David Icke: Methods Of A Madman

[Searcher08]

Searcher08 wrote:

Hi brekin,
Just in case this gets locked I wanted to speak to some of the points you raised.
If there is going to be a meaningful discussion, my position is that it is important to have clear communication channels and acknowledge the limitation of our medium - as a lot of non-verbal information is lost here.

In my experience, it is really important to know what is expected, the context in which the communication takes place. If I submit a paper to an algebraic topology Journal, the context is pretty clear - the people at the journal know I am a postdoc Maths wonk and that I want to get published. I know that the Journal folks will be absolutely dissection what i have to say...
In this thread, we are not in a context that is purely external evidence based, we are also in one where perceptions, the internal maps a person has, are just as important as logic.

If a person is not heard / listened to / empathised with on *their* terms - these needs will not be met and in my experience those are ultimately much more powerful for changing things than case building or adversarial argumentation. The choice of logic used can also be important - for example one can accomodate contradiction in paraconsistent logic. Yes, No and YES AND NO
My favourite scientists, like Feynman or Godel have been people with intense curiousity about the world and were relentless about challenging their own assumptions in their areas; my favouite communicators like John Grinder or Milton Erickson were acutely aware of the importance of congruence in messages between what was said on the surface and what was message of the deeper structure of the communication. If the two turn out to be in conflict, the conversation will tend to reflect that.

I see your point and respect your orientation to the problem. Where we differ though is in relating to different realities. Your approach would I guess work better in building rapport, concensus, and community. For example, lets say everyone in this thread is trapped on island. Some people develop a belief that giant lizards rule the world. Some people resist it. People start bickering, not sharing food, saying they are going to build a raft to leave. O.K. let's pow wow and pass the pipe and just talk about what the belief means to you without judgement, how we can discuss the matter or not to everyone's benefit, etc. Good idea.

O.K. scenario 2. Three years later everyone on the island has been coexisting fine with this new belief system. But some people are tired of waiting around and being exploited by these giant lizards who have been causing all the island's problems. Even though we never see them some decide we need to allocate resources to find these giant lizards. We need action! Enough of all this sitting around complaining about the state of the island. Let's start making weapons and canoes (or if we a pacifists let's chop down some trees and make pamplets to send to other islands to try and raise awareness about the issue). Others balk. They say ok we've listened and empathized with what you believe but if we are going to allocate resources (and time and attention are resources) we need some proof, we need some evidence about these giant lizards. Have you ever seen one? How do we know they aren't just more evil spirit talk?

Thoughts are just plans for actions. I respect people have their own beliefs and they fulfill needs. But if what they believe may effect me and others in the world then I think they have a duty and responsibility to submit their beliefs to logic. I'm not going to force anyone and it is not my job to do it for them. But if you want me to carve a canoe you are going to need and convince me why. If you just want me to sit and smoke the pipe and listen why believing in the giant lizards is important I'll do that to for awhile. But then you'll have to listen to why I don't think there are giant lizards.

In your third paragraph is that you are assuming that there will be a large number of people who believe in giant lizards
What is the purpose of 'submitting their beliefs to logic' - what would that enable you to achieve?
There is also the issue of *which* logic, as there are many more than one - who gets to decide questions like that?
There is a practical question - is this belief getting in the way of action?
If you want to keep smoking the peace pipe (fruitful exchange) you will need to be relentlessly in rapport - like you are doing the tango. If you want to lead (say you see a fungus hitting the trees and work out on the sand a diffusion pattern which will create a breadfruit tree die-off in one year. You wont get people to change their perceptions based on your logic, you will get them to change perceptions through creative and lateral thinking and humour and actually through creating multiple rich scenarios for them to consider, because rich scenarios can help prepare for 'future shock'

You talk about only one type of thinking called Black Hat , where you submit what is said to the same scrutiny as one would test software - critical analysis - thats fine, but it isnt the only type of thinking. And you dont need to do it TO them when you can do it WITH them

[compared2what?]

I guess I only have two things to say:

2. I'll get back to you when I've solved the age old riddle of how to prove I'm not a racist.

You will never be able to do that, because you are POISONED by DRINKING THE KOOL AID,
it is in your very cells! You will need to have a complete DNA-level cellular reprogramming.

Bummer.

Nobody made that accusation against a single poster on this board.

EQUIVALENT shit-slinging is a regular activity around here, and both you and Canadian_watcher do it.

If you find suggestions and/or accusations that all people who (allegedly) subscribe to this or that tenet of an ideology you find abhorrent are tainted by it objectionable:

(a) don't make them;
(b) object in clear and courteous terms when they're made, with citations, which -- believe me -- is as easy as falling off a log; just click on "quote";
(c) stand on your right not to have them repeated when they are.

It's really that simple.

[Laodicean]

[compared2what?]

STOP DIAGNOSING ME AS HAVING SOME SORT OF DISABILITY TO UNDERSTAND RACE, ETHNICITY, RELIGION, OPPRESSION AND LIBERATION OR THAT i'M UNWITTINGLY PERPETUATING OPPRESSION AND SORT OF HELPING ANTI-SEMITES BY NOT BEING SENSITIVE ENOUGH ABOUT IT.

GOT IT?

No. Where'd that happen?

[compared2what?]

I-Statements

Accepting responsibility for your feelings is one of the most important communication skills you can acquire. A good rule of thumb is: "If you have a problem, make an I-Statement. Instead, we tend to express feelings and opinions without assuming responsibility for them. We tend to hide behind blaming others for making us feel the way we do, claiming "it” is responsible, or claiming "we” all feel this way.

It is important to be aware that personal opinions sound like facts when one uses a form of "am" or "is," such as "you are...," "I am...," "it is..." and so on. Furthermore, in addition to sounding factual, such statements imply the whole person is a certain way and will be forever. Example: "You are selfish" is a pronouncement which implies that there are no unselfish traits anywhere in the person's personality--and that the entire person will stay that way forever. This is probably untrue; it is an over-generalization. It would be much more accurate and effective to say, "I resent it when you make plans for the entire family without asking what the rest of us want to do."

I-Statements consist of a description of how you feel, an indication of the conditions under which you feel that way, and why those conditions cause your emotions. I-Statements take this form: "I feel… (State your emotion) when you….(describe their behavior or under what conditions you feel this way) because… (explain why their behavior or the conditions cause you to feel this way).

Clearly, giving an I-Statement is more constructive than commanding, threatening, moralizing, judging, ultimatums, mind-reading or other behaviors that create defensiveness. However, this is not an easy concept to grasp. The pronoun "you" is used all the time and many uses are not bad. The problem is we often state personal opinions as facts and over-generalizations are implied by forms of the verb "to be," like "are," "is," "am" and so on. Read the You-Statements below to become aware of the ways we use "you."

1. Blaming: "You make me so mad."

2. Judging or labeling: "You are an inconsiderate, arrogant creep."

3. Accusing: "You don't give a damn about me!"

4. Ordering: "You shut up!"

5. Questioning: "Are you always this flirtatious?"

6. Arguing: "You don't know what you are talking about."

7. Sarcasm: "Of course, you are an expert!"

8. Approving: "You are wonderful." "You are attractive."

9. Disapproval: "You are terrible."

10. Threatening: "You had better..."

11. Moralizing: "You ought to ..."

12. Treating: "You need to rest and..."

13. Supporting: "It will get better."

14. Analyzing: "You can't stand to leave your mother!"

I-Statements have Three Parts

1. Emotion: “I feel…” (state your emotion): It is a self-disclosure, referring to "I" and it expresses a feeling.

a. The emotion or feeling must be expressed by saying, “I feel…”

§ “I feel like…” is not a statement of emotion

§ “I feel like you…”.is not a statement of emotion

§ “You make me feel…” blames the other for your emotion

§ “It makes me feel…” blames “it” for your emotion

b. Follow this link for a List of Emotions

2. Behavior: “When you…” (describe their behavior or under what conditions you feel this way)

a. Describe the other person's observable behavior or describe the conditions that are related to your feelings

b. State the facts objectively without opinions, assumptions, criticisms, commanding, threatening, moralizing, judging, ultimatums, mind-reading or other behaviors that create defensiveness

3. Why: “Because…” (explain why those conditions or their behavior cause you to feel this way).

a. Explain why you feel this emotion when the other person does that behavior or when you are under these conditions

b. The reason why you feel the way you do is often due to one or more of the following:

§ How you interpret their behavior (intent or meaning)

§ The tangible & concrete effect their behavior has on you, them, or others (do not repeat your feelings).

Benefits of I-Statements

1. Avoids blaming others for your emotions

2. Accurate and less hostile way to express a feeling or an emotion you’re experiencing

3. Most appropriate way to inform someone that their behavior is causing a problem

4. Minimizes making the other person feel guilty, put-down, & resentful

I-Statement Cautions

1. According to Thomas Gordon, the founder of Gordon Training International, “I-Language won’t work in families where the parents tend to not listen when their children have problems. If you want your kids to listen to you when you have a problem, they must feel that you listen to them when they have a problem. I-Language must be seen as a direct appeal for help. Ask if the child would be willing to help you.”

2. I-Statements are not a guarantee that others or conditions will change to accommodate you.

Very libertarian approach.

http://www.austincc.edu/colangelo/1318/istatements.htm

[Searcher08]

STOP DIAGNOSING ME AS HAVING SOME SORT OF DISABILITY TO UNDERSTAND RACE, ETHNICITY, RELIGION, OPPRESSION AND LIBERATION OR THAT i'M UNWITTINGLY PERPETUATING OPPRESSION AND SORT OF HELPING ANTI-SEMITES BY NOT BEING SENSITIVE ENOUGH ABOUT IT.

GOT IT?

No. Where'd that happen?

Why are you attributing CWs words to AD to me?

[brekin]

Searcher08 wrote:

In your third paragraph is that you are assuming that there will be a large number of people who believe in giant lizards
What is the purpose of 'submitting their beliefs to logic' - what would that enable you to achieve?
There is also the issue of *which* logic, as there are many more than one - who gets to decide questions like that?
There is a practical question - is this belief getting in the way of action?
If you want to keep smoking the peace pipe (fruitful exchange) you will need to be relentlessly in rapport - like you are doing the tango. If you want to lead (say you see a fungus hitting the trees and work out on the sand a diffusion pattern which will create a breadfruit tree die-off in one year. You wont get people to change their perceptions based on your logic, you will get them to change perceptions through creative and lateral thinking and humour and actually through creating multiple rich scenarios for them to consider, because rich scenarios can help prepare for 'future shock'

I assume that there will be some people, maybe a lot, who will believe in giant lizards, or be sympathetic to the main prostylizer of the belief for various reasons. I think this thread has shown that there is a whole spectrum of support for Icke or his views for various reasons. And the purpose of submitting their beliefs to logic is an excercise to see how realistic, true, and accurate their beliefs are related to our shared reality. This would achieve a potential measurement of how valid, useful and beneficial this belief would be for everyone. Since most people roughly judged plans as whether they have their own and most others best interests at heart the quest for truth generally takes care of itself when people want real results. For example, the bread tree die off plan would call for logic. People would want to know how you know the plan will work; what proof, evidence, what cause and effect, etc. Empathizing about how you feel about the plan and others has its place, (to sell it, get it done, make sure people are behind it, understand it, etc) but people want reassurance that what you say will happen (or is happening) in physical reality is accurate. That is why Black Hat thinking will hold a prime place in questions of reality. And for the most part that is what we are talking about in this thread. Who is doing what and whether or not they exist or not.

[Searcher08]

I guess I only have two things to say:

2. I'll get back to you when I've solved the age old riddle of how to prove I'm not a racist.

You will never be able to do that, because you are POISONED by DRINKING THE KOOL AID,
it is in your very cells! You will need to have a complete DNA-level cellular reprogramming.

Bummer.

Nobody made that accusation against a single poster on this board.

EQUIVALENT shit-slinging is a regular activity around here, and both you and Canadian_watcher do it.

If you find suggestions and/or accusations that all people who (allegedly) subscribe to this or that tenet of an ideology you find abhorrent are tainted by it objectionable:

(a) don't make them;
(b) object in clear and courteous terms when they're made, with citations, which -- believe me -- is as easy as falling off a log; just click on "quote";
(c) stand on your right not to have them repeated when they are.

It's really that simple.

And if they say something which is untrue, one can point it out or not or later.

What is even more simple is for people to tell their truth in clear authentic terms, not look down on others while they are communicating, respond to requests for empathy. And yes everyone will lose it once in a while.

As an exercise, try going through each posters posts on this thread, which you can do by going to page one and at the bottom, one can sort by Allposts Author Ascending then go to page 1
It is a great exercise, because it seems to enable one to see the 'message behind the message'.

[compared2what?]

STOP DIAGNOSING ME AS HAVING SOME SORT OF DISABILITY TO UNDERSTAND RACE, ETHNICITY, RELIGION, OPPRESSION AND LIBERATION OR THAT i'M UNWITTINGLY PERPETUATING OPPRESSION AND SORT OF HELPING ANTI-SEMITES BY NOT BEING SENSITIVE ENOUGH ABOUT IT.

GOT IT?

No. Where'd that happen?

Why are you attributing CWs words to AD to me?

Because I mistakenly thought they were yours, due to there not being any attribution attached to them indicating that they weren't.

Must have missed the original post while posting myself.

I regret the error.

However, you quoted them and followed with:

This makes me think of AD's very first response back nearly a thousand posts ago, which was to you CW, in respose to you posting a couple of short Icke videos.

Of course that's a very, very weak defense for a person who conveys lots of highly questionable information as well as some "true" stuff...

This assumes from the outset of the thread
a) Your are defending Icke
b) Your response is categorised as 'very very weak' - as though it is being assesed objectively, but you are not told HOW it is very, very week nor the standard you are being assessed against.
c )You are not told specifically WHAT Ickes 'highly questionable information' is in this instance.
d) Highly questionable according to WHOM?
e) some "true" stuff - WHICH true stuff?
f) "true" is ambiguous - scare quotes often mean a reversal of meaning

Now immediately the conversation splits into multiple 'logical levels' -
There is the content and the 'metamessage' here:
a) You are against my position
b) I will let you know my assessment without tell you the yardstick
c) I will use ambiguous language that will make it difficult to answer clearly and make it easy to question your motivation

...the fractal pattern from which these thousand posts played out

Which appears to endorse that having been a justified take-away on her part. but doesn't support her accusation that AD was doing anything remotely like diagnosing her or -- in fact -- personally criticizing her at all.

She was defending Icke and had done so in the past. So that wasn't a prejudiced assumption on his part. Nor did he accuse her of any personal deficiencies for doing it. His characterization of her defense as "weak" is an expression of opinion about her argument, not about her. And it's fucking routinely typical for people here to make remarks of that kind.

He'd cited instances of the questionable information a million times, and did so again on this thread. But if anybody'd been confused about it, all they had to do was ask. It's not inherently oppressive not to restate your entire case every damn time you refer to it. In fact, Canadian_watcher quite frequently objects to it that I err in the other direction, on the grounds that it's in some way oppressive.

And blah, blah, blah. There's no

DIAGNOSING

of anyone

AS HAVING SOME SORT OF DISABILITY TO UNDERSTAND RACE, ETHNICITY, RELIGION, OPPRESSION AND LIBERATION OR THAT i'M UNWITTINGLY PERPETUATING OPPRESSION AND SORT OF HELPING ANTI-SEMITES BY NOT BEING SENSITIVE ENOUGH ABOUT IT.

anywhere in anything that you say those words reminded you of. In short.

Maybe I'm wrong to read what you wrote as an endorsement, though.

Is that what it was?

[compared2what?]

I guess I only have two things to say:

2. I'll get back to you when I've solved the age old riddle of how to prove I'm not a racist.

You will never be able to do that, because you are POISONED by DRINKING THE KOOL AID,
it is in your very cells! You will need to have a complete DNA-level cellular reprogramming.

Bummer.

Nobody made that accusation against a single poster on this board.

EQUIVALENT shit-slinging is a regular activity around here, and both you and Canadian_watcher do it.

If you find suggestions and/or accusations that all people who (allegedly) subscribe to this or that tenet of an ideology you find abhorrent are tainted by it objectionable:

(a) don't make them;
(b) object in clear and courteous terms when they're made, with citations, which -- believe me -- is as easy as falling off a log; just click on "quote";
(c) stand on your right not to have them repeated when they are.

It's really that simple.

And if they say something which is untrue, one can point it out or not or later.

What is even more simple is for people to tell their truth in clear authentic terms, not look down on others while they are communicating, respond to requests for empathy. And yes everyone will lose it once in a while.

As an exercise, try going through each posters posts on this thread, which you can do by going to page one and at the bottom, one can sort by Allposts Author Ascending then go to page 1
It is a great exercise, because it seems to enable one to see the 'message behind the message'.

I don't really feel the need for it. I'm very familiar with AD's posting style when in a heated debate. And with yours. And with SLAD's. And with brekin's. And with Canadian_watcher's. And with my own. And etc.

We're all maddening sometimes. No fucking doubt. But AD is taking a lot of shit for very heavy stuff that he really didn't say or do, when he was -- as far as I can see -- always well within the limits of legitimate debate.

It's very much to the detriment of the discussion of something legitimate to see someone get shouted down and jumped on under those circumstances. Makes it nearly impossible to discuss that thing, in fact.

I hate to see that happening. It's harmful. Big-time harmful, in this case.

[Searcher08]

Searcher08 wrote:

In your third paragraph is that you are assuming that there will be a large number of people who believe in giant lizards
What is the purpose of 'submitting their beliefs to logic' - what would that enable you to achieve?
There is also the issue of *which* logic, as there are many more than one - who gets to decide questions like that?
There is a practical question - is this belief getting in the way of action?
If you want to keep smoking the peace pipe (fruitful exchange) you will need to be relentlessly in rapport - like you are doing the tango. If you want to lead (say you see a fungus hitting the trees and work out on the sand a diffusion pattern which will create a breadfruit tree die-off in one year. You wont get people to change their perceptions based on your logic, you will get them to change perceptions through creative and lateral thinking and humour and actually through creating multiple rich scenarios for them to consider, because rich scenarios can help prepare for 'future shock'

I assume that there will be some people, maybe a lot, who will believe in giant lizards, or be sympathetic to the main prostylizer of the belief for various reasons. I think this thread has shown that there is a whole spectrum of support for Icke or his views for various reasons.

My perception is quite different.

And the purpose of submitting their beliefs to logic is an excercise to see how realistic, true, and accurate their beliefs are related to our shared reality.

Again you are asserting there in one shared reality. I see there being a whole planet-full of 'socially constructed realities' each a mix of different weights of evidence criteria, belief systems, culture. A sum total of billions of perception bubbles of unique ways of seeing and experiencing the apparent subject-object divide...

This would achieve a potential measurement of how valid, useful and beneficial this belief would be for everyone.

Logic is not creative thinking - logic and analysis are about digging the same whole deeper.
Mapping out values and looking at alternatives and doing design thinking to create structures that serve those values is not analysis.

Since most people roughly judged plans as whether they have their own and most others best interests at heart the quest for truth generally takes care of itself when people want real results. For example, the bread tree die off plan would call for logic.

The bread free die-off calls for creative thinking. You can explain WHY till the cows come home. You may need to consider a wide range of ideas - qualifying them by Black Hat suitability before they have been explored is Brainstorming 101 FAIL.

People would want to know how you know the plan will work; what proof, evidence, what cause and effect, etc. Empathizing about how you feel about the plan and others has its place, (to sell it, get it done, make sure people are behind it, understand it, etc) but people want reassurance that what you say will happen (or is happening) in physical reality is accurate. That is why Black Hat thinking will hold a prime place in questions of reality. And for the most part that is what we are talking about in this thread. Who is doing what and whether or not they exist or not

.

This is a big (and different) conversation - Black Hat critical analytical thinking HAS held sway. It is based on Aristotlean two valued logic. It was honed by the Church to dispute heresy. It was used as the basis of much Law and political thinking.
It is also old-fashioned, destructive when over-applied, only one part of thinking, has nothing to do with how the mind actually processes information, the mind operates as a self-organising information system, not like a computer. There are better models for thinking than critical analysis only. Critical thinking is concerned with 'IS'; design thinking is concerned with bringing things about.. 'TO'

And there I finish well just one more for C2w

[compared2what?]

And there I finish well just one more for C2w

No need. I very much apologize for not realizing those weren't your words. If I had, I wouldn't have picked a fight with you. I was under the impression that you were accusing AD in very strong terms of doing something he very clearly hadn't done. And doing it in a way that made further discussion impossible.

Whatever other disagreements I might have with what you wrote aren't terribly important, absent that.

I'm actually glad to have had the chance to tell you I wasn't intending to mocking you in that other thing. I sincerely wasn't. And I apologize for giving the impression that I was, if I did.

I just meant it was loose talk of a potentially problematic kind, as outlined.
_______________

ON EDIT: I'd call that^^^ "very, very weak." Sorry. I just wanted to get it up there quickly. Because I completely misconstrued the rest of what you were saying very regrettably due to my own stupid error. And that must have made what I was saying seem very unfair to you. I'm terribly, terribly sorry.

[compared2what?]

Here's what I said to CW, which really does reflect my position:

AD, Mason I Bilderberg, Brekin:

Do you believe that I am an anti-semite or not?

I believe that working seriously on one's thinking about race, class, ethnicity, religion, oppression, and liberation is almost always of benefit and I have seen no indication that you want to perpetuate oppression. I don't think you believe anti-Semitism is a good thing but it still could be good to work some on these issues.

Over and out!

I wish you were over and out.
STOP telling me ANYTHING that has to do with my ability to understand racism, okay?

STOP DIAGNOSING ME AS HAVING SOME SORT OF DISABILITY WHEN IT COMES TO UNDERSTANDING RACE, ETHNICITY, RELIGION, OPPRESSION AND LIBERATION AND STOP IMPLYING THAT i'M UNWITTINGLY PERPETUATING OPPRESSION AND SORT OF HELPING ANTI-SEMITES BY NOT BEING SENSITIVE ENOUGH ABOUT IT.

GOT IT?

Take some damn responsibility for your feelings. They're making it impossible to have a serious conversation about one of the most divisive and fraught issues in the whole fucking world.

Please. You won't regret it.

[coffin_dodger]

Black Hat critical analytical thinking HAS held sway. It is based on Aristotlean two valued logic. It was honed by the Church to dispute heresy. It was used as the basis of much Law and political thinking.
It is also old-fashioned, destructive when over-applied, only one part of thinking, has nothing to do with how the mind actually processes information, the mind operates as a self-organising information system, not like a computer. There are better models for thinking than critical analysis only. Critical thinking is concerned with 'IS'; design thinking is concerned with bringing things about.. 'TO'

Indeed.

[Canadian_watcher]

eyeroll to the post that describes my behaviour in a bad light by way of a compliment/apology to my debating ally.

ugh, what a hot mess.