I'm a paragraph. Click here to add your own text and edit me. It's easy.
I'm a paragraph. Click here to add your own text and edit me. It's easy.
I'm a paragraph. Click here to add your own text and edit me. It's easy.
Philosophy
06.5 - Transcribing David Icke
This is taken from an interview of David Icke on transgender-ism. What I'm going to is transcribe the interview, and then flip it around to point back at him and how he makes a living. I got this idea because it shows the cognitive dissonance when the alternative-thinker has when making claims vs refuting them.
A note before we start. I transcribe this video not to make a point about transgenderism, it just so happens to be what he's talking about.
"Look at the transgender situation. We live in a world now where everything has to be black and white. You're for us or you're against us. You're good or you're bad. You're black or you're white. When everything is a shade of grey. The truth is always somewhere in between the polarities. So if you look at the transgender theme, again it comes under this heading of, if it's the agenda, you won't have the right for another opinion. Because, if you're trying to sell the idea that there is no biological difference between men and women, well you're wrong or a loser because you can't win that debate.
But, if you silence the opposition and you intimidate them into silence through abuse and all the rest of it that comes from that, then you don't have to win the debate, because there is no debate and your view will prevail and we see it prevail all the time. Now, this is the difference. If people feel that they're in the wrong body, that's none of my business; it's their business. And if they want to self identify as a sex different to their body, good luck to you, mate. A, it's you're right to do that and B, it's none of my business. But that's not what it's about. That's the foot in the door.
The foot in the door says we must not discriminate against transgender people. OK, my hands go up, absolutely agree with you, we wouldn't. We shouldn't discriminate against anybody. But that's when it starts. And then it starts to move. And now suddenly you can't say this you can't say that, you can't have this opinion, you can't have that opinion. If you're a parent and you don't like what's being taught to your kids at school then you're a bigot and you're transphobic. And the whole thing expands from the initial you mustn't discriminate against transgender people, and now we have this situation now where if you argue against toilets for boys, girls or any boy in a school where the girls' school are kind of intimidated and don't like it. Well, you're kinda transphobic.
Now this is what happens when your gender kicks in and we won't have time to go over it now, but I go into it in my book, particularly my last book, but what this trans-gender agenda is really about, and it's nothing to do with stopping discrimination against transgender people, nothing."
---Interviewer asks questions.---
"It's all about the same goal but if we have time to go into the old technology agenda and the AI agenda then maybe I could bring it in there, but the point being that when it's the agenda, everything gets written over rough-shot. I'll give you an example. There was the feminist movement, and the feminist movement wanted more equality for women. OK? My hands go up again. And not discriminating against women, my hands go up again, yeah, I'm all with you. I think that as now gone the other way where there's discrimination against men, I mean we've gone past the bounds point but anyway.
So feminism was the politically correct subject of the time. But now there are other agendas coming which is the trans-gender agenda which is no usurping the feminist agenda. It means that if you're a feminist this is now you can see it if you're a feminist and you don't, for instance, think that women's sport should be destroyed as a competition and it is being increasingly, by people with male bodies that identify as women taking part in women's sport, I mean who do they think is going to win the weight lifting? If women as we've seen with people like Martina Navratilova the tennis player, and others, if you then as someone representing women say this is destroying our sport, you are now a transphobic, you are now this and this and whatever. Because you're getting in the way of the agenda. Nothing to do with what's right and what's fair.
And how it's affecting women and women sport. It's nothing to do with young girls at school who that feel uncomfortable with being in toilets with boys. Nothing to do with, for instance, there's some examples I've put in my last book, in a hostel for women suffering domestic violence are told that they have to share a room with a man because the man self-identifies as a woman. And if they don't like it, well then they can leave. This is not about fairness, it's not about justice, it's not about inclusion. It's about exclusion on behalf of basically an agenda. We're gonna make this happen even though we supported you before because that was the agenda then, you've been overwritten by another area of agenda now so we're gonna ride over you as well."
---Interviewer asks questions.---
"To divide us and it's also deeper than that. Again, what happens is when you create manufactured discrimination, what gets lost? Real discrimination. Real discrimination against Jewish people. Real discrimination against transgender people. Real discrimination against people on the grounds of colour. That gets lost in the great tidal wave of manufactured discrimination."
---Interviewer asks questions.---
"Because if you can persuade people they're discriminated against and they are victimised, you can get them into a situation where they feel offended by more and more things, you've got more and more excuses to censor. It's everything is connected, it's a web where everything, cause and affects everything else."
Here's why I've done this. Here's the colour code. If anything has been changed, I will make it bold and green. Text to ignore will be red and bold. Can David Icke's own logic when refuting other people's claims be applied to him?
"Look at the conspiracy situation. We live in a world now where everything has to be black and white. You're for us or you're against us. You're good or you're bad. You're black or you're white. When everything is a shade of grey. The truth is always somewhere in between the polarities. So if you look at the conspiracy theme, again it comes under this heading of, if it's the agenda, you aren't woke enough if you have another opinion. Because, if you're trying to sell the idea that everyone's under threat, well you only have to tell them and they believe you.
But, if you silence the opposition and you throw out slogans, block those who disagree with you, and exit the debate when you're losing, and all the rest of it that comes from that, then you don't have to win the debate, because there is no debate and your view will prevail and we see it prevail all the time. Now, this is the difference. If people feel that their government can't be trusted, that's none of my business; it's their business. And if they want to be sceptical of what the government tells them, good luck to you, mate. A, it's you're right to do that and B, it's none of my business. But that's not what it's about. That's the foot in the door.
The foot in the door says we must be sceptical of what the government tells us. OK, my hands go up, absolutely agree with you, we wouldn't. We shouldn't take information at face value. But that's when it starts. And then it starts to move. And now suddenly you see this conspiracy, you see that conspiracy, you now have this opinion, you can't have that opinion. If you're a parent and you don't like what's being taught to your kids at school then you're a sheep and you need to wake up. And the whole thing expands from the initial the government can't be trusted, and now we have this situation now where if you argue for conspiracy theories, and someone asks for evidence that you can't provide, the alternative-thinkers are kind of intimidated and don't like it. Well, you're a sheep who needs to do some research.
Now this is what happens when your paranoia kicks in and we won't have time to go over it now, but I go into it in my book particularly my last book, but what this conspiracy agenda is really about, and it's nothing to do with stopping tyranny against the people, nothing."
"It's all about the same goal but if we have time to go into the old anti-technology agenda and the nature agenda then maybe I could bring it in there, but the point being that when it's the agenda, everything gets written over rough-shot. I'll give you an example. There was the scientific method, and the scientific method wanted more reliable, reviewed and tested information. OK? My hands go up again. And not believing what you're told, my hands go up again, yeah, I'm all with you. I think that as now gone the other way where there's an attitude of anti-expert, I mean we've gone past the bounds point but anyway.
So science was the factually correct subject of the time. But now there are other agendas coming which is the conspiracy agenda which is no usurping the scientific method. It means that if you're a free-thinker this is now you can see it, if you're a free-thinker and you don't, for instance, think that cellphones cause Cancer or that vaccines cause autism, I mean who do they think is going to provide the science? If scientists as we've seen with people like peer-reviewed studies, experts in their respective fields, and others, if you then as someone representing science say cellphone study information on cancer is inconclusive or vaccine studies linking them to autism are flawed, you are now a shill, you are now this and this and whatever. Because you're getting in the way of the agenda. Nothing to do with what's correct and what's fair.
And how it's affecting science and logic. It's nothing to do with being accurate to the science. Nothing to do with, for instance, there's some examples I've put in my last book, if you present counter-evidence to an alternative-thinker showing why their argument is flawed or incorrect factually and if they don't like it, well then they can leave. This is not about accuracy, it's not about evidence, it's not about truth. It's about believing in what you already agree with on behalf of basically an agenda. We're gonna make this happen even though we supported you before because we cherry-picked studies without reading them, you've been overwritten by another area of agenda now so we're gonna ride over you as well."
"To divide us and it's also deeper than that. Again, what happens is when you create manufactured conspiracies, what gets lost? Real conspiracies. Real conspiracies against other countries. Real conspiracies against our health. Real conspiracies against people on the grounds of class. That gets lost in the great tidal wave of manufactured conspiracies."
"Because if you can persuade people they're in danger and they are victimised, you can get them into a situation where they feel afraid by more and more things, you've got more and more excuses to sell books, hold paid speaking events, and create more conspiracies. It's everything is connected, it's a web where everything, cause and affects everything else."