David Icke - Nutter?

jessop1 wrote:

the lizard stuff is a step too far for most people, thats why I left it out and why Icke himself doesnt focus so heavily on that aspect himself these days.

Interesting that he doesn't though.

Consider...

Ickes early writings featured these lizard overlords quite heavily.
Ickes early writings followed relatively closely after the phenomonal success of the first (and second?) V mini-series.

Ickes newer writings focus more on the "artificial reality" slant of things.
Icles newer writings follow relatively closely after the phenomonal success of the Matrix movie(s).

Perhaps this is a hint that Icke is, in fact, just another tool to mislead us all from a greater truth. This reasoning, strangely, is not too dissimilar in its "logic" to what Icke himself uses at times - a smattering of facts tied together with a wish and a prayer to produce the desired result.

I can understand that and I'm not saying I fully believe it myself

The problem for me is that if I wanted to read up on any of the other stuff that Icke generally merges into his writings, then I'd go and read up on that stuff from authors who manage to do without the crazier tie-ins.

Similarly, if I wanted to learn about sharks and had a choice between a book which was written by a shark expert, and another which contained some of the same material and then a few chapters dedicated to SHARKS with LASERS on their HEADS, working for a secret sub-aquatic race who secretly control the world....I'd go for the former.

If the latter tried explaining shark evolution in terms of these subaquatic aliens...well...then I wouldn't really care how accurate some of his information may be, I'd dismiss the author of the second as someone who may know some facts about sharks but who's writings in general are not a good source to learn about said creatures from.

I definately do believe that the force that is in control of this world is deeply sick and deeply evil.

I don't believe good and evil exist as absolutes. I do not believe that evil existed before life came into being. Thus, I cannot see how evil can be personified into a controller of sorts.

One thing that Icke says that really rings true for me is that true humans have compassion;

So anyone who ever commits a dispassionate or cruel act isn't a true human? I'd say we're down to a handful of people at most already. More likely none.

Or is it that humans are capable of cruelty etc. but only the non-true-humans are incapable of compassion. Again, I'd wager that we're down to a handful of people at most that could meet such criteria.

Neither case is aprticularly compelling.

neither I nor anyone I know are capable morally of inflicting untold suffering

Even anecdotally, this proves nor suggests very little, if anything.

I don't know anyone capable of running 100m in under 10sec. Does this mean that those who do aren't human, or that I can draw any conclusions about humanity at all? I wouldn't think so.

and yet look at what the zionist cabal has been doing since the beginning of history to this day,

The beginning of history? When was that, exactly?

Are we stopping where history becomes archaeology, or going right back to before the existence of man and/or religion? The former would seem a rather arbitrary point in time. The latter would seem to make your statement impossible.

I'd agree with Icke that the same evil force is ultimately in control of these nations as well...

Greed for short-term gains is a sufficient motive. I see no reason for a controlling force.

Creatures fighting over territory, resources, mates, etc. is a simple fact of nature. Are we to decide that one animal brutally killing another over hunting grounds on the plains of Africa is further evidence of the existence of evil? If not, then why is it unthinkable that humans would do similar? Once you factor in our evolutionary advantages, it would seem that there's little spectacular here.

the point I am making is that they carry out inhuman acts as par for the course.. so maybe they are not human.

I think you're mistaking inhumane with inhuman. There is nothing to suggest these acts are inhuman except the assumption that humans can't do these things.

In otherwords, its a circular argument - we're not all human, ergo these acts are inhuman, ergo we're not all human.

I could just as easily say we are all human, ergo these inhumane acts cannot by definition be inhuman, ergo there is no evidence here for anything other than humans.

Concluding a presupposition is easy. It doesn't lend weight to an argument though. The trick is to arrive there without ever assuming it must be true.

the more conventional aspects of his theories are well written and researched...

Wouldn't we be better using his sources, then, to discuss the convetional aspects, rather than Icke's where we have to "suffer" the non-conventional being inextricably tied to it as well?

jc

I just don't understand how someone can believe that there are a vast amount of lizard people when there haven't been any photos of them with some of their fake human skin being pulled off in The Sun.

He may have interesting ideas but I haven't bothered reading his stuff because of this mad reptile thing. Anyone that believes in such a radical truth goes straight to the loony file imo and hence I don't read up on anything else of the author.

Icke's stuff is interesting and usually well researched - but the problem which affects his credibility is that he is so entwined in the conspiracy zone, that he accepts most wild theories at face value. There is some crap in his beliefs, and some very likely truth. He just needs to be more discerning in what he accepts imo. There us a lot of disinformation, and bull**** out there.

If you want to read a well researched book on NWO/Illuminati, I recommend 'Behold a Pale Horse' by William Cooper - a man whose research led him to branded 'the most dangerous terrorist in America' by Bill Clinton. Shortly after that he was shot dead in his own home by police officers while 'resisting arrest'.

jessop1 wrote:

bonkey, with respect, its going to be hard to continue debating with you if you are disecting my posts and responding to each line I write with a paragraph, could you keep the replies a little more succinct please?

You've no problem bombarding me or others with entire sites to read. You want to discuss the entirety of Icke's work

I'm only asking you to consider less than 10,000 words per post of mine.

Why is it, then, that I am the one lacking succinctness?

Would you prefer if I just pointed you at the works of others who challenge the worth of Icke's work and told you to read it and respond here?

anyhoo, you have your facts way wrong on ickes writings

My apologies. I got my timeline incorrect. You are correct.

I was perhaps misled by the number of comments I've seen claiming/stating that in one of his books (I've clarified previously that I haven't read them, so maybe you could check this?) he explicitly mentions the parallel between his lizardaliens and V.

I'm not sure if you have read much if any of his writings.

I know. You keep saying this. Who knows - maybe if you repeat it often enough, it will become true.

Again, though, I refer you back to what you said about succinctness. You have a problem with my not writing short, easy-to-respond-to posts, but expect me to have read the majority (if not all) of Icke's works.

Imagine telling a person from 300 years ago that 100s of tons of metal could be fashioned into a machine that can fly around thw world in hours - how unfathomable would that be to them?

Your point being?

Are you suggesting that all Apparently-Crazy ideas are - by necessity - true?? That all such "AC" ideas should not only be given equal weight with each other, but indeed equal or superior weight to what are considered non-crazy ones?

Indeed, you appear to be going further and suggesting that certain such ideas be given more credibility than others, but supply absolutely no basis for comparative analysis other than perhaps that you have this belief in the truth of such ideas. Maybe you have other reasons other than a blind belief, but so far, all you've offered are your conclusions, not your reasoning.

Just open your mind a little

Discarding critical thinking is not opening one's mind a little. You are asking me to do the former whilst calling it the latter.

- actually read some of Ickes reptilian and non-reptilian writings before condeming them - thats all I can ask.

I've repeatedly told you that I have read some of his writings, and you refuse to believe me. At this point, you're insinuating I'm lying.

Theres not much point in us tit-4-tating on the other points

Because they're the ones you can't easily dismiss? Because you don't want to actually discuss the points being raised?

I am interested in your point that evil existed before life

I stated clearly that I do not believe such to be the case, so surely my point is that evil didn't exist before life.

do you mean biological life?

Why would such a distinction be relevant?

Whatever one's understanding of what life is, either evil predates it as some sort of non-life force, or else evil is an aspect of life.

I do not believe the former, as I stated. Simply put, how can evil exist when evil cannot be perpetrated.

If evil is an aspect of life - as I believe - then one must ask what basis we have for believing that it is not and cannot be an aspect of human life.

would you agree that consciousness existed before biological life also?

No, but I wouldn't rule it out either.

jc

jessop1 wrote:

bonkey I am beginning to think you are deliberately obfuscating matters here.

I'm offering as much detail as you have and more. If thats obfuscation.....then I guess you're asking me to offer less detail? How does that help things?

I have posted in an earlier post a number of Icke's claims where I think his research is credible and the evidence holds water.

Not on this thread you haven't. You've posted one link, which is to an entire website.

<edit>
Nor did you do so on the LINKS stuicky at the top....
</edit>

jessop1 wrote:

please see my post at 14:49 yesterday

edit / post no 17 on THIS thread

Ah yes.

The one where you said Some of his convetional theories I that I think are well presented and I think hold water, based on the evidence given, and then offered little more then an (as yet unfulfilled) offer to provide links.

For now, I'll offer you an equally detailed response:

From what I've read, his argument doesn't hold water. I'll explain why at some later stage.


jc