David Icke: Methods Of A Madman

[82_28]

Brekin wrote:

So you are saying like Santa Claus he both exists and doesn't? Existing in the hearts and minds of children and people portraying him part-time at the mall during the holiday season but there is no actual, real, individual who flies around the world named Santa Claus delivering presents on Christmas Eve? Because while Santa exists, he's not real. Just as while reptile-humans exist in our imagination and in conversation - they aren't real - don't exist in a tangible, physical form that is in our shared reality.

Yes, that is exactly my point. You put the analogy better than I. Thanks. And to add, just as we can find specimens of evil people who look like reptiles we also can go places well outside of the Christmas season and go "holy shit, that dude totally looks like Santa Claus."

The question is the evil and the phenomena is that there is a very segment of humans who believe this shit literally and probably at the same percentage that think they can drive-by a site and not meet with its own in-built immune defenses. Being open here is not a weakness and it also is not necessarily a strength. Rather, it is who we are as we are all part of it.

C2W: There's no basement in the Alamo. Pee-Wee Herman and his real name Paul Ruebens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Reubens

[compared2what?]

C2W: There's no basement in the Alamo. Pee-Wee Herman and his real name Paul Ruebens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Reubens

Right. But...

In March 2004, child pornography charges were dropped. For the next three years he had to register his address with the sheriff's office and could not be in the company of minors without their parents' permission.[25] Reubens later stated that he was a collector of erotica, including films, muscle magazines and a sizable collection of mostly homosexual vintage erotica,[1] such as photographic studies of teen nudes.[25] Reubens claimed that what the city attorney's office viewed as pornography, he considered to be innocent art and that what they described as people underage engaged in masturbation or oral copulation was in fact a judgmental point of view of the nudes that Reubens described as people "one hundred percent not" performing sexual acts.[25] Being a big collector, Reubens had often bought in bulk, with one of his vintage magazines dealers declaring that "there's no way" he could have known the content of each page in the publications he bought and that he recalled Reubens asking for "physique magazines, vintage 1960s material, but not things featuring kids".

...^^do we have serious reservations about that for any reason I don't know about?

Always seemed plausible to me that he just collects vintage porn and erotica. I mean, there's some history of his enjoying the medium. Plus, it was the LAPD; they were tossing his house; I've never heard any gossip or allegations of a similarly child-oriented nature about him; etc.

[brainpanhandler]

Yeah I didn't bother to read any of this thread but why isn't there more porn featuring greys and reptiles? I've only found a few bits and pieces, it's downright disappointing.

That should have been the last post in this thread.

To paraphrase one example told by one of my favorite authors:

A caveman walks past some tall grass and hears a rustling. As a matter of survival, does he assume it's a bird building a nest or a lion preparing to pounce and have him for dinner?

Thousands of years later, the Darwin Award winners from the above scenario has given us a brain that instinctively fears the unknown or explains the unknown by believing in invisible agents with power and intent (spirits, ghosts, gods, demons, angels, aliens, intelligent designers, government conspirators).

Who is the author?

Do you believe "government conspirators" are "invisible agents"?

Here's a quote from one of my favorite authors here:

There is tremendous value in the scientific method: systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses, with the overall effort an attempt to allow the world to be seen with clarity. That, to me, is the only real orthodoxy of science.

There is equally tremendous value in submersion in the subjective world through any number of avenues, through trance, vision, folklore, the paranormative, the unconscious, dreams, altered states. Discarding these avenues for knowledge a priori is a mistake. But they are not science, capital letter or no. They are something different.

And you might consider checking out Jeff's blog. It's the black light that we were all drawn to.

[brekin]

This thread has officially become "the thread I haven't gone in since page one and I will post about that fact in another thread" thread.

Please, Vote Yes on No.

[Project Willow]

^Yup. Nice. [on edit, echoing BPH's post]

I also have to say, personally, and not in a mod role, quips like this:

Okay. All done for now. I need to get on a conference call with The Masons, The Bilderbergers, The IMF, The Federal Reserve and a whole slew of lizard people.

suggest that what's in store for anyone coming forward in response to your questioning is nothing but mockery. So that makes the whole exercise silly, as who, in their right mind is going to come forward in order to be mocked?

Who also, is going to come forward in order to be interrogated?

I'll say it again, I have no problem with people posting about their own views of Icke, for a hundred pages or whatever, but entering upon some quest to "out" and interrogate anyone with alternate views is neither a respectful, nor fruitful approach.

IOW, please, cut it out.

[Searcher08]

.

[Canadian_watcher]

Yeah I didn't bother to read any of this thread but why isn't there more porn featuring greys and reptiles? I've only found a few bits and pieces, it's downright disappointing.

That should have been the last post in this thread.

that's exactly what I thought (hoped) when I read it, too.
oh well...

[brainpanhandler]

Yeah I didn't bother to read any of this thread but why isn't there more porn featuring greys and reptiles? I've only found a few bits and pieces, it's downright disappointing.

That should have been the last post in this thread.

that's exactly what I thought (hoped) when I read it, too.
oh well...

Not because I think General Patton was out of line or anything. But because that's about what the thread deserves at this point and it would have been a nice capper.

General Patton is a hidden gem on this board.

[Mason I Bilderberg]

. . . your meaningless posts about "leaving the conversation" are a waste of space.

It helps alleviate potential conflicts. I don't want people to think i'm ignoring them.

[82_28]

Fresh!

[Mason I Bilderberg]

Nobody on this forum has ever defended Icke? Ever? Never, ever, ever?

Defending Icke doesn't equate to "Icke faithful" or "Icke believers."

I've defended him on numerous occasions, here and elsewhere, but that doesn't mean I'm a fan of his work.

Again, mate, if asking these questions of the believers is your interest, why aren't you on Icke's forum? There's thousands of geniuine believers there, right now.

Semantics rears its ugly head, reminding me of a famous Inspector Clouseau joke:

Inspector Clouseau: [gesturing to the hotel's dog] Does your dog bite?
German hotelier: No.
[Clouseau bends to pet the dog; it bites him.]
Inspector Clouseau: I thought you said your dog did not bite!
German hotelier: That is not my dog.

Have you ever defended Icke's belief that human-alien hybrids exist?

[Wombaticus Rex]

Are you seriously this stupid?

Paul Williams/Rubino, what do you even do in real life? North Carolina is beautiful, man, get outside.

Edit: From the "Don't Ever Say I Didn't Do Anything For You" dept...

Have you ever defended Icke's belief that human-alien hybrids exist?

Nope.

[barracuda]

For the sake of argument, Mason, let's say I believe in the human/alien hybrid thesis, and that I do so simply as a matter of faith, literally believing the idea as presented by Icke.

What happens next? I mean, what is your response to that position when you actually encounter it in a true believer?

[Mason I Bilderberg]

Did I say they were "real" to me? No. I said, in essence, that both exist simultaneously. One as a provable and the other as a provable phenomena -- the belief -- what we witness. We do know the phenomena exists do we not? Thus it exists for all intense and porpoises. Just like I did not write "intents and purposes". They both exist upon your screen at this moment. One is wrong and one is right -- both exist. I personally believe they are both right because the phenomena exists in and of itself. And yet, both are also wrong. . .

Do you believe a human-alien hybrid exists, or has ever existed, in a tangible, walking and talking form?

[Mason I Bilderberg]

Canadian Watcher wrote:

I can learn boatloads of good stuff from myth and fiction.
besides, i'm still not closed off the possibility that aliens are among us.

Of course, but the 18 page question is whether you think Icke's core tenet of his philosophy is fiction or fact.
Just as one can't be a little bit pregnant (you either are or your not) one really can't entertain seriously that lizard-human hybrids secretly control the world while entertaining other scenarios can one? It's a totalistic schema of how the world operates. It's like believing that God controls ever little thing that happens in the world like a Sim game while also believing that everyone has free will.

Thinking alien life may possibly exist on other planets and possibly has visited Earth, or does from time to time, is a whole different order of magnitude then a organized cabal of lizard overlords going back thousands of years orchestrating the present order on Earth. I can understand liking Icke in a X-Files entertainment sense, but if you believe what he says is true then I think you are arguing that Icke is not a madman. Am I getting that correctly?

And fwiw (and this is a general address, not CW specific) why all the drama around Icke? Love him, hate him, dismiss him, entertained by him, why does an examination of someone's philosophy seem to provoke such teeth gnashing and self flagellating? If you think this thread is a waste of time for you, then it probably is, and you can step out and jump in another one. If you have strong opinions about the man and his work express them. I don' t understand all the little content free sniping and questioning of people's motives who question Icke's thesis or methods. Some people seem to have a soft spot for Icke but don't want to come out and advocate for him, while getting angry at those who do want to talk about him in a critical way. I don't get that. If you have a problem with someone's interpretation of Icke and his methods, then the sensible thing is to provide counter evidence of why they are mistaken.

Another response fit to print.