Icke's defintion of "satanic"

This is more less for Ryan since we had a discussion about the dislike for Icke throwing around "satanic" and stuff. Syncronicity - a few days after this conversation, I was reading his book and he actually explained what he meant. For an extreme lack of memory and better terms, he said he means it not as the stereotypical satan/lucifer worshipper etc... in essence...just a bad person (super summary of his defintion)

so reading that atleast made me enjoy his writing and thoughts a little more again

i wouldnt even say "bad" person...just the most self centered person in the universe...which from our perspective is probably bad....at least i look at them as my enemy...

but ya glad he explained that..poor cultural marketing decision by him i would say

I agree with Admin (Ryan) on this. I really, really dislike like Icke's "banishing word" use of the term "Satanist" or "Satanic." It's just too convenient a blanket for any person, thing, or situation someone doesn't like and does nothing but mask the true complexities of real people, objects, and events. Also, I feel very strongly that if you have a problem with Christianity (as Icke seems to) then you should avoid legitimizing their system, by using the terms and symbols they largely invented, shaped and control to make your point. Although Satan himself seems to have been invented by Zoroastrianism, today the 3 monotheisms have a monopoly on the world's understanding of what it means to be "satanic."

I also think it would be really great if his reptile theory turned out to be right. It would make morality for the rest of us humans so much easier if we could just demonize someone as an "other," "a reptilian," "a serpent." But it's just too convenient a tool, to simplify away the complexities by saying things like "so and so and other Satanists." Even the term "illuminati" is not very useful for this reason. If anything, I kinda am starting to believe Icke is plant for someone/group. Using the classic tool of taking some very real issues that could bear some closer examination and associating them with cranks so that the issues themselves get dismissed because they're associated with obvious cranks.

There's a flipside to the whole "serpent" thing throughout our cultural history, an alternative to Icke's seeing demons and Satan every time something he doesn't like rears its ugly head. Serpents are seen as a symbol of healing and regeneration to many cultures and esoteric groups throughout the ages, due to their ability to shed their skin and in Tantric/Yoga/Toaist circles the snake symbolizes the kundalini energy that awakens at the bass of the spine and expresses through the 7 chakras in the body. Nevermind that the caducues staff associated with medicine has lost its original meaning through an over emphasis on profit over actual health in the western medical tradition. It's not the snake's fault! I really, really disagree with the use of animals to symbolize things we don't like about others. Every animal has a unique niche in and contribution to make to the great web of life on this planet. I think the inevitable result of such maligning of animals is their (the animal's) mistreatment by ignorant masses due to associated images of evil with them by the dominant culture-makers (i.e., religious leaders or in Icke's case, author/speakers who run around pushing this idea to sold out crowds). During the inquisition we saw cat burnings and mutilations on a massive scale, due to the poor animal's being associated with evil and witchcraft by the Church.