N
- Status
S
stmaria
Guest
David Icke is a nut.
publiceye.org/Icke/IckeBackgrounder.htm
"For a decade Icke has exhibited signs of serious mental instability. In his web site autobiography he reveals that as early as 1990 he became aware of "a presence around me, like there was always someone in the room when there was not. It got to the point where I sat on the side of the bed in a hotel room in London in early 1990 and said to whoever or whatever: “If you are there will you please contact me because you are driving me up the wall.” A year later, on holiday in Peru, Icke describes hearing voices: "as I looked at the mound, a voice in my head began to say: "Come to me, come to me, come to me…
Over the last year Icke’s writings have become so paranoid and so extreme that many are probably inclined to dismiss him as posing any sort of threat, or requiring a response. Icke is now arguing in all seriousness that the Illuminati plot to take over the world is actually being carried out by a race of extraterrestrial reptiles in human form. They are described, literally, as being child-sacrificing, blood-drinking Satan-worshippers capable of changing their shape, whose ranks include George Bush, Bill and Hilary Clinton, Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mum, Bob Hope and Kris Kristofferson, among others…In this book, Icke went even further. He began to flirt explicitly with Holocaust denial…“I strongly believe that a small Jewish clique which has contempt for the mass of Jewish people worked with non-Jews to create the First World War, the Russian Revolution, and the Second World War…”
N
NewPerspective
Guest
Be HONEST though, not biased, it adds up. Even if he became a loon. The Vatican is as anti-semitic as the Islamic state for a reason, I am undoubtedly sure.
S
Seminarian_X
Guest
Alberto Rivera is not an ex-Jesuit.
Man, anti-Catholic hate mongers will latch onto anything, no matter how outrageous, if it discredits the Church.
Man, anti-Catholic hate mongers will latch onto anything, no matter how outrageous, if it discredits the Church.
G
geezerbob
Guest
You made the statement. Care to back it up with some fact?
M
mainusch
Guest
This article is just sooo piled high with errors and outright false statements (and demonstrably so) that it’s difficult to even pretend to take it seriously.
One small bit that caught my eye was from a classic canard about reference in Revelation to the whore who sits “on the seven hills”
Of course anyone who even looks at a map of Rome immediately sees that the seven hills of Rome are Palatine Hill (Collis Palatinus), Aventine (Collis Aventinus), the Capitoline (Capitolinus), the Quirinal (Quirinalis), the Viminal (Viminalis), the Esquiline (Esquilinus) and the Caelian (Caelius). Vatican hill is across the river, and at the time of the writing, was not even considered to be in Rome!
The entire article is packed with these kinds of “facts”, which only when accepted blindly could compell a casual reader to even begin to lend credence to this kind of garbage.
Two questions: If the author is actually that ignorant as to be completely unaware of the actual facts which belie his writings, then why should you accept his thesis? But if he is aware of the actual facts, and is intentionally stating falsehood after falsehood after falsehood in order to convince you to buy into it, then, again, why would you buy into it?
- Status