David Icke: Methods Of A Madman

[seemslikeadream]

Is it not the owner of the OP responsible for what he initiates/instigates


he brings Icke up.... which if I understand this correctly.....but he is not responsible to Willow for anything that offends her that would end up in his thread.....

Icke offends Willow = AmercianDream posts David Icke: Methods Of A Madman


Who's offending who here?


I'd go to the source....this thread would not exist if it weren't for AD

[seemslikeadream]

Guys want to help me out here?

Have I ever started a David Icke thread?

I don't think so....I searched can't find one but I ain't the best searcher around

[American Dream]

Cross-posting from the Emergence of Conspirituality thread:

These sorts of threads have all been very educational. I have seen how "true believers" in David Icke and other such global spiritual/conspiracy systems tend to use a fairly narrow repertoire of techniques to avoid dealing with substantive criticism that would require them to actually think about these criticisms of their cherished belief systems.

The thought-stopping techniques they use are intended for themselves and others- and are comparable to those which are used by members of destructive cults to police thinking and behavior. Unfortunately these methods are so cliché that the true believers are in danger of becoming themselves the worst sort of cliché, of embodying that clichéd identity, as someone detached from consensus reality and the critical thinking skills needed to engage with the consensus and effectively challenge it in a positive way.

Thus people in the cultural majority like to make fun of the true believers, making derisive references to "conspiratards" (I hate that word), tin foil hats, truthers and all the rest. This provides the more extreme Icke fans and other such conspiritualists with a perfect foil: they can then just rail against their common enemy and stay stuck exactly where they are. If they have become cliché's, living caricatures of the positive instincts which first brought them towards radical ideas- they either don't notice- or care.

It's hard to do much with that- they are in a self-sealing system and may never really change. Unfortunately, the Icke lovers and others of that ilk are really, really bad for the greater movement. So it's important that we not let them make it look like most of us who are interested in conspiracies are the same as them.

So there's the rub: how to sustain goodwill towards individual people who are perpetuating misguided ideas, while also distancing more credible movements from them and while challenging those who have the potential to change to do a little better.

My worst fear is that the majority of people drawn to Icke and other such systems will be unable to accept that their peers may have strong criticisms of their belief systems because their self identity depends on it and because it is their "religion"...

[Canadian_watcher]

Well yes.. That's why I made sure to include the words "is a good start", because it is. It's really not hard to judge the quality of a wikipedia article if you put some effort into it. It's a starting line, not a finish line.

And you're WAY beyond wikipedia physics? Not to be snooty, but no, you're not. From what I have read here you're not even close.

I regretted how my last post was going to come off, but by the time I reviewed it in my head I was out, so couldn't change it. I'm sorry about its tone.
What I was trying to put across was that I have quite an interest in physics & the people involved in its study and although I can't *do* any of the maths I do have an understanding of the science (and its evolution over time) and the advances in it (so long as they aren't in the Darpa stages.)

I have a problem with dogma whether it is in science or religion, law or art. when I see people laugh ideas off because they don't fit the science all I can think of is how many times that has happened in the history of mankind as we know it, and how many times that those people later had to eat crow. What bothers me the most is that progress was literally stunted because a few influential people thought "this guy doesn't have the first CLUE about the SCIENCE!"

[seemslikeadream]

Cross-posting from the Emergence of Conspirituality thread:

These sorts of threads have all been very educational. I have seen how "true believers" in David Icke and other such global spiritual/conspiracy systems tend to use a fairly narrow repertoire of techniques to avoid dealing with substantive criticism that would require them to actually think about these criticisms of their cherished belief systems.

The thought-stopping techniques they use are intended for themselves and others- and are comparable to those which are used by members of destructive cults to police thinking and behavior. Unfortunately these methods are so cliché that the true believers are in danger of becoming themselves the worst sort of cliché, of embodying that clichéd identity, as someone detached from consensus reality and the critical thinking skills needed to engage with the consensus and effectively challenge it in a positive way.

Thus people in the cultural majority like to make fun of the true believers, making derisive references to "conspiratards" (I hate that word), tin foil hats, truthers and all the rest. This provides the more extreme Icke fans and other such conspiritualists with a perfect foil: they can then just rail against their common enemy and stay stuck exactly where they are. If they have become cliché's, living caricatures of the positive instincts which first brought them towards radical ideas- they either don't notice- or care.

It's hard to do much with that- they are in a self-sealing system and may never really change. Unfortunately, the Icke lovers and others of that ilk are really, really bad for the greater movement. So it's important that we not let them make it look like most of us who are interested in conspiracies are the same as them.

So there's the rub: how to sustain goodwill towards individual people who are perpetuating misguided ideas, while also distancing more credible movements from them and while challenging those who have the potential to change to do a little better.

My worst fear is that the majority of people drawn to Icke and other such systems will be unable to accept that their peers may have strong criticisms of their belief systems because their self identity depends on it and because it is their "religion"...

Did you frickin miss this post or not? THERE ARE NO TRUE BELIEVERS HERE....nobody has stood up yet!!

If there are any hardcore true Icke believers here ....please stand up...



now I am not going to wait for an answer here cause I'm sure I know it.


ZERO


NADA

ZIP

No one

Nil

naught




You are wasting time and space here AD

and if there ever was one you surely have scared them off never to return....so again your job is done....move along we get it ....we ain't a bunch of kindergartners here

when will our long RI national nightmare be over?

Please have mercy on our souls

ask a mod if you can pin a note at the top "No Ickes Allowed"

whatever just I beg of you my head hurts......it's like fingernails on a chalkboard .....you're making my ears bleed


sweet jesus mother of god I implore you

we all understand Icke is the scourge of the earth ....he is going to destroy us all very soon now ...we got the warning....I'm in my bunker right now with the lights off...I'm typing by candle light so he can't find me...what more can I do? Don't answer that

[brainpanhandler]

Well yes.. That's why I made sure to include the words "is a good start", because it is. It's really not hard to judge the quality of a wikipedia article if you put some effort into it. It's a starting line, not a finish line.

And you're WAY beyond wikipedia physics? Not to be snooty, but no, you're not. From what I have read here you're not even close.

I have a problem with dogma whether it is in science or religion, law or art. when I see people laugh ideas off because they don't fit the science all I can think of is how many times that has happened in the history of mankind as we know it, and how many times that those people later had to eat crow

And what would you guess the ratio is between the number of times "people laugh ideas off" and the number of times "that those people later had to eat crow " is? 100,000 to 1? 1,000,000 to 1?

News flash, everyone here understands the danger of dogma. EVERYONE!

I know, I know. "Could have fooled me". Blah, blah, blah....

News flash, everyone here understands the danger of dogma.EVERYONE!

[Canadian_watcher]

wait, I'm not sure I get what you're saying. could you repeat it?

[brekin]

seemslikeadream wrote:

Is it not the owner of the OP responsible for what he initiates/instigates
he brings Icke up.... which if I understand this correctly.....but he is not responsible to Willow for anything that offends her that would end up in his thread.....
Icke offends Willow = AmercianDream posts David Icke: Methods Of A Madman
Who's offending who here

What? Huh? Are you saying the starter of a thread is responsible for all of the threads content? Content that could potentially offend someone? Because the topic is already troublesome for them? Am I understanding you correctly?

It seems like, as long as threads abide by forum guidelines, people can decide for themselves whether they want to engage with certain topics. If the thread title causes someone issues perhaps they shouldn't go in? Or once they've posted their disagreements they should provide more tangible content of why they disagree with the topic OP, and not just with the posters of contrary opinions? (btw not saying that PW didn't do this rather that this is just a good rule of thumb not to blame posters for starting a thread just because some people will disagree with the content,)

Why have a forum if the goal is not to discuss and debate a topic?

[seemslikeadream]

seemslikeadream wrote:

Is it not the owner of the OP responsible for what he initiates/instigates
he brings Icke up.... which if I understand this correctly.....but he is not responsible to Willow for anything that offends her that would end up in his thread.....
Icke offends Willow = AmercianDream posts David Icke: Methods Of A Madman
Who's offending who here

What? Huh? Are you saying the starter of a thread is responsible for all of the threads content? Content that could potentially offend someone? Because the topic is already troublesome for them? Am I understanding you correctly?

It seems like, as long as threads abide by forum guidelines, people can decide for themselves whether they want to engage with certain topics. If the thread title causes someone issues perhaps they shouldn't go in? Or once they've posted their disagreements they should provide more tangible content of why they disagree with the topic OP, and not just with the posters of contrary opinions? (btw not saying that PW didn't do this rather that this is just a good rule of thumb not to blame posters for starting a thread just because some people will disagree with the content,)

Why have a forum if the goal is not to discuss and debate a topic?

did you miss the post by Willow? AD knows Icke is troubling for Willow but he starts a thread about Icke.....so who is responsible for this whole discussion Willow would not be offended if AD hadn't started the thread....what is AD supposed to start a thread and we are not allowed to post in it?

The offense started at post 1


I did not start this thread....I HAVE NEVER STARTED AN ICKE THREAD!!

but I am being told to watch MY mouth

[Project Willow]

I think that's a topic for a meta thread because I believe much of the rancor has little to do with principled disagreements over Icke. And I'll be goddamned if I am going to go about publicly revealing thoughts on my own projections with other members that haven't the faintest clue as to their own and would just use it as ammunition.

I wasn't referring to the personality-based acrimony, BPH, and certainly I wouldn't press anyone to reveal anything that they did not wish to. I was thinking of a time when I hit a roadblock with another poster who also held passionate views due to personal reasons, but after some careful listening on both sides, we came to understand each other. It was very productive.

What I don't find productive (and I'm not singling anyone out here) are generalized, negative characterizations of members, or the board as a whole, quips about posting style, behavior patterns, etc. Also, should go without saying, if someone here feels hurt over the actions of another poster, try to resolve it via pm, and ask a mod to help facilitate that process if necessary.

On the other hand, if we're all familiar enough with each other to get predictably annoyed, aren't we all familiar enough with each other to let things go?

[Project Willow]

he brings Icke up.... which if I understand this correctly.....but he is not responsible to Willow for anything that offends her that would end up in his thread.....

Icke offends Willow = AmercianDream posts David Icke: Methods Of A Madman

Slad, I'm not offended, I never said I was offended. In fact, AD and I share many of the same opinions about Icke for many of the same reasons, that was part of why I posted what I posted.

My sole point, again, was to encourage patience and understanding among posters in this discussion. That is all.

[seemslikeadream]

he brings Icke up.... which if I understand this correctly.....but he is not responsible to Willow for anything that offends her that would end up in his thread.....

Icke offends Willow = AmercianDream posts David Icke: Methods Of A Madman

Slad, I'm not offended, I never said I was offended. In fact, AD and I share many of the same opinions about Icke for many of the same reasons, that was part of why I posted what I posted.

My sole point, again, was to encourage patience and understanding among posters in this discussion. That is all.

How can you let AD off the hook here.....he started this knowing full well Icke is a strained subject here....and he knows full well how a thread titled David Icke: Methods Of A Madman was going to play out...he is not stupid...he knows full well what he was starting.... he does not come to this with clean hands....`wonderful that you are in agreement with him on Icke .....take that up with him and suggest to him to stop posting about him then we'll have no problem


encourage patience and understanding among posters in this discussion

take that up with him....HE IS TO BLAME FULLY FOR THIS THREAD...HE KNEW ABSOLUTELY WHAT WOULD HAPPEN...HE WANTED THIS TO HAPPEN


and then one Icke thread is not enough he shoves another in our faces under the guise of something else and that turns into an Icke thread....mission accomplished

[brekin]

seemslikeadream wrote:

did you miss the post by Willow? AD knows Icke is troubling for Willow but he starts a thread about Icke.....so who is responsible for this whole discussion Willow would not be offended if AD hadn't started the thread....what is AD supposed to start a thread and we are not allowed to post in it?
The offense started at post 1
I did not start this thread....I HAVE NEVER STARTED AN ICKE THREAD!!
but I am being told to watch MY mouth

From what I recall PW just said something like she didn't care for Icke because he muddies the water with other issues she cares about and something about keeping a cool head. Was AD suppose to shut down the thread at that point? I doubt that is what PW would have wanted. And when did AD say anyone couldn't post in the thread? There seemed to be people who were sympathetic or apologetic about Icke's worldview and method of delivering and AD challenged them on that. Seems pretty fair in a thread titled "David Icke: Methods of a Madman". If AD believes Icke is frivolous or a charlatan or even crazy why can't he start a thread on that? How can that be offensive unless someone believes he isn't frivolous or a charlatan? And great if they don't, let them discuss why he isn't, but why spend time trying to shut down one line of questioning?

I don't understand why you find any examination of Icke being less than authentic troubling. I mean if you don't care about Icke why do you care about others discussing Icke? If you don't want to be associated with Icke why do you keep shouting about him? You aren't imprisoned in this thread you know.

Enough about process.

To follow up on Alice Walker/Icke post which was posted earlier. I think this blog post from Alice Walker herself lends credence to my belief that Icke's method, a dangerous method I think, finds the sweet spot in left of center politics and spirituality by creating a justifiable minority to hate, because it spares the person from the process of dehumanizing a minority by delivering a "unhuman" minority as a target immediately. That is the rabbit trick Icke pulls with progressive peoples minds.

This demonizing of a certain group is older than recorded history and it is funny that Alice Walker recognizes parts of it in Malcolm X, Christianity, but is able to reconcile the obvious troubling part by making the "blue eyed devils" the "demons" of past, the lizards from outer space now. I guess my posting of Scientology and Nation of Islam dogma was more than prescient. With Farrakhan adopted Scientology all we need now is Alice Walker to host a summit between Icke and Farrakhan.

And really after reading her following blog post could you have asked a better case study of a Conspiritualist? At the end she's saying Chris Hedges is great because he helps ground Ickes work.


Commentary: Human Race Get Off Your Knees: I couldn’t have put it better myself
Alice Walker
http://alicewalkersgarden.com/2013/02/h ... er-myself/

I have been dragging along David Icke’s monumental book: Human Race Get Off Your Knees for the last month. It has been on my lap as I sat; been propped against pillows as I laid down; followed me to bathroom and poolside; and been, in fact, a formidable companion over these past several weeks. It is a massive book, and requires complete attention. Even so, some of it is hard to grasp. I have felt sorely regretful that my science foundation is so…nil. I remember that in high school the broken microscope we inherited from the white high school (they got a science lab) did permit each of us in our large class a single glimpse of, I think it was, an enlarged cell of something. It was pretty amazing,but there it was: my introduction to something David is telling us that is really worlds away from this.*

Earlier I wrote that David Icke reminded me of Malcolm X. I was thinking especially of Malcolm’s fearlessness. A fearlessness that made him seem cold, actually, though we know he wasn’t really. All that love of us that kept driving him to improve our lot; often into quite the wrong direction, but I need not go into that. What I was remembering was how he called our oppressors “blue eyed devils.” Now who could that have been? Well, we see them here in David Icke’s book as the descendants of the reptilian race that landed on our sweet planet the moment they could get a glimpse of it through the mist that used to cover it (before there was a moon). No kidding. Deep breath! Yes, before there was a moon! (Oh, I love the moon; can I keep it? Please?). Anyway, there they came, these space beings (we’re space beings too, of course, not to forget that). But they looked…. different than us. And they were.

They wanted gold and they wanted slaves to mine it for them. Now gosh, who does this remind us of? I only am asking. You do the work. Apparently their own planet needed this metal to continue its, apparently, long life. Credo Mutwa, Zulu shaman – and I am on my knees here in gratitude that he held on long enough to tell us about this – calls them the Chitauri, which has become my favorite word of all time (well, of this time that I’m learning all this): my partner and I go around saying Oh, Chitauri, whenever we get a glimpse of one or two of the Chitauri offspring, aka Illuminati bloodline families and their puppets, on the telly. It’s quite the stress reliever, just knowing what we’re looking at. And I like saying “telly” too, because it sounds so English and David Icke-esque. Truthfully our “telly” is our laptops.

It’s an amazing book, HUMAN RACE GET OFF YOUR KNEES, and reading it was the ultimate reading adventure. I felt it was the first time I was able to observe, and mostly imagine and comprehend, the root of the incredible evil that has engulfed our planet. A lot of it is how shall we say: shocking, beyond belief (but not really, if you don’t get too scared), stunning, profound. The deconstruction of language is breathtaking, the interrogation of symbols startling. Magical, in a way. I kept going: Oh, so that’s why…. You will too.

The Reptilian space beings whose hybrid (part human, part reptile) descendants make our lives hell in Paradise were blue eyed devils to Malcolm X, the devil himself to my Christian parents, who never talked about eye color, which I think was not only prudent but wise, although they seemed clear enough about his sex, and as demons in many other religions, including the non-religion, Buddhism, where the advice is often to invite them in until they go away. But maybe these were other kinds of demons. Not the ones controlling not just you, but everything.

*For instance: more study will be required to feel I truly understand “holographic universe,” and the importance of photon activity in the speeding up of our consciousness. Interdimensionality, shapeshifting, and the “frequency range of visible light” are huge areas for thought; there is as well a need to ponder the relevance of changes in the sun’s behavior to Earth’s quite calamitous climate changes.

I did not care for, or believe, the “death bed” confession of a Satanist tacked on at the end of the book. But Neil Hague’s paintings are extraordinary.

Another amazing book is Aids, Opium, Diamonds and Empire; the International Virus of Greed, by Nancy Turner Banks, M.D. I read this several months ago because my cousin, a pharmacist, sent it to me. Working as a pharmacist for something like forty years (recently retired) she had witnessed first hand the game run on the sick by the pharmaceutical corporations. But its reach is far beyond anything I would have imagined, from what she told me. It is actually a remarkable companion to Icke’s book. As is the work of columnist (in Truthdig and other places) Chris Hedges. In a way these writers “ground” the work of Icke, for those of us who need to keep one foot solidly in the earthworks of now.

[seemslikeadream]

From what I recall PW just said something like she didn't care for Icke because he muddies the water with other issues she cares about and something about keeping a cool head. Was AD suppose to shut down the thread at that point?

He knew in advance PW thoughts on Icke...and in the past she said her problem was with abuse and Icke. HE FRICKING KNOWS THIS

I mean if you don't care about Icke why do you care about others discussing Icke? If you don't want to be associated with Icke why do you keep shouting about him? You aren't imprisoned in this thread you know

.


I never said I did not want to be associated with Icke....I said I didn't want to be labeled anti-semite because I don't agree with AD

oh yea I know that for sure even though some people want me to stop posting I know damn well I am not a prisoner here

AD sees true believers everywhere....but there are NONE here...so why does he continue this

[Canadian_watcher]

[quote="brekin » Wed Jun 19, 2013 5:03 pm
To follow up on Alice Walker/Icke post which was posted earlier. I think this blog post from Alice Walker herself lends credence to my belief that Icke's method, a dangerous method I think, finds the sweet spot in left of center politics and spirituality by creating a justifiable minority to hate, because it spares the person from the process of dehumanizing a minority by delivering a "unhuman" minority as a target immediately. That is the rabbit trick Icke pulls with progressive peoples minds.

[/quote]

I hear what you're saying, and to me it is never acceptable to demonize any group of people.

Icke does demonize a group, no doubt, but I don't think it's a group based on race or religion or any other protected group. Is it? Maybe you know more about it than I do, but what i glean from Icke is that he is demonizing people who rape and pillage, exploit, maim, kill, enslave, etc. That group is already vilified by society, is it not? is that not what justice itself is based on, that we all agree that certain behaviours are beyond the pale and we won't tolerate them?

Within the group Icke 'demonizes' are people of both genders, many races, all ages, multiple ethnicities, dozens of nationalities, sexual orientation, etc. Their common bond is that they do evil upon mankind.

Perhaps I'm missing the point though. ?

Alice Walker is Alice Walker. not everyone will read Icke the same way (obviously, since he has quite a following and no one else I've seen has interpreted him into their work the way she has).

We're all adults and can take from different researchers, speakers, friends, media what we will.

edit: i hate this new 'quote' function with all the gobbledegook in it. sorry I screwed it up. i tried.