Bob, personally I tend to be more favorable to conspiracy theories than the average American. I try to approach them sensibly with an open mind. I think Murray Rothbard's article "The Conspiracy Theory of History Revisited" gives a very reasonable explanation of how one should approach conspiracy theories. Rothbard is right in saying that "the conspiracy analyst is a praxeologist; that is, he believes that people act purposively, that they make conscious choices to employ means in order to arrive at goals."

Technically, much of human behavior and activity is being involved in conspiracy. Man, being a social being, is constantly scheming and colluding with others to reach desired ends. The term "conspiracy theory" has a nefarious connotation in common usage, so people bring this point up in trying to argue against the idea that much of everyday life can be construed as individuals participating in various conspiracy theories. Most individuals don't overtly conspire with others to engage in nefarious activities, therefore they are doing something qualitatively different than a conspiracy.

But if we take into account man's tendency to choose bad or evil ends, or employ bad or evil means to ends (original sin; man's fallen nature) it's easy to see how much of man's activity can be or become nefarious, conspiratorial activity. Even a non religious person can't dispute that man is easily tempted to do evil, or refrain from doing the good.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if it turns out there was something behind JFK's assassination.

As far as current affairs go, I'm almost completely certain that there's a conspiracy behind the Iranian protests. It's hard to believe that anyone can doubt that the CIA or some other USG affiliated outfit has a hand in it. The color coded outfits, the signs in English "Where's My Vote" which eerily sounds like it was made up by the same marketing firm behind those lefty "Rock the Vote", "I Voted" campaigns we saw in the most recent presidential campaigns, the history of USG and CIA involvement in the place, public statements by the previous administration and the US foreign policy establishment, Cheney's attempt to gin up some sort of Gulf of Tonkin incident in the Persian Gulf where fake Iranian boats would fire upon US vessels, and on and on.

Can anyone seriously doubt that there's a conspiracy behind the Iranian protests?

Now having said all this, I'm not so sure about this David Icke fellow. After all he believes that the Illuminati is run by reptilian humanoids that have taken over:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_icke#Reptilian_humanoids

So if you're going to publicly endorse David Icke, Bob, you better explain the whole reptilian humanoid thing.
 

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate.
 

David Icke thinks the world is run by giant shape-shifting lizards, he is a laughing stock over here in the UK.
 

The ones from Alderbaran are particularly evil. They are hiding a whole army in the Lake Totenkopf, ready to march forth once the orders are given!!!

Kallisti!

Bob, please say you were joking. I can barely handle your Christianity, but this is getting too much.
 

Bob, you might like Jon Rappoport, an artist and journalist with a strong libertarian streak. Rappoport turned me on to Ayn Rand. Rappoport is more focused on solutions and ways out than Icke, and (big bonus for me) no weird "reptilians" stuff (which, to be fair, is not the most valuable or important plank in Icke's worldview).
 

And his wife has a "PhD" from...
http://www.ryokan.edu
What a collection.
 

Ah, David Icke, one my favorite tools. Do you really think I would let him go on like this if he didn't serve my purpose.
 

Reptilian humanoids??!

He needs to update his conspiracy theory.

Reptilian humanoids sounds like something from the 50s and 60s.

Maybe cyborg/humanoids? Or is that too 80s?

What could seem current........hybrid car humanoids?

Maybe he can update his theory and replace reptilian humanoids with Toyota Priuses. Except these Priuses are environmentally efficient car/human hybrids.
 

Tough crowd. The thing I watched didn't talk about lizards. Yeah, that's admittedly a bit extreme.
 

"In 1999, he published The Biggest Secret, in which he wrote that the Illuminati are a race of reptilian humanoids known as the Babylonian Brotherhood, and that many prominent figures are reptilian, including George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, Kris Kristofferson, and Boxcar Willie."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke

I always knew that something was a little weird with Boxcar Willie.
 

Bob, it's called Gooogle and Wikipedia. Oh, and due diligence....;) It's YOUR blog, be careful what you put on it.

My friendly advice, which will probably find agreement among those who are friendly to you: remove this post. Seriously. You don't want that guy on your blog.
 

I remember David Icke on Grandstand. Then he went nuts and is now an increasingly obscure laughingstock in the UK.
I'm glad to see he has moved beyond the purple shell suits though.
 

Now, now. The realDavid Icke was replaced with this look-a-like caricature when it became clear he was a threat to the powers that be.
 

Looks like David Icke has been hitting the "Sticky Icky" a little too much (David "Sticky" Icke? Does it work? No?).

Well, in Icke's defense, technically human beings can be considered to be "reptilian humanoids" according to the theory of evolution. That is, modern day human beings evolved out of reptiles sometime in the distant past, and presumably some we carry some DNA that's held over since then, hence we hear about the "reptilian brain", the most primitive instinctual parts of our brain.

Although I'm not sure about Bob's views on evolution, I presume he's skeptical based on his religious views.

It would be funny, though, if Bob rejects Icke's theory because it could be construed to depend on the validity of the theory of evolution, rather than the fact that it, um, involves "reptilian humanoids."
 

No doubt someone here can help me out: what's the word for discrediting a person's arguments based on an unrelated other facet of their thinking or character? Let's say (for example), you have an economist with a sound education and who argues solidly and knowledgeable about monetary systems, business cycles, malinvestments, etc. BUT, all that suddenly gets discounted and ignored because... he's a CHRISTIAN (and those passing judgement are all passionate atheists, for the sake of my example). So, because he's a Christian, all of a sudden nothing of what this guy says on economics has any value whatsoever.
 

Marc,

somebody who is willing to accept utterly absurd ideas on topics A, B, and C, is likely to hold utterly absurd ideas on others.
 

Have you guys even watched one segment from the movie I linked to? You don't need to accept his results based on personal testimony; you can go look up the "facts" to which he alludes (which I plan on doing at some point).

He's not talking about reptiles, he's talking about how every president since x has been connected to the Bilderberg group etc.

If somebody used to love Dom Armentano's definitive work on antitrust, is that person no longer allowed to like it, James?

And last point, you'd better hope we're not being manipulated by reptilian humanoids, since you guys will police our thoughts to make sure we never escape our bondage. Collaborators! Hissssss.
 

Bob, I still like your economics, and I'm sure Amentano was a good anti-trust theorist. I'm just reluctant to quote you by name, as I would be reluctant now to quote Amentano by name. The ideas standy on their own feet, it's just that their originators seem a little suspect...

I din't watch allo of Icke's video because I can't stand the flowery language he uses.

Regarding Bilderberger: there's nothing mystical about it. It's a shoulder-rubbing, back-slapping club for the high and mighty. It's a meet and greet. I would be shocked if such a venue did NOT exist. That's what the powerful and mighty do - they meet, they back-slap, and they try to bathe in each other's perceived glory. To believe it's some kind of cabal is absurd, if only because there are too many people involved.
Now, do cabals get hatched during those meetings? That's a different question altogether. And the answer is, yes, of course. Just as when some of these people meet at Aspen or in some other venue where the high and mighty generally meet.
 

In Bob's defense, if you watch the Icke video (it's quite long, I only managed about halfway) he never discusses reptiles and keeps the topic on plausible connections and scenarios. You might just want to dismiss everything he said because of the reptile thing, but if you follow this (discrediting someone's entire thought because a few weird aspects), then you will have to reject many many thinkers in the past.

Irving Fisher for example had some really wacky ideas about health. He believed that all disease originated in the colon, and so when his daughter had some mental problem he had her undergo some severe surgery on her colon and she died I believe soon afterwards. You can look it up, it's on Wiki.

And there are many other examples.
 

baedoid, I'm happy to forgive anyone the odd idiosyncratic belief. But I have a hard time forgiving sheer stupidity.

I try not to associate with crazies and people who very strongly hold outright stupid ideas - even after benig presented a good argument why their ideas are stupid.

The biggest advantage of my attitude? Affordable BBQ parties.
 

"God save us from Religion!"

It`s interesting that you would post this, Bob.
 

Tokyo Tom,

Why is it interesting? Is it really so unusual to say, "I don't agree with everything this guy says, but nonetheless I find his worldview very interesting"?

Those of you who are surprised/revulsed by this posting, do you have like, 3 people on the planet whom you read for new ideas?

I'm assuming not. So why is this post so surprising/revolting to you?
 

Bob,

I have a pretty powerful BS filter, that eliminates a lot of things before they take up too much of my time. About once or twice a year I come across some significantly new thought on things. That's a pretty good rate, I think.
 

Bob, my comment was a narrow one, focussed solely on Icke`s statement re: religion, which doesn`t revolt me in the least
 

Bob and others,

Aside from the Bilderberg stuff which Alex Jones goes on about a lot, I think the most meaningful and objectively valid thing Icke talked about, which he actually spent the most time on throughout this 2hr talk, was his explanation of pyramid/hierarchical social structure, how it compartmentalizes, reduces self-esteem and self-confidence, causes people to hope for less than full self-expression in their lives, and how democracy provides an illusion of freedom not actual freedom.

All good stuff, for the most part, minus the weird pseudo-scientific "good vibrations" bit, though on some level I agree with that idea too (the idea that you can generate your own good luck through a shift in attitude and self-conception).
 

I have never quite understood what people mean by 'self-expression', particularly when they feel somehow theirs is limited.

Seriously, it's that kind of duck-talk that drives me mad.
 

James Rothfeld,

I don't know what "duck-talk" is (quackery?) but I think the idea of self-expression, at least as David Icke describes it, is one of repudiating conformity and sameness and instead embracing individual identity and ego.

For instance, maybe you have a circle of friends that all enjoy football. But maybe you prefer baseball. And furthermore maybe they hate baseball.

It would be "self-expression" to be confident in your interest in baseball and to not apologize for having that interest amongst your friends who hate it, rather than pretending to like football so you can fit in better.

This was something Icke spent some time discussing... ways in which people avoid being seen as strange or different and thereby compartmentalize themselves and adhere to the pyramid.