David Icke: Methods Of A Madman

[Mason I Bilderberg]

If somebody had posted a disney movie here, i don't see how it would be unreasonable to expect somebody here likes disney movies.

It's perfectly possible to like Disney movies without believing the characters in them are real.

Except nobody is using disney movies as a guiding philosophy on how the world "really" works.

Aah, I can tell that you're new here. You must have missed Hugh.
Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebration,_Florida

Not saying that many people actually believe that's how the world works, but there sure are plenty of people who would like it to be.

Every time I go to suburban America, I get the impression that everyone is trying to look like they and their houses belong in a Disney version of the world, where everything is nice and freshly painted, lawns are religiously mowed and kids become junkies if they color their hair or get a piercing.

No. Not the same thing.

[Searcher08]

oh for fuck's sake.

who among us are the mind controlled, thought stopped? it's really really really obvious what the answer is at this point, so I'm out. I tried.
No dialog to be had, just an endless game of chase the goal posts.

The thought stopping techniques- for example "He/she linked to somebody who linked to James Randi so obviously the arguments are not worthy of any consideration" are self-induced and/or shared means of avoiding the substance of the argument.

Never entertaining substantive critique is definitely a technique used by the Moonies- this does not mean that everyone here is a glassy-eyed Moonie- but it does suggest that there is a serious problem in David Icke Land.

The key problem is avoiding the substance of the argument.

WHAT I'M RECEIVING FROM YOU IS:
Maybe we need to have a real look at what R.I. is about and really see if Icke is something that should be discussed her at all - as obviously he is a raving fascist with dubious right wing connections and no doubt fascist and White Power and anti-semitic undertones and what is needed to move this forward into the real world is that we need to have a declaration of whether members are Icke supporters in the light of this, and if they say yes, we should ban them as this is an anti-fascist board

Actually what I'm saying is that I wish the defenders of Icke would stop avoiding the substance of the argument.

That is quite the opposite of what you are suggesting.

<takes deep breath>

I'm not aware of ANYONE on this thread or even on R.I. who has what you would call an "Ickean world view" or operates according to an "Ickean ideology".

I certainly dont, slad certainly doesnt, slim doesnt, Willow doesnt, 8bit doesnt, etc etc

There was a real piece of gold I learned from John Grinder in NLP - the idea of seperating the intntion of a communication from it's meaning. The intention is what the sender wants to communicate - the meaning is what occurs in the mind of the receiver as a result...

The meaning of what you are saying and doing is how what you are saying lands in my world - just saying 'that's NOT what I intended' is something I accept in goodfaith - would you be willing to accept in good faith that that is the experience your words have created?

Because when the meaning doesnt match the intention, you have to rely on the sender to create a different message, where his intention and the meaning it creates DO match.

I think the "we're not true believers in Icke" gambit has serves as another dodge, to be quite honest. I said "defenders of Icke" and here we get into the walks like a duck, acts like a duck principle. Though some of the people you mentioned are not necessarily such defenders of Icke at all. Project Willow, for example- I think she has some pretty serious concerns about what Icke has done to propagate disinformational mind control discourse- and possibly how he taints the more verified info, too...

I see a double bind being created here:
I think that you have a test criteria for what is being a in your words "a defender of Icke"
which you are applying this criteria to the "pushback" you are getting from people when you engage in a certain communication pattern.

If you think X is a "defender of Icke" then anything they say, including "I am not a defender of Icke" just provides more evidence that they ARE to you.

You are re-framing
any issue that people have with your communication that they are a 'defender of Icke'
into an evidence procedure that tells you
even more emphatically
that they ARE.

If they say "No I'm not - I dont even think about it mostly"
that is more evidence that tells you
they DO and worse are IN DENIAL or worse LYING

This is congruent with what I said above, about the meaning of your communication being the response that you get, not the intention you sent it with and if the two are in conflict -which here they absolutely ARE - then if you just send the same message the same way, you will get the same result.

[American Dream]

WRT elite pedophilia, anyone even cursorily familiar with Don Patrizio Poggi, Dutroux, the Franklin coverup, and Jimmy Savile should have realized by now the widespread nature of the practice, that it is well organized, and ongoing. Again, the only real question is how deeply these children are used in pursuance of the types of occult agendas which accompanied such behavior throughout history.

I agree that there is evidence of pedophilia in high places but what's the best evidence for organized blood-drinking and human sacrifice in very elite circles? I know we can document femicides around Northern Mexico and Southwestern Canada but I don't think we can prove that prime ministers and industrialists are responsible...

Here we're getting back- once again- to the issue of Icke mixing in the (relatively) plausible- and substantiated- with what, while might be plausible to some here at RI, is largely unsubstantiated and highly implausible to the public at large.

And that's a problem...

[American Dream]

oh for fuck's sake.

who among us are the mind controlled, thought stopped? it's really really really obvious what the answer is at this point, so I'm out. I tried.
No dialog to be had, just an endless game of chase the goal posts.

The thought stopping techniques- for example "He/she linked to somebody who linked to James Randi so obviously the arguments are not worthy of any consideration" are self-induced and/or shared means of avoiding the substance of the argument.

Never entertaining substantive critique is definitely a technique used by the Moonies- this does not mean that everyone here is a glassy-eyed Moonie- but it does suggest that there is a serious problem in David Icke Land.

The key problem is avoiding the substance of the argument.

WHAT I'M RECEIVING FROM YOU IS:
Maybe we need to have a real look at what R.I. is about and really see if Icke is something that should be discussed her at all - as obviously he is a raving fascist with dubious right wing connections and no doubt fascist and White Power and anti-semitic undertones and what is needed to move this forward into the real world is that we need to have a declaration of whether members are Icke supporters in the light of this, and if they say yes, we should ban them as this is an anti-fascist board

Actually what I'm saying is that I wish the defenders of Icke would stop avoiding the substance of the argument.

That is quite the opposite of what you are suggesting.

<takes deep breath>

I'm not aware of ANYONE on this thread or even on R.I. who has what you would call an "Ickean world view" or operates according to an "Ickean ideology".

I certainly dont, slad certainly doesnt, slim doesnt, Willow doesnt, 8bit doesnt, etc etc

There was a real piece of gold I learned from John Grinder in NLP - the idea of seperating the intntion of a communication from it's meaning. The intention is what the sender wants to communicate - the meaning is what occurs in the mind of the receiver as a result...

The meaning of what you are saying and doing is how what you are saying lands in my world - just saying 'that's NOT what I intended' is something I accept in goodfaith - would you be willing to accept in good faith that that is the experience your words have created?

Because when the meaning doesnt match the intention, you have to rely on the sender to create a different message, where his intention and the meaning it creates DO match.

I think the "we're not true believers in Icke" gambit has serves as another dodge, to be quite honest. I said "defenders of Icke" and here we get into the walks like a duck, acts like a duck principle. Though some of the people you mentioned are not necessarily such defenders of Icke at all. Project Willow, for example- I think she has some pretty serious concerns about what Icke has done to propagate disinformational mind control discourse- and possibly how he taints the more verified info, too...

I see a double bind being created here:
I think that you have a test criteria for what is being a in your words "a defender of Icke"
which you are applying this criteria to the "pushback" you are getting from people when you engage in a certain communication pattern.

If you think X is a "defender of Icke" then anything they say, including "I am not a defender of Icke" just provides more evidence that they ARE to you.

You are re-framing
any issue that people have with your communication that they are a 'defender of Icke'
into an evidence procedure that tells you
even more emphatically
that they ARE.

If they say "No I'm not - I dont even think about it mostly"
that is more evidence that tells you
they DO and worse are IN DENIAL or worse LYING

This is congruent with what I said above, about the meaning of your communication being the response that you get, not the intention you sent it with and if the two are in conflict -which here they absolutely ARE - then if you just send the same message the same way, you will get the same result.

I hear what you're saying but I think you're mixing apples and oranges. The people I consider "defenders of Icke" have served to defend him several times, not just once in a while or parenthetically. It seems like many are afraid of going out on a limb or we would have heard more by now about whether they believe that human-alien hybrids are actually running the world.

And most of the distraction and avoidance techniques that I have observed- and they have been repeated again and again- did not have to do with direct interactions with me.

[norton ash]

What do you get when you cross a German Shepherd with a Freemason?

A police dog with excellent possibilities of advancement.

Na Na na na na na hey hey hey goodbye!

[Mason I Bilderberg]

http://www.american-buddha.com/icke.politicsmadnessreich.htm

DAVID ICKE AND THE POLITICS OF MADNESS -- WHERE THE NEW AGE MEETS THE THIRD REICH

by Will Offley

February 29, 2000

On the face of it, few people would credit a retired soccer player who rants about a world takeover by blood-drinking lizards from outer space as being much of a threat to democracy. And as a general rule, they would probably be right.
David Icke, however, is an exception to that rule.

[ . . . ]

The following year Icke brought out another book, "...and the truth shall set you free." This one, however, was self-published, as its content was so objectionable that his publisher refused to have it printed. And small wonder. The book repeated Icke's previous claims that the Protocols were true, and went on to state: "I strongly believe that a small Jewish clique which has contempt for the mass of Jewish people worked with non-Jews to create the First World War, the Russian Revolution, and the Second World War....They then dominated the Versailles Peace Conference and created the circumstances which made the Second World War inevitable. They financed Hitler to power in 1933 and made the funds available for his rearmament." [2]

Disturbing.

[Mason I Bilderberg]

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.

If i'm "the poster" referenced in your response, i'm asking how Icke supporters square their support for Icke with Icke's human-alien hybrid theory? Also according to Icke, the secret societies orchestrating world events are these alien-human hybrids. His entire world view revolves around these alien-human hybrids. He has made so much of his identity and ideas contingent on the existence of these alien-human hybrids, i don't know how one couldn't question him in his entirety if his alien-human hybrid assertion is wrong.

This is why i ask, if you support Icke do you believe in alien-human hybrids?

Yes, you are the poster I was referring to. I meant no disrespect in phrasing it that way, sorry if it came off badly.

I for one have already given you a direct answer to that very question. I really don't care if you continue to ignore it along with my follow up question to you, however it is getting under my skin quite a bit that both you and AD keep insisting that "NO ONE HERE WILL GO NEAR THE SUBSTANCE OF THIS SIMPLE QUESTION!!!" because I did man. I did. And I keep reminding the two of you but you really don't care.

You must know what message that repeated behaviour is giving to me. It tells me that you aren't interested in just any answer to your question. You want someone to say "Yes, I have committed myself to a belief in extra dimensional lizard aliens." right?

I don't think you went near the substance. You walked the "plausible/possible" line. If i remember correctly, your answer was on the fence (that alien-human hybrids are possible). I may be wrong - too many pages to keep track. I just keep scrolling, looking for alien-human hybrid discussions.

I'm just surprised no Icke followers will come forward and unequivocally state their belief that alien-human hybrids exist. That's really what i'm looking for - a belief in alien-human hybrids.

I assume if you're ambivalent in your alien-human hybrid belief you are also ambivalent about Icke's theories.

I'm going to have to search for your original response. I thought i had it bookmarked, but i can't find it.

[barracuda]

I agree that there is evidence of pedophilia in high places but what's the best evidence for organized blood-drinking and human sacrifice in very elite circles? I know we can document femicides around Northern Mexico and Southwestern Canada but I don't think we can prove that prime ministers and industrialists are responsible...

The exigencies of modern life may have changed aspects of human sacrifice, but there are certain deaths which seem suspiciously caused and timed. Actual hard evidence for the non-metaphorical ritual behavior of the killers is lacking, I'd agree.

WRT blood drinking, I think there's some evidence. You can frame it anyway you'd like, in terms of youthful exuberance, "fake" blood, or whatever, but...

AMY GOODMAN: Alexandra Robbins, our guest, "Secrets of the Tomb" is her book. What about the induction ritual.

ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: That's a weird one. It's sort of a cross between Harry Potter novel and a haunted house. The heart of the initiation is a ceremony that takes place in Skull and Bones' most secret room which now we know is probably called -- well, you would think it probably is, I can tell that you it definitely is called room 322. It's also called the Inner Temple. I did get a hold of the script for initiation. I lay that out in my book. But to give you a little teaser, there is somebody dressed as the devil, somebody dressed as Don Quixote, somebody who is dressed as a pope who has one foot sheathed in a monogrammed white slipper resting on a skull, and the other knights are dress as alumni or patriarchs. In part of that ceremony, the neophytes must kiss the pope's foot, drink quote, unquote, blood from the eurich, which is a skull container and the initiation ends when the initiator is shoved to his knees in front of Don Quixote as the shrieking crowd falls silence and Quixote taps the junior on the shoulder with a sword and he says, "By order of our order, I dub you the knight of Eulogia."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0122-10.htm

And, you know... I'm not trying to support Icke's mythology with this information. I'm just sitting here not ignoring the fact that we basically know that at least two presidents and numerous elite men within US society eagerly drank blood from a human skull as mature adults.

[Searcher08]

WRT elite pedophilia, anyone even cursorily familiar with Don Patrizio Poggi, Dutroux, the Franklin coverup, and Jimmy Savile should have realized by now the widespread nature of the practice, that it is well organized, and ongoing. Again, the only real question is how deeply these children are used in pursuance of the types of occult agendas which accompanied such behavior throughout history.

I agree that there is evidence of pedophilia in high places but what's the best evidence for organized blood-drinking and human sacrifice in very elite circles? I know we can document femicides around Northern Mexico and Southwestern Canada but I don't think we can prove that prime ministers and industrialists are responsible...

Here we're getting back- once again- to the issue of Icke mixing in the (relatively) plausible- and substantiated- with what, while might be plausible to some here at RI, is largely unsubstantiated and highly implausible to the public at large.

And that's a problem...

I have a BIG problem with how you are framing that - because you are doing exactly what you are accusing Icke of, which is conflating plausibility with substantiation
reality - ie saying ONLY plausible things are likely to be true.

This is REALLY important, because the counter example to you is very clearly the Jimmy Saville case, which you would have been tarring with the "lizard aliens brush".

A person who says
one of the best known and most popular and enduring celebrities
whose DJ-ing / TV shows / charity work were part of millions of peoples live in the UK
actually

has sex with corpses in hospital morgues
was a blood drinking Satanist
was a close personal friend of UK Primer Ministers and the Royal Family
sexually abused the mentally handicapped for decades
ran the UK's biggest secure mental hospital with no qualifications
and gets medals from the UK, Israel and the Vatican for his 'work'...

because I fail to see how dismissing all information on the grounds of plausibility will let the truth of that one through.

Are the organisations that YOU are a part of publicising the case of Ben Fellows, who is accusing the Head of Bilderberg Group of sexual assualt as a teen? Did you know that according to EU law, unless a sitting MP is actually caught in the act of raping a child they have immunity from prosecution? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLljfBN6-dU

I find that law and the Saville case both EXTREMELY implausible - both turned out to be true.

[Mason I Bilderberg]

I for one have already given you a direct answer to that very question.

I think i found your answer:

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

Not very committed. That's cool.

[Mason I Bilderberg]

both you and AD keep insisting that "NO ONE HERE WILL GO NEAR THE SUBSTANCE OF THIS SIMPLE QUESTION!!!"

This is a serious distortion of my position. No- I am saying that again and again people here are avoiding dealing with substantive criticisms of David Icke, and they use a wide variety of distracting techniques to do so.

Furthermore, I think MIB is exactly right to draw the parallel to cult mind control because much of this stuff is reminiscent of the thought-stopping techniques inculcated in the Moonies and other such destructive cults.

It IS cultish in the way it is presented. Not to sound conspiratorial, but i'd even go so far as to say Icke practices numerous forms of emotional, speech and thought control techniques.

[Wombaticus Rex]

It IS cultish in the way it is presented. Not to sound conspiratorial, but i'd even go so far as to say Icke practices numerous forms of emotional, speech and thought control techniques.

Sure, but: nefarious agenda or human being attempting to get their point across?

Persuasion is thought control: it is also ubiquitious.

[Mason I Bilderberg]

Do you really think that anyone seriously entertains literal reptilian shapeshifters as a reasoning for the existence of this board?

"as a reasoning for the existence of this board"?

I don't think i claimed this board was created my human-alien hybrid believers. I do wonder if anybody in this thread believes in the existence of human-alien hybrids. Big difference.

You should become a psychic. You have this uncanny knack of deriving lots of false impressions from little or no information. What else do you see in your magic gutter?

[Searcher08]

oh for fuck's sake.

who among us are the mind controlled, thought stopped? it's really really really obvious what the answer is at this point, so I'm out. I tried.
No dialog to be had, just an endless game of chase the goal posts.

The thought stopping techniques- for example "He/she linked to somebody who linked to James Randi so obviously the arguments are not worthy of any consideration" are self-induced and/or shared means of avoiding the substance of the argument.

Never entertaining substantive critique is definitely a technique used by the Moonies- this does not mean that everyone here is a glassy-eyed Moonie- but it does suggest that there is a serious problem in David Icke Land.

The key problem is avoiding the substance of the argument.

WHAT I'M RECEIVING FROM YOU IS:
Maybe we need to have a real look at what R.I. is about and really see if Icke is something that should be discussed her at all - as obviously he is a raving fascist with dubious right wing connections and no doubt fascist and White Power and anti-semitic undertones and what is needed to move this forward into the real world is that we need to have a declaration of whether members are Icke supporters in the light of this, and if they say yes, we should ban them as this is an anti-fascist board

Actually what I'm saying is that I wish the defenders of Icke would stop avoiding the substance of the argument.

That is quite the opposite of what you are suggesting.

<takes deep breath>

I'm not aware of ANYONE on this thread or even on R.I. who has what you would call an "Ickean world view" or operates according to an "Ickean ideology".

I certainly dont, slad certainly doesnt, slim doesnt, Willow doesnt, 8bit doesnt, etc etc

There was a real piece of gold I learned from John Grinder in NLP - the idea of seperating the intntion of a communication from it's meaning. The intention is what the sender wants to communicate - the meaning is what occurs in the mind of the receiver as a result...

The meaning of what you are saying and doing is how what you are saying lands in my world - just saying 'that's NOT what I intended' is something I accept in goodfaith - would you be willing to accept in good faith that that is the experience your words have created?

Because when the meaning doesnt match the intention, you have to rely on the sender to create a different message, where his intention and the meaning it creates DO match.

I think the "we're not true believers in Icke" gambit has serves as another dodge, to be quite honest. I said "defenders of Icke" and here we get into the walks like a duck, acts like a duck principle. Though some of the people you mentioned are not necessarily such defenders of Icke at all. Project Willow, for example- I think she has some pretty serious concerns about what Icke has done to propagate disinformational mind control discourse- and possibly how he taints the more verified info, too...

I see a double bind being created here:
I think that you have a test criteria for what is being a in your words "a defender of Icke"
which you are applying this criteria to the "pushback" you are getting from people when you engage in a certain communication pattern.

If you think X is a "defender of Icke" then anything they say, including "I am not a defender of Icke" just provides more evidence that they ARE to you.

You are re-framing
any issue that people have with your communication that they are a 'defender of Icke'
into an evidence procedure that tells you
even more emphatically
that they ARE.

If they say "No I'm not - I dont even think about it mostly"
that is more evidence that tells you
they DO and worse are IN DENIAL or worse LYING

This is congruent with what I said above, about the meaning of your communication being the response that you get, not the intention you sent it with and if the two are in conflict -which here they absolutely ARE - then if you just send the same message the same way, you will get the same result.

I hear what you're saying but I think you're mixing apples and oranges. The people I consider "defenders of Icke" have served to defend him several times, not just once in a while or parenthetically. It seems like many are afraid of going out on a limb or we would have heard more by now about whether they believe that human-alien hybrids are actually running the world.

And most of the distraction and avoidance techniques that I have observed- and they have been repeated again and again- did not have to do with direct interactions with me.

You may have heard me ie understand / parse what I have said, but I dont feel any empathy for the experience I have, which is that no matter what I say is treated as de facto 'bad faith' and at best being blind and at worst lying

I dont know what to suggest to move it forward - I dont know who the "Defenders of Icke" in this case are, I dont know anyone of RI who believes in lizard aliens though you yourself did acknowledge it is a possiblility (although unlikely). I have re-iterated my position to you several times in this thread, and slad seems to have a similar position.

As I mentioned, anything said about the structure of your communication is taken by you as more proof of my defending Icke and probably my silence as assent.

My previous boldened post describes even more accurately my experience -
I am puzzled that someone with your NVC / Rosenberg experience isnt connecting...
I feel sad and disconnected as I am trying to do my best to be empathic and you said I understood your need for truth and veracity as a value in your activism, but I am not getting *my* need - to have my experience of how your communications are 'landing over here' taken on board met.

[Mason I Bilderberg]

who among us are the mind controlled, thought stopped? it's really really really obvious what the answer is at this point, so I'm out.

I can see it in a few places. For example, throwing out the phrase "pseudoskeptic" can be considered a thought terminating phrase. Saying "pseudoskeptic" serves as a substitute for a real exchange of ideas - it's conclusive, not requiring further thought.