Why The Dislike For David Icke Exposing The NWO? [Please Read Before Replying]

reply to post by prostheticmind

Regardless of the intricacies of his views, the man does a lot of research. A read through of any one of his books is plenty evidence of this. Much of his research is independently verifiable, and his main focus is helping to show people that they are being taken advantage of. Meanwhile, there are a bunch of people on an internet forum crucifying Icke fans essentially because he believes in something 'too weird.' At least he is spreading a willingness in people to think and question, and not putting down any idea that doesn't conform with his world view.

Mr Icke collated a lot of information over the years, much of which was lifted from contributors to his website. He drew a lot of conclusions, many not based on fact and whilst he is responsible for some original theories anyone can throw a dart in the dark and hit something. When confronted with people who do require tangible evidence rather than hearsay and speculation; a cool reception or to ignore them was the status quo. I have seen him resort to name calling and relying on his following to bully the questioner into submission. I too cannot say with certainty that reptilians don't exist but I have yet to and doubt I will ever see any evidence to support this because logic and reason tells me so.

For my money, whether it's reptilians or insidious corporate conglomerates, secret military weapons and technology; I need hard evidence or at the very least to see it with my own eyes. And even then I may still doubt. It is my prerogative. Just as it is others to agree with whatever he says. To blindly follow anyone though and trust everything they put forward is a very dangerous and silly thing to do in my humble opinion.

Originally posted by MollyStewart
reply to post by prostheticmind

 

Regardless of the intricacies of his views, the man does a lot of research. A read through of any one of his books is plenty evidence of this. Much of his research is independently verifiable, and his main focus is helping to show people that they are being taken advantage of. Meanwhile, there are a bunch of people on an internet forum crucifying Icke fans essentially because he believes in something 'too weird.' At least he is spreading a willingness in people to think and question, and not putting down any idea that doesn't conform with his world view.

Mr Icke collated a lot of information over the years, much of which was lifted from contributors to his website. He drew a lot of conclusions, many not based on fact and whilst he is responsible for some original theories anyone can throw a dart in the dark and hit something. When confronted with people who do require tangible evidence rather than hearsay and speculation; a cool reception or to ignore them was the status quo. I have seen him resort to name calling and relying on his following to bully the questioner into submission. I too cannot say with certainty that reptilians don't exist but I have yet to and doubt I will ever see any evidence to support this because logic and reason tells me so.

For my money, whether it's reptilians or insidious corporate conglomerates, secret military weapons and technology; I need hard evidence or at the very least to see it with my own eyes. And even then I may still doubt. It is my prerogative. Just as it is others to agree with whatever he says. To blindly follow anyone though and trust everything they put forward is a very dangerous and silly thing to do in my humble opinion.

I would agree, I just think it is equally silly to put someone down purely because they believe in something which is currently unverifiable. I'm just going to state again that I am not endorsing or ridiculing Icke's views with my comments, simply stating that those in this forum who are discouraging open and free thought are not actively denying ignorance.

Originally posted by prostheticmind

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by prostheticmind
What I would ask of all you super intellectuals who say that everything he says is con: why don't you show everyone why you're so sure? Prove the reptiles AREN'T there. Prove to everyone that there is no such thing as separate dimensions, or the power of emotion. Otherwise stop encouraging others to stop thinking and questioning just because YOU don't agree.

there is a reason why proving somethgni doesn't exist is called argument from ignorance.

If you make claims then it is up to YOU to provide the substantiating evidence - challenging others to "prove me wrong" is a resort for charlatans and fraudsters who cannot actually support their own case otherwise!

I appreciate what you said, but the only claim I made is that it is equally impossible to prove the existence or nonexistence of reptilian entities at this time.

you said " why don't you show everyone why you're so sure? Prove the reptiles AREN'T there"

Your idea that it is not proveable either way si still a cop out. If you calim something DOES exist then YOU provide the evidence to suport your claim.

And if you had quoted the whole thing and left the part in there about me not expressly believing in reptiles, your rebuttal would make no sense.

Nope - it is stil completely relevant - the person who makes a claim is het person who has hte burden of proof.

You have done me a service by proving my point. You did not address at all that you have no reason to dismiss all of his claims except because you think he is loopy.

I do not believe his claims because he has not advanced sufficient information for me to do so - that I think he is loopy is related, but not the reason - it is jsut an excuse for you to dismiss my claims that his information is sub-standard.

I don't want you to come back with another rhetorical escape route that explains why I am a fool though, so please point out the claims I made, with quotes from my original post. Or you could address the actual point I made, which you glossed over to call me ignorant, through your ignorance.

I did not call you ignorant - if you had read the link to what constitutes an argument from ignorance you would realise that.

you said " why don't you show everyone why you're so sure? Prove the reptiles AREN'T there"

Your idea that it is not proveable either way si still a cop out. If you calim something DOES exist then YOU provide the evidence to suport your claim.

I never once claimed the existence of reptilians, as I have stated numerous times in this discussion, and I think you are using this alleged claim to avoid having to think about the concepts I am engaging in this discussion to focus on.

And if you had quoted the whole thing and left the part in there about me not expressly believing in reptiles, your rebuttal would make no sense.

Nope - it is stil completely relevant - the person who makes a claim is het person who has hte burden of proof.

Double nope-since I never made a claim that would require me submitting evidence, your argument that I must provide evidence to back up my (nonexistent) claim is moot.

You have done me a service by proving my point. You did not address at all that you have no reason to dismiss all of his claims except because you think he is loopy.

I do not believe his claims because he has not advanced sufficient information for me to do so - that I think he is loopy is related, but not the reason - it is jsut an excuse for you to dismiss my claims that his information is sub-standard.

I think it is fine that you think he is loopy and it is fine you don't believe what he says in his books and lectures. I never dismissed his claims, nor did I endorse them. I also never dismissed your claim that his information is sub standard. I just pointed out that none of us really know for an absolute certainty if there are reptilian entities or not, so it is foolish for one group to be running around in this forum telling the other group to stop speculating on the nature of their lives on this planet.

I don't want you to come back with another rhetorical escape route that explains why I am a fool though, so please point out the claims I made, with quotes from my original post. Or you could address the actual point I made, which you glossed over to call me ignorant, through your ignorance.

I did not call you ignorant - if you had read the link to what constitutes an argument from ignorance you would realise that.

Well, your diction and tone need a little work then buddy, because you come across as a royal douche.

I actually did read the link in its entirety, and I think in order for one to appeal to ignorance they would have to be pretty ignorant themselves, no? To assume that no one would pick up on the fact that it is an appeal to ignorance? I mean if they are a discerning, rational person, as I try to be.

My 'appeal to ignorance' was a facetious attempt to show that the Icke-haters in the conversation were playing out the usual 'this is not normal so I hate it' zombie routine that is so popular with people who are not capable of critical thought. Clearly I need to spell things out a little more clearly.

I never said Icke is right. I never said Icke was wrong. I expressed my displeasure that there was a question posed and instead of answering the question, people are just throwing around words with no substance. Please please PLEASE read all of this post; twice if you have to. I will explain my position for you again if you still don't understand, but this isn't about me asking you to prove reptilians don't exist, and if you have the thinking skills to formulate responses like you have thus far, I would expect you to be able to glean what I mean since I spelled it all out in a very simple and straightforward manner.

Originally posted by prostheticmind

you said " why don't you show everyone why you're so sure? Prove the reptiles AREN'T there"

Your idea that it is not proveable either way si still a cop out. If you calim something DOES exist then YOU provide the evidence to suport your claim.

I never once claimed the existence of reptilians, as I have stated numerous times in this discussion, and I think you are using this alleged claim to avoid having to think about the concepts I am engaging in this discussion to focus on.

I didn't say you DID claim the existence of reptilians - golly why can't you just READ??!!

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by prostheticmind

you said " why don't you show everyone why you're so sure? Prove the reptiles AREN'T there"

Your idea that it is not proveable either way si still a cop out. If you calim something DOES exist then YOU provide the evidence to suport your claim.

I never once claimed the existence of reptilians, as I have stated numerous times in this discussion, and I think you are using this alleged claim to avoid having to think about the concepts I am engaging in this discussion to focus on.

I didn't say you DID claim the existence of reptilians - golly why can't you just READ??!!

So you're going to backtrack now? Why don't you just admit that I have a point and call it a night? We have gone back and forth for a few posts now, and in all of your posts to me you have requested that I provide evidence to back up a claim which you allege I made in regard to reptilian entities. It's all quoted. If you don't have another poorly structured argument, just admit that you were being a close-minded silly nanny and we can have a virtual handshake and move on. But don't sit here and tell me that you never said something that you know for a fact you DID say, just because you couldn't grasp my tone or meaning.

What's more, I gathered from your earlier posts that you were more intelligent than you are acting now. I make a point and you say I can't read? I think based on the structure of my last post it was painfully obvious to anyone reading that I read each item quite thoroughly and then produced itemized responses to properly address everything that you said. Therefore, your suggestion that I 'can't just read' is really the last personal dig you should have taken. You would have been smarter to stick to putting words in my mouth. Literally seven lines up from you saying you never said I made a claim, you state (in quote) 'if you claim something DOES exist...' (actually you said calim, but I fixed it) so even if you wanted to tell me you never said that I made a claim, AND imply that I lack the sense to read before I type, should you not have read the post before you clicked reply, and deleted the part where you are talking about the claim I allegedly made?

How is that for ironic? Please come back with something that stimulates the mind, I really want to believe there is hope for people who spend their time insulting people because of their ideas, and that they don't resort to schoolyard responses such as that drivel you just posted.

I would agree, I just think it is equally silly to put someone down purely because they believe in something which is currently unverifiable.

reply to post by prostheticmind


I did not put David Icke down and certainly not because he believes in the unverifiable. You are correct, that would be a waste of time and effort. People who disagree with his views are well within their right to voice their objections to them and they have a valid point.

The original question posed to the reader was why the dislike for David Icke? So as not to derail the thread my answer would be because his information is mostly speculative and he lacks factual evidence for claims pertaining to actual people and events, leaving the whole Reptilian thing aside for a moment.

It would be a very dull world indeed if we all had the same opinion or believed the same things. People will always find something to disagree on; it is perhaps how we communicate our objections that can blow a discussion out of proportion. If we can keep our emotions in check and listen to those we disagree with we might be just be able to if not agree with the other person at least see things from their perspective.

I don't dislike Icke for exposing the NWO going back to the question. He isn't the first person to draw attention to it, certainly not the best or most informative and nor will he be the last. I think he is just another entertainer who found a way to make a few bucks in a niche clique (the conspiracy theorists) and new age spiritualism. In fact I have never met the man personally so I can hardly say I dislike him at all.

I do dislike the idea of people blindly following what he says without checking the facts but I guess from time to time we all do that. You live and learn.

Originally posted by prostheticmind
...

I never once claimed the existence of reptilians, as I have stated numerous times in this discussion, and I think you are using this alleged claim to avoid having to think about the concepts I am engaging in this discussion to focus on.

However it really did seem like you were saying that not being able to prove that reptiles don't exist, means any criticism of anyone for having those ideas is invalid, yes?
Which is why you said 'so prove that they don't exist', in making a larger point about the rightness of tolerance for ideas like that, and criticised those who ridicule such as not displaying critical thinking.
(If this was not your point, sorry.)
The problem was, critical thinking doesnt work like that. You were seeming to say that the ones that think critically are the ones that come up with interesting, far-out ideas, and the ones who don't find them worth considering are the ones NOT thinking critically.
But when you choose to think about weird things, your standards for proof have to go up, not down - you need to be more skeptical, not less - otherwise you would just believe anything that had some admirable element of imagination in it or that appealed to you emotionally for some reason. Critical thinking is an attempt to limit the options of what is possible by applying logic and rationality. Because only one scenario can be true right? - so we have to cut down our options so we're not wasting time on every single weird and fascinating idea someone with a talent for storytelling can come up with. That is why it is important for you to understand that it is not the job of the skeptical to prove anything, it is the job of the ones advancing the idea to do a better job of finding a scenario that's actually provable. When they can't do that, then it's just a matter of faith, and what they believe doesn't really have any validity in a discussion about 'what's really happening'.
Not in a critical thinking scenario anyway. Which is the standard (I think) this website tries to subject far-out ideas to.
So either you are wrong in the point that you're making, or you might need to re-word your criticism to make it clearer what you do mean.

Originally posted by MollyStewart

I would agree, I just think it is equally silly to put someone down purely because they believe in something which is currently unverifiable.

reply to post by prostheticmind

 

I did not put David Icke down and certainly not because he believes in the unverifiable. You are correct, that would be a waste of time and effort. People who disagree with his views are well within their right to voice their objections to them and they have a valid point.

The original question posed to the reader was why the dislike for David Icke? So as not to derail the thread my answer would be because his information is mostly speculative and he lacks factual evidence for claims pertaining to actual people and events, leaving the whole Reptilian thing aside for a moment.

It would be a very dull world indeed if we all had the same opinion or believed the same things. People will always find something to disagree on; it is perhaps how we communicate our objections that can blow a discussion out of proportion. If we can keep our emotions in check and listen to those we disagree with we might be just be able to if not agree with the other person at least see things from their perspective.

I don't dislike Icke for exposing the NWO going back to the question. He isn't the first person to draw attention to it, certainly not the best or most informative and nor will he be the last. I think he is just another entertainer who found a way to make a few bucks in a niche clique (the conspiracy theorists) and new age spiritualism. In fact I have never met the man personally so I can hardly say I dislike him at all.

I do dislike the idea of people blindly following what he says without checking the facts but I guess from time to time we all do that. You live and learn.

Apologies, I was definitely not talking about you, you have a handle on the situation. I think it's fine to disagree and voice disagreement. Hell, I don't agree with a lot of what the guy has to say. My issue here is that SOME people (not you) who disagree are discouraging free thought and debate, and that isn't fair when others are trying to have a rational discussion.

Originally posted by delusion

Originally posted by prostheticmind
...

I never once claimed the existence of reptilians, as I have stated numerous times in this discussion, and I think you are using this alleged claim to avoid having to think about the concepts I am engaging in this discussion to focus on.

However it really did seem like you were saying that not being able to prove that reptiles don't exist, means any criticism of anyone for having those ideas is invalid, yes?
Which is why you said 'so prove that they don't exist', in making a larger point about the rightness of tolerance for ideas like that, and criticised those who ridicule such as not displaying critical thinking.
(If this was not your point, sorry.)
The problem was, critical thinking doesnt work like that. You were seeming to say that the ones that think critically are the ones that come up with interesting, far-out ideas, and the ones who don't find them worth considering are the ones NOT thinking critically.
But when you choose to think about weird things, your standards for proof have to go up, not down - you need to be more skeptical, not less - otherwise you would just believe anything that had some admirable element of imagination in it or that appealed to you emotionally for some reason. Critical thinking is an attempt to limit the options of what is possible by applying logic and rationality. Because only one scenario can be true right? - so we have to cut down our options so we're not wasting time on every single weird and fascinating idea someone with a talent for storytelling can come up with. That is why it is important for you to understand that it is not the job of the skeptical to prove anything, it is the job of the ones advancing the idea to do a better job of finding a scenario that's actually provable. When they can't do that, then it's just a matter of faith, and what they believe doesn't really have any validity in a discussion about 'what's really happening'.
Not in a critical thinking scenario anyway. Which is the standard (I think) this website tries to subject far-out ideas to.
So either you are wrong in the point that you're making, or you might need to re-word your criticism to make it clearer what you do mean.

edit on 7-11-2012 by delusion because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-11-2012 by delusion because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-11-2012 by delusion because: spelling

I did explain why I worded it like that a few posts up. I was being facetious because there were trolls trying to derail the discussion because they figured they KNEW the absolute truth about the subject matter of the discussion. It was not my intention to imply that I was endorsing any of Icke's claims, and I was not seriously asking for proof that reptilian entities don't exist. I was pointing out that really, none of us know, so it's immature and irresponsible for anyone to try and derail the thread because of their opinion.

I want to preface my comments with the acknowledgement that I am NOT the foremost expert on anything Icke. I have deduced certain key points surrounding his theories and potential motivations. There are most likely people here who are far better versed on the Icke "controversy".

Having said that, I have spent some time watching his videos, and also videos ABOUT him. I would challenge anyone here to sit through this entire video and not be at least somewhat intrigued (if not downright swayed) by his views.

The Reptilians

He makes a lot of points. I would daresay many of them are valid. Anyone who has taken a basic science course would know that his speaking on the electromagnetic spectrum is not embellished. There is a LOT we simply cannot see with our eyes.... way, way more than what we can see.

However, I noticed he doesn't take a sip of water throughout the entire talk... well over 2 hours... probably well over that considering this is only the continuation of another video of the exact same talk. I noticed this because I'm accustomed to public speaking and it's damn near impossible to speak that long (without a break) and not take a sip of water. Moot point? Not so much. There are bottles of water sitting right next to him, by the computer....

Then, I happened upon this video. I believe it's the first part to his talk.

Intro video



1:38 into the video and there appears to be a transformation going on on his forehead.... I haven't a clue what it is, but the first vid is him speaking on how reptilians SHIFT in front of people due to this, this, and that and then WHAT?! there is some sort of shift on his forehead at that time mark. What thee F. How did no one else notice that... it's in the beginning and very obvious.

I think people like to publicly discount the reptilian theory because it scares the crap out of them to open up that possibility. People ridicule what they don't understand. Basic human psychology 101.

In this thread, I've seen some actually say "Reptilians don't/can't exist, blah blah blah". Well, they actually DO exist. Clearly, lizards, dinos, crocs... all members of Reptilia. These creatures exist. But saying that there can't possibly be reptiles that are far more intelligent than the commons reptiles we know of is like saying a species of bird can't exist because of X, Y, and Z. And the next day that bird will be discovered and X, Y, and Z will have to be thrown out of the realm of what's not possible for a bird. Yet, many don't stop to realize that new species are discovered ALL THE TIME. Just because we're here, and we think we're oh so big and bad and smart, doesn't mean there's not species out there we don't know of or understand limitations of what's possible for.

I am not claiming inter dimensional Reptilian shape shifters exist. I'm not claiming they can't possibly exist either. Icke's first vid (posted at the top) was surprisingly very inspirational to me. He talks about how we must treat each other with love and kindness because these beings feed on negativity and we're being influenced towards those emotions without even knowing why or how. I happen to agree humans err towards hostility far too often - there's not much balance - and he says, yes, there are "good" Reptilians out there who are trying to keep the balance and offset the darkness that is consuming us all.......... Is he one?

Originally posted by ElectricGreen
I want to preface my comments with the acknowledgement that I am NOT the foremost expert on anything Icke. I have deduced certain key points surrounding his theories and potential motivations. There are most likely people here who are far better versed on the Icke "controversy".

Having said that, I have spent some time watching his videos, and also videos ABOUT him. I would challenge anyone here to sit through this entire video and not be at least somewhat intrigued (if not downright swayed) by his views.

The Reptilians

He makes a lot of points. I would daresay many of them are valid. Anyone who has taken a basic science course would know that his speaking on the electromagnetic spectrum is not embellished. There is a LOT we simply cannot see with our eyes.... way, way more than what we can see.

However, I noticed he doesn't take a sip of water throughout the entire talk... well over 2 hours... probably well over that considering this is only the continuation of another video of the exact same talk. I noticed this because I'm accustomed to public speaking and it's damn near impossible to speak that long (without a break) and not take a sip of water. Moot point? Not so much. There are bottles of water sitting right next to him, by the computer....

Then, I happened upon this video. I believe it's the first part to his talk.

Intro video

1:38 into the video and there appears to be a transformation going on on his forehead.... I haven't a clue what it is, but the first vid is him speaking on how reptilians SHIFT in front of people due to this, this, and that and then WHAT?! there is some sort of shift on his forehead at that time mark. What thee F. How did no one else notice that... it's in the beginning and very obvious.

I think people like to publicly discount the reptilian theory because it scares the crap out of them to open up that possibility. People ridicule what they don't understand. Basic human psychology 101.

In this thread, I've seen some actually say "Reptilians don't/can't exist, blah blah blah". Well, they actually DO exist. Clearly, lizards, dinos, crocs... all members of Reptilia. These creatures exist. But saying that there can't possibly be reptiles that are far more intelligent than the commons reptiles we know of is like saying a species of bird can't exist because of X, Y, and Z. And the next day that bird will be discovered and X, Y, and Z will have to be thrown out of the realm of what's not possible for a bird. Yet, many don't stop to realize that new species are discovered ALL THE TIME. Just because we're here, and we think we're oh so big and bad and smart, doesn't mean there's not species out there we don't know of or understand limitations of what's possible for.

I am not claiming inter dimensional Reptilian shape shifters exist. I'm not claiming they can't possibly exist either. Icke's first vid (posted at the top) was surprisingly very inspirational to me. He talks about how we must treat each other with love and kindness because these beings feed on negativity and we're being influenced towards those emotions without even knowing why or how. I happen to agree humans err towards hostility far too often - there's not much balance - and he says, yes, there are "good" Reptilians out there who are trying to keep the balance and offset the darkness that is consuming us all.......... Is he one?

Well I didn't see that coming. This will keep me busy for a couple hours at least.

reply to post by ElectricGreen


HOLY SH*T !!

That was freakin freaky man.

at 01.38 in that vid.... HOOOLY crap.

I'm pretty sure those are just creases from his eyebrow muscles. You know, the 'furrowed brow' that people get when they're really serious?

Originally posted by delusion
I'm pretty sure those are just creases from his eyebrow muscles. You know, the 'furrowed brow' that people get when they're really serious?

No, he doesnt make that face. The serious face. They just appear out of nowhere.

Look again. Its not natural.
Either its digital defect like all others, or ....?!

Originally posted by alienDNA

well he could just have more control over those muscles?

Notice that he raises his eyebrows, then angles his head down while still looking up, that would do it.

I can't see anything unnatural, but I have low res...

But it is a cool twist!

He's actually a benevolent reptilian, blowing the lid to help free the slaves that are food for his kind. I wonder what his response to this would be. A knowing smile, 'no comment'.

He doesn't expose the "nwo", but rather points you to the fall guys. Please tell me how his "spiritual awakening" and coming "global consciousness" is ANY different than the religion espoused by the UN as seen below:

“Decide to open yourself to God, to the Universe, to all your brethren and sisters, to your inner self ... to the potential of the human race, to the infinity of your inner self, and you will become the universe ... you will become infinity, and you will be at long last your real, divine, stupendous self” (Muller, Decide to Be, 1986, p. 2; published by the British New Age journal Global Link- Up; quoted from Alan Morrison, The Occult Character of the United Nations).

Robert Muller worked for 40 years at United Nations as the assistant to three Secretary-Generals. He was director of the Secretary- General’s Office and director of the UN Economic and Social Council (UNESCO). His spiritual beliefs are reflected in the UN's beliefs as they are in David Ickes beliefs. They are the same and can be summed up as

"Man is becoming god" - Adolph Hitler

It's Babel - "one language" - "global consciousness" - and Icke is nothing more than a false prophet that is loved by millions because he tells them what they want to hear. He tells them lies and still they believe it.

reply to post by WhoKnows100

It's Babel - "one language" - "global consciousness" - and Icke is nothing more than a false prophet that is loved by millions because he tells them what they want to hear. He tells them lies and still they believe it.

I agree that Icke is some kind of devils advocate. In exposing the NWO he creates it and nobody could ever get such a thing into people's minds without giving them all the hype they crave.

On the other hand I've read him making a hate campaign against the New Age thinking aspect of the UN. He seems to be the enemy, as it were. What you wrote attests the opposite?

I think he is lost in self interest. You get into deep waster when you do that while exposing your superiors.

reply to post by Wonderer2012


honestly ive heard some things he says, some are very good and smart some sound insane, so im not sure what to think of him

This 2.5 hour film from Chris White takes a very close look at
David Icke's history and beliefs. It reveals the true sources of David
Icke's theories which are often shocking , and should be very
concerning for a genuine seeker of truth. This is a well rounded
expose which is done respectfully, while still attempting to get the
average truther to reevaluate what they really know about the
"endgame" of the Illuminati.

David Icke Debunked: