David Icke's New Book

Originally posted by Y2Zgt
This book is complete garbage.

Nonsense.

This and other lunatic theories gives the majority of the conspiracy theories (and the ones that actually deserve attention are few and far inbetween ) a bad name. People believing such nonsense with no credible proof or any logical thought. To think... actual grown-ups believing this pure poison drivel and actually having the gall to announce they subscribe to it is a symptom of low I.Q. or a sign of a manic paranoia in a mind of lunacy.


Kinda makes me sick.

reply to post by IamBoon


Just words. No real substance.

reply to post by Mary Rose

No substance as to what.....? Certainly not the book you read or your outlandish and not to mention racist views. Assuredly you post here as some kind of sick joke or to make the very few of us who are sane look bad. Good job!


Now you better take a picture of the moon before Sir Jew -Lizardlot flies it away to smite you!!! /sarcasm

reply to post by Mary Rose


All you are basing your beliefs on are mere words..... No tangible proof , no logical ideas , and no sanity. You are defending a viewpoint from someone who called himself the messiah? And somehow what you or any of his followers writes has ANY substance or validity? PROVE IT DOES! You will not because you cannot even provide SUBSTANTIAL GROUNDS to which you base your ridiculous claims!!

Go ahead and try...... EVERY SANE PERSON DARES YOU TOO! Convince us instead of deflecting criticism at moments notice!

reply to post by IamBoon


He has talked about the son of God comment in his book:

I used the term "Son of God' in the sense of being an aspect, as I understood it at the time, of the Infinite Consciousness that is everything. We are like droplets of water in an ocean of Infinite Consciousness, or Awareness. We are 'individual' at one level of perception, but still part of the infinite whole. More than that, we are the infinite whole, just as a droplet is the ocean and the ocean is the droplet. I was not trying to say I had come to save the world or anything, only that, like everyone and everything else in all existence, I was an aspect of the Infinite and not just a physical 'personality'.

This book is full of good research and insight and should be taken seriously in my opinion.

reply to post by Mary Rose

please explain and offer any reasonable intuition of Icke's beliefs.

I suppose that is why he Specifically said he was Jesus reincarnated and warned of impending apocalyptic doom..... Yeah just an ocean and a droplet of super tsunamis and earthquakes. Just knowing you could believe him writing off his actions to sound less absurd and then to explain something MORE absurd for you to believe in just proves you need help. Mental help and no matter what reality is or what proof there is against your thoughts is presented... would be a waste of time. Kinda just like reading this thread is to humanity.

Originally posted by IamBoon
. . .waste of time.

Yes.

No more time should be wasted.

Originally posted by Aquarius1
reply to post by bonsaisert

 

I used to follow Icke years ago but he lost me when he started talking about shape shifting and reptilians, I have the first three or four books he wrote and they are way over the top in my opinion. I have yet to see any proof of 99% of what he says, but hey everyone has to make a living, guess that 1% keeps his fans hanging in.

Shape shifting isn't what you think...nor are lizards. However...there is something about the eyes.






















Lets just say they are real......really.

Originally posted by superluminal11

This is the only image that I see anything in, because of the shape of the pupils, but I worry about the use of photoshopping in photographs.

However, because of Stewart Swerdlow's information, I do believe that shapeshifting and reptilians are real. David Icke's work corroborates Swerdlow's work.


[edit on 6/19/2010 by Mary Rose]

Originally posted by Mary Rose
A part of David's work that I've always had a problem grappling with is the assertion that the physical world is an illusion. I don't quite buy it. Seems real to me. I'm still trying to "get it," bearing in mind that he might not get it, or he might not be explaining what he really means, or I might just be misinterpreting him.

I've finished reading his chapter called "Virtual-Reality 'Game'" now.

In it David presents information about a person who received an organ transplant and then began demonstrating a characteristic of the donor (artistic ability). This anecdote, among other things he says in the chapter, makes me understand better what I think he is driving at in his emphasis on the difference between mind-body computer and consciousness.

I don’t think he’s saying that mind-body computer doesn’t exist. He’s saying that the mind-body computer is malleable but consciousness is unchangeable and infinite.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Here's another passage that helps me understand. David is quoting Michael Talbot from the book The Holographic Universe:

. . . [Karl] Pribram [realised] that the objective world does not exist, at least not in the way we are accustomed to believing. What is 'out there' is a vast ocean of waves and frequencies, and reality looks concrete to us only because our brains are able to take this holographic blur and convert it into sticks and stones and other familiar objects that make up our world . . .

. . . In other words, the smoothness of a piece of fine china and the feel of beach sand beneath our feet are really just elaborate versions of the phantom limb syndrome [when amputees 'feel' a limb long after it has been removed].

According to Pribram, this does not mean there aren't china cups and grains of beach sand out there. It simply means that a china cup has two very different aspects to its reality. When it is filtered through the lens of our brains it manifests as a cup. But if we could get rid of our lens, we'd experience it as an interference pattern. Which is real and which is illusion? 'Both are real to me,' says Prigram, 'or, if you want to say, neither of them are real.'

(The term "interference pattern" is associated with how hologram technology works, which David covers in the book.)

I'm on chapter 18, "Decoding Reality."

In this chapter David uses terminology I have often seen and heard in discussions:

• Service to self (STS)
  
• Service to others (STO)
  

But right before that he expresses the concept with words I much prefer, because I've always been uncomfortable with the "service to others," as if we should forget ourselves and just worry about everyone else! In place of "service to others," he uses the expression:

• Service to the whole
  

That makes perfect sense to me. Service to the whole includes me! I want to be included!

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by IamBoon

 

Just words. No real substance.

You seem to absolutely love this line when you are backed into a corner. It does not lead to good debate to simply dismiss any ideas that you don't agree with or poke holes in your worldview. The motto of this site is to "Deny Ignorance" and the responses you are giving are not in line with that. A true seeker of truth looks at all evidence, especially those that disagree with their beliefs. In order to have real knowledge, you have to be willing to be willing to change your opinions when they are false. This is basic stuff and exactly what I was getting at when I mentioned Socrates in your other thread.

Free your mind!

I'm on chapter 19 now - "The Moon Matrix."

Chapter 18 was difficult reading for me because it includes topics like time travel. Oh my God.

I've just come to a passage in chapter 19 that I want to quote because I love the subject of light. Nothing is more beautiful to ponder, in my opinion.

This is under the heading "Seeing the Light":

To understand what is happening we need to look with fresh eyes at what we call 'light'. Like almost everything else in this reality you have to turn it on its head to discover its true nature. To be 'of the light' is a phrase people use to describe 'goodness' and high levels of awareness, a connection to 'God'; but 'light' is the trap, not the way out. It gets confusing because the word 'light' has a number of meanings. There is light from the Sun; light you switch on in your home; light that symbolises a 'spiritual' state, as in the 'Light of God'; and there is the light that physicists talk about. The latter is defined thus:

Light is electromagnetic radiation, particularly radiation of a wavelength that is visible to the human eye (about 400-700 nm, or perhaps 380-750 nm). In physics, the term light sometimes refers to electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength, whether visible or not.

Hmmmm. I guess this is David's definition of the light physicists talk about!

Here is what David has to say about what he is going to say about the moon:

I know that what I am about to say is true, in theme if not every detail. How do I know? For the same reason that I knew that the Orwellian global state was coming 15 years before it became obvious and the same reason I have come to understand the illusory nature of reality without ever passing a school exam, let alone studying in scientific academia. The 'They' who have been handing me the puzzle pieces since 1990 have shown me what I am about to outline through various means - putting knowledge into my mind, vivid dreams and the incredible synchronicity of information, people and personal experience that has come to me. This has been backed up by some of the very few people, even on the inside working in underground bases and with advanced technology, who know what the Moon is doing to human perception. This information about the real nature of the Moon is fiercely compartmentalised and only the minimum necessary are privy to what I am about to say. I am not trying to convince anyone that it is true. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. People will just have to feel it for themselves. Most will dismiss it, as usual, and even more ridicule will come my way, but I don't care. Others will know intuitively that the themes are correct. Everyone must be their own judge of what to believe.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I'm on chapter 19 now - "The Moon Matrix."

Chapter 18 was difficult reading for me because it includes topics like time travel. Oh my God.

I've just come to a passage in chapter 19 that I want to quote because I love the subject of light. Nothing is more beautiful to ponder, in my opinion.

This is under the heading "Seeing the Light":

To understand what is happening we need to look with fresh eyes at what we call 'light'. Like almost everything else in this reality you have to turn it on its head to discover its true nature. To be 'of the light' is a phrase people use to describe 'goodness' and high levels of awareness, a connection to 'God'; but 'light' is the trap, not the way out. It gets confusing because the word 'light' has a number of meanings. There is light from the Sun; light you switch on in your home; light that symbolises a 'spiritual' state, as in the 'Light of God'; and there is the light that physicists talk about. The latter is defined thus:

Light is electromagnetic radiation, particularly radiation of a wavelength that is visible to the human eye (about 400-700 nm, or perhaps 380-750 nm). In physics, the term light sometimes refers to electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength, whether visible or not.

Hmmmm. I guess this is David's definition of the light physicists talk about!

...What's so amazingly interesting about that? It's the scientific definition of light, you can read that in any physics textbook or Wikipedia. It's not Icke's definition, that's actually what light is. This is just a simplification of a scientific definition.

I'm really not at all understanding what the point of this is, except maybe that Icke actually said something factual for once.

David states:

The Moon is a gigantic spacecraft that has been specifically positioned in relation to the Earth and Sun to create the 'Moon Matrix', a false reality that 'hacks' into the information from the Sun encoded in 'Light'. The Moon Matrix feeds the hacked reality into the human collective mind via the Metaphysical Universe, the Earth's ocean and crystal structure, the reptilian brain and the left hemisphere of the brain. Unless people become Conscious, 'their' mind is the Moon's mind - the Reptilian hive mind.

David says that we're experiencing phenomena that does not come from the wider universe, but from information transmissions from the Moon. As an explanation of the kind of thing he's talking about he cites a New Scientist November 7, 2009 article about the fact that the switch to digital TV cleared up the skies for astronomers investigating the universe, because analogue TV signals had been obscuring the view, and that they were scrambling to see what they could see before transmission from cellphone companies and others fill up the radio spectrum.

reply to post by Mary Rose


And now I see another passage:

The arrival of the Moon brought geological and biological catastrophe to the Earth and the wider solar system. . . This was not the only geological and biological disaster to strike the Earth. . . .These could easily have been caused by literally moving the Moon, even marginally, a threat that Zulu legend says the Reptilians made when humans refused to obey them.