David Icke: Methods Of A Madman

[seemslikeadream]

[Searcher08]

oh for fuck's sake.

who among us are the mind controlled, thought stopped? it's really really really obvious what the answer is at this point, so I'm out. I tried.
No dialog to be had, just an endless game of chase the goal posts.

The thought stopping techniques- for example "He/she linked to somebody who linked to James Randi so obviously the arguments are not worthy of any consideration" are self-induced and/or shared means of avoiding the substance of the argument.

Never entertaining substantive critique is definitely a technique used by the Moonies- this does not mean that everyone here is a glassy-eyed Moonie- but it does suggest that there is a serious problem in David Icke Land.

The key problem is avoiding the substance of the argument.

You have never ever on R.I. addressed or engaged in any critique of the validity of YOUR 'critical thinking' process and 'critique based' argumentation process. You are constantly challenging other people's but your own processes appears totally off limits and constantly repeats the (frankly nonsense) that 'If you are critical of critical thinking it means you are against it'

For me, anyway, it doesnt exactly create an enviromment of cognitive plurality.

I would also suggest that applying a memsplice of the 'Six Degrees of Seperation' is at the very least unhelpful because it can be done just as much the other way 'Six Degrees of Icke' or 'Six Degrees of the Right' for example with Antony Sutton, with whom you have always 'had issues with because of his rightist baggage' while never disputing anything he says on a factual basis.
Also on a personal level, it diminsihes the communication, which I dont think is your intention.

[seemslikeadream]

Father Lawrence is a reptile

Father Lawrence Murphy sexually abused as many as 200 deaf children.


Eric Prince is a reptile



THESE ARE THE REAL DANGEROUS PEOPLE

[Mason I Bilderberg]

I don't think I've ever seen anyone here insist that lizards have actually interbred with humans. I've seen lots of people claim the notion as a metaphor, though.

I can understand how there can be value in considering Icke's reptillian theories. There are people in the world whose actions and motivations seem at first glance so incongruous with simple notions of normative behavior as to be unimaginable as human. Slaughtering millions, creating vast death zones, plainly enjoying the fruits of exploitation and disease, preying upon the weakest for a percentage... you know, those kinds of things. And so we search for what is different about them in order to divorce ourselves from them. They are called by some, reptilian, or, more meaningfully, sociopathic.

The typical targets of the term - European royal houses, zionist elites ( ), banking cartels, politicians, and business executives all exist at a far enough social and economic distance from the average followers of Icke's theory to be all but invisible to them, and that makes them both difficult to psychoanalyze and easy to stereotype and label. But any attempt to deprive them of their humanness is fucked up.

Is the theory as dangerous as belief in presence of Satan incarnate in those you would hate? No. Is it as dangerous as being a republican? No. Is it as dangerous as espousing intelligent design in schools? No. Is it as dangerous as misogyny? No. Is it as dangerous as unfettered capitalism? No. A toddler with a pistol? Bathrooms without non-slip tiles? Pleated pants? No, no, no. And so, so, very on. But the line between literary metaphor and pseudo-history has been sufficiently blurred by Icke as to allow for a degree of counterproductive dehumanization.

But he's no more dangerous than any number of fairy tales or creation myths floating around. If you don't like his mythos, there are plenty of others equally weird, and far more provocative to deal with. Christianity, for instance.

I believe there are presences and forces in the world that are outside of the finality of scientific discovery and explanation. I believe this because I have experienced them myself. In Icke's followers, his adamant purveyors of orthodoxy, there is a group which contends to have such first-hand experience of the reptilians. They have literally seen it. Icke himself claims to have been subject to a epiphantic vision. So who am I to dispute what their eyes have told them is the truth? But that is different from the supposition of a vast network of aliens invisibly running the planet's elite as interpreted through readings of ancient religious tracts, and working to separate yourself in kind from those you might call "the reptiles" because of their actions.

It takes a certain kind of naiveté to sufficiently divorce sociopathic behaviors from humanity to believe that a real, actual, slavering, scaly-skinned, fourth-dimensional lizard hybrid might be responsible rather than the flesh and blood, non-shapeshifting persons widely known to us. The people responsible for the horrors of history, or for the exploitation of the world today, are not special. They are not endowed with powers from another world. They are, in fact, lacking a certain power granted to most of us. Empathy.

But even as a metaphor, I can't understand how there can be a great deal of value in considering Icke's theories beyond the simple fact that they exist and have adherents that are moved by them. They function poorly as analogy, which is partly why they have so little real-world traction. Dick Cheney is not "like a lizard". Lizards are generally shy and harmless creatures, most of them are helpfully insectivorous, many have detachable tails. The members of the House of Windsor probably rarely eat bugs and Dick Cheney probably does not have a detachable tail. He is like any of us who would allow self-interest and lust for power move us to manipulate others to our ends regardless of their pain and suffering. You can see it at the cash register of your local grocery store if you look for it, you can see it everywhere in various scales, no pun intended. It is a very, very human impulse, to our great misfortune. If you find it satisfying to call that "reptilian", I ask of you: show pity to the reptiles. They are a group of tremendous dignity.

We have very little understanding of the forces that shape the world, really. Power has a price that we, placed under its sway, cannot know of, and perhaps neither can most of those who wield it. We would all like to change the world, but the world changes us, and that is the evil of shapeshifting.

Also...

Interesting thread dynamics here. A newcomer appears on a contentious but respectful discussion and the wagons are circled. I guess there's a minimum post count required before unleashing dickishness upon the membership. We really are an insular family here, it's beautiful. I had thought, though, that there were on the forum any number of folks for whom Icke's work was both revelatory and load-bearing enough to take up swords in earnest. I guess I'm happily mistaken.

But human sacrifice, well, that's another matter entirely. That is, imho, a matter of historical and ongoing fact. We can debate whether Diana fits the bill, but blood is spilt in the name of gaining power. The only question is the degree of overt occultism involved.

Wow. Worth printing out and reading. Where is the "thumbs up" emoticon?

But human sacrifice, well, that's another matter entirely. That is, imho, a matter of historical and ongoing fact. We can debate whether Diana fits the bill, but blood is spilt in the name of gaining power. The only question is the degree of overt occultism involved.

Human sacrifice is certainly a part of history, but in the context of Icke, he asserts presidents and people in positions of power are currently engaging in human sacrifices and blood drinking (not to mention pedophilia). This is an example of Icke's masterful ability to interweave plausible with crazy.

[Wombaticus Rex]

WHY IS THIS SO VERY VERY IMPORTANT TO HAVE 34 PAGES OF THIS SHIT BLASTED ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THIS BOARD I FIND IT INSULTING TO RI [/b]

Do you really want me to measure what percentage of those 34 pages is comprised solely of your posts, though?

Stop engaging if you really find it so "insulting to RI."

[Searcher08]

oh for fuck's sake.

who among us are the mind controlled, thought stopped? it's really really really obvious what the answer is at this point, so I'm out. I tried.
No dialog to be had, just an endless game of chase the goal posts.

The thought stopping techniques- for example "He/she linked to somebody who linked to James Randi so obviously the arguments are not worthy of any consideration" are self-induced and/or shared means of avoiding the substance of the argument.

Never entertaining substantive critique is definitely a technique used by the Moonies- this does not mean that everyone here is a glassy-eyed Moonie- but it does suggest that there is a serious problem in David Icke Land.

The key problem is avoiding the substance of the argument.

WHAT I'M RECEIVING FROM YOU IS:
Maybe we need to have a real look at what R.I. is about and really see if Icke is something that should be discussed her at all - as obviously he is a raving fascist with dubious right wing connections and no doubt fascist and White Power and anti-semitic undertones and what is needed to move this forward into the real world is that we need to have a declaration of whether members are Icke supporters in the light of this, and if they say yes, we should ban them as this is an anti-fascist board

[American Dream]

oh for fuck's sake.

who among us are the mind controlled, thought stopped? it's really really really obvious what the answer is at this point, so I'm out. I tried.
No dialog to be had, just an endless game of chase the goal posts.

The thought stopping techniques- for example "He/she linked to somebody who linked to James Randi so obviously the arguments are not worthy of any consideration" are self-induced and/or shared means of avoiding the substance of the argument.

Never entertaining substantive critique is definitely a technique used by the Moonies- this does not mean that everyone here is a glassy-eyed Moonie- but it does suggest that there is a serious problem in David Icke Land.

The key problem is avoiding the substance of the argument.

You have never ever on R.I. addressed or engaged in any critique of the validity of YOUR 'critical thinking' process and 'critique based' argumentation process. You are constantly challenging other people's but your own processes appears totally off limits and constantly repeats the (frankly nonsense) that 'If you are critical of critical thinking it means you are against it'

For me, anyway, it doesnt exactly create an enviromment of cognitive plurality.

I would also suggest that applying a memsplice of the 'Six Degrees of Seperation' is at the very least unhelpful because it can be done just as much the other way 'Six Degrees of Icke' or 'Six Degrees of the Right' for example with Antony Sutton, with whom you have always 'had issues with because of his rightist baggage' while never disputing anything he says on a factual basis.
Also on a personal level, it diminsihes the communication, which I dont think is your intention.

If I have avoided dealing with substantive critique that I should have addressed, I apologize.

Since this thread is supposed to be focused on David Icke, I'd ask you to revive the relevant thread and excerpt the relevant quotes there.

As to Antony Sutton, I have never objected to him because of links to Icke- rather because- not unlike Icke- he mixes "true facts" with claims for which there is no evidence, often far-right tropes...

[82_28]

Only a very few people of late have been willing to go anywhere close to making an overt statement regarding whether they do or don't buy into specific claims made by David Icke.

I find it interesting the number of people (not necessarily here on this forum) who reference Icke and his books, his speeches, etc. as a path to "waking up" or to cease being "sheeple," but when you ask these same people about the lizard people (or princess Diana being a human sacrifice or past presidents being pedophiles and/or blood drinkers) they freeze up, call you names, tap dance or try to ban the question (ie: ban the person) from the conversation.

Some background info:

It was the circumstance i describe above that brought me to Icke and his human-alien assertion. A conspiracy theory family member kept talking about Icke. I went out and bought 4 books by Icke and read them all. I watched hours and hours of his videos (When my family member said "educate yourself," i took him seriously) (big mistake) (i was a conspiracy theory novice). When i went back to my family member and began discussing some of Icke's theories (the Icke theories conspiracy theorists NEVER tell you about) well … i was yelled and screamed at and told "i obviously have a stick up my a** for David Icke!" and any further attempts by me to discuss Icke was summarily brushed aside because i am "obviously" biased against Icke.

I believe this is a classic example of confirmation bias. Why does a person read an Icke book (any book) and consciously acknowledge only those portions the reader wishes to be true while completely ignoring equally weighty topics like lizard people and modern day human sacrifices?

This kind of selective attention speaks volumes about the reader, begging the question: What void must be tugging on their psyche that they can blind themselves to, or completely avoid and deny, the other side of Icke's coin?

As Mr. Spock would say: "Fascinating."

MIB

I see 26 pages of concerted avoidance by a whole bunch of people.

The conversation has drifted all over the place. Now it seems to be digressing into ad hominem attacks (not from you). Soon it will go back to asking diversionary questions. It's a predictable cycle.

Who do you think you're dealing with here, MIB? You seem to becoming quite subjective.

Yeah, I'm needling you. I might come off as a dick and actually I intend so, because I think you're just doing a drive by. When I think of RI, I think of fun. Fun with thinking about things. Over the years we've seen a shit ton of jokers come through. Who was that guy who drew all those lines between different shit on Mars, for instance? You would have had a heyday, MIB.

Speaking of skeptics and a little bit of an anecdote, I once went to see a presentation by Michael Shermer many moons ago and was embarrassed by his incuriousness and inability to cogently answer questions. In these days I even had a Jesus fish getting humped by a Darwin fish decal on my car and a sticker that said "Religion is Mythinformation".

[seemslikeadream]

WHAT I'M RECEIVING FROM YOU IS:
Maybe we need to have a real look at what R.I. is about and really see if Icke is something that should be discussed her at all - as obviously he is a raving fascist with dubious right wing connections and no doubt fascist and White Power and anti-semitic undertones and what is needed to move this forward into the real world is that we need to have a declaration of whether members are Icke supporters in the light of this, and if they say yes, we should ban them as this is an anti-fascist board

oh for fuck's sake.

who among us are the mind controlled, thought stopped? it's really really really obvious what the answer is at this point, so I'm out. I tried.
No dialog to be had, just an endless game of chase the goal posts.

The thought stopping techniques- for example "He/she linked to somebody who linked to James Randi so obviously the arguments are not worthy of any consideration" are self-induced and/or shared means of avoiding the substance of the argument.

Never entertaining substantive critique is definitely a technique used by the Moonies- this does not mean that everyone here is a glassy-eyed Moonie- but it does suggest that there is a serious problem in David Icke Land.

The key problem is avoiding the substance of the argument.

WHAT I'M RECEIVING FROM YOU IS:
Maybe we need to have a real look at what R.I. is about and really see if Icke is something that should be discussed her at all - as obviously he is a raving fascist with dubious right wing connections and no doubt fascist and White Power and anti-semitic undertones and what is needed to move this forward into the real world is that we need to have a declaration of whether members are Icke supporters in the light of this, and if they say yes, we should ban them as this is an anti-fascist board

[American Dream]

oh for fuck's sake.

who among us are the mind controlled, thought stopped? it's really really really obvious what the answer is at this point, so I'm out. I tried.
No dialog to be had, just an endless game of chase the goal posts.

The thought stopping techniques- for example "He/she linked to somebody who linked to James Randi so obviously the arguments are not worthy of any consideration" are self-induced and/or shared means of avoiding the substance of the argument.

Never entertaining substantive critique is definitely a technique used by the Moonies- this does not mean that everyone here is a glassy-eyed Moonie- but it does suggest that there is a serious problem in David Icke Land.

The key problem is avoiding the substance of the argument.

WHAT I'M RECEIVING FROM YOU IS:
Maybe we need to have a real look at what R.I. is about and really see if Icke is something that should be discussed her at all - as obviously he is a raving fascist with dubious right wing connections and no doubt fascist and White Power and anti-semitic undertones and what is needed to move this forward into the real world is that we need to have a declaration of whether members are Icke supporters in the light of this, and if they say yes, we should ban them as this is an anti-fascist board

Actually what I'm saying is that I wish the defenders of Icke would stop avoiding the substance of the argument.

That is quite the opposite of what you are suggesting.

[Sounder]

amended AD writing...

The thought stopping techniques- for example "He/she linked to somebody who linked to David Icke so obviously the arguments are not worthy of any consideration" are self-induced and/or shared means of avoiding the substance of the argument.

Never entertaining substantive critique is definitely a technique used by the Moonies- this does not mean that everyone here is a glassy-eyed Moonie- but it does suggest that there is a serious problem in James Randi Land.

The key problem is avoiding the substance of the argument.

Fixed, wow, so true, so true.

Still more genius shown on this board.

[Mason I Bilderberg]

The fact that your relative got really upset at you could have been due to other things than having her mental map of Icke challenged - based on the evidence of how you communicate here that isnt exactly at a 'lizardman level of likelihood'.

It is also interesting how you collapse 'past Presidents being pedophiles' with 'blood drinkers'. I'm sure you are familiar with Nick Bryant and his work on the Franklin Scandal though.

About your last question - I have never seen a pseudoskeptic apply the same 'critical thinking' to their own belief system... questioning it's assumptions, what is behind it, looking on it asa system of thought, exploring it's foundations, looking for alternatives

Strange that.

To reflect on your own words... with one word changed

This kind of selective attention speaks volumes about the reader, begging the question: What void must be tugging on their psyche that they can blind themselves to, or completely avoid and deny, the other side of the pseudoskeptic coin?

My communication is not a problem if direct questions are not a problem.

As for my relative - I did my reading and watching (as he had asked) and i simply asked him, "Do you believe this alien-human hybrid stuff?" He basically said "the overall picture is correct" and i was being jerky for asking such questions.

It reminds me of being in bible class and i asked the nun if a sceptor really transformed into a snake and then back to a sceptor like it says in the bible. I was reprimanded and sent to the front office. I never did get my answer.

"pseudoskeptic" is just name calling.

[Searcher08]

Human sacrifice is certainly a part of history, but in the context of Icke, he asserts presidents and people in positions of power are currently engaging in human sacrifices and blood drinking (not to mention pedophilia). This is an example of Icke's masterful ability to interweave plausible with crazy.

This is actually your engaging in a really (frankly rather shite) interweaving, mocking 'presidential pedophilia' in the same breath as human sacrifices.

I raised the issue of whether you had read Nick Bryant's account of the Franklin Scandal, but again all I got was tumbleweeds. What a surprise!

I imagine that you will start wailing about 'ad hominem attacks' if I point out this hypocracy, so I wont bring that up.

[Mason I Bilderberg]

I'm not disturbed, i am fascinated - by the mechanisms of the mind. How and why people think what they think and believe what they believe. If our beliefs are wrong our memories are wrong, our reasons for conflict are wrong - so many wrong actions follow wrong beliefs … i can't think of anything NOT affected by our beliefs. It is fascinating.

What are your own irrational beliefs?

I don't have any. (Is that irrational enough?)

MIB

[seemslikeadream]

Face-to-face with Abu Sakkar, Syria's 'heart-eating cannibal'