David Icke: Methods Of A Madman

[American Dream]

I don't dismiss anything without first thinking about it. In this particular case, the idea - based on ancient legends, lore & oral histories passed down from generation to generation as well as this and that bit of archeological evidence (submerged cities, tech that 'couldn't possibly have existed! but does, etc) - it doesn't seem out of the realms of possibility to me that beings from other solar systems or planets within ours might have existed and might have been here - might still be here - we might be a part of them now. It's not at all outrageous to me.

It is possible that our entire universe is secretly controlled by a cabal extradimensional toads whose entire purpose is to get us to produce more shoe polish for them to drink.

This does not mean that it's true, nor that we would get very far by endorsing someone who insists that this is an essential key to what's wrong with our Society...

[seemslikeadream]

everyone holds their own key

[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.

You're bogged down in mud of your own making and expecting me to pull you out. Not my job.

Sorry to be such a loser, by your standards. I got no expectations, though. (Whateveryouassumedwaswrongyoushouldhaveasked.)

I mean, a substantive reply would be nice, of course. But I'm not expecting one. And I'm all right with that. So it's not a big deal.

[compared2what?]

I don't dismiss anything without first thinking about it. In this particular case, the idea - based on ancient legends, lore & oral histories passed down from generation to generation as well as this and that bit of archeological evidence (submerged cities, tech that 'couldn't possibly have existed! but does, etc) - it doesn't seem out of the realms of possibility to me that beings from other solar systems or planets within ours might have existed and might have been here - might still be here - we might be a part of them now. It's not at all outrageous to me.

It is possible that our entire universe is secretly controlled by a cabal extradimensional toads whose entire purpose is to get us to produce more shoe polish for them to drink.

It's less of a comment on Icke than it is on the startling inherent potential of an extradimensional-shoe-polish-craving-toad-based belief system, I guess. But that's a much more viably productive construct for the purposes of personal/political evolution than the one Icke uses, imo. And I really mean that.

[Sounder]

AD wrote....

Most won't go anywhere near commenting directly on his more science fiction sounding claims, so there is no way to really know...

Yeah well you don't seem to wild about exposing the idiocy of your own Randian skeptical positions either.

[Canadian_watcher]

I don't dismiss anything without first thinking about it. In this particular case, the idea - based on ancient legends, lore & oral histories passed down from generation to generation as well as this and that bit of archeological evidence (submerged cities, tech that 'couldn't possibly have existed! but does, etc) - it doesn't seem out of the realms of possibility to me that beings from other solar systems or planets within ours might have existed and might have been here - might still be here - we might be a part of them now. It's not at all outrageous to me.

It is possible that our entire universe is secretly controlled by a cabal extradimensional toads whose entire purpose is to get us to produce more shoe polish for them to drink.

It's less of a comment on Icke than it is on the startling inherent potential of an extradimensional-shoe-polish-craving-toad-based belief system, I guess. But that's a much more viably productive construct for the purposes of personal/political evolution than the one Icke uses, imo. And I really mean that.

well, whatever one you're using doesn't seem to be getting you anywhere. as far as I can see you haven't evolved your thinking a whit in almost 8 years (at least). no offense. i can't help it that I'm a diabolical genius, after all.

[compared2what?]

you can call it whatever you want


There are an estimated 1.2 billion Roman Catholics in the world

The thing is, SLAD.

Their mere existence in large numbers plus their beliefs isn't really an equation that yields anything. I mean, yes. There are. But with what good or bad result and/or results?


Also, to go to one of the somewhat more complex answers to the what's-the-difference question (and yes, I know you didn't mention Icke, but he's the topic):

It's not actually a topically relevant comparison.

Catholicism is a religion. The church makes no pretense about the truth of their belief system being verifiable by anything other than faith. And those are just the terms.

Icke, on the other hand, purports to be dealing in fact. All of what he says should be -- and technically is -- conventionally verifiable by the usual means and standards of factual verification. But he's operating on the same terms as the church. Faith. Take it or leave it.

That's a significant difference. Like, apples-and-oranges different. They're not comparable enough for the one to be used as a standard for the other.

[seemslikeadream]

you can call it whatever you want


There are an estimated 1.2 billion Roman Catholics in the world

The thing is, SLAD.

Their mere existence in large numbers plus their beliefs isn't really an equation that yields anything. I mean, yes. There are. But with what good or bad result and/or results?


Also, to go to one of the somewhat more complex answers to the what's-the-difference question (and yes, I know you didn't mention Icke, but he's the topic):

It's not actually a topically relevant comparison.

Catholicism is a religion. The church makes no pretense about the truth of their belief system being verifiable by anything other than faith. And those are just the terms.

Icke, on the other hand, purports to be dealing in fact. All of what he says should be -- and technically is -- conventionally verifiable by the usual means and standards of factual verification. But he's operating on the same terms as the church. Faith. Take it or leave it.

That's a significant difference. Like, apples-and-oranges different. They're not comparable enough for the one to be used as a standard for the other.

we are free to believe whatever we want to believe

Catholics believe possession as fact

possession is possession is possession...devil reptile whatever

[American Dream]

(Deleted because I probably misunderstood a comment)

[compared2what?]

It is possible that our entire universe is secretly controlled by a cabal extradimensional toads whose entire purpose is to get us to produce more shoe polish for them to drink.

It's less of a comment on Icke than it is on the startling inherent potential of an extradimensional-shoe-polish-craving-toad-based belief system, I guess. But that's a much more viably productive construct for the purposes of personal/political evolution than the one Icke uses, imo. And I really mean that.

well, whatever one you're using doesn't seem to be getting you anywhere. as far as I can see you haven't evolved your thinking a whit in almost 8 years (at least). no offense. i can't help it that I'm a diabolical genius, after all.

None taken.

I mean, we have some profound philosophical differences. But it's a live-and-let-live thing, afaic. And honest self-expression is obviously a crucial aspect of living. So okay. Fine. Good to know.
_____________

I mean that, btw. It's not snark. Also, fwiw, neither is my opinion of the non-viability of Icke's system.

I think it has too much fear and too few outlets for it to be productive on a large scale. And too much potential for stasis and dependency therefore. But -- very important, let me hasten to add -- I don't think and am not saying that it does, will or can make every person who encounters it dependent and stuck. It's more like: Likely to affect some people who are predisposed to it that way, but enough freedom to come and go that it's not a guarantee even for them and not much of a threat in those terms to anyone else, beyond its -- as I see it -- non-viability. That's opinion only.

But, you know. I have one.

Hope that was clear. I can't tell.

[compared2what?]

we are free to believe whatever we want to believe

I agree, you know that.

Catholics believe possession as fact

possession is possession is possession...devil reptile whatever

Seems a little overly general to me, for stated reasons. But fine.

[brainpanhandler]

You're bogged down in mud of your own making and expecting me to pull you out. Not my job.

Sorry to be such a loser, by your standards. I got no expectations, though. (Whateveryouassumedwaswrongyoushouldhaveasked.)

I mean, a substantive reply would be nice, of course. But I'm not expecting one. And I'm all right with that. So it's not a big deal.

And BTW, she would for you.

[Project Willow]

You're bogged down in mud of your own making and expecting me to pull you out. Not my job.

It's so not cool for you to deflect your avoidance of the point onto her.

[brainpanhandler]

I think the video in the OP is weak for all sorts of reasons. So weak in fact that I think it detracts from much more obvious, substantive and provable criticism of Icke. Like using the PEZ as a template as he does in The Truth Shall Set You Free.

Having said that though, I'd ask, "Is there no place here at RI for ultra skeptic/debunkers"?

Like if James Randi wanted to join here and engage us with some conversation would we all pile on and drive him away? Would we remain open minded and take from Randi that which is good, right and true in our own estimation and discard the rest (as we are told we should do with Icke)? Wouldn't that be a moral and intellectual imperative as well. Or is that sort of open mindedness only reserved for non-mainstream thought?

[slimmouse]

I have zero problem whatsoever with honorable debunkers.

James Randi is not an honourable debunker. He's a proven witting liar and fraud. The kind of perfect candidate it seems in this day and age to sit on the FMSF. And that is iimportant, wouldnt you say AD ?

You might guess where I first read about that, and that is not in any way intended as a snide remark at Icke debunkers, its more by way of an explanation for why Im prepared to take the chaff thats in with the wheat vis a vi Icke.

If I'm going to listen to criticisms of Icke, or anyone even less worthy of the kind of criticisms spewed out by James Randi, I'd much prefer to hear it from honorable sources and minds.

Which is always why I've liked RI so much.