David Icke: Methods Of A Madman

[American Dream]

Icke provides no path to knowledge, only a divergent faith.

Same would hold true of many New Age luminaries. Rudolph Steiner has reams of material on celstial planes and on deva realms and the like- all revealed to him by extrasensory revelation.

Most trance channels the same- they want faith in their spiritual authority because that's really all they've got.

I do agree that "Icke provides no path to knowledge, only a divergent faith" because even though he may cherry pick facts to support some of his more dubious claims ultimately a lot of it boils down to his personal authority.

Well....Yes.

But does THAT injure anyone in any way? (Meaning: Any known way?)

Sincere question.

Icke has a great potential to injure movements for social change.

New Age authorities can injure people's pocketbooks, their freedom of thought, their effectiveness in the world, their ability to think clearly and independently, sometimes their time, their intimate relationships.

For some Icke is a New Age authority and he does have the potential to affect the lived quality of their lives.

[compared2what?]

Looks like Heartmath's a military contractor. But maybe also a government contractor. I can't tell. Will advise.

Yep.

Maybe you've heard of us.
HeartMath's compelling approach has been published in journals such as the Harvard Business Review, Journal of Innovative Management, The American Journal of Cardiology, Stress Medicine, and Journal of Advancement in Medicine.

HeartMath's successes have been featured in media stories on CNN, ABC World News Tonight, NBC's Today Show, Good Morning America, the Lifetime Network, New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. HeartMath's key corporate clients include Shell, Hewlett-Packard, Liz Claiborne, Cisco Systems, BP, Boeing, Sony, BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit), Unilever, numerous hospitals, as well as federal and state agencies, and the U.S. military.

Helps cut what they pay out for healthcare, reduces absenteeism, etc. (Per the studies they do that aren't published in the scientific literature, since they're about business management.)

There's a for-profit holding company and an LLC, too. Or mostly, really. That part's the main show. (It's founder, Doc Childre, is the son of Doc Lew Childre, one of the founders of the Grand Ole Opry!) The Institute part of it gets five percent of what they make and uses it to do the scientific papers, plus programs for the underserved. Which is nice. But even still:

I'm sorry, but is THIS the company whose bold, contrarian, independent-thinking defiance of the dull question-nothing ways of fact-dependent saps we're putting on some sort of pedestal?

LINK.


___________________

That's the problem with relying on story-based evidence and derogatory group labels.

[compared2what?]

Icke has a great potential to injure movements for social change.

New Age authorities can injure people's pocketbooks, their freedom of thought, their effectiveness in the world, their ability to think clearly and independently, sometimes their time, their intimate relationships.

For some Icke is a New Age authority and he does have the potential to affect the lived quality of their lives.

I agree that he might. But I've got to say, I don't know of any evidence that he does. Or that he does anything that clearly crosses the line between "arguably marketing himself by playing to the profoundest hopes and fears of the target demo on unproveable/unproven grounds" and "coercive persuasion tactics."

And I'd say that's kind of a key distinction. Because if there's no coercion, there's freedom of choice, and it works for someone in a way he/she finds rewarding....I don't know. What kind of social change that included taking it off the table would be social change for the better? Really?

...

I guess it's mostly the encouraging of people to regard the information (and/or information delivery) they find the most validating as therefore the most valid that's worrisome to me, regardless of whether or not Icke exploits it unfairly or harmfully. (Which as far as I know, he doesn't.) Because it's divisive, even if it's not dangerous. And he talks about a lot of stuff, he couldn't really be ol' reliable 100-percent all the time, even without the reptoids, etc.

That might not be what people use him for, however. So it's still just a potential.

TBH, although it's not what I'm staking my opinion on, he kind of fails for me on strictly intuitive grounds. (Just doesn't look trustworthy, imo. Subjective. Not exactly rational. Don't expect others to find it convincing.)

My two cents.

[American Dream]

Icke has a great potential to injure movements for social change.

New Age authorities can injure people's pocketbooks, their freedom of thought, their effectiveness in the world, their ability to think clearly and independently, sometimes their time, their intimate relationships.

For some Icke is a New Age authority and he does have the potential to affect the lived quality of their lives.

I agree that he might. But I've got to say, I don't know of any evidence that he does. Or that he does anything that clearly crosses the line between "arguably marketing himself by playing to the profoundest hopes and fears of the target demo on unproveable/unproven grounds" and "coercive persuasion tactics."

And I'd say that's kind of a key distinction. Because if there's no coercion, there's freedom of choice, and it works for someone in a way he/she finds rewarding....I don't know. What kind of social change that included taking it off the table would be social change for the better? Really?

...

I guess it's mostly the encouraging of people to regard the information (and/or information delivery) they find the most validating as therefore the most valid that's worrisome to me, regardless of whether or not Icke exploits it unfairly or harmfully. (Which as far as I know, he doesn't.) Because it's divisive, even if it's not dangerous. And he talks about a lot of stuff, he couldn't really be ol' reliable 100-percent all the time, even without the reptoids, etc.

That might not be what people use him for, however. So it's still just a potential.

TBH, although it's not what I'm staking my opinion on, he kind of fails for me on strictly intuitive grounds. (Just doesn't look trustworthy, imo. Subjective. Not exactly rational. Don't expect others to find it convincing.)

My two cents.

I'd basically agree- I don't know of David Icke ever intentionally exploiting people's faith for personal gain. Quite the opposite- I have every sense that he really believes what he says.

That said, I still do feel that buying in to his worldview can be downright unhelpful on the whole, as it comes to changing the world in a socio-political sense. That is the most important concern...

[compared2what?]

I'd basically agree- I don't know of David Icke ever intentionally exploiting people's faith for personal gain. Quite the opposite- I have every sense that he really believes what he says.

That said, I still do feel that buying in to his worldview can be downright unhelpful on the whole, as it comes to changing the world in a socio-political sense. That is the most important concern...

There's still the this-part-of-it, though:

What kind of social change that included taking it off the table would be social change for the better? Really?

The different and dissident have to be able to speak. It's pretty important. Just not always pretty.

[Project Willow]

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

My perception was most strongly influenced by my familiarity with a commonly used discrediting tactic. It goes like this: Enter a discussion of some contentious topic. Pick a bit of disinfo or woo associated (fairly or unfairly) with the topic and then confront any proponent of the topic about his or her belief in the disinfo. Repeat the question to any proponent who comes forward. Ignore any nuanced or considered responses. The simple act of asking the question is often sufficient enough to discredit the speaker in the eyes of onlookers. Whatever embroilment ensues is also usually enough to satisfy the skeptic that his assessment of the contentious topic was correct, and he leaves reassured that his beliefs and approaches are superior. It's a silly exercise in activating poison pills, and the intent has nothing whatsoever to do with gaining a greater understanding of the topic.

I do not appreciate being a target in somebody's gotcha game. Regardless, anyone who tries such a narrow approach around here will find himself out of his depth soon enough.

I have no way of knowing that's what was going on with our newest member, and I sincerely hope it isn't the case. It's just, you know, the walking, the duck, etc.

[seemslikeadream]

self promotion..... plain and simple


we are here for we

he is here for he

[compared2what?]

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

My perception was most strongly influenced by my familiarity with a commonly used discrediting tactic. It goes like this: Enter a discussion of some contentious topic. Pick a bit of disinfo or woo associated (fairly or unfairly) with the topic and then confront any proponent of the topic about his or her belief in the disinfo. Repeat the question to any proponent who comes forward. Ignore any nuanced or considered responses. The simple act of asking the question is often sufficient enough to discredit the speaker in the eyes of onlookers. Whatever embroilment ensues is also usually enough to satisfy the skeptic that his assessment of the contentious topic was correct, and he leaves reassured that his beliefs and approaches are superior. It's a silly exercise in activating poison pills, and the intent has nothing whatsoever to do with gaining a greater understanding of the topic.

I do not appreciate being a target in somebody's gotcha game. Regardless, anyone who tries such a narrow approach around here will find himself out of his depth soon enough.

I have no way of knowing that's what was going on with our newest member, and I sincerely hope it isn't the case. It's just, you know, the walking, the duck, etc.

You're probably right.

I guess I just live in a fantasy world, where clear-eyed rational thinkers and logicians don't dismiss a response on the grounds that it answers a question with a question when there was no question to answer that way to begin with. Seems not reason- or logic-driven to count definitively as quacking, somehow.

Not very skepti-typical to be climate-change skeptic, either. They're kind of like Sneetches and Star-Bellied Sneetches, as a rule. But I'm probably just naive. I've led a very sheltered life, you know.

And there really actually isn't any reason why all people who self-identify as adherents of this or that belief system have to conform to a single stereotype. Because it's really conduct that counts anyway. And that's always a blank page until it happens.

[/blather]

[American Dream]

I'd basically agree- I don't know of David Icke ever intentionally exploiting people's faith for personal gain. Quite the opposite- I have every sense that he really believes what he says.

That said, I still do feel that buying in to his worldview can be downright unhelpful on the whole, as it comes to changing the world in a socio-political sense. That is the most important concern...

There's still the this-part-of-it, though:

What kind of social change that included taking it off the table would be social change for the better? Really?

The different and dissident have to be able to speak. It's pretty important. Just not always pretty.

I think I follow what you're saying.

What do to about the problematic David Icke ideology?

In house, discuss at length- as willing and able- in order to promote healthy critiques and a better point of view. This should be proportional to the (assessed) probability of promoting positive change.

In the larger world of activism and organizing, if and when the subject really needs to come up, vigorously criticize and distance because the bad part is just so bad, as for example in the case of Palestine/Israel work.

Problem is, RI is both kinda in house and larger world...

[82_28]

Fuck this guy, MIB. He can get lost as far as I am concerned. His name is stupid, his website is incurious and he's a dick. Fuck him and ban him. Also, fuck David Icke. I don't get a bit of it. I don't buy it but can see fascination and relate to the fascinating subject he seems to espouse. I've seen enough David Lynch and read enough Philip K. Dick and also a disciple of Sagan's Demon Haunted World to say to MIB is a fool. I hope he sticks around though actually. There's nothing more fun than dealing with a humorless cocksucker on the many meta levels he senses he has the grip on and misses the entire forest. Let's see if he can chill out and converse as opposed to his extra special abilities of being perfect. I very much doubt it. I look forward to being proven wrong.

[Searcher08]

Icke provides no path to knowledge, only a divergent faith.

Same would hold true of many New Age luminaries. Rudolph Steiner has reams of material on celstial planes and on deva realms and the like- all revealed to him by extrasensory revelation.

Most trance channels the same- they want faith in their spiritual authority because that's really all they've got.

I do agree that "Icke provides no path to knowledge, only a divergent faith" because even though he may cherry pick facts to support some of his more dubious claims ultimately a lot of it boils down to his personal authority.

Well....Yes.

But does THAT injure anyone in any way? (Meaning: Any known way?)

Sincere question.

Icke has a great potential to injure movements for social change.
New Age authorities can injure people's pocketbooks, their freedom of thought, their effectiveness in the world, their ability to think clearly and independently, sometimes their time, their intimate relationships.

For some Icke is a New Age authority and he does have the potential to affect the lived quality of their lives.

That is a really tricky assertion - because at one level, every human being is powerful and has the potential through their action or inaction to greatly influence movements for social change - TienanMen Guy for example.

Who are the people for whom Icke is a New Age authority? I certainly dont regard him as an authority on *anything* except one - showing that sometimes, a human being can say something which is absolutely preposterous, can be showered with crap over it over a long period of time and it can turn out to be true. That does not mean anything more than that.

- and in my personal experience, often when a pseudoskeptic says
"X, Y, Z is untrue"

that can unpack (after some NLP metamodelling) into

"X,Y,Z is preposterous and dangerous and you are an idiot for being suckered into believing it and you will be financially fleeced and it shows you have lost your ability to think"

Now THAT is tricky - because sometimes e.g. Quackwatch for example will highlight a person or area that IS a scam or IS a cult.

And at other times, they are not - and the result of triggering a 'cognitive firealarm' is extremely destructive, because a witchburning mentality can take place.

If you want to see this in action, just go to the TED site and see the lock-step thinking of the reductionist brigade who got the videos of Sheldrake and Hancock taken down.

So treating Icke as a cultDo you treat 'New Age' and 'cult' as the same? -
because the issues that you highlight IMHO apply very clearly to the latter and not at all to the former - notwithstanding the facts that much of what people know about the New Age is only a small part of the a very much richer, stranger, horrifying and hilarious picture (see TIDS).

From what I can see looking into his finances on duedil.com for a couple of hours and also his own video of where he lives and what he drives, he lives in a small one bedroom flat in the Isle of Wight, drives an ordinary car and pays himself about the same as a teacher.

I looked into whether Icke was classed as a cult on Rick Ross and the same debate was going on there in 2006 as has been going on here in 2013 - at which point, I burst out laughing

[Searcher08]

Fuck this guy, MIB. He can get lost as far as I am concerned. His name is stupid, his website is incurious and he's a dick. Fuck him and ban him. Also, fuck David Icke. I don't get a bit of it. I don't buy it but can see fascination and relate to the fascinating subject he seems to espouse. I've seen enough David Lynch and read enough Philip K. Dick and also a disciple of Sagan's Demon Haunted World to say to MIB is a fool. I hope he sticks around though actually. There's nothing more fun than dealing with a humorless cocksucker on the many meta levels he senses he has the grip on and misses the entire forest. Let's see if he can chill out and converse as opposed to his extra special abilities of being perfect. I very much doubt it. I look forward to being proven wrong.

Passion is a wonderful thing

[seemslikeadream]

Fuck this guy, MIB. He can get lost as far as I am concerned. His name is stupid, his website is incurious and he's a dick. Fuck him and ban him. Also, fuck David Icke. I don't get a bit of it. I don't buy it but can see fascination and relate to the fascinating subject he seems to espouse. I've seen enough David Lynch and read enough Philip K. Dick and also a disciple of Sagan's Demon Haunted World to say to MIB is a fool. I hope he sticks around though actually. There's nothing more fun than dealing with a humorless cocksucker on the many meta levels he senses he has the grip on and misses the entire forest. Let's see if he can chill out and converse as opposed to his extra special abilities of being perfect. I very much doubt it. I look forward to being proven wrong.

That's a plan Stan


The only person here obsessed with Icke is AD...look it up.


He is so obsessed with him that he started this thread with a link to that idiot's website.

you know that Randi loving...global warming denying fool

[Canadian_watcher]

here's whatshisface Randi's take on HearthMath

It's not by Randi. It was just on JREF.

here we go.. the piece by piece three posts in a row gobbledegook "debate" style that drives people crazy but allows you to innocently claim you've done nothing wrong and then gather your troops if you get called out on it. But I'll play for a minute.

You're right, it's by Bart Farkas. Sounds like an SNL character, but fine, it does not change anything about the post itself. My mistake, thank you for pointing it out.

(I've chopped the part at the beginning where he says he worked with them a while back and also thinks they're swell people)

So you have.

Why?

For brevity. You might look in to that concept.

So he didn't like the answer (to his stupid question) and then he 'can't understand why all these MDs are on board' but since he's so smart and seasoned we'd all better be highly skeptical? is that what passes for intelligent review (aka skepticism) these days?

Another way of putting that would be:

* The answer to his stupid question didn't address the issue that he raised on the expressed stupid terms -- ie, what is the scientific support for this?

The question he asked was NOT about scientific support - it was about the character of the speaker. It was an insult in the form of a question. (you know how to do that, right?) see what I did there?

Also, I didn't see him calling your terms stupid, quoting you out of context, or putting words in your mouth in a way that cast your argument in a worse light than the ones you'd used yourself did.

So I don't know what you're so sore at him about. He didn't do anything to you. He simply stated that there's no scientific support for something that has none while addressing people who care about that sort of thing.

Does that injure anyone in any way?

There were no quotes out of context.. you read the piece, you know that. He can't call me anything directly but he sure enough does call a lot of people stupid - it's his line of work.
__________

Looks like Heartmath's a military contractor. But maybe also a government contractor. I can't tell. Will advise.

So is it bad to be a military contractor or something? Inherently, I mean?

[American Dream]

Icke provides no path to knowledge, only a divergent faith.

Same would hold true of many New Age luminaries. Rudolph Steiner has reams of material on celstial planes and on deva realms and the like- all revealed to him by extrasensory revelation.

Most trance channels the same- they want faith in their spiritual authority because that's really all they've got.

I do agree that "Icke provides no path to knowledge, only a divergent faith" because even though he may cherry pick facts to support some of his more dubious claims ultimately a lot of it boils down to his personal authority.

Well....Yes.

But does THAT injure anyone in any way? (Meaning: Any known way?)

Sincere question.

Icke has a great potential to injure movements for social change.
New Age authorities can injure people's pocketbooks, their freedom of thought, their effectiveness in the world, their ability to think clearly and independently, sometimes their time, their intimate relationships.

For some Icke is a New Age authority and he does have the potential to affect the lived quality of their lives.

That is a really tricky assertion - because at one level, every human being is powerful and has the potential through their action or inaction to greatly influence movements for social change - TienanMen Guy for example.

Who are the people for whom Icke is a New Age authority? I certainly dont regard him as an authority on *anything* except one - showing that sometimes, a human being can say something which is absolutely preposterous, can be showered with crap over it over a long period of time and it can turn out to be true. That does not mean anything more than that.

- and in my personal experience, often when a pseudoskeptic says
"X, Y, Z is untrue"

that can unpack (after some NLP metamodelling) into

"X,Y,Z is preposterous and dangerous and you are an idiot for being suckered into believing it and you will be financially fleeced and it shows you have lost your ability to think"

Now THAT is tricky - because sometimes e.g. Quackwatch for example will highlight a person or area that IS a scam or IS a cult.

And at other times, they are not - and the result of triggering a 'cognitive firealarm' is extremely destructive, because a witchburning mentality can take place.

If you want to see this in action, just go to the TED site and see the lock-step thinking of the reductionist brigade who got the videos of Sheldrake and Hancock taken down.

So treating Icke as a cultDo you treat 'New Age' and 'cult' as the same? -
because the issues that you highlight IMHO apply very clearly to the latter and not at all to the former - notwithstanding the facts that much of what people know about the New Age is only a small part of the a very much richer, stranger, horrifying and hilarious picture (see TIDS).

From what I can see looking into his finances on duedil.com for a couple of hours and also his own video of where he lives and what he drives, he lives in a small one bedroom flat in the Isle of Wight, drives an ordinary car and pays himself about the same as a teacher.

I looked into whether Icke was classed as a cult on Rick Ross and the same debate was going on there in 2006 as has been going on here in 2013 - at which point, I burst out laughing

I should clarify something here. I was speaking first of David Icke, second of New Age authorities. starting with them as separate identities, then looking at the was that for some people at some times, David Icke is veering somewhat towards the role of New Age authority. But David Icke sure ain't Adi Da, or Zen Master Rama, not Sun Myung Moon, not even close.