exosculate
a stagger with a beat
ZWord said:
How you compare in any way the removal of illegal settlers with the ridiculous theories of a well known mentalist is beyond me.
who is responsible for the London attacks?
- Thread starter mears
- Start date
How you compare in any way the removal of illegal settlers with the ridiculous theories of a well known mentalist is beyond me.
Right, well, although it's a waste of time.
David Icke dislikes certain jewish families, who he thinks control the world banking system. (it is beyond doubt that there are some extremely rich jewish families involved in the world banking system). He dislikes them because he thinks they control it to the detriment of humanity. If he were right, then he'd be perfectly justified in disliking them, and not remotely racist.
Pk agreed earlier that some conspiracy theories were racist, "and that's why shit like Icke has to be slapped down as soon as it appears."
Icke's conspiracy theories, whether true or not, aren't racist, as racism is about general dislike of a race because of their race, (or, as a psychological justification, because of the supposed inferiority of their race.)
So I compared the two, because, I was trying to point out to PK, that Icke's theories were no more racist than PK's "excellent news, how does it feel to be on the end of those IDF issue boots, you fucking bigoted wankers," is racist,
though it is fairly unpleasant, in my view, (though apparently he has personal reasons for this,) In fact, PK's way of thinking on this is odd. As although he doesn't generalise from his experience to hating all jews, as far as I can see, he does generalise to hating all settlers: he knows they're all -fucking bigoted wankers- I expect some of them are. But Pk takes it so personally that he generalises to all the settlers, and is glad to see violence against them, which is kind of how racism starts, moving from the particular to the general, e.g. -White bigots killed my father, so I hate all white people- or vice versa.
Exosculate: you're obviously only interested in being right, and having the right to slap down. I don't think you're capable of rational honest debate. I've said enough.
David Icke dislikes certain jewish families, who he thinks control the world banking system. (it is beyond doubt that there are some extremely rich jewish families involved in the world banking system). He dislikes them because he thinks they control it to the detriment of humanity. If he were right, then he'd be perfectly justified in disliking them, and not remotely racist.
Pk agreed earlier that some conspiracy theories were racist, "and that's why shit like Icke has to be slapped down as soon as it appears."
Icke's conspiracy theories, whether true or not, aren't racist, as racism is about general dislike of a race because of their race, (or, as a psychological justification, because of the supposed inferiority of their race.)
So I compared the two, because, I was trying to point out to PK, that Icke's theories were no more racist than PK's "excellent news, how does it feel to be on the end of those IDF issue boots, you fucking bigoted wankers," is racist,
though it is fairly unpleasant, in my view, (though apparently he has personal reasons for this,) In fact, PK's way of thinking on this is odd. As although he doesn't generalise from his experience to hating all jews, as far as I can see, he does generalise to hating all settlers: he knows they're all -fucking bigoted wankers- I expect some of them are. But Pk takes it so personally that he generalises to all the settlers, and is glad to see violence against them, which is kind of how racism starts, moving from the particular to the general, e.g. -White bigots killed my father, so I hate all white people- or vice versa.
Exosculate: you're obviously only interested in being right, and having the right to slap down. I don't think you're capable of rational honest debate. I've said enough.
exosculate
a stagger with a beat
ZWord said:
I think it is - you may have just as well have stopped it there.
Icke says what the BNP say pretty much
Removing illegal settlers is not comparable.
You are an idiot.. I didn't compare them, I compared two things that people said, in an argument about the nature of racism. All you've done is try to simplify what I've said to the point of non-understanding in order to make a rhetorical point.
And as to Icke saying exactly what the BNP says. Well I haven't read the BNP, but I read a bit of one Icke book that someone lent me a few years ago, and he said nothing there that sounded remotely like the kind of thing I imagine the BNP would say.. But I suspect it's a load of bollocks. I doubt you've read them either. But if you have, why don't you quote them for the exact similiarities?
Of course you won't. You're totally dishonest in your approach to debate.
And as to Icke saying exactly what the BNP says. Well I haven't read the BNP, but I read a bit of one Icke book that someone lent me a few years ago, and he said nothing there that sounded remotely like the kind of thing I imagine the BNP would say.. But I suspect it's a load of bollocks. I doubt you've read them either. But if you have, why don't you quote them for the exact similiarities?
Of course you won't. You're totally dishonest in your approach to debate.
ZWord, your the idiot. and also a tosser for trying to put words into other peoples mouths, and makeing complete false jumps of logic. why don't you fuck off.
exosculate
a stagger with a beat
ZWord said:
You have the debating style and logic of a 10 year old.
editor
hiraethified
What fucking dream land do you live in?DrJazzz said:
Icke's opinions about racism are both irrelevant and inconsequential.
I've never seen him at any kind of anti-racist march ever.
Could you give some examples where he's delivered his "eloquent" anti-racist at public marches/meetings etc please?
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
oh gawd, yet another thread goes flying off to the great CT debating chamber in the sky. Oh joy..... 
editor said:
The last time he spoke in London at the Brixton academy. In fact it's written throughout his books. He doesn't believe in the idea of race as he believes, as many new agers do, that all humans are essentially one consciousness and race is only a superficial division. To hate someone who is essentially part of you is ridiculous, and he states this is part of the way those in power keep people fighting each other - divide and rule. This is fundamental to his worldview so to suggest he is racist is defamatory plain and simple.
You can disagree with his alien and illuminati conspiracies (I do but for different reasons - unlike his detractors here I actually have read the books) but you can't call him racist. It is simply shows a total lack of even the slightest knowledge of the man or his work.
Those who condemn him as "the lizard man" without having read his books are no different to those fundamentalists who wanted Salman Rushdie dead without reading Satanic verses or judged Last Temptation of Christ to be blasphemous without having watched it.
An intersting piece has been written on this on the indymedia website about Icke's court case in Canada. I doubt his rabid critics will read it all but it covers much of the kind of false information presented about him on these boards.
Bottom line is that Icke is not anti-semitic or racist. To say he is a a blatant lie or simply an ignorant statement. Disagree with him all you like. He's made some false assumptions about the new world order I believe. But racist he ain't.
indymedia article on Icke
editor
hiraethified
I haven't called him a racist.squeegee said:
However, DrJ's attempts to paint him as some sort of great hero for the cause of anti racism with his "eloquent" speeches is sheer fantasy: his opinions on racism are both irrelevant and inconsequential to the vast majority of people, most of whom have never heard - nor care to hear - him talk on the subject.
I've certainly never heard him speak about racism, not that it would have the slightest shred of credibility because of his other dodgy lizard "Bob Hope blood-drinking" bullshit.
But others on this thread have said just that. And I thought you were pretty strict on people making defamatory comments that could be constituted as libel. It doesn't mean in doing so you are accepting what icke says (pretty obvious you don't). But at least don't allow your boards to play host to false accusations of anti-semitism and racism, which are one of the worst accusations you can level at anyone.
From the indymedia article
"Whatever your opinion of Icke's beliefs, I do not think there can be any question that Icke is one of the most charismatic and sharpest (in terms of oratory and debating skills) speakers in the conspiracy movement today. That there are individuals whose ideas are somewhat easier to swallow and better documented is clear, but Icke possesses a charisma that most conspiracy theorists do not. Icke's charisma and oratory abilities also help explain why the British Green Party once regarded him as their brightest and most hopeful light"
So it's not just Dr Jazzz who thinks he is eloquent. Unless Richard Finnegan IS Dr Jazzz which I doubt.
Remember this man was a trained BBC television presenter once upon a time. He can string a convincing sentence together.
"Whatever your opinion of Icke's beliefs, I do not think there can be any question that Icke is one of the most charismatic and sharpest (in terms of oratory and debating skills) speakers in the conspiracy movement today. That there are individuals whose ideas are somewhat easier to swallow and better documented is clear, but Icke possesses a charisma that most conspiracy theorists do not. Icke's charisma and oratory abilities also help explain why the British Green Party once regarded him as their brightest and most hopeful light"
So it's not just Dr Jazzz who thinks he is eloquent. Unless Richard Finnegan IS Dr Jazzz which I doubt.
Remember this man was a trained BBC television presenter once upon a time. He can string a convincing sentence together.
editor
hiraethified
I neither know - or particularly care - whether Icke is a racist or not, but there's plenty of people out there on the web who believe he is.squeegee said:
Mind you, I do find it rather hard to muster any sympathy for someone who goes around accusing people of being blood sucking lizards.
I'm not bandying it about as proof of anything other than the opinion, as to his oratory, mentioned in a well written and well researched article (pity I can't find parts 2 and 3 which deal with the racist accusations specifically) and which mentions the racist accusations and why so many specific groups insist on calling him a racist, when it is clear from any cursory reading of his books that he is anything but.
But the fact remains that someone is being accused of being a racist on these boards without any evidence (which you always insist is paramount). Surely that should not be acceptable, even if you do not care for the man or his lizard views.
But the fact remains that someone is being accused of being a racist on these boards without any evidence (which you always insist is paramount). Surely that should not be acceptable, even if you do not care for the man or his lizard views.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
editor
hiraethified
Jon Ronson at The Guardian seems unsure:squeegee said:
Nice follow on peice here too: http://www.salon.com/people/conv/2002/03/14/ronson/print.html
editor
hiraethified
Bwahaha! Can you move those goalposts around any quicker?!squeegee said:
A minute ago you were making a big deal of the fact that Icke was a "trained BBC television presenter" as if that added gravitas to his message.
What's his time as a spokesperson for the considerably-less-influential Green Party got to do with anything?
editor said:
So how does that fact that one journalist (Ronson) is unsure allow for someone on these boards to post evidence-untroubled accusations that he is a racist. It's still defamatory. There is not a shred of evidence other than he might be using lizards as a code for jews which is not supported by any evidence from his books. Who's the conspiracy theorist now?
As I said, any cursory reading of any of his books, including the Lizard filled Biggest Secret, and you see countless references to the fact that he detests racism and in fact sees it as ridiculous seeing as we are all one consciousness with differing racial identities.
The accusations are speculation. So, come on editor, at least condemn others for wild and dangerous accusations and show some balance, even though you may detest Icke and his views.
editor
hiraethified
Why don't you challenge those posters making the accusations here?squeegee said:
And then, when I've seen the evidence for and against, I'll be able to decide whether I should "condemn" people making those claims or not. He could be a racist for all I know.
After all, there's certainly no shortage of people accusing Icke of being racist on the web, is there?
editor said:
I didn't say it added gravitas to the message. It was by way of showing that it is not ridiculous to say he is an eloquent speaker, which you dismissed out of hand.
The question remains. Do you deem it acceptable to allow another poster to call someone a racist without a shred of evidence to support the claim?
editor said:
That's not the point at all. You've jumped on me in the past and made sure I put the word alleged before any accusation. Why not the same in this instance. It is a serious point because it's bad enough that anyone quoting Icke has the ridicule of tin-foil, conspiraloon et al levelled against them.
But you should not allow that to develop into anyone who agrees with anything that David icke says is a racist.
But you don't know, that's the point. And no shortage of people on the web doesn't amount to anything like credible evidence that he is a racist.
So it's still defamatory and libellous. And as the editor of these boards I thought it was your job to prevent that regardless of whether you like the man or not.
editor
hiraethified
The BIG difference is that this is a person who manages to get anti-racists so uptight that they try to block his meetings and get his Visa revoked. This is a bloke who has generated hundreds of pages accusing him of being anti-Semitic.squeegee said:
This is also a person who the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) labeled an anti-Semite:
editor said:
Farber calls his work anti-semitic garbage without demonstrating any proof. Are you saying because the Canadian Jewish Congress label him an anti-semite, that should be considered evidence?
I seem to remember Jon Ronson's programme showed some of the anti-defamation league in a poor light.
Once again, David Icke has not been prosecuted for racist comments. There is no evidence that he has made ANY racist comments either in public or in his books. So to suggest he is racist is defamatory and libellous. But it seems that is acceptable on your boards as long as you don't like the man and he cannot defend himself.
Why not read this article. It's David Icke answering one of his fiercest critics in Canada point by point (please try to ignore the lizard masthead). At least judge the man by his own words and decide if there is any evidence from his words to suggest he is a racist. And then be kind enough to admit what is obvious to anyone who's read anything by him, whether they believe him or not......
David Icke is not racist
David Icke is not racist
Similar threads
- Locked