David Icke: Methods Of A Madman

[Mason I Bilderberg]

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?

From what i've read and heard, Icke presents alien-human hybrids as a matter of fact. He even claims to have witnessed shapeshifting.

But if you were to accept it as a matter of faith, i guess that eliminates my question of evidence, but i would still wonder how you square this belief with Icke's other theories of secret societies and brotherhoods running the world. Icke contends these secret societies and brotherhoods are, in fact, alien-human hybrids.

[slimmouse]

OK, I endorse David Icke. Ive tried on a couple of occasions to illicit why, but of course theres no comment about that kind of stuff. No real interest, no opinion. No consideration, No comment.

Not only do I find that a tad rude, having taken the trouble myself to engage with AD.

Which is why I really would like some answers to the questions WR, so expertly proposed above.

Especially the final comment, which I would really appreciate AD's take on........

Having a red hunt over Icke is fuck-tarded. No part of his work or his legacy are equal to that kind of wasted time.

[Mason I Bilderberg]

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

Yes. But it's not up to you to decide what I mean as "yes". "EVER EXISTED" is a lot different than have they existed in the past and or will THEY EXIST in the future. You got a non starter, man. Just telling you.

When do you believe they existed and what is the evidence?

As far as I know and according to your rubric, you fit the bill for a reptilian alien-human hybrid. I welcome you to prove otherwise. See what I (we) are getting at here yet?

That which is is asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

[Mason I Bilderberg]

It's similar to the "they" we hear about. "They" assassinated him. Who is "they"? "They" represents the instinct we developed over thousands of years from Darwin Award winners. "Fear of the unknown," "Prepare for the worst, expect the best." It's a survival mechanism. It must deceive us to protect us.

Have to disagree there. We sort of do actually know who "they" are in many, many cases.

As it relates to Icke and the human-alien hybrids, does anybody purport to know the name(s) of a human-alien hybrid?

[Mason I Bilderberg]

I feel like Galileo showing the church his brand new telescope.

Yes, your humility is the most endearing thing about you.

I evoke warm fuzzies where ever i go. I can't help it.

[Mason I Bilderberg]

I believe human-alien hybrids exist in a tangible, walking and talking form.

NOW WHAT?

This is going to be anticlimactic:

What evidence convinces you they exist?

[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?

... if you were to accept it as a matter of faith, i guess that eliminates my question of evidence, but i would still wonder how you square this belief with Icke's other theories of secret societies and brotherhoods running the world. Icke contends these secret societies and brotherhoods are, in fact, alien-human hybrids.

Okay, but do you understand that in that case you've been asking the wrong question? I.e.:

do you believe in alien-human hybrids?

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

Etc. You've been asking about belief systems when what you really seem to want is to confront evidence.

From what i've read and heard, Icke presents alien-human hybrids as a matter of fact. He even claims to have witnessed shapeshifting.

Yes, and some of his adherents make the same claims. That is evidence, no? Eyewitnesses? Do you consider them to simply be lying, or are they deluded, or what? Make yourself clear, please.

This is going to be anticlimactic:

What evidence convinces you they exist?

Yes, anticlimactic in the extreme. You've spent pages and pages dancing around what you really want to ask. Why is that? Why didn't you simply come out right away looking for evidence rather than playing Joe McCarthy with the board?

[slimmouse]

That which is is asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence

Who's evidence are we talking about here? What kind of criteria fit the bill as evidence. Who decides that ?

Ive seen James Randi's criteria for evidence in order to win his fake 1 million dollar challenge.

Within the usual fine print, are stipulations that would probably make any Scientist, worth his salt raise his eyebrows to say the least.

I hate to say this to someone who is in clear danger of becoming a fully blown member of the Randian fraternity, accompanied by all the internal dishonesty that such thinking cannot survive without.

But, so far, to be honest, your contribution around here, in my own personal opinion has only been as dissappointing as youre video was.

However there is some good news. You can join my recently formed Organisation of Anti-Ickeism if you like.

[American Dream]

AD, I think that as we approach the 50 page mark you should be a little less circumspect and lay those cards on the table. You have been casting aspersions on RI in general and it's time to get specific.

I have no problem with CW and slimmouse defending Icke and I don't think it has much effect on our larger conversation, which is too diverse and robust, in terms of both characters contributing and concepts covered.

I've been interested in what you've laid down since page 44, because you seem to propose that your goal for this conversation is building a coherent political praxis out of conspiracy theory. And I think that's dumb. I want nothing to do with that. I am not here because of my interest in political theory and doing post-mortems of popular movements.

I also think it is a doomed and contradictory goal, because as I've stated elsewhere: we are terminal heretics here. It's not like if we "cleaned up our act" per some roadmap you've got, the outside world -- especially your outside world -- is going to start taking us seriously. Because once Icke is gone, you know...who's next? Eradicating "WOO" is not a popular proposition, nor should it be. Leave that to Mason I Bilderberg's priesthood.

So the question of Icke's story does seem to matter if conspiracy investigators are indeed going to continue playing an important- and unique- role in helping to make our world better, or even just to survive...
[/size]

Speaking of an unsubstantiated premise, yeah. Really? We need to discuss David Icke if the work of Douglas Valentine and Christopher Simpson is going to continue to matter? That seems like either reification or insanity.

After all we're here at 43 pages in large part because nobody here wants to claim identification with the "reality" of alien-human hybrids who run the Earth, much less a "moon matrix", "red dresses" and all the rest of the Icke Mythos...[/size]

Again, really? I thought we're at 40+ pages because you introduced a charming turd to the punch bowl, with a single-question agenda and a communication problem.

AD, I think you're officially Avoiding the Question at this point.

The question is based on an unsubstantiated premise. Searcher is welcome to provide specific quotes.

Okay:

I think it would be great to hear more from specific people which parts of the Icke Mythos they definitively do or don't believe.

I think that most won't say specifically what parts- if any- they do or don't believe. That has been a very big problem here on this thread.

When I say "defenders of Icke", that's very deliberate phrasing- defenders might be true believers but it's hard to know since I haven't even heard anyone from that sector accept or reject one fundamental precept with real clarity. Call me paranoid, call me a "conspiracy theorist" but I do suspect that some people here don't want to share the depth and breadth of their positive feeling for Icke.

Stop being vague, stop referring to RI in the abstract. "These people" ... "some people" ... isn't that the exact kind of useless language that makes strawman conspiracy theorists so dumb & helpless? "The government" ... "The Illuminati" ... "these evildoers" ... names; name them.

If you think there's a threat to the anti-fascist nature of RI here on RI, please state that explicitly. Otherwise it comes off as an inflated pretext to silence thoughts you don't like.

Having a red hunt over Icke is fuck-tarded. No part of his work or his legacy are equal to that kind of wasted time.

Huh? What are the aspersions I have cast on RI in general? Please be specific- some direct quotes would be helpful- and then I might understand what you're talking about. My hunch is that you're filtering heavily through your own lens- though I'm not imagining that this is intentional at all.

Also, "building a coherent political praxis out of conspiracy theory" is not how I would describe it at all- though I do think conspiracy investigators have a uniquely important role to play in helping support positive social change. Those who are in it for conspiratainment or whatever can play a neutral role, with which I am not so concerned- or a negative role, which I am concerned about.

I also am not "anti-Woo" though I do think we should be clear what is speculation and what is not...

As to who are the most vociferous defenders of Icke on this thread, you want me to name them- the first names that come to mind are slim, slad and Searcher. As noted above I don't think any of them relies only on Icke for their reality maps but functionally all three have played the role of fairly tenacious defenders of Icke for some years now. Please note that I am describing them functionally- not trying to infer from that as to what exactly goes on in their inner life.

Also, please note that it takes two (or more) to tangle. I post material which says that Icke has a spotty record for claiming unfounded assumptions as factual and for propagating racist/far right twaddle. It takes somebody else to heatedly deny this and/or post endless reams of crap that may serve only to distract from a coherent discussion. Have you really read this thread? There is a whole lot of garbage on there and the vast bulk of it is not from me.

I claim no responsibility for MIB either way- he is his own person. I just posted his video after some frustrating conversations spurred by slim fundraising for Icke here,.

So please let's get on the same page before we discuss this further. You have put a lot of words in my mouth that don't fit at all. And let's make sure that others understand that I have consistently supported the idea that spurious charges of anti-Semitism are used as a political weapon all the time. It has been many years that I have told how myself and my communities have been indeed targeted just this way by zionist hawks for working in solidarity with Palestinians.

That said, racism and "anti-Semitism" really do exist and they do have a lot to do with the concerns about David Icke, about Gilad Atzmon and about other fundamental issues that these three defenders seem to completely ignore, minimize and/or actively invalidate. And that is a problem within the context of this board- not the only problem- but a very, very real one...

[barracuda]

That which is is asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

But you've already introduced evidence into the discussion:

[Icke] even claims to have witnessed shapeshifting.

So could please lay out your debunkage of the evidence you've encountered for the group? Quit the fucking tap dance.

I don't really give a fuck about Icke or his mythos. I wanna know why you're conducting a witchhunt on my forum, and when and if you're going to begin posting here in good faith.

[slimmouse]

claim no responsibility for MIB either way- he is his own person. I just posted his video after some frustrating conversations spurred by slim fundraising for Icke here,.

Hows that for a clearly mind warped interpretation of what I was doing ?

Rather like my apparent "spin control" reply from another post. ( I could go on you know)

Icke GETS NOTHING FROM THIS, other than another pile of hard fucking work, for a project that will hopefully throw some light on some serious fukn issues.

Its funny how none of this ever enters the mind of the Organisation of Anti Ickeism.

[Mason I Bilderberg]

. . . the FACT that Icke used the PEZ as a template for some of his mythos.

What is the PEZ?

[barracuda]

Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Cut to the fucking chase, please.

[Mason I Bilderberg]

It isnt pigheadness - it is being shoe-horned to say I BELEIVE or I DISBELIEVE when I dont subscibe to that binary logic.

My inquiry is conditional (not binary): If you believe, defend or support Icke in some way, do you believe alien-human hybrids exist?

If you don't believe, defend or support Icke in some way the question doesn't apply to you.

[American Dream]

Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Cut to the fucking chase, please.

Definitely includes that but also all of Icke's "Rothschild Zionism" theory, all of Gilad Atzmon's work, etc.