David Icke: Methods Of A Madman

[Wombaticus Rex]

Yeah, if you’re looking for a true believer, there is no such strawman at this address.

(If you are interested in getting qualitative data on that particular demographic, I would recommend Icke's website itself, which hosts a rather massive forum.)

It is perfectly reasonable to sign up to a forum that's been discussing your work, and I would imagine our archives would be of great relevance to your various projects.

[compared2what?]

I'll take that as you not believing in human-alien hybrids.

MIB

I'll take this as you not understanding what I wrote. I'll restate. You are free to post your views about Icke. You are not free to approach other members of this board with any intention other than respectful dialogue.

(edited for formatting)

You can interpret it any way you want, but all i've done is ask specific questions citing very specific references and solicited responses.

If you don't have an answer to my question, why does that make ME disrespectful?

MIB

Because by complaining about and/or supplying their responses yourself, you're not respecting the rights of other people to the private beliefs of their choice.

Possibly you don't think anyone's entitled to that. But I don't know, since you blew me off when I asked. In the event that you wonder where anyone ever got the idea that such a right existed, though:

Bill of Rights, probably.

[seemslikeadream]

but if you'd like to talk with us about other stuff there's plenty here if you are at all interested in anything else that we find extremely important ....cause this subject is the lowest on the totem pole ....so don't judge RI based on this thread...ooops sorry that it was based on your site...no disrespect

[Project Willow]

You can interpret it any way you want, but all i've done is ask specific questions citing very specific references and solicited responses.

If you don't have an answer to my question, why does that make ME disrespectful?

MIB

Rather than respond to me, you made an assumption about my opinion, that is disrespectful. So is substituting my suggestions with your own parameter, which appears to be the requirement that everyone answer your question. Which arguably is disrespectful also. If you want opinions about Icke, there are plenty here in the preceding pages of this thread, and elsewhere on the board. Try familiarizing yourself with this venue. That's respectful.

Where you would accept a person's belief in alien-human hybrids and not ask questions, i would like to have a conversation with that person.

MIB

We've had many discussions about beliefs and how people come to hold them. Sometimes the least effective way to come to understanding about another person's beliefs is to confront them. It puts them on the defensive, and that functions as a barrier. You've evidenced that yourself in response to challenges about your own beliefs, so you're operating here with a bit of a double standard.

[compared2what?]

c2w wrote:

Why this tremendous focus on whether people believe what Icke says? Rather than on what he says?

I don't think you can even talk meaningful about Icke for very long unless you either believe or disbelieve his basic premise. I mean it is like talking about Copernicus and his theory of heliocentrism. You can talk about how articulate, charming, eccentric, persuasive, etc he is as a person and all the other fascinating topics he may touch on, but in the end you either believe the world revolves around the sun or vice versa, or perhaps are undecided.

The only reason Icke is even discussed is because he has a unified world historical conspiracy. The basic premise is that lizard-men in disguise have ruled the world for thousands of years. That is pretty clear. What isn't clear is whether people actually believe this literally and are willing to support Icke with evidence. I don't think people should be forced to say whether they believe this or not. But if you are going to debate and defend Icke I think you are obligated to make plain whether you believe his core theory or not. If you don't then I think you lose credibility and it soon becomes more about personality and forum politics.

To me it makes perfect sense to ask someone if they believe Icke. On a global warming thread someone arguing the contrarily opinion would not be surprised if they were asked whether or not they believed in global warming. Do you believe in lizard men seems like a fair opening in a thread about Icke.

Sure. That might be merited by something someone said. Or it might be justified by some context that provided grounds for challenging the questioned belief that went beyond....Well, none, really. That's why I made the distinction I did above.

I mean, I guess the Mars-Blackmon approach to question-asking also might not appeal to absolutely everybody. (Is it the shoes?) But it's a personal choice.

[hanshan]

...

compared2what?:

I mean, I guess the Mars-Blackmon approach to question-asking also might not appeal to absolutely everybody. (Is it the shoes?) But it's a personal choice.

hilarious


...

[Canadian_watcher]

Where exactly is the distinction between plausible and crazy? This is an opinion, and not a very good one at that if you ask me.

Crazy:

• Annanuki aliens fought with aliens from Mars - the Annanuki won.
• The Annanuki cross-bred with humans. Now we have human-alien hybrids running the world.
• Princess Diana was a human sacrifice to a goddess of the same name.

Do you believe these things?

MIB

i'm open to these possibilities.
I'd like to know why you are not

[Sounder]

Ah, the charm of the flatlanders.

Skeptics never have much to say.

But they do seem heavily invested in others being as inhibited as themselves.

Perhaps MIB, you could introduce yourself more properly over on this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=36608&p=509337&hilit=skeptics#p509337

Stick around, it could be fun.

[compared2what?]

Skeptics never have much to say.

Derogating them as a group without qualification is kind of problematic, though. But I'm pretty sure you agree with that in principle. So I'm just saying it in a for-the-record way, not arguing.


...

I mean, sometimes clear-eyed rational thought argues on the side of right and has a good argument. Maybe even often. Depends on the thinker. There are worse things.

[82_28]

Chief, you're out of there on a number of levels. This is hard to do and I for one, salute your tenaciousness. SLAD has it exactly right. You're not gonna find a fucking true believer here. I know it must seem cool to be able to toss the line into the water and see what bites. So good for you. You did it and you made it past the previous hurdle. The next one doesn't exist and you will find yourself, MIB, hurdling over your imagination. I (we) wish you luck.

[Wombaticus Rex]

Sometimes the least effective way to come to understanding about another person's beliefs is to confront them.

Prrrrretty much makes the whole thread worth it.

I will be chewing on that for awhile.

[Joao]

I consider Icke to be a poor man's Karl Marx, with "reptoids" standing in for the bourgeoisie among a population that's been systematically turned against the idea of class struggle and warfare. It somewhat echoes Jung's take on flying saucers as mandala-apparitions of our higher selves:

"In the threatening situation of the world today, when people are beginning to see that everything is at stake, the projection-creating fantasy soars beyond the realm of earthly organizations and powers into the heavens, into interstellar space, where the rulers of human fate, the gods, once had their abode in the planets...."

[seemslikeadream]

I consider Icke to be a poor man's Karl Marx, with "reptoids" standing in for the bourgeoisie among a population that's been systematically turned against the idea of class struggle and warfare. It somewhat echoes Jung's take on flying saucers as mandala-apparitions of our higher selves:

"In the threatening situation of the world today, when people are beginning to see that everything is at stake, the projection-creating fantasy soars beyond the realm of earthly organizations and powers into the heavens, into interstellar space, where the rulers of human fate, the gods, once had their abode in the planets...."

there ya go man

It riles them to believe

that you perceive

the web they weave

and keep on thinking free.

[Sounder]

Derogating them as a group without qualification is kind of problematic, though. But I'm pretty sure you agree with that in principle. So I'm just saying it in a for-the-record way, not arguing.

Oh drat, you are right again C2W?. Skeptics can be and often are very bright people. Johnathan Bird had some neat things to say that likely I would not have learned without his skeptic voice.


Joao wrote...

I consider Icke to be a poor man's Karl Marx

hmmmm

Welcome Joao

[seemslikeadream]

Joao wrote...

I consider Icke to be a poor man's Karl Marx

hmmmm

Welcome Joao

a kinder gentler form of criticism..... how refreshing...maybe a little disagreement amongst friends...no big wooop