The Jimmy Savile case has been discussed in
great depth on the David Icke forum. Much of the information and many of the 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 killed himself after losing the 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’ and,
“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 sometimes known as the
attack-dog syndrome. “You don’t know what you are talking about”
is another one of their favourite automatic weapons.
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, at least
to those who understand this particular kind of unseen influence.
