Sunday, January 20, 2013

Unseen Influences: the attack dog syndrome

The Jimmy Savile case has been discussed in great depth on the David Icke forum. Most of the information and issues are outside my experience, but I do remember speaking out about him many years ago, long before any criticisms and accusations were publicised. His eyes, his 'vibes', his irritating mannerisms and that cigar gave me very bad feelings. I think that if he had come into the room, I would have run out of it. When I said this to some people, I experienced a lot of hostility and was accused of being snobbish. I ignored them and stood by my views, although at the time they were just the result of a personal antipathy caused by what I sensed about him.

I remember seeing a TV programme made by someone whose father had killed himself after losing money he had invested in Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme. The son spoke to a New York financier, who said that when she expressed some doubts after being asked her opinion of Madoff and his scheme in the early days, the negative reactions were such that from then on she just said that she didn't know anything about him. In other words, a potential threat had been silenced.

I have expressed doubts about certain new employees a few times, doubts based on what I sensed was lurking below the surface, only to be met with indifference or accusations of various ‘isms’. ‘How can you say such things about this fine person.’ In every case I was right: these people did a lot of damage to the company.

This angry reaction is known as the 'attack dog syndrome'. 

Sometimes the people who attack have a vested interest in destroying threats to their beliefs - cult members and multi-level marketing supporters are good examples of this - sometimes they have no reason at all to make outbursts intended to flatten someone. Perhaps they have been unconsciously conscripted into the war against whistle-blowers.

I have learned to trust my feelings and intuition. I take such attacks as a dead giveaway that there is something evil lurking in the background that feels threatened. I am wary of anyone who makes inappropriately vehement attacks: I see them as controlled puppets or temporarily possessed random mediums, people who are being used to silence potential enemies.

What does it say about a cause if supporters need to defend it in this way? What does it say about the people who make these attacks? They don't understand that they are giving themselves away, to those who understand this particular kind of unseen influence.