David Icke: Methods Of A Madman

[slimmouse]

And I should also add the subtle introduction of the word "cult" in this thread when it comes to those who read and listen to David Icke.

I saw this kind of criticism levelled at the 9/11 truth movement, which is quite the shame really, since if any of those people making such accusations had spent their intelligence more productively, they'd very quickly realise the true nature of the shite they were talking.

[American Dream]

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.

There's one small difference between Extradimensional Toad Theory and Natural Selection: It's called evidence.

[American Dream]

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

Two wrongs do not make a right.

[brainpanhandler]

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.

No and I don't think anyone has, at least not to my knowledge. Certainly I haven't. I'm just trying to discern the limits of open mindedness by picking a particularly deplorable and difficult to defend skeptic and figure out where people finally draw the line on their open mindedness. Certainly we all draw the line somewhere.

[American Dream]

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.

I do think a key problem with that station will be the association with Icke: because while one should not use Archon Theory to invalidate the human rights abuses that John Pilger has abundantly documented, people will. And it does not serve him or others like him to be associated with ideas about reptilians, Rothschild world domination, a moon matrix or things like that.

So I do think the Poison Pill Principle will matter.

[American Dream]

And I should also add the subtle introduction of the word "cult" in this thread when it comes to those who read and listen to David Icke.

I saw this kind of criticism levelled at the 9/11 truth movement, which is quite the shame really, since if any of those people making such accusations had spent their intelligence more productively, they'd very quickly realise the true nature of the shite they were talking.

I don't think a broad brushstroke dismissal of all 9/11 investigation is helpful but there certainly were very unhelpful fanatics with ties to culty groups who did jump aboard the 9/11 bandwagon. To the detriment of everyone.

Jack Riddler can tell us about that.

[Sounder]

What brekin said, well crafted, so thanks brekin

Of course we need more skeptics, preferably soft ones like Johnathan Bird.

Hard ones are OK, but they don't seem to care to expose much of themselves, and it's hard to have a discussion around that.

Of course any 'out there' ideas need to be challenged. How else would the 'speculator' refine or test the ideas.

Still, it's a red flag from me when I see coercive play on the pitch.

[Searcher08]

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.

There's one small difference between Extradimensional Toad Theory and Natural Selection: It's called evidence.

You are comparing ETT, which appears to be a Worldview with natural selection which is a biological process that has been posited a couple of hundred years.

Evidence is not always some objective thing, it is often subject to a huge amount of bias, interpretation, peer pressure, generalisation, deletion and distortion.

AD, do you accept the US governments version of 9/11?

The only people I have ever coming across who spoke of 9/11 Truth being a cult were fundamentalist pseudoskeptics.

[compared2what?]

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.

Once again, if I may say so mildly:

I find phrases like "Randi et al are cognitive fascists" every bit as problematic as I would "Icke et al are paranoid lunatics."

I'm not saying the opinion's problematic. Without the "et al" and a few other terms -- ("That whole Skeptinazi cesspit is full of specific people like the FMSF" springs to mind) what you're saying and the reasons you give for saying it would be fair as fair as fair. Obviously.

It's just the undifferentiated mass condemnation of people as -- essentially -- no better than pedophile apologists due to some highly non-specific act of discourtesy that two of them committed wrt to some equally highly non-specific alternative medicine practitioners of presumed impeccable innocence and sterling moral character that I take issue with. Because it's prejudicial.

Can we please condemn the sin, not the sinner? Doesn't seem like it should be all that difficult. And it really benefits EVERYBODY. (As opposed to "anybody in particular.") Because, for example:

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

^^That's not a Skepti-typical comment, actually. Or at least not any I've ever seen. In any way, shape or form. On the contrary, to a point that if that label hadn't already been in place, I doubt anyone would have read it that way.

So, you know. It really does affect perception and judgment, to some extent. And not for the better.

[American Dream]

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.

There's one small difference between Extradimensional Toad Theory and Natural Selection: It's called evidence.

You are comparing ETT, which appears to be a Worldview with natural selection which is a biological process that has been posited a couple of hundred years.

Evidence is not always some objective thing, it is often subject to a huge amount of bias, interpretation, peer pressure, generalisation, deletion and distortion.

AD, do you accept the US governments version of 9/11?

The only people I have ever coming across who spoke of 9/11 Truth being a cult were fundamentalist pseudoskeptics.

Agreed about evidence in general but compare the variety of evidence for Natural Selection Theory, the strength of that evidence and the multiple corroboration for it to the evidence for extradimensional toads and, well there's just no comparison. But I have read lots of science fiction and agree that this by no means rules out intervention from beyond also. I just think there's a big difference between possible and backed up by good evidence.

As to 9/11, maybe you missed it but I said just upthread:

I don't think a broad brushstroke dismissal of all 9/11 investigation is helpful but there certainly were very unhelpful fanatics with ties to culty groups who did jump aboard the 9/11 bandwagon. To the detriment of everyone.

Jack Riddler can tell us about that.

[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.

There's one small difference between Extradimensional Toad Theory and Natural Selection: It's called evidence.

Evidence can be subjective and in the case of the origin of species I believe all of it is. No one knows, but everyone has 'evidence.' It just depends on how high or low a value you put on the various types of data. Oral histories, cave drawings, high tech buried for thousands of years - these don't register as evidence to some people but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that it doesn't point in a certain - perhaps uncomfortable - direction.

[Wombaticus Rex]

Hey, here's a great thread full of solid gold on the subject of "thinking critically" and "researching strategically" ==> viewtopic.php?f=33&t=35519

[Canadian_watcher]

are you suggesting that we 'get back on topic' or something, because I think we are doing marvelously well at it, myself.

[compared2what?]

Evidence can be subjective and in the case of the origin of species I believe all of it is. No one knows, but everyone has 'evidence.' It just depends on how high or low a value you put on the various types of data. Oral histories, cave drawings, high tech buried for thousands of years - these don't register as evidence to some people but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that it doesn't point in a certain - perhaps uncomfortable - direction.

There's such a plethora of consistent archeological evidence covering six million years of evolution for the human species alone all over the world that's so fully compatible with and/or supported by genetic evidence and so completely and satisfactorily explicable by known and demonstrable mechanisms of biological reproduction that the most jaw-droppingly suggestive cave drawing on earth would have to do a lot more than point in a perhaps uncomfortable direction to throw it into doubt.

I'm not saying that will never happen, or can't. But no matter what value you place on what kinds of data -- including oral histories, cave drawings, and high tech buried for thousands of years -- there's more of it attesting to evolution than undercutting it by (literally) some-millions to one. So it's a pretty high bar to clear.

[Canadian_watcher]

There's such a plethora of consistent archeological evidence covering six million years of evolution for the human species alone all over the world that's so fully compatible with and/or supported by genetic evidence and so completely and satisfactorily explicable by known and demonstrable mechanisms of biological reproduction that the most jaw-droppingly suggestive cave drawing on earth would have to do a lot more than point in a perhaps uncomfortable direction to throw it into doubt.

I'm not saying that will never happen, or can't. But no matter what value you place on what kinds of data -- including oral histories, cave drawings, and high tech buried for thousands of years -- there's more of it attesting to evolution than undercutting it by (literally) some-millions to one. So it's a pretty high bar to clear.

It's a bar that was set by people with limited understanding of the nature of the universe. As always. We are still learning, and we have to be ready to let go of pet hypotheses. I'm not saying anything new here. We all know history is full of examples of well accepted science being proved wrong.