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

David Icke & His Work

uair01 said:
Yes, Icke's way of analyzing relationships between families, businesses and old-boy's networks is IMHO a valid way of analyzing power networks (see: the cordial relationships between the Bushes and the Bin-Ladens). But it's a pity that his imagination runs away with him.

The thing is, if you start joining the dots within our current socio-economic system, you're going to find lots of connections. Whether that implies an inherent intent by any given party to do any given thing is very much open to question. Yes, there are various interconnections, but we're all involved these as we're all part of a liberal capitalist free-market system, so pointing out a few connections out of the whole mass doesn't really mean all that much.
 
The Call of Cthullu

MrSnowman said:
...

Actually, it'd be interesting to read the whole lot. but to be honest, the concept of multi-dimensional space lizards mixed in with politics and conspiracy would probably make my head hurt.
I don't know what it is about David Icke's style, but there are plenty of readers out there quite prepared to pick'n'mix Icke's theories to get to wherever it is that they think Icke's going to take them.

Having read several interviews with Icke and seen him on TV a few times, it's pretty obvious that he squirms like a toad, when interviewers try to put him on the spot about his claims of transdimensional, reptilian overlords that eat human flesh. He generally gives people what they want, or what he believes people will swallow.

Good luck with the new and growing field of Ickesian Apologetics. Personally, I'd rather save my intellectual abilities for an appreciation of writers and thinkers who are not quite so obviously both crawling with bug eyed madness and in bed with the far Right and a tube of KY.

_____ _____ _____

As to the the Rothschilds being blamed for starting the Nazi Party and the Second World War. Look it up on Google and many esteemed names turn up, David Icke, David Irving, Lyndon LaRouche, etc. And was Hitler really a Rothschild? It all out there. And, there are many, many, pages of Holocaust Denial related stuff on the Web these days. Most of these sites are put up by people who don't have to deal in truth, they just have to sow the seeds of doubt.

Blaming Jewish Financiers for the Nazi crimes of genocide against European Jewry still looks a lot like the classic diversionary tactic of Blaming the Victims for the Crime.
 
It's also wise to remember that the sum of all Icke's theorising is still reptoids - if he can draw such a conclusion after all of his apprent research, one can only wonder if he's truly 'with it' WRT how he evaluates and assimilates the world around him and it's history. The fact that he's willing to tread various dodgy paths in order to get to the reptoid conclusion seems IMHO to show that he's not completely on the ball (if you pardon the pun).
 
Re: The Call of Cthullu

Pietro_Mercurios said:
Having read several interviews with Icke and seen him on TV a few times, it's pretty obvious that he squirms like a toad, when interviewers try to put him on the spot about his claims of transdimensional, reptilian overlords that eat human flesh. He generally gives people what they want, or what he believes people will swallow.

Good luck with the new and growing field of Ickesian Apologetics. Personally, I'd rather save my intellectual abilities for an appreciation of writers and thinkers who are not quite so obviously both crawling with bug eyed madness and in bed with the far Right and a tube of KY.

_____ _____ _____

As to the the Rothschilds being blamed for starting the Nazi Party and the Second World War. Look it up on Google and many esteemed names turn up, David Icke, David Irving, Lyndon LaRouche, etc. And was Hitler really a Rothschild? It all out there. And, there are many, many, pages of Holocaust Denial related stuff on the Web these days. Most of these sites are put up by people who don't have to deal in truth, they just have to sow the seeds of doubt.

Blaming Jewish Financiers for the Nazi crimes of genocide against European Jewry still looks a lot like the classic diversionary tactic of Blaming the Victims for the Crime.

Well that's just it, that's his theory, and you can't blame someone for having theories or ideas. I'm not an Ickesian Apologetic by the way, his reasoning is clearly flawed in some areas. What I am is a defender of people being allowed to say what they want to say, without what they're saying being misinterpreted and thus not letting people form unbiased opinions.
 
Re: The Call of Cthullu

MrSnowman said:
...

Well that's just it, that's his theory, and you can't blame someone for having theories or ideas. I'm not an Ickesian Apologetic by the way, his reasoning is clearly flawed in some areas. What I am is a defender of people being allowed to say what they want to say, without what they're saying being misinterpreted and thus not letting people form unbiased opinions.
And there was me half hoping that you were just trying to wind people up.
 
Having read several interviews with Icke and seen him on TV a few times, it's pretty obvious that he squirms like a toad, when interviewers try to put him on the spot about his claims of transdimensional, reptilian overlords that eat human flesh. He generally gives people what they want, or what he believes people will swallow.

Pretty tame stuff really I,ve seen more weirder stuff myself 10 years ago whats all the fuss about !
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
MrSnowman said:
...

Well that's just it, that's his theory, and you can't blame someone for having theories or ideas. I'm not an Ickesian Apologetic by the way, his reasoning is clearly flawed in some areas. What I am is a defender of people being allowed to say what they want to say, without what they're saying being misinterpreted and thus not letting people form unbiased opinions.
And there was me half hoping that you were just trying to wind people up.

I don't wind people up. People don't just don't like their comfortable populist views to be challenged. There's an element an absino lanam in trying to make people look at things in a deeper sense than as they're initially presented these days, owing to a misplaced faith in standard media outlets, some of which the majority will accept as gospel.

Take David Irving for instance : there was uproar when he first started preaching his ideas, but I couldn't take that at face value from what was merely in the papers. I did some research and read what he had to say, and yes, he is a purveyor of hate and deeply anti-semitic, but I could never have formed that view and be honest to myself about it if I hadn't have found out for myself.

Now with Icke, the only thing I see him guilty of being, as Jerry suggests, is that he lets extremely flawed concepts form the basis of his ideas. However, this to me seems like a scientist coming up with a theory based on empirical evidence from elsewhere which is wrong i.e. his theory may be wrong, but he is not responsible for what he had used to come to his conclusions; it's just the path which he has mistakenly taken.
 
MrSnowman said:
Now with Icke, the only thing I see him guilty of being, as Jerry suggests, is that he lets extremely flawed concepts form the basis of his ideas. However, this to me seems like a scientist coming up with a theory based on empirical evidence from elsewhere which is wrong i.e. his theory may be wrong, but he is not responsible for what he had used to come to his conclusions; it's just the path which he has mistakenly taken.

You don't just think he's a fully paid-up loony, then?

Seriously, we all like a good conspiracy, and I've dipped into a few of his books recently (don't reckon I could stomach a whole one, to be honest!). I follow with interest his theories about 9/11 and the secret organisations that rule his world, and they have their own (slightly nutty) logic.
If Icke had stuck with this, I'd have to admire his - what's the word - chutzpah. But he then goes and spoils it all by suggesting that everyone in any position of power is a shapeshifting reptile, and in any case that we're imagining the whole thing (I saw a film about that last idea. It was called The Matrix. Anyone else heard of it?).
It's like having a friend who likes to exaggerate everything. You have fun listening to his tall tales, but then he tells an absolute whopper, and it's no fun listening to him any more.

I read Icke's interview with Abovetopsecret, and he couln't even give a proper answer to a question about his time as a goalkeeper!

I'm starting to waffle again, but I (and I'm sure many other Britons) can still remember the shock I felt when this chap that I'd only known as a sports presenter turned up on Wogan in his turquoise tracksuit.
 
Re: The Call of Cthullu

Pietro_Mercurios said:
As to the the Rothschilds being blamed for starting the Nazi Party and the Second World War. Look it up on Google and many esteemed names turn up, David Icke, David Irving, Lyndon LaRouche, etc.

You're right. In Google I find only arguments from doubtful sources like these. Not convincing ... Unfortunately I also don't find a good historic debunking of the idea - I would like to read it, if it exists.

I only found this analysis of conspiracy theories which gives a clear historic overview and a very convincing analysis:
The Conspiracy Bugaboo. Good read!

BTW: While googling for some credible sources I found this book review. There are much worse conspiracy authors than Icke :cross eye
Warning: racist content!
 
Was it the Jon Ronson programme that Icke was on where all these painfully right on people were trying to ban his interviews because they thought he was anti-Semitic, probably due to the leanings of some of his supporters? But as the programme drew on, it was clear that Icke didn't think the Jews were behind the great conspiracy, he genuinely believed it was shape shifting reptoids.

As Terry Wogan once said, "They're not laughing with you, they're laughing at you." Did Icke have some sort of breakdown? I'm thinking of his Son of God phase. Isn't he just a best selling version of the paranoids on the Organised Stalking thread?
 
MrSnowman said:
... People don't just don't like their comfortable populist views to be challenged. There's an element an absino lanam in trying to make people look at things in a deeper sense than as they're initially presented these days, owing to a misplaced faith in standard media outlets, some of which the majority will accept as gospel.

...

Now with Icke, the only thing I see him guilty of being, as Jerry suggests, is that he lets extremely flawed concepts form the basis of his ideas. However, this to me seems like a scientist coming up with a theory based on empirical evidence from elsewhere which is wrong i.e. his theory may be wrong, but he is not responsible for what he had used to come to his conclusions; it's just the path which he has mistakenly taken.
I wish I could be so open and clear minded, but I find myself baulking at the leap of faith required, when Icke gets on to stuff like this:
http://www.metatech.org/david_icke_and_reptilians.html

...

[David Icke:] And, interestingly-and this is a true story also, and it kind of sums up the way this has been unfolding-when The Biggest Secret was at the printers in January, I got a call in America from a guy, he was just a guy who read my other books, and he said, "Hey, you got a new book coming out?"

I said, "Yeah, it's at the printers now."

He said, "What's it about?"

I said, "Well, you'll have to read it because some of it is so bizarre, if I told you about it, well, you'd think this is crazy."

So anyway, we go on chatting about what you do and where you've been and all this stuff. So then, after about ten or fifteen minutes into this conversation, he says, "Hey, you're going to think I'm mad," he said, "but have you ever come across anyone who has seen people in positions of power, like Bush, Gorbachev, Kissinger, turn into reptiles?"

I thought, "Shit, not another!"

I said, "Well, why do you ask the question?"

He said, "Because I keep seeing this." He said, "When they come on the television, I keep seeing them turn into reptiles."

So, the story has gone on-interestingly, too! I can't remember the exact word now, but I was interviewed on a radio station by the guy who does reverse speech. Have you come across that?

Martin: Yes, I have.

David Icke: Well, he wanted to talk to me about some reverse speech they'd taken from a guy Ken Bacon-do you remember the guy who was the Pentagon spokesman, or White House spokesman-Pentagon spokesman, I think, during the Kosovo war, and they had done some reverse speech on him and said, "Do you know what this means? We can't work it out."

And it was clear as day. He was making a statement about the war to the press, and in reverse it said something like, "We are the people of the snake and we"-something like, I can't remember the exact wording now, I've got it on tape in America, basically-"we are the people of the snake and we look after our own" was basically the theme of what he said, clear as day, and I nearly dropped off the chair.

So,there is something in all of this which holds the key to understanding so much about how the world has been controlled, where this world is actually controlled from, and I would strongly suggest that what we are looking at with the Kissingers and the Bushs and the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds and all these people, are actually the three-dimensional, physical expressions of a lower-fourth-dimensional consciousness and manipulation. And the physical Illuminati are merely the three-dimensional expression of the fourth-dimensional control of planet Earth.

...
:shock:
 
I would strongly suggest that what we are looking at with the Kissingers and the Bushs and the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds and all these people, are actually the three-dimensional, physical expressions of a lower-fourth-dimensional consciousness and manipulation. And the physical Illuminati are merely the three-dimensional expression of the fourth-dimensional control of planet Earth.

More like Douglas Adams! Perhaps they're white mice really
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
MrSnowman said:
... People don't just don't like their comfortable populist views to be challenged. There's an element an absino lanam in trying to make people look at things in a deeper sense than as they're initially presented these days, owing to a misplaced faith in standard media outlets, some of which the majority will accept as gospel.

...

Now with Icke, the only thing I see him guilty of being, as Jerry suggests, is that he lets extremely flawed concepts form the basis of his ideas. However, this to me seems like a scientist coming up with a theory based on empirical evidence from elsewhere which is wrong i.e. his theory may be wrong, but he is not responsible for what he had used to come to his conclusions; it's just the path which he has mistakenly taken.
I wish I could be so open and clear minded, but I find myself baulking at the leap of faith required, when Icke gets on to stuff like this:
http://www.metatech.org/david_icke_and_reptilians.html

...

[David Icke:] And, interestingly-and this is a true story also, and it kind of sums up the way this has been unfolding-when The Biggest Secret was at the printers in January, I got a call in America from a guy, he was just a guy who read my other books, and he said, "Hey, you got a new book coming out?"

I said, "Yeah, it's at the printers now."

He said, "What's it about?"

I said, "Well, you'll have to read it because some of it is so bizarre, if I told you about it, well, you'd think this is crazy."

So anyway, we go on chatting about what you do and where you've been and all this stuff. So then, after about ten or fifteen minutes into this conversation, he says, "Hey, you're going to think I'm mad," he said, "but have you ever come across anyone who has seen people in positions of power, like Bush, Gorbachev, Kissinger, turn into reptiles?"

I thought, "Shit, not another!"

I said, "Well, why do you ask the question?"

He said, "Because I keep seeing this." He said, "When they come on the television, I keep seeing them turn into reptiles."

So, the story has gone on-interestingly, too! I can't remember the exact word now, but I was interviewed on a radio station by the guy who does reverse speech. Have you come across that?

Martin: Yes, I have.

David Icke: Well, he wanted to talk to me about some reverse speech they'd taken from a guy Ken Bacon-do you remember the guy who was the Pentagon spokesman, or White House spokesman-Pentagon spokesman, I think, during the Kosovo war, and they had done some reverse speech on him and said, "Do you know what this means? We can't work it out."

And it was clear as day. He was making a statement about the war to the press, and in reverse it said something like, "We are the people of the snake and we"-something like, I can't remember the exact wording now, I've got it on tape in America, basically-"we are the people of the snake and we look after our own" was basically the theme of what he said, clear as day, and I nearly dropped off the chair.

So,there is something in all of this which holds the key to understanding so much about how the world has been controlled, where this world is actually controlled from, and I would strongly suggest that what we are looking at with the Kissingers and the Bushs and the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds and all these people, are actually the three-dimensional, physical expressions of a lower-fourth-dimensional consciousness and manipulation. And the physical Illuminati are merely the three-dimensional expression of the fourth-dimensional control of planet Earth.

...
:shock:

Just like I said in my first post.. interesting with his political observations, unless he starts harping on about multi-dimensional space reptiles from the 41st level of the ascended consciousness of the Zlof continuity or whatever. :wow: And certainly not anti-semitic.
 
Oh well.

Strangely enough, I've just watched an interview with Erich von Daniken on the German ARD channel. He's 70 and still coming out with the same spiel he was coming out with when he was 40. Although, he's added corn circles. I'm now watching Uri Geller on Dutch RTL7. He's still doing the same spiel he was doing thirty years ago, as well. Fixing watches and remote viewing drawings in the host's back pocket.

Uri's now claiming that a women tried to sue him for straightening out her contraceptive IUD coil, which caused her to become pregnant. And, he's produced the straightened coil, as well. The case was thrown out of court, apparently.

It's yesterday, once more. :roll:
 
And now, Uri's claiming that he hypnotized Michael Jackson and asked if Michael had ever "touched children inappropriately?".

Michael said no. And Uri's a good hypnotist, too.

And he's good friends with Yoko and he got her back with John and he's the guy that got John to perform with Elton John at Madison Square Garden. What a guy!

:cross eye
 
Erich von Daniken & Uri Geller? Off topic?

No. Just pointing out that there are some people out there that, for whatever reason, have a tendency to make extraordinary claims.

Some of us more mature Forteans have been putting up with such misunderstood explorers of the extraordinary, miracle workers, charlatans and mountebanks, for decades.

Icke is just one of the most plausible, shiftiest, nuttiest and potentially malevolent.
 
Icke is just one of the most plausible, shiftiest, nuttiest and potentially malevolent

Seems he's perfect for politics then. Did he miss his vocation?
 
MrSnowman said:
Now with Icke, the only thing I see him guilty of being, as Jerry suggests, is that he lets extremely flawed concepts form the basis of his ideas. However, this to me seems like a scientist coming up with a theory based on empirical evidence from elsewhere which is wrong i.e. his theory may be wrong, but he is not responsible for what he had used to come to his conclusions; it's just the path which he has mistakenly taken.

In a sense then he's a bit like Velikovsky - using various bits and pieces of information that is a known factor to come up with a theory which seems to turn all of it on it's head.

I too don't think that holocaust deniers should be denied the right to voice their ideas - that way they can be challenged. It's worse to ignore or supress such ideas IMHO.
 
Jerry_B said:
...

I too don't think that holocaust deniers should be denied the right to voice their ideas - that way they can be challenged. It's worse to ignore or surpress such ideas IMHO.
I'd agree, but as anyone who does a quick Google, like myself and uair01, can quickly see, there is now so much garbage in the system, or on the internet, that it is actually becoming difficult to find refutations of Holocaust Denial nonsense.

Perhaps, that wouldn't matter so much, if it wasn't that we've come to rely so much on the net for research and information.
 
You know, I think you've totally missed the point about what I was trying to say. I'll quote my other post if that helps

I wrote:

Just like I said in my first post.. interesting with his political observations, unless he starts harping on about multi-dimensional space reptiles from the 41st level of the ascended consciousness of the Zlof continuity or whatever. wow And certainly not anti-semitic.

The debate isn't about whether he's a nutter or not. In some respect he is, in some respects he isn't. What I take issue is with the representation of him in the press and mainstream media outlets which, I'd expect a mature Fortean to be wary of, and the dangers of forming an opinion on the basis of something which is presented as gospel to a targeted readership who wouldn't want to hear it any other way.

I think the best example of it (thanks whingey LF :) ) it the stunt that the Grauniad recently pulled on Chomsky. Read about it here :

http://www.chomsky.info/letters/20051113.htm

Now, anyone not seeing his letter pointing out the madness of the whole affair, if they were a dedicated Grauniad reader, would carry views about him based on pick-quoted comments which have been deliberately jiggled about owing to someone clearly having an agenda with him.

Read the letter above, as it's precisely what I'm trying to get at here.
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
Perhaps, that wouldn't matter so much, if it wasn't that we've come to rely so much on the net for research and information.

Ah, but to that I'd say - 'That's your own fault'. The internet is not just a repository for information. In fact, most of it just seems like alot of rubbish, nonsense, etc.. Sensibly, anyone who dips into the internet should do so with the foreknowledge that's it's not really all that useful as a research tool. Unless you're doing research on 'daft stuff you can find on the internet' ;) All sorts of stuff is out there, but whether anyone wants to believe any of it or not is entirely up to them. The reason you can probabaly find more stuff on Holocaust denial on the net is because the net is not, by and large, subject to very many restraints via censorship. This is why it's easier to read such stuff on the net than it is in your local bookshop or library.
 
MrSnowman said:
You know, I think you've totally missed the point about what I was trying to say. I'll quote my other post if that helps

I wrote:

Just like I said in my first post.. interesting with his political observations, unless he starts harping on about multi-dimensional space reptiles from the 41st level of the ascended consciousness of the Zlof continuity or whatever. wow And certainly not anti-semitic.

The debate isn't about whether he's a nutter or not. In some respect he is, in some respects he isn't. What I take issue is with the representation of him in the press and mainstream media outlets which, I'd expect a mature Fortean to be wary of, and the dangers of forming an opinion on the basis of something which is presented as gospel to a targeted readership who wouldn't want to hear it any other way.

I think the best example of it (thanks whingey LF :) ) it the stunt that the Grauniad recently pulled on Chomsky. Read about it here :

http://www.chomsky.info/letters/20051113.htm

Now, anyone not seeing his letter pointing out the madness of the whole affair, if they were a dedicated Grauniad reader, would carry views about him based on pick-quoted comments which have been deliberately jiggled about owing to someone clearly having an agenda with him.

Read the letter above, as it's precisely what I'm trying to get at here.
No. I don't think I have missed the point of your Posts.

I haven't made my mind up about David Icke, based merely on the Media's treatment of the man, which if anything has been rather gentle, treating him as a harmless eccentric. I've based my opinion on what I've read of his work, on his internet site, on various interviews with both friendly and unfriendly interviewers and on what I've learned from his fans.

The debate for you may not be about Icke's sanity, or his flirtation with the extreme Right and Holocaust Denial, I think it is. Whether he has a plan, or just picks up and utilizes whatever conspiracy theory that comes to hand, both plausible and implausible, like some kind of psychically incontinent magpie, is another matter. And, I'm sure that he's not completely crazy, his presentational and journalistic skills remain. Plus, he still appears personable and benign, but then so did Marshall Applewhite.

We'll just have to agree to differ.

And defending Icke by borrowing Noam Chomsky's plumage... cute. :lol:
 
Jerry_B said:
Pietro_Mercurios said:
Perhaps, that wouldn't matter so much, if it wasn't that we've come to rely so much on the net for research and information.

Ah, but to that I'd say - 'That's your own fault'. The internet is not just a repository for information. In fact, most of it just seems like alot of rubbish, nonsense, etc.. Sensibly, anyone who dips into the internet should do so with the foreknowledge that's it's not really all that useful as a research tool. Unless you're doing research on 'daft stuff you can find on the internet' ;) All sorts of stuff is out there, but whether anyone wants to believe any of it or not is entirely up to them. The reason you can probabaly find more stuff on Holocaust denial on the net is because the net is not, by and large, subject to very many restraints via censorship. This is why it's easier to read such stuff on the net than it is in your local bookshop or library.
But, people do use the internet as a source of information. A fact to be coupled with its use by disseminators of mis-information, certainly.
 
Yes, but on their head be it. It's pretty much an unregulated source, and so anything gleaned from the net should be taken on board with that in mind. And whilst the net is indeed a very good source for all sorts of things, one still has to consider the fact that - equally - it's also the source of all sorts of things that would never get published in any other media without certain controls and censors.
 
I interviewed Icke

For my local tv show. He was strongly advocating that people not vote in the upcoming 2004 American presidential election, saying there was no difference between Kerry and bush. He tried to say that Whitewater was as bad as torture or lying the world into war. He didn't seem just uninformed, he seemed to have a right-wing agenda while using hippy-dippy peacenik new age lingo. I think he's a nice guy and I think the same about his wife, so I feel guilty about never running the interview. I felt like I was part of some disinformation scheme and it made me uncomfortable. I'm not alleging anything, I'm just saying I felt uncomfortable.

I prefer the UFO-type writers who are more obviously sideshow barkers, but I increasingly suspect that much of the UFO literature is right-wing PSY-OPS.

Just my opinion.
 
Doesn't seem to be all that good a PSY-OPs thing when the potential audience is pretty much limited. That goes for Icke as well as UFO-related stuff. IMHO to assume it's all some nefarious PSY-OPs thing is to credit these things with more clout than they actually have.
 
Jerry_B said:
Doesn't seem to be all that good a PSY-OPs thing when the potential audience is pretty much limited. That goes for Icke as well as UFO-related stuff. IMHO to assume it's all some nefarious PSY-OPs thing is to credit these things with more clout than they actually have.

The potential audience for UFO stories??? is... LIMITED?

Then why do we see TV specials about all this all the time? Seems pretty popular to me. I know people who make their living writing about UFOs and so forth. And they tend to have similar political views to those of Icke. Perhaps that's a coincidence.
 
Perhaps its all aimed at that fraction of the population who question things. Throw in enough meaty interesting subjects (UFOs etc) to keep that section of the population barking up the wrong trees while the real problems and questions go unasked and therefore unanswered.

Depends if you credit the politicians and powerbrokers with enough intelligence to something like that.

Just a thought :)
 
Back
Top