• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

David Icke & His Work

attack of the lizard men.

recently i have read david icke's "the biggest secret" whilst not subsribing at all to our davids"zany" views, i do find his book of enormous comedic value. one thing that struck me, was he never seems to answer why these fourth dimensional extraterrestrial lizard supermen, if thats the right word , who have us all under there power by various means such as religion and the worldwide banking and financial systems. then why o why, to coin a phrase, do they seem to take so long to take over this planet and how on earth did they get here and if they came in "spaceships" or dimension rips or whatever else they cooked up technologically to get here, then surely they have the technology to enslave us in a faster and less esoteric method than our david would have us believe, does anyone concur?
 
Ah, but maybe they are from an alien version of Star Fleet, and have to make sure that no-one catches them breaking the Prime-directive.;)
 
but spook, you should know that we only see what we want to see. Just because you can't see the fnords doesn't mean they're no there ;)
 
On the subject of David Icke in general

Icke has a spiritual awakening in about 1990. He has recounted this in the book "Truth Vibrations". While he was trying to relate this to the world, his comments were taken out of context, especially on the Wogan show, and he was made to look ridiculous. In particular he was made to look like he had considered himself the Son of God. In fact all he ever believed was that he was a being created by the 'Godhead' - as in fact we all are. So he was not judging himself to be a special person at all, but this impression was created very strongly and he has been ridiculed ever since. People continually repeat the same misunderstandings about him and thereby completely misjudge him, even those who like to think they look at all unusual phenomena and claims with an open mind.

Icke went on researching and exploring the new, strange world he had entered and by 1994 he had discovered a lot of information on conspiracies, and how that ties into the whole metaphysical and spiritual thing. In 1995 he published "The Robots' Rebellion", his first major foray into that area of research. It is extremely good; although some of the material is basic, and almost all of it is gleaned from other researchers (Icke mostly doesn't do his own direct research but collates the work of others) there is little in it that is too controversial to most conspiracists / esotericists.

He followed it up in 1997 with "...And The Truth Shall Set You Free", which if anything is even better. It especially goes into great detail about the many areas of conspiracy in the 20th Century (where Robots' Rebellion was more historical). It is an excellent compendium of the most important areas of conspiracy research and revelation.

By this time Icke had gained a large following of readers and lecture-attenders. This was because he came out with good, comprehensible material, didn't expect you to just believe what he said, encouraged open-mindedness and independent research, admitted that he may have got many little details wrong, but insisted (quite correctly I think) that he had got most of the major 'themes' right.

Up until this point Icke's opinion on the nature of the global conspiracy was that it was a group of humans he called the 'Brotherhood' who were insiders in secret societies from way back into antiquity. In which belief he was in great and large company in the conspiracy research world.

Then around 1998 by his own account he started to get lots of people coming up to him all over the world telling him about the 'reptilian' aspect of it all. That they kept seeing reptilians, saw humans 'shape-shift' into them and back, that many of these shape-shifters were people in high places and prominent positions - the very people he and many others had worked out were the 'insiders' working for a clandestine agenda via secret cabals and societies. It culminated with one Arizona Wilder, who went into detail about the rituals she was mind-controlled into performing for the shape-shifting reptilian global elite.

Icke ended up swallowing the whole thesis, convinced he had stumbled on an aspect of the conspiracy situation that few others had (actually there were precursors). "The Biggest Secret" was written on that basis, published 1999. He has since followed it up with "Children of the Matrix", which I haven't read. Opinion amongst his readers on the new 'reptilian thesis'or 'reptilianism' was divided. Many people just went along with it; others rebelled and decided David Icke had gone badly astray from the accuracy of his previous books and theories.

I have come round to the latter opinion, as have many others. Allegations began to come out that David had been 'nobbled': that his previous books had contained a lot of truth and were influencing a lot of readers to question things, and certain interested parties had set him up with disinformation, specifically via these various people who seeded his mind with stories about reptilians. Having become convinced and having published on that basis, he is now wedded to the illusion, and for reasons of ego and needing to keep his following he 'can't' backtrack and admit he may have been wrong.

If this is so, the damage has been done and he has indeed been nobbled. The evidence is in all the various mostly open-minded people who just ridicule his name, are ignorant or misled about his views or life-story, refuse to read his work and thereby judge for themselves. If these people read The Robots' Rebellion or And The Truth they would discover easily readable and valid accounts of conspiracy down the ages, with no hint of any Son of God illusions or Reptilianism. Nothing to ridicule. But unfortunately many of the people who consider themselves open-minded are not open-minded enough.

There are many other twists and turns to the Icke story: e.g. how he has been smeared with the lie of anti-Semitism; how that reached fever pitch in Canada due to the attack on him by the Canadian Greens, etc. Also I very much believe in reptilians now, just not the kind that Icke talks about in TBS. He describes beings shape-shifting between human and reptilian in the third dimension; as far as I know the 'reptilian' beings that exist are only fourth-dimensional (lower astral). I have 'sort of' observed such beings myself; more particularly I have heard many reports of such from people close to me. I don't know how much of a connection there is to the great and good, the leaders and secret society plotters, but they are here alright, and probably always have been.

David Icke's website is at http://www.davidicke.com. Go and check it out for yourself, judge for yourself. Almost all comment on David Icke in the media, including in this thread, is based on ridicule, ignorance and disinformation.

Yours,

Mat McVeagh
 
Re: David Ickes theorys: simplistic question

antichrist 666 said:
Are david ickes conspiracy theorys

right

wrong

and why?

OK the first thing to say is that the question as you've posed it is a little simplistic. Reason is, Icke has, and has had, a lot of different conspiracy theories. There are lots of little subjects which enter into the conspiracy arena. Many of Icke's theories are the same as other people's, many in fact are copies. So are we really discussing Icke's theories at all?

I suppose you could zoom in specifically on those which are his alone? That would be the reptilian stuff perhaps. Except that Phil Schneider, Branton (BRuce AlAN DeWalTON) and the 'Pleiadians' in the channelling books by Barbara Marciniak and Barbara Hand Clow all beat him to it. 'Reptilianism' is not original to Icke.

My short answer to your general question is: a lot of his earlier theories, and many of his later ones, on specific areas of conspiracy are correct, why? because they check out, mostly because they are based on solid evidence and argumentation provided by more in-depth researchers, who he has take the theories from; some of his key later theories are false, specifically the extreme reptilian and Satanic rituals stuff, why? because it seems he has been disinformed by the very people he has been uncovering so as to throw him off the scent and make him appear ridiculous.

Mat
 
Re whether Icke believes everything or not

jack said:
his main problem is he blieves everything anyone tells him, which doesn't really get you anywhere. if he could sift stuff for bullshit he'd be doing something useful.
He doesn't believe just anything. He has actually sifted quite a lot of bullshit out of what he has received in the past. He just seems to have failed in the case of the reptilian bit, and I think some other stuff to do with the Satanism and torture of Illuminati children.

He has often described how he tackles claims and theories he comes across using his intuition as well as fact-checking. Unfortunately although intuition is important it's still possible to make big mistakes based on something 'feeling right'.

Mat
 
The many checkable facts of a complete loon

Emmy Mallow said:
...he believes what he is saying one hundred percent. The guy is passionately committed ... It's his life!

When he gives talks (to packed auditoria) he actually talks for about 4 hours and he tours constantly.
Not only that but in those 4 hours what he is saying is packed with checkable facts and well-thought-out observations which tally with those of many other conspiracy theorists... who don't believe the reptilian aspect.
Emmy Mallow said:
I think he's a complete loon but at least his raving is:

1. Interesting if completely nuts
2. From the heart!
What *exactly* makes you think he's a complete loon?

Mat
 
August Verango said:
Quite whether he's right or wrong is irrelevent as far as I'm concerned.
Well surely it's highly relevant to the world and everyone in it, including yourself? we are talking about whether there are reptilian alien beings masquerading as human beings trying to take over the world... or not. Irrelevant?

Mat
 
?

Originally posted by ricky_2002
Nah I am no-bodies minion, if anything other people are mine
What makes you think that? And why would you want that?
No-body owns these boards
Not even the Fortean Times?
we get along very well, well 99.99999% of us do anyway.
Is that why on your website you call a bunch of people fags?
We have a little thing going it's called respect
Where is the respect in what you have been doing to me in this thread?
but i am that w.h.o.r.e.
Why would you want to call yourself a whore?
I use this id to spread U.L's.
What are U.L.s?
And may I just say it sounds like I am getting to you instead of you getting to me
And why would you want to 'get to' me?

What is all this in answer to anyway?

Mat
 
Comparing Icke with religions

Originally posted by Johnnyboy
When he first went public with his theories, they seemed no more outlandish than the likes of the Mahirishi, and other guru figures.
But isn't this to put down types like the Maharishi? This is an example of arguing on the basis of a supposed common assumption. You are assuming that your readership go along with your prejudice of 'guru figures'. But they needn't necessarily, need they?
Whether this makes him any more barking than my Mum's mad fundamentalist friend who talks to god all the time and believes that everything in the Bible happened as written is a moot point.
Good point. Many people pointed out at the time of the supposed 'Son of God' business that Icke was only saying things Jesus had (supposedly) said 2000 years ago, and many other religious figures at other times. If we accept that, and a huge religion has grown out of it, on what basis can we put David Icke down now?

He didn't actually say that in that way, but the point stands. There are already millions, nay billions who believe some highly convoluted and not very well proved things in the format of world religions. Now, a lot of people don't like the way religions work and whatever, but we all accept them and their followers as part of everyday life. Why should we not do the same with more recent 'outlandish' beliefs and followings like David Icke? What makes the difference?
Anyhow, suppose, just suppose, that he's right...:eek!!!!:
Exactly! You've got a mind open enough to see that, that's great. I can also see that, although I am highly sceptical of this reptilian thesis in its Icke form. But I don't let doubt mean disbelief. Because they're two different positions. Just because a claim is highly doubtful does not mean it's false: that would just be dismissal.

Mat
 
Re: ?

Mat said:
What is all this in answer to anyway?

Mat

The answer is to put ricky on your ignore list. It's very simple, go to your control panel, select edit ignore list and then type in his name. Then you don't have to read his poorly argued, deliberately inflamitory bolocks again.

Realy, do it now, you won't be missing anything except insults

Cujo
 
Icke and the Protocols

Justin Anstey said:
http://books.guardian.co.uk/extracts/story/0,6761,458001,00.html
Was that it? He looked at a couple of books about the incas?

He clearly was just trying to distance himself some his previous endorsement of the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion':
There was far more to it than looking at a couple of books about the Incas, Justin. The Ronson article misses a lot of (relevant) detail about how Icke came to this conclusion. I don't know all the detail myself, but reading through that short piece I could see several inaccuracies and omissions. It was good that Ronson did that series, but he had a certain sensationalising, and simplifying, journalistic slant. He was not after true accuracy about Icke, but a good story.

As far as I know Icke has the same position on the Protocols that he had from the Robots' Rebellion onwards, the same I have: that in itself it is a forgery, there is not a big Jewish conspiracy to take over the world; but that there is nevertheless such a conspiracy, just not a Jewish one. The Protocols mirrors in its suggestions and predictions an awful lot that has happened in the world since it was written; is this supposed to be just coincidence? Maybe whoever wrote it (or whoever wrote what it was cribbed from) knew a lot about a real (non-Jewish) conspiracy, planned from behind the scenes? This is Icke's position, and this is not anti-Semitism. Rather, the Protocols are useful to those who want to disinform people into disbelieving that there is any conspiracy going on, because they can tar such ideas with the brush of anti-Semitism, racism. This is a very effective psychological control device to warn people off certain conspiracy theories... even when those theories are avowedly non-racist, quite the opposite in fact! People are so scared of being thought of as racist or Nazi.

Here is the page where I have my copy of the Protocols: http://matmcveagh.b0x.com/tbp/conspiracy/forces/religion/index.htm It also has many other articles, including in-depth analyses, and a news report about how the forger has likely been identified.

Mat
 
Re: On the subject of David Icke in general

Mat said:
... although some of the material is basic, and almost all of it is gleaned from other researchers (Icke mostly doesn't do his own direct research but collates the work of others) there is little in it that is too controversial to most conspiracists / esotericists. ...
The weakness of Icke's arguements come down to that, he collates the arguments of others he does not do his own research. This applys to many who use these boards but we do not resort to publishig for profit.

The ego problem you mention also flaws his work. Once having decided on something he has to fit it in no matter what subsequent evidence says. The facts he uses are stretched and distorted to fit his theory.

On anti-semitism he may or may not be in that catagory, tho' his acceptance of the Protocols makes his denials doubtful, what is undoubted is that he is used by anti-semites and he makes no objection.
 
Thanks Cujo!

Right thanks for that Cujo! It looks much better now, and I've even reduced the thread's no. of pages by 1! Funny thing is, ricky seemed at one point to be answering things I'd said in a report to the moderators - does that mean he is one? Or have I misunderstood?

Right I'm gonna take a break now, got other things to do...

Mat
 
mat - phew, you write pretty prodigiously, maybe you should get a career as Icke's biographer ;) You make a good case for Icke, and I do think it's a shame that he gets such a bad press, even in FT and other esoteric circles. I had a friend who once interviewed him (for what reason I'm not sure) and he said that Icke came across as a generous, interesting, ego-free character who was happy to have his ideas questioned. Also I really liked the Ronson stuff, and yes he did give Icke short shrift (I didn't see the program, but read about it in the Guarniad) but I think in part this happened because a) he'd just had revelations about Jim Tucker of Spotlight being funded by anti-Semites b) Icke was getting harrassment from Jewish groups about being anti-Semite and c) He's Jewish. It must have seemed that conspiracy theorists were all anti-Semitic at that point, and it must have felt a bit like being in the Wolf's lair (something he's used to but not that extreme maybe). So don't give JR too hard a time, Icke's battles are his own, and maybe he's being lead down the garden path, by being too gullible, or having the wrong people around him.

The thing that makes the reptile stuff laughable (to me, at least)is that it is mentioned in Illuminati! and that's sorta a piss take of conspiracy theories, whilst having some truthful elements in it. Saurians have been around a while as an idea, don't know why really, but it's just too far out for most people - although no more so than UFOs. It just ends up sounding a bit like an X-Files episode. and without any reason to believe it either (i.e only a few people claim to have seen something, and there's no physical evidence). As for pan-dimensional beings, I had one in the back of my cab last week ;)

Hail Eris
 
Re: Re whether Icke believes everything or not

Originally posted by Mat

He doesn't believe just anything. He has actually sifted quite a lot of bullshit out of what he has received in the past. He just seems to have failed in the case of the reptilian bit,
not that i want to start cross-examining or anything but didn't you say in the previous post that you believed the reptile theory and had 'sort-of' experienced it yourself?
 
the final frontier

that reminds me of a star trek convention that i went along to once, maybe it's all real, maybe we are the television program, after all the babylonian brotherhood are behind all the star trek series and spin off's.........at least that is what i was told by this man at the convention in the bar. come to think of it he did have certain lizard-like characteristics, or maybe i'd had a little to much to drink or maybe i was drugged for knowing too much, or maybe i'm just talking a load of self indulgent bullsh*t, but i'm absolutely sure david is'nt, oh no he deffinitely knows something that i don't, why he went completley stark staring raving looney on us, i would have stuck to sports presenting, but then again he was'nt very good at that either! and i'm sure being one of the priveleged few who knows the "truth" is far more exciting than commentating on snooker, no offence to any snooker players out there!
 
The problem (if that is the correct word) with David Icke is that he *does* fail to apply a critical filter to his conspiracy theories. This obviously means that if he hears a "true" conspiracy theory he may publish something with a grain of truth to it.

Like a stopped clock he may be right twice a day, but it doesn't mean that his writings are useful or helpful for "knowing what the time is."

A simple and verifiable case of where his theories go awry are his views on the hollow earth theory. In "The Biggest Secret" he makes several claims.

Quoting from the book (p251):

"When the planet was in its molten form, spining into existance before it cooled, how could it possibly remain solid to the core? It is against all logic and laws of force (bit deleted referring to a sketch of a comet)"

When he is talking about it not being solid, he isn't meaning that the core is liquid, he means that it is hollow. (This is clear from the surrounding text.) Unfortunately he doesn't seem to understand "the laws of force" otherwise he would realise that the force of gravity pulling matter in towards the centre of the earth is far greater than the centripetal force required to just keep the earth's solid material spinning round a hollow core. i.e., the fact that we can walk around on the surface of the earth, and not really notice anything going screwy at the poles is a good indication that the earth is not hollow. If we are trying to argue that the earth did not become a solid spherical body during its formation because of the "spin", then it is far more likely to have formed a flattish disk, rather than a mildly oblate sphere. (The poles would have collapsed inwards if David Icke were correct.)

Another quote from p 251
"People live on the other side of the very land that we live on. If you think that this is impossible then ask why people in Australia don't fall off the Earth even though they are on the opposite side of the surface to those in the northern hemisphere. The answer is that they are pulled to the land by gravity. So are thos that live inside the Earth"

If David Icke had glanced at any half decent book on gravity, he would have learnt that for a spherically symmetric body, the net gravitational force on a mass buried within it arises from the mass contained within the reduced sphere with radius equal to the distance between the mass and the centre of the "earth".

In the case of a hollow, spherically symmetric earth, this means that the only thing that *may* be keeping an inhabitant of the interior on the ground would be the "centrifugal" force due to the earths spin. (Leaving him somewhat embarrased and adrift if he tries to walk out through a hole in the pole.)

Some considerable time ago, I sent a short e-mail to David Icke pointing out the serious flaws in his theory. Needless to say I have yet to receive any kind of response, even though he claims that he wants help from other researchers. :rolleyes: (I didn't expect a lot, to be honest...)

Granted this is a very small part of the huge construction that is David Icke's meta-theory, but it does show that he is (to be generous) a little hit and miss.;)
 
theres an article on a hollow earth theory in this months FT (i hav'nt read it yet , i'm not that far into the mag at the time of writing this! :eek: )
 
Re: attack of the lizard men.

carlos said:
... then why o why, to coin a phrase, do they seem to take so long to take over this planet and how on earth did they get here and if they came in "spaceships" or dimension rips or whatever else they cooked up technologically to get here, then surely they have the technology to enslave us in a faster and less esoteric method than our david would have us believe, does anyone concur?
Because theres less money in the publication rights?
Or ...
There is an even more secret band of bird people (Angels have feathered wings remember) who oppose them. The birdmen eat reptiles, think interdimensional roadrunners. Any massive rip in space-time would allow the reptilloids enemies to arrive en mass as well. Being more moral than the cold-blooded fiends they want to eat they restrict themselves as much as possible to coded writings, and the arrangement of monuments. Hey we've even fount their bones - Archaeotheornis, the axebeak. :cross eye

Hmm thats good I ought to write it up :D
 
Hollow earth theories are fun. I remember being taken in by one when I was a lot younger than I am today. (Grey hairs already making a grand appearance:eek: ) The book had a satellite photo showing the "hole at the north pole" through which we could all gain access to this other world. It all looked very plausible until you thought "Where's all the cloud gone?" Turns out the image was in fact a mosaic of much smaller images (and they had only used ones with no cloud in). The black disk that was being touted as the "hole" was in fact a region for which there was no imagery, as at the time the mosaic had been created, no imaging satellites flew in polar orbits.:rolleyes:
 
So, the only thing of interest to do with DI now is to work out the who, how and why he was 'nobbled' with the lizard stuff.

-Justin.
 
I once heard Icke speak at the Glastonbury experience (1994 ish). I must admit that he is very charismatic (dispite the hair-do) but there is no way someone who is not stoned/pissed/mentally ill will take him seriously.

Methinks he has the full series of 'V' on Video
 
wow! I notice someone has voted right.

Has Icke himself visited this forum ??? :confused:
 
Fortis said:
If David Icke had glanced at any half decent book on gravity ...

The wonderful thing about his theories (from his point of view) is that any contrary evidence can be explained away as part of the conspiricy. He can say that books on gravity are, just like the Bible, a deliberate smoke screen designed to hide the truth from the uninitiated.

I remember that photo that is supposed to show the hole at the north pole. I realised it couldn't be real since the hole extended as far south as central Norway. If it were that large I am sure someone would have noticed sooner, the Norwegians for instance.
 
Mike P said:
I remember that photo that is supposed to show the hole at the north pole. I realised it couldn't be real since the hole extended as far south as central Norway. If it were that large I am sure someone would have noticed sooner, the Norwegians for instance.

I was of a young age at the time, and the concept that Norway existed was probably only slightly more believable than the concept that there was a hole at the pole.
;)
 
Just had a quick look at his site. Has a look at the medical archeive part and saw a few bits on "Nurta-sweet" (the artiffical sweetner found in most things but mainly a well known brand of cola type drink, would of put it's proper name only couldn't remember how to spell it).

Though some of D.I's theories seem slightly on the crazy I have to say he is right about what he puts about it (mainly). Basically he goes on about how dangerous the stuff is (I have known it is for about 11 years now, found out just after dad got M.E.).

So instead of saying is he right or is he wrong shouldn't you be picking the truth out of the garbage.


luce
 
Luce,
As I said in an earlier post, even though he may have some nuggets in there, his site isn't the best place to go for a seeker after truth (whatever that may be ;) )

His uncritical (and yet somehow warped) approach to theories makes it nigh on impossible to determine what is useful. If you hadn't already heard about the Nutra-Sweet worries, would you have given Ickes stories any credence?

As I said before, a stopped clock is right twice a day, but you would never use it to tell the time.;)
 
Back
Top