Credibility of Ickes footnotes

[sam bless]

When Icke makes a claim to something, for example:

'The Queen one time over come with blood lust, severed the young boys kneck with her own bare teeth'

and you follow the footnote number to the end of the chapter and it just says:

'so and so said that in this book they wrote' or 'a person i met while travelling in new zealand told me'

oviously they aren't actual quotes (although the queen quote is fairly accurate) you get the idea of what i mean. can he present as fact something he's only read in another book? isn't that exactly the same principle as the news reporter repeaters he talks about?

i'm not slating Icke, some of his information has transformed the way i view things, but i can't accept conjecture presented as fact. anybody else have the same issue?

also, what does it mean when a footnote number is just 'ibid'??

[zero1]

also, what does it mean when a footnote number is just 'ibid'??

"Ibid" is an abbreviation of a latin word meaning "the same place", in reference to a citation of a source.

As for your questions about Icke's books, you've stumped me with the "conjecture" and "fact" bit.

Research your own material, if you doubt Icke's.

[sam bless]

thank you for clearing up that ibid thing.

he uses footnotes to back up points made with he source of evidence.

but most of the time its just sourcing other peoples books.

[zero1]

thank you for clearing up that ibid thing.

No probs.

he uses footnotes to back up points made with he source of evidence. but most of the time its just sourcing other peoples books.

Well, um, you'd find if you read a lot that most sources cited in scholarly texts, that is texts written as "fact" not fiction or "conjecture", are other non-fiction books (scholarly texts). Icke presents his material as fact, and thus cites what he considers legitimate texts in support of his content.

There is nothing unusual in this.

Except perhaps, that it is conspiracy theory material, of course...

;):)

[tom bombadil]

Hi sam bless.

For me, when I read a book in the past, I would take it for granted that any 'thank you's' or reference points at the back of the books were gosple. Why would the author lie after all?

When I read Ickes books, he asked us to believe a lot of mind-blowing stuff that to me needed proof. He knew this, and is why Icke presents the 'facts' or connection to the 'facts' at the end of each chapter and not at the back of the book. Its a way of saying to the reader that 'you can at this point, close the book and see for yourselves if you dont beleive me'.

It is truley up to the reader to see for themselves, because if you dont bother, you run the risk of believing just another quack for the sake of it, when you were told not to, you dummies (:)) at the front of the books.


I have looked into those claims too sam bless, and it has to be said that they do ring true. I started with the stuff I did already know about (I thought) and looked at as to how his views could differ from the 'norm'. After locating a few books, it made sense in a new way. So I looked further into his other views that I did not know much of and found common sense prevailed.

Also (but not inclusivly) one has at some point to aplaude an author and start to stand by their works before the homework is carried out. Who would, in their right mind, continue buying books from someone that they dont trust?


Also, one should not fall for the old trick of not beleiving a statement from a 'witness' that is dressed like a clown, and taking for granted that the man in the suit can be trusted. The newsreader will only tell the story how they wish to present it, but a truth-sayer will tell you warts and all.


I know that you might have been wanting to know if I or others think the same way, but I thught you might like to hear from a former sceptic :cool:



Tom.

[void]

My view is that David, after being very much doubted himself once,probably now listens to anyone with an alternative view of events (however wacky) and will quote them rather quickly because he once also wanted to be heard.

I remember reading some things in one of his books being passed as fact regarding Clinton and Bush Snr, some children, and a soldier asked to jump to his death from a copter. No I can't say for sure it was just the elaborate fantasy imagination of someone he chatted with, or not. But the way the conversations between Clinton and Bush Snr were presented, just seemed like fiction to me. I tried hard to entertain the possibility of what was detailed, but I couldn't help but think that these storys were coming from someone who has indeed gone through traumatic events at some stage but has filled in the gaps with bizzare creations of the mind involving top figures.

And don't get me started on the suggestion that the name of the singer Box Car Willie was a symbolic code for a place where children were raped (it was something like that in the book, anyway). I've heard along the grape vine that Kris Kristofferson is the target of some weird accusations via David, too?

Kris is the Rubber Duck in Convoy. :)

I've seen some articles from energy healers who have said this is often found in their work. In the energetic tears or ruptures of someone where trauma exists (extreme or violent household rows during very early childhood or early humiliation), the mind tries to fill in the gaps and can do so with all kinds of Ritualised Satanic Abuse stories that from the healer's clairvoyance are found to be rooted in some other traumas entirely, that are far less dramatic.

And they've found that their patients are often furious at the bubble bursting because they've fostered these ideas and may even thrive on the attention it gives them to be allegedly victims of such a thing (especially if presidents).

Trauma, but not organized Satanic abuse. The sources that David gave for that particular one, were from a particular edition of an alternative magazine if memory serves, being used. Not exactly scholarly investigation. Pretty much just someone's story. I could write such a story for the next edition.

When there is a gap, people want to fill it, and explanations that are dramatic can be slotted in. I also watched the full series of videos with that Credo Mutwa fella, and although some parts of it were interesting, there were far too many areas which are similar to what I've encountered in other cultures where all kinds of local views are believed to explain things. Thais for example wouldn't dream of going into forests at night, because of the storys of entitys with sharp teeth that come and start eating your intestines.

If David 'truly' doesn't mind if people see things he presents as fact or fiction, then I'd hope I have the right to dismiss what I think is pure fantasy along with accepting certain things he's put forward in more recent times. Nobody should be upset about people not believing everything he puts out there, if that is the choice supposedly given to us.

I like that people with unusual versions of events are given an ear, but just because someone has an alternative version of events doesn't automatically mean that alternative version is the misrepresented truth. That's all I'd say.

[eyecelll]

He's not presenting anything as a fact except that "infinite love is the only truth, everything else is illusion". Go ahead and research for yourself, and better start with yourself - The Self.

[gilly]

I think if you include information from other books in your writing, you're obliged to state the source.

[diamondgeezer]

I've heard along the grape vine that Kris Kristofferson is the target of some weird accusations via David, too?

Kris is the Rubber Duck in Convoy. :)


:rolleyes:Rubber Reptilian according to David...

[anthony65]

When Icke makes a claim to something, for example:

'The Queen one time over come with blood lust, severed the young boys kneck with her own bare teeth'

and you follow the footnote number to the end of the chapter and it just says:

'so and so said that in this book they wrote' or 'a person i met while travelling in new zealand told me'

oviously they aren't actual quotes (although the queen quote is fairly accurate) you get the idea of what i mean. can he present as fact something he's only read in another book? isn't that exactly the same principle as the news reporter repeaters he talks about?

i'm not slating Icke, some of his information has transformed the way i view things, but i can't accept conjecture presented as fact. anybody else have the same issue?

also, what does it mean when a footnote number is just 'ibid'??

I just started reading Children of the Matrix and I find the sources at the end of each chapter very helpful.

Ibid? David even explains it himself in the book, but why not look it up? We are all researchers after all... ;)

ibid

Definition
Editorial device used in citations and references to indicate the last work cited, thus avoiding repetition of the author's name and title. Abbreviated form of the Latin 'ibidem,' in the same place.

I understand what you mean about conjecture and fact, but David is simply presenting the information he feels relevant in the style he feels appropriate. I do find it a bit irritating sometimes when he writes something and then adds in a sarky comment at the end. "Oh yeah?". I don't find this necessary, but that's part of his style I suppose.

The title of your thread could easily be "Credibility of Footnotes". David's are comprehensive, which I find excellent, and if you read that the source is some bloke David met somewhere, and you don't know much about said bloke, then put a question mark against the information presented.

In fact, put a question mark against all information, sometimes big question marks and sometimes small ones.

David puts across his information very powerfuly, which is very entertaining, but could lead to carelessness on the part of the reader, especially if new to a particular subject. I would say that David's books can be read very carefully, chapter by chapter (and the index is also very comprehensive).

Take David's information as input /inspiration for further research. I'm sure he would be disappointed in his readers if they just took his word as gospel.

And if you really disagree with something he writes, then identify why you disagree and follow it up!

He's only human...

But his books present an incredible wealth of information and links to more...

What's my wife going to say when the new Amazon orders come through? :o

[joy division]

maybe its just bullshit?

im starting to look at it like so.

[nightwalker]

What do you mean?

[joy division]

What do you mean?

All of it maybe?

Coiuld we be getting taken for a ride.

[nightwalker]

By David you mean?

I dont think everything he says is true but from my own research and experiences he definitely has some of it right in my humble view.

[diamondgeezer]

maybe its just bullshit?

im starting to look at it like so.

My opinion, on the whole 'conspiracy' thing..

Not all of it is bullshit, but a lot certainly is. The vast majority probably.
Lets face it...however all this stuff started out (9/11 was probably the trigger, co-inciding with the massive spurt in growth of the WWW yes?), its now just gone OTT, got completely out of hand.

:rolleyes:Any daft notion anyone can dream up on a sunny shit-faced afternoon now makes it into the realms of accepted 'conspiracy theory'..., result of the crazy petri dish the internet has become...

[anthony65]

My opinion, on the whole 'conspiracy' thing..

Not all of it is bullshit, but a lot certainly is. The vast majority probably.
Lets face it...however all this stuff started out (9/11 was probably the trigger, co-inciding with the massive spurt in growth of the WWW yes?), its now just gone OTT, got completely out of hand.

:rolleyes:Any daft notion anyone can dream up on a sunny shit-faced afternoon now makes it into the realms of accepted 'conspiracy theory'..., result of the crazy petri dish the internet has become...

You're talking out of your avatar... :rolleyes:

It started with 9/11? :confused:

Hardly!

Conspiracies are as old as civilization.

Conspiracy theories are the attempts to identify and unravel the conspiracies.

Again. As old as civilization.

The craziest conspiracy theory of all is that there are no conspiracies.

Does anyone know of any "conspiracy theories" that are older than September 2001? :p

[zyphus]

maybe its just bullshit?

im starting to look at it like so.

The conspiracy scene is a conspiracy itself in my opinion..

And this is coming from someone who could find a conspiracy in an empty pocket once over..

[diamondgeezer]

You're talking out of your avatar... :rolleyes:

It started with 9/11? :confused:

Hardly!

Conspiracies are as old as civilization.

Conspiracy theories are the attempts to identify and unravel the conspiracies.

Again. As old as civilization.

The craziest conspiracy theory of all is that there are no conspiracies.

Does anyone know of any "conspiracy theories" that are older than September 2001? :p

:rolleyes:Get real..

I'm talking about the last ten years or so, since 9/11 /the internet explosion/forums like this, and you damn well know it! So perhaps there were conspiracies 'thousands of years ago', as 'old as civilation', but nowhere on this scale..

:pI'd be interested in hearing about some of these ancient CT's you mention actually...come on then, lets hear em!

[romas]

Pearl Harbour

[anthony65]

:rolleyes:Get real..

I'm talking about the last ten years or so, since 9/11 /the internet explosion/forums like this, and you damn well know it! So perhaps there were conspiracies 'thousands of years ago', as 'old as civilation', but nowhere on this scale..

:pI'd be interested in hearing about some of these ancient CT's you mention actually...come on then, lets hear em!

I accept your challenge Sir Geezer! :D

** The scale may have changed in recent years due to the Internet; or maybe it hasn't?

I'd guess that 50 years ago, 100 years ago or 200 years ago there were rumours, stories, pamphlets, books etc. that criticized the powers that be and offered alternatives.

Funnily enough I'd guess that there are currently less people who interest themselves for "conspiracies" than 50 or 100 years ago. What has changed is that those who do have an interest have access to more information than they ever had before.

I suppose we get down to the old chestnut of how to define a conspiracy?

Isn't a conspiracy simply 2 or more people conspiring to achieve something in a secretive fashion?

Name me the church, royal court, town hall, business etc. that has been free of conspiracy?

A conspiracy older than 2001... :rolleyes:

Smoking does not cause lung cancer

Asbestos is not a health risk

Agent orange is safe

JFK was not killed by Lee Harvey Oswald

And a million more, great and small...

I'm currently reading David Icke's Children of the Matrix, pre 9/11. He wasn't short of conspiracy material...

Protocols of Zion....

Been doing the rounds for more than a hundred years and still relevant...

[danster82]

thank you for clearing up that ibid thing.

he uses footnotes to back up points made with he source of evidence.

but most of the time its just sourcing other peoples books.

When you learn how to write reports there are diffrent types of sources in the end it is just that a source it doesnt matter where it comes from, but in research their are higher sources such as previous studys and papers and lower sources such as internet sources. So if the source doesnt have validity for you then thats ok that was the whole point in looking up the source and if all the sources do not hold validity for you then the validity of the researcher should also go down by your own judgement

[romas]

As for David his work is a massive allegory imo, sort of like a gospel, fact/fiction mix based on good morals and intentions.

People are looking for entertainment and that's what they get, nobody is looking for truth.

[sam bless]

the first 'conspiracy' i remember as a child was dianas death but nobody i knew had the internet back then. isn't the freedom of imformation act only a recent thing?

[sam bless]

When you learn how to write reports there are diffrent types of sources in the end it is just that a source it doesnt matter where it comes from, but in research their are higher sources such as previous studys and papers and lower sources such as internet sources. So if the source doesnt have validity for you then thats ok that was the whole point in looking up the source and if all the sources do not hold validity for you then the validity of the researcher should also go down by your own judgement

thanks, so good suggestions and info. the way i was approaching the books was these footnotes were presented as proof of that particular sentances factuality and i was struggling accepting that, but what you've said makes sense.

[anthony65]

the first 'conspiracy' i remember as a child was dianas death but nobody i knew had the internet back then. isn't the freedom of imformation act only a recent thing?

The thing is it's not a conspiracy unless you question it.

I'd say that pretty much everything is a conspiracy to some extent.

Problem Reaction Solution.

Britain's entry into the European Community. I was only a kid, so I never imagined there was an ulterior motive...

Bilderberg is hardly new!

The Falklands War... Seemed a bit fishy at the time, but back then I believed that the British were always the good guys...

Fishy? The Cod War! :p Now what was that all about I wonder! :confused:

[runciter]

My view is that David, after being very much doubted himself once,probably now listens to anyone with an alternative view of events (however wacky) and will quote them rather quickly because he once also wanted to be heard.

I remember reading some things in one of his books being passed as fact regarding Clinton and Bush Snr, some children, and a soldier asked to jump to his death from a copter. No I can't say for sure it was just the elaborate fantasy imagination of someone he chatted with, or not. But the way the conversations between Clinton and Bush Snr were presented, just seemed like fiction to me. I tried hard to entertain the possibility of what was detailed, but I couldn't help but think that these storys were coming from someone who has indeed gone through traumatic events at some stage but has filled in the gaps with bizzare creations of the mind involving top figures.

And don't get me started on the suggestion that the name of the singer Box Car Willie was a symbolic code for a place where children were raped (it was something like that in the book, anyway). I've heard along the grape vine that Kris Kristofferson is the target of some weird accusations via David, too?

Kris is the Rubber Duck in Convoy. :)

I've seen some articles from energy healers who have said this is often found in their work. In the energetic tears or ruptures of someone where trauma exists (extreme or violent household rows during very early childhood or early humiliation), the mind tries to fill in the gaps and can do so with all kinds of Ritualised Satanic Abuse stories that from the healer's clairvoyance are found to be rooted in some other traumas entirely, that are far less dramatic.

And they've found that their patients are often furious at the bubble bursting because they've fostered these ideas and may even thrive on the attention it gives them to be allegedly victims of such a thing (especially if presidents).

Trauma, but not organized Satanic abuse. The sources that David gave for that particular one, were from a particular edition of an alternative magazine if memory serves, being used. Not exactly scholarly investigation. Pretty much just someone's story. I could write such a story for the next edition.

When there is a gap, people want to fill it, and explanations that are dramatic can be slotted in. I also watched the full series of videos with that Credo Mutwa fella, and although some parts of it were interesting, there were far too many areas which are similar to what I've encountered in other cultures where all kinds of local views are believed to explain things. Thais for example wouldn't dream of going into forests at night, because of the storys of entitys with sharp teeth that come and start eating your intestines.

If David 'truly' doesn't mind if people see things he presents as fact or fiction, then I'd hope I have the right to dismiss what I think is pure fantasy along with accepting certain things he's put forward in more recent times. Nobody should be upset about people not believing everything he puts out there, if that is the choice supposedly given to us.

I like that people with unusual versions of events are given an ear, but just because someone has an alternative version of events doesn't automatically mean that alternative version is the misrepresented truth. That's all I'd say.

i think organized ritual abuse is real, and plays a central role in the sabbatean frankist illuminati cult.

i'm not surprised that you saw this thread as an opportunity to promote denialist views on this subject.

[diamondgeezer]

I accept your challenge Sir Geezer! :D

** The scale may have changed in recent years due to the Internet; or maybe it hasn't?

I'd guess that 50 years ago, 100 years ago or 200 years ago there were rumours, stories, pamphlets, books etc. that criticized the powers that be and offered alternatives.

Funnily enough I'd guess that there are currently less people who interest themselves for "conspiracies" than 50 or 100 years ago. What has changed is that those who do have an interest have access to more information than they ever had before.

I suppose we get down to the old chestnut of how to define a conspiracy?

Isn't a conspiracy simply 2 or more people conspiring to achieve something in a secretive fashion?

Name me the church, royal court, town hall, business etc. that has been free of conspiracy?

A conspiracy older than 2001... :rolleyes:

Smoking does not cause lung cancer

Asbestos is not a health risk

Agent orange is safe

JFK was not killed by Lee Harvey Oswald

And a million more, great and small...

I'm currently reading David Icke's Children of the Matrix, pre 9/11. He wasn't short of conspiracy material...

Protocols of Zion....

Been doing the rounds for more than a hundred years and still relevant...

LOL you can't class the bolded as 'conspiracies' ffs...they're just examples of cause & effect...something happens/is made/comes along etc, and we question them/research them as time goes by. Tobacco for example, no-one knew the health risks from day one, or intended to get people addicted to nicotine or give them cancer whatever, they didn't know. Same goes for asbestos. What I'm saying is, there was no INTENT of harm at the time, yes..? *edit* They were merely the feeble attempts of governments/big corp/etc to cover up their initial fuck-ups to limit damage to themselves.

;)But that isn't the case with conspiracy theories today now is it...

[h2pogo]

All of it maybe?]





[Coiuld we be getting taken for a ride.

yes but not by DI

the first statement i ever heard from di was from an underground news source stating how the banking system works and how it is the root of all evil which through experience and research is 100% exactly as it is..so some of it may be but def not all of it...IMO

[anthony65]

LOL you can't class the bolded as 'cospiracies' ffs...they're just examples of cause & effect...something happens/is made/comes along etc, and we question them/research them as time goes by. Tobacco for example, no-one knew the health risks from day one, or intended to get people addicted to nicotine or give them cancer whatever, they didn't know. Same goes for asbestos. What I'm saying is, there was no INTENT of harm at the time, yes..?

;)But that isn't the case with conspiracy theories today now is it...

There wasn't a decades long cover up by the tobacco industry?

Asbestos wasn't used after they discovered it killed people?

They didn't know about the damage done by agent orange?

I'd say that in all of these cases there was "Intent" on the part of the manufacturers, their lobbyists and bought politicians to maximise profit despite knowledge of the damage this did to people. I'd call them murderers.

Add Thalidomide to the list.

http://www.vaccinetruth.org/thalpic2.jpg

And the anthrax vaccines given to soldiers in the Gulf War...

And countless other cases of criminal activities by Big Pharma...

[diamondgeezer]

There wasn't a decades long cover up by the tobacco industry?

Asbestos wasn't used after they discovered it killed people?

They didn't know about the damage done by agent orange?


See my edit in previous post...these people/corps/govt agencies merely attempted to gloss over their fuckups (and yes in the case of tobacco in particular, continue the attempt in the blinding face of science).

But those examples cannot be compared with the classic modern-day 'conspiracy' that is always a PRE-PLANNED intentional scheme, according to the theorists. ;)I do hope you can see the difference...

[anthony65]

See my edit in previous post...these people/corps/govt agencies merely attempted to gloss over their fuckups (and yes in the case of tobacco in particular, continue the attempt in the blinding face of science).

But those examples cannot be compared with the classic modern-day 'conspiracy' that is always a PRE-PLANNED intentional scheme, according to the theorists. ;)I do hope you can see the difference...

There are conspiracies of different scales.

But there were some big ones in the past as well.

Do you know the Rothschild quote about all conflicts of the 19th Century being Rothschild creations?

Waterloo and the money they made sowing rumours of a British defeat?

The American Civil War and the big money people backing both sides to ensure carnage and profits?

The American War of Independence? A few conspiracies there... Freemasons, Washington DC layout..

World War One... Doesn't get much bigger than that...

except maybe

World War Two...

The Opium Wars in China. What a crime that was!

The French Revolution?

Russian Revolution? Who paid for it? Who supported Trotsky and Lenin?

Post World War 2 Operation Paperclip and the Vatican Rat lines?

The Federal Reserve?

Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. The bombing of Cambodia?

USS Liberty?

The Balfour declaration?

What the fuck was the Crimean War really about?

The genocide of the Armenians?

Support for Stalin, the murderer of millions of Ukranian peasants?

And on and on...

[void]

i think organized ritual abuse is real, and plays a central role in the sabbatean frankist illuminati cult.

You "think". Doesn't nescessarily make it true (especially without evidence).

i'm not surprised that you saw this thread as an opportunity to promote denialist views on this subject.

"Opportunity"? "Promote"? "Denialist"? All that implys some kind of agenda. You're a laugh a minute, Runciter. Perhaps you're saying I'm an Infidel/Kuffar for not automatically believing every ' hear say' story that people may put forward?

[sannox]

See my edit in previous post...these people/corps/govt agencies merely attempted to gloss over their fuckups (and yes in the case of tobacco in particular, continue the attempt in the blinding face of science).

But those examples cannot be compared with the classic modern-day 'conspiracy' that is always a PRE-PLANNED intentional scheme, according to the theorists. ;)I do hope you can see the difference...


or the organisation of would be cover ups has been uncovered early .
theres no doubt about certain companies economic growth as a result of 911 or bird/swine flu .
so do bankers world leaders etc take part in rituals as part of some quasi religious order ,well if its ok to believe that christians take part in the drinking of christs blood etc why not ?
its also ok to say that the goverments of dictatorships and police states control their populations via fear and surveillance but ignore our own goverments increasing need for surveillance and fear spread by media .

did the queen rip somebodies throat out ? someone said she did apparentley
diana in her diaries said something along the lines of they arent human when describing the royals .

[broadperspective]

I think that David doesn't have a choice to point towards a written source because it's a pre-requisite for writers to do so if presenting evidence.

If I remember correctly, a writer can't just say stuff without adding a valid written reference.

[sam bless]

If I remember correctly, a writer can't just say stuff without adding a valid written reference.

but a written reference can't be something somebody just said in a book of there's or somebody emailed me and told me this. that was my issue

[broadperspective]

but a written reference can't be something somebody just said in a book of there's or somebody emailed me and told me this. that was my issue

Whatever is published is taken as material that can be used, it's official by the standards. Everything said in a book needs to be referenced, therefore the material David got.... needed to be referenced also !

Whether the information (published source) is right or wrong is unfortunately besides the point...it's just that it's a process that is needed to be done to adhere to the writer's code of conduct...or something like that.

[anthony65]

If a writer quotes directly from someone else's work then he's probably obliged to provide a reference.

But there's surely no obligation to provide sources for information that are received from personal encounters, personal correspondence, but providing it does give the reader a chance to weigh up the value of the information, so it's more of a courtesy thing.

And why not include this kind of experience?

You'd find it any number of biographies, autobiographies, newspaper articles.

It's up to us what we do with the information.

[sam bless]

Whether the information (published source) is right or wrong is unfortunately besides the point

no but that is my point. i understand what you are saying but, if what you say is true, then then to research the truth of something you have to trace these references back to where they started, but you cant because published works have to reference other published works (am i right in saying that?)

[paradise_1000]

Read educate BUT DO NOT take anything as truth ;)

[anthony65]

no but that is my point. i understand what you are saying but, if what you say is true, then then to research the truth of something you have to trace these references back to where they started, but you cant because published works have to reference other published works (am i right in saying that?)

Are you saying that a book can only reference another book? :confused:

A book can reference whatever the author wants it to reference...

conversations, observations, feelings, intuition, whatever...

David makes clear where he gets his information.

Then the reader makes up their own mind.

[runciter]

You "think". Doesn't nescessarily make it true (especially without evidence).



"Opportunity"? "Promote"? "Denialist"? All that implys some kind of agenda. You're a laugh a minute, Runciter. Perhaps you're saying I'm an Infidel/Kuffar for not automatically believing every ' hear say' story that people may put forward?

sadly, traumatizing little children through sexual abuse has many "magical" applications.

the difference between you and me is that i don't usually defend zionist (kabbalist?) childkillers.

[void]

sadly, traumatizing little children through sexual abuse has many "magical" applications.

Allegedly. Is it possible to produce evidence of this claim, beyond written claims?

the difference between you and me is that i don't usually defend zionist (kabbalist?) childkillers.

I know from the past that you deem Israel to be the "Zionist/Kabbalist childkiller" you refer to.

If so, let's respond as if that is who you are referring to.....

Most people wouldn't defend an individual (or small group) of U.S soldier's guilty of war crimes in Iraq, for example. But just because they don't defend the actions of those individuals or small groups doesn't mean that by extension they support the dismantling of the United States of America because of it. I hope you see what I'm getting at. I support Israel's continued existence. Doing so, means supporting the right of Israel to defend itself from attack, just as any country wishes to have the right to defend itself in the way it sees fit. Israel is wel known for taking two eyes for every eye of theirs taken. I would not disagree that this is a unique trait of Israel. The more you prick it, the harder it punches you back each time. Common sense would assume that the one who keeps pricking it would have after 60 years got this simple fact through its skull, and would not keep giving Israel an excuse each time to do that.

Instead, we see the opposite. We see a stubborn insistance to rid the middle east of Israel, even though Israel has shown quite blatantly that it ain't going anywhere unless voluntarily. More fool those who keep trying the same tactic on the state of Israel and expecting a different result every time, if you ask me. And damn them too, for bringing suffering on the heads of their own children with their politics. It's about time that the pricker stops doing what it has always been doing, and then wait and see if Israel just batters them without reason. If they did, then the previous prickers would be in a far better and fully legitimate position to wail that they were totally innocent.

Until then, they aren't and the same tactic keeps handing Israel openings for reacting like it does.

[sam bless]

Are you saying that a book can only reference another book? :confused:

A book can reference whatever the author wants it to reference...

conversations, observations, feelings, intuition, whatever...

David makes clear where he gets his information.

Then the reader makes up their own mind.

im not sure i'm articulating myself very well.
i look to the footnotes for the source of his information and 9 x out of 10 his evidence for his claims are things people have told him while he's 'visited over 40 countries' and things he's read in other books. i don't see that as evidence, that is my point. am i being any clearer? i strugle to get down as words what i mean alot of the time.

[anthony65]

im not sure i'm articulating myself very well.
i look to the footnotes for the source of his information and 9 x out of 10 his evidence for his claims are things people have told him while he's 'visited over 40 countries' and things he's read in other books. i don't see that as evidence, that is my point. am i being any clearer? i strugle to get down as words what i mean alot of the time.

No, I understand you perfectly.

I'm reading one of his books as well and I went to the trouble yesterday of writing down the books / articles he quoted in chapter one of Children of the Matrix.

Most of the sources given were definitely books (including Ibid of course! :)).

Ibid didn't half write a lot! :D

Tell me the David Icke book where 9 out of 10 quotes are from people he spoke to? Depends on the subject perhaps.

Not that I have anything against those kind of information sources.

Word of mouth is relevant as well, but David quotes hundreds (thousands) of books, articles, etc.

[diamondgeezer]

There are conspiracies of different scales.

But there were some big ones in the past as well.

Do you know the Rothschild quote about all conflicts of the 19th Century being Rothschild creations?

Waterloo and the money they made sowing rumours of a British defeat?

The American Civil War and the big money people backing both sides to ensure carnage and profits?

The American War of Independence? A few conspiracies there... Freemasons, Washington DC layout..

World War One... Doesn't get much bigger than that...

except maybe

World War Two...

The Opium Wars in China. What a crime that was!

The French Revolution?

Russian Revolution? Who paid for it? Who supported Trotsky and Lenin?

Post World War 2 Operation Paperclip and the Vatican Rat lines?

The Federal Reserve?

Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. The bombing of Cambodia?

USS Liberty?

The Balfour declaration?

What the fuck was the Crimean War really about?

The genocide of the Armenians?

Support for Stalin, the murderer of millions of Ukranian peasants?

And on and on...

OK point taken (on some of the above, not all)

But I think you are still failing to differentiate between the (normal lol) political manipulation/lies/warmongering that has always gone on (and lets face it they've never been any sort of big secret...we ALL know about WW1, Churchill sucking Stalins cock etc)...and *some of* the 'conspiracies' that get aired on this forum...

9/11 onwards (co-inciding with the growth of the internet) opened a completely new can of conspiracy worms, eagerly and actively promoted by a completely new breed of 'professional' conspiracists, who lets face it make a bloody good living out of all this. Alex Jones, the Loose Change lot, etc.
;)A bit of healthy scepticism is a good thing in the face of all this methinks...

[runciter]

Allegedly. Is it possible to produce evidence of this claim, beyond written claims?



I know from the past that you deem Israel to be the "Zionist/Kabbalist childkiller" you refer to.

If so, let's respond as if that is who you are referring to.....

Most people wouldn't defend an individual (or small group) of U.S soldier's guilty of war crimes in Iraq, for example. But just because they don't defend the actions of those individuals or small groups doesn't mean that by extension they support the dismantling of the United States of America because of it. I hope you see what I'm getting at. I support Israel's continued existence. Doing so, means supporting the right of Israel to defend itself from attack, just as any country wishes to have the right to defend itself in the way it sees fit. Israel is wel known for taking two eyes for every eye of theirs taken. I would not disagree that this is a unique trait of Israel. The more you prick it, the harder it punches you back each time. Common sense would assume that the one who keeps pricking it would have after 60 years got this simple fact through its skull, and would not keep giving Israel an excuse each time to do that.

Instead, we see the opposite. We see a stubborn insistance to rid the middle east of Israel, even though Israel has shown quite blatantly that it ain't going anywhere unless voluntarily. More fool those who keep trying the same tactic on the state of Israel and expecting a different result every time, if you ask me. And damn them too, for bringing suffering on the heads of their own children with their politics. It's about time that the pricker stops doing what it has always been doing, and then wait and see if Israel just batters them without reason. If they did, then the previous prickers would be in a far better and fully legitimate position to wail that they were totally innocent.

Until then, they aren't and the same tactic keeps handing Israel openings for reacting like it does.

i was talking about the recent massacres in gaza, for example, that you were justifying in another thread.

but i'm also talking about kabbalistic ritual abuse and sacrifice, an old tradition kept alive by the sabbatean frankists.

[sam bless]

No, I understand you perfectly.

I'm reading one of his books as well and I went to the trouble yesterday of writing down the books / articles he quoted in chapter one of Children of the Matrix.

Most of the sources given were definitely books (including Ibid of course! :)).

Ibid didn't half write a lot! :D

Tell me the David Icke book where 9 out of 10 quotes are from people he spoke to? Depends on the subject perhaps.

Not that I have anything against those kind of information sources.

Word of mouth is relevant as well, but David quotes hundreds (thousands) of books, articles, etc.

haha you cheeky mush with your ibid comment!

i've got tales from the time loop on my lap. i went to the chapter on reptiles but maybe thats not a good place to start. the footnotes of chapter three has alot of strange references. 10 of the 26 sources on the first page of sources are NEWS PAPERS OR THEIR ASSOCIATED WEBSITES. these are the same news corporations he discredits in a previous chapter called "journalistic" junk. how can he then go on and use them as sources of his fact?

its prehaps important to note that i'm not trying to discredit what icke says as i've done my own research into things he says, some of which has withstood questioning. but i used to just blindly accept statements like when he talks about that president he sits next to at a ballet or something and says he is definately a reptilian because when he shook his hand he was cold.

[nightwalker]

People are looking for entertainment and that's what they get, nobody is looking for truth.

Speak for yourself.

[anthony65]

haha you cheeky mush with your ibid comment!

i've got tales from the time loop on my lap. i went to the chapter on reptiles but maybe thats not a good place to start. the footnotes of chapter three has alot of strange references. 10 of the 26 sources on the first page of sources are NEWS PAPERS OR THEIR ASSOCIATED WEBSITES. these are the same news corporations he discredits in a previous chapter called "journalistic" junk. how can he then go on and use them as sources of his fact?

its prehaps important to note that i'm not trying to discredit what icke says as i've done my own research into things he says, some of which has withstood questioning. but i used to just blindly accept statements like when he talks about that president he sits next to at a ballet or something and says he is definately a reptilian because when he shook his hand he was cold.

Tales from the Time Loop. I don't think I've read that one.

I did check through three of his books last night and the vast majority of the sources were from books, newspapers, etc. so it could be that you simply started on a topic that was sourced from more personal sources. Although he does provide a lot of background material to this topic in Children of the Matrix, fascinating stuff, but you're right that we shouldn't then simply accept that Ted Heath was a reptile, although if David provides multiple sources of this and similar observations then I also wouldn't simply dismiss it.

As for quoting from the mainstream. It is worth wuoting them to show that even the mainstream mentions certain issues, but of course behind the news story is another source, which also has to be checked. I totally agree with you that we have to be very careful and very thorough before simply jumping to conclusions.

** I wouldn't have known what Ibid was either until last Saturday! David explained it at the beginning of Children of the Matrix. :D

[anthony65]

OK point taken (on some of the above, not all)

But I think you are still failing to differentiate between the (normal lol) political manipulation/lies/warmongering that has always gone on (and lets face it they've never been any sort of big secret...we ALL know about WW1, Churchill sucking Stalins cock etc)...and *some of* the 'conspiracies' that get aired on this forum...

9/11 onwards (co-inciding with the growth of the internet) opened a completely new can of conspiracy worms, eagerly and actively promoted by a completely new breed of 'professional' conspiracists, who lets face it make a bloody good living out of all this. Alex Jones, the Loose Change lot, etc.
;)A bit of healthy scepticism is a good thing in the face of all this methinks...

I wasn't aware of Winston's sexual liaison with Uncle Joe Stalin... :eek:

But a book like Reich of Black Sun was a real eye opener for me recently.

I recently bought some conspiracy classics from the 70's, Behold a Pale Horse, None Dare Call it Conspiracy and a couple of others.

I agree that healthy skepticism is called for...

In all directions!

And along the way we can learn soooooo much new stuff! Not just the conspiracy books, but also the reference material, including classics of all kinds...

An evening spent with a good book and a good bottle of wine.... :)

[jack5]

When Icke makes a claim to something, for example:

'The Queen one time over come with blood lust, severed the young boys kneck with her own bare teeth'

and you follow the footnote number to the end of the chapter and it just says:

'so and so said that in this book they wrote' or 'a person i met while travelling in new zealand told me'

oviously they aren't actual quotes (although the queen quote is fairly accurate) you get the idea of what i mean. can he present as fact something he's only read in another book? isn't that exactly the same principle as the news reporter repeaters he talks about?

i'm not slating Icke, some of his information has transformed the way i view things, but i can't accept conjecture presented as fact. anybody else have the same issue?

also, what does it mean when a footnote number is just 'ibid'??

Exact same source credibility as any mainstream academic would present.They only go on what they have read and been tought to believe.David Icke can only source his research as the evidence presents itself.Thats my take on it anyhow.

[tattooverb]

david icke presents some of the best footnotes of any author
all authors in nonfiction need to site their sources
it is a failure to do so in full by many which makes readers think the author's ideas are new and the intellectual property of the author when really it is taken form another source
you never see this type of intellectual thievery in david's work and it is one or the reasons i respect him even when i do not agree with all his conclusions

[haukipesukone]

I support Israel's continued existence. Doing so, means supporting the right of Israel to defend itself from attack, just as any country wishes to have the right to defend itself in the way it sees fit. Israel is wel known for taking two eyes for every eye of theirs taken. I would not disagree that this is a unique trait of Israel.


I agree. Nothing wrong with that. If a child throws a snow ball at me, I am justified to blow his brains out with a Magnum 44, and his family too.

OK point taken (on some of the above, not all)

But I think you are still failing to differentiate between the (normal lol) political manipulation/lies/warmongering that has always gone on (and lets face it they've never been any sort of big secret...we ALL know about WW1, Churchill sucking Stalins cock etc)...and *some of* the 'conspiracies' that get aired on this forum...

9/11 onwards (co-inciding with the growth of the internet) opened a completely new can of conspiracy worms, eagerly and actively promoted by a completely new breed of 'professional' conspiracists, who lets face it make a bloody good living out of all this. Alex Jones, the Loose Change lot, etc.
;)A bit of healthy scepticism is a good thing in the face of all this methinks...

They sort of have to come up with lots of new conspiracy crap to divert people from the proper conspiracies after 9/11. Anyone with half-a-brain who has bothered to watch even a couple of 9/11 documentaries sees that the official explanation is bullshit. So naturally a lot of people become more interested in conspiracies. And one way of keeping too many people from finding out the truth is by sowing a bunch of far fetched stories that only lunatics would believe. Then the "sheeple" have only to choices, either become crackpots and believe every nutty theory or dismiss all conspiracies as insane ranting.

The few realize that the truth lies somewhere in middle. That seems to be the hardest for people to understand, that nothing is black and white. They ruled by opposames. "What? You don't like capitalism, then you must be a communist." That sort of duality is the best way of keeping the mind trapped.

[anthony65]

I agree. Nothing wrong with that. If a child throws a snow ball at me, I am justified to blow his brains out with a Magnum 44, and his family too.



They sort of have to come up with lots of new conspiracy crap to divert people from the proper conspiracies after 9/11. Anyone with half-a-brain who has bothered to watch even a couple of 9/11 documentaries sees that the official explanation is bullshit. So naturally a lot of people become more interested in conspiracies. And one way of keeping too many people from finding out the truth is by sowing a bunch of far fetched stories that only lunatics would believe. Then the "sheeple" have only to choices, either become crackpots and believe every nutty theory or dismiss all conspiracies as insane ranting.

The few realize that the truth lies somewhere in middle. That seems to be the hardest for people to understand, that nothing is black and white. They ruled by opposames. "What? You don't like capitalism, then you must be a communist." That sort of duality is the best way of keeping the mind trapped.

Excellent post Hauki! :)

** Although sometimes the crazy theories are not so crazy as they first seem...

** What is crazy is the official conspiracy theory for say 9/11...

[nightwalker]

I agree. Nothing wrong with that. If a child throws a snow ball at me, I am justified to blow his brains out with a Magnum 44, and his family too.



They sort of have to come up with lots of new conspiracy crap to divert people from the proper conspiracies after 9/11. Anyone with half-a-brain who has bothered to watch even a couple of 9/11 documentaries sees that the official explanation is bullshit. So naturally a lot of people become more interested in conspiracies. And one way of keeping too many people from finding out the truth is by sowing a bunch of far fetched stories that only lunatics would believe. Then the "sheeple" have only to choices, either become crackpots and believe every nutty theory or dismiss all conspiracies as insane ranting.

The few realize that the truth lies somewhere in middle. That seems to be the hardest for people to understand, that nothing is black and white. They ruled by opposames. "What? You don't like capitalism, then you must be a communist." That sort of duality is the best way of keeping the mind trapped.


Good post :)

[quetzalcoatl]

When Icke makes a claim to something, for example:

'The Queen one time over come with blood lust, severed the young boys kneck with her own bare teeth'

and you follow the footnote number to the end of the chapter and it just says:

'so and so said that in this book they wrote' or 'a person i met while travelling in new zealand told me'

oviously they aren't actual quotes (although the queen quote is fairly accurate) you get the idea of what i mean. can he present as fact something he's only read in another book? isn't that exactly the same principle as the news reporter repeaters he talks about?

i'm not slating Icke, some of his information has transformed the way i view things, but i can't accept conjecture presented as fact. anybody else have the same issue?

also, what does it mean when a footnote number is just 'ibid'??

Slightly surprised this aint 'conspiratained' already.. as funny as it is.. :p

This sounds like the O'Brien 'test-timony'.. apparently claiming to have witnessed the queen shape-shift into a reptilian & in blood-lust kill a child or some shite.. - it's these sorts of wild accusations that jeopardize this whole aspect of the conspiracy; MK-Ultra, project monarch etc.. despite Icke expressing doubts to the validity of O'Brien's testimony (all behind the senses).. he has still put this story forward as a 'credible witness'.. & dropped hints along the way.. "It's not me saying this, I'm juz collecting 'information' & it's up to everyone else what to make of it". Suppose it's not the easiest of jobs.. being a writer in-all.. ya gotta keep pumping out product.. even if it's the same old shite, only re-worded.. (it's not being a repeater or worse a plagiarist if it's re-phrased/worded! :p)..

I have for a long time wondered who & of what intent all these 'credible witnesses' Icke just so happen to keep 'bumping into'.. Also, the apparently 'approved source' the C*HR* ('crypted' juz in-case - legal reasons have already been sighted) web-site & that colorful character whom owns the site.. (link un-available because of apparent 'legal issues' - I see a pattern forming ere! :eek:).. & then we have the Credo Mutwa witness.. & all I have to say is "eat a Grey a day!" LOL!!! :D

Who dares to question? - I do! ;)

[quetzalcoatl]

As for David his work is a massive allegory imo, sort of like a gospel, fact/fiction mix based on good morals and intentions.

People are looking for entertainment and that's what they get, nobody is looking for truth.

Yeah right.. tis all allegory for 'bad apples' or worse Jews! :rolleyes: This probably cannot be taken as anything but 'anti-semitic'.. Yet, live by the sword, die by the sword.. Just-as live/thrive by 'holocaust', die/suffer by 'holocaust'; Christ on a stick included!!! :mad: - & surely there be more reaping to come! :(

There it's out on the table.. call me wot ya will.. :p

I mostly love teh Jews; or Jewish people.. which-ever they prefer.. :)

im not sure i'm articulating myself very well.
i look to the footnotes for the source of his information and 9 x out of 10 his evidence for his claims are things people have told him while he's 'visited over 40 countries' and things he's read in other books. i don't see that as evidence, that is my point. am i being any clearer? i strugle to get down as words what i mean alot of the time.

Yep, crystal clear to me.. I too share your skepticism to the validity of Ickes sources.. & I'm not playing the 'blame game' ere.. ;)

It's important to 'cross-examine'.. for truths sake! :)

[haukipesukone]

Slightly surprised this aint 'conspiratained' already.. as funny as it is.. :p

This sounds like the O'Brien 'test-timony'.. apparently claiming to have witnessed the queen shape-shift into a reptilian & in blood-lust kill a child or some shite.. - it's these sorts of wild accusations that jeopardize this whole aspect of the conspiracy; MK-Ultra, project monarch etc.. despite Icke expressing doubts to the validity of O'Brien's testimony (all behind the senses).. he has still put this story forward as a 'credible witness'.. & dropped hints along the way.. "It's not me saying this, I'm juz collecting 'information' & it's up to everyone else what to make of it". Suppose it's not the easiest of jobs.. being a writer in-all.. ya gotta keep pumping out product.. even if it's the same old shite, only re-worded.. (it's not being a repeater or worse a plagiarist if it's re-phrased/worded! :p)..

I have for a long time wondered who & of what intent all these 'credible witnesses' Icke just so happen to keep 'bumping into'.. Also, the apparently 'approved source' the C*HR* ('crypted' juz in-case - legal reasons have already been sighted) web-site & that colorful character whom owns the site.. (link un-available because of apparent 'legal issues' - I see a pattern forming ere! :eek:).. & then we have the Credo Mutwa witness.. & all I have to say is "eat a Grey a day!" LOL!!! :D

Who dares to question? - I do! ;)

I agree there's a lot of stuff about Icke we should be sceptical of. I think there's something very crucial Icke leaves out from his talks, no idea what it is, nor am I sure whether it's intentional or unintentional. But that's certainly not a reason to dismiss him altogether.

Icke is not the end and the salvation from all this. He's just a beginning. At least he was for me, thanks to him mostly, another important thing was Graham Hancock's Supernatural and Alex Jones, I had the courage to take a leap into this new territory of no return. I had been interested in all sorts of wacky stuff for years, it I was afraid to go too deep so I wouldn't be just a delusional nutter. But now the nutty stuff about reptilians and Anunnaki and everything, it may be delusional, but it's certainly more reasonable than the world they portray on TV and all socially acceptable indoctrination medias.

[lostinstrangeworld]

I agree there's a lot of stuff about Icke we should be sceptical of. I think there's something very crucial Icke leaves out from his talks, no idea what it is, nor am I sure whether it's intentional or unintentional. But that's certainly not a reason to dismiss him altogether.

Icke is not the end and the salvation from all this. He's just a beginning. At least he was for me, thanks to him mostly, another important thing was Graham Hancock's Supernatural and Alex Jones, I had the courage to take a leap into this new territory of no return. I had been interested in all sorts of wacky stuff for years, it I was afraid to go too deep so I wouldn't be just a delusional nutter. But now the nutty stuff about reptilians and Anunnaki and everything, it may be delusional, but it's certainly more reasonable than the world they portray on TV and all socially acceptable indoctrination medias.

Well said.

[quetzalcoatl]

I agree there's a lot of stuff about Icke we should be sceptical of. I think there's something very crucial Icke leaves out from his talks, no idea what it is, nor am I sure whether it's intentional or unintentional. But that's certainly not a reason to dismiss him altogether.

Icke is not the end and the salvation from all this. He's just a beginning. At least he was for me, thanks to him mostly, another important thing was Graham Hancock's Supernatural and Alex Jones, I had the courage to take a leap into this new territory of no return. I had been interested in all sorts of wacky stuff for years, it I was afraid to go too deep so I wouldn't be just a delusional nutter. But now the nutty stuff about reptilians and Anunnaki and everything, it may be delusional, but it's certainly more reasonable than the world they portray on TV and all socially acceptable indoctrination medias.

Well, it's not exactly 'about Icke' - it's about his sources.. & willingness to 'promote' &/or present as factual, stuff he doesn't trust himself.. If that's what ya meant, I too agree. :)

Nothing nutty about reptilians & anunnaki per-se.. it's simply that some people convey it as such - weather this is done intentionally or ignorantly is the crux of the issues.. ;)

[haukipesukone]

Well, it's not exactly 'about Icke' - it's about his sources.. & willingness to 'promote' &/or present as factual, stuff he doesn't trust himself.. If that's what ya meant, I too agree. :)


Icke or his "message" is a sum of his sources. If he states something as a source, he means that he believes there at least some credibility behind it. Even though Icke says "This is just information, make what you will of it." (Not a real quote actually.) It still doesn't mean he's spouting stuff randomly, he has an intention to make you think at least. Icke does have a motive behind what he's saying, just like all people do when they talk.

Briefly put, if Icke's sources suck, Icke sucks.

[quetzalcoatl]

Icke or his "message" is a sum of his sources. If he states something as a source, he means that he believes there at least some credibility behind it. Even though Icke says "This is just information, make what you will of it." (Not a real quote actually.) It still doesn't mean he's spouting stuff randomly, he has an intention to make you think at least. Icke does have a motive behind what he's saying, just like all people do when they talk.

Briefly put, if Icke's sources suck, Icke sucks.

:D

Supose tis okay to have doubts, nay even feel someone can't be trusted or whatever - yet, go ahead & 'back' their claims.. in the land of hypocrisy.. http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x309/Plumed_Serpent/lol.gif Yeah! :D

Icke's message eh?? - even though it's a collaboration of others..?? Awesome! :p

Really, if someone says they believe in reptilians, without having directly experienced them - I'd safely consider them nuts.. or worse, dis-info/mis-info..

Tis all good of course. I genuinely feel Icke is over-all doing a great job of collaborating info & impartially representing it.. :)

I take it you've read Icke's book, Hauk? LOL! :p jokes.. :D

Seriously I'm neutral.. ;)

[runciter]

you have a truly beautiful signature :)

[sevenworlds]

I'm not against Icke doing what he's doing - and I like the guy - but the way I see it, it's like this...

Somebody once upon a time said "the sky is blue". In itself that is meaningless. Once it's repeated enough times it becomes the gospel truth. From that assumption, someone else can come along and tell you WHY the sky is blue. They can piece together a theory on that based on other knowledge assumed to be true in the same way (ie. it's oxygen reacting with such and such that makes the sky blue).

Doctors and scientists have done this with the human body. From a basic assumption that we have a separate individual body, it has snowballed into them breaking it down into thousands of parts. Then you can give someone a job as a heart specialist, another as a brain surgeon. They all just repeat never looking at the basic assumption of a 'body' in the first place.

Icke is doing this in a strange way. He has repeated the basic spiritual assumption "infinite love is the only truth, everything else is illusion" instead of actually investigating that assumption for himself. By simply repeating it, he can say that but then go off and start repeating and passing over more information in another direction from other sources about reptilians, sacrifices, and whatever else.

So he is essentially doing what he condemns the mainstream for doing - repeating. It might be alternative information but at the end of the day it's still information. Meaning it's not directly true to him but second-hand experience. That in itself is not bad but it leads nowhere. How can it? As long as you are relying on second-hand information, you will go on and on, believing you are going to reach some point but never doing so. That's why I often say Icke is fooling himself and therefore fooling those who look up to him. If he realised what he was doing surely he'd see the fallacy of it?

[void]

I agree. Nothing wrong with that. If a child throws a snow ball at me, I am justified to blow his brains out with a Magnum 44, and his family too.

Your basic assumption is implying that Hamas or Hezbollah or whoever would not use something far more powerful if they could get hold of it and use it on Israel. Fail. The heroic "David VS Goliath" presented to you on this issue is horse shite. I don't consider a woman walking into a cafe in Tel Aviv and blowing themselves and young students to pieces after hours before posing for a photograph dressed up as a Shaheed with her child in her arms,a snow ball.

[runciter]

Your basic assumption is implying that Hamas or Hezbollah or whoever would not use something far more powerful if they could get hold of it and use it on Israel. Fail. The heroic "David VS Goliath" presented to you on this issue is horse shite. I don't consider a woman walking into a cafe in Tel Aviv and blowing themselves and young students to pieces after hours before posing for a photograph dressed up as a Shaheed with her child in her arms,a snow ball.

i think he was talking about the nazi retaliation against the gazans, that you justified in another thread.

you are a magnificent philo-zionist propagandist, benji would be proud of you :)

[reptileslayer]

thank you for clearing up that ibid thing.

he uses footnotes to back up points made with he source of evidence.

but most of the time its just sourcing other peoples books.
I understand what you are saying sam bless, and i agree with you, conjucture and heresay is not evidence. Tho many of the things Icke says does resonate with me.

[void]

i think he was talking about the nazi retaliation against the gazans, that you justified in another thread. you are a magnificent philo-zionist propagandist, benji would be proud of you :)

Ever the Drama Queen aren't you, Runciter.

"Who took the last banana in the market? I bet it was a Sabbatean Zionist-Nazi" :eek:

[runciter]

Ever the Drama Queen aren't you, Runciter.

"Who took the last banana in the market? I bet it was a Sabbatean Zionist-Nazi" :eek:

this is what you're defending

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/GazaHolo/index.html

wow :)

[haukipesukone]

I'm not against Icke doing what he's doing - and I like the guy - but the way I see it, it's like this...

Somebody once upon a time said "the sky is blue". In itself that is meaningless. Once it's repeated enough times it becomes the gospel truth. From that assumption, someone else can come along and tell you WHY the sky is blue. They can piece together a theory on that based on other knowledge assumed to be true in the same way (ie. it's oxygen reacting with such and such that makes the sky blue).

Doctors and scientists have done this with the human body. From a basic assumption that we have a separate individual body, it has snowballed into them breaking it down into thousands of parts. Then you can give someone a job as a heart specialist, another as a brain surgeon. They all just repeat never looking at the basic assumption of a 'body' in the first place.

Icke is doing this in a strange way. He has repeated the basic spiritual assumption "infinite love is the only truth, everything else is illusion" instead of actually investigating that assumption for himself. By simply repeating it, he can say that but then go off and start repeating and passing over more information in another direction from other sources about reptilians, sacrifices, and whatever else.

So he is essentially doing what he condemns the mainstream for doing - repeating. It might be alternative information but at the end of the day it's still information. Meaning it's not directly true to him but second-hand experience. That in itself is not bad but it leads nowhere. How can it? As long as you are relying on second-hand information, you will go on and on, believing you are going to reach some point but never doing so. That's why I often say Icke is fooling himself and therefore fooling those who look up to him. If he realised what he was doing surely he'd see the fallacy of it?

Very good post. I think Icke's gotten a bit cocky. He was ridiculed for years his beliefs, but he overcame it and showed everyone what he's saying makes some sense. So now he's feeling a bit too superior about himself. I'm just pointing out what I think has happened. I understand his situation really well. I think he should take a step back so he could look at his work from a different perspective. And present his findings in a more humble way.

Your basic assumption is implying that Hamas or Hezbollah or whoever would not use something far more powerful if they could get hold of it and use it on Israel. Fail. The heroic "David VS Goliath" presented to you on this issue is horse shite. I don't consider a woman walking into a cafe in Tel Aviv and blowing themselves and young students to pieces after hours before posing for a photograph dressed up as a Shaheed with her child in her arms,a snow ball.

I don't wanna turn this thread into a Zionism/Israel debate but... my assumption is that Palestine has been inhabited by the Palestinians for millennia (at least centuries). Then the holy Zionist edict says Palestine is their wholy land and they have some mumbo jumbo excuse why they should control it. So then with the aid of imperialist Britain the Zionists are given control of Palestine, where they treat the original and rightful inhabitants as pests. So I see little wrong in some woman blowing herself up in a cafe. That's war, if you're at war you play by it's rules.

The Palestinians have been pushed to this survivalist mentality thanks to the whole spineless international community and Zionists. Pretty much all the Palestinians can do is either sit back and peacefully watch as they are being annihilated, or fight a losing battle. At least they make some noise and earn a place in Sto-vo-kor.

[romas]

I'm not against Icke doing what he's doing - and I like the guy - but the way I see it, it's like this...

Somebody once upon a time said "the sky is blue". In itself that is meaningless. Once it's repeated enough times it becomes the gospel truth. From that assumption, someone else can come along and tell you WHY the sky is blue. They can piece together a theory on that based on other knowledge assumed to be true in the same way (ie. it's oxygen reacting with such and such that makes the sky blue).

Doctors and scientists have done this with the human body. From a basic assumption that we have a separate individual body, it has snowballed into them breaking it down into thousands of parts. Then you can give someone a job as a heart specialist, another as a brain surgeon. They all just repeat never looking at the basic assumption of a 'body' in the first place.

Icke is doing this in a strange way. He has repeated the basic spiritual assumption "infinite love is the only truth, everything else is illusion" instead of actually investigating that assumption for himself. By simply repeating it, he can say that but then go off and start repeating and passing over more information in another direction from other sources about reptilians, sacrifices, and whatever else.

So he is essentially doing what he condemns the mainstream for doing - repeating. It might be alternative information but at the end of the day it's still information. Meaning it's not directly true to him but second-hand experience. That in itself is not bad but it leads nowhere. How can it? As long as you are relying on second-hand information, you will go on and on, believing you are going to reach some point but never doing so. That's why I often say Icke is fooling himself and therefore fooling those who look up to him. If he realised what he was doing surely he'd see the fallacy of it?



Actually that quote is from the "spirit being" he encountered, he dislikes "repeaters" because they are spreading false information.

[sevenworlds]

Actually that quote is from the "spirit being" he encountered, he dislikes "repeaters" because they are spreading false information.

I didn't mean the quote itself but the message. The 'spirit being' he got it from must be illusion also if he was able to perceive it as some entity separate from himself.

[beldazar]

I didn't mean the quote itself but the message. The 'spirit being' he got it from must be illusion also if he was able to perceive it as some entity separate from himself.

Sorry, Ive just caught the tail-end of that but if you mean the voice David heard in the ayahuaska trip, in his book 'Infinite love' he tells about it and after puts 'me' in brackets when referring to the voice

[sevenworlds]

Sorry, Ive just caught the tail-end of that but if you mean the voice David heard in the ayahuaska trip, in his book 'Infinite love' he tells about it and after puts 'me' in brackets when referring to the voice

Yeah, what I'm trying to point out is a) he was on a ayahuasca trip and b) didn't he claim the voice took female form?

So it was an 'experience' of some kind - it came and went. In that sense it was illusion. It doesn't matter how profound an experience you have, the very fact you experienced it means it was observed. I don't think Icke has directly looked at what that observer is.

[beldazar]

Yeah, what I'm trying to point out is a) he was on a ayahuasca trip and b) didn't he claim the voice took female form?

So it was an 'experience' of some kind - it came and went. In that sense it was illusion. It doesn't matter how profound an experience you have, the very fact you experienced it means it was observed. I don't think Icke has directly looked at what that observer is.

Yes he did claim it was a female voice and he still said 'me' when referring to it, I remember as I felt pretty confused :o ;)

[runciter]

So I see little wrong in some woman blowing herself up in a cafe. That's war, if you're at war you play by it's rules.

The Palestinians have been pushed to this survivalist mentality thanks to the whole spineless international community and Zionists. Pretty much all the Palestinians can do is either sit back and peacefully watch as they are being annihilated, or fight a losing battle. At least they make some noise and earn a place in Sto-vo-kor.


sounds a bit primitive, and don't forget that hamas was created by the mossad.