David Icke and political peadophiles. Is it time to re adress his claims?

a reply to: the owlbear

I've never given money to David Icke.
& I wouldn't call people who have "loons" either.


& I'm sure in your lifetime you've given money to much worse people out there from corporations to your government taxes.

What clothes do you wear?
They may have been made with slave labour production.

Got an up to date smart phone/tablet/computer?
Could also be a slave labour product.

What media stations do you watch? Have you paid for Sky/Cable/Satellite TV?
Your money went into the pockets of Ted Turner & Rupert Murdoch.

I don't believe Mr.Icke does what he does for monetary gain.
I say that because of his conviction in his claims.
He takes this to heart.


& if it's all an act he's better than most that Hollywood have produced & could have made a hell of a lot more in a different profession.


I think he is genuine.

Without wanting to derail my own thread anyone not wanting to give money to evil folks should stop putting fuel in there cars or buying anything from any big shops.

Simple really, give some cash to a crazy guy saying crazy things is bad.

Buying refined fossil fuels from huge corperation is good because you need to drive...

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

lizards notwithstanding, i already suspected what David was postulating. firm evidence will only reinforce my assumptions; that is, the so called 'elite' are in fact pond scum of the lowest order.

So merley postulating, how much of his work would have to be proved right before you re thought the lizzard thing

a reply to: RoScoLaz4

a reply to: nonspecific

That's an absurd way of dealing with the situation.

"Well, that's 67.9% of this guys ideas that have now been proven correct. I've always said that if he ever reached that golden 67.9% mark that I would blindly believe that everything else he has said is correct too.

So the world is flat..."

Just doesn't work like that.

Shouldn't work like that.

a reply to: nonspecific

His Reptile theory is believable when explained correctly.



He claims they're from another dimension...
I can dig that, although I'd call them Djinn taking Reptillian form...


He claims leaders can shape shift into these beings...
I think this means they can manipulate both dimensions...
Not that they turn into Lizards in our fleshy realm, but rather take that form in the said dimension...


He claims they feed off of negative energy...
Again, nearly all religions believe in the Darkside of the Universe & what they thrive off of...


He claims we are living in a Matrix...
Which to me and my comprehension of his explanations, just refers to the multi dimensional Universe that exists outside of the realm we inhabit...




Again, that's just my comprehension of his wisdom.

I do not beleive that is an absurd question?

I did not mean to say that how much of his work proven before you would beleive everything that he said to be true but how many times he would be proven right before you re evaluated his work and re thought his beleifs based on new understanding.



a reply to: LiveForever8

originally posted by: LiveForever8
a reply to: nonspecific

That's an absurd way of dealing with the situation.

"Well, that's 67.9% of this guys ideas that have now been proven correct. I've always said that if he ever reached that golden 67.9% mark that I would blindly believe that everything else he has said is correct too.

So the world is flat..."

Just doesn't work like that.

Shouldn't work like that.

Is that really your Litmus test?

Oh, sorry, didn't recognise the humour.

Don't worry abut the percentages that confirm the whole U.S democracy bollocks, is a sham.

a reply to: nonspecific

Okay, that's fair enough, I understand that.

But it's hard to apply when the subjects are so astoundingly different.

Pedophiles in the entertainment industry and political sphere (common knowledge) requires a completely different level of belief compared to dimension manipulating Kings and Queens controlling the world population from a Moon base.

The former should have no influence upon the latter.

I politely will agree to disagree. Sorry to call folks loons. Believe what you want. I believe in systematic child sex and torture rings among the elite of the world. But no, I don't believe Icke.

That is to some degree my point, when Icke said this was happening he was mocked and ridiculed for making such wild and crazy claims.

If they turn out to be true then you must admit that although even more outlandish one would have to reasess his other claims.

I am looking at this from a critical point and question as opposed to a beleiver point of view by the way.

a reply to: LiveForever8

That is an interesting and usefull argument on this subject.

Icke is one of those rare celebritys that actaully took a hit for his opinions.

I personally think that he would have had a better life by continuing his career as an ex sports star and tv presenter than he ever could have done as a whacko author?

a reply to: Blaine91555

a reply to: nonspecific

But that's my point, they weren't wild and crazy claims. Institutional abuse is an incredibly common practice, unfortunately. Icke wasn't saying things people thought was crazy and unrealistic, he was saying things people didn't want to believe because then we would have to accept that we have a major problem on our hands. Instead it became much easier to turn a blind eye and sweep it under the rug.

Every one of his ideas needs to be tested in isolation.

If him being right about Pedophilia means that you are willing to give Reptilians a second chance then fair enough. Just don't expect the same success hit rate.

I think in the early days Icke was telling the truth!
His comments about lizards was originally his way of saying they are jews.
However, like all those who become a little too loud, he was visited!

Since then he's realised that even when you shove it in peoples faces they just turn away and get their daily dose of the msm, so whats the point, might as well try to earn a few bob, and thats what he does, and it keeps him alive!

originally posted by: Blaine91555

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

First let me make it clear this is my opinion.

If I thought Icke actually believed the nonsense he pushes I'd be forgiving, but I do not. He fills the same niche in alternative topics that the get rich quick scam artists fill, bilking the poor out of money by making them think attending their gatherings and buying their books and vid's will solve their problems. The only difference is the topics of the material he is peddling.

If he were to be correct about one person, that changes nothing. He's still a charlatan and con artist in my opinion. Dog bites me once it's his fault, bites me twice it's my fault applies.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

I would have agreed with you a couple of years ago, but to see the whole Saville scandal enfold, and the aftermath, I certainly think Icke has a grasp of what is going on.

I have to agree and disagree at the same time if I may.

When he claimed that the elite were abusing children his claims were thrown away because it was deemed ridiculous.

Nobody was willing to even entertain the idea because it was deemed unbelievable and he was mocked because of it.

Only now are people coming round to the fact that it could be true and these crazy claims are being taken seriously.

My point as it was and still is is do we need to take another look at his work and decide what other theories may have merit in the future?

a reply to: LiveForever8

a reply to: nonspecific

i'm already open to 'the lizard thing', but most people are not, hence the proviso

a reply to: nonspecific

All politicians have enemies as do the royal family, enemies are known to lie and spread rumors.
Call me a doubting Thomas if you will, but I would need to see the evidence for myself to believe any of it.
From Lizard rulers to Elite Pedophiles.

a reply to: nonspecific

The reason his claims that the elite were abusing children was ridiculed was because, at the time, Icke was saying some pretty weird and stupid things, things he now regrets. It wasn't his message that was hard to believe it was the messenger himself. Also, those who mocked him the most were the media institutions who had a vested interest in shutting him up and he made it really easy for them to do a pretty good job of it.

As for this...

My point as it was and still is is do we need to take another look at his work and decide what other theories may have merit in the future?

...the answer is always yes. Nothing should ever be ruled out.