What it did do is give me a clearer idea of the power structures and families which have guided, or rather, designed modern civilization.
When his book Children of the Matrix came out, most of my friends thought me crazy for entertaining the idea of the reptilians, but what they didn't realize was that i got the underlying metaphor, and didn't need to believe that these people really shape shifted or were actual reptiles.
The metaphor works beautifully.
Along with David's work, I also spent a lot of time delving into other metaphysical and esoteric material. A few of my friends spent a fair amount of time studying Theosophy, European magik, Aleister Crowley and the like. Personally, I could never get into that stuff. It always rubbed me the wrong way, maybe due to my obsession in my early teens with Apocalyptic material, especially the book of Revelations. In my adult life, I have always been drawn more towards Eastern Philosophies, which eventually led me to Sufism, which I feel is a marriage of east & west in many ways, as well as a marriage of monotheistic and animistic concepts, creative expression, diversity of expression in accord with time & place, objective scientific thought sitting right next to the mystical, etc.
I could spend an entire post, maybe an entire book in exposition of how I view religion and spirituality and how there is a current war against it based on some amazingly shallow straw man arguments and examples. The rationally minded tend to rely on their own ignorance and lack of study in terms of religions and theology in order to prop up their arguments by using these worst case, straw man examples instead of being learned and having a deep understanding of the complexity of religious thought. They tend to limit themselves to one mode of thinking that is of smaller scale than a truly religious person can be and call it superior. Understand this, any Atheist who rails against religion without having ever studied any sort of theology is talking out of an absurd amount of ignorance and not even following the rules of their own rational mode of thought that they so espouse. They speak ignorantly and subjectively, treating their own mode of thought in an orthodox and dogmatic manner which renders their own beliefs to be a certain sort of religion, and a faith based religion at that, having faith that human perception is necessarily correct and that it can be expanded universally even though not one single nugget of human knowledge has ever been confirmed by any other species or any technology which is not a product of the specifically human neuro-semantic system. (I do not dismiss the practical application of scientific and rational knowledge and find it to be very useful for certain things, but not all things).
Case in point, I would consider myself religious (do not mistake that to mean I have orthodox or dogmatic beliefs or that I even believe in a personified deity - those are not requirements of religion and are anthropocentric, i.e., projecting humanism onto something far beyond such personifications, with deity being a technology used to make a personalized, more intimate relationship with the divine more readily available to those who are not ready or capable of more abstract concepts of 'God'), but I also thoroughly enjoy and see great benefit in rational and scientific thought. I can manage BOTH. Therefore, the palette from which i can learn is larger than that of a person who limits themselves to one mode of thought and fights vehemently and self righteously against anything which said person sees as "other'.
I've always cast a questioning and critical eye towards the New Age and metaphysical culture and materials. They have always felt like a bait & switch, a scam. early on I recognized how incredibly well they fit the description of the Religion of Man, i.e., the Religion of the Anti-Christ as represented in Christian doctrine.
I've spent all of those years observing, witnessing the various methodologies and systems which various friends were drawn to, clung to, and sometimes became undying slaves to.
Over those years, I've come to the conclusion that most of them simply do not work in the long run.
Why? because the are basically Luciferic. They focus on self and how to obtain one's desires. very rarely is it posited that one should pay any heed to how their decisions affect those around them.
Instead, it is implied and sometimes outright stated that, well, to put it in a slanted, subjective way, the way i interpret it, the path to enlightenment and being a better person is to be completely selfish, self centered, and focus completely on making the world in your own image, i.e., making everything conform to one's lustful, greedy, self centered desires.
I've spent time with such material, and I never simply dismissed it, but I always found myself playing 'devil's advocate' (which in this case is opposite in terminology than the forces I was truly advocating for) and testing my friends on their newfound 'theology', asking them to explain to me exactly how they thought this stuff worked for them. I would question their non-critical beliefs in strange interpretations of quantum mechanics, as expressed through books such as The Secret and movies such as What the Bleep Do We Know?
Part of me wanted to believe in these things, and sometimes, for a little while, I would fall under their spell.
But such things never brought the deep fulfillment that they promised.
I always felt their were dark seductive powers behind such things.
Now I believe this more than ever.
In my own experience, I've found the most contentment in being of service to others, of supporting them, launching them into a life which unfolds their gifts. Many friends have thought me a bit off of my rocker for doing so in a rather unconditional manner, letting go of expectations of return.
Many could not imagine interactions that were not commodified by including the stipulation of reward.
I'm only human, so of course I have suffered heartache and pain, disappointment, etc.
But I've also seen the bigger picture.
I've nurtured an awareness which dissolves boundaries in a way which can become very empathic.
I can read people. Not because I am special, but because I have learned how to tone down and try to quiet my ego, my selfishness, enough that I can be silent enough to listen.
In this way I can hear what is needed, read the underlying meanings of words and actions, and attempt to be a force of creativity and support.
This is not to say that I am necessarily good at this, at least not all of the time. I stumble and make mistakes just like anyone else does.
Over the years though, having practiced this interconnected awareness, of looking deeper, of attempting to understand connections many layers deep, how beings interact, how I affect others and how we all affect each other, how our belief systems directly color and determine how we behave in this manner, I have found myself extending it beyond the human realm and into the realm which most would call Animism.
Not only has the human hierarchy of power dissolved for me, but so has the humanist one, the one that declares that humans are above all else and that all of creation exists simply to serve human desire.
I also no longer believe in any human definition of self as being correct. Why? because by definition, it has to be a subjective viewpoint. Those definitions have not been proven to be true by any other species defining us and agreeing have they?
So where does that leave me? it would be all too easy to fall into a nihilistic viewpoint, and many do.
Luckily, the artistic side of me is wed to the side of me that seeks the sacred, and, at least for me, I've found a philosophy that works. It is a philosophy in which I believe that belief systems are about creativity married with responsibility - truly the ability to respond. And this response should be compassionate & empathic.
If the New Agers believe in their theories of quantum determinacy, then they must also admit that no one is allowed the freedom to believe anything they want free of repercussions as to how their beliefs affect everything around them. We are all responsible for how and what we believe and how those beliefs directly affect our interactions with the world.
I believe that all spirituality should support expansive creativity founded in the awareness of our interconnections.
Let me explain it like this:
-If one is a humanist or atheist who bases their view of reality on evolutionary theory, then one should be supporting the type of diversity and creativity which nature constantly births in order to adapt to ever changing conditions. This means that monoculture should be shunned, as should all activities which seek to realize standards and laws which limit such activity, as those things are forces of entropy and work directly against the survival strategies which constantly modify themselves in accord with the feedback loops which tend to persist in nature, allowing creation to communicate with itself in its multiplicity. One type of language is not 'better' than another. they are merely aesthetically different and support differing activities. The belief that intelligence is defined by the ability to subjugate and manipulate is decidedly absurd when viewed in this light. (See my previous blog post featuring a video interview with Derrick Jensen for more on this).
-If one is religious or of a spiritual persuasion, it seems to me that creative mediocrity and creative laziness is profane. It stand at odds with celebrating and nurturing the creative gifts which 'God' has given us. In this way, I am not very attracted to folk arts and traditional forms of art & music.
this may be harsh, but those who simply repeat that which came before rather than expressing themselves in their own personal way are basically thumbing their nose at their own ability to create something new and unique. Instead, they choose a path that has a much lower level of risk and is safe because it has already been tread. I do recognize that folk & traditional arts & music have their place in terms of sociability and cultural cohesion, I do not dismiss the important role which it plays in this regard. But it should not be mistaken with visionary and celebratory creativity - sacred creativity which is about losing oneself in 'the Divine', in becoming a channel for something greater.
Personally, I strive for this but feel that I am a nearly complete failure. It doesn't matter to me that my music has a unique sound, even though it is built on the influence of others. Even though i manage to create something both unique and similar enough to not make most people uneasy, I know I can open that channel more and have a lot more cultural programming to shed.
When it comes to my visual art, I find that I never feel at home saying that I created my paintings.
I have almost always approached painting in a 'Zen' style, being open and letting gestures and spontaneous actions create the first forms on the canvas. I do not dictate. There is no intention, or very little. It is only after a certain level of form has taken shape that I allow a bit of my rational, left brained self to start to decide how to further define these forms. It is a marriage of left & right brained activity, constantly moving back & forth between the two. I find it extremely difficult to start a piece with a defined idea or concept in mind. I become frustrated very quickly because it doesn't feel natural to me.
This is pretty much completely opposite of the way in which I created art up until my mid-twenties.
Prior to that, most of my art was very defined, graphic (as in graphic design) and based on a sense of realism. It was not until I moved into painting (which was a big change from mediums such as colored pencils and design markers).
Anyway, I've strayed quite a ways from the original topic, But I hope that you, the reader, can understand why.
To get back to David Icke and the New Age Movement and , well, let's throw the New World Order in there too for shits & giggles....
I recently spent a fair amount of time watching Christian New Age conspiracy videos - i really love to see & hear both sides of these things. What really amazed me was just how well versed many of these presenters were in terms of the history of the New Age movement, Theosophy, etc. and the blatantly open ties to Luciferianism which were present publicly in such systems in their earlier days but seem to have been forgotten or glossed over as time passed.
I don't agree with everything that these presenters had to say, especially not their bashing of people who feel that respecting the earth is somehow stupid and evil and not an extension of respecting God through respecting God's creation. This is where I part ways with most of the Abrahamic religions and find myself more in accord with Sufi schools which, for the most part, were considered heretical by orthodox Islam. I find myself marrying their philosophies with the worldview of so called 'primitive people', you now , the ones who managed to live in a mutually beneficial, though not always 'ideal' (a concept i would question them even having) partnership with the rest of the natural world for hundreds of thousands of years without fucking things up, unlike Civilized humanity, which has made a massive mess of things in just a few thousand years.
i haven't settled on any one theology, though; Mine is constantly evolving, but always founded on Love, Compassion, Empathy, and Creativity. Throw some Patience in there for good measure as well.
One of the most enjoyable and enlightening (pardon the word) videos of the ones I watched was one that debunks David Icke and presents a history of how he developed as a person and as an author and presenter, exposing many contradictions. It is a very interesting video for anyone who has ever been the least bit interested in his work or New Age philosophy. The first part focuses heavily on the Theosophical Society and Alice Bailey. There is a good deal of information about ascended masters as well. The creator of this video (Chris White) is Christian, and in the end he lets a few of his personal beliefs slide into the mix a bit more than I cared for (though he has the right and I am glad that he felt empowered enough to express them), but for the most part, I felt it was a well researched and well presented critique of David Icke. He also has quite a few other debunking videos that I found a joy to watch. especially the ones on Ancient Aliens. Those who are obsessed with the Nefilim and Annunaki, as presented by people such as Erik Von Daniken & Zachariah Sitchin should check those out.
On that note, I will cease and desist from further ranting for now.
You can watch the video below.