David Icke - lunatic or visionary?

[Northernhibee]

Been recently watching some of his YouTube videos - some of his stuff seems really far fetched but he's also a very interesting if controversial character.

Interested in seeing if people on here consider him a lunatic, visionary or a bit of both.

Personally I think there is an element of truth to what he has to say about the idea of a social elite but his passion leads him a bit astray at times.

[Hibernia&Alba]

He's needed psychiatric help for years. I remember when he seemed to turn from BBC reporter to crazy mystic overnight. The media coverage at the time was terrible looking back, especially that infamous Wogan appearance in the turquoise shellsuit. The poor man needed help not ridicule IMO.

[steakbake]

I sometimes read his stuff and a lot of it is just ravings of a mentalist. However, in amongst it is the occasional gem that is plausible.

[Mixu62]

I sometimes read his stuff and a lot of it is just ravings of a mentalist. However, in amongst it is the occasional gem that is plausible.

You could say the same for .net!!

[Hibernia&Alba]

You could say the same for .net!!

:-D

Great post!

[Hibs Class]

I'm sure he's not a visionary, but lunatic is probably not the best alternative. If I had to sum him up in one word it would be baffling.

[steakbake]

You could say the same for .net!!

Very true - like about 95% of the internet!

[Rasta_Hibs]

I'm a bit undecided - He has called things right in many ways but then the shape shifting lizards claim is a bit of a curve ball.

[Phil D. Rolls]

He was such a lunatic, he was mad enough to tell everybody Jimmy Saville was a paedophile. How everybody laughed!

[whiskyhibby]

He was such a lunatic, he was mad enough to tell everybody Jimmy Saville was a paedophile. How everybody laughed!

Don't remember that I must say, I think however that the man is far from a visionary and does need some professional help!

[Viva_Palmeiras]

If he suffers from Aspergers he deserves better understanding not ridicule...

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=151653

Hopefully the debate moves on from lunatics/window lickers or puddle drinkers comments.

If the general public had exposure they'd soon see how challenging understanding the world the way we do is for a number of people.

[Haymaker]

Decent goalkeeper in his day.

[sleeping giant]

Love David Icke . Got most of his stuff on my PC. Even ripped the audio for my iPod.

Do I believe everything he says ? No. But there is a lot I wouldn't discount either.
I love alternative views of existence.

Have a look at Boheimian Grove by Alex Jones (bit of a bit case but the video evidence is quite startling)

I also liked Bill Cooper aka Milton Cooper or William Cooper. I bought his book (behold a pale horse) an aw hungs. Incidentally , he was shot and killed by the police.

David Icke rocks.

His second interview with Wogan is on you tube. If I remember correctly Wogan tries to discredit him again but the audience were having none of it. Sure he got a standing ovation.

Jordan Maxwell is another. I fell asleep watching him last night.

[Pretty Boy]

Some of Ickes stuff is seriously far fetched, reptilian shape shifters anyone?

Equally there are some things he says that have a ring of truth to them. As said above he has spoken for years of a group of influential paedophiles at the heart of Beitish society. Looks like he may have had a point after all. Whilst the reptilian stuff is obviously fantasy and nonsense is the idea of a ruling global elite, illuminati style group with undue influence and power really so hard to believe?

[Hibrandenburg]

Some of Ickes stuff is seriously far fetched, reptilian shape shifters anyone?

Equally there are some things he says that have a ring of truth to them. As said above he has spoken for years of a group of influential paedophiles at the heart of Beitish society. Looks like he may have had a point after all. Whilst the reptilian stuff is obviously fantasy and nonsense is the idea of a ruling global elite, illuminati style group with undue influence and power really so hard to believe?

I always wanted to write a novel where the storyline has it's beginning in the transfer of power from the Roman empire to the Catholic church when the empire started to crumble. When the Catholic church then later split into two secret societies vying for power and going through many metamorphic changes throughout the centuries including European Royal families, the British Empire and the rise of communism, fascism and the USA today. There's definitely a book in there somewhere but I'll probably leave it to Dan Brown or Doddie :devil:

[Phil D. Rolls]

Don't remember that I must say, I think however that the man is far from a visionary and does need some professional help!

Well, he did say it and people said he needed professional help. Makes you think twice about what being mad really is, and indeed who is qualified to call people mad, and what people's motives are for saying it.

Dissidents in Soviet Russia were certified insane.

I watch Brian Cox's programmes about the universe and the origins of the planet. It's way beyond my comprehension but I'd never call him insane.

As for Icke, I do notice that a lot of the people who are into his beliefs tend to be heavy users of cannabis.

The fact that he has Aspergers has nothing to do with whether he is mad or not. People should form their own opinions on what he says, what he is has nothing to do with it.

[--------]

I always wanted to write a novel where the storyline has it's beginning in the transfer of power from the Roman empire to the Catholic church when the empire started to crumble. When the Catholic church then later split into two secret societies vying for power and going through many metamorphic changes throughout the centuries including European Royal families, the British Empire and the rise of communism, fascism and the USA today. There's definitely a book in there somewhere but I'll probably leave it to Dan Brown or Doddie :devil:

Erm, why me? :confused:

Actually, you're right enough about the book. Pity George Macdonald Fraser's dead - it would make a great Flashman - "Flashman the Supreme Pontiff" ... :wink:

PS - Icke's not a lunatic, nor a visionary. He's just a VERY NAUGHTY BOY. :devil:

[Beefster]

I watch Brian Cox's programmes about the universe and the origins of the planet. It's way beyond my comprehension but I'd never call him insane.

The vast majority of Cox's beliefs are built on hundreds of years of investigation, observation and proof though. I don't really understand special relativity but it's been proven by experimentation so I can trust that it's true.

Most of Icke's beliefs have no proof (and are evidently nonsense).

[whiskyhibby]

The vast majority of Cox's beliefs are built on hundreds of years of investigation, observation and proof though. I don't really understand special relativity but it's been proven by experimentation so I can trust that it's true.

Most of Icke's beliefs have no proof (and are evidently nonsense).

Agree Cox uses the scientific principle which is 180. Degrees out from David Icke's, and let's be fair any recognised religion. For me a scientific approach wins the argument every time!

[whiskyhibby]

The good thing about science is it always questions its own assumptions which is not the case for any organised religion or "visionaries" like David Icke.......

[Phil D. Rolls]

The vast majority of Cox's beliefs are built on hundreds of years of investigation, observation and proof though. I don't really understand special relativity but it's been proven by experimentation so I can trust that it's true.

Most of Icke's beliefs have no proof (and are evidently nonsense).

I kind of feel sorry for people who think science is infallible.

At best it's a digital interpretation of an analogue universe. At worst, it doesn't stick to it's own rules, and often requires the same leap of faith that other dogmas do.

The ancients did things which are only being understood by science now.

[Beefster]

I kind of feel sorry for people who think science is infallible.

Given the nature of scientific paradigms, I'd be surprised if anyone thought it was infallible. However, that shouldn't be used as a reason to believe (or say "well, it could be true") every crackpot theory that can't/won't be proven.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Given the nature of scientific paradigms, I'd be surprised if anyone thought it was infallible. However, that shouldn't be used as a reason to believe (or say "well, it could be true") every crackpot theory that can't/won't be proven.

Personally I don't believe Icke. I don't think the fact that somebody goes against accepted wisdom for their time is a reason to call them mad, which was the original question on this thread.

Was it Gallileo that had to swear to the church that the sun rotated around the earth? Seems to me science is the new church and every (new/very old) piece of wisdom that doesn't meet it's dogma is treated with the same disdain as the heretics of the renaissance.

My original point is that sanity is defined by the frame of reference of those giving the diagnosis, rather than by the frame of reference of those deemed insane. Hence my point that it was convenient to call Icke mad when he was saying things about Saville (aka the Establishment), just as it was convenient to certify Solzhinitsken insane and Galileo a heretic.

I can't understand Icke and I can't really understand Cox. Cox is deemed sane because he has the backing of the ruling creed, Icke is called a loony because he has the backing of new agers.

[steakbake]

I kind of feel sorry for people who think science is infallible.

At best it's a digital interpretation of an analogue universe. At worst, it doesn't stick to it's own rules, and often requires the same leap of faith that other dogmas do.

The ancients did things which are only being understood by science now.

The ancients had the benefit of being given certain technologies during the colonisation of earth and the creation of the hybrid species we are today. ;-)

[Phil D. Rolls]

The ancients had the benefit of being given certain technologies during the colonisation of earth and the creation of the hybrid species we are today. ;-)

Is that similar to cox saying that there are billions of clones of me spread throughout space? Both concepts are beyond my imagination.

[Beefster]

I can't understand Icke and I can't really understand Cox. Cox is deemed sane because he has the backing of the ruling creed, Icke is called a loony because he has the backing of new agers.

I take your point about science being fallible but this bit isn't true IMHO. Cox is deemed sane because he has evidence and accepted wisdom on his side for the stuff that he asserts. Icke is considered how he is because he hasn't provided any evidence that I know of and there is not anything to even remotely suggest that we may be ruled by lizards (unless anyone took 'V' as a documentary).

That's aside from the general plausibility of the likes of "time runs at different speeds depending on how fast you move" compared to "we are ruled by lizard people".

It's highly likely Cox, placed two hundred years ago, would have been considered crazy but he would have at least have been able to suggest ways to prove his theories.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I take your point about science being fallible but this bit isn't true IMHO. Cox is deemed sane because he has evidence and accepted wisdom on his side for the stuff that he asserts. Icke is considered how he is because he hasn't provided any evidence that I know of and there is not anything to even remotely suggest that we may be ruled by lizards (unless anyone took 'V' as a documentary).

That's aside from the general plausibility of the likes of "time runs at different speeds depending on how fast you move" compared to "we are ruled by lizard people".

It's highly likely Cox, placed two hundred years ago, would have been considered crazy but he would have at least have been able to suggest ways to prove his theories.

Accepted by who? The church could say the same thing when they threatened to kill Galileo.


Icke can "prove" his theories, just not using the sort of proof that is required in a modernist society. If you were to go back to prehistory he'd have no difficulty proving his theories at all.

His madness to me is based on the fact that he goes contrary to what the majority of people accept to be true. Just as Galileo did - Galileo would still be considered a heretic in Italy were it not for the fact that Italian society changed its frame of reference.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I can't find the option for "He's just a very naughty boy" on the poll.:confused:

[Northernhibee]

TBH if I had known he has Aspbergers I wouldn't have used the word "lunatic" as I find that aspergers and autism are both hugely misunderstood. Apologies for any offence caused.

One of his books arrived from Amazon the day, will need a good read through of it. FWIW, many of his predictions have arguably been true so I'm prepared to be open minded enough to say that it's possible he's totally right.

[Beefster]

Accepted by who? The church could say the same thing when they threatened to kill Galileo.


Icke can "prove" his theories, just not using the sort of proof that is required in a modernist society. If you were to go back to prehistory he'd have no difficulty proving his theories at all.

His madness to me is based on the fact that he goes contrary to what the majority of people accept to be true. Just as Galileo did - Galileo would still be considered a heretic in Italy were it not for the fact that Italian society changed its frame of reference.

I'm not sure if you're arguing that science is a sham or Icke is a visionary any longer.

Galileo had proof. The church chose to ignore that proof and stick to their dogma though in fear that it would disprove the existence of God. Icke can't prove his theories. He wouldn't be able to prove his theories in the Bronze Age. I could go back to the Bronze Age and appear a God to humans then (once my time machine is repaired). It doesn't mean I am a God though.

I don't think there is much else I can say on the distinction between evidential scientific proof and David Icke tbh.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I'm not sure if you're arguing that science is a sham or Icke is a visionary any longer.

Galileo had proof. The church chose to ignore that proof and stick to their dogma though in fear that it would disprove the existence of God. Icke can't prove his theories. He wouldn't be able to prove his theories in the Bronze Age. I could go back to the Bronze Age and appear a God to humans then (once my time machine is repaired). It doesn't mean I am a God though.

I don't think there is much else I can say on the distinction between evidential scientific proof and David Icke tbh.

Cortez wasn't a god when he left Spain, but by the time he got to Maccu Picu, he was. Gods exist because people believe they do.

To the people in the Bronze Age, you would be a god. Possibly they might even say you are mad for denying it - although that would bring dilemmas of its own.

Would they lock you up until you admitted you were god? In our society people get locked up until they admit they are not.

Icke would be able to prove his theories in an age where spirituality took precedence over science. He is only deemed mad because he goes against the accepted doctrine of our time.

The original question was visionary or lunatic. I don't know, but before we go any further we have to decide what a lunatic actually is.

Calling somebody mad because they go against accepted wisdom is not a very good test. It's been shown to be wrong time and time again.

[sleeping giant]

Great posts FR.

[ekhibee]

A friend of mine has been to see him a few times and has all his books, CD's,DVD's etc. She's a true believer. Much as I'd like to believe him I just can't. I find some of his predictions and quotes have been coincidental with respect to the truth, and let's face it, if you or I had made as many comments as he had there's every possibility that one or two of them will be right. That said, he's certainly not a lunatic, or for that matter somebody who is mentally unbalanced. He has a different point of view about a whole lot of things and he does, in many ways break the conventions that most of us are used to. The problem for me is that, although an alternative view can often be refreshing, the idea that we are ruled by lizards is not just alternative, its sensationalist.

[heretoday]

Icke's bonkers. Most goalies are.

[Bishop Hibee]

All this about a "hidden" group of people ruling the world is guff. They don't have to hide. They are the multi-billionaires and people who go along to the Bilderburg Group and the like http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/index.php http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group. They certainly aren't lizards. The Queen purrs after all :wink:

[lapsedhibee]

They certainly aren't lizards. The Queen purrs after all

:hmmm: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131025085909.htm

[Phil D. Rolls]

Great posts FR.

Thanks. :aok:

[--------]

I can't find the option for "He's just a very naughty boy" on the poll.:confused:

That's because it's only my untested and unproven hypothesis,

I'm just a very naughty boy as well.

[HibbyDave]

So was Spartacus