Did you ever think you would agree with David Icke?

[Childrenofthestones]

Icke telling it like it is.

I really don’t have time to read Icke’s theories about the Royal family being lizards who eat babies with special forks. That’s not about me being closed-minded, it’s about me not being a fucking looney. I’m prepared to take the risk I’m being manipulated by alien overlords because life is too fucking short to engage with every crackpot theory out there. If you engage with Icke, where the hell do you stop? What is the maximum level of insanity you are willing to engage with?

I really don’t have time to read Icke’s theories about the Royal family being lizards who eat babies with special forks. That’s not about me being closed-minded, it’s about me not being a fucking looney. I’m prepared to take the risk I’m being manipulated by alien overlords because life is too fucking short to engage with every crackpot theory out there. If you engage with Icke, where the hell do you stop? What is the maximum level of insanity you are willing to engage with?

Have we had the 'but he warned us about Savile' bullshit yet?

“Have we had the 'but he warned us about Savile' bullshit yet?”
Not yet. It’ll come. Incidentally so did Not The Nine O’Clock News.

As H would say on Line of Duty - "Holy mother of God I find myself agreeing with David Icke."

The more basic the fact, the more likely it is that enormously different people will agree on the fact, be they calm, rational individuals or extremely nutty fruitcakes. I'm not going to disavow that gravity exists just because people who I disagree with about everything else also agree that gravity exists. But neither will I feel forced to align with everything they say because we both know gravity exists.

It's no different with people who know that men cannot be women.

This a really fucking basic stuff. Now, why would we need to be discussing lizard-obsessing conspiracy theorist men who think feminism has gone too far on the Feminism and Women's Rights board again?

He did much in the early days around paedophile rings and child abuse. He uncovered a paedophile ring in Aberdeen where I used to live, for example.
Nope. First of all, the Aberdeen "paedophile ring" was a nasty hoax very similar to the "Hampstead Statanism" hoax a few years later (some of the same people were involved in spreading both); second, Icke had nothing to do with "uncovering" the story. It, along with all the other crackpot "elite paedophile ring" conspiracy ideas had been flourishing in the darker corners of the internet for years, ever since the Satanic Abuse panic of the '90s had died the death. Icke just jumped on the bandwagon, as he is now jumping on this bandwagon.

Now, why would we need to be discussing lizard-obsessing conspiracy theorist men who think feminism has gone too far on the Feminism and Women's Rights board again?
Yay, FloralBunting! I'm done here, I think. So care to join me in some and wash away the nasty taste?

Nope. First of all, the Aberdeen "paedophile ring" was a nasty hoax very similar to the "Hampstead Statanism" hoax a few years later

I'm not sure of your first hand experience of paedophile rings--but I have a particular sensitivity to them. Stemming from the time, in the very early 1980's, when I lived in a large squat ( the old fire station) in the Elephant & Castle in London. We had been made party to the fact that the P.I.E ( Paoodophile Information Exchange) were shortly to be holding an impromptu meting in a downstairs room.

My instinct was to call the police, but my young, gay male friend suggested we attend ( I was about 18 at the time, he 17 and not even shaving). What a weird situation! They didn't blink an eye-lid, as we all sat in a circle - and they discussed, and shared information, about their 'activities'.

They were from all walks of life: police officers; scout leaders; social workers, people involved in the judicary...and a guy called Jonathan - who was a lecturer in Classical Studies at a London university. My young friend ended up leaving and staying the night with him at his home.....and what he told me the next day was 'interesting'.

Later, in the 1990's, I was living in Aberdeenshire, and my daughter was involved in Scottish Junior Chess - being taken around the country for tournaments. A counsellor friend/ and mother of a child involved in chess, was approached, and made aware of infiltration by paedophiles, one of whom was driving the children around and staying over-night for these tournaments.....

My awareness and sensitivity to the issue of paedophile rings is not based on a theoretical conspiracy theory - but based on first hand testimony and experience. I'm also aware that many of these men are positions of power and authority -and that events simply cannot be dismissed as make-believe.

Now, why would we need to be discussing lizard-obsessing conspiracy theorist men who think feminism has gone too far on the Feminism and Women's Rights board again?

You seem to have read more than most from David Icke. Why such interest? I haven't read anything by him for about 10 years, or probably more.

GrumpyGran8

You beat me to it re the Aberdeen paedophilia ring hoax.

You seem to have read more than most from David Icke. Why such interest? I haven't read anything by him for about 10 years, or probably more.

Grow up. I've read the thread and all that information is referenced here. I asked why some people are so keen to discuss the man's opinions here when they have nothing to do with the topic of the board, and in fact he thinks that feminism has gone too far.
You're free to continue focusing on an irrelevant male opinion if you wish, I'm just flagging up to those who might not wish to waste their time getting dragged into a pointless thread that there is no real reason to discuss him here.

Grow up. I've read the thread and all that information is referenced here. I asked why some people are so keen to discuss the man's opinions here when they have nothing to do with the topic of the board, and in fact he thinks that feminism has gone too far

The response wasn't directed towards yourself. It was a response to the person who seemed very angry and was generally being insulting about people, who happened to mention that not all of everything that David Icke says is nonsense. I'm not sure why I need to " grow up"?

I am fairly sure, though, that people getting very upset and angry about finding themselves, or others, in agreement on some issues with those for whom they don't have an identified tribal loyalty, is nowadays naive.

Fixed tribal identities, which revolve around whole sets of issues, are breaking down - as people are now coalescing around particular issues or campaigns. Those from the old left and from the old right find themselves in agreement on some things - even if sometimes for different reasons ( See Jeremy Corbyn and Brexit), and some Christians find themselves in alignment with some left- liberals on other issues; and some groups with whom many here may 'normally' have identified ( The Quakers, for example), are cancelling meetings held in their venues because they are considered transphobic.

I didn't start the thread; it would never have occurred to me to start a thread about David Icke. Someone did though, and others have contributed, including yourself. Don't tell me to grow up just because you don't like what I have said. The people most upset seem to be those who know an awful lot about David Icke and his current positions on things.

As for paedophile rings; they are real, and operating at all levels of society. Some may call that a conspiracy theory - but the truth is that conspiracies do exist, and that the truth can sometimes be suppressed. David Icke takes everything to the zenith and beyond, and weaves all issues into an over-arching ideology - and then he loses the plot; but he does speak the truth sometimes. And nobody has to apologise for saying that.

You're free to continue focusing on an irrelevant male opinion if you wish

I didn't even look at the posted clip. I'm not that interested in what he has to say. And all I've done is contribute to the thread, just like you. However, I also don't believe that all opinions, just because they are voiced by males, are irrelevant.

So much personal animosity is par for the course on social media - but not really sure why necessary here.

However, I also don't believe that all opinions, just because they are voiced by males, are irrelevant

Yes, that’s why we are dismissing him as a loony. Just because he is a man. It has nothing to do with his Prince Philip toasts babies on a golden fork, then guzzles them down with his lizard tongue.

Erm, pick any person in the world and 99.9% of the time you will share at least one view with them on one topic. So its not that shocking to agree with something even someone who is an utter dick says.

Also just because someone who actually is a bigot agrees with us on this, it does not make the view itself bigoted. And me saying this or saying its not unusual to have a view in common with someone who is disgusting does not mean I agree with Ick on other things. I actually try to avoid hiw theories and that so as not to give more clicks to him, however, I am sure my one click makes no difference anyway!

The 'feminists silenced men' thing is a bizzare claim though. But I guess it goes along with the 'feminists wanted more rights than men, not eaqual ones' and such view that generally comes from MRA types.

Justhadathought you quoted my post, and then made a snarky comment about me knowing rather a lot about Icke. If you weren't addressing me, there's no need to quote my words.

I am often the first person to eschew tribalism on these boards and elsewhere. I just see no purpose whatsoever in discussing a man who is already well on the outer fringes of rationality, on FWR, when his stated contribution to a feminist perspective, quoted up thread, is that feminism has swung too far.

Obviously, everyone is free to talk about what they want to. I'm just being a gadfly about asking why any weight is being given to this man's opinion. And that's the end of my contribution and focus on him.

Justhadathought you quoted my post, and then made a snarky comment about me knowing rather a lot about Icke. If you weren't addressing me, there's no need to quote my words

I quoted the post which had quoted yours. I haven't read the entire thread, and was just responding to those that quoted my post. I'm sorry I posted on it at all now. But making an observation that the people who seem most upset are also the ones who seem to know all about his latest theories, is hardly provocative; but true. What was provocative however was suggesting people are sycophants and idiots. ( not saying you did). I didn't start the thread, and would never have thought to. I haven't come across David Icke for years - but I did make a point of reading some of his stuff on paedophile rings many years ago- after my experiences in this area.

Look, I've no intention of fighting with you. I don't much care about Icke or his quirky worldview, and I can't really say that having common cause about one small aspect of freedom of thought is going to be very useful to the particular campaigns we find ourselves waging. I've expended far too much of my own energy now on a pointless thread on a topic which is not going to do anything at all to liberate women, which i have made a declaration not to do in the past week, and I'm not going to waste any more. But neither do I want it to stoke up animosity where there is no need. So, peace to you x

I can’t argue with what he is saying there and he is totally right about the “foot in the door” tactic. I don’t care who is supposedly watching this thread either.