who is responsible for the London attacks?

[editor]

But that doesn't mean I would not listen to Rowan Williams were he to come round for tea.

If Rowan Williams claimed that George Bush, Bill and Hilary Clinton, Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mum, Bob Hope and Kris Kristofferson was a child-sacrificing, blood-drinking Satan-worshipper capable of changing their shape, I'd tell him he's a fucking nutter that needed medical help.

Why do you defend such a fucking fruitloop?

 

[TeeJay]

The white race is more susceptible to sunburn. Racist?

What white "race"? Do you believe in separate and distinct "races" DrJazzz?

 

[editor]

From the indymedia article, which I doubt many people have bothered to read.

FFS: is there the remotest chance of you finding a remotely credible link, or are you going to keep repeating the same thing ad infinitum?

Who gives a flying fuck what Richard Finnegan (who he?) thinks about anything?

His site referred to in the (non peer-reviewed) 'article' doesn't even exist any more!

 

[TeeJay]

...Especially as the Brazilian police have now given their british counterparts the all clear after exactly one day of research. And we're expected to believe it's all above board I suppose.

Seeing as the Brazilian police really *do* know how to cover up police murders (planting guns, moving bodies, intimidating witnesses, taking away all forensic evidence) - they can probably see straight away that the Met are really not in the same league as them, and really don't have their level of expertise in extra-judicial executions.

 

[Jazzz]

If Rowan Williams claimed that George Bush, Bill and Hilary Clinton, Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mum, Bob Hope and Kris Kristofferson was a child-sacrificing, blood-drinking Satan-worshipper capable of changing their shape, I'd tell him he's a fucking nutter that needed medical help.

Why do you defend such a fucking fruitloop?

Are you suggesting that one should allow false accusations of racism to pass unchallenged if people consider the target crazy?

 

[editor]

Are you suggesting that one should allow false accusations of racism to pass unchallenged if people consider the target crazy?

I'm not yet convinced that the accusations are false. My mind is open on the subject.

Mind you, this site seems quite emphatic on his anti Semitism:
Where The New Age Meets The Third Reich

But he's a proven liar though, isn't he?

 

[squeegee]

Why do you defend such a fucking fruitloop?

For my part, I don't defend what he says, but I defend his right to say it without being defamed by those who have not even read his attempts to defend himself.

Many of his theories do not stand up to scrutiny. Some do. But what I don't get is why he winds up so many people and why so many seem to need to stamp on his face and gloat to make themselves feel good.

Just read his stuff and take apart the bits that don't stand up to scrutiny. He's misunderstood things with the lizard theory. There is an obsession with dragons and lizard entities in many cultures across the world from Europe, Asia and Central and South America.

I see that as metaphor and a description of the serpent that resides within us all, present in the Hindu faith. Would you call Hindus barking for believing that a serpent is coiled 2 and a half times round the pit of your stomach?

He has unfortunately taken this literally as many literalists do and made a wild speculative jump. This has now clouded all his other reasearch that speaks of the Bilderburg group and other bodies of very real people who are making real decisions leading to the death of hundreds of thousands of men women and children.

 

[TeeJay]

...It would be easy to dismiss such assertions prima facie as being the products of a deranged mind, but Icke is actually quite lucid and a brilliant public speaker-- dismissing him as a madman simply will not suffice...

Sorry but in fact it is very possible to have mental health problems yet be lucid and a good speaker. I myself have had problems with manic depression. I can be very lucid, make coherent arguments and speak well, but the other day I smoked a lot of cannabis and became very paranoid and started having all sorts of wierd thoughts. Luckily I recognised them for what they were, but I am very aware that it is possible to construct all sorts of wierd, wonderful and creative theories, stories and ideas, and also to continue to believe them even when you are far more lucid and you are not 'off on one'. [edit: You might object that what I experienced was due to the cannabis alone, but I have to point out that I have experinecd manic depression (bipolar) previously and so I am aware of the difference between those symptoms and merely getting stoned - obviously the two things interact, but I am fairly good at recognising how my brain and imagination can get "carried away" with itself if it is given a nudge by various 'stress factors'. ] I can only ask people to judge me on what I write and say, and be aware of other signs that I may be going 'manic' and 'delusional'. I would argue that while I am a "nutter" (sometimes) the kind of thing I do and say are not, and if I do start getting this way I deal with it rather than indulge in it. Many musicians, artists, scientists even - talk about how some of their greatest ideas came to them in dreams or in wierd sessions when they seemed to lose themselves. It really isn't inconsistent that Icke may well have some profound mental health issues, yet also be 'actually quite lucid and a brilliant speaker'.

 

[editor]

I see that as metaphoe and a description of the serpent that resides within us all, present in the Hindu faith. Would you call Hindus barking for believing that a serpent is coiled 2 and a half times round the pit of your stomach?

I think anyone who compares Icke's rambling bullshit with the text of ancient religions has completely lost the plot myself.

 

[squeegee]

Sorry but in fact it is very possible to have mental health problems yet be lucid and a good speaker. I myself have had problems with manic depression. I can be very lucid, make coherent arguments and speak well, but the other day I smoked a lot of cannabis and became very paranoid and started having all sorts of wierd thoughts. Luckily I recognised them for what they were, but I am very aware that it is possible to construct all sorts of wierd, wonderful and creative theories, stories and ideas, and also to continue to believe them even when you are far more lucid and you are not 'off on one'. [edit: You might object that what I experienced was due to the cannabis alone, but I have to point out that I have experinecd manic depression (bipolar) previously and so I am aware of the difference between those symptoms and merely getting stoned - obviously the two things interact, but I am fairly good at recognising how my brain and imagination can get "carried away" with itself if it is given a nudge by various 'stress factors'. I can only ask people to judge me on what I write and say, and be aware of other signs that I may be going 'manic' and 'delusional'. Many musicians, artists, scientists even - talk about how some of their greatest ideas came to them in dreams or in wierd sessions when they seemed to lose themselves. It really isn't inconsistent that Icke may well have some profound mental health issues, yet also be 'actually quite lucid and a brilliant speaker'.

I agree. But still take his words on their own merit. take apart what doesn't stand up to scrutiny and accept what does. And there are some conclusions that do stand up to scrutiny when you actually read it.

 

[squeegee]

I think anyone who compares Icke's rambling bullshit with the text of ancient religions has completely lost the plot myself.

So now I'm mad as well?

 

[TeeJay]

Sorry squeegee - I added a few lines to my original post after you had quoted it.

I will try and put them in italics...

 

[squeegee]

So editor, you simply accept whatever the Hindu faith says because it is an ancient religion worshipped by millions.

So explain the bit about the serpent then. Some Hindus would say it is literal. What do you think?

And the Meso-American belief in lizard entities and shape-shifting. Are those religions worthy of your approval, or are they all mad as well?

 

[squeegee]

David Icke makes detailed research in all his books of ancient reilgions from Sumeria onwards. He borrows extensively from Zecharia Sitchin, a noted Israeli Jewish anthropologist who talks of mankind having been created by an extra-terrestrial race.

He mentions all the ancient religions in his work so it is totally justified talking about his beliefs. His mistake, as I have mentioned I believe, is that he takes many of these ancient religions literally rather than seeing them as metaphorical descriptions of the internal workings of the human body and its relationship to the cosmos.

But we can't even get to that kind of stuff if we just say, "he's a loon, and anyone who dares to associate themselves with him is also a loon"

I gave a link where he answers a particularly virulent critic. It is worth reading.

 

[Jazzz]

I think anyone who compares Icke's rambling bullshit with the text of ancient religions has completely lost the plot myself.

Interesting. So when The Bible was written, it contained rambling bullshit, but it is now true because so many believed it?

 

[TeeJay]

"They also have a tendency to jump to conclusions, and to be hasty and overconfident in their thinking. They will seek out information that confirms their beliefs and, at the same time, ignore evidence that contradicts them. Their view of the world tends to be very narrow and to neglect the broader context. So, they very easily get "the wrong end of the stick", and focus on small details rather than the big picture. These thinking errors are known as cognitive biases."

Guess where this comes from?

 

[laptop]

Guess where this comes from?

* Opens google *

* Closes google without looking *

DSM-iv ?

 

[squeegee]

Many people think his theories are way over the top. But would you call this man mad? He is one of only a handful of people who can translate ancient Sumerian inscriptions. Interested to hear the editors views on Sitchin.

"Considered the father of alternative archeology, Zecharia Sitchin has a profound knowledge of modern and ancient Hebrew and many other Semitic and European languages. This knowledge has enabled him in his research of ancient cultures in Sumer, Egypt, and Mesoamerica.

Sitchin has written a series of intriguing books including The 12th Planet, The Wars of Gods and Men, When Time Began, Stairway to Heaven, and The Lost Realms. These books deal with Earth's and humankind's histories and prehistories, and are based on information actually written on clay tablets by the ancient civilizations of the Near East.

Born in Russia, raised in Palestine, educated in England, and a leading journalist and editor in Israel for many years, he now lives in New York. In a rare interview, we had the opportunity to ask Zecharia Sitchin about his transformational journey which has led him to the well-researched and documented discovery that our ancestors came from the stars."


Interview with Zecharia Sitchin

 

[squeegee]

Seeing as the Brazilian police really *do* know how to cover up police murders (planting guns, moving bodies, intimidating witnesses, taking away all forensic evidence) - they can probably see straight away that the Met are really not in the same league as them, and really don't have their level of expertise in extra-judicial executions.

If you follow the logic here, you would then also suspect that they might be willing to be silenced and not make any trouble. If I don't trust the met, I certainly ain't gonna believe what Brazilian police tell me.

 

[TeeJay]

DSM-iv ?

The MIND website actually, which tends to be even more sympathetic about these things:

Understanding Paranoia

 

[TeeJay]

Many people think his theories are way over the top. But would you call this man mad? He is one of only a handful of people who can translate ancient Sumerian inscriptions.

"Mad" is a very loaded word. I have already said that I have had issues with manic depression and can often recognise symptoms, including delusional thinking etc. Thankfully I can deal with them and don't act on them, make judgements based on them or let them interfere with my life - just like most people will hopefully recognise if they have taken drugs and will try and avoid doing anything stupid or drastic based on their perceptions and ideas while 'under the influence'.

I have also already pointed out that many extremely talented and creative people do experience what many doctors wuld diagnoise as symptoms of "mental illnesses" - although since these may well not be negative then the concept of "illness" doesn't really fit. It is probably better to say that they are having 'atypical psychological experiences', which may or may not be a problem or cause distress - for themselves or others. If you want to summarise this as 'madness' then fine - they may well be 'mad', but the fact is that it is far more complex than that.

The main point isn't to ask if someone is "mad" - it is to ask if what they are saying is "mad": ie inconsistent, incoherent, irrational, illogical, at odds with far better established models of thew world and so forth. Furthermore you can ask if someone's behaviour and reasoning is "mad" - they way their thought process proceeds, the way they deal with people, the way they behave. These things can vary over time - people aren't always in the same state and they can have wierd ideas at one time and then still persist in the same belief afterwards. You can't really reduce it all down to asking if someone is "mad" - although fundementally that may well sum up the overall situation very well. A lot of Icke's behaviour and ideas certainly falls within a pattern of "disordered thinking", "cognitive biases", "delusional paranoia" and so forth. These aren't hard and fast categories and they are very loaded terms - I myself have to live with the sigma of being "mad" according to medical science, yet I don't think that I am a raving lunatic.

 

[squeegee]

The MIND website actually, which tends to be even more sympathetic about these things:

Understanding Paranoia

Would you call Zecharia Sitchin paranoid? A fruitloop? Have you read his interview. I fail to see how paranoid has anything to do with it.

 

[TeeJay]

Would you call Zecharia Sitchin paranoid? A fruitloop? Have you read his interview. I fail to see how paranoid has anything to do with it.

Read my last post #1491 - I have just finished adding to it.

 

[squeegee]

I don't think you can compare your state of mind when under the influence of cannabis or depression or otherwise to the work of a world-famous scholar one of the few people who can translate ancient Sumerian inscriptions and is an expert in hebrew and other languages of the Middle and Near East.

You might not agree with it. YOU might not call him mad. But you certainly can't say his brain is subject to delusional or paranoid thinking.

 

[TeeJay]

If you follow the logic here, you would then also suspect that they might be willing to be silenced and not make any trouble. If I don't trust the met, I certainly ain't gonna believe what Brazilian police tell me.

Who do you believe?

Will you believe the witnesses that testify about what they saw in any future court case (there must have been a lot of people at Stockwell after all)?

You will of course have to wait if you want to hear this testimony.

 

[squeegee]

A lot of Icke's behaviour and ideas certainly falls within a pattern of "disordered thinking", "cognitive biases", "delusional paranoia" and so forth. These aren't hard and fast categories and they are very loaded terms - I myself have to live with the sigma of being "mad" according to medical science, yet I don't think that I am a raving lunatic.

I don't know where you get "alot" from. Once again, you'd have to give specific examples. I'm not being difficult, but as I said, I disagree with many of the speculative leaps he makes. I do think he was affected by the humiliation on national tv in '91 on the Wogan show, so I do feel he may have an axe to grind.

But it's a big step to say he suffers from delusional paranoia, though I agree he cannot even be considered in the same league as Zecharia Sitchin, whose work many of his theories stem from.

You're not suggesting Sitchin is delusionally paranoid now are you? Just because he mentions the dreaded word alien?

 

[squeegee]

Who do you believe?

Will you believe the witnesses that testify about what they saw in any future court case (there must have been a lot of people at Stockwell after all)?

You will of course have to wait if you want to hear this testimony.

And wait an unacceptably long time. I'm more concerned in hearing the testimony of the individuals who shot De Menezes, and the chain of communication which led to the media stating that he was wearing a puffer jacket etc. and finding out at what point did Sir Ian Blair know this information and whether or not he misled the public.

If the report by th IPCC had not been leaked, do you think it would have got to the final stages?

I hate being this cynical. I know there are good people both in the police service and the judiciary. We just need them to stand up when the time comes.

 

[TeeJay]

I don't think you can compare your state of mind when under the influence of cannabis or depression or otherwise to the work of a world-famous scholar one of the few people who can translate ancient Sumerian inscriptions and is an expert in hebrew and other languages of the Middle and Near East.

Do you know what manic depression is? It involves depressive and manic phases. The manic phases often include delusional thinking and paranoia. Delusional thinking can involve dreaming up convoluted theories that make all sorts of connections and explain all sorts of things in the world. I mention cannabis because can act as a "stress trigger" for me. I do know the difference between getting stoned (as I did for over 10 years prior to developing bipolar) and the kinds of sensations, feelings and thinking that can arise if 'triggered'. I have also had several friends who have had similar problems - both of them are quite brilliant people, both scientists.

I am in no way trying to claim any brilliance for myself. My point is that I am, from one perspective, "mad" or "a fruitloop", in that I have in the past and may in the future, be delusional. I am also pointing out that someone - for example my friends, but I could point to many famous examples - can be intelligent, coherent and so forth, yet still have what doctors would call "mental health problems". In fact part of someone's brilliance may well be their atypical and bizarre thinking.

I am trying to say that someone may well have what is labelled by doctors as "delusional thinking" and still be a world famous author and public speaker. Some people would say that this is the same thing as being a "fruitloop" or "mad". Personally I don't like using these terms as they are very negative and bundle together all sorts of issues which should properly be considered separately.

For example: I think that a "sane" person can produce "mad" ideas and a "mad" person can produce "sane" ideas. Whether Icke is "mad" or not (and he probably is IMO) his ideas are certainly "mad". Another way of putting it is to say they are a total load of shite. I can see you are trying to say that there are some redeeming features and interesting ideas, but you have to recognise the context of this: here on u75 many people are completely fed up with Icke-alike garbage dripping into serious political debate, usually in the context of 9/11 CTs, and more recently in the context of the "lizard-controlled" 7/7 and 21/7 attacks.

 

[laptop]

But you certainly can't say his brain is subject to delusional or paranoid thinking.

Magical Blend: It sounds like this search for who the "nefilim" were became your life's work.

Zecharia Sitchin: It became an obsession with me. What did the Bible mean by "nefilim"? Later on, when I began my Biblical and archaeological studies of the ancient Middle East, I realized another verse among those eight verses is even more explosive, because it talks about them as being the sons, plural, of the gods, plural, which is very odd in a Bible totally devoted to monotheism. The search, which began when I was a school boy, lasted about thirty years, and took me through all the various mythologies of the ancient peoples, back to the first place or civilization that had written records. All so-called later myths have been written down on clay tablets. These were the people called the Sumerians, whose civilization blossomed about six thousand years ago, in what is now Iraq-then known as Southern Mesopotamia.

Magical Blend: Wasn't it while studying the Sumerian tablets that you discovered the Anunaki, the Keepers of the Secrets?

Zecharia Sitchin: Yes, the Sumerians called "those who descended from Heaven to Earth" the "Anunaki." The term in Sumerian literally means "those who from Heaven to Earth came."

Oh yes I can call him delusional.

Either that, or an ur-Goth. Nephilim, nu

And what you're doing here, squeegee, is sneaking in the delusional literature from which Icke pilfered the lizard thang.

The Turquoise One lifts huge chunks of conspiranoid ramblings about an International Banking Plot, all of whose proponents except him are blatantly anti-Jewish racists - they use their own "code phrases", which are ridiculously easy to see through.

He stirs in the Anunaki thing, and uses it to claim that his Shadowy Conspiracy of Money-Lenders are actually ten-foot lizards who have interbred with humans, nothing to do with Jews, oh no.

Repeating some pertinent questions I asked earlier: do these lizard/human hybrids lay eggs? Do they lactate? If not why not? These questions are fundamental to the definitions of "lizard" and "human" in non-delusional worlds, after all...

So: either Icke believes this shit and is sectionable, or it's just his "code phrase".

There is no other alternative. Mad or bad. Or both.

You're not Icke, are you?

 

[TeeJay]

You're not suggesting Sitchin is delusionally paranoid now are you? Just because he mentions the dreaded word alien?

I am not going to say anything about Sitchin as I know next to nothing about him. I am making a more general point: I am "mad" (have been/am/will be) - but I don't think what I am saying now is "mad". If I start coming out with paranoid delusions - if I start indulging them and following them, rather than controlling myself and bringing myself back to "reality" (ie my base-line, balanced, coherent, long term and inter-subjectively confirmed 'model' of the world) then I could well start constucting a whole fantastic theory about things. I might well end up ranting on in the same way as I see some other people doing. I can recognise the ideas, the behaviour - I know why it is so persuasive and why people follow it. I know why it feels so real and I know that in fact our reality is "constructed" and fragile, not absolute and fixed. I am not scared of "madness" - I am "mad", I have been there and seen it and felt it. Most people get glimpses in dreams, in 'eureka' moments, when they feel 'wierd' or 'emotional' and so forth.

Ultimately we have to address the *ideas* not the person, but understanding what is going on in the person can give you a lot of clues about the ideas - this is something I have to apply to myself above all, and I am not trying to denigrate anyone. Unfortunately so-called "madness" is still a massive stigma, not helped by the utterless clueless and fuckwitted pseudo-science they call "psychiatry".