BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: irishenglish
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 03:33 PM

Wasn't implying you did Gene, meant it as a general "you". I should have been more specific, sorry

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 03:36 PM

"I have looked at his theories, I don't believe in them."

Huh???? I don't get that. David Icke has a whole LOT of theories, not just one or two theories. There are hundreds of theories contained within his theories, for gosh sakes. ;-) How can anyone just believe...or not believe...ALL of it at the same time????

It's like saying you don't believe in anything that Marx said, or that Jesus said, or that Abraham Lincoln said, or that Gorbachev or Reagain said. NONE of it! Yeah, right... Surely, in all the stuff David Icke says, there are some things that are somewhat believable? Others that seem quite unlikely, but yet, how would you know for sure? Others that seem quite plausible, but again, how would you know for sure?

It's not a question of just BELIEVING or NOT BELIEVING what he says. It's a question of giving some consideration to something he says and considering that it might be so.

Why would I have to BELIEVE what David Icke says...or DISBELIEVE it...when I'm not in a position to corroborate any of it or prove it or disprove it?

What does BELIEF or DISBELIEF even have to do with it? Why must one necessarily believe or disbelieve in a proposition in order to be interested in it?

I'm interested in what David Icke has to say. That doesn't mean I HAVE to either believe it or disbelieve it. I'm simply interested, period.

Believers and disbelievers are people who've got their minds all made up...which relieves them, it seems to me, from having to bear the burden of actually thinking about the matter any longer. They are armoured, like the Pope, with presumed infallibility from that point on by their BELIEF...or their NON-BELIEF. ;-)   (and that's exactly what irritates me about their attitude)

See what I mean? Why must you assert belief or disbelief in something you cannot prove? What point is there in doing so? And why wouldn't you have a strong interest in something even when, and especially when, you're in no position to prove or disprove it?

What is wrong with people that they think there are only 2 possible choices to have in life: to believe in or to disbelieve in something ? Where the hell do they get such an idea??????

Those are NOT the only 2 choices in life. It is also possible to say, "Look, I don't know, okay? But I do find this interesting. There may be something to it. Or there may not. He may be for real. He may not. He might be part right and part wrong. He might be half right. He might be 1/3 right. He might be 2/3 right. He might be a total fraud. He might be a brilliant man who's really onto something. I will continue to look into this because I find it interesting. I do not have to either believe it or disbelieve it in order to find it interesting, and worthy of some attention."

THAT's an open mind, and it's also a mind that has enough humility, for gosh sakes, to admit that it doesn't know everything already!

The Pope is not infallible nor is anyone else around here.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Gene Burton
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 04:23 PM

irishenglish, we're cool, no worries.

Those that put themselves in the frame for infallibility, or being the last word on The Truth are generally, when you scratch the surface, deeply conflicted and insecure people. But perhaps we shouldn't judge them too harsly...we've probably all been there at some point in our lives. Best to see them as standing by the water, waiting to cross (whether they know it or not...)

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: irishenglish
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 04:59 PM

Little Hawk-Ok rightly or wrongly I was generalizing by saying I have read Icke's theories. I meant I have been on his website, I read quite a lot of the articles on there actually, I read in interview he did with Rick Martin on Icke's official website. I haven't read any of his actual books, but upon reading some of the material on the website, I personally find a lot of his claims dubious. I always have a degree of trepidation when I come across anybody, who suddenly, through all our course of history and science, comes up with bold sweeping revisions to our previous understanding of our own world. Hell, some people still don't believe in THe Big Bang, so what they might think about some of Icke's more interesting theories I don't know! Using your examples, I can see in this case how I came across as using a believer/unbeliever mentality, and would agree that should not be one's approach in life. My wife and I do discuss things, sometimes it becomes a heated exchange (don't even ask me about our Catholics, are they Christians argument!), sometimes it is rational, coherent thought with analysis, both pro and con to whatever position we are debating. Whatever you wish to pursue in terms of David Icke, or whether you choose to read more of his work is of course your perogative, and I hope it provides you with many hours of thoughtful contemplation. Personally, upon review of some of his work, I have to say I honestly began to laugh, I just couldn't help myself. I stepped back though and began thinking about some of his bloodline discussion. I am no great analytical thinker, nor am I a scholar, but then I started thinking about his bloodlines argument. And I began thinking how in my mind it contradicted what archaelogists are still finding out about ancient civilizations, and how societies developed. I started thinking about what an elite alien bloodline such as he suggests was doing when man was still making rudimentary tools. I began thinking why any of the world's greatest thinkers-The Greeks, the Chinese, our astronomers and philosophers etc. have never mentioned any of Icke's own theories. I began thinking why one man could suddenly work all of this together, essentially on his own.
And then I started thinking about what proof he has for some of the more outrageous claims, such as former British PM Ted Heath performing ritual sacrifice of children before shape shifting into a lizard (from the aforementioned Rick Martin interview). And when I saw unsubstantiated claims such as that Little Hawk, that is when I decided that I didn't think I could believe anything he really had to say.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 06:59 PM

Cool. ;-) Now we're talking clearly and understanding each other, I think. I am also quite dubious about a number of David Icke's more bizarre claims, although I'm pretty sure he's being dead serious about them. In other words, I think he fully believes what he's saying and is being honest in presenting it, but that doesn't mean he's correct about everything. I'd be very surprised if he is correct about everything...though I wouldn'd be surprised if he was correct about, oh...say half of it. As to which half? Well, I couldn't say. ;-)

I was well acquainted for 3 or 4 years with a highly paid professional counsellor in these parts...we're talking a medical professional with university degrees here...and a proudly independent Jewess, by the way...and she believed EVERYTHING David Icke has to say. It's gospel to her. Needless to say, she doesn't think he's an anti-semite!

Now, this lady is pretty smart...smarter than the average person...and she's quite successful...but she likes some really offbeat stuff, and the more dramatic it is, the better she likes it.

She talked to me about David Icke and the frikking lizard shapeshifters and all that stuff till I was bloody well SICK of hearing about it! She furthermore claimed that she had seen a person shapeshift into a reptilian (just around their eyes) and that this person had threatened her life.

What can I say about that? Hmmm. Well, I know she means what she says, I know she's utterly sincere about it, I know something happened, and I know she believes that that is what she saw...but that in itself is simply not sufficient to convince me of the existence of reptilian shapeshifters. (People sometimes tend to see what they already think they are going to see...or they misinterpret what they see.) I'd have to hear a similar story from at least 3 different sources I know (and sources who didn't know each other) before I would begin to be fairly ready to be convinced about it.

Or I'd have to see such a phenomenon myself! That would convince me.

And that's pretty much the basis I go on.

So, as I say, this professional lady talked to me about David Icke till I got sick of it. So I read some of his books, just to see for myself. I ended up finding him quite interesting, and got a better impression of him just on his own merits than from my friend's enthusiastic over-promotion of him. I grew to rather like David Icke. He's got a lot of guts, and a good sense of humor. I like those qualities in a person.

Now, David Icke claims that he's had many testimonials from people who've seen these shape-shifting phenomena. And maybe he has. I can't say. If he has, then I could begin to understand why he has come to believe in it. He says he didn't believe in it at all when he heard from the first couple of people who spoke to him...he thought they were experiencing delusions or hallucinations. Fair enough.

But as you can see, I am just about as dubious about the whole thing as you are (and as David Icke himself was at the beginning). I've met ONE person so far...albeit a sincere and intelligent one...who claims to have seen a reptilian shapeshifter. I believe she believes it. Fine. That doesn't mean I believe it. I don't have enough experience or info to believe it.

One witness wasn't enough to convince David Icke, and it's not enough to convince me either. I remain uncommitted one way or another about it, and I probably will remain so indefinitely unless I have a direct personal experience that changes my mind...or unless I meet several people I deem trustworthy who have had such experiences.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: irishenglish
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 10:40 PM

Little Hawk, I get you, and I will concur, that whatever I may think, I do believe that Icke does believe what he writes about himself, he's not just someone pushing easy answers for money.

Subject: RE: BS: So he may have been right after all(David Icke
From: GUEST,Jim Martin
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 08:00 AM

Donuel - do you mean 'Confessions of an Economic Hitman' by John Perkins?