Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

David Icke lecture @ Wembley Arena, October 2012

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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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 £2million. 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?
 
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)?
 
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.
 
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)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom