Is David Icke a con man?

[hunter]

I believe david icke had a nervous breakdown and created a fantasy reality in an attempt to recover some sanity. It hasnt worn off, so hes either insane or normal, but manipulating his alter egos ideas to generate publicity and cash from book sales and lectures.

With this said, could he get the kind of following L. Ron garnered with Dianetics?
Never been exposed to Icke's assertions and from this thread I'll be keeping it that way

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

I would read his books if for one minute I thought they were worth reading. Unfortunately the general consensus among intelligent people would be that they are just bollocks.

By the same degree, I would read books about Hitler's diaries, the Bible Code, Martian Civilisation, Moon landing hoax, etc etc if someone could convince me they were worth reading either.

Just because someone writes a book, and some people believe it presents a convincing case, does not mean that book is in any way credible.

Skeptics are pragmatic, they can't investigate every claim to the nth degree. When Icke condense his most important points into a concise and evidence-backed tome, then I'll stand up and listen. Until then I'll just consider his books elaborate weaving of fact and fiction that satisfy the demands of a niche market.

[Emily]

I would read his books if for one minute I thought they were worth reading. Unfortunately the general consensus among intelligent people would be that they are just bollocks.

By the same degree, I would read books about Hitler's diaries, the Bible Code, Martian Civilisation, Moon landing hoax, etc etc if someone could convince me they were worth reading either.

Just because someone writes a book, and some people believe it presents a convincing case, does not mean that book is in any way credible.

Skeptics are pragmatic, they can't investigate every claim to the nth degree. When Icke condense his most important points into a concise and evidence-backed tome, then I'll stand up and listen. Until then I'll just consider his books elaborate weaving of fact and fiction that satisfy the demands of a niche market.

Now that's quite an interesting statement for a skeptic. Where's your proof of this? Have you conducted a survey/poll or whatever of these intelligent people? I'd be interested to know how you come to this conclusion.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Now that's quite an interesting statement for a skeptic. Where's your proof of this? Have you conducted a survey/poll or whatever of these intelligent people? I'd be interested to know how you come to this conclusion.

Ok, that was a bit of a slip, what I actually meant to say was this:

Unfortunately the general consensus among anyone with half a brain would be that they are just bollocks.

[Emily]

Ok, that was a bit of a slip, what I actually meant to say was this:

Itelligence? Half a brain? doesn't really matter what term you use, it rules you out anyway.

[Matt]

Well it seems this thread has just taken off. Whoosh. Here we are hours after my last post and there's pages to go through. Sadly the back and forth has been rather dissapointing in quality.

To quote Monty Python "Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes"

After two pages of "we want evidence beyond confirmation bias" - "look into it yourself you'll see it all fits" - "that's just confirmation bias" etc. there is just one point I want to pick up on.

Cuddles did say that no "these organisations do not exist" he didn't specify Skull and Bones, He didn't specify the monarchy. Both of these certainly do exist. However Icke's view of these organiasations as part of an ancient global conspiracy is without solid support.

I've no reason to believe that Icke's view of Skull and Bones is real. In that sense I'm happy to provisionally say that Icke's "Skull and Bones" does not exist even if there is a real Skull and Bones that does.

I find the liklihood of the situation that it is little more than a venerable frat house. Certainly that's a frat house for the coutry's elite and that alone does have certain repercussions. If president A knows that candidate B got drunk a shagged a goat after a party then that's some leverage we don't know about.

That's one thing - the idea that such information is put to use in following an ancient plan for world domination is another.

You'll note this earlier comment

Let's remember the skeptic typically does not believe Skull & Bones exists; they are then shown evidence which indicates that it does. They then seek to disarm the rest of the argument by explaining it away - but crucially, they don't know what they're talking about, because they have only just been introduced to the topic! They tend to pull these type of rationalisations out of thin air, if you get my drift.

What was the reaction to evidence of Skull and Bones? This hypothetical skeptic acknowldeged the evidence and modified their position.

Now this is not my first dance round this particular maypole. Thus I've seen the evidence that Skull and Bones exists. Must remember (Yale not Harvard.) I've seen the evidence that they raided the grave of Geronimo. (Circumstantial but credible) I've seen the evidence that they practice occult rituals with these bones. (anonynous witness testimony - suspect)

As a rationalist I don't beleive that such rituals have any supernatural effect. However I do understand how they might bond a group together with a shared dark secret.

I've also seen specualtion about how such societies traced back through the hellfire club and the baverian illuminati have produced high powered luminaries such as Ben Franklin.

However I've not seen evidence for alien contact, for ancient worldwide conspiracy. I've seen hindsight used to retrofit historical scenarios into the perspective of the conspiracy theorist but never where alternative explanations were not simpler.

So seeing as you were once apparently cynical of these theories, and rembering occams razor, and the refinement of it applicable to conspiracy theories, Hanlons razor (Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity) where should I look for such evidence that would change a skeptics mind?

[Matt]

Itelligence? Half a brain? doesn't really matter what term you use, it rules you out anyway.

Come now children, play nice. It's not like we can't tell that by making a typo when impugning someone else's intelligence you're inviting a below the belt response which can later use to show how nasty us skeptics are. Like we'd fall for that one anyway - give over. We really are quite nice people. Well, expect John - he's a vicious S-O-B when he's had half a lager shandy.

[Emily]

I was once privileged to be a member of a secret society. When I was in 6th form, studying for my A-Levels, myself and a small, by-invitation-only group of fellow students would meet up in an empty classroom and engage in our group's activities.

After this had gone on for a while, I found that rumours were rife about what we got up to - the most 'lurid' was that we had grabbed a female student ( I never found out who this was supposed to be ), bundled her into a car and driven to a deserted beach area where we had tried to force her to smoke dope - presumably so that we could corrupt her into our arcane ways. I had supposedly demanded that I should have the dope, rather than 'waste it on her', and had bashed a fellow 'group member' over the head with a piece of wood before fleeing into the night with the illicit goodies...

What we really did was meet up, once a week after school, and play the Call of Cthulhu RPG ( sometimes Tunnels and Trolls but never, never D&D because that just wasn't cool* ) Yes, we were indeed the nerds. None of us even had a car and I doubt that many of us had, at that time, even approached a girl without blushing, stammering or making a general tool of ourselves.

All of this is, of course, entirely anecdotal ( though true ), but does go to show how readily these kind of rumours pop up. I was absolutely stunned that anyone could imagine that a bunch of d20-chucking geeks were up to anything so ludicrous. But people really did seem to believe it.

Certainly there's plenty of evidence ( proof in some instances ) of Skull and Bones, The Bilderbergers, Bohemian Grove etc. I absolutely don't discount the possibility that when the big-noises get together a few shady deals are done - such is human nature. I'm pretty sure this also goes on at Lions Clubs, Golf Clubs and masonic lodges around the world. I would, however, suggest that there is a huge difference between that kind of thing and an organised, global cabal of the NWO/ZOG/Illuminati type. There may be such a planned-out, ancient conspiracy, but the general incompetence displayed by most governmental departments suggests that it's very, very improbable.

As had been mentioned before, Clinton couldn't even keep his extra-curricular activities with Monica in the Oval Office quiet, yet all of the uberlords of the global elite have supposedly managed to do so for centuries. But then, also, manage to just leak enough information for the conspiracy theorists to grab on to...

I have watched a couple of David Icke's lectures on videogoogle, around 7 hours each ( actually I listened to them as I was working, but I got the gist of it all ). My impression is that he tends to skim the 'juicy' bits from many areas of discussions ( everything from Diana, to 9/11 to the Rosicrutians and the Knights Templar ) then weaves all of that into a 'grand unified conspiracy theory'. In the areas that I was familiar with ( 9/11 and the Knights Templar, for example ), I didn't find that he dug into these topics far beyond the level of 'pop' conspiracy talk - just enough to fit it in with the big picture that he likes to paint.

I don't know if he's a con man, or if he genuinely believes what he's saying - it's impossible to determine without knowing what goes on in his head. In this respect, it's exactly the same as trying to decided whether a 'medium' is a deliberate fraud, or simply deluded.

I give him the benefit of the doubt on the question of the support he received from combat18, and other despicable groups - I trust that was out of Icke's hands. I see no evidence to suggest that he is sympathetic to their aims/beliefs. I'd like to think he's an eccentric ( and, even as a fairly hardnosed skeptic - I quite like eccentrics, to be perfectly honest ), but I do have serious reservations when he talks about vaccinations/aspartame and other health-related subjects without presenting hard, empirical data. Those are the areas, I think, where he has most responsibility to his audience.

*These days I am, of course, fully cool. Though still very proud of my 1st edition Call of Cthulhu set ( complete with the fold out world map and sourcebook )


edit for spelling

Thanks SimonC, Your posts are both reasonable and informative and make for a very interesting read.

There is plenty of 'hard, empirical data' from numerous sources that support the dangers of vaccinations/aspartame, you just have to look. I'd post links, but that would mean taking the thread off topic. I could start a new thread, if there's enough interest?

[Emily]

Come now children, play nice. It's not like we can't tell that by making a typo when impugning someone else's intelligence you're inviting a below the belt response which can later use to show how nasty us skeptics are. Like we'd fall for that one anyway - give over. We really are quite nice people. Well, expect John - he's a vicious S-O-B when he's had half a lager shandy.

Respect, breeds respect in my opinion.

[augur]

Skull & Crossbones society exists > We don't quite know what they do > therefore it's reasonable to conclude they're a secret cabal plotting to take over the world...

The reasoning does not go like this, we went through this briefly and I did say my intention was merely to point out that they do exist. Whether or not there is any reason for concern is a much more complicated subject.

Unfortunately the general consensus among anyone with half a brain would be that they are just bollocks.

Considering you don't appear to be presenting much beyond the well-worn skeptic rhetoric and other general whitewashing, are you sure you have half a brain? Insults and condescension don't actually help your argument, even if you think they do.

Just because someone writes a book, and some people believe it presents a convincing case, does not mean that book is in any way credible.

Personally, I did not read a David Icke book and suddenly start ranting about 'omg conspiracy.' All I'll say on this for now, if you know what to look for you can see clear examples of propaganda related to the agenda (etc) in the media, for example misrepresentation of Islamic viewpoints.

Honestly, it was just a lot of people who liked to play at mysticism, and revel in seeing their 'in crowd' as a bit spooky, scary, alternative and special. I suppose that many of TOPY's activites could be described as 'messed up' by anyone not in on the joke but, in retrospect, it was just very, very silly ( and totally harmless, at least in the context of anything I ever experienced ).

That's what I see in Skull and Bones, Bohemian Grove etc, albeit on a grander scale. It's human nature to love this kind of thing, and I don't see why world leaders should be regarded as any less prone to silliness than the rest of us. Frankly, their actions often suggest that general silliness, if not out-and-out idiocy, is their raison d'etre...

I understand the attraction of such things, and that many such groups are completely harmless, though I'd like to remind you that there are a great many such groups with varying ideals; some of them take it quite seriously! I think the intent is the key thing here, is it unreasonable to consider that the nature of such ceremonies (symbologically representing the destruction of love or care) might be indicative of the mentality of those performing the ritual? I realise, by the way, that the 'party line' is "we're wishing away our worldly cares"; this is what I call the forked tongue

If president A knows that candidate B got drunk a shagged a goat after a party then that's some leverage we don't know about.

The leverage we don't know about is what I'm talking about :)

I've seen the evidence that they raided the grave of Geronimo. (Circumstantial but credible) I've seen the evidence that they practice occult rituals with these bones. (anonynous witness testimony - suspect)

As a rationalist I don't beleive that such rituals have any supernatural effect. However I do understand how they might bond a group together with a shared dark secret.

In my opinion, whether or not you or I believe in such things is not the issue, it's rather whether they do, and what their intentions are behind such acts.

So seeing as you were once apparently cynical of these theories, and rembering occams razor, and the refinement of it applicable to conspiracy theories, Hanlons razor (Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity) where should I look for such evidence that would change a skeptics mind?

Well, I think there is a difference between a mind being changed or made up, and being open to possibility. You know, I'm so skeptical I'm not even sure if this computer & table really exist, or the rest of this universe Knowledge is power is information, and there are obviously those who have been in power for a long time in our world (this can be disputed, but the fact is I don't sit on an ornate throne and call myself King, supposed figurehead or not). Would you accept that if a person accepts or believes a lie, then that lie becomes the truth in their perspective or perception of reality - at least until the illusion is shattered? Would you accept that a false, conditioned perception or version of reality is a possibility? Yes, I sound like Morpheus :D

[Cuddles]

To quote Monty Python "Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes"

No it isn't.

Cuddles did say that no "these organisations do not exist" he didn't specify Skull and Bones, He didn't specify the monarchy. Both of these certainly do exist. However Icke's view of these organiasations as part of an ancient global conspiracy is without solid support.

Exactly. You'd have to be an idiot to deny any kind of societies exist. However, there is a big difference between a group of people who give themselves a silly name and a millenia old conspiracy to rule the world. That said, the fact is that there is no evidence any secret societies exist. Sure, Skull and Bones exists. But it's not secret. My kayak club is more secret than any of these so called secret societies. Does that mean I must be secretly controlling the world?

In any case, this is all largely irrelevant to discussion of Icke himself. It's entirely possible that he may occasionally get something right, purely by accident. However, look at the other things he claims, the things that are just regurgitation of the same tired old conspiracies that people have been imagining for centuries. He claims that shapeshifting space lizards rule the world. He announced, on national TV, that he is the messiah. The simple fact is, he is utterly insane. He could turn out to be completely right about global conspiracies and he would still be utterly insane.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Thanks SimonC, Your posts are both reasonable and informative and make for a very interesting read.

There is plenty of 'hard, empirical data' from numerous sources that support the dangers of vaccinations/aspartame, you just have to look. I'd post links, but that would mean taking the thread off topic. I could start a new thread, if there's enough interest?

Would you like to start another thread on vaccinations?

And possibly aspartame?

Vaccinations have side effects in some instance, however I am not aware of what you classify as 'dangers'. I don't think we want to derail this thread further, but you should be aware there is a lot of misinformation out there regarding vaccinations.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Personally, I did not read a David Icke book and suddenly start ranting about 'omg conspiracy.' All I'll say on this for now, if you know what to look for you can see clear examples of propaganda related to the agenda (etc) in the media, for example misrepresentation of Islamic viewpoints.

I don't think anyone is denying there is all sorts of propaganda and shady deals out there. It is certainly not a black and white issue.

When you read the David Icke book, did you think that some of it was nonsense while some of it made sense?

My question is really just around why if he has good points to make, does he make so many bad points at the same time.

[augur]

Sure, Skull and Bones exists. But it's not secret.

George Bush disagrees! "It's so secret I can't talk about it."

The existence is not a secret, the purpose is.

When you read the David Icke book, did you think that some of it was nonsense while some of it made sense?

My question is really just around why if he has good points to make, does he make so many bad points at the same time.

I would say I agreed with a lot of what he said, but also disagreed with many things; that is not to say the ideas have no merit. A lot of the ideas he presents which I would have discarded in the past, I now consider to be quite possible (for example, theories relating to reality beyond the physical senses).

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

George Bush disagrees! "It's so secret I can't talk about it."

The existence is not a secret, the purpose is.



I would say I agreed with a lot of what he said, but also disagreed with many things; that is not to say the ideas have no merit. A lot of the ideas he presents which I would have discarded in the past, I now consider to be quite possible (for example, theories relating to reality beyond the physical senses).

But ultimately isn't that just speculation?

Without real evidence there are an infinite number of alternative realities we could postulate. I have a hard enough time comprehending what scientists (who have worked on the concepts for years) are putting forward with regards to parallel universes and the like, compared to someone who is effectively making it up as they go along. Ok, I haven't read the books, but what sort of sources doe he reference for his theories?