LOL. Learn the difference between anger and having your opinions challanged in a direct fashion will you?
You obviously are not interested in actually proving ANYTHING, yet are still interested in getting people to respond to some kind of call to action, ultimately based on your opinion which you have created from a smorgasboard of whack-jobs and traditional religion. When actually asked to prove what you say is anything other than a fairy story, you evade coming up with anything solid.
Once you accept this concept you will have to start taking responsibility for your thoughts as well as your actions, and that's just too much for some.
Again, your conceit and self-engrandisement are pretty damn obvious. You think you're some kind of guru spreading wisdom only a very few have the discernment to gain. I think we get about two a month here. so whilst you're obviously very impressed with yourself, I am not. Join the queue dude.
As I say, your actions to me are akin to drug dealing in a rehabilitation centre.
What is hysterical is your hand-rolled philosophestry is contradictory; on one hand you sneer at me for supposedly not taking responsibility of my thoughts (like you'd know), and on the other you blame demons for badness. How... convenient... 'de demenz made me do it' is a cop-out, an eschewal of personal responsibility using mythical invisable monsters. If I do 'wrong' or think 'wrong', it is my fault. I don;t blame wicked spirits for my own weakness. Maybe that step is too much for some, LOL.
I know you say you won't read my post; people like you always tend to say that and generally always show later they have. Whatever. You still have evaded actually answering any question that could give your opinions credibility, and those that show your jugdement to be as impaired as it obviously is. I didn't say Icke said anything about the Mayans so please don't claim I have; it's called lying if you do. AGain, typically in the past, dealing with self-proclaimed holders of secret knowledge, it's sad to say they almost always end up lying or using logical fallacies.
You quoted Icke concerning monkies and collective conciousness, I just point out the dangers of trusting the judgement of someone who will quote from a lunatic as though they were a credible source. You then don't provide evidence that Icke claims are true, which is hardly surprising as Icke can't prove they are true; you just accept them because they fit in with the preconceived belief structure you have assembled for yourself.
Now, shall I put a row of smilies here so you can be reassured I am laughing, not angry? Nah... 'let the reader use discernment'... oh, obvious problem for you right at the start...