It Is or It Ain't : Waffling on Matters of Antivalence Leads to Severe Inconsistencies

I try to listen to David Icke with an open mind, I really do. But I find that his spiritual advice runs against the grain of the facts and truths concerning the world's evil structure and conduct, facts about the world which require an absolutist approach, and one which is proportionate to the variations and subtleties of the ways these two primary categories of Reality manifest themselves. He claims it is false dichotomy. He does it even to this day, which amazes me. Alex suffers not to make this mistake. Alex Jones of course. But his love of an idyllic vision of the world which is not in itself wrong, is still something which in weaker minds leads to compromises so as to attain proximate illusions. But he doesn't make that mistake. On an emotional and spiritual level, it seems that what David Icke says about matters of people's judgement claims that their inability to properly distinguish Good and evil is taken advantage of by false alternatives being thrown at them (true). These false alternatives are not things which both I and Alex Jones would both say are either Good or evil without an overlap (as would many people.. as might David Icke himself if he were confronted with it more directly. Like child rape. Okay?). But then he goes on to imply that the problems which arise in the world concerning what we dislike "in our movies/movie" is merely each one's own delusion. Well, I hope the hell not, because Jimmy fucking Seville is no part of my movie, so fuck you if you say all that is a projection of me. That's what Jimmy wants to project into the world as acceptable and "noble" to do, and this is his projection. My projection of what is right is imitated by the outward presentations of these perverts, who pretend to be talented nobility, but in fact they are protected criminals who are lower than animals! That is NOT my projection, that is a God damned FACT.

I ask everyone, as I asked David Icke: 

In response to this video.

"Would you agree that counterfeit money, covert 5th columns given a promise of exception from engineered economic suffering (and mostly kept ignorant of the "economic collapse" clause, which excludes their interests entirely), and would you also agree that psychotronics, combined with these prior two forces which are relatively ancient, is the critical "catalyst" that explains the modern contradiction of harsh realities and people's seeming obliviousness toward them? Otherwise you have to say they are rather hopeless clay pots, judging by their passivity, all the more by the "lower denizens" of the evil control grids. At least that these are structural realities of its methodology. [These are things that every investigator of the matter of the world's ways of corruption and suffering have discovered by one means or another, under one rubric or another. David's answer would be "yes", those are not dismissed as merely the side effects of an unloving populace. I've fairly proven that the unloving populace is a manifestation, partly a side effect, but rather the co-cause... in a vicious feedback loop, and I've proven that it is in most cases]

But as to religion hi-jacking the civilization with false alternatives called Good and evil, rather it is the race of clay men seemingly born to act as ignorant beasts which have the proclivity of hijacking religion with their passive-aggressive ways of interpreting Good and evil as being false alternatives, such as "love and hate". It seems to me you have the principle of the matter stated backward. Nothing wrong with excellent categories describing the only fundamental binary choice in existence. It is just that some people offer fallacious interpretations of what those categories are, contain, and imply. You seem also to run the danger of doing the same. Failing to draw a distinction that is so fundamentally unique in its only instance of significance would miss the point. Like it or not, everything in the world is some percentage of Good and evil aspects, and by varying degrees and proportions. And people ought to make their own honest assessment of those facts and make responsible evaluations which protect what is Right against what is wrong. This distinction is not the problem. The problem is with those who manipulate people by means of cowardly and evil acts of coercion and deception to make them too intimidated to attempt to exercise conscientious judgment about matter that EXACTLY ARE BLACK AND WHITE. The manipulators will of course degrade this binary operation of choice (the only if its kind in Reality), and not want people to see it clearly, so as not to make the right choice (don't go to hell by aiding and abetting those who rape children's innocence). But you take it one worse by claiming the problem are these categories. That's not it."

I try to make small comments, I really do, but then things get tricky.

Long comments in this video are here recapitulated.

"Very good psychology lesson. But not only that; several profound gems. The uselessness of the "fear state" as a state of compromise, when telling the Truth is what only cowards fear. They fear being exposed for some crime they are in on. They have bad faith, bad conscience (if any conscience). If anyone "should" be afraid, it is them, for being guilty, for acting "in secret" all while being perfectly transparent to the Greater Cosmos of the complete and ever-perfecting Reality, of which those who would control others through fear will not be allowed to exist within as living conscious beings, but will be transformed into non-agental corpuscles of energy, utterly passive and permanently neutral until required for the engendering of New Beings, who will not be THEM (nor their evil memories or actions or characteristics), but will be THOSE WHO WERE SUPPRESSED, BY THAT DEGREE RESTORED TO THEIR FORMER GLORY AND BEYOND.

Also, while on the one hand you are saying really good things concerning self-development of being Right in the head and heart, they are often handy as rhetoric to beat people over the head who have zero inclination to love rapist, head-chopping, pedophile augmenting bureaucrats of corruption and destruction which you at times seem to suggest are merely projections of those who bemoan such things. Rest assuredly that they are not merely projections of the minds which detest them and want them changed, but of those who adore such evil and like things as they are, or perhaps a bit better if you please (though perhaps many times worse for you). They have their own agency, and it is an evil one. One doesn't sit down and have reasonable discussions with flowers in our hair with such evil. It doesn't happen that way. The current archon's paradise is a result of that sort of fallacy. If you mean to say that this "movie" costars some evil beings who feed on being submitted to by means of accepting their confidence trick version of love and friendship, then you must sensibly allow for vitriol in the right direction. Otherwise, you're just saying "what's all the fuss about" on a "meta" level. As in saying "there needn't be any 'hatred' of evil". I would say that such hatred toward TRUE EVIL (you'll know it when you see it or you'll be in on it), is a signal of psychospiritual HEALTH when it is proportionate to the facts of the reality of those with which one is engaged, with whom the THEATER of PERCEPTION is taking place. And us all getting together who are Good and having a Tea Party is one fine thing to imagine, but that's what is *not wanted by a staggering number of people who've all sold their souls and devoted their soles to the works of those who prefer to, well, eat children's innocence, basically."

I see that David Icke suffers from moral ambiguity, and therefore ought not speak of evaluating alternatives according to their relative merits on far lesser matters, such as what sort of cognitive and moral dissonance I should choose if I want to be fashionable in the world of delusional fools pageant of all is Love and Light if it weren't for my projecting Good and evil onto it as though they were what they are. If I wouldn't insist that white is white and black is black, or use red or blue, or whatever other facile example of a dyad of options. Because in the end you either see the difference or you don't, just as with red and blue, a command and a supplication. I hope I've generalized upon the theme enough that this isn't mistaken for being "about David Icke" or "Alex Jones" or "The Gnostic Truth" or any other such petty reference point. It is about the substance of the matter, and men of Good Conscience cannot afford to get this wrong.

I recommend studying those two videos, and even reading David Icke's great books on exposing evil and its war on Good. Then contrast all that with his strange insistence on a neutral tone concerning matters of utmost polarity, but he even dismisses that fundamental polarity which is extereme and real, which is Eternal Antivalence in Essence, which is not a matter of black and white, nor grey, nor any other color. It is a matter of Right and wrong, Benevolent and wicked. And men of Good conscience shouldn't even verge toward being evasively wishy washy on the difference between those two. And as one would expect only ONE of these two forces would be prone to permit its being distinguished from the other... not that one, this other one. The GOOD ONE. The Good one is ALWAYS Good but only shows up with such a generic form of its name when something truly evil contrasts with it. That is not a projection of the Good, that is a manifestation of another category of "being which should not be". There is no excuse for confusing this distinction for lesser matters in the manner of a buffoon.

I don't say that David Icke is a buffoon, not by any means. I simply think that with all he damn well knows about this world's evils, that he would suggest its evil, malicious structure has no vicarious, adventitious independence from how benevolent people fail to project benevolent things into it, from how Good people fail realize what David Icke realizes that is possible if only... if only the world had more Good people in it (though it would help if they realized at least as much, in spite of the overabundance of zombies which may still thwart their realization). He's an intelligent, highly coherent and logical thinker, and he has a wonderfully benevolent, tough and sensitive personality. All the less cause for suggesting that Good and evil are not fundamental and Antivalent opposites which transcend relative expressions and are the most absolute distinctions which can exist, even more absolute than existence or non-existence.  

But I can't marvel at his positive traits, such as seeing the fundamental connection between Knowledge and Solutions, so that the former is a necessary precursor of the latter not least for being part of any Solution that can manifest, without also marveling at how he might suggest that the solution is merely all people being informed, for many are rather committed to evil, either wittingly or willingly, or both. The once who are unwilling to wittingly engage in such, if they maintain their wits about them, will not be involved in the evil. And yes, that helps. But that is not sufficient to turn an army of sell-souls to vanish as apparitions of our own imagining. That requires a firmer justice. So how can I not marvel that he seems to suggest that such absolutes and proportionally absolute attitudes are anywhere at the root of the problem of evil's persistence in the world?  

And he is Right to talk about taking sincere and constructive action, and I cannot help but agree with him on that and admire his manner of relating that Truth. And he himself has contributed much to reaching a solution to the problem. But changing the way that Good people add to a problem by getting out of their own way is great, but it does not preclude a red-blooded hate of evil and willingness to grind it into oblivion. Certainly you wouldn't want less than that in your "toolbox" should you ever walk upon a scene only Jimmy fucking Seville could adore.