David Icke: Methods Of A Madman

[American Dream]

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 ?

Actually I don't agree with how James Randi is used on this board, even though I have no love lost for the FMSF whatsoever.

Any time someone says something critical of David Icke's worldview, a defender knows they can look for some kind of link on the website- or a link to another website that links to James Randi or some other "skeptic". It stands to follow because the people critiquing an Icke, O"Brien, Wilder or whoever, will probably want to draw on the body of work already developed by people skeptical of their claims.

Unfortunately, the defenders of Icke- or others of that ilk- again and again use guilt-by-association to utterly avoid dealing with the actual content of the critique.

Which is in no way rigorous.

[brainpanhandler]

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.

I've never really bothered to read Randi much at all. Whenever I have run into a video of him here or elsewhere he's so overbearingly pompous and condescending that it doesn't matter what his message is. I tune out. So I am unaware of when he has been proven to be a witting liar and fraud. If that is the case then that would be enough for me, if his self righteousness wasn't already. But has the man never said anything right or insightful? Should he be completely and utterly dismissed? If he joined here should we instantly ban him?

[slimmouse]

BPH,

We have a new member on this forum, who has recently posted exclusively on this thread.

Thanks to slad, we got a bit closer to where he's coming from.

But Ive never once suggested he be banned, in exactly the same way that I would suggest with Randi. Something you will doubtless be aware of if you have read my interaction with MIB.

But you really need to know where these guys are coming from.

Its an interesting philosophical discussion to ask what is the bigger danger of such people. The fact that they are lying to us, or that they are lying to themselves?

[American Dream]

BPH,

We have a new member on this forum, who has recently posted exclusively on this thread.

Thanks to slad, we got a bit closer to where he's coming from.

But Ive never once suggested he be banned, in exactly the same way that I would suggest with Randi. Something you will doubtless be aware of if you have read my interaction with MIB.

But you really need to know where these guys are coming from.

Its an interesting philosophical discussion to ask what is the bigger danger of such people. The fact that they are lying to us, or that they are lying to themselves?

Couldn't one avoid thinking about all kinds of things, using the Six Degrees of James Randi Principle?

[Canadian_watcher]

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...

You're trying to dismiss the whole idea by taking it so far out that no one could take it seriously. I could do the same for evolution:

Yes, it is possible that our entire existence is owed to a blob of sperminated space mud and that all the genius of Mozart owes its beginning to a lumpy little fish with enough pluck and determination to say "screw these gills, I'm breathing through my MOUTH!" and that there is no purpose to life whatsoever other than to get what air you can before a bigger animal eats you.

This doesn't mean that it's true, nor that we have gotten very far by believing it.

[justdrew]

. . .
and I'll just tell you: I personally don't think Icke has it right, except on some bits and pieces here and there included because constructing a modern mythology necessarily involves salting the story with some generally accepted truths (as well as some not generally accepted truths.)

Do you believe human-alien hybrids exist?

no, but... I do think it's possible some alien or alien race could alter some people's DNA and may have at some point in history, but Hybridization doesn't make a lot of sense, nor do I think "shapeshifting" would be a BIOLOGICAL capability, if it were some animal on earth would probably have it, closest we see is skin color changes a la the Chameleon. Biological shapshifting would require cellular motility far beyond what is possible, unless the base creature were some kind of primarily liquid entity within an articulated muscular "sack" - while it would be possible for such a creature to change shape, it wouldn't likely be able to pass for what it was looking like very well. So that's all out. I also think it's unlikely that some sort of star-treky holoprojector could disguise effectively. So even tech shapeshifting seems unlikely.

However, if there were basically 'human' aliens, they might have some significant biological difference, yet be able to interbreed with 'earth stock' - but evidence is lacking so it's only a vague possibility.

The other possibility is transmigration of 'souls' (or spirits) - like an alien reincarnating in a human body, or even possibly somehow 'possessing' a human body, aka the 'walk-ins' - this is another area lacking much evidence, so it remains only a vague possibility.

I don't see a good way to test any of these possibilities so I'm not too worried about them generally.

As for James Randi, after the foreign-born boy-helper thing came out, is he really worth bringing up as a moral authority on what to believe in? I don't think so.

[Canadian_watcher]

[quote="brainpanhandler » Wed Jul 03, 2013 1:11 pm

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?[/quote]

I agree with your premise that we should not pile on and drive someone away and that we should find areas where our ideas intersect and learn from one another almost no matter the posters' other beliefs. I do believe that. But, there's a rub here, and that is that in this case the poster in question is asking us precisely to do what you are asking us not to do: ie throw out Icke in his entirety.

edit: I've fucked up the formatting, and I likely will continue to do so as I DETEST the new code for 'QUOTE' and I'm going to leave it there in all its ugliness as a form of protest.

[seemslikeadream]

and all along Randi was searching (outing people) for the truth from his own closet

[Searcher08]

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?

Key point:

An ultra pseudoskeptic / debunker does not 'engage in conversation'.

They 'debunk'.

You want to see a 'pile-on'? Go to JREF and start talking about the subjects R.I. board covers

I've seen message boards wrecked from this.

That whole Skeptinazi cesspit is full of specific people like the FMSF whose actions actually cause real harm to real people, some of whom are on the Board; Pedophile apologist and neoLiberal chickenhawk Aaronovitch; of Sam Harris who wraps his anti-Muslim hate in the flag of ultra pseudoskepticism and gets a pass. Goldacre and Ernst and the people who present the 'we only want to be... rigourous <eye flutter> about alternative medicine and sincerely 'reach out' to practioners while secretly campaigning to fuck them over?

Personally, I have learned PLENTY from these people and the fact that a lot of the ones I have interacted with have had duplicity as a common characteristic - the very fact that we are here at R.I. means we are a raving batshit insane tinfoilhat wearing twoofers.

Randi et al are cognitive fascists who destroy thinking diversity.

The degree of tolerance shown by Project WIllow in this thread is staggering - way beyond mine.

Skepticism Induced Delusional Syndrome

Bollox to that.

[Canadian_watcher]

no, but... I do think it's possible some alien or alien race could alter some people's DNA and may have at some point in history, but Hybridization doesn't make a lot of sense, nor do I think "shapeshifting" would be a BIOLOGICAL capability,

I wanted to jump in here to add that as I understand it, the shapeshifting part is not a biological ability so much as it is a physics thing insofar as light waves are energy that can be manipulated to be interpreted in various ways. Icke contends that all of life, matter, everything is simply energy (I think a scientist said this one time. ) Anyway the 'shapeshifting' is a change in 'code' so to speak, not an actual change.

There is no spoon. At least that's what I get from the talks I've heard.

[brekin]

brainpanhandler wrote:

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?

For practical purposes it is hard to have a conversation with someone if you don't agree on some basic premises. Unless you want to spend the whole time battling over every third word. Being anti-Objectivism or anti-Scientology or anti-vegetarian and going on a pro forum probably wouldn't be beneficial for anyone for very long. However, while people have the right to believe anything they want, on a internet discussion board there is some responsibility and onus to clarify and justify what your beliefs/opinions are and why your beliefs/opinions are accurate, proper and true. Unless the board has already set in stone or declared certain topics out of bounds, or dogma, examining and discussing what you believe and why is really job one. The little friendships, spats, social intrigues, etc I think are nice but you really can get that on any forum. And I recognize some posters may just want to make chit-chat and look at things from a more self-confirming fanzine angle.

There are certainly topics that are definitely more speculative and fringe that don't lend themselves to evidence based conclusions and I don't think we should dismiss them because of that. But I do think one has to be honest about the lack of evidence, and/or wildly hair brained leaps of logic. I think skeptics are good then to have around then because they act as a kind of quality control checker. Is this reasoning sound? What evidence makes this argument valid? While your reasoning may be good for you (and some mystics/mavericks have thoughts that aren't ready for public consumption) if it isn't passing quality control then I think one has to acknowledge that most people aren't going to buy it.

This is different from "professional" skeptics/debunkers like Randi and I pity the day when skeptics are considered a "them" on RI. And honestly, if you are not skeptical of Icke's worldview (human-lizard hybrids covertly ruling the world) then I'm really curious what you are skeptical about?

[slimmouse]

Couldn't one avoid thinking about all kinds of things, using the Six Degrees of James Randi Principle?

Thats a beautifully tendered question AD. I hope you understand that I fully understand where youre coming from. I suppose that if most others understood what you are laying out metaphorically here, then we might not even be having this discussion about Icke?

However, how it is just now in this world , is how it is. I dont think its a stretch to say that James Randi hasn't exactly pioneered the boundaries of free thinking much.

Im begginning to wonder if it really can get any worse, before something somewhere is able to be done to stop this fucking insanity.

Im shortly going to be ressurecting the thread that started all this latest Ickean kerfuffle.

Its called "The peoples voice" and it created such a kerfuffle because of who is innovating the project.

Heres how I see thie peoples voice working,

James Clapper is going to be constantly exposed as a liar. The same with Obama, Blair, Cameron, Netanyanhu and any number of other seriously disturbed people who are fronting for shall we say " The hidden hand".

We'll probably get lots of uncensored information about the people immediately behind such frontmen. People such as Dr Kissinger, Poppy Bush and similar luminaries. We'll be hearing from real journalists and pundits, such as John Pilger and Graham Hancock. We'll be given some serious truths about Monsanto, and Big Pharma, and the War industry, to keep it on a strictly physical level for now.

Thats a good thing, dont you think?

But, and in no small part thanks to you, Im going to be watching very closely for any bad stuff too.

Im saying this here, in the hope that when I post on that thread, that we think more in terms of the project, than the man behind it?

Do we really have that much to lose?

And also asking that any criticism of Icke as opposed to what he is attempting to pull off over there is posted here?

Unless of course it refers to the logistical problems that the project itself will have.

[Searcher08]

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 ?

Actually I don't agree with how James Randi is used on this board, even though I have no love lost for the FMSF whatsoever.

Any time someone says something critical of David Icke's worldview, a defender knows they can look for some kind of link on the website- or a link to another website that links to James Randi or some other "skeptic". It stands to follow because the people critiquing an Icke, O"Brien, Wilder or whoever, will probably want to draw on the body of work already developed by people skeptical of their claims.

Unfortunately, the defenders of Icke- or others of that ilk- again and again use guilt-by-association to utterly avoid dealing with the actual content of the critique.

Which is in no way rigorous.

Surely there is way more at issue with Randi than that characterisation - and way more at issue with what Randi has helped create in the world than Icke has.

People who are acolytes of Randi are more and more in positions of political power and are creating political in the existing political power structure - so here is a question - why in all the time you have been here, have you never ever ever engaged in a critique of this type of pseudoskepticism?

Are you asserting that your two valued right / wrong binary logic is the best logic/

Re Icke
Arizona Wilder
Someone of whom I know nothing about her life. She comes across to me as if she has been through hell, however I am unsure whether that hell also occured outside her subjective experience. So I dont apply a True / False filter to her or what she says. I feel compassion for her as a person and hope she can have a happy fulfilling life.

Cathy O'Brian?
With some of the heinous hideous crap with went on in MKUltra, the Franklin Scandal etc who knows? I thought she was pretty extreme. My intuition is that she has been through something hideous, certainly the video where she showed her mutilations nearly made me lose my lunch. Whether she is remembering what she was through or something else, again how can this be known? I think of her as a reminder to keep in mind that guy Delgado and his remote-controlled bull and to remember that that is where his (and Randis) type of material reductionist philosophy ultimately leads - a world where people are controlled as the biological robots they are viewed as.

[justdrew]

no, but... I do think it's possible some alien or alien race could alter some people's DNA and may have at some point in history, but Hybridization doesn't make a lot of sense, nor do I think "shapeshifting" would be a BIOLOGICAL capability,

I wanted to jump in here to add that as I understand it, the shapeshifting part is not a biological ability so much as it is a physics thing insofar as light waves are energy that can be manipulated to be interpreted in various ways. Icke contends that all of life, matter, everything is simply energy (I think a scientist said this one time. ) Anyway the 'shapeshifting' is a change in 'code' so to speak, not an actual change.

There is no spoon. At least that's what I get from the talks I've heard.

yeah, sounds like it, I've not followed his stuff VERY closely, but yeah, that is what he says.

If we assume vastly superior knowledge on "their" part, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of reality on ours, then anything is possible.

"a sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"

BUT - without some first hand experience of these things, it's too much to just take someone's word on and call "real"


V

[Searcher08]

I also just want to add AD that I take your questions in good faith and specifically do not associate you with pseudoskeptics. For me, the vast majority of your TIDS thread operates as zetetic skepticsm, not pseudoskepticism ie question question question.