Consider me sniffed and counted unlike
Peder.
I listened to a good portion of the audio clip and typed down some items that provoked me discussion wise. I'll try and limit the personal attacks and outright dismissal of the guy, though I can respect the views of others in being so discriminatory as to what is deserving of their time. I do commend you for posting it as this kind of thing is good for discussion, especially if someone posts something very credible to discuss.
The whole consciousness talk was nothing new to me, as that is a key new age theme. I haven't heard of the *suppression* argument before though. When a person speaks of *global suppression* and *coordination,* I tend to be very skeptical. In any organization consisting of humans, consensus is often very fluid and unpredictable. To believe that such a thing can occur at a global level and with such a powerful and concerted effort is absolutely laughable to me. Ickes takes issue with religious domatism, but knocks science at the same time and tries to blend the two into some "reincarnation, one with the earth, and the elites don't want us to know about it" pablum. In discussing science, it's been my personal experience that those who want to build off of it or discount it, are the last to use it to actually prove their point. Simply stating "scientists say...." in regards to backing up your argumetn doesn't make it so. Are we talking about junior high biology teacher or a molecular biologist at a univesity? Even if it was a molecular biologist, did he get his degree at a large state university or the maharishi's school of management? Too vague and unproven for me to take credibly.
Being one interested in economics, I was in particular taken aback by his commentary that it is a bad thing when we have high house prices and homelessness at the same time. While trying to point out that this is an inequality in society, the argument falls flat on it's face when compared to reality. Humans have freedom of choice and many people end up like they do due to that ability. Liberty in this life is the right to start the race in the first place, not necessarily ending up finishing first with everyone else who "runs" the race with you in this life. High housing values are evidence of a thriving economy and standard of living. People in rich houses pay taxes, which provides for an effective and widespread social services system. I detect some "back to the commons-mother earth gaia" feeling here. Ecospiritualism aside, that is not the direction we need to go. The "back to earth" movement won't take out your appendix, the med student who went to college and who is living in a highly valued piece of property will.
And speaking of inequality, let's compare the unemployment rate of the U.S. with any nation of Ickes's choosing.
The rant about fattening up animals and forcing them to endure pain, suffering, and fear just reconfirmed me to his animal rights "green" past. I suppose he would let them overpopulate and starve to death and be prime geenrators of disease that only hasten their own demise? Very odd statement, not much more to say about it. People who want to "go back to nature" forget that gender roles and stratification were much more rigid and pronounced at that time. 90% of one's time was devoted to finding a source of food. I'd say the percentage has now been drastically lowered due to technology and development. By every measurable standard, development has led to greater freedom, enjoyment of life, as well as longevity.
Welcome
to BookAndReader! 
