Deano
... WITH CONCRETE ON THEIR MINDS
The David Icke Newsletter, April 29th 2007
Hello all ...
I was asked to appear in a television documentary this week for Britain's Channel 4 that asked the question: 'Who is ruling the world?' The programme is being made for young people by the channel's education department and will go out to schools and colleges.
The decision to make the programme came after a survey found that large numbers of young people now mistrust government, authority in general and even Channel 4. What great news this is, given that those in power have shown over and over that they lie to us on a daily basis.
http://www.davidicke.com/oi/extras/07/april/chrisfrench.jpg
My part in the documentary led to me meeting a university psychology academic called Chris French from Goldsmith's College at the University of London. He's a BA PhD CPsychol FBPsS FRSA. Must be intelligent, then. French has produced some astonishing research. Mind, I use the term 'astonishing', as in 'astonishing that he bothered'. He and his colleagues questioned people about 'conspiracy theories' and this is what they found:
* Those who trust authority are less likely to believe in conspiracies.
* Those who distrust authority are more likely to believe in conspiracies.
Ain't academia great? How would we survive without these guys? Anyone with a brain could have told them what they would find before they even started, because of course that is bound to be true. If you don't trust authority you are going to be more open to claims that they are lying than if you think authority is benign and only there to serve the best interests of the people. Er, and?
As I said to French in our interchange on the programme, the point is not who will, or will not, believe in the conspiracy view of world events. The question is this: are the claims true and supportable by the evidence? In short, is the conspiracy happening or isn't it?
This, however, is too simple and direct for the concrete end of academia which, in my experience, is a very long end indeed. Never mind the evidence, it must be something in people's psyche that gets them to believe in conspiracies. After all, the conspiracies can't be true, because we don't believe them. So, let's have a survey and disappear up our own backsides pouring over the obvious, and let's forget little irrelevant details like whether the conspiracy is happening or not.
French told me they had found that those who believed in 'conspiracy theories' were more likely to be 'delusional' than those who didn't believe them. The psychiatric definition of 'delusional' is: 'A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution'.
So how come no-conspiracy theorists are not considered 'delusional' when they believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq just because those in authority told them this was the case? Ah, but, you see, not to believe in conspiracies is more credible to academia because it supports the establishment version of events. It is like believing in extraterrestrial life. The idea that life as we know it has only evolved on this tiny little planet and nowhere else is considered credible because that's the establishment's view that people like Chris French are there to serve. Therefore, to believe that given the perceived vastness of space there has to be other life 'out there' is considered 'delusional' - 'He believes in little green men', and all that crap.
There is no better example of this phenomenon that I call 'reverse-credibility', than the Islamic hijackers theory about 9/11. It is credible to believe that nineteen hijackers who struggled to fly one-engined Cessnas at puddle-jumping flying schools could suddenly manifest the ability to fly jumbo jets with the most extraordinary skill. But, to say that this is clearly nonsense is a 'conspiracy theory' that attracts dismissal from people like French. He was trying to defend the official 9/11 story during our chat, including the hijacker-pilots-who-couldn't-fly theory.
I asked him for his definition of delusional with regard to his survey and he said it was those who answered 'yes' to questions like: Do you think that everyone is being tracked by their mobile phone?
Once again, whether they are or not is never addressed by French and company. Only his interpretation of the answer matters. The fact is that everyone can be tracked by their cell phone and many are when they are being particularly targeted. I don't believe that everyone is, because most people are no problem to authority and so there is no point.
But to believe that it might be happening when surveillance is increasing by the day is now considered 'delusional'. French doesn't know if the statement is true or false, but he believes it to be false and so anyone who thinks it might be going on must be delusional because he can't be wrong.
French told me there was no evidence for what I was saying in my books about a global conspiracy to impose an Orwellian state. I asked him the obvious question: Have you read any of them? His answer ... 'No'.
This is absolutely typical of his breed and I have met so many of these academic clones who parrot their song sheet 'science' and song sheet 'psychology'. They are not interested in evidence, only their own theories. Indeed, they are no-conspiracy theorists who never bother to check out the validity of what is being claimed by actually researching the evidence.
I said I couldn't take him seriously when he was saying on one hand that there was no evidence and yet not even bothering to read even one of my books to see what evidence was being presented. 'I knew you would take that line', he said. Well, what other 'line' is there to take in the circumstances?
If someone had rigid views on what it is like to travel by train when they had never been near a railway station, people like French would say they had a psychological flaw. But that's exactly what he and his colleagues do. They have concrete opinions without even a cursory look at the evidence, and then accuse people of being delusional for believing in something when, in the unresearched opinion of people like Chris French, there is no evidence! They are looking themselves in the mirror and they are too full of themselves to see it.
When I challenged French about dismissing evidence that he hadn't even bothered to read, he said he knew what I was saying from articles he had read in the media. Given that we are talking about one of the most miss-represented people of recent times, I had to laugh at the idea that anyone could find out what I was really saying, and on what evidence, from the news media. But, then, from the moment I began talking with the guy, I knew I was in Fairyland.
He told me that my work was based on a document called The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which he claimed was a 'proven fake'. I asked him how he knew that my books were based on that. He had seen it in the papers. The fact that this was provable nonsense, as a read of my books would immediately confirm, was once again irrelevant to him.
The David Icke Newsletter, April 29th 2007
Hello all ...
I was asked to appear in a television documentary this week for Britain's Channel 4 that asked the question: 'Who is ruling the world?' The programme is being made for young people by the channel's education department and will go out to schools and colleges.
The decision to make the programme came after a survey found that large numbers of young people now mistrust government, authority in general and even Channel 4. What great news this is, given that those in power have shown over and over that they lie to us on a daily basis.
http://www.davidicke.com/oi/extras/07/april/chrisfrench.jpg
My part in the documentary led to me meeting a university psychology academic called Chris French from Goldsmith's College at the University of London. He's a BA PhD CPsychol FBPsS FRSA. Must be intelligent, then. French has produced some astonishing research. Mind, I use the term 'astonishing', as in 'astonishing that he bothered'. He and his colleagues questioned people about 'conspiracy theories' and this is what they found:
* Those who trust authority are less likely to believe in conspiracies.
* Those who distrust authority are more likely to believe in conspiracies.
Ain't academia great? How would we survive without these guys? Anyone with a brain could have told them what they would find before they even started, because of course that is bound to be true. If you don't trust authority you are going to be more open to claims that they are lying than if you think authority is benign and only there to serve the best interests of the people. Er, and?
As I said to French in our interchange on the programme, the point is not who will, or will not, believe in the conspiracy view of world events. The question is this: are the claims true and supportable by the evidence? In short, is the conspiracy happening or isn't it?
This, however, is too simple and direct for the concrete end of academia which, in my experience, is a very long end indeed. Never mind the evidence, it must be something in people's psyche that gets them to believe in conspiracies. After all, the conspiracies can't be true, because we don't believe them. So, let's have a survey and disappear up our own backsides pouring over the obvious, and let's forget little irrelevant details like whether the conspiracy is happening or not.
French told me they had found that those who believed in 'conspiracy theories' were more likely to be 'delusional' than those who didn't believe them. The psychiatric definition of 'delusional' is: 'A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution'.
So how come no-conspiracy theorists are not considered 'delusional' when they believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq just because those in authority told them this was the case? Ah, but, you see, not to believe in conspiracies is more credible to academia because it supports the establishment version of events. It is like believing in extraterrestrial life. The idea that life as we know it has only evolved on this tiny little planet and nowhere else is considered credible because that's the establishment's view that people like Chris French are there to serve. Therefore, to believe that given the perceived vastness of space there has to be other life 'out there' is considered 'delusional' - 'He believes in little green men', and all that crap.
There is no better example of this phenomenon that I call 'reverse-credibility', than the Islamic hijackers theory about 9/11. It is credible to believe that nineteen hijackers who struggled to fly one-engined Cessnas at puddle-jumping flying schools could suddenly manifest the ability to fly jumbo jets with the most extraordinary skill. But, to say that this is clearly nonsense is a 'conspiracy theory' that attracts dismissal from people like French. He was trying to defend the official 9/11 story during our chat, including the hijacker-pilots-who-couldn't-fly theory.
I asked him for his definition of delusional with regard to his survey and he said it was those who answered 'yes' to questions like: Do you think that everyone is being tracked by their mobile phone?
Once again, whether they are or not is never addressed by French and company. Only his interpretation of the answer matters. The fact is that everyone can be tracked by their cell phone and many are when they are being particularly targeted. I don't believe that everyone is, because most people are no problem to authority and so there is no point.
But to believe that it might be happening when surveillance is increasing by the day is now considered 'delusional'. French doesn't know if the statement is true or false, but he believes it to be false and so anyone who thinks it might be going on must be delusional because he can't be wrong.
French told me there was no evidence for what I was saying in my books about a global conspiracy to impose an Orwellian state. I asked him the obvious question: Have you read any of them? His answer ... 'No'.
This is absolutely typical of his breed and I have met so many of these academic clones who parrot their song sheet 'science' and song sheet 'psychology'. They are not interested in evidence, only their own theories. Indeed, they are no-conspiracy theorists who never bother to check out the validity of what is being claimed by actually researching the evidence.
I said I couldn't take him seriously when he was saying on one hand that there was no evidence and yet not even bothering to read even one of my books to see what evidence was being presented. 'I knew you would take that line', he said. Well, what other 'line' is there to take in the circumstances?
If someone had rigid views on what it is like to travel by train when they had never been near a railway station, people like French would say they had a psychological flaw. But that's exactly what he and his colleagues do. They have concrete opinions without even a cursory look at the evidence, and then accuse people of being delusional for believing in something when, in the unresearched opinion of people like Chris French, there is no evidence! They are looking themselves in the mirror and they are too full of themselves to see it.
When I challenged French about dismissing evidence that he hadn't even bothered to read, he said he knew what I was saying from articles he had read in the media. Given that we are talking about one of the most miss-represented people of recent times, I had to laugh at the idea that anyone could find out what I was really saying, and on what evidence, from the news media. But, then, from the moment I began talking with the guy, I knew I was in Fairyland.
He told me that my work was based on a document called The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which he claimed was a 'proven fake'. I asked him how he knew that my books were based on that. He had seen it in the papers. The fact that this was provable nonsense, as a read of my books would immediately confirm, was once again irrelevant to him.