and shows that in our human form we can all fall foul of human traits allegedly

Whether David DID or DIDN't do what is stated in the article, no matter, just thought I would share this all with you.

Much LOVE to you all.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2083287

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Star1111 (here)
It could be a 'story' from a woman scorned (hell hath no fury)

It is.

Posted by Star1111 (here)
or there could be some truth in it.

There is not.

Posted by Star1111 (here)
Truth or fiction, I don't really care.

Maybe you should.

[Logan]

This looks like a real hit piece. I'm always weary of articles that are deliberately slanted against one individual without even seeking their opinions or quotes on the matter at hand.

[BestLion]

Seems they are trying to discredit him anyway they can. This aint the 1st time. They really did a smear campaign on him when he revealed info about reptilians. And low and behold what do we find in the article?

Our planet, he declared, is secretly ruled by a race of reptile-like aliens.

These reptiles, malevolent in nature, sometimes ‘shape-shift’ into human form. The Queen, for example, is a reptilian, President Barack Obama another.

Bonkers, yes. But Icke’s show in November, with tickets costing $50 (£32) a head, was a sell-out, as have been most of the other dates on his world tour, which ends in Britain later this year.

Ickes mention of Reptilians. i'd take this article with a grain of salt.
And what Icke says on reptilians should not be dismissed. They are mentioned in all lore, in all religions, and in much of history. And most people who have done DMT have seen reptilians.

[Kristin]

I have the deepest respect for Icke. I am sorry that he is going though this, however he's a tough cookie. I have little respect for someone who airs personal laundry out to dry while posing in a flouncy blue dress... Very poor taste on her part. Very sad. Perhaps he should have waited for the mauve dress after all.
From the Heart,
Wormhole

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by BestLion (here)
Seems they are trying to discredit him anyway they can. This aint the 1st time. They really did a smear campaign on him when he revealed info about reptilians. And low and behold what do we find in the article?

Our planet, he declared, is secretly ruled by a race of reptile-like aliens.

These reptiles, malevolent in nature, sometimes ‘shape-shift’ into human form. The Queen, for example, is a reptilian, President Barack Obama another.

Bonkers, yes. But Icke’s show in November, with tickets costing $50 (£32) a head, was a sell-out, as have been most of the other dates on his world tour, which ends in Britain later this year.

Ickes mention of Reptilians. i'd take this article with a grain of salt.
And what Icke says on reptilians should not be dismissed. They are mentioned in all lore, in all religions, and in much of history. And most people who have done DMT have seen reptilians.

Many people who have seen reptilians have never taken any drugs. [Mod hat on: please stop promoting this.]

***

Do listen to this impromptu recording of a conversation about reptilians between David Icke and Jordan Maxwell. I was having lunch with them, in June 2010, and happened to have my dictaphone in my pocket. I quickly placed it on the table and captured this very important witness testimony.

http://projectavalon.net/David_Icke_...n_May_2010.mp3

21 mins. MUST LISTEN. If you're not sure about the reptilian reality, you're unlikely to be in much more doubt after listening to these accounts.