It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Icke or Jones?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2005 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Isn't refreshing to have a new line of thought thats not part of the mainstream.
I may not agree on everything either says, but i say to you, who do you know thats done more to expose the truth. I see them as polarities on the same subject, but both hacking at the same tree. Both have been ridiculed for years in the press, but there own observational predictions have or are coming to fruition. So for that I have the utmost respect for Icke and Jones

What more do you need to pull the veil from your eyes Jones in your face to shake you up out of your foundations and Icke reserved giving you something new to contemplate.

I also think Jeff Rense is a great guy




posted on May, 31 2005 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
When it comes to the NWO, which theory do you believe to be true? Icke's reptilian bloodline theory or Jones political illuminati that has links to royal family etc? I think this is interesting to see which one members tend to go to. I myself, believe in Jones theory of the NWO and illuminati.


Neither...althought Id rather have dinner with Icke. He seems plesant. Alex Jones really bugs me with his in your face evangelism.

Im mor ein line with the views of Jim Marrs, Jordan Maxwell and Leonard Horrowitz who I feel have way more credibility.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 06:33 AM
link   


Originally posted by toasted
www.khouse.org...



interesting link you posted there.
Very interesting


AGREED!. i second that. i found this quote particularly interesting. the date 1980 is off, but Mr. Wells had quite the predictions going on.


1933 -- The Shape of Things to Come by H.G. Wells is published. Wells predicts a second world war around 1940, originating from a German-Polish dispute. After 1945 there would be an increasing lack of public safety in "criminally infected" areas. The plan for the "Modern World-State" would succeed on its third attempt (about 1980), and come out of something that occurred in Basra, Iraq.

The book also states,

"Although world government had been plainly coming for some years, although it had been endlessly feared and murmured against, it found no opposition prepared anywhere."



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 10:08 AM
link   
I like both but have problems with them both too. Icke's theory's as far as the reptillian agenda are wacky but he does come back to reality a bit with his later work that covers consciencness and the nature of reality. He explains that the reptillian thing is a metophorical illusion (infinite love is the only truth, everything else is a lie). But it is still a turn off to many people and I have that problem with it.

But Icke is far less of a turn off to me than Alex Jones, while I respect his research I dislike him as a person. He is egotistical and arogant and some of his personal theories make little sense when held up to logic (although less so than the reptillian agenda).

My biggest turn off to Jones though was his interview with Noam Chomsky (IMO one of the most intelligent people in the world and far more "sane" when it comes to "conjspiracy theory's), Jones actually claimed that Chomsky was a NWO shill because he discredited Jones' crazy theory that gun ownership keeps crime down. This theory alone discredits his work because it is not backed up by any facts or empirical data, he claims that crime in Britain went up after the British banned guns in the 80's, when Chomsky pointed out that guns were not legal in Britain before the time Jones claimed they were (on top of the fact that crime did not increase over that time) Jones called Chomsky a liar and a NWO shill. Now that alone discredits so much of his good work. it is also worth note for those that don't know, that I am British and grew up in the said time frame and guns (handguns, automatic weapons) were never legal or available in Britain. Alex Jones may have mistook the increase in guns control to include some of the more destructive "hunting" guns (shotguns and rifles), and crime did not increase after this, any suggestion that those type of hunting weapons had ANY effect on crime rates is pure insanity and unresearched conjecture.

So I have to say David Icke since Alex Jones is arogant, obnoxious (that voice is like chewing glass) and some times he is VERY wrong.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by parabolee
My biggest turn off to Jones though was his interview with Noam Chomsky (IMO one of the most intelligent people in the world and far more "sane" when it comes to "conjspiracy theory's), Jones actually claimed that Chomsky was a NWO shill because he discredited Jones' crazy theory that gun ownership keeps crime down. This theory alone discredits his work because it is not backed up by any facts or empirical data, he claims that crime in Britain went up after the British banned guns in the 80's, when Chomsky pointed out that guns were not legal in Britain before the time Jones claimed they were (on top of the fact that crime did not increase over that time) Jones called Chomsky a liar and a NWO shill. Now that alone discredits so much of his good work. it is also worth note for those that don't know, that I am British and grew up in the said time frame and guns (handguns, automatic weapons) were never legal or available in Britain. Alex Jones may have mistook the increase in guns control to include some of the more destructive "hunting" guns (shotguns and rifles), and crime did not increase after this, any suggestion that those type of hunting weapons had ANY effect on crime rates is pure insanity and unresearched conjecture.


Actually in Great Britain in 1996 there were roughly 200,000 legal guns.
edition.cnn.com...
Gun crime has gone up since 1996:
"The figures also show the number of crimes involving handguns has more than doubled since the ban on the weapons imposed after the Dunblane massacre from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871 in the 12 months to April last year." (2003) They have not gone down to below the levels of 1996, as I have shown in two other ATS threads.
www.guardian.co.uk...
The 1997 Ban helped to outlaw lower-caliber handguns, which did exist as well as semi-automatic rifles, which were also legal pre-ban.
Finland banned guns during the 1980's and recently re-legalized guns, due to the fact gun-bans do not work. Since guns have been re-introduced the crime rate in Finland has gone down.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 03:04 PM
link   
After hearing Jones on a few Coasts to Coasts, seeing some of his less serious/more comedic video stuff online, and seeing some of his other stuff I have to say hes grown on me. Icke also seems at least friendly, even tho he is way too new agey for his own good.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 10:49 AM
link   
I stand corrected on a few points. But there are many facts that dispute the statistics you have sited as being proof that gun control creates more gun crime (an idiotic theory IMHO). The only way that can be argueed is if you count the illegal sales of guns as "gun crime", which would obviously go up under strict gun control. An increase in the abilty to get hold of a gun is the only (serious) way gun crime can increase, if that is through legal or illegal means.

Gun crime in Britain is very low and always has been, the legal ownership of some guns in the past (and now) does not change the fact that we have had strict gun control for a long time and it is very effective. We have (virtually) no street gun crime/violence like that seen in the US, we don't have drive by shootings on a regualr basis etc. Therfore I do not believe the rise in gun crime has anything to do with the extension of the gun ban.

Statistics from the UK home office -

"The overall level of gun crime in this country is relatively low – less than half of 1 percent of all crime recorded by the police – and in the year ending 31 March 2004, there was:

* a 15 per cent reduction in homicides involving firearms
* a 13 per cent reduction in robberies involving firearms"

from -
www.homeoffice.gov.uk...

It may be that Alex Jones was correct on part of this issue (even though it was not black and white and he made it out to be), but to suggest that anyone missinformed about a subject is a shill to the NWO is moronic. Chomsky said the British "have always had guns outlawed", this is a fact, the fact that not ALL guns were outlawed does not detract from this fact, Jones' made out that we had wide spread gun ownership and virtually no gun bans. Even now gun ownership does exist but it is limited to hunting rifles etc. Jones' wasn't lieing either but was exagerating a fact to make it look like another fact was false (maybe not intentionally). If some who lived in England for 25 years was unaware of the (very small) gun ownership in the country during the said time period before the extension of the gun bans then Chomsky's lack of knowledge of it is undertsandable and hardy evidence of beeing a NWO shill!

Jones also said Englands crime rate "Doubled" since the gun ban, this is not true. By your own links "gun crime" went up 33% that is not a 100% increase in overall crime. He also claimed that gun deaths in the UK are the worst in the world and that the US is number 12! That's insane and I would like to see some evidence that supports such a ridiculous statment.

I don't wish to get into a gun control debate here. I am merely pointing out that Alex Jones can sometime blow BS through his A.

Noam Chomsky agreed with Jones and has far superior knowledge about political history. But just because Noam dissagreed with the subject of gun control Alex Jones decided that Chomsky must be working for the New World Order. How ignorant is that? Anyone who disagrees with me (no matter how small the disagreement) must be working for the evil shadow government! What an idiot. He then said "I respect your work" before he cut Chonmsky off and then said "Say hi to David Rockefellow for me" and went on to say Chomsky is "a New World Order shill". Very nice Alex you respect his work? What a jerk. That puts me off him completely.

After the interview Jones claimed "I'm far more intelligent than you!". Is that so Alex? Despite Noam is considered the Einstien of language and revolutionised the science of Linguistic Theory, Syntax and Semantics. Such arogance is sickening. Alex Jones' attitude and not his theories is what will always keep in the "wacko conspiracy theory" fringe, that helps no one. And is attack on one of the most respected people on the field of government conspiracy works against all of us and our attempts to discover the truth. I wish I could like Alex Jones because I do respect his work (but I think he is a NWO shill! joke). But I think as a whole he works against himself and his attitude and methods turn off far more people than he turns on.

Alex Jones would be worth listening to if he wasn't so arogant and obnoxious all the time. He is unable to afford people (who deserve it) respect and that is a shame.


EDIT - I just wanted to add that I take back the last statement, Alex Jones IS worth listening to and is a very good journalist for the most part. It is just his often arogant and harsh nature that makes him seem sensationalist rather than serious. That along with his lack of respect for other peoples theories makes him inferior to David Icke.


[edit on 23-6-2005 by parabolee]



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Is The Gun Ban In The UK Working???

That talks about the topic, it's an interesting read. Over all gun-crime has gone up 6 years out of 8, down once and stayed the same once. Although like most General Election years, the year before the pile other murders, etc, (Like Shipman) into that year so the next one it shows a decrease. Which is to be honest low of the Government to do. But I'd rather take the topic there.

For me, Alex is better then David just for the fact Alex sometimes is a fool and pig-headed, but over all I think is work is better then David who I just can't agree with. Especially after he claimed to be the Second Coming and also the God-Head on National T.V.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Like I said, I'm not really interested in getting into the gun control debate, people tend to be very stuborn on this subject and I have little patience for that. But here are some thoughts...

The best argument's against gun control are -

1. Gun ownership keeps gun crime down.
- Insane theory based on misleading statistics and lies (IMHO). How anyone can honestly say the more people own guns the less gun crime there will be? Insanity. The reasons behind the statistics are far more complex and tend to be related to the availability of guns, who allows the guns to get into the hands of these people is a far more interesting debate.

2. Without guns we are unarmed sheep for the NWO (this is the kind or srgument Alex Jones makes).
- Where in the world are people being controlled by the NWO that would be free if they had guns? Why does Jones believe that the NWO has the most control in the USA but fails to put through any real gun control? Does he not believe Bush and his cronies to be agents of the NWO? Why did Bush refuse to sign the extension (despite requests from law inforcment agensies that believe it would help them keep guns out of the criminals hands and keep police safer) Clintons gun control bill for automatic weapons? Again a deeply flawed theory.

I understand how people can get turned off by some of Icke's wacky theories but at least he's a nice guy. And his retillian theories are explained by his later work in which he explains they are a metophoric truth based on a illussion based reality. Believe that or not it is far less craxy and does adhere to theoretical science.

And the second coming and god head things he said were misunderstood he was in fact describing all humans as children of God, or of some sort of deity, and the confusion resulted from his scrambling to explain his spiritual apotheosis. This misunderstanding has been used against him many times but the way it is described is unfair to him.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Alex Jones should listen to Ike a bit more and see that there is demonic connections with world power, rather than reptilian alien but angelic.
Many times the Bible referes to human hybrids like the Giants or demonic people and fallen angels. Ike is on the right track but without the God of the Bible. Im not sure about AJ full perspective but I guess he knows that are larger forces at work and as he is so againsts the mark of the beast he must know that their is an unseen evil brewing up perhaps beyond our control.

Ike thinks religion is a conspiracy,
Jones thinks there is a conspiracy against his faith.

Either way they are good at what they do but a personality swap may help amoungst them selves. Jones needs to be more patient in what he says and Ike needs to be more assertive in what he says.
They make you think and question what you may not have time to do your self, so we need their views.

Take your pick.



[edit on 29-6-2005 by The time lord]



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   
I strongly agree.

I watched Alex Jones' 9-11 documentry a few days ago and it was very good. I think he makes some assertions that make no sense but he has a very good centeral point.

I think both of them do things that hurt their case but I am very thankfull we have both of them. As craz as they both are at times (and they are both crazy at times
) They are both very interesting and valuable assett to mankind.

On a side note "WACO : Rules of engagement" is a must see documentary.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Would look good in a celebrity death match on MTV.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 10:56 PM
link   
I'm glad a cpl of you checked out that link

www.khouse.org...

chuck missler is a very intelligent man [his site/and voice on the tape] and dr cuddy is right on top of this NWO thing.

IMO , it would not be a waste of your money to get the audio tape, and this one on the church, as well; THREAD DRIFT

store.khouse.org...

you'll never hear another briefing on church history quite like this. he tells it like it is and rarely pulls any punches...it is not politically correct . I was not bored with it, not for one second.

I gained an insight on the church, that I'd never have gotten from the history channel. it helped to put some things into perspective. made today even more relevant [ to me ]

sorry about the drift there...

[edit on 4-7-2005 by toasted]



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 03:17 AM
link   
I go with Alex. I hadn't really heard much of Icke so I went to his interview here on ATS and visited his web page and was a little disapointed with his way of seeing things. He covers the pollitical and economical theories fairly good and pretty precise which is why I'll probably look into The Greatest Secret. Other than that I say go Jones, he does talk a little loud tough.




[edit on 5-7-2005 by MisTicaL]



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 07:40 AM
link   
The way I look at it, Icke does a lot more harm then good.

Even if he is right about Reptiles existing be it Demons or Aliens, surely it is best to wake people up to what the Government is doing and get as many people behind the "cause" as you can before you go "screaming" about Aliens which only makes people think twice?



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 01:16 PM
link   
I agree, but I also think Jones does plenty to hurt the cause. He's far too quick to speculate and often his specualtion makes no sense.

For instance in his 911 - Rise of tyranny documentary he states (as if fact) that Clinton was behind the Oklahoma city bombing in order to push through the NWO anti-gun agenda (as part of the police state agenda). But he states that Bush was behind 9-11 to push the police state agenda for the NWO aswell, why Bush is letting the anti automatic weapons law that Clinton passed after OCB to expire is not addressed. If they both have the same agenda why go to such extent to pass the bill only to let it expire.

I think he's way off on the NWO anti-gun agenda. I don't see how owning guns is going to protect us from the NWO, it would just give them more reason to impose a police state. Look at Waco, having guns helped them didn't it, no it didn't.

An armed revolution is not the answer, we need the police and military to be on our side when we stand against tyranny. A civil war in 2005 is far from a desirable progress towards freedom. We still have a supposed democracy here, we can use it to demand liberty. And the more they grip there fists to control us the more people will slip from there grasps and if they send the police to force us we will have to be the peacfull ones, so there is no doubt who is in the wrong, only then will the police and military stand with the people and not the power.

Alex has never backep up his NWO anti-gun agenda with any real evidence, but continues to assert it as truth. I like the guy for the most part, but just like Icke his wild assertions on many topics allienate a great many people. Plus he sounds crazy when he talks



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 01:21 PM
link   
It is fairly clear as to why Bush let that come through...it was called re-election. He could not afford to loose that many votes and while people are busy talking about the Gun laws, they can slip other laws through.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 01:36 PM
link   
What does he care how many votes he looses?

He stole both elections anyway!

I'm sorry but a ban on automatic weapons would not loose Bush votes to Kerry (the gun lovers hate Democrats)! and so what if it did, aren't they both Skull and Bones NWO cronnies according to Jones??? Sorry but Alex Jones' is just way off base with that one, makes no sense.

Oh and barely anyone even talked about that gun law, it was way into that pages of the newspaper in a small column. Seriously Iraq pushed it out of the news.

[edit on 6-7-2005 by parabolee]



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 01:40 PM
link   
He would not have lost votes to Kerry, but he would have lost votes.

Now Kerry, was what we (Politics students) call a "joke" candidate. The democrats did not wish to win the last election as they would have had to deal with the problem of Iraq and could not have pulled the troops out as the public still have heavily mixed views on such things.

Now also if he was the minority President for a second time, it would have made things even more difficult for the powers that be as more and more of the public would begin to be annoyed and question such things. Coupled with the fact the gun-law was a "feeler" law, to see what would happen and test the waters. They won't ban guns on a National level for a decade, they want to do it at a local level first.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
He would not have lost votes to Kerry, but he would have lost votes.

Now Kerry, was what we (Politics students) call a "joke" candidate. The democrats did not wish to win the last election as they would have had to deal with the problem of Iraq and could not have pulled the troops out as the public still have heavily mixed views on such things.


Dude you are out of your mind! Kerry was voted for in the primaries by DEMOCRAT voters, not the party. They voted for him because they thought he could win. Suggesting they intentially lost so they could win in 4 years is stupid.

And Bush didn;t even need to do anything for the gun law, it could have gone through congress and he could have washed his hands. For a political student you don't pay much attention. I also studied politics and all these suggestions are dumb. Kerry was selected by american citizens as the candidate they though could win, he in fact DID win but the election was stolen without a doubt. Sure he was a weak candidate but no Democrat wanted him to lose so they didn't have to deal with Iraw. Come on that is crazy!


Now also if he was the minority President for a second time, it would have made things even more difficult for the powers that be as more and more of the public would begin to be annoyed and question such things. Coupled with the fact the gun-law was a "feeler" law, to see what would happen and test the waters. They won't ban guns on a National level for a decade, they want to do it at a local level first.


Where do you get this? It makes no sense. A "feeler" law? It was a peice of crap law that barely did anything at all. It banned hardely anything, to suggest that OCB was pulled off to pass that POS is insane. And Bush woul dhave lost ZERO support over it. The Bush zombies will back him no matter what he does. Just look how many times this admin F's up. They still love the moron.

And this is all BESIDE the point because IF both parties are NWO ahilss as Alex Jones says then isn't the NWO agenda more important than a few Bush votes? The election was stolen anyway because GOP supporters fall more in line with a fascist control.

Your argument (even if true) tottaly fails to explain the inconsitancy of Alex Jones' wild asserions on this issue.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join