David Icke - Nutter?

jessop1

The easy answer for most people is a resounding yes - but how many of these people have actually read his books or online articles and writings? And I mean his own writings, not what is written about him in tabloids and other such publications, which always seem to start from the perspective that he's a nutter and its downhill from there..terry wogan etc etc.

Having read some of his books and articles myself, I happen to believe that he is an intelligent researcher & writer who is driven by compassion and a sense of exasperation at how fooked up this world is.

Ickes main driving theory is that this world is run by covert dictatorship
(The New World Order), and the royal bloodlines continue to play a key role in that, although according to Icke, they are not at the top of the pyramid by a long shot. He discusses at length the mechanisms that are used to covertly manipulate world events and keep people in a dumbed down state of hypnosis, completely ignorant of what he calls "the elephant in the living room", the evidence that is hidden in plain view. He backs up what he writes with extensive research and references.

Icke is far from being the only proponent of this theory, but he seems to be the most notable one and therefore the whipping boy for ridicule.

His research also covers spiritual areas, such as the nature of consciousness and how the conspiracy is controlled from dimensions beyond the physical 3d reality we live in.

I would love to hear opinions from anyone who is seriously interested researching this material themselves.

peace.

www.davidicke.com

the news section is quite interesting and quite a lot of his articles are published on the website.

subway

i watched a 10 hour video of a seminar of his.
he is a 10 on the insane-o-meter

i notice you conveniently left out the "anyone in power anywhere is a giant lizard" bit?

his ideas are the same old rehashed illuminati/bilderberg/zionists/capitalists thing with a slightly zanier slant.

layke

I've seen some of his lectures via webcast which are well thought out and do make sense, however:


GREAT LIZARD GODS.... nutter.

jessop1

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. I can understand that and I'm not saying I fully believe it myself but I try to keep an open mind.

I definately do believe that the force that is in control of this world is deeply sick and deeply evil. One thing that Icke says that really rings true for me is that true humans have compassion; neither I nor anyone I know are capable morally of inflicting untold suffering and yet look at what the zionist cabal has been doing since the beginning of history to this day, mass murder of innocents without remorse, horrific weaponry like depleted uranium, cluster bombs and dead women and babies left right and centre, not to mention the utterly sickeing effects of radiation, birth defects, cancer rates etc.

The forces in control of america/britain/israel do this continually all the while supporting israel through the mainstream media propagand machine, which they own totally.

I'm not saying that the arab nations or russia / china /korea and all the rest etc are any better, I'd agree with Icke that the same evil force is ultimately in control of these nations as well... the point I am making is that they carry out inhuman acts as par for the course.. so maybe they are not human.

and as you have intimated yourself, the more conventional aspects of his theories are well written and researched...

bonkey

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

So Glad

Yeah I watched one of his lectures for hours yesterday and my brain hurts.

Through it all, I have to say the man in a genius. His image has forever been tainted through idiotic media and closed-minded scientists alike who believe the whole world is a complete accident and spirituality is non-exsistant.

All of his presentations are well represented and researched and his explanations about vibrations and sound being the origins of life truly amazes me. When it got around to the whole llizard thing I got turned off purely because the isn't enough eveidence but he has come across many people who have witnessed that so that in itself is enough reason for him to believe but that is another thing.

I think David Icke should not be rediculed as he is a very good answer to the worlds problems and I think the media have gone out of their way to shut him up so they wont have to question their lifestyles.

Alot like what Bill Hicks went through.

Listen to David Icke. He is good. You will learn things.

jessop1

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?

anyhoo, you have your facts way wrong on ickes writings - V = mid 80's - Ickes 1st books focussing on the reptilian theories - mid to late 90s - before that he had written extensively on the nature of consciousness and how its trapped within a virtual reality - that blows your matrix theories out of the water too. I'm not sure if you have read much if any of his writings.

You are also condeming ickes non-reptilian writings, which you have not read, because you find his reptilian theories (which you have not read either) unfathomable. Its hard to see how we can debate fourther on the topic if this remains your stance.

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? Just open your mind a little - actually read some of Ickes reptilian and non-reptilian writings before condeming them - thats all I can ask.

Theres not much point in us tit-4-tating on the other points - suffice it to say that deep evil does exist and it is being and has been perpetrated by world leaders as long as history has been recorded. I find it easy to believe that is inhuman in nature as well as inhumane.

I am interested in your point that evil existed before life... do you mean biological life? would you agree that consciousness existed before biological life also?

cheers
Jess

So Glad

I was just thinking.

When we think of life in outer space nowadays it is relatively acceptable to asume life exsists on other planets, if not solar systems, due to the overwhelming size and prosperity of the universe. It is also widely assumed that when this lifeform is eventually encountered, its appearance, and possibly intellegence, would differ dramatically to the human race.

Why is it that when someone comes forward with actual evidence to support such a claim, he is ridiculed? I mean, we weren't expecting carbon copies of ourselves on distant planets so why should blood hungry reptiles be SO unlikely? Alot of animals on Earth drink blood. What is so hard to understand?

And for people who would expectedly ask "What evidence?" I would highly recommend watching David Icke's videos on YouTube or searching for stuff to read on the internet or, god forbid, part with a small sum of money for knowledge and buy one of his books.

Thats all.

Gordon

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.

So Glad

Gordon wrote:

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.

Neither can I. I really don't think the royal family and other politicians are half reptile but in terms of David Icke's "Illuminati" being at the top of the pyramid of knowledge and politicians only half way up maybe for them to exsist they would be in recluse?

I'd say reptiles walking in broad daylight would cause a bit of confusion.

Don't get too caught up in his whole reptile thing because it is only a theory, one he doesn't go on about much because it usually overcasts everything else he says. Still, he has reason to believe so.

Gordon

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.

So Glad

Gordon wrote:

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.

Ah, thats a shame but sadly I have to agree.

jessop1

I can certainly see why people would think that way, but as I've said earlier, you really have to read and review the research before you can arrive at an informed opinion on it. Its hard to take seriously any comments detracting or supporting his work if you have not actually reviewed it.

Gordon

jessop1 wrote:

I can certainly see why people would think that way, but as I've said earlier, you really have to read and review the research before you can arrive at an informed opinion on it. Its hard to take seriously any comments detracting or supporting his work if you have not actually reviewed it.

If you're talking about me then I didn't offer an informed opinion, I said that I'm not interested in taking this guy seriously if he seriously believes that there is a population of people out there in human flesh suits.

jessop1

I'm not talking about you specifically, I'm just saying in general, people have a natural tendancy to form opinions denouncing radical ideas without looking at the substance. It wouldnt hurt to look at the research and if after that you still think its BS you can confidently denounce it.

Gordon

jessop1 wrote:

I'm not talking about you specifically, I'm just saying in general, people have a natural tendancy to form opinions denouncing radical ideas without looking at the substance. It wouldnt hurt to look at the research and if after that you still think its BS you can confidently denounce it.

jessop1, can you give me a link to at least one idea of his that you agree with and think he puts across his point well? I checked out that website but it has so many links and articles I'm not going to waste time sifting through the lizard crap just to get to a good article.

Thanks

jessop1

Some of his convetional theories I that I think are well presented and I think hold water, based on the evidence given:

The 911 conspiracy

The Murder of Princess Diana

CIA Mind control programs and how they are still being widely used covertly today (MKUltra)

The deeply corrupt origins of the world wildlife fund (sponsored by prince philip) which has been used as a tool to covertly manipulate wars and mass genocide throughout the continent of Africa

Occult / Satanist rituals involving prominent world figures (politicians, royals, big players in finance, media etc) and including the rape, murder and ritual sacrifice of children. He also outlines little publicised facts regarding the number of children who go missing each year which would truly shock you

His research into the propogation of the royal bloodlines from ancient history to today, which included detailed genealogical research (for eg, did you know that something like 3 qtrs of all american presidents are direct descendants of britains king george or frances charlemaigne?? - this also applies to the also rans - bush and john kerry are both related to the queen of england, as is clinton - same usually applies to the presidential spouses - baring in mind that america is a county of close to 300million people any of whom could become president, that is some coincidence)

All of this is covered in great detail in his book the biggest secret. I would advise you to read this, but I will find some links on this stuff on his website. - its filtered by websense filter here in work (under category of "nutters".. only jokin!) - but I will certainly post a link this evening. You could also check out the youtube vidoes posted by so glad

Gordon

I can't really watch Youtube videos that easily but I'll check out some of those stories on his website.

Actually, after trying to read some of the links on the menu it seems that he doesn't actually have any content to read up on. He simply links to youtube and newspaper clippings.

Does he have any content on that site?

jessop1

I think parts of his website are under construction, it underwent a re-vamp recently; anyhoo, I will find summat and post tonight, in the meantime, I hope the icke research topics I have posted will spark your interest enough to research these areas for yourself, as I said the biggest secret is a fascinating read, even if you are starting from the assumption that icke is a nut. I urge you to give it a go. If after that you still think its BS, I will bother you no more!

jessop1

In the meantime, check out the news section on his website - you have to scroll down a bit to get to the latest news stories, they are a very wothwhile read

So Glad

Gordon wrote:

I can't really watch Youtube videos that easily but I'll check out some of those stories on his website.

Actually, after trying to read some of the links on the menu it seems that he doesn't actually have any content to read up on. He simply links to youtube and newspaper clippings.

Does he have any content on that site?

Unfortunatly, reading all of these things is the only way to come across his evidence. You see, to support such allegations one would need a whole lot of evidence to support it so either reading his stuff or watching these very long videos would be an excellent way to observe his evidence. Evidence that is high in abundance. I really recommend watching at least one of these videos (Preferably the first part) to get a taste of what he is about. He is an interesting speaker so you hopefully wont get bored halfway through.

David Icke (Part 1) The intro is cheesy, yes.

David Icke (Part 2)

David Icke (Part 3)

David Icke (Part 4)

David Icke (Part 5)

David Icke (Part 6)

Give em' a go.

So Glad

It's also worth pointing out that many other people have written topics of the same nature about aliens seeding humanity. Authors such as Graham Hancock and stuff. It's a well accepted theory.

The Sphinx and pyramids and stuff.

Kernel

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'.

So Glad

Kernel wrote:

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'.

Resisting arrest as in "What did I do wrong?".

Time for Google to shine.

bonkey

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

So Glad

Bonkey,

There is no real need to analyze every scentence of jessop1's posts. I am not giving out but the only way for you to argue the credibility of David Icke's writtings is to read them (or watch them), not argue with jessop1, who is trying to get you to read this stuff.

To say "maybe if you repeat it often enough, it will become true" is a perfect way to decribe knowledge through media. If you will not accept David Icke's theories for the mere fact that it is being repeated often, how can you rely on everything else you have been thought and know? And don't say "Because they have evidence" because David Icke has evidence also. You just have to read it.

I'm not refering to reptiles by the way. I have real trouble accepting that one.

jessop1

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

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.

Can you let us know what you think of those.

thanks

bonkey

So Glad wrote:

There is no real need to analyze every scentence of jessop1's posts.
I am not giving out but the only way for you to argue the credibility of David Icke's writtings is to read them (or watch them), not argue with jessop1, who is trying to get you to read this stuff.

I already pointed out to Jessop1 in the resources thread at the top of this forum that I have no interest in discussing Icke's work by proxy. If someone wants to put forward their opinions on Icke's work, I'll discuss those points. If Mr. Icke wants to come here, I'll discuss his writing with him.

I will not, however, engage in a reubttal of the man's entire set of work because someone gave me a link to it and said something to the effect of "This stuff is good. If you disagree give details why not". The content of such a post can be summarised with "this stuff is good". I see no reason why "no its not. Its bad" is any less detailed a response. Therefore it should be absolutely acceptable unless we're being held to dual standards here.

So yes, there is a need to answer jessop1s posts fully, just as tehre is a need to answer yours - that being because its what I'm willing to discuss. If you want me to discuss specifics of Ickes work, then you put them in your post, and I'll discuss them. Of course, if all you give is copy/paste of something Icke wrote, I'll probably just copy/past somethign else he wrote and say that this still shows he's a nutter.

In short, if you're too lazy to make an argument, I'm damned if I'm going to put greater effort into rebutting it. If his stuff is as good and as worthwhile as you say then I cannot understand why you don't believe its worth a few minutes of your time to flesh out the detail of why.

To say "maybe if you repeat it often enough, it will become true" is a perfect way to decribe knowledge through media. If you will not accept David Icke's theories for the mere fact that it is being repeated often, how can you rely on everything else you have been thought and know?

You seem to be attacking a point you'd like me to have made rather than one I did. I was pointnig out that Jessop1's repeated insistence that I haven't read any of the material will not alter reality and make it so.

If jessop1 would like to engage in explaining why it is clear - again offering reasoning rather than a bald statement - then I'll be happy to discuss those points, but again I'm not going to put any more effort in at this point than I'm seeing on the other side.

And don't say "Because they have evidence" because David Icke has evidence also.

As I commented regarding Jessop1's use of a similar term previously, it is enlightening to see what your standards are regarding what constitutes evidence.

You just have to read it.

I've read some of it (as I keep saying, and as you and jessop keep ignoring). Repeating myself further, I have been thoroughly unimpressed.

All the "evidence" I've seen amounts to supposition, speculation, and alleged (mostly second-hand or worse) anecdotes....at best.

If you think I'm being evasive, then maybe you should re-read your own posts and look at how much detail you've offered in the points I'm responding to. When you start giving me detail, I'll start going to the effort of returning the courtesy.

In the meantime, if you want to fault me for adopting your very own tactics of making bald statements with no detailed backup....thats fine by me too. I'm quite happy for you to make the case that the methodology I've borrowed from you and jessop1 is unquestionably a weak way of forming an argument.

I'm not refering to reptiles by the way. I have real trouble accepting that one.

Well what are you referring to then? Am I supposed to guess?

Is this a new variant of the tactic used on the 911 threads where something something is presented, I (or others) refute it, and then the "Aha...but what about.....(drum roll) THIS!" response comes and we start the loop over?

Now, instead of that, I can pick what bits to rebut, rebut them, and then you can just say "No, no, that wasn't the stuff I was referring to either. he has made some good points, which if you'd read his work you'd know."

If there's stuff you think has a solid case made for it, then point it out and make the (supposedly solid) case. At that point, I'll tell you what issues (if any) I have with those points. However, when you insist on hiding behind a lack of specificity, I'll return the favour and keep on being just as vague.

jc

bonkey

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

please see my post at 14:49 yesterday

edit / post no 17 on THIS thread

bonkey

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

Gordon

jessop1 wrote:

I think parts of his website are under construction, it underwent a re-vamp recently; anyhoo, I will find summat and post tonight

Did you find any good content for me? I still can't watch those Youtube videos.

So Glad

Well I wasn't going to go into much detail regarding his stuff because I thought the videos of him telling you his ideas would be good enough but I suppose I should go through this with you.

His basic theories revolve around a pattern of "hidden organizations" controlling the world. It should be obvious enought that the world is not an open society, no matter what you think (I would go into this more but I think it should be obvious enough without going off topic). Nor is democracy "Freedom". It simply isn't.

What David Icke researches into is a royal bloodline that traces back thousands of years that relates back to present-day politicains and world leaders (all in his books, also others such as "Holy Blood, Holy Grail"). He continuosly portrays the worlds knowledge as a pyramid. "Ordinary" working-class people would be at the very bottom of the pyramid, knowing the least, whilst politicians (who we think of as having ultimate power) are just below the tip whilst the people at the top have complete control over what information is released to the politicians and therefore, what information is passed on to us. The tip of the pyramid is what David Icke considers as the "Illuminati" or "Enlightened Ones" and they have controll over us and our world.

The "Illuminati" have changed it's name over the years to other societies such as The Freemasons among others but they have always maintained member high in office such as bankers, media people and politicians. These societies are synonymous with strange satanic rituals and sacrifices that are well documented, such as Bohemian Grove where many famous members of politics and media gathered to preform rituals to an Owl god.

Masonic symbolism is very important to Freemasons and other societies alike to inform other members of their presence. Such blatent imagery can be found in Washington D.C. (I recommend reading or looking at all the pictures on that one, real shocker) and in London and Paris also (Can be Googled, read or watched in the links I gave previously in other posts).

As for reptilian humanoids David Icke, along with many other authors, speculate that life was seeded here by aliens and through that other aliens mated with humans to create strange human-alien creatures. This is not an outlandish theme because it was decribed in the bible itself among endless other religious books. People such as Graham Hancock and Credo Mutwa (Watch videos in sequence, 1-48, 2-48 and so on) have researched ancient texts and buildings and have found many indications of alien intervention.

David Icke, with this knowledge, then speculates that the Illuminati itself is this "Reptilian" race that controls this extra-terrestrial knowledge and their aim is to keep the human race out of the knowledge meant for us so they can control us and turn us into "mind-controled robots" for their own use.

That is the gist of it.

So Glad

Gordon wrote:

Did you find any good content for me? I still can't watch those Youtube videos.

Previous post.

Gordon

Well it sure does sound interesting!

So does David Icke not actually have any online material I can read then? Every link seems to take me to other people's websites. I'd like to read Ickes information, it's strange that he doesn't have any online. Please don't tell me to buy his book again!

So Glad

Gordon wrote:

Well it sure does sound interesting!

So does David Icke not actually have any online material I can read then? Every link seems to take me to other people's websites. I'd like to read Ickes information, it's strange that he doesn't have any online. Please don't tell me to buy his book again!

It is strange that he has none on his site. Maybe it so you can buy them? But you can Google for all of this.

Why can't you watch YouTube vids? All of his stuff is there.

Gordon

So Glad wrote:

It is strange that he has none on his site. Maybe it so you can buy them? But you can Google for all of this.

Why can't you watch YouTube vids? All of his stuff is there.

Well I'm a real skeptic to be honest and this is one of the things I don't like, this is one reason why I don't trust David Icke. He makes completely ludicrous claims and expects you to buy his book and give him money.

Youtube videos - I can't watch them 99% of the time, I'm at work and at home the connection isn't fast enough.

If someone could provide me with actual written content by this David Icke guy I would probably make an effort to spend a little bit more money on my 56k connection at home and actually watch his videos but so far all you are giving is links to other people's theories, not his.

So Glad

Ok. I'll search about.

You can't help him for wanting money though. We all need to feed ourselves.

jessop1

bonkey, if you were really interested in an honest debate on ickes work, you you would engage on the topics I've mentioned. Do you think they are BS, would you like to discuss some of the aspects of the evidence to back up these claims? If you were serious you would be asking those types of questions, but all you are interested in doing is shooting me down with your sarcastic bile.

Gordon, the problem I've found is that most of his detailed research on the topics I've mentioned are in his books, I cant source excerpts online.

Besides, as So Glad has kindly taken the time to write synopsis below I think that should be sufficient to stimulate further debate and if you are still interested in investigating that or any of the topics I've mentioned after this you could look into getting hold of the book.

As I mentioned, the news section on Ickes website provides a very intersting analysis of current events. What did you think of it?

So Glad

Yeah, I can't find much of his work but I have found this site that revolves around Icke's work: David Icke E-Zine

You wouldn't expect an artist to give away his work for free so I'd say his work is copywrited.

Gordon

The news section, I tried to find it yesterday but I wasn't sure exactly what section you were talking about as you didn't give a link. You mentioned that it's on the bottom but there's loads of stuff on the bottom but no news links. There is a heading called Alternative News but it isn't a hyperlink.

Sorry for being blind but it's usually best to link to the pages from a website especially in this case where the website is a bit of a mess with ads and ambiguous links everywhere!

Gordon

So Glad wrote:

Yeah, I can't find much of his work but I have found this site that revolves around Icke's work: David Icke E-Zine

You wouldn't expect an artist to give away his work for free so I'd say his work is copywrited.

What are David Icke's intentions? Does he want to show people the truth or does he want to make money or both?

jessop1

Gordon, heres the link to the news section, you need to scroll down the page to get to the latest news headline stories

http://www.davidicke.com/content/blogcategory/30/48

I think Icke is always going to have that question asked of him, but as so glad says, he has to pay bills and put food on the table like everyone else.

As I understand it, he lives in a 1 bedroom flat and is by no means loaded, I have no doubt he is not in this game for the money, if he'd stayed with bbc as a presenter he would be much better off financially by now and a lot less ridiculed. But you'd be surprised how many people are cocking their ears up at what he has to say these days...

So Glad

If your interested in David Icke and his intentions, here is his biography, courtesy of Wikipedia, your real god.

Gordon

Ah I missed that link, cheers jessop1.

Well, I'm half way down that page and all I'm seeing is snippets of text with links to external sites again. He doesn't have any content on his site, that's official.

Unless I get my hands on those videos I'll give him a miss, thanks guys.

So Glad

Actually, I wonder if David Icke still does lectures because I'd love to see him.

Kernel

Bonkey = Killer of conspiracy threads.

So Glad

Kernel wrote:

Bonkey = Killer of conspiracy threads.

Eh, not really, no.

Or maybe he is planning a come-back special?

jessop1

Kernel wrote:

Bonkey = Killer of conspiracy threads.

you can kill any debate using the tactics of bonkey. If we all disect each others posts and respond with long winded diatribe to each sentence, the exponential rate of increase in the size of each subsequent post would soon make debate prohibitive.

Its tiresome to have to respond to that type of attitude and anyway bonkey is not interested in debating the details of ickes theories, as you say, all he/she wants to do is kill the debate.

jessop1

By the way So Glad, Icke still does the odd lecture, he did one in London in May, I was at it and it was quite good..9 hours long. Like his books, his communication style was articulate, intelligent and his assertions backed up with verifiable facts.

Gordon

I find bonkey to be one of, if not the most unbiased posters on boards. He researches or has researched everything he posts about and seems to base his argument not on his point of view but on the facts. Sometimes I think he plays the devil's advocate simply to understand both sides of the argument better. I really don't think he wants to kill debate - he just wants a more informed debate.

It's a shame you're dismissing him but it's difficult to have a discussion about Icke if he has very little information and writings online. Simply telling someone to buy Icke's book and read his whole website is pointless, it just won't happen.

jessop1, you really should pick at least one point that Icke makes and provide his core explanations if you truly want to determine whether we think he is a 'nutter' or not. Asking us about our thoughts on him and then telling us to read his book if we don't agree with him is not a good argument.

I really would be interested in going to a lecture of Icke out of morbid curiosity, however I get the impression that it would be like the pyramid schemes speeches I was invited to some time ago. You hear a bit of talk and if you want to hear more you pay money. How much does Icke charge for his lectures?