# David Icke lecture @ Wembley Arena, October 2012



## Jazzz (Jan 21, 2012)

Extraordinary! Capacity 12,500... wonder if it will sell out?

_"David Icke marks his 22nd year of uncovering astounding secrets and suppressed information with his biggest all-day event yet. He will take the manipulation of the human race and the nature of reality to still new depths and levels of understanding and he calls for humanity to rise from its knees and take back the world from the sinister network of families and non-human entities that covertly control us from cradle to grave. David’s new book, 'Remember Who You Are', out in January, 2012, is ground-breaking and life-changing, and the cutting edge is moved by a giant leap. David has indeed moved the global cutting edge so many times since his incredible ‘awakening’ in 1990 and at Wembley Arena, he will do it again -and then some. They used to laugh at David Icke - now they come to hear him in their thousands all over the world. Come and see why. It will change your life."_

http://www.wembleyarena.co.uk/artist/david-icke-tickets


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 21, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> _ They used to laugh at David Icke _



'Used to'? No, they, in fact we're still laughing, heartily.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2012)

I think a lot of that laughter is directed at people like jazzz to be honest


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 21, 2012)

If he's at wembley he could challenge the whole crowd to a game of beat the goalie.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 21, 2012)

have you had this dirty spam cleared jazz?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 21, 2012)

Idiocy favours large groups, who knew?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2012)

Actually, i'm pretty sure it's Icke that's doing the laughing: Tickets £39.75 - £62.15


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 21, 2012)

plus DVD sales


----------



## Jazzz (Jan 21, 2012)

ddraig said:


> have you had this dirty spam cleared jazz?


It's not 'dirty spam'. I have no financial interest in the event. I do not work for David Icke or for Wembley Arena, and am posting simply for information and as a discussion topic


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 21, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I think a lot of that laughter is directed at people like jazzz to be honest



But surely it's not on laughing at idiots?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> It's not 'dirty spam'. I have no financial interest in the event.


You don't have to to make it spam.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> But surely it's not on laughing at idiots?


You mean the enlightened surely? We're the idiots.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 21, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You mean the enlightened surely? We're the idiots.



Oh yeah, not to mention 'radical robots'.


----------



## Jazzz (Jan 21, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You don't have to to make it spam.


Well I guess then we have a whole forum of spam devoted to the Olympics/football/whatever


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> Well I guess then we have a whole forum of spam devoted to the Olympics.


There are other defining characteristics of spam than the Olympics do not have. People not having a financial interest in something doesn't make all things that people post about that they don't have a financial interest  spam. See what you've done there?


----------



## Meltingpot (Jan 21, 2012)

I'll say this for you Jazzz, you've got a thick skin and / or the courage of your convictions. I'd have given up promoting Icke and other conspiracy stuff on here ages ago if I got half the flack you get.

I've seen him twice (both times in 1994) but I have to say I went off him when the lizard thing happened. I find it harder to take him seriously now. Going by his autobiography and his recent vitriolic attacks on people he's worked or been associated with, he also seems to have inherited his father's bad temper.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> I'll say this for you Jazzz, you've got a thick skin and / or the courage of your convictions.



Are you suggesting there's something reptilian about jazzz?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 21, 2012)

Still promoting anti-semitism eh Jazzz?


----------



## T & P (Jan 21, 2012)

Wait until Ickle realises the venue is full of Illuminati symbolism. What a fucking plonker.

27 pages, btw.


----------



## Meltingpot (Jan 21, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Are you suggesting there's something reptilian about jazzz?



No, not at all.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 21, 2012)

> _non-human entities that covertly control us from cradle to grave. _



Tories?


----------



## editor (Jan 21, 2012)

Could someone point me in the direction of a single "astounding secret" that Icke has "uncovered"?


----------



## editor (Jan 21, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> Extraordinary! Capacity 12,500... wonder if it will sell out?


Incredible! If he managed five nights on the trot he'd be as popular as Disney on Ice!


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jan 21, 2012)

editor said:


> Could someone point me in the direction of a single "astounding secret" that Icke has "uncovered"?



How to make skipfulls of money off idiots by talking complete bullshit? It's a lucrative trick if you can manage it.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 21, 2012)

editor said:


> Incredible! If he managed five nights on the trot he'd be as popular as Disney on Ice!



David Icke on Ice. It could just work.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jan 21, 2012)

editor said:


> Incredible! If he managed five nights on the trot he'd be as popular as Disney on Ice!



Five nights on the trot? One for each corner and one for the point of the pyramid?


----------



## rekil (Jan 21, 2012)

> non-human entities that covertly control us from cradle to grave


Cats.


----------



## editor (Jan 21, 2012)

The CBeebies have sold more tickets than Icke. Maybe they've got more secrets.


----------



## butcher (Jan 21, 2012)

As a Freemason I'd just like to state that I find this sort of thing reprehensible fnord.


----------



## elbows (Jan 21, 2012)

22 years of making a living from talking bollocks eh, impressive but not terribly unusual.

This stuff is a waste of cynicism, although luckily we have ample spare cynicism to throw around these days as human history lead us to a point where most of the options smell bad. Do the likes of Icke actually give anybody hope & a sense of more options being available? I find that rather unlikely, and when looking for a saviour to lead us from this era I might imagine the chosen one to be someone who can either melt our cynicism or use it in a constructive way, not someone who sloppily uses it to build a career whilst failing to channel it in a direction that spells freedom or wisdom of any variety.


----------



## T & P (Jan 21, 2012)

I guess it's probably common knowledge for most people, but not being from these parts I didn't have a clue Icke that was a snooker pundit for the BBC, until I saw some old footage of him on a programme recently about great moments in sport. Talk about a career change.


----------



## longdog (Jan 21, 2012)

editor said:


> Could someone point me in the direction of a single "astounding secret" that Icke has "uncovered"?



I get the loony's emails so I can...

"In this two-hour presentation at the famous Oxford Union at Oxford University, David Icke encapsulates humanity's current plight and how we can secure our freedom from the Hidden Hand behind global events. It is designed to be a simple introduction to the staggering revelations that he has long exposed in detail in his books. If you want to know what is really happening in your world, and why, this is not to be missed. Your freedom and that of your children and grandchildren could well depend upon it. 

_Particularly recommended for people new to this information or to show friends and family to introduce them to the bigger picture."_

Or (excuse the green crayon...

"BLASTING THE ENERGY GRID OF BRITAIN AND THE WIDER WORLD WITH THE AWAKENING CONSCIOUSNESS THAT THE CONTROL SYSTEM CANNOT SURVIVE.

 David's new book Remember Who You Are out in January is ground-breaking, life-changing, and the cutting edge is moved by a giant leap.​ 
Or...

"
'Once in every generation a person rises up above the crowd to reveal the truth of our age. This individual shows us who we really are and the way out of the chaos and confusion that surrounds us. At this moment, in this time, that person is David Icke."


Etc...


----------



## friedaweed (Jan 21, 2012)

Shouldn't this be in the conspiracy theory forum


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2012)

T & P said:


> I guess it's probably common knowledge for most people, but not being from these parts I didn't have a clue Icke that was a snooker pundit for the BBC, until I saw some old footage of him on a programme recently about great moments in sport. Talk about a career change.


He was a general sports presenter and not a snooker pundit - before that he was a professional footballer.


----------



## longdog (Jan 21, 2012)




----------



## longdog (Jan 21, 2012)




----------



## Jon-of-arc (Jan 21, 2012)

elbows said:


> This stuff is a waste of cynicism.



Well worth highlighting/repeating this particular sentence.


----------



## longdog (Jan 21, 2012)




----------



## Jazzz (Jan 21, 2012)

editor said:


> The CBeebies have sold more tickets than Icke. Maybe they've got more secrets.


What audience size would you consider impressive/significant for a lecture?


----------



## editor (Jan 21, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> What audience size would you consider impressive for a lecture?


That all depends if the lecturer is being given by someone who claims to have uncovered "astounding secrets" about life, lizards, global conspiracies and whatnot.

Talking of which, can you name one of these "astounding secrets," please?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 21, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> What audience size would you consider impressive/significant for a lecture?



What's your view on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?


----------



## Jazzz (Jan 21, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> I'll say this for you Jazzz, you've got a thick skin and / or the courage of your convictions. I'd have given up promoting Icke and other conspiracy stuff on here ages ago if I got half the flack you get.
> 
> I've seen him twice (both times in 1994) but I have to say I went off him when the lizard thing happened. I find it harder to take him seriously now. Going by his autobiography and his recent vitriolic attacks on people he's worked or been associated with, he also seems to have inherited his father's bad temper.


mm. I think he's a bit out there with the lizard stuff too and neither is he the finished article spiritually. However he is doing a pretty astounding job of spreading a message


----------



## longdog (Jan 21, 2012)

At last NEW AGE PROPHET and seeker of the TROOF reveals the HIDDEN POWER behind the NEW WORLD ORDER​​Tickets only £200 or £300 with free dVD​


----------



## Jazzz (Jan 21, 2012)

editor said:


> That all depends if the lecturer is being given by someone who claims to have uncovered "astounding secrets" about life, lizards, global conspiracies and whatnot.


In what way, do people like to listen to that stuff, or not? Because in the past you've always suggested that no-one was interested.

Are you saying you were mistaken?


----------



## longdog (Jan 21, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> mm. I think he's a bit out there with the lizard stuff too and neither is he the finished article spiritually. However he is doing a pretty astounding job of spreading a message



What message?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 21, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> mm. I think he's a bit out there with the lizard stuff too and neither is he the finished article spiritually. However he is doing a pretty astounding job of spreading a message



A message with lots of links to fascist ideas.


----------



## Jazzz (Jan 21, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> A message with lots of links to fascist ideas.


pish.


----------



## longdog (Jan 21, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> pish.



So what is the message for the second time of asking?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 21, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> pish.



What are your views on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 21, 2012)

editor said:


> That all depends if the lecturer is being given by someone who claims to have uncovered "astounding secrets" about life, lizards, global conspiracies and whatnot.
> 
> Talking of which, can you name one of these "astounding secrets," please?



Well apparently the moon is a spaceship which is beaming evil messages into our brains.

That's pretty astounding, surely?


----------



## longdog (Jan 21, 2012)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Well apparently the moon is a spaceship which is beaming evil messages into our brains.
> 
> That's pretty astounding, surely?



Must be a Jewish moon


----------



## Kidda (Jan 21, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> Extraordinary! Capacity 12,500... wonder if it will sell out?
> 
> _"David Icke marks his 22nd year of uncovering astounding secrets and suppressed information with his biggest all-day event yet. He will take the manipulation of the human race and the nature of reality to still new depths and levels of understanding and he calls for humanity to rise from its knees and take back the world from the sinister network of families and non-human entities that covertly control us from cradle to grave. David’s new book, 'Remember Who You Are', out in January, 2012, is ground-breaking and life-changing, and the cutting edge is moved by a giant leap. David has indeed moved the global cutting edge so many times since his incredible ‘awakening’ in 1990 and at Wembley Arena, he will do it again -and then some. They used to laugh at David Icke - now they come to hear him in their thousands all over the world. Come and see why. It will change your life."_
> 
> http://www.wembleyarena.co.uk/artist/david-icke-tickets



Have you still not grown out of all this yet Jazz?


----------



## longdog (Jan 21, 2012)

In _Infinite Love is the Only Truth_ (2005), Icke introduces the idea of "reptilian software." He says that there are three kinds of people. The highest level of the Brotherhood are the "Red Dresses.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 21, 2012)

He's nicked that from the first Matrix film.


----------



## longdog (Jan 21, 2012)

He's nicked a lot from The Matrix.


----------



## killer b (Jan 21, 2012)

longdog said:


>


are they having a nice day out on the beach here?


----------



## gosub (Jan 21, 2012)

£40 a ticket. There are a lot of fucked up people with too much money to burn. I suppose if it wasn't Icke it would be the Scientolgists


Scientology is in predictive text


----------



## Meltingpot (Jan 21, 2012)

editor said:


> Could someone point me in the direction of a single "astounding secret" that Icke has "uncovered"?



He's promoted the use of ayahuasca, which he calls the "teacher plant;"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9QyRLQ9fXw&feature=related


----------



## skyscraper101 (Jan 21, 2012)

So.. Urban day out anyone?


----------



## longdog (Jan 21, 2012)

killer b said:


> are they having a nice day out on the beach here?



Pixels?


----------



## friedaweed (Jan 21, 2012)

Surely this is a thread that requires more......


----------



## longdog (Jan 21, 2012)

Dr Jazzz has gone rather quiet on exactly what this 'message' Nutjob Icke speading is supposed to be.

No surprise there then.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 21, 2012)

Well he did expose the royal family as lizards and be fair they're not as obvious as when you look at bush and blair.


----------



## badseed (Jan 22, 2012)

editor said:


> Could someone point me in the direction of a single "astounding secret" that Icke has "uncovered"?



People who have the Swine Flu vaccine will be dead by the end of 2009.
http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/david-icke-on-swine-flu.224362/


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 22, 2012)

badseed said:


> People who have the Swine Flu vaccine will be dead by the end of 2009.
> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/david-icke-on-swine-flu.224362/


I'm still here. I was pretty sick after it though. Just a touch of death then.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 22, 2012)

a lot more new age-y than i remember him being...

"cesspit vibration"


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 22, 2012)

He did not understand the signs well enough then. But his understanding is better now. He can now see what it was he was being told. 

This experience has only left his convictions even stronger. He will not be so easily fooled next time by the lizards. They will always me trying to discredit him but he will not be bowed. 


Unfortunately the pattern is all too familiar and predictable. This form of delusion appears to take quite a recognisable form. Not too surprising really- we all have human brains so they are likely to go wrong in similar ways.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 22, 2012)

OMG its 2012 and the Schumann Cavity Resonance is reaching 13 cycle per second!! 



"One thing is for sure (in 2012) 'The Price is Right will not be on the telly"
Shit, he's right! Someone check Challenge TV!

I'll save you watching it: he reckons the poles on earth are due to flip in 2012, and the world will stop turning for 3 days... I think there is proof that the poles have flipped in the earths past yeah? But to say its going to happen jsut before/after his stadium tour is bollocks.


----------



## hipipol (Jan 22, 2012)

The tradition of Bedlam lives on - but in these commercialised times the loonies now sell tickets themselves to those who wish to go and peer at them

Hes not even very original - this nutter,
*Klaus Wagner-Deranged Wimledon Doctor*

exposed her as the Elizardbeast  first

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Wagner_(conspiracy_theorist)


----------



## friedaweed (Jan 22, 2012)

ska invita said:


> a lot more new age-y than i remember him being...
> 
> "cesspit vibration"



I am 'pure love' man
Dave's got this down for me. Symbolic intuition is where it's at


----------



## friedaweed (Jan 22, 2012)

We live forever


----------



## hipipol (Jan 22, 2012)

Dr Michael von Pommern-Peglow - the lawyer, he knows the truth


----------



## editor (Jan 22, 2012)

badseed said:


> People who have the Swine Flu vaccine will be dead by the end of 2009.
> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/david-icke-on-swine-flu.224362/


Fuck me! People die from flu?! Really?

Thank fuck Icke was around to point that one out.


----------



## longdog (Jan 22, 2012)

editor said:


> Fuck me! People die from flu?! Really?
> 
> Thank fuck Icke was around to point that one out.



Now that thread was classic Dr Jazzz 

Strangely I've had and not died from the flu vaccine in 2009, 2010 and 2011. I'm either very lucky or part of the ruling Jewish lizard cabal and didn't know it.


----------



## longdog (Jan 22, 2012)

A little quote from Dr Jazzz on the afore mentioned 158 page epic thread...

"Why do you think the state gives free flu shots to the over 60's, generosity?"


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jan 22, 2012)

...well, I've just come back from "holiday", and have unpacked my suitcase, taken the photos down to Boots etc, and here, as I go through the unopened post and so on over breakfast, I find this....anti-Semitic shite being promoted.

You know, I'd promised to turn over a new leaf and be nice and decent to everyone in the Urban universe, regardless of their political etc positions. But for some unaccountable reason, I've suddenly changed my mind w/regard to Jazzz.

Next.


----------



## mrs quoad (Jan 22, 2012)

ska invita said:


> OMG its 2012 and the Schumann Cavity Resonance is reaching 13 cycle per second!!



One thing's for sure.

The man has no fucking idea what 420 bpm would sound like (7 cycles per second). Tops, he's around 180.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 22, 2012)

Goalkeeper, sports presenter, lizard expose - but shit drummer. 

P.S. The Maya were pretty good drummers. Not saying it proves anything, _*but it does, definitely*_.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 22, 2012)

A lizard in action - see the basilisk stare. You'll notice the distinctive 'W' shape that the creature forms with head and sticks:






Did not the other great guru Dan Brown uncover the same effect below? 






I'm not saying it's the key to everything, but it *is*.


----------



## elbows (Jan 22, 2012)

ska invita said:


> a lot more new age-y than i remember him being...
> 
> "cesspit vibration"



When he first moved away from the sports & greenpeace version of Icke, he started off all new age-y. The notorious Wogan appearance was all turquoise messiah, and his first books after this episode were to be found in the new age section of bookshops. It was later that the darker paranoid world domination stuff rose to the fore, a phenomenon which was then given extra legs by the 9/11 effect. As we move further away from the Bush era paranoia I suppose it should not surprise us if Icke adjusts his mix again.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 22, 2012)

Wilf said:


> A lizard in action - see the basilisk stare. You'll notice the distinctive 'W' shape that the creature forms with head and sticks:



That's not a W, it's two V's - a reference to season two of V


----------



## Wilf (Jan 22, 2012)

Splitter!  Boxcar *W*illie, *Dubya*, Prince *W*illiam...


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jan 22, 2012)

I read one of his books. Basically he goes in for every conspiracy theory going to the point where almost every chapter directly contradicts every other chapter.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jan 22, 2012)

David Icke lol


----------



## 1%er (Jan 22, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> He's promoted the use of ayahuasca, which he calls the "teacher plant;"
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9QyRLQ9fXw&feature=related


Ayahuasca, great for the mind but its side effects are literally shit  Its used quite a lot in rituals and is used as a sacrament in a number of churches in Brazil.

Maybe he is a shaman, does he juggle chicken bones?


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 22, 2012)

longdog said:


> A little quote from Dr Jazzz on the afore mentioned 158 page epic thread...
> 
> "Why do you think the state gives free flu shots to the over 60's, generosity?"


158 pages ???!!!!


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 22, 2012)

Do these various shades of conspiracy nuts get on, or is there generally a bit of a scrap if they meet up.

'Ashtar on the road' (google it) is a good hoot.


----------



## longdog (Jan 22, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> 158 pages ???!!!!



I shit you not.

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/david-icke-on-swine-flu.224362/page-158

58 pages of piss taking and 100 pages of Dr Jazzz being handed his arse on a plate


----------



## Voley (Jan 22, 2012)

I'd quite like to read one of his books.


----------



## Voley (Jan 22, 2012)

This'll be the one for me, I think:



> In _The Biggest Secret_ (1999), Icke introduced the reptoid hypothesis. He identified the Brotherhood as originating from reptilians from the constellation Draco, who walk on two legs and appear human, and who live in tunnels and caverns inside the earth. They are the race of gods known as the Anunnaki in the Babylonian creation myth, _Enûma Eliš_ who share almost identical parallels across the ancient world cultures.


----------



## Voley (Jan 22, 2012)

Actually, no. This is more my sort of thing, i've decided:


----------



## Meltingpot (Jan 22, 2012)

NVP said:


> I'd quite like to read one of his books.



If you only read one, I'd recommend his autobiography, "In The Light of Experience" (1993).


----------



## Voley (Jan 22, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> If you only read one, I'd recommend his autobiography, "In The Light of Experience" (1993).



No, 'It's A Tough Game, Son!'s definitely the one for me.


----------



## mrs quoad (Jan 22, 2012)

Out of interest, why has no-one sued the arse off of him?

Presumably bc it'd lend him too much credence?

Must be worth a few bob, tho!


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 22, 2012)

Sue him for what?


----------



## elbows (Jan 22, 2012)

Crimes against hair if the cover of that football book is anything to go by.


----------



## mrs quoad (Jan 22, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> Sue him for what?


Being identified as a world-leading reptilian with no consciousness, who probably had a stake in faking 9/11, & only breeds with other reptilians?


----------



## two sheds (Jan 22, 2012)

No, sorry even the royal family would have difficulty with that one in a court of law.


----------



## Jack Black (Jan 22, 2012)

What would it take for a chameleon to evolve so it could not only camouflage its visuals but copy things it saw and not only visuals but voice as well, think the evil robot in terminator 2.

I think it's more than likely/possible that chameleons could be these shape shifting lizards that icke talks about.

Terminator 2 was someone spilling the beans, but cos the illuminati elite are such good secret keepers, no one even noticed


----------



## Meltingpot (Jan 22, 2012)

mrs quoad said:


> Being identified as a world-leading reptilian with no consciousness, who probably had a stake in faking 9/11, & only breeds with other reptilians?



He called Ted Heath a child abuser in one of his books (and on his website too). I'm a bit surprised he wasn't sued for that one.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2012)

W


Meltingpot said:


> He called Ted Heath a child abuser in one of his books (and on his website too). I'm a bit surprised he wasn't sued for that one.


Why do you think that he wasn't?


----------



## Meltingpot (Jan 22, 2012)

We'd have heard about it.


----------



## Voley (Jan 22, 2012)

Well, I reckon 9/11 was predicted in 'Rugrats In Paris' even if no-one else does.


----------



## Teepee (Jan 22, 2012)

ska invita said:


> OMG its 2012 and the Schumann Cavity Resonance is reaching 13 cycle per second!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Fucks sake. This is scientifically wrong on so many levels. I'm really looking forward to the great day in 2012 when fuck all happens, just to hear the excuses these people come out with


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> We'd have heard about it.


No, i meant why wasn't he sued over the claim.

Incidentally, people who do bad things often go to great lengths to 'cover up' what they've done in order that you don't hear about it.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2012)

It wouldn't surprise me if some nutter is plotting some big terrorist outrage to try and make 2012 "the year they tried to immanitize the eschaton"


----------



## ska invita (Jan 22, 2012)

NVP said:


> Well, I reckon 9/11 was predicted in 'Rugrats In Paris' even if no-one else does.


"911 clues and hints in hollywood films and productions"

^^so many funny bits in this (including rugrats), but my favourite is the DVLA logo


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 22, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> It wouldn't surprise me if some nutter is plotting some big terrorist outrage to try and make 2012 "the year they tried to immanitize the eschaton"



Nobody from these boards, surely.


----------



## Voley (Jan 22, 2012)

ska invita said:


> "911 clues and hints in hollywood films and productions"
> 
> ^^so many funny bits in this (including rugrats), but my favourite is the DVLA logo



Yeah I love it too. The dramatic music and the 'one voice can make a difference' bit. Fucking genius. . I love The Simpsons one. That's the episode were Homer becomes a Freemason. Unsurprisingly it contains masonic imagery as a backdrop to taking the piss out of the masons. This is proof of the New World Order apparently.


----------



## Jack Black (Jan 22, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> It wouldn't surprise me if some nutter is plotting some big terrorist outrage to try and make 2012 "the year they tried to immanitize the eschaton"


definitely. Anyone going to the olympics is taking a massive risk for what is essentially a pimped out sports day. Risk vs reward people. If I can make it to Hawaii in a coracle by August I am offski!


----------



## Apathy (Jan 22, 2012)




----------



## Jack Black (Jan 22, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Incidentally, people who do bad things often go to great lengths to 'cover up' what they've done in order that you don't hear about it.



The exception being the stonecutter's, who are so cocky they think they can fuck with us by splicing loads of clues into Disney films and wotnot. 

Seems they have us by the balls, if only there was one of us who could see through all the bullshit and lead us to salvation... Step forward doctor!


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jan 22, 2012)

"They're trying to do a situation through the microchipping"

Shit. The bastards


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 22, 2012)

Jack Black said:


> definitely. Anyone going to the olympics is taking a massive risk for what is essentially a pimped out sports day. Risk vs reward people. If I can make it to Hawaii in a coracle by August I am offski!



Don't make promises you can't keep....


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 22, 2012)

Stanley Edwards said:


> "They're trying to do a situation through the microchipping"
> 
> Shit. The bastards


How do you 'do a situation' anyway?


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jan 22, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> How do you 'do a situation' anyway?



Through the microchipping 

The microchipping is gonna stop the world spinning 

We're doomed. Doomed


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 22, 2012)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Through the microchipping
> 
> The microchipping is gonna stop the world spinning
> 
> We're doomed. Doomed


That's a shedloads of microchips. I assume they're going to be shipped from China?


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jan 22, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> That's a shedloads of microchips. I assume they're going to be shipped from China?



Yep. And, presented on PowerPoint so we all get it


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 22, 2012)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Yep. And, presented on PowerPoint so we all get it


I loathe Power Point


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jan 22, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> I loathe Power Point



It's the chosen media of microchipping lizard aliens. It should be banned for the sake of humanity


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 22, 2012)

Stanley Edwards said:


> It's the chosen media of microchipping lizard aliens. It should be banned for the sake of humanity


I couldn't agree with you more on this point, Stanley.

Should we ban other microsoft products too, or can Excel and Word be safely used without bringing humanity to the brink of destruction?


----------



## Jack Black (Jan 22, 2012)

It should be remembered that humanity will survive cos of the bunkers. It's just us lot that will be cooked in the nuclear furnace. Have your marshmallows handy!


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jan 22, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> I couldn't agree with you more on this point, Stanley.
> 
> Should we ban other microsoft products too, or can Excel and Word be safely used without bringing humanity to the brink of destruction?



I don't think it really matters. The world is going to stop spinning for Three days this year. Then, it's going to start spinning the other way. That is going to well and truly fuck up my breakfast routine


----------



## Jack Black (Jan 22, 2012)

Too many people anyway. I wonder if they have an underground ark?


----------



## Jack Black (Jan 22, 2012)

Stanley Edwards said:


> I don't think it really matters. The world is going to stop spinning for Three days this year. Then, it's going to start spinning the other way. That is going to well and truly fuck up my breakfast routine


might be fun though, the greatest allnighter's this side of the poles or 3 days of sun! Sweeeet!


----------



## TruXta (Jan 22, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> It wouldn't surprise me if some nutter is plotting some big terrorist outrage to try and make 2012 "the year they tried to immanitize the eschaton"



Immanentize. Some people.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 22, 2012)

Jack Black said:


> It should be remembered that humanity will survive cos of the bunkers. It's just us lot that will be cooked in the nuclear furnace. Have your marshmallows handy!


'us lot'?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Immanentize. Some people.



You want to immanitize some people?


----------



## Jack Black (Jan 22, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> 'us lot'?


wasn't referring to lizards there, just the prevailing narrative of human conflict upto the inevitable nuclear apocalypse. The classics are the best!


----------



## Meltingpot (Jan 22, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> No, i meant why wasn't he sued over the claim.



Good point. Maybe by this time Icke was banging on about the lizards etc, and didn't have enough credibility for Heath to worry about?



butchersapron said:


> Incidentally, people who do bad things often go to great lengths to 'cover up' what they've done in order that you don't hear about it.



Indeed they do, which is why I'm very reluctant ever to diss off anyone who tries to uncover secret wrongdoing, even though some of them seem like fruitcakes (and some undoubtedly are).


----------



## T & P (Jan 22, 2012)

mrs quoad said:


> Out of interest, why has no-one sued the arse off of him?
> 
> Presumably bc it'd lend him too much credence?
> 
> Must be worth a few bob, tho!



Seeing as he'd like nothing better to have his day in court, I'd love to see the Queen or Tony Blair having to undergo a medical examination to prove they're no lizards.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 22, 2012)

if you want to make everyone think you're *definitely not a paedo* the very worst thing you can do is sue someone for calling you one surely?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 22, 2012)

also surely people sue for libel on the basis that it damages their reputation. given that icke's rantings don't really damage anyone's reputation due to nobody taking him seriously, they're not going to waste time sueing him over it are they? if they sued that would make people think that it could be true.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 22, 2012)

Illuminati backwards WWW.ITANIMULLI.COM redirects to NSA.GOV 


ETA:
oh, its just a joker with a redirect. Quick, cancel my stadium tour!! Thanks Truxta - just in time...


----------



## TruXta (Jan 22, 2012)

Turns out some guys have got a sense of humour, ska.


----------



## longdog (Jan 22, 2012)

T & P said:


> Seeing as he'd like nothing better to have his day in court, I'd love to see the Queen or Tony Blair having to undergo a medical examination to prove they're no lizards.



Well as the doctors are all in the pay of the new-world-zionist-lizard-bilderburg-big-farma-conspiracy they're not going to reveal the truth are they.

SEE THE TROOF SHEEPLE!


----------



## faux pas (Jan 22, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> I read one of his books. Basically he goes in for every conspiracy theory going to the point where almost every chapter directly contradicts every other chapter.


He might go for 'every conspiracy theory going', but I'm not sure he does actually contradict himself. I'd be surprised if you could point out exactly where he does. He believes that it's all played out on many levels.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2012)

faux pas said:


> He might go for 'every conspiracy theory going', but I'm not sure he does actually contradict himself. I'd be surprised if you could point exactly where he does. He believes that it's all played out on many levels.


How many Icke books have you read?

If you go for 'every conspiracy theory going' you necessarily contradict yourself btw.


----------



## faux pas (Jan 22, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> How many Icke books have you read?
> 
> If you go for 'every conspiracy theory going' you necessarily contradict yourself btw.


Not literally every conspiracy theory going - hence the quotes.

I've read one of his latest.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2012)

faux pas said:


> Not literally every conspiracy theory going - hence the quotes.
> 
> I've read one of his latest.


I thought the quotes were because you were quoting the words of another poster. You were weren't you?

You've 'read one of his latest' (that's a quote) yet feel that you can honestly argue that all his ideas across all his books are internally consistent? Why? They're not, because even if take on board only part of the conspiracy canon you necessarily contradict yourself.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2012)

What did you make of his 'latest' btw faux pas?


----------



## faux pas (Jan 22, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I thought the quotes were because you were quoting the words of another poster. You were weren't you?
> 
> You've 'read one of his latest' (that's a quote) yet feel that you can honestly argue that all his ideas across all his books are internally consistent? Why? They're not, because even if take on board only part of the conspiracy canon you necessarily contradict yourself.



Been to a lecture of his also, watched a considerable amount too on-line, and would be interested to know specifically how he contradicts himself.


----------



## faux pas (Jan 22, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> What did you make of his 'latest' btw faux pas?


I haven't read his very latest, but I found it interesting.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2012)

faux pas said:


> I haven't read his very latest, but I found it interesting.


How? By osmosis?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2012)

faux pas said:


> Been to a lecture of his also, watched a considerable amount too on-line, and would be interested to know specifically how he contradicts himself.



Let's be clear here - are you suggesting that his ideas are all internally consistent over time?


----------



## faux pas (Jan 22, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> How? By osmosis?


'one of his latest'


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2012)

faux pas said:


> Been to a lecture of his also, watched a considerable amount too on-line, and would be interested to know specifically how he contradicts himself.


How much did you pay? Would you say that you've invested in defending his ideas?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2012)

faux pas said:


> 'one of his latest'


What did you find very interesting about 'one of his latest' - what particularly struck you as important?


----------



## manny-p (Jan 22, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> What did you find very interesting about 'one of his latest' - what particularly struck you as important?


The truth about the lizards.


----------



## faux pas (Jan 22, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Let's be clear here - are you suggesting that his ideas are all internally consistent over time?


I'm referring to his work in recent years. Actually I posed the question. So being that you somewhat seem to want to take it on, perhaps you could tell me what theories of his contradict each other. All I said was I'm not sure he actually contradicts himself. Hardly the most ferocious comment.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2012)

faux pas said:


> I'm referring to his work in recent years. Actually I posed the question. So being that you somewhat seem to want to take it on, perhaps you could tell me what theories of his contradict each other. All I said was I'm not sure he actually contradicts himself. Hardly the most ferocious comment.


Or are you saying that you _think_ his recent work is consistent over time? If so what time period? Doesn't that then imply that it contradicts his earlier work? Or what?

Contradictions - Ok, who rules the world in the latest Icke book you read, lecture you attended or youtube video you spent considerable time watching?


----------



## faux pas (Jan 22, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Or are you saying that you _think_ his recent work is consistent over time? If so what time period? Doesn't that then imply that it contradicts his earlier work? Or what?
> 
> Contradictions - Ok, who rules the world in the latest Icke book you read, lecture you attended or youtube video you spent considerable time watching?


I was genuinely interested to know specifically how he contradicts himself. Perhaps that can be pointed out. As you were so ready to jump in, I thought you'd have an answer. It's not looking like I should hold my breath.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2012)

faux pas said:


> I was genuinely interested to know specifically how he contradicts himself. Perhaps that can be pointed out. As you were so ready to jump in, I thought you'd have an answer. It's not looking like I should hold my breath.


I thought maybe with your breadth of recent reading we can together establish just how he does in fact contradict himself. So with that in mind, i'll ask again, what do you find interesting about his recent books (that you've read), lectures (that you've attended) or youtube vids (that you've wasted your life watching). In this 'recent' material, who rules the world and why?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2012)

faux pas said:


> I was genuinely interested to know specifically how he contradicts himself. Perhaps that can be pointed out. As you were so ready to jump in, I thought you'd have an answer. It's not looking like I should hold my breath.


btw, how is saying that



> If you go for 'every conspiracy theory going' you necessarily contradict yourself btw.



'jumping in'? It's true isn't it? Are you accusing me of jumping in with unneeded and unwanted facts?


----------



## faux pas (Jan 22, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I thought maybe with your breadth of recent reading we can together establish just how he does in fact contradict himself. So with that in mind, i'll ask again, what do you find interesting about his recent books (that you've read), lectures (that you've attended) or youtube vids (that you've wasted your life watching). In this 'recent' material, who rules the world and why?


So basically you jumped in interrogating me like a prat and it turns out you know nothing about David Icke. Unbelievable lol!


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2012)

faux pas said:


> So basically you jumped in interrogating me like a prat and it turns out you know nothing about David Icke. Unbelievable lol!


Not so sure that this is what happened. I know plenty about Icke, precisely why i want to use you to establish that he contradicts himself.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 22, 2012)

faux pas said:


> So basically you jumped in interrogating me like a prat and it turns out you know nothing about David Icke. Unbelievable lol!



lol. i'd advise you not to go singing the praises of icke etc on here or you will get very seriously embarrassed.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 22, 2012)

Is this gonna be worth staying up for?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2012)

faux pas said:


> So basically you jumped in interrogating me like a prat and it turns out you know nothing about David Icke. Unbelievable lol!


 Now, this latest interesting one that you read - why did you find it interesting? What did it say that you found interesting? How did its claims compare to his earlier ones?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Is this gonna be worth staying up for?


Nope - she don't reply quick enough.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 22, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Nope



Just as well, the other half is starting to pester me to come to bed.


----------



## faux pas (Jan 22, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Nope - she don't reply quick enough.


I was just interested in the claim that he contradicts himself. I mean this about the range of theories he repeats indefatigably in recent years. My question was to a poster who claimed he contradicted himself with each chapter of a book they had read.

It has certainly occurred to me that Icke may contradict himself, but I'm not sure he actually does, so I'm interested if that claim can be exemplified. I didn't make the claim, so I don't need to rake up bits of his books and theories. That's for you to do if you so wish to defend it. If I don't respond quick enough for you perhaps it's because I'm not particularly interested in a fight, as it seems you're so eager to have. I was just interested to see this claim convincing pointed out, but it looks like I'll be here all night waiting for you to answer the original question you seemed so excited about.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2012)

Does this sound like the sort of oh i was just asking a question situation you suggest:



> He might go for 'every conspiracy theory going', but I'm not sure he does actually contradict himself. I'd be surprised if you could point out exactly where he does. He believes that it's all played out on many levels.



esp when backed up by your lecture attendance and hours of youtube watching - or does it sound like you're suggesting that he doesn't contradict himself?




			
				you said:
			
		

> "I'd be surprised if you could point out exactly where he does".



Come on, why are all the loons so scared to be honest nowadays?


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jan 22, 2012)

faux pas said:


> So basically you jumped in interrogating me like a prat and it turns out you know nothing about David Icke. Unbelievable lol!



Just come back from, er...."meditating" in a Soho boozer (come on, you don't think I was actually drinking in there or anything, do you?), and I see that we have yet another Icke apologist (Icke-pologist?) in Urban-land.  Ho hum.

(I'll shut up now)


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 22, 2012)

what you want to take care of an icke apologist is an icke pick


----------



## badseed (Jan 22, 2012)

I have a couple of questions if any 'Ickettes' would like to help.

When the earth stops spinning will we all die?
When the poles change over will compasses and maps be all fucked up?
When we reach a new level of spiritual awareness will I get to keep my 4wd and boat?
If none of these events occur will it dawn on you that Icke is preaching lunacy?


----------



## faux pas (Jan 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Does this sound oiem the sort of oh i jisty asking a question situation you suggest:
> 
> esp when backed up by your lecture attendance and hours of youtube watching - or does it sound like you're suggesting that he doesn't contradict himself?
> 
> Come on, why are all the loons so scared to be honest nowadays?


Still no answer, then.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 23, 2012)

I find it fascinating that there is a seemingly significant audience for him in British society.

What is it he gives these people...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2012)

faux pas said:


> Still no answer, then.


 To what? Your suggestion that you were just asking an _innocent_ question after reading books, attending lectures and hours on youtube by saying you'd be 'surprised' if Icke ever contradicted himself?

Ok, as you're not going to answer what you find interesting in either the latest work of his you perused or those lectures and vids, i'll ask how he explains the complete failure of his predictions of the Channels Island and the Isle of Mann to all be underwater, what 20 years or so ago. Let's see if we an find any contradictions there.


----------



## faux pas (Jan 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> To what? Your suggestion that you were just asking an _innocent_ question after reading books, attending lectures and hours on youtube by saying you'd be 'surprised' if Icke ever contradicted himself?
> 
> Ok, as you're not going to answer what you find interesting in either the latest work of his you perused or those lectures and vids, i'll ask how he explains the complete failure of his predictions of the Channels Island and the Isle of Mann to all be underwater, what 20 years or so ago. Let's see if we an find any contradictions there.


About the theories all strewn throughout his lectures, interviews, etc, in recent years. Not hard to find, mate. So all those brazen posts of yours and you're yet to point out contradictions in his recent work.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 23, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> I find it fascinating that there is a seemingly significant audience for him in British society.
> 
> What is it he gives these people...



Pretty much the same thing as Tolkein and CS Lewis I'd suggest ...

A thrilling mythologisation of the primal fears of little englanders, that's why he's so popular with the fash.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2012)

faux pas said:


> About the theories all strewn throughout his lectures, interviews, etc, in recent years. Not hard to find, mate. So all those brazen posts of yours and you're yet to point out contradictions in his recent work.


Why have you twice now used 'recent'? I directly asked you this earlier, but, as seems your way, you ignored the question. Have you identified contradictions in his earlier work? If not why insist on recent?

So your evidence that he doesn't contradict himself is that he has many theories? Ok, i'm asking you about one in order to establish a contradiction - you seem remarkably reluctant for one who would be 'surprised' to find icke ever contradicting himself.


----------



## Corax (Jan 23, 2012)

You're all very happy with yourselves laughing and sneering away at Icke, but all you're really doing is demonstrating your foolishness. Is what he says correct? No, of course it's bloody not. But neither is he a man to be underestimated, and some of what he says is undoubtedly true.

The truth is that the Royal family ARE lizard people, yes. But they are a benevolent species, and have been protecting us from greater disasters for centuries. Icke himself is the vanguard of a far more hostile race who have grown sick of the Lizards thwarting of their plans to enslave us. They sent Icke to discredit our protectors before their main fleet arrives this year. 2012. They knew that if they told us the truth, but surrounded it with ridiculous fictions, then when the time comes we will be defenceless. 

You laugh at Icke now, but you won't be when he reveals his true form as one of the gigantic evil Neptunian gopher people.


----------



## T & P (Jan 23, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> I find it fascinating that there is a seemingly significant audience for him in British society.
> 
> What is it he gives these people...


I don't think it's a particularly large group tbh. I'm sure various full-on nutjob 'miracle' churches would be able to sell out Wembley arena without problem. Not to mention the Scientologists, who are, when you think about it, just as shithouse rat-crazy.

This lot however is more vocal than most; they have taken to the internet like fish to water- indeed, the web has been a god-sent gift to them. Before the interwebs most people would rarely, if ever, hear much about Icke and his merry group of fans. Nowadays, it's difficult to avoid them. Though IRL I am yet to meet one.


----------



## eoin_k (Jan 23, 2012)

To be fair, it reflects relatively well on him that he has contradicted some of his less recent claims.  It would be really hard to take him seriously if he still had that messiah complex going on.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 23, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Pretty much the same thing as Tolkein and CS Lewis I'd suggest ...
> 
> A thrilling mythologisation of the primal fears of little englanders, that's why he's so popular with the fash.


But a lot of it requires complete ignorance of basic concepts of science - junior school science, willfull or otherwise.

People who follow his 'work' must be emotionally invested of something because they have seemingly abandoned the rational. I'd love to know other corralations, like do Icke people have the box set of X-Files, their job types, family arrangements... do they wash much.


----------



## faux pas (Jan 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Why have you twice now used 'recent'? I directly asked you this earlier, but, as seems your way, you ignored the question. Have you identified contradictions in his earlier work? If not why insist on recent?
> 
> So your evidence that he doesn't contradict himself is that he has many theories? Ok, i'm asking you about one in order to establish a contradiction - you seem remarkably reluctant for one who would be 'surprised' to find icke ever contradicting himself.


David Icke, when he first had his 'experience' decades ago, he came across as a right nutter. (People also say he's a right nutter now, granted.) He spoke of a 'God Head' and how he was part of a 'God Head'. What Icke has to say about that period is that he was experiencing something and he didn't know what was happening to him. Call it madness, lunacy, whatever. Now...

As you know so much about Icke, you'll know that, years on, he has brought together a body of work and a line of theories, which the poster claims contradict each other.

I'd like to know how these theories actually contradict each other as claimed. This doesn't mean I believe anything David Icke has ever said to be true. To infer that would be a logical fallacy. So, being that you've been so eager to jump down my throat seemingly defending the claim that his work contradicts itself, maybe you could be so courteous as to explain why, else you're just tiresome.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2012)

faux pas said:


> David Icke, when he first had his 'experience' decades ago, he came across as a right nutter. (People also say he's a right nutter now, granted.) He spoke of a 'God Head' and how he was part of a 'God Head'. What Icke has to say about that period is that he was experiencing something and he didn't know what was happening to him. Call it madness, lunacy, whatever. Now...
> 
> As you know so much about Icke, you'll know that, years on, he has brought together a body of work and a line of theories, which the poster claims contradict each other.
> 
> I'd like to know how these theories actually contradict each other as claimed. This doesn't mean I believe anything David Icke has ever said to be true. To infer that would be a logical fallacy. So, being that you've been so eager to jump down my throat seemingly defending the claim that his work contradicts itself, maybe you could be so courteous as to explain why, else you're just tiresome.


You just did didn't you? See what happens when we work together.

All the other stuff he said before that he now rejects and thinks was wrong was part of his...' madness, lunacy'. So, there's a whole from the horses mouth set of contradictions there faux pas isn't there?

Talking of fallacies,  how would you describe a situation where someone got something massively repeatedly and public wrong and then tried to justify it on the basis that he was right to be wrong? The Blair syndrome?

Any news on what you found interesting about the latest of Ickes that you've read given that we're being all courteous an all?


----------



## eoin_k (Jan 23, 2012)

faux pas said:


> ...This doesn't mean I believe anything David Icke has ever said to be true. To infer that would be a logical fallacy....


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2012)

faux pas said:


> I'd like to know how these theories actually contradict each other as claimed. This doesn't mean I believe anything David Icke has ever said to be true. To infer that would be a logical fallacy. So, being that you've been so eager to jump down my throat seemingly defending the claim that his work contradicts itself, maybe you could be so courteous as to explain why, else you're just tiresome.



You don't even know what tiresome is yet.


----------



## faux pas (Jan 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You just did didn't you? See what happens when we work together.
> 
> All the other stuff he said before that he now rejects and thinks was wrong was part of his...' madness, lunacy'. So, there's a whole from the horses mouth set of contradictions there faux pas isn't there?
> 
> ...


I never claimed Icke referred to his 'experience' as madness, only that I assume you probably would.

Okay, I give up on getting any examples of contradictions in his recent work. How absurd when you seem to be so vehement and ready to defend it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2012)

_You won't talk about his recent work_ - i've tried what, 5 or 6 times to coax you into daring to talk about it - you point blank refuse. I wonder why. As far as this goes, at what point do you think _his sane period_ began if we're to write off his earlier stuff in our catalouge of contradictions.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 23, 2012)

Ahhh, butchers has found a new playmate.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2012)

faux pas said:


> Still no answer, then.


What about the Jews eh? Eh?


----------



## Jack Black (Jan 23, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> I find it fascinating that there is a seemingly significant audience for him in British society.
> 
> What is it he gives these people...


I think it's like a substitute for religion, people want to simplify complex issues, or believe there is a degree of magic and/or supernatural forces at play in the world.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 23, 2012)

^ Perhaps that, in turn, might explain their own under-achievment in life, or even their perceived 'oddness' - it's not their fault, there are unknown forces at work.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 23, 2012)

I don't think it's that simple. David Icke fans aren't necessarily under-achievers


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 23, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> I don't think it's that simple. David Icke fans aren't necessarily under-achievers



Or psychiatric patients.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2012)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> I don't think it's that simple. David Icke fans aren't necessarily under-achievers



Indeed. Its also possible that Ickes fans base their beliefs on the residue of religious ways of thinking, but it doesn't mean that their views are religious as such. Or, more importantly serve the same functions as religions did historically.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 23, 2012)

I certainly think their views can be classified alongside ordinarily religious ones, but it's not institutionalised like religions are, there are no rites, holy places, or holy people, no worship and no liturgy. It's spiritual entertainment, and as such it belongs more with activities such as going to the movies or a gig.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2012)

It's entertainment for sure  - not at all convinced it's spiritual. More like panto. Which makes it knowing falseness, it's deliberate magpie fakeness sort of anti-spirtual if anything.


----------



## elbows (Jan 23, 2012)

Magical thinkings appeal to some minds did not diminish with the arrival of science.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jan 23, 2012)

faux pas said:


> He might go for 'every conspiracy theory going', but I'm not sure he does actually contradict himself. I'd be surprised if you could point out exactly where he does. He believes that it's all played out on many levels.



I'm just going for a poo so I will take my Icke book with me to refresh my memory and get back to you.
It's a crazy rambling mess of a book. I had a phase of being quite keen on reading these sorts of books as a sort of blair witch sci-fi in book form (made up bollocks presented as real) and they are sadly pretty much across the board extremely badly written making for a rather difficult and uninteresting read.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2012)

elbows said:


> Magical thinkings appeal to some minds did not diminish with the arrival of science.


Yep, and it's really important not tot try and approach these phenomena as case of getting things 'wrong' (in scientific or logical terms). They're not 'wrong' - they're one of the ways in which reactions to differing social conditions and relations of power manifest themselves. (And there's some right thick fucks who'll buy anything as well)


----------



## faux pas (Jan 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> _You won't talk about his recent work_ - i've tried what, 5 or 6 times to coax you into daring to talk about it - you point blank refuse. I wonder why. As far as this goes, at what point do you think _his sane period_ began if we're to write off his earlier stuff in our catalouge of contradictions.


You're so desperate to ridicule me, that I'll take your bait.

David Icke believes that the moon is hollow (although I'm not sure that is one of his stronger convictions), he also believes in reptilian entities who have hybrids here on earth, he believes in greys and others entities, he believes that certain bloodlines have pervaded throughout time often manifesting themselves as the ruling class, he believes that different sides of conflict in the world are supported and manipulated by the same groups.

The claim was that the theories Icke holds contradict themselves. I find that an interesting remark and asked the poster if he could demonstrate why as I'm not quite sure of the validity of that at all. Then you jump in grabbing the baton, flapping it around yet not seemingly wanting to run with it.

You've hounded me to effectively prove the absence of a claim I never made. Of course, it would be more logical for the claimant to prove his point and show the contradictions, not for the questioner to randomly show a sample of bits of information that apparently don't contradict each other, but as that's the way you want it, I've done so above. So can you now please point out how Icke contradicts himself in his work?

Now remember, this is not a claim about the truth of the information or theories. You can claim his theories mad and totally erroneous and it wouldn't make a difference to the claim that Icke contradicts himself. I'm sure that you're so smart that you won't fail to see that distinction (again).


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2012)

But you'd be 'surprised' if any of the above claims (or other as of yet unstated ones) contradict each other? That's what you _actually_ said right? Do you stand by that?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2012)

Let's take the first claim - that the moon is hollow. Previously Icke had claimed not that the moon is hollow but a hologram. That's a contradiction right?


----------



## faux pas (Jan 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> But you'd be 'surprised' if any of the above claims (or other as of yet unstated ones) contradict each other? That's what you _actually_ said right? Do you stand by that?


Yes, I'd be surprised, because, even though it has also appeared to me that way in the past, when thinking about it further, I have failed to see why and, being that someone else claims it to be true, I would be interested to be shown why.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2012)

Well you better get your surprised face ready then.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> It's entertainment for sure - not at all convinced it's spiritual. More like panto. Which makes it knowing falseness, it's deliberate magpie fakeness sort of anti-spirtual if anything.



I think it is for some, for a certain value of "spiritual". Kinda hard to quantify of course.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2012)

faux pas said:


> Yes, I'd be surprised, because, even though it has also appeared to me that way in the past, when thinking about it further, I have failed to see why and, being that someone else claims it to be true, I would be interested to be shown why.


Are you actually arguing btw that something can be non-contradictory whilst also being false?


----------



## faux pas (Jan 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Let's take the first claim - that the moon is hollow. Previously Icke had claimed not that the moon is hollow but a hologram. That's a contradiction right?


No, I'm afraid I don't see why that's a contradiction as, in the five sense reality, many things can be referred to as 'hollow' regardless as to the further theory of a holographic world. The 'hollowness' is the way we experience it, as with everything else played out in the five sense reality.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 23, 2012)

Oh christ


----------



## faux pas (Jan 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Are you actually arguing btw that something can be non-contradictory whilst also being false?


Of course..

The statement: 'Muhammed Ali is the US president', is a false statement, but only contradictory when combined with such a statement as 'Sean Penn is the the US president'.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 23, 2012)

faux pas said:


> No, I'm afraid I don't see why that's a contradiction as, in the five sense reality, many things can be referred to as 'hollow' regardless as to the further theory of a holographic world. The 'hollowness' is the way we experience it, as with everything else played out in the five sense reality.



The five sense reality. As opposed to the sixth sense delusion?


----------



## TruXta (Jan 23, 2012)

faux pas said:


> No, I'm afraid I don't see why that's a contradiction as, in the five sense reality, many things can be referred to as 'hollow' regardless as to the further theory of a holographic world. The 'hollowness' is the way we experience it, as with everything else played out in the five sense reality.



In my five sense reality I have a sneaking feeling you believe much of what Icke says.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2012)

faux pas said:


> No, I'm afraid I don't see why that's a contradiction as, in the five sense reality, many things can be referred to as 'hollow' regardless as to the further theory of a holographic world. The 'hollowness' is the way we experience it, as with everything else played out in the five sense reality.


And finally we weedle it out of you.  Odd how this hologram can support real physical moon bases for an alien life form that controls the earth.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 23, 2012)

faux pas said:


> Of course..
> 
> The statement: 'Muhammed Ali is the US president', is a false statement, but only contradictory when combined with the statement that 'Sean Penn is the the US president'.



I've also got the feeling you don't know what a contradiction entails. Your first statement is in contradiction with the true state of affairs. You do know who the POTUS is dontcha?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> It's entertainment for sure - not at all convinced it's spiritual. More like panto. Which makes it knowing falseness, it's deliberate magpie fakeness sort of anti-spirtual if anything.


I'd see it as more akin to the state of 'unknowing' knowing of hypnosis, when a person can insist _in English_ that they can't speak English, or they can be made to not see an object in front of them yet still walk around it to avoid kicking it.

It's a similar state to that involved in religious rites such as giving food to the dead then eating it yourself and reporting that the dead were pleased with their meal. It is somewhere between make-believe and belief - it is voluntary wish-fulfillment but not entirely insincere.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2012)

faux pas said:


> Of course..
> 
> The statement: 'Muhammed Ali is the US president', is a false statement, but only contradictory when combined with such a statement as 'Sean Penn is the the US president'.


Not it's not. A truth claim that is untrue contains a fundamental contradiction.

Anyway, job done.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'd see it as more akin to the state of 'unknowing' knowing of hypnosis, when a person can insist _in English_ that they can't speak English, or they can be made to not see an object in front of them yet still walk around it to avoid kicking it.
> 
> It's a similar state to that involved in religious rites such as giving food to the dead then eating it yourself and reporting that the dead were pleased with their meal. It is somewhere between make-believe and belief - it is voluntary wish-fulfillment but not entirely insincere.


There's a clear social function of that sort of thing, one entwined with the ongoing working of society - there isn't with these sort of beliefs though.


----------



## faux pas (Jan 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Not it's not. A truth claim that is untrue contains a fundamental contradiction.
> 
> Anyway, job done.


The claim was that the theories contradict each other.


----------



## faux pas (Jan 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> And finally we weedle it out of you. Odd how this hologram can support real physical moon bases for an alien life form that controls the earth.


It seems this is a semantic point, but a proponent of a 'holographic' world, will inevitably refer to things as 'solid' and real as we experience them. I don't see why the moon would be any different.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2012)

faux pas said:


> The claim was that the theories contradict each other.


And you've just been given a couple of glaring contradictions but flanneled them off. I'm pretty sure that you will not ever accept that there are any contradictions in any of Icke's theories. Earlier you said that you used to think that they did contradict themselves but now longer do. What sort of thing did you use to think contradicted other parts of Icke's theories?


----------



## faux pas (Jan 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> And you've just been given a couple of glaring contradictions but flanneled them off. I'm pretty sure that you will not ever accept that there are any contradictions in any of Icke's theories. Earlier you said that you used to think that they did contradict themselves but now longer do. What sort of thing did you use to think contradicted other parts of Icke's theories?


Well, the example you gave, for one.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2012)

faux pas said:


> It seems this is a semantic point, but a proponent of a 'holographic' world, will inevitably refer to things as 'solid' and real as we experience them. I don't see why the moon would be any different.


Why would they? There's no need to. There is if you're making it up as you go along though.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2012)

faux pas said:


> Well, the example you gave, for one.


i think we can safely say that you didn't deal with that contradiction, instead avoiding it. What others?


----------



## faux pas (Jan 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Why would they? There's no need to. There is if you're making it up as you go along though.


Of course, there is a need to describe reality on a level through the way we experience it. That's what has meaning for us when we go about our lives. I know it seems to you to be completely contradictory for a hologram to be 'hollow', but I can't see why something can't and shouldn't be referred to as 'hollow' as experienced by us, when in fact, it is itself a hologram.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2012)

faux pas said:


> Of course, there is a need to describe reality on a level through the way we experience it. That's what has meaning for us when we go about our lives. I know it seems to you to be completely contradictory for a hologram to be 'hollow', but I can't see why something can't and shouldn't be referred to as 'hollow' as experienced by us, when in fact, it is itself a hologram.


Of course - but there's simply no need within that demand to describe something alternately as a hologram and then as hollow. Because that sort of leads people to ask why, if the moon is a hologram, it has secret moon bases on it. Why could they not use some of the sort of unprovable waffle you've trying to use here? I know why that didn't happen and i think you do too.


----------



## elbows (Jan 23, 2012)




----------



## faux pas (Jan 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Of course - but there's simply no need within that demand to describe something alternately as a hologram and then as hollow. Because that sort of leads people to ask why, if the moon is a hologram, it has secret moon bases on it. Why could they not use some of the sort of unprovable waffle you've trying to use here? I know why that didn't happen and i think you do too.


To be clear, are you saying that a hologram can't have holographic 'bases on it'? That being the case, I guess by this rationale a holographic earth can't have holographic buildings on it also. Where's the contradiction?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2012)

It can't have real bases. It can't be a


> ‘spacecraft’ (probably a hollowed-out 'planetoid')



Pretty crap try that.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 23, 2012)

faux pas said:


> To be clear, are you saying that a hologram can't have holographic 'bases on it'? That being the case, I guess by this rationale a holographic earth can't have holographic buildings on it also. Where's the contradiction?



The contradiction lies in the fact that the world isn't a hologram in the sense you seem to use the word. And no waffling on about quantum physics please, because Icke sure as fuck wouldn't know a quantum from a quark, and neither would you I suspect.


----------



## faux pas (Jan 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> It can't have real bases. It can't be a
> 
> Pretty crap try that.


Again, no more 'real' than you or I. I was interested not in your surmise of Icke's theories, only the contradictions you purport.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2012)

The crimes against the brain that that bloody Matrix film are responsible for...


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 23, 2012)

He has a huge following - quite extraordinary. Why are people taken in by this loon?

"And the interest is, indeed, phenomenal. This autumn, Icke has spoken in 10 cities, across three continents. In New York, he was given a standing ovation by a sell-out, 2,100-strong crowd. Next week, in Amsterdam, he will talk to 1,750 people, while in Melbourne alone ticket sales racked up £83,000. 
Through his website, you can download his £1.99 iPhone app, or buy DVDs of his performances for £29.99. T-shirts showing the cover of his latest book, Human Race Get Off Your Knees, sell for £15. 
But T-shirts and ticket sales are small fry compared to the revenues generated by books. Since 1998, publishing industry analyst Nielsen calculates that Icke has sold 140,000 copies, worth over £2 million. They have been translated into 11 languages, and he sells “tens of thousands” in Germany, Romania and Sweden. "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8933565/David-Icke-would-you-believe-it.html

You'd think the ruling elite reptilians would arrange a little accident for him, wouldn't you?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2012)

faux pas said:


> Again, no more 'real' than you or I. I was interested not in your surmise of Icke's theories, only the contradictions you purport.


What do you think about the protocols of the elders of Zion (or the illuminati protocols as Icke calls them)?


----------



## TruXta (Jan 23, 2012)

Why are people taken in by any loon? A need for meaning, for belonging, for feeling special and knowing.


----------



## faux pas (Jan 23, 2012)

TruXta said:


> The contradiction lies in the fact that the world isn't a hologram in the sense you seem to use the word. And no waffling on about quantum physics please, because Icke sure as fuck wouldn't know a quantum from a quark, and neither would you I suspect.


The claim was that the theories contradict each other. Well done for *knowing* that the world isn't a hologram.


----------



## faux pas (Jan 23, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> What do you think about the protocols of the elders of Zion (or the illuminati protocols as Icke calls them)?


Not much


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2012)

faux pas said:


> Again, no more 'real' than you or I. I was interested not in your surmise of Icke's theories, only the contradictions you purport.


What are no more real than you or i? The hollow holographic moon with secret bases home to an alien life form?

You don't sound very interested in them to be honest. Have you remembered any of the other non-contradictions that you used to think were contradictions yet? That would be very handy.

(and it's ok, you can run free - no need to hold back now, not after your earlier posts)


----------



## TruXta (Jan 23, 2012)

faux pas said:


> The claim was that the theories contradict each other. Well done for *knowing* that the world isn't a hologram.



The claims that the moon is both a hologram and a hollowed-out planetoid are incompatible. _Holograms are_.... I'll let you finish that sentence.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2012)

faux pas said:


> Not much


What do you mean by "not much"? You must have an opinion, surely?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 23, 2012)

TruXta said:


> The claims that the moon is both a hologram and a hollowed-out planetoid are incompatible. _Holograms are_.... I'll let you finish that sentence.


It's a hologram of a hollowed-out planetoid, silly.


----------



## faux pas (Jan 23, 2012)

TruXta said:


> The claims that the moon is both a hologram and a hollowed-out planetoid are incompatible. _Holograms are_.... I'll let you finish that sentence.


Yes, but not that said hologram would be experienced by us as a hollowed-out planetoid if we could hypothetically project ourselves across space to find such a thing out.


----------



## elbows (Jan 23, 2012)

faux pas said:


> The claim was that the theories contradict each other. Well done for *knowing* that the world isn't a hologram.



I can't believe it isn't what you didn't say it wasn't.


----------



## faux pas (Jan 23, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> What do you mean by "not much"? You must have an opinion, surely?


I know it's said to be highly dubious, but, really, I don't know much about it. Satisfied?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2012)

faux pas said:


> I know it's said to be highly dubious, but, really, I don't know much about it. Satisfied?


You know "it's said" to be "highly dubious"? 

You're said to be "highly evasive".


----------



## faux pas (Jan 23, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> You know "it's said" to be "highly dubious"?
> 
> You're said to be "highly evasive".


I don't care about the protocols of the elders of zion, so what's your point?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jan 23, 2012)

faux pas said:


> The claim was that the theories contradict each other.



As I recall he says in the book 'the biggest secret' that life was seeded on this planet by some aliens then later he says we all came from another planet called neberu. He also says a planet called neberu crashed into it's own moon and was destroyed but the debris later formed earth, however he later says this planet is in some crazy big orbit and will later come back and crash into the earth.
Our overlords live on the earth and control us, slipping into other dimensions or whatever. Later in the book these overlords actually live in the hollowed out earth and later still they are on the dark side (and inside) the moon.

It's been a while, so just for you I will give it another read and post up stuff as and when I come across it.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2012)

faux pas said:


> I don't care about the protocols of the elders of zion, so what's your point?


You don't care that your hero promotes racist forgeries?


----------



## ska invita (Jan 23, 2012)

Hang on a minute, has Icke been saying the moon is a hologram? I wasn't at that meeting.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 23, 2012)

faux pas said:


> Yes, but not that said hologram would be experienced by us as a hollowed-out planetoid if we could hypothetically project ourselves across space to find such a thing out.



What? What does that sentence even mean? Do you know what a hologram is? It's light. Do you know what the moon is made of? Minerals and metals. And in case you haven't got the news, we did "project ourselves" onto the moon many times in the shape of manned and unmanned machines. Fucking loony.


----------



## Roadkill (Jan 23, 2012)

faux pas said:


> I know it's said to be highly dubious, but, really, I don't know much about it. Satisfied?



_Said to be_ highly dubious...?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2012)

What i find particularly interesting about this is that Icke produced a 700 page book, embarked on a global lecture tour, produced DVDS and CD arguing in great detail that:




			
				loon said:
			
		

> the Earth and the collective human mind is manipulated from the Moon, which, he says, is not a ‘heavenly body’, but an artificial construct – a gigantic ‘spacecraft’ (probably a hollowed-out 'planetoid') – which is home to the extraterrestrial group that has been manipulating humanity for aeons.
> 
> He describes what he calls the ‘Moon Matrix’, a fake reality broadcast from the Moon which is decoded by the human body/mind in much the same way as portrayed in the Matrix movie trilogy. The Moon Matrix has ‘hacked’ into the human ‘body-computer’ system, he says, and it is feeding us a manipulated sense of self and the world 24/7.



And faux pas isn't 'sure that is one of his stronger convictions' - not one of those sort of things you're not sure about really is it? Or don't really commit to if you don't believe it. (Unless of course you're just a rip-off merchant - but...)


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2012)

Also, what is it that you find interesting about this sort of argument faux pas?




			
				faux pas said:
			
		

> ...that certain bloodlines have pervaded throughout time often manifesting themselves as the ruling class,


----------



## TruXta (Jan 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Also, what is it that you find interesting about this sort of argument faux pas?



Funny thing is if he was talking about European nobility he or she wouldn't be a million miles off. As it is we're on about reptiles....


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Funny thing is if he was talking about European nobility he or she wouldn't be a million miles off. As it is we're on about reptiles....


...are we?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 23, 2012)

TruXta said:


> What? What does that sentence even mean? Do you know what a hologram is? It's light. Do you know what the moon is made of? Minerals and metals. And in case you haven't got the news, we did "project ourselves" onto the moon many times in the shape of manned and unmanned machines. Fucking loony.


You still don't get it. We experience the hologram as reality - as minerals and metals and cheese and stuff. Some gifted types are able to see through the projection to get a glimpse of what 'really' lies behind it. Such people are often confused by what they see - they can easily misinterpret it at first, it can lead them to make predictions that are not quite right, but once properly understood, that only goes to show how true what they say must be.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> ...are we?



Kinda, in a roundabout way.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You still don't get it. We experience the hologram as reality - as minerals and metals and cheese and stuff. Some gifted types are able to see through the projection to get a glimpse of what 'really' lies behind it. Such people are often confused by what they see - they can easily misinterpret it at first, it can lead them to make predictions that are not quite right, but once properly understood, that only goes to show how true what they say must be.


 That be £37.50 please.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 23, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You still don't get it. We experience the hologram as reality - as minerals and metals and cheese and stuff. Some gifted types are able to see through the projection to get a glimpse of what 'really' lies behind it. Such people are often confused by what they see - they can easily misinterpret it at first, it can lead them to make predictions that are not quite right, but once properly understood, that only goes to show how true what they say must be.



Mmmmm cheese. You do this too well lbj. Fess up, how long have you harboured these beliefs?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 23, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You still don't get it. We experience the hologram as reality - as minerals and metals and cheese and stuff. Some gifted types are able to see through the projection to get a glimpse of what 'really' lies behind it. Such people are often confused by what they see - they can easily misinterpret it at first, it can lead them to make predictions that are not quite right, but once properly understood, that only goes to show how true what they say must be.



And the chief gifted person was given this information during a "spiritual awakening" in 1990 or thereabouts.  Who, or what gave him the information?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> What i find particularly interesting about this is that Icke produced a 700 page book, embarked on a global lecture tour, produced DVDS and CD arguing in great detail that:
> 
> 
> 
> And faux pas isn't 'sure that is one of his stronger convictions' - not one of those sort of things you're not sure about really is it? Or don't really commit to if you don't believe it. (Unless of course you're just a rip-off merchant - but...)


That's straight out of a Philip K Dick novel.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 23, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> _Said to be_ highly dubious...?


The Protocols have been judged to be a forgery because it was wrongly believed that they had been written by Jewish elders. In that sense, those that exposed the forgery were half-right. They were indeed not written by Jewish elders and they were attributed to them in order to discredit and dissemble. A clever distraction by the real authors - presenting themselves to the world in a way that will cause them to be discredited, and so enable them to remain hidden (they were worried at the time that others were onto them): very clever to hide in plain view like that. Very clever indeed.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 23, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> That's straight out of a Philip K Dick novel.


funnily enough, dick was a bit an ickelike figure in later life


----------



## TruXta (Jan 23, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> funnily enough, dick was a bit an ickelike figure in later life



Speed will do that to a man. At least he didn't go on stadium tours, he had enough shame to present it as fiction (for the most part, not sure about VALIS).


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 23, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Speed will do that to a man. At least he didn't go on stadium tours, he had enough shame to present it as fiction (for the most part, not sure about VALIS).


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2012)

1977? Fassbinder had already exposed the matrix in 1973 in World on a Wire


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> 1977? Fassbinder had already exposed the matrix in 1973 in World on a Wire


i have that on my hard-drive to watch very soon.
though dick spoke of similar concepts earlier than 73, as no doubt many other writers did.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 23, 2012)

And throughout he says "I'm not sure what it was", plus he attributes it at least in part to using sodium pentathol. So not really the same is it?


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 23, 2012)

faux pas said:


> I know it's said to be highly dubious, but, really, I don't know much about it. Satisfied?



Lol.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 23, 2012)

TruXta said:


> And throughout he says "I'm not sure what it was", plus he attributes it at least in part to using sodium pentathol. So not really the same is it?


i wasn't claiming that he was exactly the same. i just wanted to post that clip to be honest.

anyway, plato got there first:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave


----------



## TruXta (Jan 23, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> i wasn't claiming that he was exactly the same. i just wanted to post that clip to be honest.
> 
> anyway, plato got there first:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave



Icke's not a Platonist by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 23, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Icke's not a Platonist by any stretch of the imagination.


who said he was?


----------



## TruXta (Jan 23, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> who said he was?



You implied as much saying that Plato got there first. What Icke is proposing isn't idealism.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 23, 2012)

i was referring to 'the matrix'


----------



## faux pas (Jan 23, 2012)

TruXta said:


> What? What does that sentence even mean? Do you know what a hologram is? It's light. Do you know what the moon is made of? Minerals and metals. And in case you haven't got the news, we did "project ourselves" onto the moon many times in the shape of manned and unmanned machines. Fucking loony.


The point remains as to whether David Icke contradicts himself. This is not the same as claiming something is contradictory simply because it's claimed to be false. You say that what makes up the moon, its 'minerals and metals', are not really just a hologram as Icke would claim. Fine, but the question remains, does Icke's claim that we would experience the moon as a hollowed-out planetoid, if we could ourselves hypothetically project there (rather than going on information from NASA), contradict the claim that, how we would experience it wouldn't be how it actually is, that being a hologram? Where's the contradiction?


----------



## faux pas (Jan 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Also, what is it that you find interesting about this sort of argument faux pas?


I gave you a short list of Icke points as apparently you needed me to in order for you to defend a claim another poster made and you seemed to be supporting. That's all.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 23, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Why are people taken in by any loon? A need for meaning, for belonging, for feeling special and knowing.



Partly I think because it's very easy to point out things that are wrong with the world and with governments. Make a series of statements starting off where people agree with you and then shift off into the conspiracy stuff and it becomes almost a standard sales pitch that you take people with you.

I don't understand this stuff about holographic moon being confusing - it's a hollowgram 

I'm still a page away from the end of the thread but you're not landing any real punches with this one so far butchers. The points you're trying to make aren't important enough and it just seems to be descending into irritable semantics.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2012)

The claim that it's a hologram  - a 'projection' (that it _is_ a hologram not that we experience it as a hologram) and that space aliens live in secret bases there are most certainly contradictions.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2012)

faux pas said:


> I gave you a short list of Icke points as apparently you needed me to in order for you to defend a claim another poster made and you seemed to be supporting. That's all.


I asked you what you found 'interesting' in the most recent of Icke's books you had read. Is this secret bloodlines/ruling class thing one of those aspects that you find interesting.

Thanks for your little list btw - interesting that the very first item highlighted one of the ways in which his _theories_ contradict each other.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> i have that on my hard-drive to watch very soon.
> though dick spoke of similar concepts earlier than 73, as no doubt many other writers did.


Maya, or the veil of illusion, in Hinduism.


----------



## faux pas (Jan 23, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> You don't care that your hero promotes racist forgeries?


My 'hero'? David Icke stresses what he calls 'Rothchild Zionism'. Never yet heard or read him say anything racist.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2012)

two sheds said:


> Partly I think because it's very easy to point out things that are wrong with the world and with governments. Make a series of statements starting off where people agree with you and then shift off into the conspiracy stuff and it becomes almost a standard sales pitch that you take people with you.
> 
> I don't understand this stuff about holographic moon being confusing - it's a hollowgram
> 
> I'm still a page away from the end of the thread but you're not landing any real punches with this one so far butchers. The points you're trying to make aren't important enough and it just seems to be descending into irritable semantics.


I think the exposure of the underlying looniness just under the surface of the ickettes is impact enough - for me anyway.


----------



## xes (Jan 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> The claim that it's a hologram - a 'projection' (that it _is_ a hologram not that we experience it as a hologram) and that space aliens live in secret bases there are most certainly contradictions.


even though some view me as some sort of conspiracy theorist, I agree with the above whole heartedly. If something is a hologram, and not a hologram as in we are are on some quantum level which only matterson the quantum level, then there is no moon to speak of, so there are no moon landings, no reflectors on the moon to bounce back lasers ect ect.....and obviously, there could be no secret German/Russian/Alien bases on a hologram. Is it a hollow craft of some kind? I guess that's possible, rather unlikely, but possible.

And that doesn't even touch on the gravitational effect that the moon has on us (added edit)


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 23, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> funnily enough, dick was a bit an ickelike figure in later life



And Icke is certainly a bit of a Dick.


----------



## faux pas (Jan 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I asked you what you found 'interesting' in the most recent of Icke's books you had read. Is this secret bloodlines/ruling class thing one of those aspects that you find interesting.


Somewhat



butchersapron said:


> Thanks for your little list btw - interesting that the very first item highlighted one of the ways in which his _theories_ contradict each other.


Yet you still haven't shown how.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2012)

xes said:


> even though some view me as some sort of conspiracy theorist, I agree with the above whole heartedly. If something is a hologram, and not a hologram as in we are are on some quantum level which only matterson the quantum level, then there is no moon to speak of, so there are no moon landings, no reflectors on the moon to bounce back lasers ect ect.....and obviously, there could be no secret German/Russian/Alien bases on a hologram. Is it a hollow craft of some kind? I guess that's possible, rather unlikely, but possible.


That's it exactly - either claim _could_ be true but not _both_.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2012)

faux pas said:


> Somewhat
> 
> Yet you still haven't shown how.


I have, and xes gave you a good summary of how just above as well.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2012)

faux pas said:


> My 'hero'? David Icke stresses what he calls 'Rothchild Zionism'. Never yet heard or read him say anything racist.


Yes, your hero, who you are valiantly attempting to defend. Your hero who promotes well known anti-semitic forgeries and far right tropes as real.


----------



## xes (Jan 23, 2012)

And faux pas, please remember that I am a conpriracy theorist of sorts. Not a skeptic (well, not as skeptic as some/I should be)


----------



## two sheds (Jan 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I think the exposure of the underlying looniness just under the surface of the ickettes is impact enough - for me anyway.



Yes agreed. Less important whether he contradicted himself but that they are unfortunately the ravings of a grade-A loon.

After many hours of discussions with conspiracy theorists is also that you can't actually prove them wrong. The moon *may* be a hologram we just don't know. And the quotes in proof are usually by Lieutenant Colonels in the US Army, or Senators and we all know what beacons of logical thought they are.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 23, 2012)

faux pas said:


> The point remains as to whether David Icke contradicts himself. This is not the same as claiming something is contradictory simply because it's claimed to be false. You say that what makes up the moon, its 'minerals and metals', are not really just a hologram as Icke would claim. Fine, but the question remains, does Icke's claim that we would experience the moon as a hollowed-out planetoid, if we could ourselves hypothetically project there (rather than going on information from NASA), contradict the claim that, how we would experience it wouldn't be how it actually is, that being a hologram? Where's the contradiction?



He's using the word hologram in a completely false manner. A hologram is light. Nothing more, nothing less.  So, taking him at face value, the moon can't, going by the definitions of the words he's using, both be a hologram and a hollowed out planetoid.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 23, 2012)

does anyone believe this shit? that the moon is a hologram? nobody can believe that surely??


----------



## TruXta (Jan 23, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> i was referring to 'the matrix'



So? The matrix isn't remotely similar to Plato's teachings about the Ideal.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 23, 2012)

what about the tides and periods etc? how do they explain that?


----------



## TruXta (Jan 23, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> does anyone believe this shit? that the moon is a hologram? nobody can believe that surely??



The defence calls _faux pas_...


----------



## xes (Jan 23, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> does anyone believe this shit? that the moon is a hologram? nobody can believe that surely??


well, some do. And maybe, just maaaaaybe, in some far off land far far away, they made holograms to be solid. And if that's true (like, I said IF) then maybe it is true. But I'm only playing devils advocate. This is not a belief which I hold. (juts to clarify)


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> what about the tides and periods etc? how do they explain that?


I suspect, as faux pah has hinted at, that _none of this is real_ - that's how some people will get round everything along those lines.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 23, 2012)

periods are obviously real though, and so are the tides. i'm not saying you're wrong i'm just shocked at how someone can think this stuff.

if these people were walking along a beach and then saw a large wave coming towards them would they think "ah it's OK, this is just an illusion by the Moon Matrix" and carry on walking?


----------



## xes (Jan 23, 2012)

And in the light of the recent Russian stuff about life on Venus, the guy who has made these rather outlandish claims, also said that he thinks that our entire solar system is fake/manufactured. (which some would say discredits his recent claims) As all the other solar systems found so far, have the big gasseous planets closest to the sun, and ours is all back to front, this means that we are possbily a big fuck off experiment......which again, isn't the first time I've heard that as a theory, but it is a tad unlikely....(but just a tad  )


----------



## TruXta (Jan 23, 2012)

xes said:


> And in the light of the recent Russian stuff about life on Venus, the guy who has made these rather outlandish claims, also said that he thinks that our entire solar system is fake/manufactured. (which some would say discredits his recent claims) As all the other solar systems found so far, have the big gasseous planets closest to the sun, and ours is all back to front, this means that we are possbily a big fuck off experiment......which again, isn't the first time I've heard that as a theory, but it is a tad unlikely....(but just a tad  )



You do realise it's bloody hard to find planets outwith our own system at all, and as such the bigger the planet the easier it is to find. All big planets are gaseous, so no wonder they're finding lots of them and not so many solid ones.


----------



## xes (Jan 23, 2012)

TruXta said:


> You do realise it's bloody hard to find planets outwith our own system at all, and as such the bigger the planet the easier it is to find. All big planets are gaseous, so no wonder they're finding lots of them and not so many solid ones.


yes, I do realise this, which is why I put mr winky at the end of my post


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 23, 2012)

TruXta said:


> So? The matrix isn't remotely similar to Plato's teachings about the Ideal.


 the allegory of the cave is seen as one of the literary forerunners to the matrix - plato uses the analogy of someone who has lived in a cave and only perceived projected shadows on the cave wall as reality. to plato, a philosopher is someone who has broken out of the cave and is now seeing things as they really are.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 23, 2012)

xes said:


> yes, I do realise this, which is why I put mr winky at the end of my post



Just checking.


----------



## xes (Jan 23, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Just checking.


It's ok, I understand why


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 23, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> periods are obviously real though, and so are the tides. i'm not saying you're wrong i'm just shocked at how someone can think this stuff.
> 
> if these people were walking along a beach and then saw a large wave coming towards them would they think "ah it's OK, this is just an illusion by the Moon Matrix" and carry on walking?


The only conclusion can be that nothing is real - including our bodies. So 'we' - our 'souls', if you like - are not a product of our brains/bodies, but rather our brains/bodies are a product of something acorporeal that is the essence of 'us'. It's not far off what phildwyer proposes.

The problem (one of the many problems!) then becomes this: if 'we' are anything more than entirely passive in this process, then we must be able to affect the illusion of reality in some way, which means that we're producing it too, not just the illuminati.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 23, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> the allegory of the cave is seen as one of the literary forerunners to the matrix - plato uses the analogy of someone who has lived in a cave and only perceived projected shadows on the cave wall as reality. to plato, a philosopher is someone who has broken out of the cave and is now seeing things as they really are.



Sure. In the same way that the Bible is one of the forerunners of L. Ron Hubbard's writings. I see where you're coming from, but the approximation is so crude as to be misleading IMO.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 23, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Sure. In the same way that the Bible is one of the forerunners of L. Ron Hubbard's writings. I see where you're coming from, but the approximation is so crude as to be misleading IMO.


why do you think it's misleading? who do you think i'm misleading? i was just forwarding the none-too-controversial idea that there are plenty of literary and philosophical notions about subjective realities - the idea that we may be living in a reality constructed by someone or something else.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 23, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> why do you think it's misleading? who do you think i'm misleading? i was just forwarding the none-too-controversial idea that there are plenty of literary and philosophical notions about subjective realities - the idea that we may be living in a reality constructed by someone or something else.



It's misleading because Plato's ideas about the Realm of Forms is nothing like the idea behind the matrix. In the former there is no place where the Real exists in a physical sense, whereas matrix-type ideas posit that our reality is not the ultimate one, and rather there is some knowable Real Reality which one can experience. Not so for Plato. If you merely wanted to say that others have thought there are other, higher realities you'd have to go further back than Plato.



> Thus we read in the _Symposium_ of the Form of Beauty: "It is not anywhere in another thing, as in an animal, or in earth, or in heaven, or in anything else, but itself by itself with itself," (211b). And in the _Timaeus_ Plato writes: "Since these things are so, we must agree that that which keeps its own form unchangingly, which has not been brought into being and is not destroyed, which neither receives into itself anything else from anywhere else, _nor itself enters into anything anywhere_, is one thing," (52a, emphasis added).


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


----------



## xes (Jan 23, 2012)

There are other "higher" realities, and you can experience them.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 23, 2012)

xes said:


> There are other "higher" realities, and you can experience them.



Mmm?


----------



## xes (Jan 23, 2012)

Mmm indeed


----------



## TruXta (Jan 23, 2012)

xes said:


> Mmm indeed



MmmmdMmmmmah?


----------



## xes (Jan 23, 2012)

TBH if you want to play in other realms, you might want to start off on ketmaine


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 23, 2012)

Jeez, I was just saying Ike's/Dick's/the Wachovskis' ideas about the notion of subjective realities are nothing new and go back far in history. I wasn't trying to make a brainy philosophical point


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 23, 2012)

xes said:


> TBH if you want to play in other realms, you might want to start off on ketmaine


k _and_ mdma


----------



## xes (Jan 23, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> k _and_ mdma


depends on which level you want ot get too, don;t run before you can fly!!


----------



## TruXta (Jan 23, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> Jeez, I was just saying that Icke's/Dick's/the Wachovski's ideas are nothing new and go back far in history



Precision matters, ape.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 23, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Precision matters, ape.


Why does it matter in this silly discussion?


----------



## xes (Jan 23, 2012)

even in this "frequency" there are many realities. My reality is different from others, and you all have your own perception of what reality is, based on your experiences and knowledge accumilated. We all have a completly different world to live in from eachother, even though it is the same world. It is different to each of us. Does this mean we all live in a different reality?


----------



## TruXta (Jan 23, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> Why does it matter in this silly discussion?



It matters even more because it is silly.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 23, 2012)

xes said:


> even in this "frequency" there are many realities. My reality is different from others, and you all have your own perception of what reality is, based on your experiences and knowledge accumilated. We all have a completly different world to live in from eachother, even though it is the same world. It is different to each of us. Does this mean we all live in a different reality?



Put that RAW book down, xes.


----------



## xes (Jan 23, 2012)

In your reality, I had a book in my hand, in my reality, it was a spliff


----------



## TruXta (Jan 23, 2012)

xes said:


> In your reality, I had a book in my hand, in my reality, it was a spliff



 Toking on the tunnel eh?


----------



## xes (Jan 23, 2012)

I didn't get the last reference, so I'm definatly not going to get that one


----------



## TruXta (Jan 23, 2012)

xes said:


> I didn't get the last reference, so I'm definatly not going to get that one



RAW = Robert Anton Wilson. Surely you've read some of his books? The Illuminati Trilogy?


----------



## xes (Jan 23, 2012)

I've never actually read a conspiracy book.

The closest I came to that was reading the holographic universe, punk science and a few astral projection books.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 23, 2012)

xes said:


> I've never actually read a conspiracy book.
> 
> The closest I came to that was reading the holographic universe, punk science and a few astral projection books.



Huh. The stuff you wrote about different realities is remarkably similar to RAW's ideas. He uses the term _reality tunnels_, hence my reference to toking tunnels. Check out Prometheus Rising and the aforementioned Illuminatus trilogy, the former's a non-fiction book (nominally at least ), the latter is his most famous fiction work.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2012)

I bet xes would like Cosmic Trigger Vol 1


----------



## TruXta (Jan 23, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> I bet xes would like Cosmic Trigger Vol 1



I've never read those. TBH in the end he comes across as a kinda libertarian-loony Kant on acid. Funny, but not to be taken too seriously. That said the exercises he gives the reader in Prometheus Rising are kinda fun when you're stoned.


----------



## xes (Jan 23, 2012)

Well, he's not the only one to bang on about alternative realities i guess. And the fact is, you can play there if you so desire, and you can to some extent, prove it to at least yourself. (by doing certain tests whilst there, like going to see people, check what they're doing, then phone them up when you "get back" and ask them if there were just doing xyz... there are other ways of trying to prove it, like going "up" in pairs, or more, and coming back with the exact same experience. )  It's all very strange, and about as far removed from what science can prove as possible. Which is why there is so much skeptisism about it, but personal experience will at least, open yourself up to the possibility of these other dimensions.


----------



## xes (Jan 23, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> I bet xes would like Cosmic Trigger Vol 1


fuck it, I'm going to start making a list of books that I should probably read. You've made "the list"


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 23, 2012)

Here's a list of reptilians.

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/list_of_satanist.htm

Boxcar Willie?!!


----------



## TruXta (Jan 23, 2012)

xes said:


> Well, he's not the only one to bang on about alternative realities i guess. And the fact is, you can play there if you so desire, and you can to some extent, prove it to at least yourself. (by doing certain tests whilst there, like going to see people, check what they're doing, then phone them up when you "get back" and ask them if there were just doing xyz... there are other ways of trying to prove it, like going "up" in pairs, or more, and coming back with the exact same experience. ) It's all very strange, and about as far removed from what science can prove as possible. Which is why there is so much skeptisism about it, but personal experience will at least, open yourself up to the possibility of these other dimensions.



You on about astral projection, or remote viewing? I've yet to see a protocol that adequately controls for confirmation bias and retroactive modification of memories.


----------



## xes (Jan 23, 2012)

TruXta said:


> You on about astral projection, or remote viewing? I've yet to see a protocol that adequately controls for confirmation bias and retroactive modification of memories.


both, if you like. I guess both, if considered a real phenomina, could be considered evidence of other realities, or at least, extensions to the reality we know and can touch. But that's the thing, we can't touch it, nor measure it in our conventional means of testing things. But that doesn't really mean that it's all bollocks. And that doesn't mean that everything untestable isn't bollocks. Experiencing it for yourself, is the only way to see for yourself if it is real or not, other than that, you have to take peoples word for it, and that's not very scientific at all.


----------



## faux pas (Jan 23, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> As I recall he says in the book 'the biggest secret' that life was seeded on this planet by some aliens then later he says we all came from another planet called neberu. He also says a planet called neberu crashed into it's own moon and was destroyed but the debris later formed earth, however he later says this planet is in some crazy big orbit and will later come back and crash into the earth.
> Our overlords live on the earth and control us, slipping into other dimensions or whatever. Later in the book these overlords actually live in the hollowed out earth and later still they are on the dark side (and inside) the moon.
> 
> It's been a while, so just for you I will give it another read and post up stuff as and when I come across it.


Sorry I didn't reply to this when you went to the trouble of looking it up (juggling internet with other things). It's hard to recall this contradiction as in your first paragraph: neberu being destroyed yet still orbiting. I'm not sure where the contradiction is in your second paragraph, though. I'm not sure why 'overlords' could not be situated in several places.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 23, 2012)

xes said:


> both, if you like. I guess both, if considered a real phenomina, could be considered evidence of other realities, or at least, extensions to the reality we know and can touch. But that's the thing, we can't touch it, nor measure it in our conventional means of testing things. But that doesn't really mean that it's all bollocks. And that doesn't mean that everything untestable isn't bollocks. Experiencing it for yourself, is the only way to see for yourself if it is real or not, other than that, you have to take peoples word for it, and that's not very scientific at all.



?? IIRC the thing about RV was that it was indeed supposed to be testable. You RVed some place that you'd never seen before and couldn't know about, and then others could check your report and see if there was anything to it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2012)

faux pas said:


> Sorry I didn't reply to this when you went to the trouble of looking it up (juggling internet with other things). It's hard to recall this contradiction as in your first paragraph: neberu being destroyed yet still orbiting. I'm not sure where the contradiction is in your second paragraph, though. I'm not sure why 'overlords' could not be situated in several places.



AS went to the trouble of finding you yet another contradiction:



> As I recall he says in the book 'the biggest secret' that life was seeded on this planet by some aliens then later he says we all came from another planet called neberu.



and your only response is that you can't 'recall it'? Ok, let's take your word for it - does that situation as outlined by AS sound like a contradiction to you?


----------



## xes (Jan 23, 2012)

it's Nibiru, btw......


----------



## xes (Jan 23, 2012)

TruXta said:


> ?? IIRC the thing about RV was that it was indeed supposed to be testable. You RVed some place that you'd never seen before and couldn't know about, and then others could check your report and see if there was anything to it.


If you're interested, the farsight institute has a free download for what they call" scientific" RVing. It has loads of stuff to read, all the things you need to lern to do it, and a testers guide to testing fairly. It's probably about as scientific as you'll get on the subject, without being a part of the MJ12


----------



## TruXta (Jan 23, 2012)

xes said:


> If you're interested, the farsight institute has a free download for what they call" scientific" RVing. It has loads of stuff to read, all the things you need to lern to do it, and a testers guide to testing fairly. It's probably about as scientific as you'll get on the subject, without being a part of the MJ12



Pretty sure I looked into that stuff years ago. I can't be bothered with it anymore tbh.


----------



## faux pas (Jan 23, 2012)

TruXta said:


> The defence calls _faux pas_...


I can't really say about all multi-dimensional aspects to life Icke refers to, and I try to be non-committal about a lot of the stuff most would simply denounce as crazy. I find it hard to be so certain as others, but if pushed, then no, at least the hollowed-out planetoid doesn't feel convincing.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2012)

faux pas said:


> I can't really say about all multi-dimensional aspects to life Icke refers to, and I try to be non-committal about a lot of the stuff most would simply denounce as crazy. I find it hard to be so certain as others, but if pushed, then no, at least the hollowed-out planetoid doesn't feel convincing.



What does "feel convincing"?


----------



## faux pas (Jan 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> and your only response is that you can't 'recall it'? Ok, let's take your word for it - does that situation as outlined by AS sound like a contradiction to you?


Yes, it would be, I guess, but I don't know if it's true.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2012)

faux pas said:


> ...and I try to be non-committal about a lot of the stuff most would simply denounce as crazy.



That's being committed. And why?


----------



## xes (Jan 23, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Pretty sure I looked into that stuff years ago. I can't be bothered with it anymore tbh.


I had very much the same response to be fair. I tried to give it a go, but some of the relaxation techniques ment I needed to have clear nostrils, so it put me off, as I had a cold at the time  (how flakey is that!) Still got all the stuff tucked away on an external hard drive, who knows, when the world ends I may have some time to play with it properly.....


----------



## faux pas (Jan 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> That's being committed. And why?


Are you asking me why I don't like to commit to simply denouncing such theories as crazy?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2012)

faux pas said:


> Are you asking me why I don't like to commit to simply denouncing such theories as crazy?


I'm suggsting that working hard not to do so is committed, not neutral or objective.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 23, 2012)

xes said:


> I had very much the same response to be fair. I tried to give it a go, but some of the relaxation techniques ment I needed to have clear nostrils, so it put me off, as I had a cold at the time  (how flakey is that!) Still got all the stuff tucked away on an external hard drive, who knows, when the world ends I may have some time to play with it properly.....



Not flakey at all - I had a mate who was getting serious about meditation but found that Scando winters and colds were not conducive to trying nasal breathing techniques.


----------



## Roadkill (Jan 23, 2012)

faux pas said:


> I can't really say about all multi-dimensional aspects to life Icke refers to, and I try to be non-committal about a lot of the stuff most would simply denounce as crazy.



Why? Much of what Icke comes out with plainly _is_ crazy. Why be non-committal about it?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jan 23, 2012)

faux pas said:


> Sorry I didn't reply to this when you went to the trouble of looking it up (juggling internet with other things). It's hard to recall this contradiction as in your first paragraph: neberu being destroyed yet still orbiting. I'm not sure where the contradiction is in your second paragraph, though. I'm not sure why 'overlords' could not be situated in several places.



Because in one chapter he goes on about who is in charge and where they are based, then in another chapter (completely separately) he talks about who is in charge and where they are based . . . and it's usually someone different and in a different place. There is no link to past theories in the book, just stand alone theories that are all a bit different. Nothing interconnects.

This book has nothing about the 'matrix' idea that has been on this thread, but why would the overlords running things from the holographic moon that is a hollow space ship (that wouldn't even have to be hidden as a moon, holographic or not, because it is beaming out a fake reality to everyone anyway), bother projecting a hollow earth and all the lizard people, only to hide them from the people in said projection?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jan 23, 2012)

The best bit about the book is maybe the 'WARNING' page before the first chapter.

*"WARNING! There is an enormous amount of challenging information in this book. Please do not read if you are dependent on your present belief system, or you feel you cannot cope emotionally with what is really happening in this world."*


----------



## faux pas (Jan 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I'm suggsting that working hard not to do so is committed, not neutral or objective.


So what, even if it IS 'committed'? I said I was non-committal about such theories, which doesn't mean I'm non-committal about commitment. If I try to be non-committal about these things it's not an attempt to be dead-centre neutral, but rather, because I recognise that I don't really know for sure.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2012)

faux pas said:


> So what, even if it IS 'committed'? I said I was non-committal about such theories, which doesn't mean I'm non-committal about commitment. If I try to be non-committal about these things it's not an attempt to be dead-centre neutral, but rather, because I recognise that I don't really know for sure.


I think it says an enormous amount about you and about your critical faculties.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 23, 2012)

faux pas said:


> I can't really say about all multi-dimensional aspects to life Icke refers to, and I try to be non-committal about a lot of the stuff most would simply denounce as crazy. I find it hard to be so certain as others, but if pushed, then no, at least the hollowed-out planetoid doesn't feel convincing.



but periods are proven to be affected by the moon. could that happen if the moon was a hologram or was artificially created? i somehow doubt it


----------



## faux pas (Jan 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I think it says an enormous amount about you and about your critical faculties.


What does?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2012)

faux pas said:


> What does?


Your principled refusal not to say that crazy things are crazy. It speaks volumes about what you consider to be acceptable evidence, logic and argument.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 23, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> but periods are proven to be affected by the moon. could that happen if the moon was a hologram or was artificially created? i somehow doubt it



Periods aren't real either. It's turtles all the way down.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 23, 2012)




----------



## faux pas (Jan 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Your principled refusal not to say that crazy things are crazy. It speaks volumes about what you consider to be acceptable evidence, logic and argument.


I'm not saying 'crazy things' are not 'crazy'. I'm saying that we shouldn't be so sure to denounce such things as 'crazy', as most of us (apart from you apparently) can't really be absolutely sure they are.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2012)

faux pas said:


> I'm not saying 'crazy things' are not 'crazy'. I'm saying that we shouldn't be so sure to denounce such things as 'crazy', as most of us (apart from you apparently) can't really be absolutely sure they are.


Nice touch with the 'us'. Too late.

No, most people recognise crazy ideas a as crazy  - based on min standards of what counts as proper evidence, what counts as proper logic and what counts as proper argument. Which is exactly why you already conceded that these ideas as seen by most people as 'crazy'. But not you.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> *but periods are proven to be affected by the moon.* could that happen if the moon was a hologram or was artificially created? i somehow doubt it



Are they?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 23, 2012)

i thought they were.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> i thought they were.



I don't know tbh.  From a cursory google, it seems the jury is still out.


----------



## faux pas (Jan 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Nice touch with the 'us'. Too late.
> 
> No, most people recognise crazy ideas a as crazy - based on min standards of what counts as proper evidence, what counts as proper logic and what counts as proper argument. Which is exactly why you already conceded that these ideas as seen by most people as 'crazy'. But not you.


I guess there's a lot of evidence that wouldn't support a lot of these ideas, but of course, you make the further jump to claim to know for sure. Think that speaks volumes about how narrow your mind is.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 23, 2012)

AFAIK, like menstrual synchronisation, there's no unequivocal evidence either way.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 23, 2012)

faux pas said:


> I guess there's a lot of evidence that wouldn't support a lot of these ideas, but of course, you make the further jump to claim to know for sure. Think that speaks volumes about how narrow your mind is.



There's having an open mind and then there's having a hole in your head. Do we know for sure that the moon isn't a hologram or hollow? Yes, yes we do.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2012)

faux pas said:


> I guess there's a lot of evidence that wouldn't support a lot of these ideas, but of course, you make the further jump to claim to know for sure. Think that speaks volumes about how narrow your mind is.


By narrow you mean sane and with standards for judging truth claims based on critical interrogation of evidence logic and argument. That you consciously _try_ to avoid such standards speaks - in turn - buckets.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2012)

faux pas said:


> I guess there's a lot of evidence that wouldn't support a lot of these ideas, but of course, you make the further jump to claim to know for sure. Think that speaks volumes about how narrow your mind is.



Is there any evidence that _does_ support these ideas?


----------



## TruXta (Jan 23, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Is there any evidence that _does_ support these ideas?


----------



## faux pas (Jan 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> By narrow you mean sane and with standards for judging truth claims based on critical interrogation of evidence logic and argument. That you consciously _try_ to avoid such standards speaks - in turn - buckets.


No, more sane, I'm afraid, to simply say life certainly seems a certain way and to try to support that, but to claim that you know for certain what life is or isn't about or otherwise, strikes me as a bit of a pea-brain.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2012)

faux pas said:


> No, more sane, I'm afraid, to simply say life certainly seems a certain way and to try to support that, but to claim that you know for certain what life is or isn't about or otherwise, strikes me as a bit of a pea-brain.



So what evidence is there to support Icke's ideas?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2012)

faux pas said:


> No, more sane, I'm afraid, to simply say life certainly seems a certain way and to try to support that, but to claim that you know for certain what life is or isn't about or otherwise, strikes me as a bit of a pea-brain.


You what?


----------



## Corax (Jan 23, 2012)

faux pas said:


> You're so desperate to ridicule me, that I'll take your bait.
> 
> David Icke believes that the moon is hollow (although I'm not sure that is one of his stronger convictions), he also believes in reptilian entities who have hybrids here on earth, he believes in greys and others entities, he believes that certain bloodlines have pervaded throughout time often manifesting themselves as the ruling class,* he believes that different sides of conflict in the world are supported and manipulated by the same groups.*


Blimey, I agree with the turquoise prophet about something.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 23, 2012)

TruXta said:


> There's having an open mind and then there's having a hole in your head. Do we know for sure that the moon isn't a hologram or hollow? Yes, yes we do.



And how? Because astronauts have been up there. Hang on...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 23, 2012)

Corax said:


> Blimey, I agree with the turquoise prophet about something.



What you believe certain bloodlines manipulate conflicts for their own ends?

Which bloodlines would they be then?


----------



## TruXta (Jan 23, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> And how? Because astronauts have been up there. Hang on...


----------



## gosub (Jan 23, 2012)

Astronauts left a mirror on the moon, which a couple of labs fire lazers at on daily basis to measure the distance. How would that work without having put the mirror there


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 23, 2012)

It's a holographic mirror, stoopid!


----------



## Corax (Jan 23, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> What you believe certain bloodlines manipulate conflicts for their own ends?
> 
> Which bloodlines would they be then?


Does bold not show up on your browser or something?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 23, 2012)

gosub said:


> Astronauts left a mirror on the moon, which a couple of labs fire lazers at on daily basis to measure the distance. How would that work without having put the mirror there



There are no astronauts, no mirrors, and no labs. Do you believe everything you read in New Scientist?


----------



## xes (Jan 23, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Which bloodlines would they be then?


A quick google* for "presidential family tree" gives us this little picture, which shows how 25 of the presidents have been related. is that classed as a blood line?





*and that's all ya getting.... I'm about 64% sure that Obama is also related to Bush and co, 2nd cousin or something..


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2012)

Around 1/3 of the country have family ties with a president. That's one massive conspiracy.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 23, 2012)

David Cameron is related to William IV and QE2. His wife to Charles II, Etc, etc, etc.


----------



## xes (Jan 23, 2012)

Well, the royals are pretty much all inbred, err,,,,I mean selectivly bred.....


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 23, 2012)

*confused*


----------



## TruXta (Jan 23, 2012)

.com


----------



## mrs quoad (Jan 23, 2012)

xes said:


> A quick google* for "presidential family tree" gives us this little picture, which shows how 25 of the presidents have been related. is that classed as a blood line?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


13 unique / unrelated starting points to make 25 familial associations?


----------



## Wilf (Jan 23, 2012)

mrs quoad said:


> 13 unique / unrelated starting points to make 25 familial associations?


Must admit, I'm more impressed that there could be somebody called *Marrit Quackenbush* in that family tree (top right).  _'If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it's a lizard'_?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 23, 2012)

I know none of it's real - we're not genuine beings. There's this planet called Vulintarianiop in a real universe (not a fake on like what our is) that's inhabited by super-intelligent rabbits called nebungarungas. One of the nebungarungas, Muntariumlow,  took too much qulimofunka, a hallucinogenic gas drug (did I mention that on vulintarianop all the plants and animals are made of gas? well they fucking are you know) and it fragmented its mind into millions of smaller minds. In order to stop his head exploding his subconscious has created a false reality, in which each fragment is a living being. The smaller fragments are, like, stupid animals like fish and hippies, but the big ones are human. In order to remove us from this false reality I require one billion billion dollars with which I will create a mind craft which can enter Muntariumlow's brain and re-assemble the fragments. Oh, did I mention that each of these fragments has, in becoming a sentient being in its own right, obtained a soul of its own? Well they fucking well have, so once I've reassmembled the fragments our souls devoid of the false bodies that chain us to this fake "reality" will be able to either float freely across one of the real universes that's not fake like what ours is, or go to heaven or do whatever the fuck it is we'd most like to do.

So yes, I do know Icke is wrong, for a fact. And are you open minded about my internally consistent model (a model that you can believe is consistent without having to perform impressive acts of mental gymnastics) faux pas?

By the way, "Rothschild Zionism" and you can't see how that just might be a teensy weensy bit antisemitic? Really? So can we add stupidity to gullibility in the list of your personal characteristics?


----------



## TruXta (Jan 23, 2012)

I can't believe you bothered to type all that out tbh...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 23, 2012)

TruXta said:


> I can't believe you bothered to type all that out tbh...



How else am I gonna get my billion billion dollars? You sheeple are all the same.

I'm really, really bored.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 23, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> The best bit about the book is maybe the 'WARNING' page before the first chapter.
> 
> *"WARNING! There is an enormous amount of challenging information in this book. Please do not read if you are dependent on your present belief system, or you feel you cannot cope emotionally with what is really happening in this world."*


 
Nah, can't cope. Prefer to stay in my comfort zone. Won't read. I'm so narrow minded and set in my ways, me!


----------



## Jazzz (Jan 23, 2012)

badseed said:


> People who have the Swine Flu vaccine will be dead by the end of 2009.
> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/david-icke-on-swine-flu.224362/


I'm not sure quite where Icke claimed that, however he was right about swine flu vaccination, there can be no question it was capable of causing severe damage to the nervous system
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16109424

Wolfgang Wodard of the Council of Europe called the swine flu vaccination campaign "one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century"... you can read a transcript of his interview with L'Humanite here: http://www.gaia-health.com/articles101/000148-swine-flu-fraud-official-questioning-starts.shtml


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2012)

xes said:


> Well, the royals are pretty much all inbred, err,,,,I mean selectivly bred.....


like shergar


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 23, 2012)

do you still think this is a deliberate attempt by whoever you think is in control to fuck up/control/eliminate/whatever it is today people? cos only 80 people with narcolepsy is a massive fail if it is. and to what ends?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2012)

if you carry on posting we'll likely get to 180


----------



## Wilf (Jan 23, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> Wolfgang Wodard of the Council of Europe called the swine flu vaccination campaign "one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century"... you can read a transcript of his interview with L'Humanite here: http://www.gaia-health.com/articles101/000148-swine-flu-fraud-official-questioning-starts.shtml


In a speedread of about half of Dr Wolfie's interview he seems to be saying 'big pharma'  uses its contacts to create false markets and rip us all off (no shit!).  Problem is, as always, linking this to pacified humanity, bloodlines, barcodes and our scaly friends takes us further and further from ever having that discussion.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 24, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> like shergar



To be fair, Shergar was better looking.


----------



## badseed (Jan 24, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> I'm not sure quite where Icke claimed that


In the your first post in the thread I linked to.




			
				Jazzz quoting Icke said:
			
		

> . It about a long-planned mass-culling of the human population.



and your reason


Jazzz said:


> Slaves that are now surplus to requirements and a rapidly-increasing burden in terms of the world's resources.



FFS, you are either the worlds greatest troll or fucking delusional.


----------



## Jazzz (Jan 24, 2012)

Wilf said:


> In a speedread of about half of Dr Wolfie's interview he seems to be saying 'big pharma'  uses its contacts to create false markets and rip us all off (no shit!). Problem is, as always, linking this to pacified humanity, bloodlines, barcodes and our scaly friends takes us further and further from ever having that discussion.


Is David Icke really powerful enough to censor you? Get on with it!


----------



## Jazzz (Jan 24, 2012)

badseed said:


> In the your first post in the thread I linked to.


I can see no quote neither from myself or Icke which is anything like "People who have the Swine Flu vaccine will be dead by the end of 2009." I say you are making it up badseed.


----------



## badseed (Jan 24, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> I can see no quote neither from myself or Icke which is anything like "People who have the Swine Flu vaccine will be dead by the end of 2009." I say you are making it up badseed.


Yes, you got me bang to rights 
Good luck with it.

Do you still stand by your statements which I quoted?
The H1N1 vaccine:



			
				Jazzz quoting Icke said:
			
		

> It about a long-planned mass-culling of the human population.


reason being:



			
				Jazzz said:
			
		

> Slaves that are now surplus to requirements and a rapidly-increasing burden in terms of the world's resources.


----------



## Jazzz (Jan 24, 2012)

badseed said:


> Yes, you got me bang to rights
> Good luck with it.


badseed I really see no obligation on my part to discuss anything with people who fabricate quotes and then insist they are genuine representations, it is extremely low behaviour.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 24, 2012)

Unlike promoting anti-semitism eh Jazzz?


----------



## badseed (Jan 24, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> badseed I really see no obligation on my part to discuss anything with people who fabricate quotes and then insist they are genuine representations, it is extremely low behaviour.



As low as the  age old politico deflection trick?


----------



## faux pas (Jan 24, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Unlike promoting anti-semitism eh Jazzz?


You keep suggesting Icke is racist or anti-semitic, but I'd be surprised if you could find one statement that he has actually made in that regard. With you bleating on about this so much on this thread, you would have thought he would have actually made some racist/antisemitic remark somewhere.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 24, 2012)




----------



## London_Calling (Jan 24, 2012)

Every time I see 'David Icke' and 'lecture' in the title it cheers me up.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 24, 2012)

Icke from '"...And the truth shall set you free"...




			
				Icke said:
			
		

> "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. This Jewish/non-Jewish Elite used the First World War to secure the Balfour Declaration and the principle of the Jewish State of Israel (for which, given the genetic history of most Jewish people, there is absolutely no justification on historical grounds or any other). They then dominated the Versailles Peace Conference and created the circumstances which made the Second World War inevitable. They financed Hitler to power in 1933 and made the funds available for his rearmament."


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> You keep suggesting Icke is racist or anti-semitic, but I'd be surprised if you could find one statement that he has actually made in that regard. With you bleating on about this so much on this thread, you would have thought he would have actually made some racist/antisemitic remark somewhere.


Better prepare your surprised face again then.


----------



## faux pas (Jan 24, 2012)

stephj said:


>



LOL, you actually posted a video where the first words of Icke were to distinguish between jews and Rothchild Zionists.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> LOL, you actually posted a video where the first words of Icke were to distinguish between jews and Rothchild Zionists.



You're really invested in this shit aren't you?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> LOL, you actually posted a video where the first words of Icke were to distinguish between jews and Rothchild Zionists.


So deep in the shit that you don't even notice it anymore. This why it's worth a few minutes here and there exposing you people.


----------



## faux pas (Jan 24, 2012)

stephj said:


> Icke from '"...And the truth shall set you free"...


Still waiting


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 24, 2012)

You really can't see how the anti-semitism works?


----------



## TruXta (Jan 24, 2012)

stephj said:


> You really can't see how the anti-semitism works?



Icke's only talking about the bad jews. Dontcha see?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 24, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> badseed I really see no obligation on my part to discuss anything with people who fabricate quotes and then insist they are genuine representations, it is extremely low behaviour.


OK, how about discussing them with me instead?


----------



## faux pas (Jan 24, 2012)

I guess I'll continue to wait for the actual racist/antisemitic remarks, not the Rothchild Zionist ones and your own specific interpretations of them.

I'll check in from time to time and see. But, as I said, I'll be surprised.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 24, 2012)

I'll get back to feeding the lizards then.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> I guess I'll continue to wait for the actual racist/antisemitic remarks, not the Rothchild Zionist ones and your own specific interpretations of them.
> 
> I'll check in from time to time and see. But, as I said, I'll be surprised.



Really? It's not antisemitic to suggest that a cabal of Jews funded Hitler and by extension the Holocaust? Fucking get a grip.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 24, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> To be fair, Shergar was better looking.



Why the long face?


----------



## faux pas (Jan 24, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Really? It's not antisemitic to suggest that a cabal of Jews funded Hitler and by extension the Holocaust? Fucking get a grip.


Yes, it's not.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> Yes, it's not.



Go away you fucking idiot.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 24, 2012)




----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 24, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Really? It's not antisemitic to suggest that a cabal of Jews funded Hitler and by extension the Holocaust? Fucking get a grip.


tbf if you actually believed that to be true, you would not consider yourself antisemitic.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 24, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> tbf if you actually believed that to be true, you would not consider yourself antisemitic.



And psychotics don't know they're ill.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 24, 2012)




----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 24, 2012)




----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

I think we can now all see why face palm was so reticent about talking about their views earlier...

Anyone who starts from the position that the protocols _might_ be true (who am i to judge type mystifications and so on) and _then_ goes onto argue that



> "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. This Jewish/non-Jewish Elite used the First World War to secure the Balfour Declaration and the principle of the Jewish State of Israel (for which, given the genetic history of most Jewish people, there is absolutely no justification on historical grounds or any other). They then dominated the Versailles Peace Conference and created the circumstances which made the Second World War inevitable. They financed Hitler to power in 1933 and made the funds available for his rearmament."



is a stone cold-anti-semite. Icke does both - publicly and repeatedly (of course, being a stone -cold anti-semite doesn't preclude you from being a money-grabbing con-man or have mental health issues.)

BTW, plenty more when this came from faux pas. Tiresome?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> Yes, it's not.


Oh dear.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> You keep suggesting Icke is racist or anti-semitic, but I'd be surprised if you could find one statement that he has actually made in that regard. With you bleating on about this so much on this thread, you would have thought he would have actually made some racist/antisemitic remark somewhere.


Oh dear, someone hasn't been paying attention. Robot's Rebellion refers to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a genuine document.


----------



## faux pas (Jan 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I think we can now all see why face palm was so reticent about talking about their views earlier...
> 
> Anyone who starts from the position that the protocols _might_ be true (who am i to judge type mystifications and so on) and _then_ goes onto argue that
> 
> ...


yawn

Icke believes a fraction of jews to be 'Rothchild Zionists'. This is not a racist or antisemitic belief, no matter how eager you are to scream 'racist' or 'anti-semite' at the drop of a hat, as I'm afraid some of you seem to be so inclined to do. Why, only one can speculate.


----------



## manny-p (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> yawn
> 
> Icke believes a fraction of jews to be 'Rothchild Zionists'. This is not a racist or antisemitic belief, no matter how eager you are to scream 'racist' or 'anti-semite' at the drop of a hat, as I'm afraid some of you seem to be so inclined to do. Why, only one can speculate.


Whether anti semitic or not the guy talks pure shite.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> yawn
> 
> Icke believes a fraction of jews to be 'Rothchild Zionists'. This is not a racist or antisemitic belief, no matter how eager you are to scream 'racist' or 'anti-semite' at the drop of a hat, as I'm afraid some of you seem to be so inclined to do. Why, only one can speculate.


'i don't hate all jews, just the ones that are trying to control us'.
it's totally anti-semitic!


----------



## faux pas (Jan 24, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Oh dear, someone hasn't been paying attention. Robot's Rebellion refers to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a genuine document.


Is this an admission that you can't find even one racist or anti-semitic remark Icke has actually made. Well, I did say I'd be surprised.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> yawn
> 
> Icke believes a fraction of jews to be 'Rothchild Zionists'. This is not a racist or antisemitic belief, no matter how eager you are to scream 'racist' or 'anti-semite' at the drop of a hat, as I'm afraid some of you seem to be so inclined to do. Why, only one can speculate.


So why his promotion of the protocols?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> Is this an admission that you can't find even one racist or anti-semitic remark Icke has actually made. Well, I did say I'd be surprised.


Hang on a minute - are you seriously claiming that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are not anti-semitic?


----------



## faux pas (Jan 24, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> 'i don't hate all jews, just the ones that are trying to control us'.
> it's totally anti-semitic!


Not if you don't hate them because they are jewish, but because they are 'Rothchild Zionists'.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> yawn
> 
> Icke believes a fraction of jews to be 'Rothchild Zionists'. This is not a racist or antisemitic belief, no matter how eager you are to scream 'racist' or 'anti-semite' at the drop of a hat, as I'm afraid some of you seem to be so inclined to do. Why, only one can speculate.



When tied to a winking defence (or even your favoured committed non-committal) of The protocols of the elders of zion - the most famous anti-semtic document in history  - it is. How could it not be?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> Not if you don't hate them because they are jewish, but because they are 'Rothchild Zionists'.


What is a "Rothschild Zionist"?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> Not if you don't hate them because they are jewish, but because they are 'Rothchild Zionists'.


but you're identifying them as jewish.
it's like saying 'i hate blacks' and then justifying it by saying you only hate the uppity ones.


----------



## Roadkill (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> Is this an admission that you can't find even one racist or anti-semitic remark Icke has actually made. Well, I did say I'd be surprised.



Icke quotes approving from the _Protocols of the Elders of Zion_, a defamatory and blatantly anti-Semitic forgery which was exposed as such in the 1920s.  Do you really not understand what is anti-Semitic about this?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> Not if you don't hate them because they are jewish, but because they are 'Rothchild Zionists'.


_What if you don't hate them because they're gay but because they're black gays?_


----------



## faux pas (Jan 24, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Hang on a minute - are you seriously claiming that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are not anti-semitic?


I'm not actually claiming anything (don't confuse Butchers). You're doing the claiming. I'd like to know if Icke has actually ever made a racist or antisemitic remark. You would have thought so being as you keep banging on about him being racist/anti-semitic.


----------



## Lock&Light (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> I'm not actually claiming anything (don't confuse Butchers). You're doing the claiming. I'd like to know if Icke has actually ever made a racist or antisemitic remark. You would have thought so being as you keep banging on about him being racist/anti-semitic.



You're not reading the replies, are you?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

This is great stuff faux pah 

Here is icke flirting with holocaust denial:



> "The same attitude that suppressed the challenge to the manipulation of World War Two, today sees people vilified and jailed for questioning some of the official versions of the Holocaust in Nazi Germany. If you do that, no one listens to the evidence because this is lost in the tidal wave of vilification and condemnation. If people want to believe that all those who question the official line are Nazis and apologists for the Hitler regime, or anti-Jewish, then they must go ahead and do so. But I'll tell them this. They are kidding themselves, because that isn't true. It simply isn't."


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> I'm not actually claiming anything (don't confuse Butchers). You're doing the claiming. I'd like to know if Icke has actually ever made a racist or antisemitic remark. You would have thought so being as you keep banging on about him being racist/anti-semitic.


did you not see stephj's quote of his in post 402?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> I'm not actually claiming anything (don't confuse Butchers). You're doing the claiming. I'd like to know if Icke has actually ever made a racist or antisemitic remark. You would have thought so being as you keep banging on about him being racist/anti-semitic.


Yes you are claiming something. You're claiming that Icke promoting the Protocols as a genuine document isn't anti-semitic.

Earlier you claimed to think "not much" about the Protocols.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 24, 2012)

Convinced yourself of all this have you faux pas, you anti-semitic apologist?

Or are you a billy bullshitter who's been found out for not really knowing what you're talking about and now you are desperately trying to defend your comments?

Your call.


----------



## Roadkill (Jan 24, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> Is David Icke really powerful enough to censor you? Get on with it!



Hang on a minute.  Wilf didn't mention censorship.  All he said is that Icke's talk of bloodlines and lizards 'takes us further and further' from having a discussion of the actual influence of what some like to refer to as 'Big Pharma' and its influence.  I read that as saying that Icke and his ilk are a distraction - with which, if that's how Wilf meant it, I'd agree.

The fact you suddenly assume he's talking about censorship looks to me to be symptomatic of your paranoia.  Either that or your slippery debating tactics.  Or both.


----------



## faux pas (Jan 24, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> but you're identifying them as jewish.
> it's like saying 'i hate blacks' and then justifying it by saying you only hate the uppity ones.


No, it's like saying I hate Rothchild Zionists regardless as to whether they are jewish or not.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> No, it's like saying I hate Rothchild Zionists regardless as to whether they are jewish or not.


What is a "rothschild zionist"?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> No, it's like saying I hate Rothchild Zionists regardless as to whether they are jewish or not.


but they are jewish!


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> No, it's like saying I hate Rothchild Zionists regardless as to whether they are jewish or not.



These whole movements are predicated on referring to their Jewishness. It's not just a 'their Jewishness doesn't matter'. And Icke's feeble 'I'm not anti-semitic' disclaimer at the start of a book or show doesn't change that either.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 24, 2012)

stephj said:


> These whole movements are predicated on referring to their Jewishness. It's not just a 'their Jewishness doesn't matter'. And Icke's feeble 'I'm not anti-semitic' disclaimer at the start of a book or show doesn't change that either.



Icke's laughable defense is that he's not anti-semitic, because these people are reptiles, not actual human beings. Not enough facepalms in the fucking world.


----------



## faux pas (Jan 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> _What if you don't hate them because they're gay but because they're black gays?_


No wouldn't be the same. In your example your hate would come from either a hate of them being gay or black or both. That's different from hating someone for being a Rothchild Zionist rather than for being jewish.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

Shall we have another one?



> "The "Jews" of the Global Elite could not give a damn about Jewish people, as the Germans in the clique could not care less about the German people. To them, the masses of whatever race, colour or country, are a herd of nonentities who are there to be used only as necessary to serve their master --- the Luciferic Consciousness on the Fourth Dimension. The "All-Seeing" Jews, however, and their non-Jewish conspirators, use the smokescreen of "anti-Semitism" and the genuine suffering of real Jews to prevent investigation of their sinister activities. I am convinced that it was this clique which wrote and leaked the Protocols [of the Elders of Zion] and made it look like a plot by Jewish people as a whole. It is not. No, no, no!"


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 24, 2012)

they're not jews, they are khazars. so it's ok.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> No wouldn't be the same. In your example your hate would come from either a hate of them being gay or black or both. That's different from hating someone for being a Rothchild Zionist rather than for being jewish.


And if  'Rothchild Zionist' means jew? (it does btw)


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 24, 2012)

it's different from hating someone for being a jew rather than for being jewish.


----------



## teqniq (Jan 24, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> What is a "rothschild zionist"?


I too am curious. Is it a subspecies like Rothschild giraffe?


----------



## Roadkill (Jan 24, 2012)

Incidentally, faux pas, you never did answer a question I asked in post #342.  After your assertion that you're 'non-committal' about some things Icke says that others regard as crazy, I asked:



> Why? Much of what Icke comes out with plainly _is_ crazy. Why be non-committal about it?



The question still stands.  Shape-shifting reptilians, bloodlines encompassing everyone from George Bush to Boxcar Willie, holographic moons and so on and so forth - unless pretty much everything we know about how the world works is wrong there is no way most of this can be true, and frankly the reptilians are straight out of second-rate fantasy novels. Why be non-committal about this?  Why suspend judgement on it?  And why give any credence at all to someone who believes all of this nonsense?


----------



## faux pas (Jan 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> And if 'Rothchild Zionist' means jew? (it does btw)


'Rothchild Zionist' certainly isn't the equivalent of 'jew', as Icke would painstakingly go to lengths to explain how, in his opinion, most jews are actually victims of 'Rothchild Zionism'

Okay so still waiting then.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 24, 2012)

The lizards, faux pas, the lizards.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> 'Rothchild Zionist' certainly isn't the equivalent of 'jew', as Icke would painstakingly go to lengths to explain how, in his opinion, most jews are actually victims of 'Rothchild Zionism'
> 
> Okay so still waiting then.


Yes, still waiting for you to tell us what a "rothschild zionist" is. How do we recognise one?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 24, 2012)

Still waiting for you to tell us how the Protocols aren't anti-semitic.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> 'Rothchild Zionist' certainly isn't the equivalent of 'jew', as Icke would painstakingly go to lengths to explain how, in his opinion, most jews are actually victims of 'Rothchild Zionism'
> 
> Okay so still waiting then.


Of course it is, and of course the well rehearsed get-outs designed to fool people like you are always going to work _with you_ when you have such an uncritical simplistic and unquestioning approach to evidence, logic and argument.

If someone argued that a group of black people were behind a millennial old conspiracy that entailed damaging consequences for other black people but that this is just what black people do, then this would be correctly identified as racist loonery. Sounds rather similar to this though doesn't it?



> "Jewish people are simply wonderful when they allow themselves to be who they really are. They have such a contribution to make to the good of the world. But I have rarely met one who really loves themself or does not carry the burden of inherited guilt. My friends, it is all about control. It's time to let it go. Jewish people (who, like the rest of us, are evolving consciousnesses which happen to be experiencing a Jewish lifetime), will never be free until they step out of the mental and emotional control of this tiny clique, which uses them in the most merciless ways to advance its own sick and diabolical ambitions, in league with an equally sick clique of non-Jews."


----------



## faux pas (Jan 24, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Yes, still waiting for you to tell us what a "rothschild zionist" is. How do we recognise one?


This is David Icke's explanation of the term. The rest you can find here on his site: http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/david-icke-lecture-wembley-arena-october-2012.287667/page-16


By David Icke - _Davidicke.com_

I have written and spoken extensively about the agenda behind the unfolding global financial crisis and here I will expose the coordinating force, or at least the prime one, behind that agenda and so much else, including 9/11.

Most conspiracy researchers either don't realise the fundamental significance of this network or are too frightened to say so if they do. Sod that.

It is widely known as Zionism or, as I call it, more accurately, I suggest ..._Rothschild_ Zionism. I add the 'Rothschild' to constantly emphasise the true creators of Zionism and its controllers to this day (see _Human Race Get Off Your Knees_).

I'll explain the connection later to the gathering economic catastrophe, but some background is necessary to put it all in the context that it needs to be seen.

Ask most people about Zionism and they will say 'that's the Jews', but while this is the impression the Rothschild networks in politics and the media have sought very successfully to 'sell' as 'common knowledge', _it is not true_. It represents only a minority of them and many others who are not Jewish.


----------



## Spud Murfy (Jan 24, 2012)

David Duke uses the same rhetorical tricks as Icke: _of course, many Jews are not like this._

He and Icke also look like they lost the nourishment-contest in the same womb environment as Jon Voight.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

...and of course the question this filth throws up:



> "Jewish people are simply wonderful when they allow themselves to be who they really are. They have such a contribution to make to the good of the world. But I have rarely met one who really loves themself or does not _*carry the burden of inherited guilt*_. My friends, it is all about control. It's time to let it go. Jewish people (who, like the rest of us, are evolving consciousnesses which happen to be experiencing a Jewish lifetime), will never be free until they step out of the mental and emotional control of this tiny clique, which uses them in the most merciless ways to advance its own sick and diabolical ambitions, in league with an equally sick clique of non-Jews."



The burden of inherited guilt of what?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> This is David Icke's explanation of the term. The rest you can find here on his site: http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/david-icke-lecture-wembley-arena-october-2012.287667/page-16
> 
> 
> By David Icke - _Davidicke.com_
> ...



Right, so they're not Jews, merely a Jewish family seeking to promote zionism?

So nothing to do with Jews then?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> 'Rothchild Zionist' certainly isn't the equivalent of 'jew', as Icke would painstakingly go to lengths to explain how, in his opinion, most jews are actually victims of 'Rothchild Zionism'



I am a simple man, and it seems to me that the Rothchilds are a jewish family and that Zionists are supporters of the jewish state of Israel.

You don't seem to be able to explain what a Rothchild Zionist is, which I find confusing.

Are you able to tell me who the Rothchild Zionists are who are _not_ jewish?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> No, it's like saying I hate Rothchild Zionists regardless as to whether they are jewish or not.



That's _R-O-T-H-S-C-H-I-L-D_, not "rothchild".

And if you categorise someone as a "Rothchild Zionist" [sic], then given that the Rothschilds are known predominantly for their cultural heritage (i.e. they're Jews), then your "Jewish or not" is either disingenuousness or stupidity. Which is it?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 24, 2012)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Are you able to tell me who the Rothchild Zionists are who are _not_ jewish?


The Queen, Barry Obama, David Cameron, etc no doubt


----------



## faux pas (Jan 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Of course it is, and of course the well rehearsed get-outs designed to fool people like you are always going to work _with you_ when you have such an uncritical simplistic and unquestioning approach to evidence, logic and argument.
> 
> If someone argued that a group of black people were behind a millennial old conspiracy that entailed damaging consequences for other black people but that this is just what black people do, then this would be correctly identified as racist loonery. Sounds rather similar to this though doesn't it?


'but that this is just what black people do' where does Icke say 'but this is just what jewish people do' - find that with your self-endowed superior critical faculties and you might have an example of Icke being antisemitic.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 24, 2012)

There are plenty of (genuine, non-Icke-madeup) Zionists who aren't Jews. That's not the issue.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 24, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> Hang on a minute. Wilf didn't mention censorship. All he said is that Icke's talk of bloodlines and lizards 'takes us further and further' from having a discussion of the actual influence of what some like to refer to as 'Big Pharma' and its influence. I read that as saying that Icke and his ilk are a distraction - with which, if that's how Wilf meant it, I'd agree.


Exactly. Jazz - as always, the question is why do you explain the power of the rich, connected and influential in terms of lizards and bloodlines? Everybody else explains it in terms of them being, well, rich, connected and influential. I know it's the key to conspiracy theorists world view and their psychologically privileged self justification, but you'd think just once they be able to explain why they opt for the complex and absurd, rather than the obvious and straightforward. Go on Jazz/faux pas - have a go, please!


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> 'but that this is just what black people do' where does Icke say 'but this is just what jewish people do' - find that with your self-endowed superior critical faculties and you might have an example of Icke being antisemitic.


see post 463 from butchers


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> 'but that this is just what black people do' where does Icke say 'but this is just what jewish people do' - find that with your self-endowed superior critical faculties and you might have an example of Icke being antisemitic.


Well, he quotes the Protocols for a start.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 24, 2012)

TruXta said:


> There are plenty of (genuine, non-Icke-madeup) Zionists who aren't Jews. That's not the issue.


Are there any non-Jewish Rothschilds?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> they're not jews, they are khazars. so it's ok.



Khazars are pussies. Subbotniks. Now *that* is where being a Jew Rothschild Zionist is at!!


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> 'but that this is just what black people do' where does Icke say 'but this is just what jewish people do' - find that with your self-endowed superior critical faculties and you might have an example of Icke being antisemitic.


The attribution of an innate nature to a 'race' (for want of a better term here)




			
				icke said:
			
		

> Jewish people are simply wonderful when they allow themselves to be who they really are



You've now had three or four. Your defence of those examples is now decidedly verging on dodgy.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> ...and of course the question this filth throws up:
> 
> The burden of inherited guilt of what?



killing jesus.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 24, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Are there any non-Jewish Rothschilds?



Not to my knowledge. I shouldn't have bothered with that post in hindsight, but I thought I might extend an olive branch to fucks pas. My blood sugar must be low or something.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

Faux pas doesn't know how to _read_ Icke. Whether this is down to limitations in her historical/political knowledge and abilities or whether due to the failings of the texts themselves i don't know. It does help in making non-loons jobs a lot easier though.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jan 24, 2012)

TruXta said:


> There are plenty of (genuine, non-Icke-madeup) Zionists who aren't Jews. That's not the issue.



Indeed, but are there any non-jewish Zionists who are also Rothschilds?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> killing jesus.


Do you feel this bearing down on you?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 24, 2012)

so open minded that their brain's fallen out


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Do you feel this bearing down on you?



 yes, every night i would cry myself to sleep, but now i have allowed to confess how shit i feel about that jesus thing i feel like i can be who i truly am, like a great weight's lifted from my shoulders.


----------



## faux pas (Jan 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> The attribution of an innate nature to a 'race' (for want of a better term here)
> 
> You've now had three or four. Your defence of those examples is now decidedly verging on dodgy.


If the attribution is positive, how can that be 'anti'-semitism?


----------



## TruXta (Jan 24, 2012)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Indeed, but are there any non-jewish Zionists who are also Rothschilds?



Could well be, it's a fairly common German name and not exclusive to Jews AFAIK. Anyway, forget I posted that.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> If the attribution is positive, how can that be 'anti'-semitism?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> If the attribution is positive, how can that be 'anti'-semitism?


Great dancers, them negroes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> This is David Icke's explanation of the term. The rest you can find here on his site: http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/david-icke-lecture-wembley-arena-october-2012.287667/page-16
> 
> By David Icke - _Davidicke.com_
> 
> ...



Ah yes, Icke's fantasy where he creates a whole stream of Zionism about a century before Zionism actually existed. How do we know this? Because until the mid-Victorian era Jewishness was indivisible from Judaism, and to Judaism of the time, Zionism would have been a blasphemy, an assumption by man of G-d's prerogative of calling the Jews unto Israel. To manufacture the Rothschild family (beloved among other branches of conspiracy theory as the genealogists of the Jesus bloodline, hene their middle-German surname translating to "red shield", geddit?) as the cretors of Zionism misses the point that at the time Icke attributes this creation to, it would have been philosophically-impossible for *any* Jew to do so, however good a repuation we have for being disputatious. Zionism was only manufacturable later in light of the anti-Semitic excesses of the Russian empire on the one hand, and the start of mass education on the other.


----------



## faux pas (Jan 24, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Great dancers, them negroes.


Yes, that's just the same


----------



## TruXta (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> If the attribution is positive, how can that be 'anti'-semitism?



It's not positive is it, it's saying "if only they weren't either in league with shape-shifting reptile overlords, or if they were true to their nature and not bogged down by inherent Jesus-killer guilt I'd have'm over for dinner."


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> If the attribution is positive, how can that be 'anti'-semitism?


Wow as fuck. And i thought you couldn't possibly invite any more ridicule.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 24, 2012)

"Jewish people are very clever and good with money, oh and wonderful when they allow their true conspiracy-tastic holocaust-denying selves to come out"

nothing anti-semitic in that sentence, it's all positive


----------



## Wilf (Jan 24, 2012)

Butchers - I think the interesting trick any non-antisemitic conspiraloons have to do is agreeing with their guru whilst convincing themselves that there is a non-antisemitic reading of his texts.  As ever it's a mental gymnastics that followers have to perform, but at the very least it suggests their commitment to the warm fuzzy feeling of privileged enlightenment is stronger than their anti-racism.  And that's being (overly) charitable.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> ...and of course the question this filth throws up:
> 
> The burden of inherited guilt of what?



Quite.
The assumption of collective guilt, and of collective acceptance of guilt is quite interesting too.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas is doing a text-book impression of cognitive dissonance here. One for the record-keepers for sure.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Butchers - I think the interesting trick any non-antisemitic conspiraloons have to do is agreeing with their guru whilst convincing themselves that there is a non-antisemitic reading of his texts. As ever it's a mental gymnastics that followers have to perform, but at the very least it suggests their commitment to the warm fuzzy feeling of privileged enlightenment is stronger than their anti-racism. And that's being (overly) charitable.


Indeed, seen it on here and in real life many times. Last point very important, and why it's important to challenge and expose _both_ types (the racists and the fellow travelers) despite the often seeming trivial non-consequential nature of it (not that it requires very much effort with people who make it as easy as on this thread).


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

TruXta said:


> faux pas is doing a text-book impression of cognitive dissonance here. One for the record-keepers for sure.


Cognitive fucking idiocy.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> Yes, that's just the same



How is it different? Ascribing social characteristics (positive or negative) based purely on race, we call this racism.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> killing jesus.



We didn't kill Jesus. *We* didn't even sell his arse to the Romans. The Sanhedrin did.

Typical fucking ruling class shitcunts. Fuck things up, and then rather than having to clear the debt themselves, it's all "we're in this together!".


----------



## faux pas (Jan 24, 2012)

TruXta said:


> It's not positive is it, it's saying "if only they weren't either in league with shape-shifting reptile overlords, or if they were true to their nature and not bogged down by inherent Jesus-killer guilt I'd have'm over for dinner."


It's a stretch, which I've noticed members have had to do in trying to provide a straight forward racist or anti-semitic remark of Icke's.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Cognitive fucking idiocy.



That too. Either way I'm alternating between belly-laughs and facepalms.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> yes, every night i would cry myself to sleep, but now i have allowed to confess how shit i feel about that jesus thing i feel like i can be who i truly am, like a great weight's lifted from my shoulders.



Fucking hell, froggie! Are you going Catholic on us?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> It's a stretch, which I've noticed members have had to do in trying to provide a straight forward racist or anti-semitic remark of Icke's.


 Well, _at the very worst_ we've provided a series of dissembling implied racist and anti-semitic remarks (and they're not remarks, they're the core of this wider arguments).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> If the attribution is positive, how can that be 'anti'-semitism?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> It's a stretch, which I've noticed members have had to do in trying to provide a straight forward racist or anti-semitic remark of Icke's.



have you ever looked at the david icke forums?


----------



## TruXta (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> It's a stretch, which I've noticed members have had to do in trying to provide a straight forward racist or anti-semitic remark of Icke's.



It's a stretch? Dude, every tendon in your body must be torn by now. Talk about bending over backwards to defend the undefendable. You've shown over and over again that you have no concept of logic, no understanding that words actually have certain meanings (hologram, remember?), no inkling of what anti-semitism means, and zero critical facilities. And you accuse me of stretching the truth? Oh my fucking dear.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 24, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Fucking hell, froggie! Are you going Catholic on us?



they'll never take me alive


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> "Jewish people are very clever and good with money, oh and wonderful when they allow their true conspiracy-tastic holocaust-denying selves to come out"
> 
> nothing anti-semitic in that sentence, it's all positive



I wish I'd got the memo about "good with money". That seems to have totally passed me by!


----------



## killer b (Jan 24, 2012)

i look forward to jazzz claiming this thread as yet another stunning victory for the force of his arguments, in a month or two's time.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 24, 2012)

killer b said:


> i look forward to jazzz claiming this thread as yet another stunning victory for the force of his arguments, in a month or two's time.



Even he must be appalled at the sheer lack of argument, any argument, from a fellow traveller. At least he makes a fucking effort.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 24, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I wish I'd got the memo about "good with money". That seems to have totally passed me by!



it was the rothschild zionists, they suppressed that knowledge from you. now if you could just overcome your brainwashing and be yourself, maaaan


----------



## Wilf (Jan 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Indeed, seen it on here and in real life many times. Last point very important, and why it's important to challenge and expose _both_ types (the racists and the fellow travelers) despite the often seeming trivial non-consequential nature of it (not that it requires very much effort with people who make it as easy as on this thread).


It's a mighty derail, but similar contradictions were evident in the Respect fiasco (build the party v all kinds of 'shibboleths'). I always thought SWP members didn't ever really try and integrate contradictory positions, just believed in their leaders and putting the party over everything else.  However, there must still be coping mechanisms that stop you seeing the hypocrisy of your own position(s).  Again, the obvious point, I guess it's where certain types of politics attracts the kind of personalities that are able to create a narrative that ties it all together into a day to day workable mix.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> How is it different? Ascribing social characteristics (positive or negative) based purely on race, we call this racism.



Exactly. You're attempting to naturalise a social characteristic, rather than recognising that it is *merely* a social characteristic.


----------



## faux pas (Jan 24, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> How is it different? Ascribing social characteristics (positive or negative) based purely on race, we call this racism.


Racism is inherently negative. You can argue some positive comments to be negative in a round about way, but applying this in a blanket fashion would probably be setting standards that are never met in mainstream media, or dare I say it, perhaps by yourselves.

So no anti-semitic/racist remarks from Icke then. None that don't need such specific interpretations, or misinterpretations, perhaps I should say.


----------



## Spud Murfy (Jan 24, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> How is it different? Ascribing social characteristics (positive or negative) based purely on race, we call this racism.



Not many people can be familiar with a definition of racism that extends to positive stereotypes of races or ethnic groups.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 24, 2012)

you don't think talking about "rothschild zionists" and the jews becoming free of the burden of collective guilt is racist? why or why not?you don't really have a clue do you?


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 24, 2012)

'The Jews are alright when they're allowed to be themselves.'


----------



## faux pas (Jan 24, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Exactly. You're attempting to naturalise a social characteristic, rather than recognising that it is *merely* a social characteristic.


Are you saying that if you don't believe race is a 'social construct' then you are a racist?


----------



## xes (Jan 24, 2012)

Would it be ok to say, that you do not like the way that banking families run things? Reguardless of religious connotation, becasue of the way that money is hoarded, whilst people starve. The way they have control over goverments, and say who goes to war and when, for profit. The way they have power on goverment, making decisions which are against the people, swaying govermential decisions and ensuring that certain legislations which will bring them profit go through, whilst the people suffer becasue ofthese legislations. And whilst the gap between the rich and the poor gets wider and wider.

Is it ok to think like this at all? Or do we have to love the ones who rule over us, the ones whose greed has caused misery for billions? It matters not what god they serve, nor their purpose. The fact is that the world is in great imbalance, and these folks are at the root of it. Personally, I don't even know if all of the banking families are Jewish run, I'd presume not. There must be Moslim banking families, Christian banking families ect. But in my sweet, innocent little eyes, they are inherently evil, for the way that they control how the world is run. Money is the root of all evil, after all.

Or does thinking like this make me hate all Jewish people? Becasue I loved my old gramps, he was Jewish. (he did keep on and on about needing another world war to sort the youth out, but that's a generation thing, rather than an "all Jewish folk want depopulisation" thing.)


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> It's a stretch, which I've noticed members have had to do in trying to provide a straight forward racist or anti-semitic remark of Icke's.


You've had plenty of examples. You choose to deny them.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> Are you saying that if you don't believe race is a 'social construct' then you are a racist?


Get in there! Here we go!


----------



## rekil (Jan 24, 2012)

Someone should spike wembley's booze and food with acid and whatnot, triggering the greatest mass loon freakout of all time. October 27th eh?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> it was the rothschild zionists, they suppressed that knowledge from you. now if you could just overcome your brainwashing and be yourself, maaaan



Those dirty international banking bastards!!


----------



## Random (Jan 24, 2012)

Very funny thread. Well done all!


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> Is it ok to think like this at all? Or do we have to love the ones who rule over us, the ones whose greed has caused misery for billions? .


This is one of the reasons you often get a hard time on here.  The assumptions and ignorance about other people and what they think, how they view things and what that means to them politically.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> You've had plenty of examples. You choose to deny them.


Thrice


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> Are you saying that if you don't believe race is a 'social construct' then you are a racist?



No, I'm saying that constructing a social characteristic as a natural attribute of a particular "race" constitutes a form of racism.
What's up? Can't you read?


----------



## xes (Jan 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> This is one of the reasons you often get a hard time on here. The assumptions and ignorance about other people and what they think, how they view things and what that means to them politically.


but the thing is, you're not allowed to speak about how naughty banking families are, becasue immediatly, the wolves will accuse you of being anti this that or the other. UNless you actually spell it out word for word, people will accuse you of all sorts, and people are very quick to do so.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> Racism is inherently negative. You can argue some positive comments to be negative in a round about way, but applying this in a blanket fashion would probably be setting standards that are never met in mainstream media, or dare I say it, perhaps by yourselves.
> 
> So no anti-semitic/racist remarks from Icke then. None that don't need such specific interpretations, or misinterpretations, perhaps I should say.


What?


----------



## TruXta (Jan 24, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, I'm saying that constructing a social characteristic as a natural attribute of a particular "race" constitutes a form of racism.
> What's up? Can't you read?



No more of that Viking-baiting then, you hear me?


----------



## Random (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> So no anti-semitic/racist remarks from Icke then. None that don't need such specific interpretations, or misinterpretations, perhaps I should say.



This quote is clearly a racist slur against all jewish people.


> Jewish people... will never be free until they step out of the mental and emotional control of this tiny clique, which uses them in the most merciless ways to advance its own sick and diabolical ambitions, in league with an equally sick clique of non-Jews.


----------



## faux pas (Jan 24, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, I'm saying that constructing a social characteristic as a natural attribute of a particular "race" constitutes a form of racism.
> What's up? Can't you read?


Can someone be not racist yet not believe race is a social construct?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 24, 2012)

Spud Murfy said:


> Not many people can be familiar with a definition of racism that extends to positive stereotypes of races or ethnic groups.


Most people will recognise racial stereotypes for what they are.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> but the thing is, you're not allowed to speak about how naughty banking families are, becasue immediatly, the wolves will accuse you of being anti this that or the other. UNless you actually spell it out word for word, people will accuse you of all sorts, and people are very quick to do so.



You're not allowed to speak about banking families? Really? Where was this Xes? Anyway, that's a misnomer. The criticism is that whilst movements such as Icke's and others use religion and race as part of their 'discourse', combined with all manner of conspiracy theorising, it just diverts the attention away from the machinations of capital and class.

We've seen it permeate through the recent Occupy/anti-capitalism organising for example - people using anti-semitism as part of the blame tool for capitalism. It doesn't become about powerful economic structures or institutions, it instead can lead to using race/religious hatred.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> but the thing is, you're not allowed to speak about how naughty banking families are, becasue immediatly, the wolves will accuse you of being anti this that or the other. UNless you actually spell it out word for word, people will accuse you of all sorts, and people are very quick to do so.


Of course you are - there are thousands of people writing books, presenting programs, doing lectures and so on about the banking system, the integration of it with industrial capital, the financialisation of everyday life and so on. They don't rely on any anti-Semitic tropes and they get taken seriously - very seriously - with no accusations such as you suggest ever coming near them. Why? because they do serious research based on evidence, logic and sustained argument.

You miss the point anyway which was your characterisation of people who don't agree with your specific perspective on this as somehow either loving the banks or arguing that you must love them - can you not see why that might piss people off, lazily dismissing them in such a manner?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 24, 2012)

because the view of the world that goes on about banking families is nothing to do with strucure, its just "these people control the world and are evil".


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> Would it be ok to say, that you do not like the way that banking families run things? Reguardless of religious connotation, becasue of the way that money is hoarded, whilst people starve. The way they have control over goverments, and say who goes to war and when, for profit. The way they have power on goverment, making decisions which are against the people, swaying govermential decisions and ensuring that certain legislations which will bring them profit go through, whilst the people suffer becasue ofthese legislations. And whilst the gap between the rich and the poor gets wider and wider.
> 
> Is it ok to think like this at all? Or do we have to love the ones who rule over us, the ones whose greed has caused misery for billions? It matters not what god they serve, nor their purpose. The fact is that the world is in great imbalance, and these folks are at the root of it. Personally, I don't even know if all of the banking families are Jewish run, I'd presume not. There must be Moslim banking families, Christian banking families ect. But in my sweet, innocent little eyes, they are inherently evil, for the way that they control how the world is run. Money is the root of all evil, after all.
> 
> Or does thinking like this make me hate all Jewish people? Becasue I loved my old gramps, he was Jewish. (he did keep on and on about needing another world war to sort the youth out, but that's a generation thing, rather than an "all Jewish folk want depopulisation" thing.)


Have a critique of capitalism by all means


----------



## Roadkill (Jan 24, 2012)

Faux pas, are you ever actually going to try and answer the question I posed in posts #342 and #455?  It really isn't difficult...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2012)

TruXta said:


> No more of that Viking-baiting then, you hear me?



Yes mum.


----------



## faux pas (Jan 24, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> Faux pas, are you ever actually going to try and answer the question I posed in posts #342 and #455? It really isn't difficult...


How many questions have you had posed to you on this thread?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> but the thing is, you're not allowed to speak about how naughty banking families are, becasue immediatly, the wolves will accuse you of being anti this that or the other. UNless you actually spell it out word for word, people will accuse you of all sorts, and people are very quick to do so.



Have a critique of capitalism, based on how capitalism works. Not on some weirdo fantasy.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> Can someone be not racist yet not believe race is a social construct?



Ask that in Engish and I'll consider answering you.


----------



## Roadkill (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> How many questions have you had posed to you on this thread?



None.

Now stop wriggling and answer, otherwise I might start to think you're just Billy Bullshit, and we can't have that, can we?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> Is it ok to think like this at all? Or do we have to love the ones who rule over us, the ones whose greed has caused misery for billions? It matters not what god they serve, nor their purpose. The fact is that the world is in great imbalance, and these folks are at the root of it. Personally, I don't even know if all of the banking families are Jewish run, I'd presume not. There must be Moslim banking families, Christian banking families ect. But in my sweet, innocent little eyes, they are inherently evil, for the way that they control how the world is run. Money is the root of all evil, after all.



Well, it's the _love of_ money that's the root of all evil and if some 'races' are pre-disposed to love money more than others (even to the extent of refusing to do manual labour instead preferring to be money lenders) then...

You can see how easy such an approach can be used by dodgy right-wing and anti-semitic interests right?  It really happened.


----------



## faux pas (Jan 24, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Ask that in Engish and I'll consider answering you.


Just a rephrasing of the first in order to get a positive answer and you managed to answer that.


----------



## xes (Jan 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Of course you are - there are thousands of people writing books, presenting programs, doing lectures and so on about the banking system, the integration of it with industrial capital, the financialisation of everyday life and so on. They don't rely on any anti-Semitic tropes and get get taken seriously - very seriously. You miss the point anyway which was your characterisation of people who don't agree with your specific perspective on this as somehow either loving the banks or arguing that you must love them - can you not see why that might piss people off, lazily dismissing them in such a manner?


Sucks when the boot is on the other foot, doesn't it. 
The way you, and others, lazily dissmiss people of being racist or anti semite, for thinking that there may be something to the conspiracies. It's the same thing.  It doesn't matter to me one fucking bit, if some cunt is blaming Jewish people, becasue I do not belive that is the case. If you have the brains to see past the bullshit, and weed out the important bits, and as you say, there are lots of people who write about how bad these fucks are, without bringing in religion. Then there IS something to it all, but you're not letting yourslef see past the hatred, to get to the bits which actually matter. It's like the ultimate dissinfo campaign. "oh no, they don't like the way the world is run = they hate Jewish people" which gives you carte blanch to just dissmiss anything anyone says, becasue you can link them to being anti semites. How is that any different to my lazy dissmissal?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> but the thing is, you're not allowed to speak about how naughty banking families are, becasue immediatly, the wolves will accuse you of being anti this that or the other. UNless you actually spell it out word for word, people will accuse you of all sorts, and people are very quick to do so.



Dude, there are very few "banking families" in existence, so railing against the Rothschilds (but not the Morgans, I notice, you dirty Taff-loving cunt! ) is stupidity anyway. It's banks as institutions that are the problem, not the numpties who founded them, most of whom have fuck-all to do with the banking side nowadays (Nat Rothschild perhaps excepted).


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 24, 2012)

no


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> Sucks when the boot is on the other foot, doesn't it.
> The way you, and others, lazily dissmiss people of being racist or anti semite, for thinking that there may be something to the conspiracies. It's the same thing. It doesn't matter to me one fucking bit, if some cunt is blaming Jewish people, becasue I do not belive that is the case. If you have the brains to see past the bullshit, and weed out the important bits, and as you say, there are lots of people who write about how bad these fucks are, without bringing in religion. Then there IS something to it all, but you're not letting yourslef see past the hatred, to get to the bits which actually matter. It's like the ultimate dissinfo campaign. "oh no, they don't like the way the world is run = they hate Jewish people" which gives you carte blanch to just dissmiss anything anyone says, becasue you can link them to being anti semites. How is that any different to my lazy dissmissal?


...and you prove my point for me perfectly here.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> Just a rephrasing of the first in order to get a positive answer and you managed to answer that.



No, it isn't a "re-phrasing", it's a concoction aimed at giving you a second bite of the cherry.
If it were merely a re-phrasing, why would you need to ask it again, given that I'd already provided an answer? Was it that the answer didn't please you?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> Sucks when the boot is on the other foot, doesn't it.
> The way you, and others, lazily dissmiss people of being racist or anti semite, for thinking that there may be something to the conspiracies. It's the same thing. _*It doesn't matter to me one fucking bit, if some cunt is blaming Jewish people, becasue I do not belive that is the case*_. If you have the brains to see past the bullshit, and weed out the important bits, and as you say, there are lots of people who write about how bad these fucks are, without bringing in religion. Then there IS something to it all, but you're not letting yourslef see past the hatred, to get to the bits which actually matter. It's like the ultimate dissinfo campaign. "oh no, they don't like the way the world is run = they hate Jewish people" which gives you carte blanch to just dissmiss anything anyone says, becasue you can link them to being anti semites. How is that any different to my lazy dissmissal?



Matters to me. Matters to me because of the past historical examples of where this can lead under certain conditions. Very self-centred approach xes.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 24, 2012)

A serious question for Jazz, faux pas etc: what would convince you that your view of the world being run by elites, families and bloodlines was _*wrong*_?


----------



## faux pas (Jan 24, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, it isn't a "re-phrasing", it's a concoction aimed at giving you a second bite of the cherry.
> If it were merely a re-phrasing, why would you need to ask it again, given that I'd already provided an answer? Was it that the answer didn't please you?


Because it would have been a positive answer. I genuinely wanted to know what your answer was.


----------



## Spud Murfy (Jan 24, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Most people will recognise racial stereotypes for what they are.



Hmm that's not quite the same thing as racism though. Most people will surely think of racism as being nasty to others because they're of a different race or nationality.

Someone at work said to me the other day: "The Japanese are clever aren't they?" It was said in an innocent way, not the 'they're clever alright' kind of way, which I imagine is how Icke might think of Jewish people.


----------



## xes (Jan 24, 2012)

I don't really see it as self centred, I see it as seeing past the bit's which I don't agree with, and seeing the parts I do agree with. How is that self centred? I'm trying to take the anti semitism OUT of it, and seeing the actual conspracies for what they are. Becasue that is possible. (as you've pointed out).


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 24, 2012)

it also completely ignores the whole idea of class and what can happen and does happen when privileged elites get into privileged postitions. The obvious example is the police - how many police officers do you think are "rothschild zionists"? how many of them are reptilians? this view of the worldj just completely ignores the structure of society and the fact you don't have to come from some "banking family" lol to take part in the workings of capitalism or fulfil a role under capitalism.


----------



## xes (Jan 24, 2012)

Wilf said:


> A serious question for Jazz, faux pas etc: what would convince you that your view of the world being run by elites, families and bloodlines was _*wrong*_?


if hunger and homelessnes was erradicated, if goverments started acting with the population in mind, and not their own pockets. If war was stopped and killed forever. If people were actually free, and not held in place by laws which are not there to protct them, but there to get money for investors.

Then maybe, maybe I'd think that the world is run by people who have our best interest at heart. But it's not like that at all, is it?


----------



## xes (Jan 24, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> it also completely ignores the whole idea of class and what can happen and does happen when privileged elites get into privileged postitions. The obvious example is the police - how many police officers do you think are "rothschild zionists"? how many of them are reptilians? this view of the worldj just completely ignores the structure of society and the fact you don't have to come from some "banking family" lol to take part in the workings of capitalism or fulfil a role under capitalism.


I don't think that any of the police are reptillian, or hired by banking families. I think they're people, who are cunts.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> I don't really see it as self centred, I see it as seeing past the bit's which I don't agree with, and seeing the parts I do agree with. How is that self centred? I'm trying to take the anti semitism OUT of it, and seeing the actual conspracies for what they are. Becasue that is possible. (as you've pointed out).



Seeing past? What does that mean? _Ignoring_ the political uses of some of the concepts? Their historical development?  For example your reliance on baking families rather than a banking system. And ho does your _seeing past _deal with the proven and repeated evidences of anti-semitic though in this area? It doesn't. It just ignores it - apart from when it comes out flailing and point-missing like this - and even then just to say that it doesn't really matter. Well, it does.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> Sucks when the boot is on the other foot, doesn't it.
> The way you, and others, lazily dissmiss people of being racist or anti semite, for thinking that there may be something to the conspiracies. It's the same thing. It doesn't matter to me one fucking bit, if some cunt is blaming Jewish people, becasue I do not belive that is the case. If you have the brains to see past the bullshit, and weed out the important bits, and as you say, there are lots of people who write about how bad these fucks are, without bringing in religion. Then there IS something to it all, but you're not letting yourslef see past the hatred, to get to the bits which actually matter. It's like the ultimate dissinfo campaign. "oh no, they don't like the way the world is run = they hate Jewish people" which gives you carte blanch to just dissmiss anything anyone says, becasue you can link them to being anti semites. How is that any different to my lazy dissmissal?



Weirdo fantasies it is then.


----------



## xes (Jan 24, 2012)

must be


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 24, 2012)

so if the police are just cunts why can't bankers just be cunts as well? why do they have to be part of some bloodline?


----------



## xes (Jan 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Seeing past? What does that mean? _Ignoring_ the political uses of some of the concepts? Their historical development? For example your reliance on baking families rather than a banking system. And ho does your _seeing past _deal with the proven and repeated evidences of anti-semitic though in this area? It doesn't. It just ignores it - apart from when it comes out flailing and point-missing like this - and even then just to say that it doesn't really matter. Well, it does.


who runs the banking system, if not the families who run the banks?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 24, 2012)

Spud Murfy said:


> Hmm that's not quite the same thing as racism though. Most people will surely think of racism as being nasty to others because they're of a different race or nationality.
> 
> Someone at work said to me the other day: "The Japanese are clever aren't they?" It was said in an innocent way, not the 'they're clever alright' kind of way, which I imagine is how Icke might think of Jewish people.



You imagine Icke might think of Jewish people as "alright"?


----------



## xes (Jan 24, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> so if the police are just cunts why can't bankers just be cunts as well? why do they have to be part of some bloodline?


I've not said that the banking familes are part of a bloodline. I'd go as far as to say that the royal families, and presidential families are. But that's about it


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> I don't really see it as self centred, I see it as seeing past the bit's which I don't agree with, and seeing the parts I do agree with. How is that self centred? I'm trying to take the anti semitism OUT of it, and seeing the actual conspracies for what they are. Becasue that is possible. (as you've pointed out).



The view you espouse is a fantasy.  If you're so passionate about how shit capitalism is, why not make some effort to find out how it _actually_ works?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> I don't really see it as self centred, I see it as seeing past the bit's which I don't agree with, and seeing the parts I do agree with. How is that self centred? I'm trying to take the anti semitism OUT of it, and seeing the actual conspracies for what they are. Becasue that is possible. (as you've pointed out).



...and no, i don't mean anti-semtism can be taken out of conspiracies. There is a system of banking that has certain functions and features that change historically due to other wider circumstances (the 'birth' of capitalism for example) and that this can and is being researched on proper grounding with proper critical apparatus.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> if hunger and homelessnes was erradicated, if goverments started acting with the population in mind, and not their own pockets. If war was stopped and killed forever. If people were actually free, and not held in place by laws which are not there to protct them, but there to get money for investors.
> 
> Then maybe, maybe I'd think that the world is run by people who have our best interest at heart. But it's not like that at all, is it?



So there's only two possible views?  Bloodlines and conspiracies or Care Bear Land?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> I've not said that the banking familes are part of a bloodline. I'd go as far as to say that the royal families, and presidential families are. But that's about it



the ruling class mixing/breeding within their own social circle shocker. but why? why is this important?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> who runs the banking system, if not the families who run the banks?



Which families run which banks?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> who runs the banking system, if not the families who run the banks?


..again - the difference between proper research and...and...this.


----------



## xes (Jan 24, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> So there's only two possible views? Bloodlines and conspiracies or Care Bear Land?


in your world, maybe.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> You imagine Icke might think of Jewish people as "alright"?


Some of 'em, the ones who are true to their nature despite their undoubted guilt.


----------



## xes (Jan 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> ...and no, i don't mean anti-semtism can be taken out of conspiracies.


 Why? Why is someone who is into conspiracies, immediatly an anti semite?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> in your world, maybe.



It's what you just said though.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> who runs the banking system, if not the families who run the banks?


Lets assume families exclusively run globally important banks. Do they have some sort of...system?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 24, 2012)

that isn't what he said.

it's because the anti-semitism is *structural*.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Some of 'em, the ones who are true to their nature despite their undoubted guilt.



Like them dancing Negroes.  Terrible swimmers though.


----------



## xes (Jan 24, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Which families run which banks?


*shrugs* I do not know. I'm presuming the families who own banks, also run the banks which they own. Would this be a silly supposition to make?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> Why? Why is someone who is into conspiracies, immediatly an anti semite?


I didn't say that they are. Have another read of your post that i replied to. Not filling me with confidence here.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> *shrugs* I do not know. I'm presuming the families who own banks, also run the banks which they own. Would this be a silly supposition to make?



You don't know.  This is the crux really isn't it.  You don't have a clue what you're on about.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> *shrugs* I do not know. I'm presuming the families who own banks, also run the banks which they own. Would this be a silly supposition to make?


Faux pah - is that you?


----------



## xes (Jan 24, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> that isn't what he said.
> 
> it's because the anti-semitism is *structural*.


In which case I missunderstood the post. But to be honest, I'm still not entirely sure I'm getting what you're trying to say.


----------



## belboid (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> *shrugs* I do not know. I'm presuming the families who own banks, also run the banks which they own. Would this be a silly supposition to make?


congrats on the most stupid post even on this utterly batshit thread!


----------



## Spud Murfy (Jan 24, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> You imagine Icke might think of Jewish people as "alright"?



How on earth did you reach that conclusion?

Please read the sentence again:



> It was said in an innocent way, not the 'they're clever alright' kind of way, which I imagine is how Icke might think of Jewish people.



I know you're from the Midlands originally, and perhaps the use of 'alright' after a description of someone is peculiar to London and its diaspora,  but people would say something like _he's clever alright_ to mean that this person wasn't so much intelligent as cunning, crafty, good at looking after number one.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> In which case I missunderstood the post. But to be honest, I'm still not entirely sure I'm getting what you're trying to say.



you can't take anti-semitism out of conspiracy theories like the ones you're on about because it's inherent within the very idea of a small group of people acting as fifth columnists within the world banking system and the bloodlines etc etc.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 24, 2012)

Spud Murfy said:


> How on earth did you reach that conclusion?
> 
> Please read the sentence again:
> 
> I know you're from the Midlands originally, and perhaps the use of 'alright' after a description of someone is peculiar to London and its diaspora, but people would say something like _he's clever alright_ to mean that this person wasn't so much intelligent as cunning, crafty, good at looking after number one.



OK, my bad.  You think that Icke's statements about the Jews are made innocently?  Is that it?

I'm not from the Midlands originally btw, you must be thinking of someone else.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 24, 2012)

i don't think that's what he was saying ...


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 24, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> i don't think that's what he was saying ...



I'm not sure what he's saying tbh.


----------



## xes (Jan 24, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> you can't take anti-semitism out of conspiracy theories like the ones you're on about because it's inherent within the very idea of a small group of people acting as fifth columnists within the world banking system and the bloodlines etc etc.


So how can we move past that? If saying that some conspiracies may be true (with reguards to banking families ect), in the way in which the world is run, means that you're anti semite, then how can we discuss it otherwise?


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> So how can we move past that? If saying that some conspiracies may be true (with reguards to banking families ect), in the way in which the world is run, means that you're anti semite, then how can we discuss it otherwise?



Well you fuck off the conspiracy theories and theorists and instead refer to sound evidence and history of how capital and class works.


----------



## Spud Murfy (Jan 24, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> OK, my bad. You think that Icke's statements about the Jews are made innocently? Is that it?



Here is the same sentence again:



> It was said in an innocent way, not the 'they're clever alright' kind of way, which I imagine is how Icke might think of Jewish people.



Note the 'not' after 'innocent way' and before 'they're clever alright' kind of way. My meaning is that Icke seems to be a follower of the hostile 'they're clever alright' meaning, but I can see by the positioning of the commas that you may have been led to think otherwise.


----------



## Roadkill (Jan 24, 2012)

stephj said:


> Well you fuck off the conspiracy theories and theorists and instead refer to sound evidence and history of how capital and class works.



Yeah, but that's not as _exciting_ as a good conspiracy theory, is it?!

*e2a* It doesn't satisfy some people's need to feel they know more than everyone else, either.


----------



## DarthSydodyas (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> *shrugs* I do not know. I'm presuming the families who own banks, also run the banks which they own. Would this be a silly supposition to make?


you're meant to say Rothchilds.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 24, 2012)

Spud Murfy said:


> Here is the same sentence again:
> 
> Note the 'not' after 'innocent way' and before 'they're clever alright' kind of way. My meaning is that Icke seems to be a follower of the hostile 'they're clever alright' meaning, but I can see by the positioning of the commas that you may have been led to think otherwise.



Ahhhh, OK.


----------



## belboid (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> So how can we move past that? If saying that some conspiracies may be true (with reguards to banking families ect), in the way in which the world is run, means that you're anti semite, then how can we discuss it otherwise?


Why shoulds we 'move past' that?  If you dont understand how the bankers being jewish is absolutely central to the whole conspiracy, then you haven't understood anything about the theories at all - beyond 'bankers are bad, m'kaay.'  It is by being jewish that they became bankers, through which they started the bloodlines, from which _everything_ sprung.

If _you_ want to come up with a banker led conspiracy theory that has absolutely nothing to do with judaism, then _you_ go ahead and do it. But you can't just take the jewish bits out of a racists arguments and say, 'well its all alright now.'  YOU show us how the so-called banking families have secretly controlled the world for centuries.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> So how can we move past that? If saying that some conspiracies may be true (with reguards to banking families ect), in the way in which the world is run, means that you're anti semite, then how can we discuss it otherwise?



What banking families and what banks?

Oh yeah, you don't know.


----------



## xes (Jan 24, 2012)

stephj said:


> Well you fuck off the conspiracy theories and theorists and instead refer to sound evidence and history of how capital and class works.


And what if, once you've done that,  you can see that there is some sort of conspiring going on, to make the poor suffer and the rich richer? Does that mean that there is no conpiracy? Not that I have done this, but the world makes alot more sense to me, if there are bad people running the world, who do not have my best interest at heart. That IMO is a conspiracy.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> And what if, once you've done that, you can see that there is some sort of conspiring going on, to make the poor suffer and the rich richer? Does that mean that there is no conpiracy? Not that I have done this, but the world makes alot more sense to me, if there are bad people running the world, who do not have my best interest at heart. That IMO is a conspiracy.


Have you done that? Do it.


----------



## xes (Jan 24, 2012)

DarthSydodyas said:


> you're meant to say Rothchilds.


no, you're not allowed to mention Jewish people and banks though, that means you hate ALL Jewish people


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> And what if, once you've done that, you can see that there is some sort of conspiring going on, to make the poor suffer and the rich richer? Does that mean that there is no conpiracy? Not that I have done this, but the world makes alot more sense to me, if there are bad people running the world, who do not have my best interest at heart. That IMO is a conspiracy.



I don't know what you want me to say Xes - you say you are against capitalism, poor getting poorer/rich getting richer, yet then appear to be totally discounting the economic and social history and mechanisms that create it in favour of 'well what if'.

Why/what are you trying to convince yourself of?


----------



## belboid (Jan 24, 2012)

for his next trick, Xes will end the curse of racist nazism by doing a 'Find & Replace All' with 'Jews' and 'nasty people'  in Mein Kampf


----------



## belboid (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> no, you're not allowed to mention Jewish people and banks though, that means you hate ALL Jewish people


you really haven't understood anyones argument at all, have you?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> And what if, once you've done that, you can see that there is some sort of conspiring going on, to make the poor suffer and the rich richer? Does that mean that there is no conpiracy? Not that I have done this, but the world makes alot more sense to me, if there are bad people running the world, who do not have my best interest at heart. That IMO is a conspiracy.



Yes, it's called capitalism.


----------



## xes (Jan 24, 2012)

stephj said:


> I don't know what you want me to say Xes - you say you are against capitalism, poor getting poorer/rich getting richer, yet then appear to be totally discounting the economic and social history and mechanisms that create it in favour of 'well what if'. Why/what are you trying to convince yourself of?


I'm trying to convice myself that the world is run by those who want the world to be a better place, for the good of humanity. But it's not, it's run by greedy people who couldn't give a fuck about human life, and would much rather they have money instead. This means I hate Jewsish people according to this place.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> no, you're not allowed to mention Jewish people and banks though, that means you hate ALL Jewish people


You are - as long as you don't use them as examples of a jewish conspiracy. Easy. As i said earlier, plenty of people manage it.


----------



## xes (Jan 24, 2012)

belboid said:


> you really haven't understood anyones argument at all, have you?


obviously not.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> no, you're not allowed to mention Jewish people and banks though, that means you hate ALL Jewish people





stephj said:


> I don't know what you want me to say Xes - you say you are against capitalism, poor getting poorer/rich getting richer, yet then appear to be totally discounting the economic and social history and mechanisms that create it in favour of 'well what if'. Why/what are you trying to convince yourself of?



The parallels between this way of thinking and fascist critiques of capitalism are quite striking.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> I'm trying to convice myself that the world is run by those who want the world to be a better place, for the good of humanity. But it's not, it's run by greedy people who couldn't give a fuck about human life, and would much rather they have money instead. This means I hate Jewsish people according to this place.



No it doesn't. It means that we have greedy people who buy into and support the economic and social systems and behaviour that fucks others over.

And then we have another set of greedy cunts who manipulate and feed on it to try and apportion blame to anyone else they decide to. Icke? Rather busy selling fucking books and tickets to his shows to build up his own god-like reputation.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> I'm trying to convice myself that the world is run by those who want the world to be a better place, for the good of humanity. But it's not, it's run by greedy people who couldn't give a fuck about human life, and would much rather they have money instead. This means I hate Jewsish people according to this place.



oh fuck off you dishonest little shite


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> I'm trying to convice myself that the world is run by those who want the world to be a better place, for the good of humanity. But it's not, it's run by greedy people who couldn't give a fuck about human life, and would much rather they have money instead. This means I hate Jewsish people according to this place.


You're starting to outdo faux pah here. Stop the sulking and start the researching,


----------



## xes (Jan 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You're starting to outdo faux pah here. Stop the sulking and start the researching,


Yeah, I've got the time to spend researching everything I'm intersted in. I've got about 200 thinkgs I'd love to research, but my brain is about as scatty as it gets, and my attention span won't allow it. (I once did a personality test which said that this means I'm a genious, but I have my doubts  )


----------



## two sheds (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> it's run by greedy people who couldn't give a fuck about human life, and would much rather they have money instead.


 


> it's run by greedy Jewish people who couldn't give a fuck about human life, and would much rather they have money instead.



Do you see any difference between those two statements, xes?


----------



## belboid (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> obviously not.


well, why not try to?  You are making yourself look more stupid than ever


----------



## xes (Jan 24, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> oh fuck off you dishonest little shite


back at ya, cunt face.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

Let's have another one:




			
				icke said:
			
		

> "My use of extracts from the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" was too much for political purity to take. It didn't matter that I had emphasised, as I do in this book, that this is not a plot by Jewish people; it didn't matter that I renamed them the "Illuminati Protocols" for the specific reason of getting away from their association with Jewish people; it didn't matter that these Protocols, which came to light in the late 1800's, contain details of the very plan of manipulation which has provably unfolded through the twentieth century."


----------



## belboid (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> Yeah, I've got the time to spend researching everything I'm intersted in. I've got about 200 thinkgs I'd love to research, but my brain is about as scatty as it gets, and my attention span won't allow it. (I once did a personality test which said that this means I'm a genious, but I have my doubts  )


well, you could at least pay attention to what you are replying to. Then you wouldnt come out with such utter nonsense (or not quite so much, anyway) as you have in the last few posts.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> back at ya, cunt face.



You're completely misrepresenting what people are saying.  You're either wilfully lying or are spectacularly thick.


----------



## xes (Jan 24, 2012)

two sheds said:


> Do you see any difference between those two statements, xes?


Of course I do, but that's not what I'm saying. Yes, some do, and they're arseholes for it. But this is what I mean, you're not allowed to even suggest that banking system is run by scummers who want to lord it up whilst people suffer, becasue someone's going to inject their own prejudices into it, and accuse me of being an anti semite. Thank you for highlighting this.


----------



## xes (Jan 24, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> You're completely misrepresenting what people are saying. You're either wilfully lying or are spectacularly thick.


I'm trying to be as open an honest as I can be, I know this is hard for a cunt like you to understand, and it's much easier to call me thick, or a liar. So fuck you. You see those bits where I say that I don't know or understand stuff, if you could tell me where I'm fucking lying, then fill your fucking boots.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> Of course I do, but that's not what I'm saying. Yes, some do, and they're arseholes for it. But this is what I mean, you're not allowed to even suggest that banking system is run by scummers who want to lord it up whilst people suffer, becasue someone's going to inject their own prejudices into it, and accuse me of being an anti semite. Thank you for highlighting this.


 Yes you are. Stop sulking.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> Of course I do, but that's not what I'm saying. Yes, some do, and they're arseholes for it. But this is what I mean, you're not allowed to even suggest that banking system is run by scummers who want to lord it up whilst people suffer, becasue someone's going to inject their own prejudices into it



What are the conspiracy theorists doing then, the likes of Icke, Alex Jones, etc?

'Never mind critiquing capitalism or those powerful cunts invested in its continued existence and expansion, instead let's start to build all manner of other theories around it. We're too busy listening to the sound of our own voices and self-importance than to actually fight capital and unequal structures.'


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> I'm trying to be as open an honest as I can be, I know this is hard for a cunt like you to understand, and it's much easier to call me thick, or a liar. So fuck you. You see those bits where I say that I don't know or understand stuff, if you could tell me where I'm fucking lying, then fill your fucking boots.



So why do you persist in completely misrepresenting what others say?


----------



## xes (Jan 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Yes you are. Stop sulking.


Thank you for making my point. And I'm not sulking. I'm swearing at blagsta becasue he's a grade a cunt and is incapable of making a point without being a condesending wanker with it. You'll notice I've been quite nice with everyone else.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> Of course I do, but that's not what I'm saying. Yes, some do, and they're arseholes for it. But this is what I mean, you're not allowed to even suggest that banking system is run by scummers who want to lord it up whilst people suffer, becasue someone's going to inject their own prejudices into it, and accuse me of being an anti semite. Thank you for highlighting this.



No, that's not what has been said.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> Thank you for making my point. And I'm not sulking. I'm swearing at blagsta becasue he's a grade a cunt and is incapable of making a point without being a condesending wanker with it. You'll notice I've been quite nice with everyone else.



Stop acting like a cunt then.  Stop misrepresenting what everyone is saying to you.


----------



## belboid (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> Of course I do, but that's not what I'm saying. Yes, some do, and they're arseholes for it. But this is what I mean, you're not allowed to even suggest that banking system is run by scummers who want to lord it up whilst people suffer, becasue someone's going to inject their own prejudices into it, and accuse me of being an anti semite. Thank you for highlighting this.


Well, thats just a lie, and a three second glance around this site would disprove it. you were not simply claiming banking is run by 'scummers' for their own benefit, and you know it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> Thank you for making my point. And I'm not sulking. I'm swearing at blagsta becasue he's a grade a cunt and is incapable of making a point without being a condesending wanker with it. You'll notice I've been quite nice with everyone else.


I'm disagreeing with your provably untrue sulk that you can't say  that the 'banking system is run by scummers who want to lord it up whilst people suffer,' without being called anti-semitic. Do you want some examples?


----------



## xes (Jan 24, 2012)

belboid said:


> Well, thats just a lie, and a three second glance around this site would disprove it. you were not simply claiming banking is run by 'scummers' for their own benefit, and you know it.


would you like to climb in my head and say what I mean then?


----------



## belboid (Jan 24, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> So why do you persist in completely misrepresenting what others say?


because it's the only way he can convince himself he's right, and everyone else is wrong, of course!


----------



## xes (Jan 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I'm disagreeing with your provably untrue sulk that you can't say that the 'banking system is run by scummers who want to lord it up whilst people suffer,' without being called anti-semitic. Do you want some examples?


yeah,why not. I've got nothing better to do for half hour or so....


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 24, 2012)

I don't know why you're unable to understand, xes, that it's possible to believe that we're not ruled by benevolent souls *and* that it's not some monolithic conspiracy based on blood lines.

There are structures that ensure that the powerful remain powerful and increase their power, and the rich remain rich and increase their wealth, all at the expense of the rest of us. They don't *need* secret cabals to do this. The economic and political structures present in modern society do it for them.

And when you ignore this, and instead base your simplistic critique on "bad people doing bad things" you give the elites a get out. Because you're saying there's nothing wrong with the system, all we need to do is replace these bad people with goood people. And so, when the shit hits the fan, the elites have a ready made scapegoat - the jews or whatever. They can sacrifice a few of their own in order to maintain the system. And so, we get Nazi Germany. And the rich can go on getting richer, and the poor poorer.

See why, even if it wasn't based on blood lines or jews or whatever, but instead on "bad individuals" it would still be counter-productive bollocks? Because you're implying that we don't need structural change, we just need to re-shuffle the deck chairs.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> yeah,why not. I've got nothing better to do for half hour or so....


On the express understanding that you don't bother researching them or anything else on something so important right?

David Harvey, Doug Henwood, Costas lapavitsas, Guglielmo Carchedi, Gionvanni Arrighi, Bill Thompson.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

Bring back faux pas!


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 24, 2012)

The banking system is run by scummers who want to lord it up while people suffer.

Let's test your hypothesis, see if I get called antisemitic now xes.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

ahh..but you're not xes.


----------



## xes (Jan 24, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I don't know why you're unable to understand, xes, that it's possible to believe that we're not ruled by benevolent souls *and* that it's not some monolithic conspiracy based on blood lines.
> 
> There are structures that ensure that the powerful remain powerful and increase their power, and the rich remain rich and increase their wealth, all at the expense of the rest of us. They don't *need* secret cabals to do this. The economic and political structures present in modern society do it for them.
> 
> ...


 Now who's being willfully missentupreted? I pretty much agre with what you've stated there, and have been trying to get that point over. But not one person on here can understand this, as all they see when someone talks about conspiracies, is "you hate JEWZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ" and that's just what I'm being accused of right now. But that's fine, people can think what they like about me, I couldn't give a fuck.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> Of course I do, but that's not what I'm saying. Yes, some do, and they're arseholes for it. But this is what I mean, you're not allowed to even suggest that banking system is run by scummers who want to lord it up whilst people suffer, becasue someone's going to inject their own prejudices into it, and accuse me of being an anti semite. Thank you for highlighting this.



No, what is being objected to here is the statement that there is a Jewish banking conspiracy. You're defending this and unfortunately now using the standard racist response 'nobody can use the word Jewish (or black or whatever) without being called a racist.

All you have to do is instead just talk about a banking conspiracy and people will agree with you. It's a banking conspiracy to make profit, or capitalism as Blagsta pointed out.

You're just doing an impression of a mardy child in a playground at the moment.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> Now who's being willfully missentupreted? I pretty much agre with what you've stated there, and have been trying to get that point over. But not one person on here can understand this, as all they see when someone talks about conspiracies, is "you hate JEWZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ" and that's just what I'm being accused of right now. But that's fine, people can think what they like about me, I couldn't give a fuck.



Well if that's the case then you're not talking about conspiracies, you're talking about capitalism. You fucking clown


----------



## xes (Jan 24, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> The banking system is run by scummers who want to lord it up while people suffer.
> 
> Let's test your hypothesis, see if I get called antisemitic now xes.


you anti semite cunt


----------



## TruXta (Jan 24, 2012)

Where the cockness did faucks pas go?


----------



## belboid (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> would you like to climb in my head and say what I mean then?


climb inside your heqad?  No need for mind-reading, when (in case this has passed you by) you've been posting your nonsensical opinion on the internet for anyone to read.



xes said:


> Would it be ok to say, that you do not like the way that banking families run things?



Banking _families_. You have a belief that there is a cabal of banking families (who you cant name. That is, are incapable of, not that they are in someway Voldemortian). They _conspire_ to rule the world. You have asserted that by simply taking out the 'jewishness' of those families, it all suddenly becomes non-racist, and makes perfect sense (despite the umpteen arguments put to, and ignored by, you showing how actually, both of those statements cant be true).  That is a much more specific set of ideas than the bland 'bankers are scummers,' as you well know. That does not require any reading of, or belief in, the drivel put forward by Icke et al.

From the fact that you are so clearly backing away from your original argument, at least you appear to be recognising that it was complete shite.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> you anti semite cunt


 Apart from by you, the person who wants me to be accused of antisemitism in order to prove he's being oppressed by other posters maaan


----------



## xes (Jan 24, 2012)

two sheds said:


> No, what is being objected to here is the statement that there is a Jewish banking conspiracy. You're defending this and unfortunately now using the standard racist response 'nobody can use the word Jewish (or black or whatever) without being called a racist.
> 
> All you have to do is instead just talk about a banking conspiracy and people will agree with you. It's a banking conspiracy to make profit, or capitalism as Blagsta pointed out.
> 
> You're just doing an impression of a mardy child in a playground at the moment.


But this is just what I have been trying to say. I have been trying to say that there is a banking conspiracy, I have been trying to say that it matters not a fuck, what religions the people are, and that there is a banking conspiracy. I have tried to say that you're not even allowed to mention a banking conspiracy, becasue when you do, the uppities accuse you of being anti semitic. Just look.


----------



## xes (Jan 24, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Apart from by you, the person who wants me to be accused of antisemitism in order to prove he's being oppressed by other posters maaan


well, they're hardly going to say it to you, as you're not "a mental"


----------



## xes (Jan 24, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Well if that's the case then you're not talking about conspiracies, you're talking about capitalism. You fucking clown


and there are no conspiracies in capitalism? The world is just peachy. That's ok then *phew*


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> I have tried to say that you're not even allowed to mention a banking conspiracy, becasue when you do, the uppities accuse you of being anti semitic. Just look.



And you're not even allowed to say that. Despite you saying it and not being accused of being anti-semitic.

Not even allowed to say that you're not allowed to say that you're not allowed to say certain things - what have we come to?


----------



## xes (Jan 24, 2012)

titpants


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> despite you accusing me of it on the last page or so?


Oh yeah. I reckon you better rustle up that accusation then.


----------



## xes (Jan 24, 2012)

I adited that post, as I was going to do that, but I had got your post wrong. (the one where you said "yes you are, stop sulking" I took that as you saying "yes you are anti semitic" my appologies.


----------



## xes (Jan 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> On the express understanding that you don't bother researching them or anything else on something so important right?
> 
> David Harvey, Doug Henwood, Costas lapavitsas, Guglielmo Carchedi, Gionvanni Arrighi, Bill Thompson.


I missed that too, thak you


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> I adited that post, as I was going to do that, but I had got your post wrong. (the one where you said "yes you are, stop sulking" I took that as you saying "yes you are anti semitic" my appologies.


That's alright. Don't worry about it.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> Now who's being willfully missentupreted? I pretty much agre with what you've stated there, and have been trying to get that point over. But not one person on here can understand this, as all they see when someone talks about conspiracies, is "you hate JEWZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ" and that's just what I'm being accused of right now. But that's fine, people can think what they like about me, I couldn't give a fuck.



But if you do take a structural view on power and inequalities and reject any kind of anti-semitism, why don't you put the maximum possible distance between yourself and Icke/conspiraloonery?  I don't think all conspiracy theorists are anti-semitic, but it's a _very_ wierd place to plant your flag if you want to genuinely oppose a racialised (and/or bloodline) dominated view of world history.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 24, 2012)

I dunno, I think the Onarchy thread was more fun.


----------



## Lucy Fur (Jan 24, 2012)

So just to clarify, is the moon a hologram then?


----------



## faux pas (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> But this is just what I have been trying to say. I have been trying to say that there is a banking conspiracy, I have been trying to say that it matters not a fuck, what religions the people are, and that there is a banking conspiracy. I have tried to say that you're not even allowed to mention a banking conspiracy, becasue when you do, the uppities accuse you of being anti semitic. Just look.


Don't worry xes. It's lovely how they all cowardly group together and hound you, isn't it, lol.

I would imagine most people wouldn't refer to Icke as anti-semitic or racist, or would understand his beef with 'Rothchild Zionism' as anti-semitic. The hardcore leftests perhaps, but then they've never really been in touch, have they?


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 24, 2012)

If holograms can be made of green cheese, yes.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

So, how do you think your intervention worked out faux pas?


----------



## faux pas (Jan 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> So, how do you think your intervention worked out faux pas?


perfectly!


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> Don't worry xes. It's lovely how they all cowardly group together and hound you, isn't it, lol.
> 
> I would imagine most people wouldn't refer to Icke as anti-semitic or racist, or would understand his beef with 'Rothchild Zionism' as anti-semitic. The hardcore leftests perhaps, but then they've never really been in touch, have they?


I _know_ how 'most people' would refer to Icke - as that nutter and loon who used to be on the telly but went mad.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> perfectly!


In complete ridicule for you, exposure of how daft you are, suspicions that you're a dodgy anti-semitic fuck, and a classic xes sulk? Truly you am the masters of the universe.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> and there are no conspiracies in capitalism? The world is just peachy. That's ok then *phew*


You seem to be confusing conspiracies with systems


----------



## xes (Jan 24, 2012)

Wilf said:


> But if you do take a structural view on power and inequalities and reject any kind of anti-semitism, why don't you put the maximum possible distance between yourself and Icke/conspiraloonery? I don't think all conspiracy theorists are anti-semitic, but it's a _very_ wierd place to plant your flag if you want to genuinely oppose a racialised (and/or bloodline) dominated view of world history.


I'm no fan of Icke, and have never said that I am, I can see why some would think otherwise, but I can assure you I'm not. And yes, I do consider myself a bit of a conspiracy nut, but that's becasue the world makes more sense to me that way. I try to keep away from the labels which are associated with it, but that's near impossible.


----------



## faux pas (Jan 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> In complete ridicule for you, exposure of how daft you are and a classic xes sulk? Truly you man the masters of the universe.


Coming from a narrow little mind like yours... Thank you!


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jan 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I _know_ how 'most people' would refer to Icke - as that nutter and loon who used to be on the telly but went mad.



Yes quite, "most people" give up after "lizards" which is fair enough really.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> and there are no conspiracies in capitalism? The world is just peachy. That's ok then *phew*



Of course there are. Everyone knows that. But they're not the kind of conspiracies the theorists are talking about and we can't identify them by reading books by David Icke or Alex Jones, and in order to demonstrate that they exist we rely on greater standards of logic and evidence than your standard theorist. Nobody accuses Noam Chomsky of being a conspiracy theorist because his "theories" if you want to call them that are based on proper research, evidence and logic. Not, "oh, rich people are rich, powerful people are powerful, both do nasty shit so we must assume they're part of a secret cabal bent on the enslavement of mankind" or on "surely it's reasonable to believe that banking families control banks."

And besides, if we got rid of these conspiracies would capitalism then be ok?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> well, they're hardly going to say it to you, as you're not "a mental"



Now why might that be? Why might people think I'm not a mental? Could it be that, rather than trying to get something out of Icke by ignoring the racism, I prefer to read proper research by credible writers. Not as easy, granted, and it doesn't allow you to think you know stuff that teh sheeple are too dumb to see, but it's worth it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> Coming from a narrow little mind like yours... Thank you!


Running out of puff faus pas? What other non-contradictions of icke did you used to find contradictory?


----------



## xes (Jan 24, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Now why might that be? Why might people think I'm not a mental? Could it be that, rather than trying to get something out of Icke by ignoring the racism, I prefer to read proper research by credible writers. Not as easy, granted, and it doesn't allow you to think you know stuff that teh sheeple are too dumb to see, but it's worth it.


you didn't "come out" as a believer in aliens. The second I did that, peoples attitudes changed. Fact.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> Coming from a narrow little mind like yours... Thank you!



Yeah ba, how can you be so small minded as to dismiss as nonsense theories based upon antisemitic forgeries that claim the queen, George Bush and Boxcar Willy (wtf?) are in fact fifth dimensional space lizards who come from a hollowed out spacecraft moon that's also a hologram.

Open your mind maaaaan!

E2A: Do you believe my TRUE (TM) theory about the rabbit planet faux pas? If not you're closed minded too. You dumb sheeple.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> Don't worry xes. It's lovely how they all cowardly group together and hound you, isn't it, lol.
> 
> I would imagine most people wouldn't refer to Icke as anti-semitic or racist, or would understand his beef with 'Rothchild Zionism' as anti-semitic. The hardcore leftests perhaps, but then they've never really been in touch, have they?



In fairness to xes he's taken a helluva lot more shit than you and not ran away or attempted to ignore every fucking question put his way. Or have you had a change of heart and read up on what a hologram actually is? Y'know, light-waves of a particular, but completely innocuous kind.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> you didn't "come out" as a believer in aliens. The second I did that, peoples attitudes changed. Fact.


Their attitudes to your detailed research work on the integration of financial and industrial capital since WW1? Or their attitudes to scrappy intuition  based and unresreached claims such as you have made on this thread?


----------



## Wilf (Jan 24, 2012)

@XES - Fair enough and thanks for the specifics (re Icke). Sometimes your opponents can end up making guilt by association comments, perhaps on this thread at times. However don't you equally feel the need to put more obvious distance between yourself and what goes on in, shall we say, Icke related circles?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> you didn't "come out" as a believer in aliens. The second I did that, peoples attitudes changed. Fact.



No shit?


----------



## xes (Jan 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Their attitudes to your detailed research work on the integration of financial and industrial capital since WW1? Or their attitudes to scrappy intuition based and unresreached claims such as you have made on this thread?


yeah and that....


----------



## xes (Jan 24, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> No shit?


I know, it's totally my fault that I saw what I saw, and had the fucking nerve to not ignore it. I am worse than hitler.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> But this is just what I have been trying to say. I have been trying to say that there is a banking conspiracy, I have been trying to say that it matters not a fuck, what religions the people are, and that there is a banking conspiracy. I have tried to say that you're not even allowed to mention a banking conspiracy, becasue when you do, the uppities accuse you of being anti semitic. Just look.


The "conspiracy" is class - a minority own resources, the majority don't.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> who runs the banking system, if not the families who run the banks?



Usually the institutional shareholders. They are, after all, the ones whose wishes hold sway when board members are elected, when remuneration packages are rubber-stamped, etc.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> Don't worry xes. It's lovely how they all cowardly group together and hound you, isn't it, lol.
> 
> I would imagine most people wouldn't refer to Icke as anti-semitic or racist, or would understand his beef with 'Rothchild Zionism' as anti-semitic. The hardcore leftests perhaps, but then they've never really been in touch, have they?


So...the Protocols then...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

icke said:
			
		

> "In the very late 1800's, a controversial document came to light called the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion". I call them the Illuminati Protocols, and I quote many extracts from them in The Robots' Rebellion*. Some say* they were a forgery made public only to discredit Jews, and I use the term "Illuminati Protocols" to get away from the Jewish emphasis. If they were a forgery, something that is quite possible, what were they a forgery of, and by whom?"


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 24, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Of course there are. Everyone knows that. But they're not the kind of conspiracies the theorists are talking about and we can't identify them by reading books by David Icke or Alex Jones, and in order to demonstrate that they exist we rely on greater standards of logic and evidence than your standard theorist. Nobody accuses Noam Chomsky of being a conspiracy theorist because his "theories" if you want to call them that are based on proper research, evidence and logic. Not, "oh, rich people are rich, powerful people are powerful, both do nasty shit so we must assume they're part of a secret cabal bent on the enslavement of mankind" or on "surely it's reasonable to believe that banking families control banks."
> 
> And besides, if we got rid of these conspiracies would capitalism then be ok?



it's the whole idea that if we changed the faces the system would be fine.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> I know, it's totally my fault that I saw what I saw, and had the fucking nerve to not ignore it. I am worse than hitler.



It's not that, it's the getting from "I saw what I think might be ETs" to "Nibiru gekkos broke the space-time continuum in order to help the Jews fiddle the accounts so that the Holy Grail can be saved from the Illuminati". Only slightly taking the piss.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 24, 2012)

can someone please explain to me how this barking batshit crazy thread made it to 23 pages? 
Fuck.
A.
Duck.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> you didn't "come out" as a believer in aliens. The second I did that, peoples attitudes changed. Fact.


No, its the childish thicko performance you put on that pisses people off.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> no, you're not allowed to mention Jewish people and banks though, that means you hate ALL Jewish people



No-one has said that. What they've said is that it's wrong to implicate (through use of the dog-whistle phrases "Rothschild Zionists" or "international bankers", for example) Jeiwsh people  _per se_ in the supposed or assumed actions of a tiny minority of Jewish people.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 24, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> can someone please explain to me how this barking batshit crazy thread made it to 23 pages?
> Fuck.
> A.
> Duck.



People are having fun dude. Get with the (NWO) program.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> can someone please explain to me how this barking batshit crazy thread made it to 23 pages?
> Fuck.
> A.
> Duck.


Fun


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 24, 2012)

I'm genuinely awed by your stamina and tenacity


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 24, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> can someone please explain to me how this barking batshit crazy thread made it to 23 pages?
> Fuck.
> A.
> Duck.



23 eh?


----------



## TruXta (Jan 24, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> I'm genuinely awed by your stamina and tenacity



I'm genuinely perplexed by my awesome powers of procrastination tbh.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> I missed that too, thak you


Oh yeah, Gary Clail too:


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> I'm trying to convice myself that the world is run by those who want the world to be a better place, for the good of humanity. But it's not, it's run by greedy people who couldn't give a fuck about human life, and would much rather they have money instead. This means I hate Jewsish people according to this place.



No, it means you're willing to accommodate arguments that have their basis in anti-Semitism. Now, your willingness to accommodate those arguments may be based on a genuine belief that X = Y, and that only you and a relative handful of other beings have access to this truth, but that doesn't make the arguments you construct your belief from less malign, *and* it makes you appear as a dupe, rather than someone who's bothered to do the hard work of investigating the basis of their beliefs.
Basically, you're no better than any other religious person, xes. You believe in your belief system in spite of its' lack of basis in reality, just like other "true believers".


----------



## xes (Jan 24, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> No, its the childish thicko performance you put on that pisses people off.


you do realise that the whole childishness is a reaction to the cuntery by people like you, don't you? (see how civil I am to people who allow me the same, get a clue innit) And the thickness bit, I guess if you think it's ok to call someone thick, who doesn't know everything, then yes, I'm a big fuck off thicko


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 24, 2012)

xes said:


> you do realise that the whole childishness is a reaction to the cuntery by people like you, don't you? (see how civil I am to people who allow me the same, get a clue innit) And the thickness bit, I guess if you think it's ok to call someone thick, who doesn't know everything, then yes, I'm a big fuck off thicko



Is that why you misrepresent what people say to you and make yourself look like a wanker?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 24, 2012)

when you think it is unfair that people can hoard so much money and become rich etc, does that include people like david icke xes/faux pas? I watched a documentary which featured an interview with him a while back. His house is enormous!!! it's somewhere on the isle of whight, in the middle of nowhere. It's got about twenty bedrooms and four or five floors, it's like a palace. He makes all that money from writing his shit racist books and his dvds' and doing his speaking tours and getting the terminally gullible and/or vulnerable people with m/h problems to pay thousands or hundreds of pounds to listen to him. I think it's fucking sick quite frankly.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 24, 2012)

I live about 1 minute from Wembley Arena - my flat will be surrounded by even more loons than ususal


----------



## xes (Jan 24, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> when you think it is unfair that people can hoard so much money and become rich etc, does that include people like david icke xes/faux pas? I watched a documentary which featured an interview with him a while back. His house is enormous!!! it's somewhere on the isle of whight, in the middle of nowhere. It's got about twenty bedrooms and four or five floors, it's like a palace. He makes all that money from writing his shit racist books and his dvds' and doing his speaking tours and getting the terminally gullible and/or vulnerable people with m/h problems to pay thousands or hundreds of pounds to listen to him. I think it's fucking sick quite frankly.


If he's preaching one thing about the rich being greedy and evil, whilst at the same time hoarding cash to further his own riches, whilst not holding himself to the same standards he wishes others to live by, then yeah, he's a cunt. (I have no idea of his finances, so I'm not going to say wether he does or not)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> Don't worry xes. It's lovely how they all cowardly group together and hound you, isn't it, lol.



That's right, it's *always* the actions of the mass against the brave truth-speakers, isn't it? 



> I would imagine most people wouldn't refer to Icke as anti-semitic or racist...


Actually, plenty of "mainstream" commentators have done so on the basis of his own writings. Do you think that states and territories have banned him on the *belief* that he's anti-Semitic? Why would they do so unless they had documentary evidence? To do so on hearsay would leave them open to legal action.
You are aware that Icke re-edits his books periodically, in order to remove bits on which he's been pulled up, aren't you? Basically, if you're assessing Icke's _corpus_ of writings, you have to operate with first and last editions - the difference between the two is very informative.



> ...or would understand his beef with 'Rothchild Zionism' as anti-semitic.



I don't know how old you are, but I've been following Icke for about 25 years, and I've seen most of the modifications he's made to his language along the way. Anyone who's read his stuff (or at least the first editions of each of his publications) can also see how he's trimmed his language to fit the prevailing climate. That's why many of us see his hedging into discourses about "Rothschild Zionism" as disingenuous - because we recall his original formulations about the Protocols and what they meant, about "international bankers", etc.



> The hardcore leftests perhaps, but then they've never really been in touch, have they?



And that just plain doesn't make sense, because *anyone* rational, with the ability to apply Occam's razor to the argument will reach the same conclusions as I have about "Rothschild Zionists", not just "hardcore leftests" [sic].


----------



## Lucy Fur (Jan 24, 2012)




----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> Are you saying that if you don't believe race is a 'social construct' then you are a racist?



What do you think race is?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 24, 2012)

faux pas said:


> If the attribution is positive, how can that be 'anti'-semitism?



Would you say that the attribution of protection from depression is a positive one?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## bignose1 (Jan 24, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> Extraordinary! Capacity 12,500... wonder if it will sell out?
> 
> _"David Icke marks his 22nd year of uncovering astounding secrets and suppressed information with his biggest all-day event yet. He will take the manipulation of the human race and the nature of reality to still new depths and levels of understanding and he calls for humanity to rise from its knees and take back the world from the sinister network of families and non-human entities that covertly control us from cradle to grave. David’s new book, 'Remember Who You Are', out in January, 2012, is ground-breaking and life-changing, and the cutting edge is moved by a giant leap. David has indeed moved the global cutting edge so many times since his incredible ‘awakening’ in 1990 and at Wembley Arena, he will do it again -and then some. They used to laugh at David Icke - now they come to hear him in their thousands all over the world. Come and see why. It will change your life."_
> 
> http://www.wembleyarena.co.uk/artist/david-icke-tickets


Take a H-icke


----------



## Spud Murfy (Jan 24, 2012)

Be worth going along for a laugh . . . if you could get in without paying. Icke's turquoise shell suit trousers must have deep pockets with tickets starting at £40.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2012)

Spud Murfy said:


> Be worth going along for a laugh . . . if you could get in without paying. Icke's turquoise shell suit trousers must have deep pockets with tickets starting at £40.



Thing is, if you seriously believe (and some of these people really are "true believers") what Icke's selling, then £40 is a small price to pay to have your worldview validated, isn't it? Especially when you're alongside so many other members of your faith. How can you not be right? How can you not be a person with the inside track on stuff the other poor dupes know nothing about?


----------



## Wilf (Jan 24, 2012)

I went watching Thin Lizzy at the weekend. That confirmed my view of myself as an old git, in the company of other old gits.  At £30 it was at least cheaper.  Anyway, even with all the harmonic resonance of the planet, Icke's vibrato is rubbish.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Jan 24, 2012)

Isn't moving this thread from general to politics giving David a credibility that he doesn't deserve?


----------



## two sheds (Jan 24, 2012)

SaskiaJayne said:


> Isn't moving this thread from general to politics giving David a credibility that he doesn't deserve?



Good point, should be moved to football.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 24, 2012)

i want that book now.


----------



## Spud Murfy (Jan 24, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Thing is, if you seriously believe (and some of these people really are "true believers") what Icke's selling, then £40 is a small price to pay to have your worldview validated, isn't it? Especially when your alongside so many other members of your faith. How can you not be right? How can you not be a person with the inside track on stuff the other poor dupes know nothing about?



Oh yes, and they'll take the high price as an indicator of quality. Icke includes the notion of 'going to the next level' as part of the event's marketing. This is a hallmark of New Age or cult-style sales talk.


----------



## elbows (Jan 24, 2012)

In his football book, did he claim the offside rule was a plot by newts?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2012)

Spud Murfy said:


> Oh yes, and they'll take the high price as an indicator of quality. Icke includes the notion of 'going to the next level' as part of the event's marketing. This is a hallmark of New Age or cult-style sales talk.



It certainly is somewhat Elron-tastic!!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2012)

elbows said:


> In his football book, did he claim the offside rule was a plot by newts?



No.

By Zionist geckos.


----------



## elbows (Jan 24, 2012)

As well as all the obvious stuff that pisses me off about these conspiracy theories that I have ranted about many times before, I also get upset that some people indulge in this stuff because the alternative, proper institutional analysis and generally having a clue, looking at lots of history and ideologies etc, is deemed to be too dull or tedious.

Well, considering the rich nature of the tapestry of human life, encompassing everything from human emotions and wants, to all that has gone before us, to a wide range of differing belief systems and the ebb and flow of ideologies, how can this be dull? WHy the hell would I want to replace all this stuff with a shrivelled worldview that only has room for a badly caricatured cabal in the seat of power? In what way do you think that imagining power as only being gained, maintained and applied by a small group of 'a certain kind of person' is going to help anybody navigate their way through this life, doing better for their families, friends colleagues and humanity as a whole along the way?

By all means if the horrors of this world and the way we manage it sometimes leave you needing to react by pointing to a man behind a curtain, go ahead. Just be aware that there are many curtains, and best be careful how you label them because one of the curtains has you behind it. Yes, your lazy beliefs are not with out consequence, if enough share them then the beliefs become one of the multitude of forces that has some influence on proceedings.


----------



## elbows (Jan 24, 2012)

And as for the sanctimonious attitudes that often ooze from those who have come to wake us with the words of Icke or Jones, thats always a hoot too eh.

How come they don't notice that the last thing the world actually needs is another persons poor reaction to change, uncertainty and fear? Another misjudged quest for truth that only resulted in shitting the bed.


----------



## Athos (Jan 24, 2012)

T & P said:


> 27 pages, btw.



I think this may turn out to be an underestimate.


----------



## Spud Murfy (Jan 24, 2012)

elbows said:


> As well as all the obvious stuff that pisses me off about these conspiracy theories that I have ranted about many times before, I also get upset that some people indulge in this stuff because the alternative, proper institutional analysis and generally having a clue, looking at lots of history and ideologies etc, is deemed to be too dull or tedious.



Can't see an end to some people being attracted to conspiracy theories tbh. They offer a sense of deep and exclusive understanding of the world to those with active imaginations but not much in the way of analytical intelligence.


----------



## elbows (Jan 24, 2012)

Spud Murfy said:


> Can't see an end to some people being attracted to conspiracy theories tbh. They offer a sense of deep and exclusive understanding of the world to those with active imaginations but not much in the way of analytical intelligence.



Yeah, I don't expect them to end either. I feel like I am practicing ranting about them in case, in troubled times ahead, one of them ever gets enough traction to become a player on the political stage.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 24, 2012)

Wilf said:


> A serious question for Jazz, faux pas etc: what would convince you that your view of the world being run by elites, families and bloodlines was _*wrong*_?


Jazzz has in the past said something along the lines of any evidence that contradicts his beliefs must, by it's nature, be wrong


----------



## twentythreedom (Jan 24, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> 23 eh?


----------



## Jazzz (Jan 24, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> when you think it is unfair that people can hoard so much money and become rich etc, does that include people like david icke xes/faux pas? I watched a documentary which featured an interview with him a while back. His house is enormous!!! it's somewhere on the isle of whight, in the middle of nowhere. It's got about twenty bedrooms and four or five floors, it's like a palace. He makes all that money from writing his shit racist books and his dvds' and doing his speaking tours and getting the terminally gullible and/or vulnerable people with m/h problems to pay thousands or hundreds of pounds to listen to him. I think it's fucking sick quite frankly.





xes said:


> If he's preaching one thing about the rich being greedy and evil, whilst at the same time hoarding cash to further his own riches, whilst not holding himself to the same standards he wishes others to live by, then yeah, he's a cunt. (I have no idea of his finances, so I'm not going to say wether he does or not)


I haven't heard him say "all rich people are evil" and doubt very much he would say anything like that.

This is just such trollop. The man actually jacked in an extremely lucrative TV Presenter job (this is a very highly paid position frogwoman) so he could spend years being jeered at in the street and lecture to tiny audiences where he would have to set the chairs up himself. Out of all the mindless accusations against the guy, "he's in it for the money" is the most absurd. Of course the racism one is utterly absurd too. No matter that Icke says we should completely ignore divisions of race, religion, or whatever as they are simply labels, as we are one consciousness. How can you be racist if you say that? It's the only way you truly cannot be.


----------



## manny-p (Jan 24, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I live about 1 minute from Wembley Arena - my flat will be surrounded by even more loons than ususal


Fear not. Tell them about the potential of a new labour party which will wipe the floor with reptilians.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 24, 2012)

manny-p said:


> Fear not. Tell them about the potential of a new labour party which will wipe the floor with reptilians.


think the tories are doing a good enough job. pretty sure cameron and gove are reptiles


----------



## editor (Jan 24, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> The man actually jacked in an extremely lucrative TV Presenter job (this is a very highly paid position frogwoman) so he could spend years being jeered at in the street and lecture to tiny audiences where he would have to set the chairs up himself.


Except that's not what happened. He worked as a stand in host at the BBC, got bored with it, and it wasn't until a year later that he started hearing voices in his head that he started up his bonkers stuff/had some sort of mental breakdown and the weirdo turquoise stuff started up.


----------



## Jazzz (Jan 24, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> That's right, it's *always* the actions of the mass against the brave truth-speakers, isn't it?
> 
> Actually, plenty of "mainstream" commentators have done so on the basis of his own writings. Do you think that states and territories have banned him on the *belief* that he's anti-Semitic? Why would they do so unless they had documentary evidence? To do so on hearsay would leave them open to legal action.



What "states and territories" have 'banned' Icke exactly ViolentPanda?

Not the USA of course, he gave a lecture in Cleveland, Ohio in November 2011.

Are you making stuff up?


----------



## TruXta (Jan 24, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> I haven't heard him say "all rich people are evil" and doubt very much he would say anything like that.
> 
> This is just such trollop. The man actually jacked in an extremely lucrative TV Presenter job (this is a very highly paid position frogwoman) so he could spend years being jeered at in the street and lecture to tiny audiences where he would have to set the chairs up himself. Out of all the mindless accusations against the guy, "he's in it for the money" is the most absurd. Of course the racism one is utterly absurd too. No matter that Icke says we should completely ignore divisions of race, religion, or whatever as they are simply labels, as we are one consciousness. How can you be racist if you say that? It's the only way you truly cannot be.



You're conveniently forgetting about his stint with the Greens here. When that didn't go anywhere he went full loon-spud, full well knowing he had a public name and image to trade on. He may believe at least some of what he says and writes, but don't tell me he's not in it for the money as much as the fringe adulation. As for racism, he may or may not personally be racist, but he milks the racist and nazi connotations of his work for what it's worth - Protocols of the Elders, Holocaust revisionism, the list goes on.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 24, 2012)

Spud Murfy said:


> Can't see an end to some people being attracted to conspiracy theories tbh. They offer a sense of deep and exclusive understanding of the world to those with active imaginations but not much in the way of analytical intelligence.


I'm not out and out against conspiracy theories:

The fact is there are always things that go down that are kept secret, and that naturally generates speculation. Bohemian grove with the owl in it that the US presidents like to go to exists, and they do really go there, and there is some robe wearing, and they do sacrfifice "dull care" and it is secret - threre's video evidence - and the fact that they keep it secret leaves lots of room for speculation. JFK's death also leaves room for speculation. No doubt there are all kinds of deals done behind closed doors, well away from the public - what happens behind those doors leave lots of room for speculation. Speculation on unknowns is at the heart of it.

Conspiracy theory is having a go at uncovering these secrets - the problem is that its impossible to prove correct or not - hence 'theory'. It's good that people dig in to these unknowns, but its bad that people take on theories that come up as fact.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 24, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> This is just such trollop. The man actually jacked in an extremely lucrative TV Presenter job (this is a very highly paid position frogwoman) so he could spend years being jeered at in the street and lecture to tiny audiences where he would have to set the chairs up himself. Out of all the mindless accusations against the guy, "he's in it for the money" is the most absurd. Of course the racism one is utterly absurd too. No matter that Icke says we should completely ignore divisions of race, religion, or whatever as they are simply labels, as we are one consciousness. How can you be racist if you say that? It's the only way you truly cannot be.


Jazzz - I'm not normally one for joining in the 'how many posts will it be before jazzz gets pwned' stuff, but the claim underlined fell apart pretty quickly didn't it? 

More to the point, I suspect Icke does believe his stuff, by and large, though he has a pretty good ability to absorb every zeitgeisty anxiety that he feels will in some way lock onto the core hidden manipulation stuff. Moreover, as others have said, the way he re-presents and edits it over the years shows he is playing it as a career rather than something he's simply compelled to do.  Equally, the whole Icke show isn't aimed at _*doing anything*_ about the elites, bloodlines etc.  Don't think he has a great record of leading strikes, community actions or consumer boycotts?


----------



## southside (Jan 24, 2012)

A picture paints 1000 words, however in this case two will surfice.

Mental case.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 24, 2012)

#menwholooklikeelderlylesbians


----------



## Wilf (Jan 24, 2012)

southside said:


> A picture paints 1000 words, however in this case two will surfice.
> 
> Mental case.


Looks like he's just parachuted down from the holographic moon.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 24, 2012)

It's tough when sportsmen retire. Hard to know how to fill the void.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2012)

southside said:


> A picture paints 1000 words, however in this case two will surfice.
> 
> Mental case.


2 words is 1 too many: loon


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jan 24, 2012)

(Useless/pointless post coming up - apols in advance)

Jazzz - take your weasely defence of Icke etc and FUCK OFF.  Stop trying to defend the absolutely indefensible.  If you can't even begin to see that Icke is a dangerous anti-Semite, then truly, there's no helping you at all, chief...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 24, 2012)

Do you think he's dangerous?


----------



## TruXta (Jan 24, 2012)

MellySingsDoom said:


> (Useless/pointless post coming up - apols in advance)
> 
> Jazzz - take your weasely defence of Icke etc and FUCK OFF. Stop trying to defend the absolutely indefensible. If you can't even begin to see that Icke is a dangerous anti-Semite, then truly, there's no helping you at all, chief...



Is he dangerous tho? Compared to whom is he dangerous?

Edit - FY lbj


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> What "states and territories" have 'banned' Icke exactly ViolentPanda?
> 
> Not the USA of course, he gave a lecture in Cleveland, Ohio in November 2011.
> 
> Are you making stuff up?


sounds to me like they're all being too kind to this loon


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jan 24, 2012)

littlebabyjesus/Truxta - yes, I actually do.  Anyone who has the ability to reach out to an "audience"/whatever with his garbage - to the extent that his "thoughts" encourage people to attend demos etc in order to propagate these ideas (and I've heard first hand evidence of this too, both from the Occupy camps in London and on other demos) - I would consider to be ripe for attacking immediately for their ideas/ideaology.  Icke does a good job of putting over a "loon" persona, which is a great cover for his very calculated and deliberate "ideas"....


----------



## Wilf (Jan 24, 2012)

MellySingsDoom said:


> (Useless/pointless post coming up - apols in advance)
> 
> Jazzz - take your weasely defence of Icke etc and FUCK OFF. Stop trying to defend the absolutely indefensible. If you can't even begin to see that Icke is a dangerous anti-Semite, then truly, there's no helping you at all, chief...


That's the bottom line ain't it.  Whatever case I wanted to make I wouldn't go near, allude to, take even half a sentence from fuckin' the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.  If Icke isn't a racist pesonally, his willingness to play with stuff that is is just as bad if not actually worse.  He's a cunt.  And camp followers who aren't willing to put some distance between themselves and that (rather large) bit of Icke thinking...


----------



## Meltingpot (Jan 24, 2012)

editor said:


> Except that's not what happened. He worked as a stand in host at the BBC, got bored with it, and it wasn't until a year later that he started hearing voices in his head that he started up his bonkers stuff/had some sort of mental breakdown and the weirdo turquoise stuff started up.



It wasn't that he got bored with the BBC; he was fired for making a political statement (telling people not to pay their poll tax).


----------



## TruXta (Jan 25, 2012)

MellySingsDoom said:


> littlebabyjesus/Truxta - yes, I actually do. Anyone who has the ability to reach out to an "audience"/whatever with his garbage - to the extent that his "thoughts" encourage people to attend demos etc in order to propagate these ideas (and I've heard first hand evidence of this too, both from the Occupy camps in London and on other demos) - I would consider to be ripe for attacking immediately for their ideas/ideaology. Icke does a good job of putting over a "loon" persona, which is a great cover for his very calculated and deliberate "ideas"....



But as someone else pointed out before, he doesn't do shit. And AFAIK he doesn't encourage people to really do shit either, except "wake up and don't be a sheeple" or whatever jargon he uses.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jan 25, 2012)

TruXta said:


> But as someone else pointed out before, he doesn't do shit. And AFAIK he doesn't encourage people to really do shit either, except "wake up and don't be a sheeple" or whatever jargon he uses.



Ok, so he may not do much himself w/regards to actual direct involvement in day to day politics, but from my own personal view, his ideas definitely DO encourage people to propagate this stuff off their own backs. And that, to me, is highly dangerous, regardless as to where said ideas may originally originate from.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2012)

TruXta said:


> But as someone else pointed out before, he doesn't do shit. And AFAIK he doesn't encourage people to really do shit either, except "wake up and don't be a sheeple" or whatever jargon he uses.


so apart from telling people to act on what he says he doesn't do fuck all. alright. glad we got that settled.


----------



## Meltingpot (Jan 25, 2012)

MellySingsDoom said:


> littlebabyjesus/Truxta - yes, I actually do. Anyone who has the ability to reach out to an "audience"/whatever with his garbage - to the extent that his "thoughts" encourage people to attend demos etc in order to propagate these ideas (and I've heard first hand evidence of this too, both from the Occupy camps in London and on other demos) - I would consider to be ripe for attacking immediately for their ideas/ideaology. Icke does a good job of putting over a "loon" persona, which is a great cover for his very calculated and deliberate "ideas"....



No, I think he actually does believe what he says about the lizards, the Moon etc.


----------



## editor (Jan 25, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> It wasn't that he got bored with the BBC; he was fired for making a political statement (telling people not to pay their poll tax).


He's already lost interest, not that I give a fuck.



> He worked for BBC Sport until August 1990, often as a stand-in host on Grandstand and snooker programmes, and also at the 1988 Summer Olympics, but a career in television began to lose its appeal for him. He wrote in Tales from the Time Loop that he found television workers insincere, shallow, and vicious, with rare exceptions.[14] His contract with the BBC was terminated in 1990 when he refused to pay his poll tax, a controversial local tax introduced by Margaret Thatcher. He ended up paying it in November 1990, but his announcement that he was willing to go to jail rather than pay prompted the BBC, by charter an impartial public-service broadcaster, to distance itself from him
> Wikipedia


----------



## TruXta (Jan 25, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> so apart from telling people to act on what he says he doesn't do fuck all. alright. glad we got that settled.



What exactly does he tell people to do? Go out and organize? Blow up stuff? Kill people? Or... buy his books and come to his "lectures"?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2012)

TruXta said:


> What exactly does he tell people to do? Go out and organize? Blow up stuff? Kill people? Or... buy his books and come to his "lectures"?


what do you think he means by 'wake up and don't be sheeple'?


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jan 25, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> No, I think he actually does believe what he says about the lizards, the Moon etc.



Completely disagree.  The man's a dangerous charalatan and liar.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 25, 2012)

I'm not so sure. Yes his ideas are calculated but I personally don't doubt that he believes them. He is basically psychotic in the sense that he his putting together these stories as a result of what are to him genuine revelations. But I would guess that the majority of those who follow him are of the sort who already believe a lot of nonsense. That's not to say that following him might not be doing many people harm in that it is validating their own delusional ideas. In that sense yes he could be dangerous, but he's only potentially dangerous to those who follow him


----------



## TruXta (Jan 25, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> what do you think he means by 'wake up and don't be sheeple'?



You tell me? Far as I can tell, it's code for "buy my books, DVDs and come to my shows". Same as pretty much any other con-man.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jan 25, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's not to say that following him might not be doing many people harm in that it is validating their own delusional ideas. In that sense yes he could be dangerous, but he's only potentially dangerous to those who follow him



But that's the nub of the matter, isn't it?  It's these people who propagate Icke's "ideas" (see Occupy camps etc) in a "reasonable" manner (i.e. not coming across like some stereotyped fash loon), and tbf, I'd take on both Icke *and* these so-called "reasonable" people at the same time....


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 25, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> It wasn't that he got bored with the BBC; he was fired for making a political statement (telling people not to pay their poll tax).


So all this is in fact Thatcher's fault then? Figures.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 25, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> No, I think he actually does believe what he says about the lizards, the Moon etc.



does he fuck. my take on it is that he had a mental breakdown and when he came out of it he realised that he could make some money, so he did. i'm sure he believes some of it but frankly so what? since when does "truly believing" bullshit you've made up in your head mean you lose the capacity to know right and wrong? it doesn't make him any less of a dangerous idiot. and i'm sorry but he makes millions from those books, dvds, and other bollocks. he is a very rich man. fair play (sort of) if he earned it fairly, but he hasn't, he has earned it through selling a pack of lies to what are frequently people with very serious mental health problems.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 25, 2012)

thatcher truly believed in what she was doing (she actually did, btw)


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 25, 2012)

oh and as for being hated and despised etc, some people like that sort of notoriety, they like having all the attention it brings them. more people have probably heard of him now than did when he was a little-known tv host.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jan 25, 2012)

My mate swears he was in proximity to Icke at a Glastonbury where he had the acid that trigured a broader episode.

I've heard similar pub talk about David Shayler.

Of course, "they" could have spiked them. How about that?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jan 25, 2012)

Anyhow, Icke isn't saying anything much that he hasn't said for many years and, as has been pointed out here and elsewhere, other people have been saying it, often better and less controversially. Including different theories about the moon. It should be said though that whatever is going on in the universe, none of us really know, and it will of itself be highly highly unlikely to have just emerged from absolute zero.

Here is one of the latest conspiracy theories chundering around: If you give it some time it's more gripping than Icke repeating himself again.

(Wilcock and Fulford on the Chinese gold taken to America after the war an ensuing consequences still playing out big time, allegedly.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbeBNe3Oml4

Caution: Theories discussed may be at variance with truth.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 25, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> I haven't heard him say "all rich people are evil" and doubt very much he would say anything like that.
> 
> This is just such trollop. The man actually jacked in an extremely lucrative TV Presenter job (this is a very highly paid position frogwoman) so he could spend years being jeered at in the street and lecture to tiny audiences where he would have to set the chairs up himself. Out of all the mindless accusations against the guy, "he's in it for the money" is the most absurd. Of course the racism one is utterly absurd too. No matter that Icke says we should completely ignore divisions of race, religion, or whatever as they are simply labels, as we are one consciousness. How can you be racist if you say that? It's the only way you truly cannot be.


What is your opinion of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?


----------



## Meltingpot (Jan 25, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> does he fuck. my take on it is that he had a mental breakdown and when he came out of it he realised that he could make some money, so he did. i'm sure he believes some of it but frankly so what? since when does "truly believing" bullshit you've made up in your head mean you lose the capacity to know right and wrong? it doesn't make him any less of a dangerous idiot. and i'm sorry but he makes millions from those books, dvds, and other bollocks. he is a very rich man. fair play (sort of) if he earned it fairly, but he hasn't, he has earned it through selling a pack of lies to what are frequently people with very serious mental health problems.



And you could be right froggy, I just find the possibility really hard to swallow. I mean, the stuff about the lizards was (more than) bad enough but this stuff about the moon - he says that just to make money, when any sane person would realise that 99.9% of the population would think he was batshit crazy for saying it? It just doesn't make sense.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 25, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> And you could be right froggy, I just find the possibility really hard to swallow. I mean, the stuff about the lizards was (more than) bad enough but this stuff about the moon - he says that just to make money, when any sane person would realise that 99.9% of the population would think he was batshit crazy for saying it? It just doesn't make sense.



Funny enough I would have had you down as an Icke fan, given your love of hanging around with racists and anti semites.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2012)

TruXta said:


> You tell me? Far as I can tell, it's code for "buy my books, DVDs and come to my shows". Same as pretty much any other con-man.


Like hitler's call 'deutschland erwache' you mean


----------



## rekil (Jan 25, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Funny enough I would have had you down as an Icke fan, given your love of hanging around with racists and anti semites.


I noticed something t'other day, "alexandre" on that phora place also appears to be "revision", a sfront moderator, same avatar and signature. Anyway, carry on.


----------



## Meltingpot (Jan 25, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Funny enough I would have had you down as an Icke fan, given your love of hanging around with racists and anti semites.



I'm posting on here, where a lot of anarchists and Marxists post. Does that mean I "love hanging around with anarchists and Marxists"?

What do you base these snippets of information about people on?


----------



## TruXta (Jan 25, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Like hitler's call 'deutschland erwache' you mean



Really? Straight down Godwin? I'm disappointed in you Pixie.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 25, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Like hitler's call 'deutschland erwache' you mean



Wakey wakey Germany. Heil de heil.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 25, 2012)

Icke refers to the "reptilian", from the time in evolution that the species emerged from the sea and believes that there are some who can't exhibit empathy because of this "reptilian" throwback, or something like that. It's David Icke's distinct lack of politics that has him thinking along these lines and I would hazard a guess too, by making lots of dosh from his books and speeches.


----------



## editor (Jan 25, 2012)

While Jazzz is busy deluding himself that Icke doing a one off show at Wembley Arena is somehow symptomatic of a massive rise in conspiraloonery, it should be pointed out that that equally bonkers 'healing' pastors can attract far bigger crowds there.



> These glorious meetings came to a climax with five power packed sessions with the Holy Ghost at the Wembley Arena, UK, venue for The Higher Life Conference UK. Participants came from all over UK, Europe and beyond. God’s Word was received in its simplicity and as the congregation embraced it, they were awakened to the reality of God. Salvation, healings and transformations were received and the glory of it all was much more than anyone could imagine.
> 
> Healings of all kinds of infirmities began to take place within the arena. It was glorious as the healing line overflowed with hundreds of grateful testifiers.
> http://christembassy.org/blog/


----------



## Roadkill (Jan 25, 2012)

audiotech said:


> It's David Icke's distinct lack of politics *sanity *that has him thinking along these lines and I would hazard a guess too, by making lots of dosh from his books and speeches.



Fixed it for you.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 25, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Funny enough I would have had you down as an Icke fan, given your love of hanging around with racists and anti semites.


This thread has certainly shown up all the (useful) idiots for what they are.


----------



## Meltingpot (Jan 25, 2012)

I can understand people saying Icke's an anti-Semite, though I don't think he is myself (he's anti-global elite rather than anti- any particular ethnic group within it), but what makes people think he's a racist? He's clearly proud of the fact his daughter has (or had) a black boyfriend and one of his best friends is Credo Mutwa (the Zulu shaman).


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 25, 2012)

editor said:


> While Jazzz is busy deluding himself that Icke doing a one off show at Wembley Arena is somehow symptomatic of a massive rise in conspiraloonery, it should be pointed out that that equally bonkers 'healing' pastors can attract far bigger crowds there.


bonkers to you and me, certainly - but the core tenets of that faith have attracted billions of believers, over the past 2 millennia, so they're perhaps not that like-for-like comparable


----------



## editor (Jan 25, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> bonkers to you and me, certainly - but the core tenets of that faith have attracted billions of believers, over the past 2 millennia, so they're perhaps not that like-for-like comparable


Similar kind of thing with an opportunistic, business-minded charismatic leader spouting a load of ludicrous shite while raking in the dosh from his 'followers'.

Some of the stadium-filling 'pastors' and 'healers' peddle a very weird version of Christianity and more than a few have been exposed as charlatans.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 25, 2012)

Ok fair enough, see yer point there


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 25, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> I can understand people saying Icke's an anti-Semite, though I don't think he is myself (he's anti-global elite rather than anti- any particular ethnic group within it),
> ...



So why not be an anti-capitalist/globalisation activist rather than indulging in stuff like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and all the other anti-semitic stuff that forms and surrounds those movements/'theories'?

I think we probably know the answer to that though.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> I can understand people saying Icke's an anti-Semite, though I don't think he is myself (he's anti-global elite rather than anti- any particular ethnic group within it), but what makes people think he's a racist? He's clearly proud of the fact his daughter has (or had) a black boyfriend and one of his best friends is Credo Mutwa (the Zulu shaman).


You can be anti-semitic but not anti-black. Anyway, if, as you say, you recognise or understand why people think that he's anti-semitic then why are you asking why they think he's racist? Think this one through.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 25, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> And you could be right froggy, I just find the possibility really hard to swallow. I mean, the stuff about the lizards was (more than) bad enough but this stuff about the moon - he says that just to make money, when any sane person would realise that 99.9% of the population would think he was batshit crazy for saying it? It just doesn't make sense.



People say all sorts of crazy shit to make money.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 25, 2012)

You could say the same about ATOS. "99% of the population must immediately think they are cunts so they must really believe in what they're doing to continue making a business out of it" - Bollocks.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 25, 2012)

editor said:


> While Jazzz is busy deluding himself that Icke doing a one off show at Wembley Arena is somehow symptomatic of a massive rise in conspiraloonery, it should be pointed out that that equally bonkers 'healing' pastors can attract far bigger crowds there.


I was think more of Newman and Baddiel.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 25, 2012)

I think religious cults are a very good analogy for what the likes of Icke are doing - the devotees all have a similar unshakeable blind faith in 'the truth' - a privallaged truth that only the true devotees are party to. And those that debunk their arguments with stuff like facts and eveidence are denounced as agents of Satan/The Illuminati/The Global Elite/Lizards etc.

Does Icke believe in this snake oil? Im sure he does to an extent - he clearly has a messiah complex. However this in now way excludes his motivations also including self-glorification, attention seeking and the lust for filthy lucre.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 25, 2012)

well as i said earlier money may not be the only motivation. Some people enjoy being hated and they enjoy all the bad publicity they get, they enjoy being despised or whatever because it makes them feel important. They like the attention and they like being able to whine about it. Someone like Jonathan King falls into this category imo. And some of the members of the current government. Look at Cameron for example, he's loving all the hate


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 25, 2012)

icke isn't hated much though


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 25, 2012)

Cameron is powerful.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 25, 2012)

Can one of the Icke supporters or apologists for these movements (ie. Elders of Zion, etc) actually tell me what achievements they have made in regards to smashing capitalism/globalisation, or breaking down the gap between the rich and poor?

As far as I can see, they have done and are doing frankly fuck all about it, whilst simultaneously appealing to a mish-mash of conspiracy theorists, loons, and people with anti-semitic and fascist views with which these 'theories'/movements allow them to further validate their beliefs (you only need to see the comments from those that follow vids, forums to see that).


----------



## Meltingpot (Jan 25, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> You could say the same about ATOS. "99% of the population must immediately think they are cunts so they must really believe in what they're doing to continue making a business out of it" - Bollocks.



There's a difference froggy - ATOS has the backing of the rich Tory establishment (the other 1%) including the Tory cabinet. If Cameron and his backers in the City like you you're going to get the contracts at the moment and probably no one in ATOS gives a toss about what anyone who isn't part of that clique thinks about them anyway.

It depends a lot on whom the 1% / 99% are.


----------



## Random (Jan 25, 2012)

In Swedish "icke" means not, or anti, or non. So an icke lecture is a non-lecture, and an icke conspiraloon is a non-conspiraloon. Sorry, you're probably all icke interested.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 25, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> Cameron is powerful.



within his sphere of influence so is icke.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 25, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> within his sphere of influence so is icke.



To what end tho? I've yet to see anyone point me to political action or organisation pushed by Icke.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2012)

amazon?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 25, 2012)

TruXta said:


> To what end tho? I've yet to see anyone point me to political action or organisation pushed by Icke.



he doesn't have to.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 25, 2012)

The corp or the area? If the former, yup, that's about it I reckon. You could argue that he validates plenty of far-right alien conspiraloons, but I don't know if they've been much of a threat or danger. The likes of Breivik seem to scoff at the alien new agey stuff.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 25, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> he doesn't have to.



Huh? How does that work then?


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 25, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> Look at Cameron for example, he's loving all the hate


I don't think that comparison holds up; as a Thatcherite who dearly wants to emulate his heroine, he views all the people who hate him as The Enemy, as scum. Therefore, their hatred tells him he's on the right lines


----------



## Wilf (Jan 25, 2012)

I think a lot of conspiracists would be both puzzled and embarrassed by that question (about doing anything).  Yes, at one level they'd have to admit they don't do anything concrete, but their view of what power is - hidden manipulation - isn't something you can act on in the traditional way.  The only thing you can do is 'know' and 'uncover', but knowing and uncovering in a way that doesn't have any real political goal in mind.  Their ideal is the denouement of conspiracy theory films, where the hero/hacker or whatever launches the truth on the web or every TV set in the world in the last minute of the film (Icke's 'wake up' moment). None of it has social groups in mind, none of it wants to change anything. In fact if everyone knew what the 'elites were doing, the conspiraloons would lose their privileged position. It's a constant ongoing position of arcane knowlege they want.

Suppose it's also about the way 'real' politics has gone as well.  Politics now starts with a facebook page and campaigns always have an electronic element to them. In that context it's easy to persuade yourself you are doing real politics when you might be _doing nothing other than_ posting on a messageboard (yes, I am aware of the irony...).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> I haven't heard him say "all rich people are evil" and doubt very much he would say anything like that.
> 
> This is just such trollop.



A trollop is an "easy woman", you twat.



> The man actually jacked in an extremely lucrative TV Presenter job (this is a very highly paid position frogwoman)...



No he didn't, he "gave up" a career as a 3rd rank local sports presenter who *occasionally* got to sub for one of the big boys at national TV. Local TV and radio work isn't an "extremely lucrative" trade. It's a journeyman wage for a journeyman job.



> ...so he could spend years being jeered at in the street and lecture to tiny audiences where he would have to set the chairs up himself. Out of all the mindless accusations against the guy, "he's in it for the money" is the most absurd. Of course the racism one is utterly absurd too. No matter that Icke says we should completely ignore divisions of race, religion, or whatever as they are simply labels, as we are one consciousness. How can you be racist if you say that? It's the only way you truly cannot be.



Why does Icke have such a fondness for applying labels to to others, then, if he's such a "cosmic" dude?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2012)

editor said:


> Except that's not what happened. He worked as a stand in host at the BBC, got bored with it, and it wasn't until a year later that he started hearing voices in his head that he started up his bonkers stuff/had some sort of mental breakdown and the weirdo turquoise stuff started up.



IIRC he did TV and radio work somewhere in the east Midlands as his "day job".


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 25, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Huh? How does that work then?



he doesn't have to organise any political action because all he really needs is people hanging on his every word about lizards, jews, diana and the like. those cult leaders don't have to organise any action either. he has a wide range of people who love and adore him and buy his stuff, and the disapproval of the outside world,what more could he want.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 25, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> he doesn't have to organise any political action because all he really needs is people hanging on his every word about lizards, jews, diana and the like. those cult leaders don't have to organise any action either. he has a wide range of people who love and adore him and buy his stuff, and the disapproval of the outside world,what more could he want.



You said he was powerful, presumably in a political or ideological sense. Yet you can't point me to any political or ideological activities that he or his adherents actually do? Outwith selling and buying his stuff that is. That's not powerful. That's popular. And the comparison with cult leaders really isn't a good one, since one hallmark of a decent cult is very much an onus on changing behaviour.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> does he fuck. my take on it is that he had a mental breakdown and when he came out of it he realised that he could make some money, so he did. i'm sure he believes some of it but frankly so what? since when does "truly believing" bullshit you've made up in your head mean you lose the capacity to know right and wrong? it doesn't make him any less of a dangerous idiot. and i'm sorry but he makes millions from those books, dvds, and other bollocks. he is a very rich man. fair play (sort of) if he earned it fairly, but he hasn't, he has earned it through selling a pack of lies to what are frequently people with very serious mental health problems.



When Icke started his "crusade", the conspiracy world had a damn sight fewer "professionals" making a living from it, and the number of books on the "key" conspirsacy subjects were pretty much numbered in the hundreds, mostly centering around the JFK/LHO situation, and with the Protocols etc being "fringe" even by conspiracy standards. Icke pretty much dropped into a market starved of new ideas and methods of propagation of the "core stories" and kicked it into life, at least in Europe and the Commonwealth. From the business perspective, he did what all businessmen dream of - he found a niche and filled it. From an intellectual perspective, what he sells isn't well-sourced, it's usually citations of citations and anecdote that's been recorded and then cited, and it (much like Murray and Herrnstein's "The Bell Curve") is written with a particular, irrational, readership in mind.


----------



## teqniq (Jan 25, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> .... Look at Cameron for example, he's loving all the hate


He may well be loving it at the moment but I am hoping for a severe attack of indigestion in the not too distant future

/derail


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2012)

audiotech said:


> Icke refers to the "reptilian", from the time in evolution that the species emerged from the sea and believes that there are some who can't exhibit empathy because of this "reptilian" throwback, or something like that. It's David *Icke's distinct lack of politics* that has him thinking along these lines and I would hazard a guess too, by making lots of dosh from his books and speeches.



Ah, that must have been why he was a Green.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2012)

stephj said:


> So why not be an anti-capitalist/globalisation activist rather than indulging in stuff like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and all the other anti-semitic stuff that forms and surrounds those movements/'theories'?
> 
> I think we probably know the answer to that though.



Yeah, part of which is that it's easier to play the old standards than to try to get your core audience to dig the new choons.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 25, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> he doesn't have to organise any political action because all he really needs is people hanging on his every word about lizards, jews, diana and the like. those cult leaders don't have to organise any action either. he has a wide range of people who love and adore him and buy his stuff, and the disapproval of the outside world,what more could he want.


A comparison with Julian Assange would be interesting.  Both have their fanatical followers, both deal in hidden truths, both have made a few bob, both have a persecution complex, neither are linked to real social change etc. Some obvious differences in terms of the underlying reality they perceive (Assange, shall we say is a little more 'concrete'), though I suspect if I met them, I'd prefer Icke. That's not saying much I realise...


----------



## Random (Jan 25, 2012)

TruXta said:


> The corp or the area? If the former, yup, that's about it I reckon. You could argue that he validates plenty of far-right alien conspiraloons, but I don't know if they've been much of a threat or danger. The likes of Breivik seem to scoff at the alien new agey stuff.


Rather than motivating a threat from the right, Icke and the like are dangerous as they poison the left. The quasi-left like the Occupy movement is riddled with this kind of nonsense.


----------



## Random (Jan 25, 2012)

Wilf said:


> neither are linked to real social change etc.


 Not really true, since the Wikileaks cables have led to people acting on them, unlike the moon holograms.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 25, 2012)

Random said:


> Rather than motivating a threat from the right, Icke and the like are dangerous as they poison the left. The quasi-left like the Occupy movement is riddled with this kind of nonsense.



Yet that segment of the Occupy movement has been massively ignored in the media and by the public at large. Besides I think the left has administered quite a few more poisons to their own body than Icke and his ilk has managed.


----------



## faux pas (Jan 25, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Do you think that states and territories have banned him on the *belief* that he's anti-Semitic? Why would they do so unless they had documentary evidence?


 


Jazzz said:


> What "states and territories" have 'banned' Icke exactly ViolentPanda?
> 
> Not the USA of course, he gave a lecture in Cleveland, Ohio in November 2011.
> 
> Are you making stuff up?


----------



## Random (Jan 25, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Besides I think the left has administered quite a few more poisons to their own body than Icke and his ilk has managed.


 Does that matter?


----------



## TruXta (Jan 25, 2012)

Random said:


> Does that matter?



Yes, it shows that Icke et al are nutters with comparatively little influence.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 25, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> I'm posting on here, where a lot of anarchists and Marxists post. Does that mean I "love hanging around with anarchists and Marxists"?
> 
> What do you base these snippets of information about people on?


You're a BNP voter aren't you?


----------



## Random (Jan 25, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Yes, it shows that Icke et al are nutters with comparatively little influence.


Compared to what? Sure, Leninism and Social Democracy are far bigger own-goals for the left, but a tiny movement like Occupy, with only a few committed activists really doesn't need to get more whacky and oddball than it already is.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 25, 2012)

Random said:


> Not really true, since the Wikileaks cables have led to people acting on them, unlike the moon holograms.


Okay, I didn't put that very well. Yes, the wiki stuff tends towards action though isn't part of it itself (certainly more than Ickery).  I think the bit of what I said in that post that I'd defend is the unhealthy relationship between these gurus and their followers (and not just the stuff in the extradition case) + the position of knowledge that Icke and Assange put themselves in.  I think there is also a kind of parallel in the 'elites' that both see as being in charge. For wikileaks it's certainly a more concrete, recognisable entity, but like Icke's it's an elite defined as much by the _secrecy it uses_ as any political perspective on power.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 25, 2012)

Random said:


> Compared to what? Sure, Leninism and Social Democracy are far bigger own-goals for the left, but a tiny movement like Occupy, with only a few committed activists really doesn't need to get more whacky and oddball than it already is.



You already did that for me. And as I already said, the media coverage of Occupistas has studiously ignored the oddballs, so their impact outwith the Occupy sites themselves has been about nil IMO.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> What "states and territories" have 'banned' Icke exactly ViolentPanda?
> 
> Not the USA of course, he gave a lecture in Cleveland, Ohio in November 2011.
> 
> Are you making stuff up?



Why would I claim that he was banned from Loonspud Central? Are *you* making stuff up?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2012)

Why are you quoting the posts of others? Are you too stupid to write your own?


----------



## belboid (Jan 25, 2012)

of course he is, like Icke he can only cobble together drivel of others creation.

Icke was banned from Canada


----------



## faux pas (Jan 25, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Why are you quoting the posts of others? Are you too stupid to write your own?


What nasty pieces of work some of you are! I was just highlighting a post in which I was waiting for your response.

Anyway, what 'states and territories'?


----------



## TruXta (Jan 25, 2012)

belboid said:


> Icke was banned from Canada



Not for long I think. And there's no mention of him being banned from entering other states.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 25, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Not for long I think. And there's no mention of him being banned from entering other states.


Nirvana, Utopia, Barnsley...


----------



## belboid (Jan 25, 2012)

faux pas said:


> What nasty pieces of work some of you are! I was just highlighting a post in which I was waiting for your response.


and what was your response to 'whats your opinion of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion' then?


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 25, 2012)

About the Protocol of the Elders of Zion when you get a moment, faux pas.



Blagsta said:


> What is your opinion of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?



See you've been constantly avoiding this one.


----------



## faux pas (Jan 25, 2012)

belboid said:


> and what was your response to 'whats your opinion of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion' then?


I already said I don't care about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 25, 2012)

faux pas said:


> What nasty pieces of work some of you are!



Says the Jew hater.


----------



## belboid (Jan 25, 2012)

you 'dont care' about it?  INteresting response.  Not 'its a racist forgery designed to whip up hatred' or anything, just 'you dont care.'  Despite it still being a bedrock of all you appear to believe in,

Tells us pretty much everything we need to know about you, methinks


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 25, 2012)

faux pas said:


> I already said I don't care about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.



You don't care that it's anti-semitic and forms the backbone of the tripe that Icke peddles?


----------



## faux pas (Jan 25, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Says the Jew hater.


I'm a 'jew hater' because I'm not convinced Icke is antisemitic? Wow, such 'critical facalties'!


----------



## Random (Jan 25, 2012)

faux pas said:


> I already said I don't care about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.


Butchers has a point. It takes a lot of committed effort to "not care" about one of the most famous racist forgeries in history.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 25, 2012)

faux pas said:


> I'm a 'jew hater' because I'm not convinced Icke is antisemitic? Wow, such 'critical facalties'!



Because you don't care that he uses the most famous anti-semitic piece of crap "literature" to bolster his insanity. I don't know if that makes you a jew-hater, I do know it makes you a piece of shit.


----------



## faux pas (Jan 25, 2012)

belboid said:


> you 'dont care' about it? INteresting response. Not 'its a racist forgery designed to whip up hatred' or anything, just 'you dont care.' Despite it still being a bedrock of all you appear to believe in,
> 
> Tells us pretty much everything we need to know about you, methinks


I'm not really that interested in it, as probably most people aren't. What a crime!


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 25, 2012)

faux pas said:


> I'm a 'jew hater' because I'm not convinced Icke is antisemitic?



Despite all the evidence that he  is. That makes you complicit.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 25, 2012)

faux pas said:


> I'm not really that interested in it, as probably most people aren't. What a crime!



Do you have any concerns/reservations about people like Icke using such use anti-semitic theories as the basis of their own material?


----------



## faux pas (Jan 25, 2012)

TruXta said:


> it makes a piece of shit.


agree


----------



## belboid (Jan 25, 2012)

faux pas said:


> I'm not really that interested in it, as probably most people aren't. What a crime!


but you're fibbing, as your belief system is based upon it.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 25, 2012)

faux pas said:


> agree



You agree you're a piece of shit? Finally we're getting somewhere.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 25, 2012)

faux pas said:


> I'm a 'jew hater' because I'm not convinced Icke is antisemitic? Wow, such 'critical facalties'!



how can you not care?


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 25, 2012)

stephj said:


> Do you have any concerns/reservations about people like Icke using such use anti-semitic theories as the basis of their own material?



Or perhaps you prefer to turn a blind eye to those bits when you're indulging in Icke's books?

Funny really, if I start to read a theory or book that suddenly starts to use anti-semitic or racist pretexts in which to support itself/its arguments, I stay well clear.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2012)

faux pas said:


> What nasty pieces of work some of you are! I was just highlighting a post in which I was waiting for your response.



Sorry, am I supposed to give a fuck about what you're waiting for?



> Anyway, what 'states and territories'?



None, *currently*, as his ban from entering two Aussie states lapsed, the Canadians changed their minds about doing so pretty much at the last moment and Germany (where there have been many calls both in the _lande_ and the federal state to do so) continue to be forebearing, given the amount of shite his forums sling Krautward.
Personally, I'm glad he's not banned. People should be allowed free movement, regardless of how distasteful some of their utterances are. It denies them a forum where they can take enough rope to hang themselves with.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Not for long I think. And there's no mention of him being banned from entering other states.



He wasn't banned. They considered it and relented, mostly because it would have given him more airtime to do so than to let him in. A couple of the Aussie territories banned him (in the '90s IIRC) when he did some lecture tours there, but those appear to have lapsed now, anyway.


----------



## faux pas (Jan 25, 2012)

belboid said:


> but you're fibbing, as your belief system is based upon it.


My belief system is not based on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion or on David Icke - you just assumed it is. I just dared to discuss a couple of points as to whether his theories actually do contradict each other (not whether they're false) and whether he has ever actually made any anti-semitic or racist remarks. That doesn't make him my 'hero' or make me a 'jew hater' or any other ridiculous conclusions you all so willingly leap to despite your self-proclaimed superior 'critical faculties', 'logic' and 'research based' methods.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2012)

faux pas said:


> I already said I don't care about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.



You don't care about one of the major early reference-points of someone whose work you otherwise support?
Doesn't that cause cognitive dissonance, not to mention a headache?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2012)

'dared'


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2012)

belboid said:


> you 'dont care' about it? INteresting response. Not 'its a racist forgery designed to whip up hatred' or anything, just 'you dont care.' Despite it still being a bedrock of all you appear to believe in,
> 
> Tells us pretty much everything we need to know about you, methinks



Not having a pop at you, but I do wish the word "forgery" wasn't used, because that implies that it's an amended copy of an existing document, when actually what it was, was a wholesale fabrication.


----------



## faux pas (Jan 25, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Sorry, am I supposed to give a fuck about what you're waiting for?


Wow, so angry, lol


ViolentPanda said:


> None, *currently*, as his ban from entering two Aussie states lapsed, the Canadians changed their minds about doing so pretty much at the last moment and Germany (where there have been many calls both in the _lande_ and the federal state to do so) continue to be forebearing, given the amount of shite his forums sling Krautward.
> Personally, I'm glad he's not banned. People should be allowed free movement, regardless of how distasteful some of their utterances are. It denies them a forum where they can take enough rope to hang themselves with.


So you did just make it up then?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not having a pop at you, but I do wish the word "forgery" wasn't used, because that implies that it's an amended copy of an existing document, when actually what it was, was a wholesale fabrication.


It's sort of a forgery (in those terms at least) given that it's based largely on a pre-existing text...take the wider point though.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 25, 2012)

why the hell do you not care lol, it says a lot about you.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 25, 2012)

faux pas said:


> My belief system is not based on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion or on David Icke - you just assumed it is. I just dared to discuss a couple of points as to whether his theories actually do contradict each other (not whether they're false) and whether he has ever actually made any anti-semitic or racist remarks. That doesn't make him my 'hero' or make me a 'jew hater' or any other ridiculous conclusions you all so willingly leap to despite your self-proclaimed superior 'critical faculties', 'logic' and 'research based' methods.



Quite the defender of Icke aren't you, even when you've being caught out for not knowing what you're arguing


----------



## faux pas (Jan 25, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> why the hell do you not care lol, it says a lot about you.


Yeah, and just about everybody else, lol


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> 'dared'



Hey, these truth-speakers, they've got very positive self-images! Remember jazzz's mate from _academe_?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Hey, these truth-speakers, they've got very positive self-images! Remember jazzz's mate from _academe_?


Indeed, a little bit of pulling and it all came tumbling out...faux pas is on the verge....


----------



## faux pas (Jan 25, 2012)

stephj said:


> Quite the defender of Icke aren't you, even when you've being caught out for not knowing what you're arguing


Only questioned those two points - you all did the rest with your wild imaginations. Ironic really.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2012)

faux pas said:


> Wow, so angry, lol



Don't flatter yourself. I always swear when I'm bored.



> So you did just make it up then?



None of it. He *was* banned, he isn't currently banned.  Reality, not invention. What part of that are you having a hard time with?


----------



## TruXta (Jan 25, 2012)

C'mon guys, give the fella some credit, he's just trying to broaden our horizons, explode our reality tunnels and that sorta right on shit.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jan 25, 2012)

faux pas said:


> My belief system is not based on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion or on David Icke - you just assumed it is. I just dared to discuss a couple of points as to whether his theories actually do contradict each other (not whether they're false) and whether he has ever actually made any anti-semitic or racist remarks. That doesn't make him my 'hero' or make me a 'jew hater' or any other ridiculous conclusions you all so willingly leap to despite your self-proclaimed superior 'critical faculties', 'logic' and 'research based' methods.



He's been de-facto blacklisted from the entire UK publishing industry, for submitting in 1994 a "book"  to one UK publisher which contained huge chunks of "The Protocols Of The Learned Elders Of Zion".  How much more fucking evidence do you need that Icke is a dangerous anti-Semite?  For fuck's sake.

By the way, you know what you can do with your own "superior critical facilities", don't you?


----------



## belboid (Jan 25, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not having a pop at you, but I do wish the word "forgery" wasn't used, because that implies that it's an amended copy of an existing document, when actually what it was, was a wholesale fabrication.


well, it was based on other documents, which were also all faked, of course


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> It's sort of a forgery (in those terms at least) given that it's based largely on a pre-existing text...take the wider point though.



Yeah, but the pre-existing text was a satirical "debate". That's the irony that generations of fuckspuds have missed.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2012)

belboid said:


> well, it was based on other documents, which were also all faked, of course


It was largely based on one real one  turned around to mean the opposite of what it meant.


----------



## faux pas (Jan 25, 2012)

.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Indeed, a little bit of pulling and it all came tumbling out...faux pas is on the verge....



Surely you mean "the grassy knoll"?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2012)

faux pas said:


> So when you said:
> 
> ..you just made it up, right?



What part of it are you claiming that I made up?


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 25, 2012)

faux pas said:


> Only questioned those two points - you all did the rest with your wild imaginations. Ironic really.



Would it be that you don't care about the Protocol of the Elders of Zion because...

1) You've been caught out not knowing anything about it, after trying to defend Icke and now you feel a bit silly?;

2) You do know about its anti-semitism (and other dubiousness), yet really don't want to acknowledge it in terms of Icke's own material?

Either way, you're appear to be trying to fudge/shift a little from your earlier posts as the start of thread.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 25, 2012)

It was based on a french comedy iirc.


----------



## faux pas (Jan 25, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> What part of it are you claiming that I made up?


What 'stateS and territorieS' was Icke banned from?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2012)

SS


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2012)

faux pas said:


> .



Why have you removed your post?

You know, the one where you said "...you just made it up, right?"


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2012)

You're a grubby little fuck aren't you faux pas?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jan 25, 2012)

faux pas said:


> What 'stateS and territorieS' was Icke banned from?



It worries me that the issue of the "making up" of the most famous anti-semitic document in history is less of a concern to you than this.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Why have you removed your post?
> 
> You know, the one where you said "...you just made it up, right?"


Because they realised that Icke being banned from some places ( as you said) was correct whether the ban was later lifted or not. They're now going to argue that you must show that it was loads of places.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2012)

faux pas said:


> What 'stateS and territorieS' was Icke banned from?



I've just said, two Australian states, in the '90s. IIRC the Northern Territories was one of them. I'll have a look through my electronic archive of _Nexus_ later, as they ran the story over several issues.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2012)

Fozzie Bear said:


> It worries me that the issue of the "making up" of the most famous anti-semitic document in history is less of a concern to you than this.



It's unsurprising, though. Standard tactic - if you can't challenge on the main point, look to challenge elsewhere.


----------



## faux pas (Jan 25, 2012)

stephj said:


> Would it be that you don't care about the Protocol of the Elders of Zion because...
> 
> 1) You've been caught out not knowing anything about it, after trying to defend Icke and now you feel a bit silly?;
> 
> ...


How can I be 'caught out' if I've never claimed to know anything about it in the first place? Don't flatter yourselves. So I talk about whether the claim that the moon is a hologram and the claim that it has bases on it is in fact a contradiction or not, and then the next thing you know I'm being hounded about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion! ROFL!


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2012)

Faux pas, we're 5 steps ahead of you - how?


----------



## belboid (Jan 25, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> It was based on a french comedy iirc.


ripped off from Joly, who, in turn, ripped it off from Eugene Sue, who, in turn, had ripped it off from some older stories.  One of them (Joly or Sue) was reactionary and anti-semitic, tho the other wasn't, I forget which way round.  It's all in the last Umberto Eco novel.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 25, 2012)

faux pas said:


> How can I be 'caught out' if I've never claimed to know anything about it in the first place? Don't flatter yourselves. So I talk about whether the claim that the moon is a hologram and the claim that it has bases on it is in fact a contradiction or not, and then the next thing you know I'm being hounded about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion! ROFL!



Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Waffen SS?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> SS



I suspect that faux pas is going for the "your sentence implies states *and* territories", therefore you're making it up, therefore everything you've written is invalid" ploy, rather than subconsciously wanting to be a member of the SS, to be fair.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 25, 2012)

faux pas said:


> How can I be 'caught out' if I've never claimed to know anything about it in the first place? Don't flatter yourselves. So I talk about whether the claim that the moon is a hologram and the claim that it has bases on it is in fact a contradiction or not, and then the next thing you know I'm being hounded about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion! ROFL!


The elephant in your room is anything but holographic.


----------



## belboid (Jan 25, 2012)

faux pas said:


> How can I be 'caught out' if I've never claimed to know anything about it in the first place? Don't flatter yourselves. So I talk about whether the claim that the moon is a hologram and the claim that it has bases on it is in fact a contradiction or not, and then the next thing you know I'm being hounded about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion! ROFL!


you skipped the bit about you defending his use of the Elders


----------



## Meltingpot (Jan 25, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> You're a BNP voter aren't you?



Lib Dem last two elections. I'll probably spoil my vote next time unless the Greens are standing (or maybe Mebyon Kernow as I live in Cornwall).


----------



## Wilf (Jan 25, 2012)

dp


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2012)

faux pas said:


> How can I be 'caught out' if I've never claimed to know anything about it in the first place? *Don't flatter yourselves*. So I talk about whether the claim that the moon is a hologram and the claim that it has bases on it is in fact a contradiction or not, and then the next thing you know I'm being hounded about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion! ROFL!



Jesus, you're even nicking my phraseology!! Is nothing sacred?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2012)

faux pas said:


> How can I be 'caught out' if I've never claimed to know anything about it in the first place? Don't flatter yourselves. So I talk about whether the claim that the moon is a hologram and the claim that it has bases on it is in fact a contradiction or not, and then the next thing you know I'm being hounded about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion! ROFL!


You missed out the conncting dots between the anti-semitic content of Icke's claims, his use of the protocols and the contradiction this entails with the claim of him and his theories not being anti-semitic. You wanted to talk about contradictions right? How you'd be surprised if his theories contained any at all?


----------



## TruXta (Jan 25, 2012)

faux pas said:


> How can I be 'caught out' if I've never claimed to know anything about it in the first place? Don't flatter yourselves. So I talk about whether the claim that the moon is a hologram and the claim that it has bases on it is in fact a contradiction or not, and then the next thing you know I'm being hounded about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion! ROFL!



A claim which has already been shown to be a contradiction in terms, which is blatantly obvious to anyone who knows what a fucking hologram is.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 25, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> Lib Dem last two elections. I'll probably spoil my vote next time.


You have voted BNP in the past haven't you?


----------



## faux pas (Jan 25, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Waffen SS?


lol!


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 25, 2012)

faux pas said:


> How can I be 'caught out' if I've never claimed to know anything about it in the first place? Don't flatter yourselves. So I talk about whether the claim that the moon is a hologram and the claim that it has bases on it is in fact a contradiction or not, and then the next thing you know I'm being hounded about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion! ROFL!



First option then - caught out and looking a bit silly.


----------



## Meltingpot (Jan 25, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> You have voted BNP in the past haven't you?



No. If I was trying to vote "fringe right" where I live it'd be UKIP.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> It was based on a french comedy iirc.



Joly's "The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesqueiu".


----------



## faux pas (Jan 25, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Jesus, you're even nicking my phraseology!! Is nothing sacred?


You own the phrase 'don't flatter yourself'! Wow,I didn't know that, lol.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Because they realised that Icke being banned from some places ( as you said) was correct whether the ban was later lifted or not. They're now going to argue that you must show that it was loads of places.



That's exactly what I'm expecting, anyways.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 25, 2012)

faux pas said:


> You own the phrase 'don't flatter yourself'! Wow,I didn't know that, lol.



Oi, you wanted proof of contradictions didn't you? How convenient that you're not replying to my point about the moon being both a hologram and a hollow space station then. Still waiting...


----------



## Random (Jan 25, 2012)

faux pas said:


> How can I be 'caught out' if I've never claimed to know anything about it in the first place?


 Well now you do know something about it, after all the posts about the Protocols on this thread. What do you think now?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2012)

faux pas said:


> You own the phrase 'don't flatter yourself'! Wow,I didn't know that, lol.



Have I claimed that I own it?
No, I'm remarking on the fact that you used it only after I did.

Do at least try to make your flailings relevant.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Waffen SS?



Insert obligatory "uniforms by Hugo Boss" message here


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jan 25, 2012)

faux pas said:


> How can I be 'caught out' if I've never claimed to know anything about it in the first place? Don't flatter yourselves. So I talk about whether the claim that the moon is a hologram and the claim that it has bases on it is in fact a contradiction or not, and then the next thing you know I'm being hounded about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion! ROFL!



Boo hoo hoo hoo.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 25, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Insert obligatory "uniforms by Hugo Boss" message here



Best uniforms evah, fact.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 25, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Joly's "The Dialogue in Hell Between Maciavelli and Montesqueiu".



that's the one.


----------



## belboid (Jan 25, 2012)

as ripped off from Eugene Sue


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 25, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Best uniforms evah, fact.



there's one drawback though.


----------



## Roadkill (Jan 25, 2012)

faux pas said:


> My belief system is not based on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion or on David Icke - you just assumed it is. I just dared to discuss a couple of points as to whether his theories actually do contradict each other (not whether they're false) and whether he has ever actually made any anti-semitic or racist remarks. That doesn't make him my 'hero' or make me a 'jew hater' or any other ridiculous conclusions you all so willingly leap to despite your self-proclaimed superior 'critical faculties', 'logic' and 'research based' methods.



Contradictory or not, you've never answered the question of why anyone should take Icke - many of whose theories are plainly nonsensical - seriously.


----------



## faux pas (Jan 25, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Oi, you wanted proof of contradictions didn't you? How convenient that you're not replying to my point about the moon being both a hologram and a hollow space station then. Still waiting...


The point was whether Icke contradicted himself, rather than whether his belief that the moon is a hologram is false. He could have the belief that the universe is holographic yet still use terms like 'hollow', 'sollid', 'liquid' to define those things as we experience them rather than as they are.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2012)

belboid said:


> as ripped off from Eugene Sue


A few pages here and there, not the substantive content.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 25, 2012)

faux pas in response to two of your posts I asked earlier on this thread what you thought race was, and whether would you say that the attribution of protection from depression is a positive one?

Any chance of a response?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2012)

faux pas said:


> The point was whether Icke contradicted himself, rather than whether his belief that the moon is a hologram is false. He could have the belief that the universe is holographic yet still use terms like 'hollow', 'sollid', 'liquid' to define those things as we experience them rather than as they are.


Yes, and truxta gave you a  very good run down of why it's contradictory to claim that the moon is a hologram and can also support alien moon bases. As did xes.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 25, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> there's one drawback though.



Mitchell and Webb are shit and unfunny.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 25, 2012)

sacrilege!


----------



## Dan U (Jan 25, 2012)

ITT: 3 loons get their arses handed to them on a plate

good work


----------



## TruXta (Jan 25, 2012)

faux pas said:


> The point was whether Icke contradicted himself, rather than whether his belief that the moon is a hologram is false. He could have the belief that the universe is holographic yet still use terms like 'hollow', 'sollid', 'liquid' to define those things as we experience them rather than as they are.



He can have the belief, but that doesn't make it non-contradictory. The holographic universe theory that he's badly mangled doesn't allow for the moon being both a hologram and a hollowed out planetoid. I guess that's too much logic for your raisin of a brain tho.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 25, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> sacrilege!



Strong truth, my dear. As bad as Peep Show was good.


----------



## faux pas (Jan 25, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Have I claimed that I own it?
> No, I'm remarking on the fact that you used it only after I did.
> 
> Do at least try to make your flailings relevant.


Apparently you can't take anything other than literally. It was a suggestion that the phrase is so common that your remark is in fact largely irrelevant. But didn't think I'd need to point that out. Obviously, I did.


----------



## Spud Murfy (Jan 25, 2012)

Louis MacNeice said:


> would you say that the attribution of protection from serious mental disorder is a positive one?



You've got me curious now Louis. Who is it that's said to be particularly resistant to mental illness?


----------



## faux pas (Jan 25, 2012)

TruXta said:


> He can have the belief, but that doesn't make it non-contradictory. The holographic universe theory that he's badly mangled doesn't allow for the moon being both a hologram and a hollowed out planetoid. I guess that's too much logic for your raisin of a brain tho.


Why doesn't it allow for it, oh brainy one, given that the terms are only used to express how we would experience it rather than how they actually are. You do understand that point, don't you?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2012)

faux pas said:


> Why doesn't it allow for it, oh brainy one, given that the terms are only used to express how we would experience it rather than how they actually are. You do understand that point, don't you?


He's arguing that the hollowed out moon bases are noumenal? Then  how the fuck is he describing them oh brainy one?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2012)

faux pas said:


> Why doesn't it allow for it, oh brainy one, given that the terms are only used to express how we would experience it rather than how they actually are. You do understand that point, don't you?


This isn't his argument btw. You commit fraudery upon him.  You do understand that point, don't you?


----------



## TruXta (Jan 25, 2012)

faux pas said:


> Why doesn't it allow for it, oh brainy one, given that the terms are only used to express how we would experience it rather than how they actually are. You do understand that point, don't you?



There's no point there to understand, it's waffle from one end to the other. Do you know what a hologram is? I don't care what Icke thinks it means, I want to know what you think it means.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2012)

faux pas said:


> Apparently you can't take anything other than literally. It was a suggestion that the phrase is so common that your remark is in fact largely irrelevant. But didn't think I'd need to point that out. Obviously, I did.



Wow, 20 minutes to come up with that self-justificatory bollocks? You're slipping!


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 25, 2012)

faux pas said:


> How can I be 'caught out' if I've never claimed to know anything about it in the first place? Don't flatter yourselves. So I talk about whether the claim that the moon is a hologram and the claim that it has bases on it is in fact a contradiction or not, and then the next thing you know I'm being hounded about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion! ROFL!



So you know nothing about it, yet enough to stand by your assertion that its not anti-semitic?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2012)

TruXta said:


> There's no point there to understand, it's waffle from one end to the other. Do you know what a hologram is? I don't care what Icke thinks it means, I want to know what you think it means.


She's just argued that icke is outside of space and time. Really. That's excellent waffle


----------



## faux pas (Jan 25, 2012)

TruXta said:


> There's no point there to understand, it's waffle from one end to the other. Do you know what a hologram is? I don't care what Icke thinks it means, I want to know what you think it means.


So you don't understand it. Fair enough!


----------



## belboid (Jan 25, 2012)

faux pas said:


> So you don't understand it. Fair enough!


wow!  you've really convinced me that you know what you're talking about with your argument there!!


----------



## TruXta (Jan 25, 2012)

For the curious, the idea that the universe is (in a highly fucking technical sense) holographic isn't to do with this shit at all, here's the wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle


----------



## faux pas (Jan 25, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Wow, 20 minutes to come up with that self-justificatory bollocks? You're slipping!


How do you know how I have to spend my time today. More wild assumptions from the superior 'critical faculties' again, I guess.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> She's just argued that icke is outside of space and time. Really. That's excellent waffle



And yet he also appears to be immanent! 

I for one welcome our loonspudulent new overlord!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2012)

faux pas said:


> How do you know how I have to spend my time today. More wild assumptions from the superior 'critical faculties' again, I guess.



It's not a wild assumption, it's an insult couched as sarcasm. You do understand the point, don't you?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 25, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> No. If I was trying to vote "fringe right" where I live it'd be UKIP.



 I must be thinking of someone else


----------



## TruXta (Jan 25, 2012)

faux pas said:


> So you don't understand it. Fair enough!



I don't claim to be all that well-read on string theory and the more exotic corners of quantum cosmology. Icke does, and he's so far off the ball that he's not even within a 100-mile radius of the pitch. But I do know enough to know that what he's claiming would make batshit dry up in distaste.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 25, 2012)

faux pas - I'll admit I haven't kept up with every twist and turn  of the hollow moon theme here.  However, you seem to be saying you maintain an old fashioned modernist distinction betwee 'reality' and subjective 'perception' - but go on to make a conscious choice in favour of the perception??  You know there's an objective truth out there, but choose to ignore it??


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jan 25, 2012)

faux pas said:


> So you don't understand it. Fair enough!



Right, I promise this is my last word on the matter...look faux pas, what I don't get is this: why are you taking any interest of someone's theoretical etc contradictions, when said somone is a major league disseminator of virulently anti-Semitic material? Why would you care about *anything* they said when they've displayed their racist/bigoted etc credentials for all to see? Why??? I mean, would you even begin to entertain notorious racist/anti-Semite (name omitted - I'm not giving that fucker any "publicity") utterly barking "theories" on space travel and quantum physics?!

Anyway, enough from me.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2012)

TruXta said:


> I don't claim to be all that well-read on string theory and the more exotic corners of quantum cosmology. Icke does, and he's so far off the ball that he's not even within a 100-mile radius of the pitch. But I do know enough to know that what he's claiming would make batshit dry up in distaste.



See, that's the thing with giving it the blah blah blah about quantum phenomena. There's only a relatively small amount of people who can gainsay you, and even the ones who're leaders in their fields often say shit that, to the uninitiated (in quantum physics, not Icke-ism!), sounds as barefacedly bollocks as Icke's witterings. Great camouflage!


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 25, 2012)

Spud Murfy said:


> You've got me curious now Louis. Who is it that's said to be particularly resistant to mental illness?



I've gone back and checked my reference, the immunity being claimed is from depression. I'll get back with the explanation once I've heard from faux pas.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Random (Jan 25, 2012)

Wilf said:


> However, you seem to be saying you maintain an old fashioned modernist distinction betwee 'reality' and subjective 'perception' - but go on to make a conscious choice in favour of the perception?? You know there's an objective truth out there, but choose to ignore it??


 To be fair to Faux pas, s/he's only saying that if Icke thinks this then there's no contradiction


----------



## TruXta (Jan 25, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> See, that's the thing with giving it the blah blah blah about quantum phenomena. There's only a relatively small amount of people who can gainsay you, and even the ones who're leaders in their fields often say shit that, to the uninitiated (in quantum physics, not Icke-ism!), sounds as barefacedly bollocks as Icke's witterings. Great camouflage!



Fucking Fritjof Capra has a lot to answer for.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 25, 2012)

Random said:


> To be fair to Faux pas, s/he's only saying that if Icke thinks this then there's no contradiction


We are getting dangerously close to discussing _Ick'e epistemology_  - that's not a rabbit hole/hologram I want to fall down.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2012)

Random said:


> To be fair to Faux pas, s/he's only saying that if Icke thinks this then there's no contradiction


There is no basis for arguing that contradictions can be demonstrated  ever in that line of argument. What sort of idiot thinks like that?

Anyway, her argument is that there is objective material reality that _we_ can only perceive in terms of holograms (without saying why this may be case) except for Icke who has some grasp on this from outside of the space/time phenomenal etc way that stinking norms like us can only ever perceive things and so can accurately describe it in great detail.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Fucking Fritjof Capra has a lot to answer for.



Fortunately, his brother Frank did some stuff that served to wash the smears from the family name.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 25, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Fortunately, his brother Frank did some stuff that served to wash the smears from the family name.



 Don't confuse the rabble anymore.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 25, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> Lib Dem last two elections. I'll probably spoil my vote next time unless the Greens are standing (or maybe Mebyon Kernow as I live in Cornwall).



That's even worse tbh.


----------



## gosub (Jan 25, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> There is no basis for arguing that contradictions can be demonstrated ever in that line of argument. What sort of idiot thinks like that?
> 
> Anyway, her argument is that there is objective material reality that _we_ can only perceive in terms of holograms (without saying why this may be case) except for Icke who has some grasp on this from outside of the space/time phenomenal etc way that stinking norms like us can only ever perceive things and so can accurately describe it in great detail.


Having listened to his latest youtube and looked at the back of his books (veryslow day with lots of things I'm putting off) I think you have it backwards: mankind is supposed to be free flowing energy bound by holgraphic limits of space and time by a vice like grip exerted by the moon. Freed of such shackles mankind would be free to explore the universe akin to Wesley Crusher in Star Trek NG Episode:Journey's End. Anybody who cannot get their head round this is a close minded reptiian.

£20 saved


----------



## Spud Murfy (Jan 25, 2012)

Louis MacNeice said:


> I've gone back and checked my reference, the immunity being claimed is from depression. I'll get back with the explanation once I've heard from faux pas.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



Oh okay, I think I know what you're referring to. If someone thinks they have evidence which supports such predictions or explanations, then bring it on.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 25, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> I'm posting on here, where a lot of anarchists and Marxists post. Does that mean I "love hanging around with anarchists and Marxists"?
> 
> What do you base these snippets of information about people on?



Yes, or at least you enjoy our company, otherwise you wouldn't be on here. And anyway, it's more than that with your daft pro-fascist "free-speech" forums isn't it? You claim to consider some of them friends, you try to sympathise with their "fears" and, indeed, you've tried to excuse them on here. It's telling that you think the two (Marxist/anarcho vs fascist) are somehow comparable btw, in a kind of "know your enemy" way.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 26, 2012)

Newt Gingrich is out to prove the moon is neither hollow, nor a hologram.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...0-space-coast-campaign-stop-article-1.1012015


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jan 26, 2012)

faux pas said:


> He might go for 'every conspiracy theory going', but I'm not sure he does actually contradict himself. I'd be surprised if you could point out exactly where he does. He believes that it's all played out on many levels.


 
Just read the first chapter and a bit of chapter 2 this morning. So far we have.

The anunnaki come from outerspace
The anunnaki come from innerspace (inside the hollow earth)
The anunnaki come from another dimension.
The anunnaki seeded the earth creating all humans.
All white humans are from mars, (they got here after the anunnaki seeded earth).
The two great continents of the great age were destroyed in a war of the gods (anunnaki)
The two great continents of the great age were destroyed when venus entered our solar system, destroyed life on mars, swung around the earth a bit and knocked it into Mars' orbit.
(The moon is mentioned in this section as a real and solid moon and not the spaceship or hollow moon mentioned later in the book)

He also says the dinosaurs mass world consciousness must still have an impact on us. Consciousness is energy and energy can not be destroyed and so it is passed on to us, controlling us. This is also the anunnaki.

It's bat shit. When he quote someone elses mad theories as fact, he always starts with 'this is a great bloke and very intelligent for whom I have a lot of respect for'. And if history or science says something that doesn't tally, a simple 'the so called history books' or 'that's what the so called scientists would have you believe', puts pay to that.
"That's what science and history would have you believe, but I believe something else (that just popped into my head)"


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 26, 2012)

fucking bat shit crazy.


----------



## southside (Jan 26, 2012)

I've spent a bit of time over the past few days watching some of his speeches and interviews on youtube and there is no doubt that he is exceptionally gifted in terms of how he presents his ideas, I think he is a genius even if a lot of what he says is far beyond normal peoples interpretation of reality, there is an awful lot of what he says that can be agreed upon.

There all shapeshifting lizards works for me


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 26, 2012)

southside said:


> I've spent a bit of time over the past few days watching some of his speeches and interviews on youtube and there is no doubt that he is exceptionally gifted in terms of how he presents his ideas, I think he is a genius even if a lot of what he says is far beyond normal peoples interpretation of reality, there is an awful lot of what he says that can be agreed upon.
> 
> There all shapeshifting lizards works for me



such as what? bad people are bad?


----------



## articul8 (Jan 26, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> "That's what science and history would have you believe, but I believe something else (that just popped into my head)"



"You can prove anything with facts".


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 26, 2012)

southside said:


> there is an awful lot of what he says that can be agreed upon.


Such as?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 26, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> ...
> It's bat shit. When he quote someone elses mad theories as fact, he always starts with 'this is a great bloke and very intelligent for whom I have a lot of respect for'....



and he then proceeds to shamelessly steal their 'ideas' - perfect (and very apt) example, Zecharia Sitchin and the Nibiru idea.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jan 26, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> and he then proceeds to shamelessly steal their 'ideas' - perfect (and very apt) example, Zecharia Sitchin and the Nibiru idea.



His 'research' is pretty much reprinting what other people have written and putting it all together. To be fair, he does make it clear where he nicked it from. Chapter one is "Sitchin says, sitchin wrote, sitchin deduced, sitchin etc, and call me crazy, I don't care because I believe most of what he say (then add some bigger insane idea on top with no basis in reality to make it my own)"


----------



## southside (Jan 26, 2012)

The world is controlled by the reptoids.



All flown by lizards no doubt.


----------



## xes (Jan 26, 2012)

ooh, thanks for reminding me to subscribe to luna cognitas chanel


----------



## Meltingpot (Jan 27, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yes, or at least you enjoy our company, otherwise you wouldn't be on here.



:rofl: (note to admins; we could do with more smilies here)

Bull. Whatever reasons I have for posting in the politics section and debating with people here, enjoying their company isn't one of them, any more than you probably enjoy the company of the people you cross swords with on here.



SpineyNorman said:


> And anyway, it's more than that with your daft pro-fascist "free-speech" forums isn't it?



No, not at all. For what it's worth, I'm currently embroiled in two debates on the Phora; one concerning their current "sperg" obsession, which I wish they'd knock off (I'm a 'sperg' myself btw, as you may know), and another one about whether or not fascism is compatible with Christianity and with Catholicism in particular. So far I'm not doing very well on that last one, mainly because my opponents seem to know a lot more about the subject (especially Catholicism) than I do.

But in neither case am I "enjoying their company." I'd have to be a masochist to, any more than I enjoy the flak I get from my antagonists on here. You don't go on the Phora to make friends; even an ex-admin there admits that much.

No, debating online for me is like an itch that needs scratching; I see someone saying something I don't llke and / or believe needs correcting, and get posting.



SpineyNorman said:


> You claim to consider some of them friends.



Foir the Phora, see my last comments. As for Stormfront, it's true that there are people on SF I consider friends, on both sides of the argument (I've never hidden the fact, not even when I was an admin on MSF), but that isn't a free speech forum; it's very tightly (and I believe unfairly) moderated, which is why I don't post there much now.



SpineyNorman said:


> you try to sympathise with their "fears."



Into the lion's den again...

I don't have to "try". I just have to not be arrogant enough to think I know more about their lives than they do. If Dani (Britannia on SF) says she's afraid to go out at night in the part of Leeds where she lives, then that's how it is for her as far as I'm concerned.

If you think granting sovereignty to people's subjective worlds in this way is a bad thing, well I think the alternative - letting third parties decide what thoughts and feelings people "should" have - is a lot worse.

None of us is wise enough to do that. Regulating behaviour is as far as things can or should legitimately go IMO.



SpineyNorman said:


> and, indeed, you've tried to excuse them on here.



I wouldn't call it "excusing", but it is true that I've tried to explain as best I can why I believe they see things as they do. Coming as it did at the end of a three hour argument where I was heavily outnumbered, it wasn't my best moment on here, or probably wise to attempt it.



SpineyNorman said:


> It's telling that you think the two (Marxist/anarcho vs fascist) are somehow comparable btw, in a kind of "know your enemy" way.



Well they're comparable in three respects; neither is a mainstream viewpoint, both give me a hard time when I try and debate with them, and I'm typically heavily outnumbered when I try to do so.

Maybe a fourth; I should probably have the sense to pack it in. Instead of posting here I could be posting elsewhere on Urban or even doing other stuff online or offline; like I said though, it seems to be like an itch that needs scratching for me at the moment.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 27, 2012)

If I really had nothing better to do with my time Id really like to hang around Wembley arena , or indeed any of his speaking events , wearing of these . Making angry hisses noises at people , shaking my fist at them in annoyance, then scurrying off down darkened alleys before anyone else sees.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 27, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> If I really had nothing better to do with my time Id really like to hang around Wembley arena , or indeed any of his speaking events , wearing of these . Making angry hisses noises at people , shaking my fist at them in annoyance, then scurrying off down darkened alleys before anyone else sees.



And that would be different from your normal routine how, exactly?


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 27, 2012)

Idris2002 said:


> And that would be different from your normal routine how, exactly?



well it would be a variation on the gary glitter mask i wear to parents evenings


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 27, 2012)

OK, you win this round. . .


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 27, 2012)

meltingpot said:
			
		

> If you think granting sovereignty to people's subjective worlds in this way is a bad thing, well I think the alternative - letting third parties decide what thoughts and feelings people "should" have - is a lot worse.



sorry but this binary shit is why you get a hard time on here. You think the alternative to your approach is the thought police.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 27, 2012)

Granting sovereignty to people's subjective worlds lol

You're starting to sound like gmart! Here's a revelation for you; although your post-modernist outlook militates against it, the fact is there really is a material world out there and there are things we can know about it. Their world views don't match that. They're wrong.

If we don't tolerate their intolerance we're more intolerant than them maaaan!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 27, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> :rofl: (note to admins; we could do with more smilies here)
> 
> Bull. Whatever reasons I have for posting in the politics section and debating with people here, enjoying their company isn't one of them, any more than you probably enjoy the company of the people you cross swords with on here.
> 
> ...



You're scum, simple as do not try and squirm out of it you weird fella, I don't believe you don't enjoy hanging out with racists, anti semites, and fascists - your posts on their boards make that quite clear.
And as matey said above the fact you equate the racist nutjob end of the far right with Marxists and anarchists shows at best exceptional naivity and at worst that you're a fascist/nationalist/3rd positionist type playing it simple, which is what I suspect.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 28, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> You're scum, simple as do not try and squirm out of it you weird fella, I don't believe you don't enjoy hanging out with racists, anti semites, and fascists - your posts on their boards make that quite clear.
> And as matey said above the fact you equate the racist nutjob end of the far right with Marxists and anarchists shows at best exceptional naivity and at worst that you're a fascist/nationalist/3rd positionist type playing it simple, which is what I suspect.



To be fair he's not a crypto-fascist or owt like that. He's just an utter moron.


----------



## Jazzz (Jan 28, 2012)

A crypto-fascist somewhere:


----------



## Jazzz (Jan 28, 2012)

more raving BNP nutjobs:


----------



## Wilf (Jan 28, 2012)

The safety car is off and the grand prix resumes...


----------



## Jazzz (Jan 28, 2012)

Some raving anti-semitic fascist websites:

http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 28, 2012)

Keep digging Jazzz.


----------



## Jazzz (Jan 28, 2012)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Keep digging Jazzz.


nice try


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 28, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> A crypto-fascist somewhere:



That chap is a member of _Neturei Karta_, and the sign he holds relates directly to the Judaistic belief that Zionism, through its' rhetoric and practice of a return to Israel, has usurped G-d's role, and that the actions of Zionists while doing so have aggravated tensions that have resulted in anti-Semitism. His point is simple and legitimate. Icke's point requires labyrinthine contortions in order to legitimate itself.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 28, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> Some raving anti-semitic fascist websites:
> 
> http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/
> 
> http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/


What are your views on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 28, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> more raving BNP nutjobs:



More disingenuousness from someone who should know better.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 28, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> Some raving anti-semitic fascist websites:
> 
> http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/
> 
> http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/



The fact that you believe that there's some equivalence between a legitimate Jewish position on Zionism (not "Rothschild Zionism"), and Icke's couching of his original position as being against "Rothschild Zionism" is quite worrying.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> A crypto-fascist somewhere:



And another one:






See if you can _grasp_ what point i'm making.


----------



## rekil (Jan 28, 2012)

What's Icke's relationship with Ernst Zundel? Does he nick any of his nonsense?


----------



## Jazzz (Jan 28, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> That chap is a member of _Neturei Karta_, and the sign he holds relates directly to the Judaistic belief that Zionism, through its' rhetoric and practice of a return to Israel, has usurped G-d's role, and that the actions of Zionists while doing so have aggravated tensions that have resulted in anti-Semitism. His point is simple and legitimate. Icke's point requires labyrinthine contortions in order to legitimate itself.


Well, whatever.

My point here is very simple.

It is absurd to equate to equate anti-zionism with anti-semitism. In fact, pretty much the only place it seems to occur is only Icke threads on urban75. And of course silly articles on conspiracy stuff in the mainstream media.


----------



## editor (Jan 28, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> It is absurd to equate to equate anti-zionism with anti-semitism. In fact, pretty much the only place it seems to occur is only Icke threads on urban75. And of course silly articles on conspiracy stuff in the mainstream media.


Well, apart from this Guardian piece along with _thousands_ of other similar articles:

Anti-Zionism is anti-semitism
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/nov/29/comment


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 28, 2012)

You're a very stupid man Jazzz.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> Well, whatever.
> 
> My point here is very simple.
> 
> It is absurd to equate to equate anti-zionism with anti-semitism. In fact, pretty much the only place it seems to occur is only Icke threads on urban75. And of course silly articles on conspiracy stuff in the mainstream media.


Isn't your argument the exact opposite - that it happens all the time all over the media and on here? It doesn't. It's certainly Icke's argument that it does though. And it's easily dealt with - but in fact has not been made on this thread.


----------



## gosub (Jan 28, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> Well, whatever.
> 
> My point here is very simple.
> 
> It is absurd to equate to equate anti-zionism with anti-semitism. In fact, pretty much the only place it seems to occur is only Icke threads on urban75. And of course silly articles on conspiracy stuff in the mainstream media.


Meline Phillips seems to manage it,without referencing icke or urban75


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 29, 2012)

Mad Mel is so completely off her rocker that she would equate frowning at a jew who just pushed in front of you in a queue with the nuremburg laws


----------



## Jazzz (Jan 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Isn't your argument the exact opposite - that it happens all the time all over the media and on here? It doesn't. It's certainly Icke's argument that it does though. And it's easily dealt with - but in fact has not been made on this thread.


Well you're right, I am exaggerating. It is all over the place. I am highlighting that on middle east threads no one would dare suggest that to be anti-zionist is anti-semitic, but when it comes to Icke and other conspiracy types blaming zionist, or suggesting that there is a zionist element to the big plot against us, well there's frothing of the keyboards.

Of course, there are those who _do_ say 'it's a Jewish plot!" and that is absolutely no good at all, but Icke is not one of those and goes to some lengths to make clear that he sees Jewish people as a victims of the plot rather than perpetrators. This is what gets me.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2012)

By exaggerating you must mean arguing the exact opposite then.


----------



## gosub (Jan 29, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> Well you're right, I am exaggerating. It is all over the place. I am highlighting that on middle east threads no one would dare suggest that to be anti-zionist is anti-semitic, but when it comes to Icke and other conspiracy types blaming zionist, or suggesting that there is a zionist element to the big plot against us, well there's frothing of the keyboards.
> 
> Of course, there are those who _do_ say 'it's a Jewish plot!" and that is absolutely no good at all, but Icke is not one of those and goes to some lengths to make clear that he sees Jewish people as a victims of the plot rather than perpetrators. This is what gets me.


Jewish ware wolves?


----------



## TruXta (Jan 29, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> Icke is not one of those and goes to some lengths to make clear that he sees Jewish people as a victims of the plot rather than perpetrators. This is what gets me.



You mean apart from those Jews that orchestrated WW1 and 2, plus enslaved mankind in a Matrix-style other-dimensional occult-capitalist nightmare in some kind of nefarious pact with reptiles from the other side of the universe?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2012)

The jewish-ish plot


----------



## TruXta (Jan 29, 2012)

The Jew-lite conspiracy.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2012)

Or jewish.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 29, 2012)

Well, yeah. Jazzz, man the fuck up and rid yourself of this shitebag. I don't care if you believe in a fucking space-reptile come to take our jobs and women, just dispense with the badly hidden racist cockery eh?


----------



## gosub (Jan 29, 2012)

BUY SILVER!


----------



## TruXta (Jan 29, 2012)

Fuck silver, osmium's where it's at.


----------



## gosub (Jan 29, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Fuck silver, osmium's where it's at.


Seen several of what Icke would call documentaries where silver is the only weakness of lunar dependant monsters.


Do make good pens though.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 29, 2012)

gosub said:


> Seen several of what Icke would call documentaries where silver is the only weakness of lunar dependant monsters.
> 
> Do make good pens though.



If anything shows the continuity between Icke and fairy-tales it's that really.


----------



## Jazzz (Jan 29, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Well, yeah. Jazzz, man the fuck up and rid yourself of this shitebag. I don't care if you believe in a fucking space-reptile come to take our jobs and women, just dispense with the badly hidden racist cockery eh?


TruXta, I am alive because my great-grandfather was a conspiracy theorist, and realised that his government was about to make life extremely difficult for German Jewry, and he got his family out in time. If I felt for one moment that Icke was in any way racist I would have no truck with him. However, he clearly is not. He is extremely clear to point out that it is an elite plot by some few bloodlines and NOT an entire race of people. I really don't much care for "guilt by association" attacks, if you actually had a clue how fascism takes hold neither would you.


----------



## rekil (Jan 29, 2012)

First they came for the holocaust deniers and I didn't speak out because I was sheeple.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 29, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Fuck silver, osmium's where it's at.



Nah it's purple gold as discovered by Jazzz's Jew hating alchemist mate Nick.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 29, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> TruXta, I am alive because my great-grandfather was a conspiracy theorist, and realised that his government was about to make life extremely difficult for German Jewry, and he got his family out in time. If I felt for one moment that Icke was in any way racist I would have no truck with him. However, he clearly is not. He is extremely clear to point out that it is an elite plot by some few bloodlines and NOT an entire race of people. I really don't much care for "guilt by association" attacks, if you actually had a clue how fascism takes hold neither would you.


Interesting that you talk about fascism - Icke openly courts fascists.


----------



## editor (Jan 29, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> TruXta, I am alive because my great-grandfather was a conspiracy theorist, and realised that his government was about to make life extremely difficult for German Jewry, and he got his family out in time.


That wasn't a "conspiracy". It was government policy.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 29, 2012)

editor said:


> That wasn't a "conspiracy". It was government policy.



tbf. I read that as Jazzz saying his granda's tendency to belief in conspiracy theories led to him taking pre-emptive action in removiong himself from Germany.

People would do well to remember that lots of the German Left just laughed at the Nazi's  - and dismissed others arguing for pre-emptive strikes as conspiraloons _(although I'm sure they had a german word for it - they seem to have a word for most things)_ - right up until they were lifted and sent off to the camps.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 29, 2012)

LiamO said:


> People would do well to remember that lots of the German Left just laughed at the Nazi's - and dismissed others arguing for pre-emptive strikes as conspiraloons _(although I'm sure they had a german word for it - they seem to have a word for most things)_ - right up until they were lifted and sent off to the camps.



It's a shame that the German left couldn't reason with the brownshirts via an online message board.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2012)

If jazzz is claiming some sort of genetic inheritance that allows him to see conspiracies or dodginess i wonder why he's ended up on the side of the brownshirts?


----------



## LiamO (Jan 29, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> It's a shame that the German left couldn't reason with the brownshirts via an online message board.



or dismiss them haughtily as 'keyboard warriors'.


----------



## editor (Jan 29, 2012)

LiamO said:


> tbf. I read that as Jazzz saying his granda's tendency to belief in conspiracy theories led to him taking pre-emptive action in removiong himself from Germany.


Unlike Jazzz's holographic planes, CIA Mike Yarwood teams and Icke lizard nonsense, there was proof a-plenty of where the Nazis were heading, long before they took power.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 29, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> Well, whatever.
> 
> My point here is very simple.
> 
> It is absurd to equate to equate anti-zionism with anti-semitism. In fact, pretty much the only place it seems to occur is only Icke threads on urban75. And of course silly articles on conspiracy stuff in the mainstream media.



The two *aren't* being equated here. Icke's _animus_ against what he calls "Rothschild Zionism" isn't anti-Zionism as any committed political anti-Zionist would recognise it, but is rather a selective assault on a coded enemy that happens to reduce to the same group of people he's previously coded as "international bankers". Those of us who aren't being disingenuous see that these codings represent "Jews involved in finance capitalism", not least through Icke's referencing of the Protocols and their ideas on the dominance of capitalism by "the Jews". That is anti-Semitism. It may well be hedged with attempts to deflect from that reality, but it's anti-Semitism nonetheless.

Anti-Zionism as a philosophy is about resisting a particular politics that can be loosely described as Israeli nationalist Zionism and its' supporters and, if you take it wider to the social/religious sector inhabited by the likes of _Neturei Karta_, resisting the usurpation of Yahweh's role in the rebirth of Israel by politically-motivated ideologues.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 29, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> TruXta, I am alive because my great-grandfather was a conspiracy theorist, and realised that his government was about to make life extremely difficult for German Jewry, and he got his family out in time. If I felt for one moment that Icke was in any way racist I would have no truck with him. However, he clearly is not. He is extremely clear to point out that it is an elite plot by some few bloodlines and NOT an entire race of people. I really don't much care for "guilt by association" attacks, if you actually had a clue how fascism takes hold neither would you.



"Got his family out in time" usually equates to "had the money to buy his way out" for German Jewry, and it's hardly as if one needed to be a conspiracy theorist to foresee what Hitler would do. What killed so many German Jews was a twofold issue - not being able to afford to flee, and believing that whatever Hitler said, he wouldn't be able to carry the German people with him. What they couldn't foresee was how Hitler would infiltrate the state so quickly with Nazism, and how doing so made him able to dictate what happened without reference to "the people".


----------



## LiamO (Jan 29, 2012)

editor said:


> Unlike Jazzz's holographic planes, CIA Mike Yarwood teams and Icke lizard nonsense, there was proof a-plenty of where the Nazis were heading, long before they took power.



'Proof' which many, particularly on the Left, continued to ignore as they laughed at the NSDAP and dismissed the Red Front Fighters as boot-boys and fantasists.

None of which is relevant to this thread, but I am amazed that when there is so much about Icke (and, apparently, about Jazzz) to choose to take aim at, so many legitimate targets, that some people are determinedly erecting strawmen.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2012)

Also, it's worth remembering that jews were still being allowed to leave Germany through official channels as late as 1941. The nazi state _wanted_ the jews to leave and encouraged them to do so through all sorts of ways prior to that date.Leaving germany post march 1933 shows very little (or no) foresight frankly.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2012)

LiamO said:


> 'Proof' which many, particularly on the Left, continued to ignore as they laughed at the NSDAP and dismissed the Red Front Fighters as boot-boys and fantasists.
> 
> None of which is relevant to this thread, but I am amazed that when there is so much about Icke (and, apparently, about Jazzz) to choose to take aim at, so many legitimate targets, that some people are determinedly erecting strawmen.


Which strawman are you referring to?


----------



## Voley (Jan 29, 2012)

southside said:


>



That's ace.  Particularly the bits where he says Buzz Lightyear instead of Buzz Aldrin.


----------



## editor (Jan 29, 2012)

LiamO said:


> 'Proof' which many, particularly on the Left, continued to ignore as they laughed at the NSDAP and dismissed the Red Front Fighters as boot-boys and fantasists.


Sure, but that's quite different to the entirely evidence-free loon-monkery that Jazzz goes on about (invisibly installed, invisible explosives, anyone?).


----------



## LiamO (Jan 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Which strawman are you referring to?



To answer this properly would involve reading the bits of this thread I have actually read again - and also the many pages I haven't even looked at. Frankly, I would rather stick pins in my eyes so I will bow out.

Whilst I do not doubt the sincerity of many posters on this thread, I am just left a little uneasy about the amount of over-the-shouldering and drive-by's going on. It reminds me of the abuse detective-boy used to get on occasion (and which I freely indulged in myself).


----------



## Corax (Jan 29, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> My mate swears he was in proximity to Icke at a Glastonbury where he had the acid that trigured a broader episode.
> 
> I've heard similar pub talk about David Shayler.
> 
> Of course, "they" could have spiked them. How about that?


I've always thought spiking was a very plausible possibility for Shayler.He was whistleblowing on the secret service, and didn't seem to show any nuts tendencies originally, other than a sense of persecution that it could be argued was entirely justified.  I met him during his Old Bailey trial and at that point there was no hint of what was to come.  Given what declassified historical records have revealed about the past behaviour of the US and UK security services, discrediting him entirely by spangling his mind would almost be an expected response from them.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2012)

There was no _need_ to spike the prick - he was doing all sorts off his own back. Spiking was what his loon (former) mates actually claimed when he went too far even for them. Anyone who saw the state of him at the time knew he didn't need spiking.


----------



## Corax (Jan 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> There was no _need_ to spike the prick - he was doing all sorts off his own back. Spiking was what his loon (former) mates actually claimed when he went too far even for them. Anyone who saw the state of him at the time knew he didn't need spiking.


At what time?


----------



## Corax (Jan 29, 2012)

Random said:


> In Swedish "icke" means not, or anti, or non. So an icke lecture is a non-lecture, and an icke conspiraloon is a non-conspiraloon. Sorry, you're probably all icke interested.


So when Icke says he's the messiah, he's actually.....


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2012)

Corax said:


> At what time?


At the time he proclaimed that he was the messiah.


----------



## Corax (Jan 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> At the time he proclaimed that he was the messiah.


Well yeah.  If it _was_ the case that he was spiked, you'd expect that to have happened before the fruitloopery.  And by the time he proclaimed himself the Messiah he was well down the rainbow-hued road of wobble.

I don't know whether he was spiked and neither does 'anyone else'.  I doubt anyone would gasp with shock and surprise if records were released in 50 years or whatever revealing that he was though.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2012)

Why spike someone if they're _already_ taking the stuff that you intend to spike them with?


----------



## Corax (Jan 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Why spike someone if they're _already_ taking the stuff that you intend to spike them with?


Makes it a nice simple job to arrange for them to get something far stronger/different to what they're expecting.  Why does it matter?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2012)

Exactly - why does it matter? If he's already necking everything going why bother?


----------



## Corax (Jan 29, 2012)

I've only done psychedelics a handful of times, but my understanding is that even the heaviest users aren't guaranteed to lose the plot permanently.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 29, 2012)

Corax said:


> I've only done psychedelics a handful of times, but my understanding is that even the heaviest users aren't guaranteed to lose the plot permanently.



... and Steve Jobs claims taking lots of acid was one of the 3 most important things he ever did.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 29, 2012)

I'm not entirely comfortable with people trying to claim that Jazzz is antisemitic. I don't think he is. Icke is though and the problem I have with Jazzz and his ilk is that they swallow his bullshit far too uncritically (which is ironic really because the sheeple apparently swallow the ill defined elite's bullshit too uncritically). In defending Icke they're making excuses for antisemitism and making it easier for even more dangerous antisemites to disguise their bigotry. But that's not antisemitism, it's just idiocy, albeit potentially dangerous idiocy. Personally I think it's a defence mechanism - he's invested far too much time and energy in conspiraloonery to even begin to contemplate the possibility that the sheeple of urban75 might be right. And so he's willing to commit the kind of crimes against logic and evidence we've all become accustomed to.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jan 29, 2012)

Can we all agree that Nathaniel Rothschild is an odious creep?


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 29, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'm not entirely comfortable with people trying to claim that Jazzz is antisemitic. I don't think he is. Icke is though and the problem I have with Jazzz and his ilk is that they swallow his bullshit far too uncritically (which is ironic really because the sheeple apparently swallow the ill defined elite's bullshit too uncritically). In defending Icke they're making excuses for antisemitism and making it easier for even more dangerous antisemites to disguise their bigotry. But that's not antisemitism, it's just idiocy, albeit potentially dangerous idiocy. Personally I think it's a defence mechanism - he's invested far too much time and energy in conspiraloonery to even begin to contemplate the possibility that the sheeple of urban75 might be right. And so he's willing to commit the kind of crimes against logic and evidence we've all become accustomed to.



If he and/or Icke aren't antisemites, then they're ideological Typhoid Marys (Maries?). Which on a proper reading of your post is sort of what you're saying anyway.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 29, 2012)

I don't think Jazzz is antisemetic, just so far down his rabbit hole that he can't see things in a critical light anymore.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 29, 2012)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I don't think Jazzz is antisemetic, just so far down his rabbit hole that he can't see things in a critical light anymore.



More like anti-semiotic?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 29, 2012)

Just to be clear, I think Icke IS antisemitic, he's flirted with holocaust denial, used the protocols as a source and, noticing that this wasn't too popular, has changed his language to make it appear less offensive. 

Whereas I don't think Jazzz is antisemitic and I think he (erroneously) believes Icke when he says he isn't either. That doesn't make Jazzz's spreading of these theories any less dangerous but idiocy and bigotry, while often comfortable bedfellows, aren't one and the same.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 29, 2012)

I never paid attention to the 9/11 threads, so what does Jazz believe happened on the day some terrorists hijacked some planes and flew them into some big buildings in America? Holographic planes are oft-mentioned here. Is that a genuine belief?


----------



## TruXta (Jan 29, 2012)

On his part? Dunno, but it's definitely a "serious" loonspud belief.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 29, 2012)

jesusfuck! i thought it was a U75 satirical exaggeration


----------



## two sheds (Jan 29, 2012)

*Could* be true


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 29, 2012)

yeah - jazzz isn't an anti-semite i don't think. doesn't mean icke isn't though.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 29, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> jesusfuck! i thought it was a U75 satirical exaggeration



Fuck no, much worse has been put forward by the likes of conspiraloons.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 29, 2012)

WTC was controlled demolition and holographic planes, but the one that hit the pentagon was actually a ballistic missile with wings added to the wreckage.

cuckoo


----------



## two sheds (Jan 29, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> WTC was controlled demolition and holographic planes, but the one that hit the pentagon was actually a ballistic missile with wings added to the wreckage.
> 
> cuckoo



You weren't there, though. How can you know for sure if you weren't there?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 29, 2012)

I was part of the Mossad team who were present on the day*

*iirc that bits actually true, and it was somewhat embarrasing for both parties to have an undeclared spook cell operating on an allied territory lol


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 29, 2012)

"all White humans are from mars"

He has really said this? Jazzz get a fucking grip. If he really said this, if he is really claiming that different races have different origins like this, then he is not only a loon but he is a nasty racist loon. You insult everyone on here who knows you by pushing the ideas of a racist.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 29, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'm not entirely comfortable with people trying to claim that Jazzz is antisemitic. I don't think he is. Icke is though and the problem I have with Jazzz and his ilk is that they swallow his bullshit far too uncritically (which is ironic really because the sheeple apparently swallow the ill defined elite's bullshit too uncritically). In defending Icke they're making excuses for antisemitism and making it easier for even more dangerous antisemites to disguise their bigotry. But that's not antisemitism, it's just idiocy, albeit potentially dangerous idiocy. Personally I think it's a defence mechanism - he's invested far too much time and energy in conspiraloonery to even begin to contemplate the possibility that the sheeple of urban75 might be right. And so he's willing to commit the kind of crimes against logic and evidence we've all become accustomed to.



I used to think that too, but the evidence for Icke's anti-semitism and the anti-semitic ideas that Jazzz promotes has been put to him time and time again. His excuses start to wear a bit thin after a while.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> "all White humans are from mars"
> 
> He has really said this? Jazzz get a fucking grip. If he really said this, if he is really claiming that different races have different origins like this, then he is not only a loon but he is a nasty racist loon. You insult everyone on here who knows you by pushing the ideas of a racist.


He has - repeatedly , it's a bedrock of 'the biggest secret'.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 29, 2012)

So, haaaaaang on, the moon landings were faked, but white people landing on earth is correct...


----------



## rekil (Jan 29, 2012)

Icke said:
			
		

> Fascinatingly, some scientists claim that when white people are immersed in sensory deprivation tanks for long periods, their circadian rhythm has a frequency of 24 hours 40 minutes, which corresponds not to the rotational period of the Earth, but of Mars! This is not the case with non-white races who are in tune with the Earth’s rotation.



It's all coming together.


----------



## Roadkill (Jan 29, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> I never paid attention to the 9/11 threads, so what does Jazz believe happened on the day some terrorists hijacked some planes and flew them into some big buildings in America? Holographic planes are oft-mentioned here. Is that a genuine belief?



It is on the part of some, but to be fair, Jazzz has said he does not believe it: http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/9-11-media-happenings.116208/page-76#post-3898615


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> It is on the part of some, but to be fair, Jazzz has said he does not believe it: http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/9-11-media-happenings.116208/page-76#post-3898615


To be even fairer, he (or did, he may know have developed his position) does not reject the theory either - preferring the sort of mad refusal that faux pas demonstrated earlier in this thread.


----------



## Roadkill (Jan 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> To be even fairer, he (or did, he may know have developed his position) does not reject the theory either - preferring the sort of mad refusal that faux pas demonstrated earlier in this thread.



Ah, hadn't seen that.  Cheers.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 29, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> I never paid attention to the 9/11 threads, so what does Jazz believe happened on the day some terrorists hijacked some planes and flew them into some big buildings in America? Holographic planes are oft-mentioned here. Is that a genuine belief?


Get yourself a good drink and settle down with the "9-11 Media Happenings" thread, it's comedy gold.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jan 29, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> I never paid attention to the 9/11 threads, so what does Jazz believe happened on the day some terrorists hijacked some planes and flew them into some big buildings in America? Holographic planes are oft-mentioned here. Is that a genuine belief?



The vast majority of those who are skeptical about the entire official account and adequacy of the subsequent commission do not have any truck with the hologram planes nonsense. It's a useful distraction, not a million miles tactically from bringing up "granny diggers" in every animal rights debate.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 29, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> The vast majority of those who are skeptical about the entire official account and adequacy of the subsequent commission do not have any truck with the hologram planes nonsense. It's a useful distraction, not a million miles tactically from bringing up "granny diggers" in every animal rights debate.


i take it you are sceptical then. what do you think happened on that day?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jan 29, 2012)

Skeptical of the official account and the report? Yes. What happened? I have little idea and am pretty suss about people who claim they do, especially alternative explanations as it happens. Some are more more plausible than others, as are many aspects of official accounts. Overall there is too wide a range of possibilities. Of course what happened before the day is of paramount importance too, not that the Commission necessarily thought so. It really is a matter for another thread.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 29, 2012)

it's sceptical, fella, unless you're a merkin.
that's a bit of a non-answer too.
i saw some planes hit some buildings on the telly. i believe what i saw.
i also believe that the fellas that did it were terrorists who had hijacked passenger planes.
do you agree that this happened?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jan 30, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> it's sceptical, fella, unless you're a merkin.
> that's a bit of a non-answer too.
> i saw some planes hit some buildings on the telly. i believe what i saw.
> i also believe that the fellas that did it were terrorists who had hijacked passenger planes.
> do you agree that this happened?



It's not a non answer. You asked me what happened. I don't know, I guess what happened in the build up is more important as my answers to your further question will outline. Have you heard of the Thompson Timeline?

Did planes hit some buildings? Yes. Do I believe it just because it was on TV? Not entirely, but I believe it nonetheless.

Did terrorists hijack the planes? It seems so, though the relationship between terrorists and international intelligence organisations has always been a murky one.

Do you think it matters who funded the operation? The commission didn't. 

Neither were many of the terrorists very committed to their supposed "muslim" faith given their predeliction for booze and strip joints.

Now, as I said, it is far too big a topic for this thread. You confess to have not looked into it that much yourself which is fine. But if you think you can goad or tease someone into stating a position you can ridicule, you might have picked the wrong chap on this occasion. If you believe without question that the output of the Commission is full and satisfactory you are as open to the charge of silliness as you might want to put to other people. But you might have to dig a little deeper before you could take a position so confidently. "some terrorists hijacked some planes and flew them into buildings" is to diminish things rather too much.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 30, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> So, haaaaaang on, the moon landings were faked, but white people landing on earth is correct...



That's true, though back then they didn't actually have a term for 'white people':
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGaueP0Iufo


----------



## southside (Jan 30, 2012)

What I find with Icke is that some of it sounds quite interesting until the lizard section where he goes in to mad scientist mode.

It's total paranoia and pretty insane and some of the accusations about paedo satanists is well out of order, the fact that people are listening to him in their thousands is worrying, until you see the oddballs they interview at the end of his 2010 mumbo jumbo fest.

Here's one for xes & jazzz......

Type itanimulli.com in to your browser and see where it takes you


----------



## TruXta (Jan 30, 2012)

southside said:


> Type itanimulli.com in to your browser and see where it takes you



It's been done, and if you bothered to look around you'd know it's a dude with a sense of humour that bought the domain and set it to redirect to the NSA.


----------



## southside (Jan 30, 2012)

TruXta said:


> It's been done, and if you bothered to look around you'd know it's a dude with a sense of humour that bought the domain and set it to redirect to the NSA.


Did you have to piss on my fireworks?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 30, 2012)

Corax said:


> I've only done psychedelics a handful of times, but my understanding is that even the heaviest users aren't guaranteed to lose the plot permanently.



As a former high-dosage LSD enthusiast, I can confirm that it doesn't necessarily turn you into a conspiraloon with no functioning critical faculties.


----------



## southside (Jan 30, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> As a former high-dosage LSD enthusiast, I can confirm that it doesn't necessarily turn you into a conspiraloon with no functioning critical faculties.



See Syd Barret or Peter Green, skip Paul MaCuntny as the real one died years ago


----------



## TruXta (Jan 30, 2012)

southside said:


> Did you have to piss on my fireworks?



Yes.


----------



## southside (Jan 30, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Yes.




No worries


----------



## TruXta (Jan 30, 2012)

Even jazzz wouldn't fall for that one


----------



## southside (Jan 30, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Even jazzz wouldn't fall for that one



I wouldn't know as I seldom come here so it's impossible to know what a loonspud falls for.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 30, 2012)

LiamO said:


> To answer this properly would involve reading the bits of this thread I have actually read again - and also the many pages I haven't even looked at. Frankly, I would rather stick pins in my eyes so I will bow out.



Oh go on, *please* stick pins in your eyes! 



> Whilst I do not doubt the sincerity of many posters on this thread, I am just left a little uneasy about the amount of over-the-shouldering and drive-by's going on. It reminds me of the abuse detective-boy used to get on occasion (and which I freely indulged in myself).



About 90% 0f the abuse d-b got was reactive, *after* he'd posted one of his condescending cuss-laced diatribes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 30, 2012)

Corax said:


> So when Icke says he's the messiah, he's actually.....



...A very naughty boy. Yes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 30, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'm not entirely comfortable with people trying to claim that Jazzz is antisemitic. I don't think he is. Icke is though and the problem I have with Jazzz and his ilk is that they swallow his bullshit far too uncritically (which is ironic really because the sheeple apparently swallow the ill defined elite's bullshit too uncritically). In defending Icke they're making excuses for antisemitism and making it easier for even more dangerous antisemites to disguise their bigotry. But that's not antisemitism, it's just idiocy, albeit potentially dangerous idiocy. Personally I think it's a defence mechanism - he's invested far too much time and energy in conspiraloonery to even begin to contemplate the possibility that the sheeple of urban75 might be right. And so he's willing to commit the kind of crimes against logic and evidence we've all become accustomed to.



I've never thought of jazzz as an anti-Semite, merely as the sort of "useful idiot" that sometimes unwittingly furthers the views of anti-Semites.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 30, 2012)

twentythreedom said:


> Can we all agree that Nathaniel Rothschild is an odious creep?



Feeling repugnance for Nat Rothschild's personality, and for what he does to "earn a living" is something I hope that all decent people share.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 30, 2012)

TruXta said:


> More like anti-semiotic?



That very nearly *worked*, didn't it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 30, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> WTC was controlled demolition



With nano-thermite, no less.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 30, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> About 90% 0f the abuse d-b got was reactive, *after* he'd posted one of his condescending cuss-laced diatribes.



Yeah. I know.

But there were many threads derailed/disrupted by people (myself included on more than a few occasions) just having a pop for the sake of it - and cos he was so easy to wind up. People used to deliberately and lazily misrepresent what he said - which used to bring on his 'Cuntycunt Tourettes' - when they could easily have stuck with the point in hand (it's not as if he did not supply enough ammunition).

I think what I find most objectionable is the over-the-shoulder warriors who generally have little to say but cannot resist joining the hyenas from a safe distance.

It's worthwhile remembering sometimes that the vast majority of readers do not post - they just read. Sometimes I think the pack mentality gets in the way of interesting conversations and indeed of a bit of humanity.


----------



## Jazzz (Jan 30, 2012)

editor said:


> Well, apart from this Guardian piece along with _thousands_ of other similar articles:
> 
> Anti-Zionism is anti-semitism
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/nov/29/comment


You are correct, the utter lunacy is rife. I find it a disgusting manipulation. By the same token, one is a hatred of Americans for opposing the USG foreign policy, one is a hatred of Englishmen for opposing our foreign policy... etc.

Crazy.


----------



## Jazzz (Jan 30, 2012)

double post


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 30, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> You are correct, the utter lunacy is rife. I find it a disgusting manipulation. By the same token, one is a hatred of Americans for opposing the USG foreign policy, one is a hatred of Englishmen for opposing our foreign policy... etc.
> 
> Crazy.



Now about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion...


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 30, 2012)

Jazzz, are you ever going to give Blagsta an answer?


----------



## LiamO (Jan 31, 2012)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Jazzz, are you ever going to give Blagsta an answer?



 I would have thought it was quite clear, from his consistent ignoring of Blagsta, that he has no intention of engaging with him.

I do not know, but I would be surprised if they do not have some 'history' which would explain Jazzz's reluctance to engage with some individual posters. It's not as if he is generally shy in fighting his corner, is it?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 31, 2012)

He's not answering cos there's no answer he can give which would be both internally consistent with his own beliefs and with what is factually known about the origins of the Protocols. I know he's not gonna answer me, which is why I keep asking.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 31, 2012)

I'm more worried about this 'White people are from Mars' crap. It's the classic idea of the darker races being more 'in tune' with nature, more 'animalistic', just given a science fiction twist. Jazzz, explain yourself on this, please. It's insulting to champion the cause of a dirty scumcunt white supremacist.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 31, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> He's not answering cos there's no answer he can give which would be both internally consistent with his own beliefs and with what is factually known about the origins of the Protocols. I know he's not gonna answer me, which is why I keep asking.



Hmm. Unfortunately though - and I have a very mild, passing interest in this thread - you are coming across as a poor man's Jeremy Paxton, a broken record, a stuck CD.

Have you and he had this conversation - or a similar one - elsewhere?


----------



## belboid (Jan 31, 2012)

LiamO said:


> a poor man's Jeremy Paxton,


I know this thread has gone off on tangents, but what has water skiing got to do with anything?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 31, 2012)

LiamO said:


> Hmm. Unfortunately though - and I have a very mild, passing interest in this thread - you are coming across as a poor man's Jeremy Paxton, a broken record, a stuck CD.
> 
> Have you and he had this conversation - or a similar one - elsewhere?


I don't really care how I come across to you. I enjoy prodding Jazzz as I think he's a far right prick.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jan 31, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm more worried about this 'White people are from Mars' crap. It's the classic idea of the darker races being more 'in tune' with nature, more 'animalistic', just given a science fiction twist. Jazzz, explain yourself on this, please. It's insulting to champion the cause of a dirty scumcunt white supremacist.



Apparently if you lock a white man in a room without natural light they revert to mars time. I read it in ikes book.
There is no explanation as to how these mars men got to earth though and why they did not bring any form of technology with them or leave any behind.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2012)

LiamO said:


> Have you and he had this conversation - or a similar one - elsewhere?


If someone starts a thread on an upcoming event, then it is entirely reasonable for them to be asked questions relevant to that event by other posters - otherwise it becomes more of an advert and less of a discussion.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2012)

Does Icke _really_ think that white men comes from Mars? Surely not.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jan 31, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> "all White humans are from mars"
> 
> He has really said this? Jazzz get a fucking grip. If he really said this, if he is really claiming that different races have different origins like this, then he is not only a loon but he is a nasty racist loon. You insult everyone on here who knows you by pushing the ideas of a racist.





editor said:


> Does Icke _really_ think that white men comes from Mars? Surely not.



To be fair he says whites are from mars but he also says that all humans were seeded by the lizard men (who came from space but also from the inner earth and other dimensions, who left the planet but didn't), even though he says this happened before the mars people got here. He says a lot of shit with nothing to back it up that doesn't even add up on it's own internal logic.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 31, 2012)

No, I'm not going to be fair on this one. It is the classic 'whites are less like animals than blacks' shit. This is straight out of the 19th century.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 31, 2012)

Where did black people come from?


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2012)

And where do mixed race people come from? The asteroid belt? Meteors?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 31, 2012)

Funnily enough, I've only met one diehard Icke-head and he was black. His name was Zoltan and he carried a funny stick.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 31, 2012)




----------



## xes (Jan 31, 2012)

the aliens seeding the earth isn't an Icke theory btw, he may have jumped on the bandwagon, but IIRC, the first one to publicise it was Robert Morning Sky. (the terra papers)


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 31, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> I don't really care how I come across to you. I enjoy prodding Jazzz as I think he's a far right prick.



He isn't. He's just got some very odd beliefs.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 31, 2012)

His views legitmate far-right views. Doesn't matter that much whether it's consciously or unconsciously, the effect is the same. And, as it's clear he's never ever coming back, then a different approach is required than that of someone who has odd beliefs tied in with far-right views who hasn't fully internalised them into their world-view. One of those ways is making explicit the ways in which their odd views are tied to the far-right and pinning them on them personally.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 31, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> He isn't. He's just got some very odd beliefs.



I used to think that.  Now, I don't think it is the case.  He promotes far right opinions again and again.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 31, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> I used to think that. Now, I don't think it is the case. He promotes far right opinions again and again.



IME that's more to do with the _milieu_ in which conspiracy theories are currently primarily circulated. Back in the pre-web days, CTs and CTers tended to be politically-neutral for the most part. There has been, however, an unfortunate "taking up" of CT by elements of the right over the last 10 years or so, and also a concomitant exposure of people to right-biased CTs.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 31, 2012)

Are you sure that's true? I thought that conspiracy shit was always far right (as shown by the fact that people like Pat Robertson wrote anti-zionist screeds descirbing black helicopters etc back in 1995, and then there was the liberty lobby, spotlight etc). what i thought had changed is the fact that things like the UFO/Roswell etc subculture got more exposed to those types of conspiracy theories with the arrival of the internet, so that UFOs/aliens are now linked with wider conspiracies rather than just a conspiracy to cover alien presences up iyswim (and far right conspiracies at that).


----------



## TruXta (Jan 31, 2012)

editor said:


> And where do mixed race people come from? The asteroid belt? Meteors?



Uranus, clearly.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 31, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> IME that's more to do with the _milieu_ in which conspiracy theories are currently primarily circulated. Back in the pre-web days, CTs and CTers tended to be politically-neutral for the most part. There has been, however, an unfortunate "taking up" of CT by elements of the right over the last 10 years or so, and also a concomitant exposure of people to right-biased CTs.



I dunno, the "Rothschild Zionists" thing seems to me to be an update of ZOG.


----------



## Jazzz (Jan 31, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm more worried about this 'White people are from Mars' crap. It's the classic idea of the darker races being more 'in tune' with nature, more 'animalistic', just given a science fiction twist. Jazzz, explain yourself on this, please. It's insulting to champion the cause of a dirty scumcunt white supremacist.


First I've heard of it! To be honest, it sounds like a load of nonsense. Having googled it seems Icke mentions it as a theory from Desborough chap. File under 'one of many pretty out there theories that Icke mentions'. It totally depends what you wish to read into it if you want to say it's racist though. Wouldn't it seem worse the other way around?

Rather than concentrating on adding between the lines, why not pay attention to simply what Icke says and indeed him denouncing racism? Because he does that very eloquently. Why completely ignore him on that topic?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 31, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> First I've heard of it! To be honest, it sounds like a load of nonsense. Having googled it seems Icke mentions it as a theory from Desborough chap. It totally depends what you wish to read into it if you want to say its racist though. Wouldn't it seem worse the other way around?
> Rather than concentrating on adding between the lines, why not pay attention to simply what Icke says and indeed him denouncing racism? Because he does that very eloquently. Why completely ignore him on that topic?


It's the first that you hard about it despite it being a central point of someone whose theories you've recommended for years? I think you're lying.



> why not pay attention to simply what Icke says


 this _is_ what we're doing.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 31, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> *It totally depends what you wish to read into it if you want to say its racist though. Wouldn't it seem worse the other way around?*
> Rather than concentrating on adding between the lines, why not pay attention to simply what Icke says and indeed him denouncing racism? Because he does that very eloquently. Why completely ignore him on that topic?


wtf? you seems to have a 1970s view of racism


----------



## Spud Murfy (Jan 31, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm more worried about this 'White people are from Mars' crap. It's the classic idea of the darker races being more 'in tune' with nature, more 'animalistic', just given a science fiction twist. Jazzz, explain yourself on this, please. It's insulting to champion the cause of a dirty scumcunt white supremacist.



Sounds like Michael Bradley's 'The Iceman Inheritance'. Bradley has been crowing about the recent suggestions of 1-4% introgression of Neanderthal genes into non-African populations as proof of what he's been saying for years - except the proportion's much greater and scientists are covering this up because they're cowards and liars etc etc.

He's also been channelling some of the ideas of hardcore anti-semite Kevin Macdonald in a more recent book titled 'Chosen People of the Caucasus'.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> His views legitmate far-right views. Doesn't matter that much whether it's consciously or unconsciously, the effect is the same. And, as it's clear he's never ever coming back, then a different approach is required than that of someone who has odd beliefs tied in with far-right views who hasn't fully internalised them into their world-view. One of those ways is making explicit the ways in which their odd views are tied to the far-right and pinning them on them personally.


Yep and lets remember Icke isn't just an odd case, he defended his mate Kollarstrom to the end despite all the evidence of his holocaust denying supplied by others.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 1, 2012)

xes said:


> the aliens seeding the earth isn't an Icke theory btw, he may have jumped on the bandwagon, but IIRC, the first one to publicise it was Robert Morning Sky. (the terra papers)



The Raelians have built a religion around it. They're my favourite cult cos they use topless rights demos and the offer of free sex to pull people in


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 1, 2012)

what's with the weird nipples?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 1, 2012)

I think it's so they don't get nicked for indecent exposure or whatever. They cover their real nipples with fake ones lol


----------



## rekil (Feb 1, 2012)

redsquirrel said:


> Yep and lets remember Icke isn't just an odd case, he defended his mate Kollarstrom to the end despite all the evidence of his holocaust denying supplied by others.


And 'political prisoner' Ernst Zundel  as well.

That boat they're sending to the falklands is sure to get many a loon excited.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 1, 2012)

My God! Its HMS Zog! How can people not see THE TROOF!


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 1, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> First I've heard of it! To be honest, it sounds like a load of nonsense. Having googled it seems Icke mentions it as a theory from Desborough chap. File under 'one of many pretty out there theories that Icke mentions'. *It totally depends what you wish to read into it if you want to say it's racist though. Wouldn't it seem worse the other way around?*
> 
> Rather than concentrating on adding between the lines, why not pay attention to simply what Icke says and indeed him denouncing racism? Because he does that very eloquently. Why completely ignore him on that topic?



Here you are in step with faux pas (unsurprisingly) and their appreciation that saying apparently positive things about a racially defined group couldn't be derogatory; you're just as wrong as they were. I tried to get faux pas to think this through, but they declined the offer. Perhaps you'll be more forthcoming in reconsidering your position.

As an example for you to think about consider the opinion expressed by some psychiatrists that 'West Indians' disproportionately didn't suffer from depression in comparison to their white counterparts (Fernando 1988 _Race and Culture in Psychiatry_). While such 'immunity' might be thought of as a positive quality, the explanation proffered and it's implications pointed in exactly the opposite direction.

The explanation provided was that because of a 'cultural characteristic' whereby Afro-Caribbeans externalised their problems, blaming outside agencies in a 'child like' manner (Fernando 1988), they were protected from introspective and intellectual depression, 'the inwardly directed disturbance of a finely tunes mechanism' (Littlewood and Lipsedge 1989 _Aliens and Alienists_ - how appropriate!).

Ill let you work through the implications. Keep in mind that that psychiatrists weren't saying that Afro-Caribbeans didn't exhibit mental distress; just that it wasn't evidence of depression.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 1, 2012)

In fairness, Zog did rule Albania for many years.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 1, 2012)

"I love black people, me. I really envy their sense of rhythm. It's like they're more in tune with nature..."

Jazzz, really, seriously, get a fucking grip with this racist shit.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Feb 1, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> First I've heard of it! To be honest, it sounds like a load of nonsense. Having googled it seems Icke mentions it as a theory from Desborough chap. File under 'one of many pretty out there theories that Icke mentions'.



Not mentions, he subscribes to it.

"My own research supports the theme."
Then he goes on to suggest there is very strong evidence in his own research that a white race of egyptians had very strong ties with Mars and links names, the pyrimids, and the spinx to mars. etc etc.
"I would strongly suggest that this emphasis on Mars came from the knowledge in ancient times that this is where the white race came from."


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 1, 2012)

what is this 'research'?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 1, 2012)

Reading other peoples books then repeating their mad ideas. That's it. Really.That's it.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Feb 1, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Reading other peoples books then repeating their mad ideas. That's it. Really.That's it.



Usually, well in the book I have, when he mentions 'his own research' it means what he is saying is not documented.
When he is quoting other peoples books he at least does make that very clear, though he does take some sizable chunks. These sections are usually topped off with "my own research suggests", but he never gives anything of substance. It's either cherry picking common folklore or some bad science.
Every chapter ends with a list of sources, but most of the sources are pretty flakey.

I'm quite enjoying reading it again, it's like bad sci-fi, there is probably a cool B-Movie or two in there if you take out all the plot inconstancies.
Talking of B-Movies, he actually uses some sci-fi films as 'sources'.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 1, 2012)

Similar to research on the akashik records then ('you made that up').


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 1, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Usually, well in the book I have, when he mentions 'his own research' it means what he is saying is not documented.
> When he is quoting other peoples books he at least does make that very clear, though he does take some sizable chunks. These sections are usually topped off with "my own research suggests", but he never gives anything of substance. It's either cherry picking common folklore or some bad science.
> Every chapter ends with a list of sources, but most of the sources are pretty flakey.
> 
> ...



I'm guessing he uses them as 'sources' of 'facts', not as say for example, evidence of enduring popular narratives; perhaps the sort where dangerous outsiders can be recognised by their likeness to us combined with some subtle or not so subtle differences.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 1, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> I dunno, the "Rothschild Zionists" thing seems to me to be an update of ZOG.



It's not quite. ZOG has always denoted a supposedly *overt* control of "the strings", whereas the "Rothschild Zionism" _schtick_ is yet another stab at alleging *covert* control.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Feb 1, 2012)

Louis MacNeice said:


> I'm guessing he uses them as 'sources' of 'facts', not as say for example, evidence of enduring popular narratives; perhaps the sort where dangerous outsiders can be recognised by their likeness to us combined with some subtle or not so subtle differences.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



I'm pretty sure he mentions that he thinks the makers of these films know some inside truth and are trying to get the message out to the public.
He does also often use sci-fi films as examples, which of course makes a lot more sense, but he does do it really rather a lot.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 1, 2012)

I didn't know much about Icke before this thread, beyond the lizards. Learning a bit more, I am fucking appalled at Jazzz for promoting his hateful bile. Really fucking appalled.


----------



## killer b (Feb 1, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> I'm pretty sure he mentions that he thinks the makers of these films know some inside truth and are trying to get the message out to the public.


like this?






not sure what the message is, but there must be one, right?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 1, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I think it's so they don't get nicked for indecent exposure or whatever. They cover their real nipples with fake ones lol



And to prevent sunburnt nips. Horribly painful.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 1, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> First I've heard of it! To be honest, it sounds like a load of nonsense. Having googled it seems Icke mentions it as a theory from Desborough chap. File under 'one of many pretty out there theories that Icke mentions'. *It totally depends what you wish to read into it* if you want to say it's racist though. Wouldn't it seem worse the other way around?



That's kind of a good point.
Thing is, when we converse with someone, or when we write a post, an article or even a book, we both consciously and unconsciously code something of ourselves into it, as well as incorporating our position _vis-a-vis_ "power" and our political/ideological stance (standard Bakhtinian discourse analysis).
Deconstruct Icke's writings as neutrally as possible and you're still likely to arrive at the conclusion that his various flights of terminological fancy denote, in some cases, anti-Semitism.



> Rather than concentrating on adding between the lines, why not pay attention to simply what Icke says and indeed him denouncing racism? Because he does that very eloquently. Why completely ignore him on that topic?



One doesn't need to add to what he's written, one merely needs to analyse it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 1, 2012)

Spud Murfy said:


> Sounds like Michael Bradley's 'The Iceman Inheritance'. Bradley has been crowing about the recent suggestions of 1-4% introgression of Neanderthal genes into non-African populations as proof of what he's been saying for years - except the proportion's much greater and scientists are covering this up because they're cowards and liars etc etc.
> 
> He's also been channelling some of the ideas of hardcore anti-semite Kevin Macdonald in a more recent book titled 'Chosen People of the Caucasus'.



Obviously, he doesn't realise that the chosen people of the Caucasus were actually the Kavkazi.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Feb 1, 2012)

killer b said:


> like this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I know you are joking but. . .
This is another example of cherry picking, the kind of thing icke does with his 'research'.  I saw a vid not long ago that pointed out many many september 11 appearances in films.
What it didn't do is point out all the other dates that have ever appeared in a film or tv show that aren't september the 11th.
One date that leaps out at me is my birthday. I come across some event or other, or mention of it quite often, mainly because it does 'leap out' at me. In fact before christmas I was working in an office where the pass code was my year and date of birth. Freaky, but not even as freaky as you lottery numbers coming up and that happens every week.


----------



## Spud Murfy (Feb 1, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Obviously, he doesn't realise that the chosen people of the Caucasus were actually the Kavkazi.



I didn't know about the Kavkazi. Always find such histories really fascinating to learn about. Only recently discovered that there are still around 50,000 Gnostics living in Egypt!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 1, 2012)

Spud Murfy said:


> I didn't know about the Kavkazi. Always find such histories really fascinating to learn about. Only recently discovered that there are still around 50,000 Gnostics living in Egypt!



I did some research about odd Jewish offshoots back in the '90s, which is how I learned about them and the Subbotniks.


----------



## rekil (Feb 1, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> beyond the lizards.


Good name for a book that. _Beyond The Lizards reveals the most terrible secret in history - that the reptiloid jews are mere puppets of an even nastier race of beings, I dunno, invisible fishmen or something, from Kepler 22b or thereabouts._


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 1, 2012)

i'm not racist, those black people have such a great sense of rhythm.


----------



## Stigmata (Feb 1, 2012)

Presumably this global reptilian conspiracy is the reason that reptilian aliens are always portrayed so positively in science fiction media.


----------



## Jazzz (Feb 1, 2012)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Here you are in step with faux pas (unsurprisingly) and their appreciation that saying apparently positive things about a racially defined group couldn't be derogatory; you're just as wrong as they were. I tried to get faux pas to think this through, but they declined the offer. Perhaps you'll be more forthcoming in reconsidering your position.
> 
> As an example for you to think about consider the opinion expressed by some psychiatrists that 'West Indians' disproportionately didn't suffer from depression in comparison to their white counterparts (Fernando 1988 _Race and Culture in Psychiatry_). While such 'immunity' might be thought of as a positive quality, the explanation proffered and it's implications pointed in exactly the opposite direction.
> 
> ...


Let's be a bit clearer. I think it's fairly ludicrous to describe whether one originates from um, Mars as "positive" or "negative".

If I asked whether it is a positive or negative whether one's ancestry is rooted in America, Africa or Australia, surely you would say no? I would certainly hope so. So what is wrong with Mars? Or Earth?

The reason I said "would it not seem worse the other way around?" is that for those who are territorial about race issues, Mars is where the martians have to be sent back to. There's no value judgment - well not from me anyway.

In your example there is nothing racist about the observation about depression while quite possibly the explanation given is: I am sure I could suggest alternative ones based on vaccination status or perhaps vitamin D depending on the study details. Looks like it's not the case anymore and the Afro-Carribean community has high rates of depression in the UK http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/180/6/475


----------



## Jazzz (Feb 1, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> "I love black people, me. I really envy their sense of rhythm. It's like they're more in tune with nature..."
> 
> Jazzz, really, seriously, get a fucking grip with this racist shit.


The statement "black people have a good sense of rhythm" is not implied by "white people are from Mars". *

As any fule no, Martians can swing harder than anyone.


----------



## Lock&Light (Feb 1, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> The statement "black people have a good sense of rhythm" is not implied by "white people are from Mars".



Black people, and white people and every colour of people come from Africa.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 1, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> The statement "black people have a good sense of rhythm" is not implied by "white people are from Mars". *
> 
> As any fule no, Martians can swing harder than anyone.


So you're just going to ignore the implications of the claim and it's centrality to the theories of the bloke that you're bigging up? Wilf was right - people like you have a bigger commitment to the conspiracy theories than you do to anti-racism. It's why you can claim around the time of your holocaust denting mate being outed that holocaust denial isn't necessarily anti-semitic.


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 1, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> i'm not racist, those black people have such a great sense of rhythm.



 Neil Kinnock at your cousins wedding has got more rythm than this boyo


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 1, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> The statement "black people have a good sense of rhythm" is not implied by "white people are from Mars". *
> 
> As any fule no, Martians can swing harder than anyone.


The idea is ludicrous, of course, but the fact that he's made up _this_ ludicrous idea and not some other _is_ telling. I'm disappointed that you don't see it. His rubbish mind has made up a story to show how white people are different, how they are not 'in tune' with Earth like black people and plants and animals are.

This is reminiscent of the horror certain people felt at the idea that humans evolved from other animals, but taken one step further - a story made up to explain how white people aren't part of the same species as other races. It's hateful, whether or not Icke himself knows it is hateful. If he is genuine with all this nonsense, I can guarantee you that he will have precious little insight into himself or his motives.


----------



## Jazzz (Feb 1, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The idea is ludicrous, of course, but the fact that he's made up _this_ ludicrous idea and not some other _is_ telling. I'm disappointed that you don't see it. His rubbish mind has made up a story to show how white people are different, how they are not 'in tune' with Earth like black people and plants and animals are.


So you think this idea is the _only_ ludicrous idea Icke has entertained? Do you know how many millions of words he has written? As I've said, I've never even heard this one and I've heard him give two eight-hour lectures.



> This is reminiscent of the horror certain people felt at the idea that humans evolved from other animals, but taken one step further - a story made up to explain how white people aren't part of the same species as other races. It's hateful, whether or not Icke himself knows it is hateful. If he is genuine with all this nonsense, I can guarantee you that he will have precious little insight into himself or his motives.


So to you, it matters very much where someone comes from and what the origins of their DNA are?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 1, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I can guarantee you that he will have precious little insight into himself or his motives.



I think he will.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 1, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> So you think this idea is the _only_ ludicrous idea Icke has entertained?
> 
> So to you, it matters very much where someone comes from and what the origins of their DNA are?



of course not - buy why does it matter to icke?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 1, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> I think he will.


Not if he's genuine. And I have no reason to doubt that he's genuine. People with psychosis rarely have much insight into their condition, if any.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 1, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not if he's genuine. And I have no reason to doubt that he's genuine. People with psychosis rarely have much insight into their condition, if any.



he can be genuine and be using some of this shit metaphorically. dog whistle type stuff.crazy enough to make people think he's an idiot but not so delusional that you cant read between the lines.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 1, 2012)

Maybe. TBH I think Icke is really quite delusional, though.

It's possible to be deluded and suffering from a form of psychosis that causes you to experience very strange perceptions and also - mostly - to be able to function day-to-day.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 1, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Maybe. TBH I think Icke is really quite delusional, though.



I think he started off as genuinely having a psychotic break and trying to make sense of it. Then he realised how much money he could make out of exploiting it.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 1, 2012)

also i don't think that someone who literally believes *all* of this shit would be functional enough to pull in millions of pounds and attract crowds of thousands to his speaking tours.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 1, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> So you think this idea is the _only_ ludicrous idea Icke has entertained?



So what other ludicrous ideas has Icke entertained? Can you list some of them?


----------



## Lock&Light (Feb 1, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> So to you, it matters very much where someone comes from and what the origins of their DNA are?



It should matter to all humanity that there are fools who think that there is any difference in the origin of people's DNA. To suggest that there is the most blatent form of racism.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 1, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Maybe. TBH I think Icke is really quite delusional, though.
> 
> It's possible to be deluded and suffering from a form of psychosis that causes you to experience very strange perceptions and also - mostly - to be able to function day-to-day.



he doesn't just function day to day though. very few of us on here could dream of the type of lifestyle he has and the success he's had in his "career" and most of us i'm assuming don't suffer from psychotic delusions.

what evidence has icke shown in the past few years (i don't mean initially) of being seriously mentally ill?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 1, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> he doesn't just function day to day though. very few of us on here could dream of the type of lifestyle he has and the success he's had in his "career" and most of us i'm assuming don't suffer from psychotic delusions.
> 
> what evidence has icke shown in the past few years (i don't mean initially) of being seriously mentally ill?


There are different kinds of 'ill'. I'm not going to go into details, but someone very close to me has been suffering from psychotic delusions about all kinds of things for many years and has built up an extremely disturbing set of beliefs in trying to make sense of it. She holds down her job just fine, most of the time, and you'd never guess if you met her - as long as she stayed away from certain subjects.

Blagsta may be right that the psychotic breakdown is over, but that kind of experience can leave very deeply held beliefs, particularly if he himself interpreted his breakdown as something else, and if he's experiencing ongoing visions or voices that reinforce those beliefs, he could well be quite high-functioning in many ways and still be 'ill'.


----------



## Jazzz (Feb 1, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> It should matter to all humanity that there are fools who think that there is any difference in the origin of people's DNA. To suggest that there is the most blatent form of racism.


Absurd nonsense. You can get your DNA tested to see where it came from, e.g. http://www.gtldna.com/ancestral-origins-dna-ancestry.html


----------



## Jazzz (Feb 1, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> So what other ludicrous ideas has Icke entertained? Can you list some of them?


I'm surprised if you need my help with that one mate.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 1, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> Absurd nonsense. You can get your DNA tested to see where it came from, e.g. http://www.gtldna.com/ancestral-origins-dna-ancestry.html


Does this establish if it's from mars? All DNA comes from somewhere. The motivation to claim that one 'races' DNA comes from another planet also comes from somewhere - a complex network of racist assumptions.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 1, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> I'm surprised if you need my help with that one mate.


Well give us a few. Given that you're bigging up him and his ideas the suggestion from you that he's full of ludicrous ideas seems rather to undermine that doesn't it?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 1, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There are different kinds of 'ill'. I'm not going to go into details, but someone very close to me has been suffering from psychotic delusions about all kinds of things for many years and has built up an extremely disturbing set of beliefs in trying to make sense of it. She holds down her job just fine, most of the time, and you'd never guess if you met her - as long as she stayed away from certain subjects.
> 
> Blagsta may be right that the psychotic breakdown is over, but that kind of experience can leave very deeply held beliefs, particularly if he himself interpreted his breakdown as something else, and if he's experiencing ongoing visions or voices that reinforce those beliefs, he could well be quite high-functioning in many ways and still be 'ill'.



i've got mental health problems which have included paranoia and beliefs that came very close to being delusions in the past. i think holding down a job, etc, is very different to the type of success that icke has had. i'm sorry to hear about your friend and maybe i'm wrong but i think that after a while,the stress of being that famous and successful would start to severely impact your mental health to the point where you were showing obvious signs of being very ill.

does icke believe that for example "they" are tapping his phone, listening to his thoughts through walls etc etc? it seems to me that whereas someone mentally ill would have paranoia and delusions involving themselves or loved ones most of the time, he speaks about it as a general theory to explain things going on in the world - ie it's not personal. perhaps i'm wrong and there are conditions where this occurs but i've never heard of it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 1, 2012)

You might be right. He might not find being famous stressful, though. He might find the idea of _not_ being famous more stressful.


----------



## Jazzz (Feb 1, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Well give us a few. Given that you're bigging up him and his ideas the suggestion from you that he's full of ludicrous ideas seems rather to undermine that doesn't it?


That's the mentality of the herd - looking for someone, an authority, to follow.

How about making up your own mind on distinct issues? Listening to what someone might have to say on each one and taking it or rejecting as you see fit?

And as someone wanting to spread information and ideas - must you limit yourself to the ones which you are absolutely damn certain about - lest others go "oh that one is nonsense, therefore I must consider everything you say nonsense?" - or how about just letting it all hang out, so people can have the benefit of all your ideas and thoughts?

I think Icke is spectacularly correct on some issues and spectacularly wrong on others. So what?
I can find out what we are being told to believe extremely easily, just by turning on the television.


----------



## Lock&Light (Feb 1, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> Absurd nonsense. You can get your DNA tested to see where it came from, e.g. http://www.gtldna.com/ancestral-origins-dna-ancestry.html



All human DNA has been traced back to African origins. Don't you know that?


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 1, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> *That's the mentality of the herd - looking for someone, an authority, to follow.*
> 
> How about making up your own mind on distinct issues? Listening to what someone might have to say on each one and taking it or rejecting as you see fit?
> 
> ...



Excellent


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 1, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> That's the mentality of the herd - looking for someone, an authority, to follow.
> 
> How about making up your own mind on distinct issues? Listening to what someone might have to say on each one and taking it or rejecting as you see fit?
> 
> ...


Go on then, make a case for the value of incoherence. That would be fun. Especially in the case of someone like Icke whose whole perspective is explicitly based on each and every part fitting together and supporting the overarching whole. Off you go.


----------



## TruXta (Feb 1, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> I think Icke is spectacularly correct on some issues



Name one.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 1, 2012)

Mitochondrial Eve, somewhere in East Africa about 200,000 years ago. We're all descended from her. The subsequent pattern of migration and the times, ways and reasons why various traits that have become associated with the concept 'race' evolved are now becoming really quite well understood. 

The irony of all this racist stuff is that humans as a species are really all very closely related, far more closely related than many other species. Which isn't all good - it leaves us far more prone to pandemics, but which is ironic given the lengths some people seem prepared to go to to divide us all up.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 1, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> I think Icke is spectacularly correct on some issues and spectacularly wrong on others. So what?



Name some of the latter.


----------



## TruXta (Feb 1, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Mitochondrial Eve, somewhere in East Africa about 200,000 years ago. We're all descended from her. The subsequent pattern of migration and the times, ways and reasons why various traits that have become associated with the concept 'race' evolved are now becoming really quite well understood.



Dude, what about Tars Tarkas?


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 1, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Dude, what about Tars Tarkas?



Was he Jewish?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 1, 2012)

it's just that from my experience of mental health problems the thoughts are usually focused on the sufferer or those close to them or who they care about for whatever reason. "my apartment is bugged" "people are listening to my thoughts" "everyone hates me, i'm a failure", "If i don't do X, someone might die". even with things where people are obsessed with or have delusions involving celebrities etc, it's usually on the lines of "she's about to be hurt, i must warn her" "me and her are meant to be together."

is the shit icke says like that - ie does he say he and only he is the person who knows this "knowledge" etc? can you get delusions etc that aren't like that? i don't know.


----------



## TruXta (Feb 1, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Was he Jewish?



Never read John Carter comics or books? He was Martian.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 1, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> it's just that from my experience of mental health problems the thoughts are usually focused on the sufferer or those close to them or who they care about for whatever reason. "my apartment is bugged" "people are listening to my thoughts" "everyone hates me, i'm a failure", "If i don't do X, someone might die". even with things where people are obsessed with or have delusions involving celebrities etc, it's usually on the lines of "she's about to be hurt, i must warn her" "me and her are meant to be together."
> 
> is the shit icke says like that? can you get delusions etc that aren't like that? i don't know.


That's true. And psychotic episodes all tend to share a lot of very specific things - as you say, people controlling/ reading your thoughts, various kinds of invisible waves, 'psychic' visions, etc.

Perhaps it isn't so likely that Icke is suffering from ongoing delusions. But if he has interpreted his original delusions as not-delusions, as revelations, then his whole way of thinking may still be securely rooted in that. My guess is that he's genuine, tbh.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 1, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Never read John Carter comics or books? He was Martian.


Or from Virginia.


----------



## TruXta (Feb 1, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Or from Virginia.



John Carter was Virginian, Tars Tarkas was from Mars.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 1, 2012)

fair enough, and it's also common to have pretty worrying beliefs regarding the apocalypse/the end of the world etc which while the might not be signs of mental illness as such are pretty unhealthy. however i think that more probably applies to icke's followers more than him though.

i do think a lot of the people who end up believing this shit pretty obviously need help and part of his "business model" is to sell this shit to people that are actually suffering. as can be seen by the conspiracy world's courting of remedies like colloidal silver etc.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 1, 2012)

TruXta said:


> John Carter was Virginian, Tars Tarkas was from Mars.


Damn your eyes. He is also apparently willem dafoe.


----------



## TruXta (Feb 1, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Damn your eyes. He is also apparently willem dafoe.



Yeah, haven't got my hopes up to be honest, but will have a gander needless to say.


----------



## fogbat (Feb 1, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> That's the mentality of the herd - looking for someone, an authority, to follow.


Lolzers.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 1, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> That's the mentality of the herd - looking for someone, an authority, to follow.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 1, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Never read John Carter comics or books? He was Martian.


I know, I was making a (bad) joke.


----------



## TruXta (Feb 1, 2012)

Mhm. Noted.


----------



## Jack Black (Feb 1, 2012)

Is dr jazzzzz and david ickey the same person? Have they ever been seen in the same room?

Over 1000 posts on this. Curious. Urbz laaaves it!


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 1, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> also i don't think that someone who literally believes *all* of this shit would be functional enough to pull in millions of pounds and attract crowds of thousands to his speaking tours.


there are plenty of tv preachers who believe what they say and their ideas are just as crazy as icke's


----------



## Jack Black (Feb 1, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> if you want to make everyone think you're *definitely not a paedo* the very worst thing you can do is sue someone for calling you one surely?


the very worst thing would be to rape a child in a public place, shirley!


----------



## Wilf (Feb 2, 2012)

Jack Black said:


> the very worst thing would be to rape a child in a public place, shirley!


Maybe it's time to turn your computer off for the night.


----------



## fogbat (Feb 2, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Maybe it's time to turn your computer off for the night.



Or year. Either would be fine.


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 2, 2012)

Jack Black said:


> Is dr jazzzzz and david ickey the same person? Have they ever been seen in the same room?
> 
> Over 1000 posts on this. Curious. Urbz laaaves it!


Totally.  They all deny it but these threads bring out the ? here.   I'm only looking for the first time coz there's an advert on the matrix.


----------



## twentythreedom (Feb 2, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> there are plenty of tv preachers who believe what they say and their ideas are just as crazy as icke's



and Mitt Romney is hoping to run for POTUS, and doing pretty well so far.


----------



## TruXta (Feb 2, 2012)

...and so fulfil the Mormon prophecy of a true Man of God leading a new theocracy on the path to righteousness.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 2, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> Let's be a bit clearer. I think it's fairly ludicrous to describe whether one originates from um, Mars as "positive" or "negative".
> 
> *If I asked whether it is a positive or negative whether one's ancestry is rooted in America, Africa or Australia, surely you would say no? I would certainly hope so. So what is wrong with Mars? Or Earth?*
> 
> ...



If you asked whether it is a positive or negative whether one's ancestory is said to be rooted in America, Africa or Australia, surely you'd say it matters? If not then you're either a fool or a liar; those are the positions available to someone who seeks to defend (in however mealy mouthed and evasive a manner) the idiocy and racism in Icke's Martian drivel.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 2, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> That's the mentality of the herd - looking for someone, an authority, to follow.
> 
> How about making up your own mind on distinct issues? Listening to what someone might have to say on each one and taking it or rejecting as you see fit?



Trans:
"Everyone is sheeple, except me! Mwahahahahahahaha".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 2, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Dude, what about Tars Tarkas?



Dirty salmon-thieving Jew otter scum!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 2, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Never read John Carter comics or books? He was Martian.



That Edgar Rice Burroughs was a total anti-Semite racist Green-supremacist motherfucker!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 2, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> there are plenty of tv preachers who believe what they say and their ideas are just as crazy as icke's



Yeah, but they're a bit more entertaining than Icke, especially when they do the patented Mark E. Smith enunciation.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 2, 2012)

TruXta said:


> ...and so fulfil the Mormon prophecy of a true Man of God leading a new theocracy on the path to righteousness.



Shades of Nehemiah Scudder!


----------



## TruXta (Feb 2, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Shades of Nehemiah Scudder!



Worst part is it's true. Romney's been groomed since young age for just that very purpose.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Feb 2, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Mitochondrial Eve, somewhere in East Africa about 200,000 years ago. We're all descended from her. The subsequent pattern of migration and the times, ways and reasons why various traits that have become associated with the concept 'race' evolved are now becoming really quite well understood.
> .


The weird thing is that icke does actually subscribe to this (though he says the aliens seeded the eve human/s) and give it as an example of proof of alien interference. A few paragraphs later he brings in the mars men and contradicts himself.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 2, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> The weird thing is that icke does actually subscribe to this (though he says the aliens seeded the eve human/s) and give it as an example of proof of alien interference. A few paragraphs later he brings in the mars men and contradicts himself.



Oh dear, not this can of wormholes again.


----------



## Jazzz (Feb 2, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> All human DNA has been traced back to African origins. Don't you know that?


No, all humans have been traced back to a common African ancestor (unless you want to bring Mars into it). That isn't the same as saying all human DNA came from Africa.


----------



## TruXta (Feb 2, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> No, all humans have been traced back to a common African ancestor (unless you want to bring Mars into it). That isn't the same as saying all human DNA came from Africa.



Same difference, Mr. Anti-semite Enabler.


----------



## Jazzz (Feb 2, 2012)

Louis MacNeice said:


> If you asked whether it is a positive or negative whether one's ancestory is said to be rooted in America, Africa or Australia, surely you'd say it matters? If not then you're either a fool or a liar; those are the positions available to someone who seeks to defend (in however mealy mouthed and evasive a manner) the idiocy and racism in Icke's Martian drivel.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


This is very simple - if you place a value judgment on where someone comes from, that is racism. There is nothing 'foolish' about not doing so: it is a necessary condition not to exhibit racism.

So I ask you: does it matter where someone comes from?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 2, 2012)

Jazzz, are you ever going to give us your opinion on the Protocols? Just curious like.


----------



## Jazzz (Feb 2, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Same difference, Mr. Anti-semite Enabler.


It's not the same at all.


----------



## TruXta (Feb 2, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> It's not the same at all.



Of course not.


----------



## Jazzz (Feb 2, 2012)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Jazzz, are you ever going to give us your opinion on the Protocols? Just curious like.


I've never read them, so it's bit hard to give an opinion, not that I have any obligation to in any case.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 2, 2012)

I've never read them either, not the whole lot. Do they turn into Tolstoy?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 2, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> This is very simple - if you place a value judgment on where someone comes from, that is racism. There is nothing 'foolish' about not doing so: it is a necessary condition not to exhibit racism.
> 
> So I ask you: does it matter where someone comes from?


I'll answer that. It matters if someone thinks that white people come from Mars. That matters rather a lot.

It also matters if someone is pushing the ideas of a person who thinks that.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 2, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> I've never read them, so it's bit hard to give an opinion, not that I have any obligation to in any case.



It's hard to give an opinion?  Really?  It's hard to have an opinion on probably the most notorious anti-semitic propaganda ever?


----------



## Lock&Light (Feb 2, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> No, all humans have been traced back to a common African ancestor (unless you want to bring Mars into it). That isn't the same as saying all human DNA came from Africa.



Do you believe that there is a difference of origin between the DNA of "white" people and that of "black" people?

If not, why are you arguing?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 2, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> It's hard to give an opinion?  Really?  It's hard to have an opinion on probably the most notorious anti-semitic propaganda ever?


I bet you haven't read the whole lot either, you sheeple. Or Mein Kampf.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 2, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> I've never read them, so it's bit hard to give an opinion, not that I have any obligation to in any case.


Is that really the best you can come up with?

Pathetic.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 2, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Do you believe that there is a difference of origin between the DNA of "white" people and that of "black" people?
> 
> If not, why are you arguing?


Well obviously the Martians interbred a bit with the Earth people, having evolved _on Mars_ into beings that were sexually compatible with Earth-humans, natch.


----------



## TruXta (Feb 2, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I bet you haven't read the whole lot either, you sheeple. Or Mein Kampf.



I tried with MK, I really did. It's just so fucking tedious.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 2, 2012)

TruXta said:


> I tried with MK, I really did. It's just so fucking tedious.


I think the only reasonable thing to do, in that case, is maintain a complete neutrality towards it.


----------



## TruXta (Feb 2, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I think the only reasonable thing to do, in that case, is maintain a complete neutrality towards it.



Yeah right. You try that and report back eh?


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 2, 2012)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Is that really the best you can come up with?
> 
> Pathetic.



Of course he's not gonna come with anything else.  It's impossible for him, given his delusional belief system to come up with anything else.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 2, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Of course he's not gonna come with anything else. It's impossible for him, given his delusional belief system to come up with anything else.


I know, it's just interesting to see his desperate, cowardly wriggling.


----------



## Jazzz (Feb 2, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Name one.


Icke is utterly correct in that we invisibly governed by a handful of families via a secret society network and particularly banking, which is in the business of introducing a global totalitarian state. In the process, you can see he has been calling the plot with what would otherwise be extraordinary accuracy:



On these boards I have been posting about how the banks have been running the show for years: of course, I was accused of being antisemitic for that of course. 

A few years ago Icke posted this article, where he foretold of imminent US economic collapse: Please don't riot, it's just what they want

That was in March 2009! Absolutely bang on the money, literally.

The swine flu vaccine which Icke warned against has been proved to cause a serious nervous system disorder: Association between Pandremix and Narcolepsy confirmed... 

I can go on.


----------



## TruXta (Feb 2, 2012)

March 2009? Oh right, no one could see that coming, it was only a few months after the melt-down started right? And IIRC Icke maintained that the swine flu vaccine would kill millions.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 2, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> Icke is utterly correct in that we invisibly governed by a handful of families via a secret society network and particularly banking, which is in the business of introducing a global totalitarian state.



Do the Russians and the Chinese know about this?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 2, 2012)

TruXta said:


> March 2009? Oh right, no one could see that coming, it was only a few months after the melt-down started right? And IIRC Icke maintained that the swine flu vaccine would kill millions.


And in the wrong country


----------



## TruXta (Feb 2, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> And in the wrong country



WRT the vaccine you mean? I'm amazed you can be bothered to waste memory space on that garbage tbh


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 2, 2012)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I know, it's just interesting to see his desperate, cowardly wriggling.



Which is why I keep poking him about it.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 2, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> Icke is utterly correct in that we invisibly governed by a handful of families via a secret society network and particularly banking, which is in the business of introducing a global totalitarian state.<snip>



Except that isn't true.


----------



## Jazzz (Feb 2, 2012)

TruXta said:


> March 2009? Oh right, no one could see that coming, it was only a few months after the melt-down started right? And IIRC Icke maintained that the swine flu vaccine would kill millions.


Maybe, but our rioting (the most extraordinary in my lifetime here) was last year. A serious nervous system disorder is only what the swine flu vaccine has so far proved to do: it may cause other shit, it may help kill you slowly, it might have an effect on sterility, it might have a more adverse effect when combined with a later vaccine. It has been proved to be particularly dangerous and Icke was one of the ones warning precisely for that, and moreover all the arguments he made about how it was rushed through with lack of adequate testing, how policy was rigged in favour of the pharmaceutical giants were absolutely valid.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 2, 2012)

I only made it 2 minutes through that, but he predicted that a) the US would invent an enemy post-Cold War (Muslim world or China - hedged his bets there), b) there would be more hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico (this one was a psychic message )

Now, a) was eminently predictable. I predicted it way back in the early 90s - but I didn't hedge my bets and discounted China. That was just the way things appeared to be going, and it only took a rudimentary understanding of the US's need for an enemy post-Cold War to foresee it.

b) was also predicted by scientists as they started to understand climate change.

That's feeble, Jazzz.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 2, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> Maybe, but our rioting (the most extraordinary in my lifetime here) was last year. A serious nervous system disorder is only what the swine flu vaccine has so far proved to do: it may cause other shit, it may help kill you slowly, it might have an effect on sterility, it might have a more adverse effect when combined with a later vaccine. It has been proved to be particularly dangerous and Icke was one of the ones warning precisely for that, and moreover all the arguments he made about how it was rushed through with lack of adequate testing, how policy was rigged in favour of the pharmaceutical giants were absolutely valid.



Predicting riots under a tory government?  The man must be some kind of prophet!


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Feb 2, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> I
> 
> I can go on.


Please do, the other stuffs not really standing up to even the most basic scrutiny is it.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Feb 2, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Predicting riots under a tory government? The man must be some kind of prophet!



Him and Nick Clegg.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 2, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> The swine flu vaccine which Icke warned against has been proved to cause a serious nervous system disorder: Association between Pandremix and Narcolepsy confirmed...


Of course, that report indicating an extremely small increase in the incidence in Finland and Sweden amongst people with an existing genetic risk factor also says that the vaccine was responsible for greatly reducing the incidence of swine flu, and deaths caused by it, amongst those who took it.

Since of course vaccines don't work and therefore that must be a lie, I imagine you have discarded the whole thing.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 2, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> The swine flu vaccine which Icke warned against has been proved to cause a serious nervous system disorder: Association between Pandremix and Narcolepsy confirmed...


Do you even read the links you post up?


----------



## Wilf (Feb 2, 2012)

Jazzz - at the start of your clip, Icke says something along the lines of 'psychic messages said there would be hurricanes..'.  What's a psychic message? How does it work?


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 2, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> I've never read them, so it's bit hard to give an opinion, not that I have any obligation to in any case.


You pathetic fuck.
See this is why I don't quite agree with Spiney when he says


SpineyNorman said:


> I'm not entirely comfortable with people trying to claim that Jazzz is antisemitic. I don't think he is. Icke is though and the problem I have with Jazzz and his ilk is that they swallow his bullshit far too uncritically (which is ironic really because the sheeple apparently swallow the ill defined elite's bullshit too uncritically). In defending Icke they're making excuses for antisemitism and making it easier for even more dangerous antisemites to disguise their bigotry. But that's not antisemitism, it's just idiocy, albeit potentially dangerous idiocy. Personally I think it's a defence mechanism - he's invested far too much time and energy in conspiraloonery to even begin to contemplate the possibility that the sheeple of urban75 might be right. And so he's willing to commit the kind of crimes against logic and evidence we've all become accustomed to.


If you're so desperate to turn away from anti-semitism that you refuse to see the Protocols as anti-semitic and claim that holocaust denial is not anti-semitic then I think you've crossed a line from just being uncritical to being anti-semitic.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 2, 2012)

redsquirrel said:


> See this is why I don't quite agree with Spiney when he says
> 
> If you're so desperate to turn away from anti-semitism that you refuse to see the Protocols as anti-semitic and claim that holocaust denial is not anti-semitic then I think you've crossed a line from just being uncritical to being anti-semitic.



I sort of half agree but do you honestly not see the difference? One's an unthinking moron, the other is knowingly prejudiced.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 2, 2012)

Don't get me wrong, I agree with I lot of your post and think there are some people who are just uncritical (dangerous) idiots but I think that there is a point when they become so desperate to try and square the circle that they end up crossing a line. For me personally Jazzz has passed that point.

I mean I don't think Jazzz is going to attack his nearest synagogue or racially abuse individuals etc, rather I think his defence of this crap has gone so far that his actions are now clearly supporting anti-semitic individuals and positions.


----------



## Jazzz (Feb 3, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I only made it 2 minutes through that, but he predicted that a) the US would invent an enemy post-Cold War (Muslim world or China - hedged his bets there), b) there would be more hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico (this one was a psychic message )
> 
> Now, a) was eminently predictable. I predicted it way back in the early 90s - but I didn't hedge my bets and discounted China. That was just the way things appeared to be going, and it only took a rudimentary understanding of the US's need for an enemy post-Cold War to foresee it.
> 
> ...


I hadn't put up the correct video: post now edited.


----------



## Jazzz (Feb 3, 2012)

redsquirrel said:


> You pathetic fuck.


Have you read them redsquirrel? I've had little discourse with you, so am happy to attempt a reasoned discussion, although you might lay off the abuse.

Being Jewish, I am indeed unlikely to attack synagogues.


----------



## Jazzz (Feb 3, 2012)

> ="FridgeMagnet, post: 10888294, member: 43"]Of course, that report indicating an extremely small increase in the incidence in Finland and Sweden amongst people with an existing genetic risk factor also says that the vaccine was responsible for greatly reducing the incidence of swine flu, and deaths caused by it, amongst those who took it.


Hardly a small increase.

50,000 Germans now have the condition:
http://www.welt.de/gesundheit/article13796373/Rund-50-000-Deutsche-leiden-unter-Schlafanfaellen.html

"All the evidence points to the swine flu vaccine being responsible for the 30 to 40 times increase in narcolepsy among young people in Germany." http://www.welt.de/gesundheit/article13796373/Rund-50-000-Deutsche-leiden-unter-Schlafanfaellen.html

The Finnish study identified at least a nine-fold increase in risk IIRC and the link unequivocal.

These are not "extremely small increases"


----------



## Jack Black (Feb 3, 2012)

I see that jazzzzz ignored my post about him being David icke. Which leads me to conclude that he must be David icke.

The similarities are there if you choose to seek the truth. Both are attention seeking fuckwits. I understand why it has come to me to reveal this truth... We can smell our own 

Either that or she's a lonely obese trucker by the name of jasmine...


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 3, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> Have you read them redsquirrel? I've had little discourse with you, so am happy to attempt a reasoned discussion, although you might lay off the abuse.
> 
> Being Jewish, I am indeed unlikely to attack synagogues.


Being Jewish, I'd have thought you'd have some opinion on the Protocols too.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 3, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> This is very simple - if you place a value judgment on where someone comes from, that is racism. There is nothing 'foolish' about not doing so: it is a necessary condition not to exhibit racism.
> 
> So I ask you: does it matter where someone comes from?


 
You are spectacularly missing the point; please read my last post again this time with a little more care (ask yourself where does it differ from your original formulation and then why).

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 3, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'll answer that. It matters if someone thinks that white people come from Mars. That matters rather a lot.
> 
> It also matters if someone is pushing the ideas of a person who thinks that.


 
Thanks LBJ; it is so obvious you have to wonder why Jazz is so unwilling to engage with it?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Jazzz (Feb 4, 2012)

Louis MacNeice said:


> You are spectacularly missing the point; please read my last post again this time with a little more care (ask yourself where does it differ from your original formulation and then why).
> 
> Louis MacNeice


You ignored my question.

Does it matter where someone comes from?
Do you place a value judgment on where someone comes from?


----------



## Kanda (Feb 4, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Being Jewish.


 
You're one of THEM!!!


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> You ignored my question.
> 
> Does it matter where someone comes from?
> Do you place a value judgment on where someone comes from?


Icke does. According to you that's racism. You big Icke up.  Get it?


----------



## two sheds (Feb 4, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> You ignored my question.
> 
> Does it matter where someone comes from?
> Do you place a value judgment on where someone comes from?


 
Will you answer a couple of questions from a relatively impartial observer, Jazzz? I'd tend to see your world view as not much stranger than that expressed in the Daily Mail of a morning, and probably less dangerous to humanity.

So, I'm confused.

Is the answer to your question 'from Mars'? If it is then I'd say yes it does matter where someone *says* they come from. Much more so than if someone said they come from Skegness or Delhi.

I'm also confused as to why you just haven't simply said 'the Protocols have been shown to be a forgery'. What is the problem with that?


----------



## southside (Feb 4, 2012)

Left Brain Prisoners


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 4, 2012)

the graphics


----------



## rekil (Oct 28, 2012)

Stone'enge


----------



## elbows (Oct 28, 2012)

A review 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-naughty-but-boy-can-he-drone-on-8229433.html


----------



## rekil (Oct 28, 2012)

> Ben Potter, stage name Clint Delicious, 25, catches me later and, pint in hand, admits the full *11 hours* is a bit much. "I get the idea that people on LSD would understand what he says," he tells me, swaying on his feet.


 
This conspiraloon goes to 11.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 28, 2012)




----------



## articul8 (Oct 29, 2012)

They were coming out of the Arena for their lunch break when I walked past them (not knowing at that stage what was on at the Arena) - it was quite blokey, a few sort of beardy anarcho looking types but essentially more normal than you'd expect for this sort of thing.  Shows there's an appetite for some sort of systemic analysis of 21st C social life - even if it takes this weird conspiraloon paranoid form?


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 29, 2012)

Icke is the high priest of a new kind of religious cult.


----------



## Cornetto (Oct 29, 2012)

a coincidence, i think not?


----------



## Structaural (Oct 29, 2012)

I thought people outgrew this stuff once their frontal lobes developed.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 29, 2012)

copliker said:


> This conspiraloon goes to 11.


 
Why not just make ten loonier?


----------

