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.

 

David Icke: you are a moron.

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 04:14 AM
link   
Okay. I would have thought this premise was pretty simple.

If you're going to question if David Icke is right, you might want to consider sitting him down and at some point asking for some evidence.

But apparently not. Apparently, questioning whether we have been wrongly dismissing Icke as some sort of half-crazed, egotistical self-deluded weirdo involves showing candid, excruciating footage of him spouting incoherent babbling about the concept of 'husband and wife':

"it's just some... thing that some guy, a few hundred years ago, sat down... and said... it would be. It's b*llocks."

WOW DAVE, SO INTELLIGIBLE, SO FLUENT, SO PROFOUND! As if you're the only husband and wife to split up and have a good relationship afterwards on the entire face of the whole planet.

Then there's the predictions. Any one of which you could probably cite at least two other people as having said, both of whom probably reasoned their arguments. Dave's research amounts to: "I got some information. From somewhere." How could you possibly be shocked that there would be a major terrorist attack on American soil sometime in the new millenium? This is the same USA, is it not, that has had systematic attacks made on its embassies in other countries by Muslim terrorist organisations over the last 20 years? Did you forget the World Trade Center attacks in 1994??? You eejit. As for, "there will be a big hurricane on the Gulf of Mexico and New Orleans" - no kidding! Because THAT never happens, eh?

If George Orwell were alive now, what would he say? Well I doubt, very strongly, that he would care to mention interdimensional entities that manifest themselves as reptiles when making his point. I can just about take most things, but buttraping the adjective "Orwellian" to within an inch of its life is not one of them.

"The next Blair/Bush introduced law..."

Really? And what Law would that be? Since they are the leaders of entirely different state governments, they cannot actually jointly legislate a law. They cannot even jointly come up with, say, a UN resolution, since that would require the cooperation of AT LEAST the other members of the UN Security Council. LEARN YOUR SH*T.

Research, though. What research? What does your research amount to? Where is your documented proof?

Face it, the man cannot put together a cogent and convincing argument to save his life. Lizard people, for god's sake. Listen to what the #er is saying. 90% of what you are agreeing with, someonein the media (yeah, that would be the thing he takes such a massive dump on as being an instrument of the Illuminati) has already said, and with more backing up of their statement with facts.

Since you've clearly never in your life read anything that might possibly aid you in the construction of reasoned argument, let me guide you through the basics:

In order to make a statement that can be accepted as truth, you need verifiable documentary evidence. Don't fob me off with some excuse that due to the conspiracy you don't have any, because you need first some evidence of a conspiracy.

Let's look at say, the bloodline theory. David Icke says that Princess Diana was drafted in to carry on the royal bloodline. Erm, yeah. Most people agree with that. So far, so uncontroversial.Then, to back up his argument that the English royal family is part of a global hierarchical conspiracy, he says, "William looks a lot like his Dad, but Harry doesn't." WOW! So, in order to prove that there is a bloodline running through a family which was passed on via a mother to her son, you have said that a boy looks a lot like his Dad??? OF COURSE THERE'S A BLOODY RESEMBLANCE! OF COURSE THERE'S A BLOODLINE! THEY'RE A FAMILY, YOU UTTER, UTTER IDIOT!!! As for Harry, he looks less like his Dad than William. He still looks a bit like his Mother, quite a bit like his Grandmother, a bit like his cousins Beatrice and Eugenie... You know what that's called? That's called variation. Stems from humans reproducing sexually. Simple biology for god’s sake.

As for the whole thing about hierarches: WE LIVE IN A SOCIETY DEFINED TO VARYING DEGREES OF RIGIDITY BY SOCIAL CLASS. You may want to consider reading such works as The Communist Manifesto, The Condition of The Working Class In England, The Road To Wigan Pier, etc etc, to see how real journalists, philosophers and writers deal with this idea.

These assertions:
Bush and Blair are terrorists
All politicians are liars
The media is a tool for government propoganda

- All assertions made regularly by much saner, much more reasoned people, and all made by you without a shred of real evidence to back them up. The evidence that Bush and Blair are terrorists? YOU GOT THAT FROM THE NEWS, DAVD ICKE. Listen very, very carefully. David Icke has never been to Iraq. David Icke does not know a single thing about the Iraq War other than that which he has gleaned from the newsmedia he constantly accuses of lying. He is, in short, basing his argument that the media is a tool for government propoganda entirely on what he claims to be lies.

He claims, in another part, to be defending against the "Orwellian police state", whilst at the same time claiming that Al-Qaeda is a threat made up by the Illuminati. He is yet another leftist moron claiming to be on the side of freedom and democracy whilst defending elements of the world that are totally against both of them. Or was the Qu'ran written by George Bush's ancestors??? Is Shariah law applicable without a police state? Is the intention not Muslim theocracy, rather than secular democracy?

Then there's what he probably thinks is superior satire: him, pretending to be an onsite westminster news reporter, saying he doesn't know whether what he's saying is the truth or not, he just gets it from the politicians. As if no journalist ever bothers doing their own research but him. SORRY DAVID. YOU FAIL.

Everything, apparently, has led up to this point. "Journalism taught me to write simply, being on television made sure I'd get heard." Sorry, erm, surely you should be able to "write simply" before you go into journalism?

Obviously when confronted by this, David Icke will come out with the usual rubbish that I have been brainwashed into believing stuff by watching television all my life when I should have been listening to David Icke chat b*llocks about lizards and infinite consciousness. But, here is another very important part. I certainly do not believe most of what I read in the media. But that does not mean I have to believe what David Icke says. I point blank refuse to believe anything anyone says unless they can back it up with verifiable evidence (and even then, I only labour under the assumption that it is true - I am never, ever, convinced of a statement's truthfulness). David Icke wouldn't know verifiable evidence if it hit him in the arse. If you are that easily brainwashed by a state conspiracy, you can just as easily be brainwashed by David Icke. You, in following what one man says with so little in the way of actual, real argument, are merely replacing one manipulator with another.

And for David Icke, I have two words: Evidence Plz.




posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Lmao. what makes you worthy of evidence when your yacking away like a little girl who just had a her barbie doll burnt by her mean big brother.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Hey, don't forget that David Icke is the Son of God - so how can he possibly be wrong about anything?



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 09:04 AM
link   
lawlshambles


Please provide proof that David Icke is a "moron"

I mean you just gleaned that from the ramblings of other posters all over the internet. What actrually does Moron mean to you in your frame of reference? I mean youve never met David Icke never had a conversation with him so what you know you get from other sources...

Seeing how your argument is actually making you very much like your frame of reference for Icke?

he would call it a Opposime quite an intelligent thing to do to come up with a new word that actually is quite a profound philisophical slant. Though by its very nature he would not care what you thought about him as this would make you dislike him more.

Lol circles, waves and posiibilities all comes back to the same thing... you are just proving that that what you dislike soo much in "your view" of him by the way you presented and argued it are just facetes of your own personality... there is no differance between the germans and british soldiers fighting in ww2 just soldiers all soldiers no differance in reality.

Elf



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 09:05 AM
link   

lawlshambles
And for David Icke, I have two words: Evidence Plz.


David Icke, as weird as his theories are, DOES present evidence. Its in his many books, interviews, articles, etc. What did you find unsatisfactory with regards to the evidence that he has presented?



Originally posted by shrunkensimon
Lmao. what makes you worthy of evidence

Huh?

It doesn't matter if the person asking for evidence is in someone's opinion 'worthy'. If you are making a claim, the onus is already on you to present that evidence.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 09:35 AM
link   
After reading this the first thing that came to my mind is Icke has not been on the news lately.
Well what better way to drum up business for David than have someone come to ATS one of the most visited sites on the net and on their very first post attempt to trash his ideas and get Ickes name back up in the google ranks.
As for Icke himself I could care less what he has to say, he makes some very good points and some very crazy ones as well. Bottom line he gets people to think.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
Hey, don't forget that David Icke is the Son of God - so how can he possibly be wrong about anything?


No matter what your thoughts regarding David Icke [I personally think he's full of it] there is nothing to be gained in perpetuating myths.



According to Icke, he used the term "the son of God" "... in the sense of being an aspect, as I understood it at the time, of the Infinite consciousness that is everything. As I have written before, we are like droplets of water in an ocean of infinite consciousness"

Source.


Surely he talks enough crap, without having to take him out of context to support this?



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Huh?

It doesn't matter if the person asking for evidence is in someone's opinion 'worthy'. If you are making a claim, the onus is already on you to present that evidence.


I know, i would never deny anyone information if they asked for it. However, given what the OP wrote, it is obvious that he/she has no intention of actually considering a new theory or new truth.

They want "evidence", in otherwords, someone else to spoon feed them the wisdom until they believe an alternate reality. I read people like books, although obviously its harder with just writing, and not words, body language etc. This person is not sincere in learning anything imho, at least not yet.

"He claims, in another part, to be defending against the "Orwellian police state", whilst at the same time claiming that Al-Qaeda is a threat made up by the Illuminati. He is yet another leftist moron claiming to be on the side of freedom and democracy whilst defending elements of the world that are totally against both of them"

A "leftist moron"...he still only sees left or right, and doesn't really see past the system that offers only 2 options, both controlled btw.

I really think the OP is not sincere in wanting truth. Seems too much like the writing of someone who has already ingrained the "truth" of reality in them.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by lawlshambles
If you're going to question if David Icke is right, you might want to consider sitting him down and at some point asking for some evidence.


Evidence? Who needs that?

Look how many are Christians, Muslims, Jews - to name a few - who believe in a God that they never saw with their eyes and heard with their ears...yet they will fight and die for their belief.

Thats pretty much life. Are they wrong? Are they right? Are they somewhere in-between.

Points are simply this...there may not always be the proof one may think necessary, and also what one thinks may actually be an allegory to something deeper.

So I wouldn't bash Icke so quickly...(thinking about his reptilian theory), after all...people believe in angels and leprechauns!


Until we have the full picture of everythings...we would be wise to keep an open mind.
Dont mean you have to believe all...but unless you have proof against something...then its pointless putting that person down.


Peace

dAlen


SR

posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Heres the thing you come on with an ego and biased view that David Icke haters will love and we all know that there is many also alot of us do disagree with his views we don't pointlessly attack the man. Also with no shred of evidence or links to back yourself up. I'll walk you through some of your flaws and then you can go read the new members guide:


1.

But apparently not. Apparently, questioning whether we have been wrongly dismissing Icke as some sort of half-crazed, egotistical self-deluded weirdo involves showing candid, excruciating footage of him spouting incoherent babbling about the concept of 'husband and wife':

"it's just some... thing that some guy, a few hundred years ago, sat down... and said... it would be. It's b*llocks."

WOW DAVE, SO INTELLIGIBLE, SO FLUENT, SO PROFOUND! As if you're the only husband and wife to split up and have a good relationship afterwards on the entire face of the whole planet.

--
First you take him out of context from a TV programme also you fail to grasp the point he was making, The concept of 'husband and wife' is just that it's had so many different forms through different societies, religions and throughout different era's the general concept of husband and wife has changed from polygamous to monogamous for one. The current norm of husband and wife is a contract sealed through marriage either through religion or state yet you crack at David Icke for pointing out this norm was introduced hundreds of years ago???

Then you bring his personal life into it in an attempt to discredit his opinion which is rather sad and just shows your biasm.

2.

Then there's the predictions. Any one of which you could probably cite at least two other people as having said, both of whom probably reasoned their arguments. Dave's research amounts to: "I got some information. From somewhere." How could you possibly be shocked that there would be a major terrorist attack on American soil sometime in the new millenium? This is the same USA, is it not, that has had systematic attacks made on its embassies in other countries by Muslim terrorist organisations over the last 20 years? Did you forget the World Trade Center attacks in 1994??? You eejit. As for, "there will be a big hurricane on the Gulf of Mexico and New Orleans" - no kidding! Because THAT never happens, eh?
--
Granted yet you've pointed out nothing new many a ATS member can vouch for the fact a vast majority of predictions are usually vague and there are many documented on this website.. you seem to misunderstand what a prediction is though just because big hurricanes do hit Mexico and New Orleans and the fact we already know this does not automatically discount someones prediction of the matter as there may be variables within that prediction such as dates etc.

prediction - the act of predicting (as by reasoning about the future)
prediction - a statement made about the future

It's completely up to the person to believe into people's predictions of events at the end of the day there are many theories to support predictions and many that don't the multiple timeline event's being one for and as you've said the majority probability of events happening.

At the end of the day David Icke is not the worse offender of 'inventing' predictions so yet again you show biasm against him.

3.

Why do you try to Inisuate George Orwell into this as if you have some insight into his opinion we know nothing of a dead man's perspective his books and works do not represent or speak as the end word for him so again another point moot and yet again your immaturity i think in an attempt to build a attack anyway you can because you don't like David Icke.

4.

"The next Blair/Bush introduced law..."

Unless your present in UN meetings or Whitehouse and Downing Street wheres your evidence to against the fact the that leaders may be acting as speculated NWO organizations do so and so infact discuss what to pass next.

Next

[edit on 24-2-2007 by SR]


SR

posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 05:36 PM
link   
5.

Research, though. What research? What does your research amount to? Where is your documented proof?
-------
I think you'll find he does research his subjects heres a list of his documented proof although he doesn't own the right to his work at the moment supposedly he has been cheated out of it you should check his website as well.

Even if it his research is discounted you have to deny ignorance.

Books:

Infinite Love Is the Only Truth: Everything Else Is Illusion (2005)
Tales from the Time Loop: The Most Comprehensive Expos of the Global Conspiracy Ever Written and All You Need to Know to Be Truly Free (2003)
Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster (2002)
Children of the Matrix (2001)
The Biggest Secret: The Book That Will Change the World (1999)
And the Truth Shall Set You Free (1996)
I Am Me, I Am Free
The Robot's Rebellion (1994)
Truth Vibrations (1991)
It Doesn't Have To Be This Way (1989)

Videos:

Freedom or Fascism: The Time to Choose (2006)
The Reptilian Agenda
David Icke - Secrets of the Matrix (Parts 1 -3)
David Icke: The Freedom Road
David Icke: Revelations of a Mother Goddess
David Icke, Live in Vancouver: From Prison to Paradise

6.

Face it, the man cannot put together a cogent and convincing argument to save his life. Lizard people, for god's sake. Listen to what the #er is saying. 90% of what you are agreeing with, someonein the media (yeah, that would be the thing he takes such a massive dump on as being an instrument of the Illuminati) has already said, and with more backing up of their statement with facts.

Since you've clearly never in your life read anything that might possibly aid you in the construction of reasoned argument, let me guide you through the basics:

-----------

Because a sixteen year old clearly knows more about these subjects than a man who has spent alot of his life researching these things and yeah he may be wrong alot of the time but that doesn't mean your right either and i'm not bringing age's into this to discredit you i'm merely stating that you may not have all the answers either just like Mr Icke so why try and argue about it and not bring facts into it yourself.

7.

The evidence that Bush and Blair are terrorists? YOU GOT THAT FROM THE NEWS, DAVD ICKE. Listen very, very carefully. David Icke has never been to Iraq. David Icke does not know a single thing about the Iraq War other than that which he has gleaned from the newsmedia he constantly accuses of lying. He is, in short, basing his argument that the media is a tool for government propoganda entirely on what he claims to be lies.

-----

Do you know him personally to be able to judge this, You haven't been to Iraq either and your own words rearranged: 'Basing an arguement entirely on what she claims to be lies.' sum this up.


8.

Then there's what he probably thinks is superior satire: him, pretending to be an onsite westminster news reporter, saying he doesn't know whether what he's saying is the truth or not, he just gets it from the politicians. As if no journalist ever bothers doing their own research but him. SORRY DAVID. YOU FAIL.


--------

Lies or the truth they are both the same thing yet not, It's up to you to believe who is one to judge another.

In your last comment you state what everyone already know's that you have an opinion and you can listen to who you want. welcome to freedom of speech but just like David Icke just because you have an opinion doesn't make it the end all or be all of the matter or an authority on the subject. If your thread actually had less of what you also claimed the man does and more evidence and less self ego it would of been interesting in my opinion.


Deny Ignorance you'd be wise to pay more attention to that slogan before you try to run around this website like you have so many others and look where it has got you...



[edit on 24-2-2007 by SR]

[edit on 24-2-2007 by

[edit on 24-2-2007 by SR]


SR

posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 05:51 PM
link   
From your own blog:


"Now all I need is to join David Icke's website and post this on the forum. Assuming there is one. And even if it is, it'll probably get deleted. Because that wouldn't be, you know, hypocritical or anything.



Well I've tried, but no username I enter is allowed. WTF?!"

Speaks for it's self really



[edit on 24-2-2007 by SR]



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Hmm it seems like these type of subjects never get any decent arguments. It's always he's a ftard omfg! But never any real debate or argument. Am i nuts or is this normal? I think i forgot what this website it supposed to be. Anyway most of his theories are a little odd but you still have freedom of truly believing it or not. I know life already sucks and you have someone saying that lizards rule the world or greys are going to kill us. but in reality who knows? and maybe the truth isn't as morbid as what is shown. Keep an open mind, and maybe try to have a debate to, it might help considering these threads never last long. David icke to me is like billy meier, no one's going to win. Both people have showed evidence and had alot of wow moments but you never know. I have my reasons of not actually following someone. Oh don't forget alot of people sometimes throw out a hook but there other stuff might have a grain of truth in it, lizards runing the world is a big revalation.

[edit on 24-2-2007 by malakiem]



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Wow... well atleast he ticked you off well enough so you go do your own research... thats pretty good... lol hahahaha

honestly why do you care so much? Does someone you know follow him religiously or something?

He isn't spouting off anything new... actually neither are you.. those are all borrowed words

I think his reptilian crap is far-fetched myself..
But I don't find the need to make it a more serious claim with my rants against it.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 08:31 PM
link   
I like evidence and as you said, David Icke has yet to provide any of it. Lets remember this is a man with recognised mental health issues.

Evidence is key, if this guy provides good evidence then i will accept it, but he hasn't, end of story for me.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 11:23 PM
link   
These types of personal attacks, from the OP, amuse me. I work with a guy who is like this. Its funny, I'll bring up a topic, ufos' for example, then watch him work himself into a angry rant against the topic that makes no sense. He has never read a book about the paranormal (I asked him this) but feels so compelled to be offended by it. Religion isnt a factor either, hes just exposing his programing and cant see it. I gave up trying to explain that its ok to not believe....whatever, but getting angry is silly. Its more fun this way anyway.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 01:22 AM
link   
Anyone who really knows David will know he is anything but a moron, in fact, upon having studied him extensively, I would say he has alot of valid points and facts that cannot be disputed. I dont agree with all of his theories, but most of his theories are just logical, if you really study Davids work...

As for the Son of God bit that people seem to find funny, what David meant by that is we are all Sons of God! As David Icke says, "we are all droplets of water in an ocean of consciousness" we are all connected, and we are all Gods children, I mean isnt that what Jesus said? So get it straight before you go bashing someone who is becoming aware of his divinity.

Tell me...are you not a child of God? So why wouldnt David Icke be?

[edit on 25-2-2007 by LightWorker13]



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by SR
Why do you try to Inisuate George Orwell into this as if you have some insight into his opinion we know nothing of a dead man's perspective his books and works do not represent or speak as the end word for him so again another point moot and yet again your immaturity i think in an attempt to build a attack anyway you can because you don't like David Icke.


Not to nitpick or anything, but we do have a pretty good idea into what Orwell's opinions and political thoughts were.

In 1947, Orwell famously wrote, "The Spanish Civil War and other events in 1936-7 turned the scale and thereafter, I knew where I stood. Every line that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I know it."

It seems to me that you are attacking the OP in the same way you are accusing him of attacking Icke.

However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and think that you simply weren't aware of how much information on Orwell there is out there.

As far as Icke goes, I don't buy his theories, in fact, after research, I think that most of his theories are completely nuts. However, I recognize the fact that in an area as is so ambiguous it is impossible to completely discount them.


SR

posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 05:20 AM
link   
Yeah sorry that was aimed at the what would George Orwell say today part of the rant it seemed abit presuming at the end of the day none of us can say we would know one hundred percent what George Orwell would say about the things the OP has listed i agree with what yourself and some parts the OP raises but as i said i do disagree when speculations like the above are made. I also have discounted some of David Ickes theories i just felt that the point of this post was to incite hate for no reason as the OP clearly tries to discount every single thing yet alot of the time offers no solution either. I hope i have not fallen into the same trap and will learn from this.

Speculation can be a help and it can be a hinderance the problem with bringing dead people and there opinions into arguements. The fact that we can never know if they would of changed their opinions over time it's a one sided affair.

So one has to be careful not to discount it but also examine why there opinion was made in the first place as i've found people do tend to bend and take out of context these opinions to aid them in arguements which is no crime in it's self i suppose but fuels and encourages ignorance.

[edit on 25-2-2007 by SR]

[edit on 25-2-2007 by SR]



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 06:16 AM
link   
A poster on the Anon board mentioned a program he was on recently..."david Icke, was he right?"

anyway, here it is, just watching it now..


Google Video Link


Alternative Link



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join