Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

'deprogramming'

laptop said:
I think you might want to change your tagline.

If you're that interested, start here:

www.google.com/search?q=reserve+bank+conspiracy

and work outward. Warning: 369,000 hits approx and there's more.
Click to expand...

change my tagline....why? it's what the big boss said about me and it made me laugh...

anyway...I never asked for an enumeration of all sites that propagated a certain theory I just wanted to highlight Wess's modus operandi of making very specific emphatic damaging claims that have no real substantiation . Whatever google searches you point me towards doesn't matter, it isn't the number but Wess linking "every single one of those websites"(those websites? why the emphasis?), with DrJ's research, and then fucking off...damage done.
 
Oh bloody hell. I feel *very* stupid now... I didn't actually realise there was any issue with anti-semitism. I thought the controversy was plain old conspiracy, and that that could be interesting if handled with intelligence.

I'm sorry drjazzz, I -am- now changing my mind and I don't think the programmes are a good idea at all.
 
Hang on.... Sharon and his defenders also claimed any criticism of Israel was anti-semitic. It doesn't mean critics of Israel actually are anti-semitic though. Their criticism of a Jewish state is not motivated by its jewishness but by the actions of that state. Icke insists that he is not anti-semitic. But because the charge has been made it is an "issue" about which people assume he is guilty. Why not ask him and see what he says?
 
Masseuse said:
Hang on.... Sharon and his defenders also claimed any criticism of Israel was anti-semitic. It doesn't mean critics of Israel actually are anti-semitic though. Their criticism of a Jewish state is not motivated by its jewishness but by the actions of that state. Icke insists that he is not anti-semitic. But because the charge has been made it is an "issue" about which people assume he is guilty. Why not ask him and see what he says?
Click to expand...

With respect, Massy, that's an entirely different question.

  1. Icke and the Federal Reserve Conspiracy lot put forward "conspiracies" which are, almost everyone who's not bought into it agrees, variously coded versions of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion forgery - allegations that the world is controlled by a cabal Jews (even if they're presented with oh-so-wonderful allegory as "lizards". This has the function of stirring up hatred against Jews, whatever their relation to Israel.
  2. Zionists indeed portray criticism of the State of Israel as anti-Semitic. They'd have to: what Zionism is is the belief that there can be no Jewish people without a State. This criticism is largely addressed at the Jews who unaccountably fail persist in being people without moving to Israel or - gasp - criticise anything the Israeli State does.
 
But hang on... I and many others believe the world is controlled by bankers, moneymen. And fuckit... the words "shadowy cabal" is as accurate a description as "small select group IMO. Or are their activities all clear and above board? Does having this opinion make me an anti-semite simply because it happens to coincide with the opinions of those who are anti-semitic?

Maybe it does. Sorry Jewish people. I had no idea I hated you but I must do because I have been told I do.
 
Masseuse said:
But hang on... I and many others believe the world is controlled by bankers, moneymen.
Click to expand...

Sure, capitalists meet: they meet at Davos; but more importantly they meet in their boardrooms, with minutes and stuff.

But the whole point of capitalism is that it's a system. Or, to paraphrase Adam Smith and Karl Marx alike: it may walk like a conspiracy and it may even sometimes talk like a conspiracy, but it's actually the result of people acting in their perceived self-interest. Including you and I.

And the way to get rid of it is to change the system, which includes us stopping giving power.

Whereas... can we define conspiracies are particular individuals getting together in secret to do evil in order to do evil? Nixon and cronies planning Watergate; whoever it was planned the Gulf of Tonkin non-incident...

The way to get rid of a conspiracy is, one way or another, to remove the conspirators. When a conspiracy is alleged against essentially a whole people, we know where that's going.
 
laptop said:
Sure, capitalists meet: they meet at Davos; but more importantly they meet in their boardrooms, with minutes and stuff.

But the whole point of capitalism is that it's a system. Or, to paraphrase Adam Smith and Karl Marx alike: it may walk like a conspiracy and it may even sometimes talk like a conspiracy, but it's actually the result of people acting in their perceived self-interest. Including you and I.

And the way to get rid of it is to change the system, which includes us stopping giving power.

Whereas... can we define conspiracies are particular individuals getting together in secret to do evil in order to do evil? Nixon and cronies planning Watergate; whoever it was planned the Gulf of Tonkin non-incident...

The way to get rid of a conspiracy is, one way or another, to remove the conspirators. When a conspiracy is alleged against essentially a whole people, we know where that's going.
Click to expand...


Sounds fair enough to me....

conspiracies as particular individuals getting together in secret to do evil in order to do evil...? Well I'm not sure that we are dealing with Blofeld type villains who just perpetrate evil just for the sake of it. Yaaay, you don't either, happy days. But I think sometimes individuals do get together and plan abominable things, yes. And they are conscious that what they are planning is abominable Sometimes evil is perpetrated unconsciously, by the very nature of the system and it is difficult to pin down exactly who is responsible.

If a conspiracy is alleged against a whole people then sure, it is suspect. I'm not so naive that I can't see what "lizards" might be symbolic for. I just think that the charge of anti-semitism can also be suspect and can be used to smear individuals who are not criticising any aspect of race. The words "bankers" or "international financiers" or "powerful moneymen" are taken by some to be subtle anti-semitic references. Well yes, some of the time, but not all of the time, or even the majority of the time.

But David Icke isn't using "lizards" and "jews" interchangeably. And he does not aim criticism at a whole people. He goes out of his way to address this point, understandably since he is so often accused of it.

I don't know... maybe he does hate jews. Maybe he wanted to have a pop at them but knew he would get too much stick for just coming out and saying "the world is run by a jewish cabal". So he clearly thought he would get much less criticism and ridicule if he worded it "the world is run by 11 foot tall shape shifting alien lizards" instead.

He rubbed his hands in glee and thought "Yes! that'll win me much more respect. At last people will listen!".

Oh David :(
 
There is no anti-semitism involved, this is a shocking smear.

Icke in particular is passionately anti-racist. More so than anyone else I have come across. He preaches that one's race is an irrelevant detail to one's inner being, like clothing; furthermore that our compartmentalisation of people due to race, or religion, is one of the mechanisms by which we are controlled. When he says lizard, he means lizard (yes, a lot of us have trouble with that).

That he has a go at the Rothschilds (along with many other bloodlines) and the top of the banking tree, has nothing to do with the vast majority of Jewish people who, along with the vast majority of all other races, are held as the victims.

And as an aside, I am Jewish myself, though it's a label I don't really attach any importance to.
 
As usual it is the thought police who shout loudest whilst knowing the least.

If Icke's accusers had read his stuff (instead of c&p Icke denounciations from the ADL and the like) they would know that what Dr Jazz says is correct.

When he says lizards he means lizards (as in someone with a strong reptillian dna line who has the ability to shape shift into a lizard appearance. Many may consider this to be bollox but he is not the only one to believe this and what is he and others are talking about is NOT lizards = jews.)

If you had read his stuff you would also know that he has strong beliefs on the historical origin of many Jews (the majority of whom according to Icke originate from this region Khazaria (here http://www.khazaria.com/) and so his belief is that many current followers of the Jewish faith are not semites and many semites are muslims and not Jewish, so even the label anti-semite is meaningless when attacking Icke.

As for the history of money and the current systems of creating money/debt, it is a subject that demands wider debate and understanding and it again appears those shouting loudest not to allow the proposed interviews by Dr J on U75 radio who know the least. The fact is that you can't discuss the history of money without mentioning the Rothschilds. To mention their name and at the same time to denounce the corrupt global banking system is not to be anti-semitic.
 
sparticus said:
As usual it is the thought police who shout loudest whilst knowing the least.

If Icke's accusers had read his stuff (instead of c&p Icke denounciations from the ADL and the like) they would know that what Dr Jazz says is correct.
Click to expand...

I have read his stuff, & written about it in detail, 10 years ago, in Greenline. I disagree, therefore, with what you have said, on the basis of evidence. I have no time for either the ADL, or the BDBJ, and they have no time for me, either, as I know to my personal cost. If somebody can show me how to do it, I will be happy to post that article up here for people to peruse.
 
sparticus said:
If Icke's accusers had read his stuff (instead of c&p Icke denounciations from the ADL and the like)
Click to expand...

Always we're supposed to read the whole of the bonkers stuff before we're allowed to comment? Are you on commission, or what?

And do you know the difference between wikipedia and the JDL?

sparticus said:
When he says lizards he means lizards (as in someone with a strong reptillian dna line who has the ability to shape shift into a lizard appearance. Many may consider this to be bollox but he is not the only one to believe this and what is he and others are talking about is NOT lizards = jews.)
Click to expand...

Many, indeed. In fact I'd suggest all sane people consider it to be bollox. Certainly, anyone who knows anything about biology. Tell me, do these lizards lay eggs? Do she-lizards lactate? If so why?

sparticus said:
If you had read his stuff you would also know that he has strong beliefs on the historical origin of many Jews (the majority of whom according to Icke originate from this region Khazaria (here http://www.khazaria.com/) and so his belief is that many current followers of the Jewish faith are not semites and many semites are muslims and not Jewish, so even the label anti-semite is meaningless when attacking Icke.
Click to expand...

This "theory" also is deeply intertwined with those who hate Jews as a people. So though he may think it lets him off the hook, it does the opposite.

sparticus said:
www.xat.org
Click to expand...

How clever to find a site that reproduces a (watered-down?) version of the conspiranoid theory with few links or acknowledgements...

sparticus said:
To mention their name and at the same time to denounce the corrupt global banking system is not to be anti-semitic.
Click to expand...

But juxtaposition isn't what's happening, is it? It's a sinister worldwide conspiracy... and, like all conspiranoid stuff it's the opposite of analysis, it's the opposite of politics, it's trying to tell stories about evil people and has no interest in how the world works and how it can be changed. Your glorified LETS scheme included (you did find out what that site was about, didn't you? Is it Ickeistic, BTW?)

What about the Quakers who played a central role in the development of banking in the UK? Are they lizards too?
 
laptop said:
Always we're supposed to read the whole of the bonkers stuff before we're allowed to comment? Are you on commission, or what?
Click to expand...
Out of the millions of words that Icke has written, there is not a racist one. It's that simple. :)


This "theory" also is deeply intertwined with those who hate Jews as a people. So though he may think it lets him off the hook, it does the opposite.
Click to expand...
No, it's not, and Icke will denounce any such twisting of his stuff. It's like saying that anyone who criticises George Bush is 'intertwined' with those who hate Americans. Should be obvious nonsense.

What about the Quakers who played a central role in the development of banking in the UK? Are they lizards too?
Click to expand...
The criticism of the banking system has got precisely bugger all to do with what religion/race the people who set it up were from.
 
sparticus said:
As usual it is the thought police who shout loudest whilst knowing the least.
Click to expand...
List these people please, along with your justifications for applying such an offensive label.
 
Can I suggest a compromise? Have Icke on, but only if the programme focuses exclusively on his time as Coventry City goalkeeper. Maybe he could dish some dirt on Jimmy Hill.

icke.jpg
 
Dirty Martini said:
Can I suggest a compromise? Have Icke on, but only if the programme focuses exclusively on his time as Coventry City goalkeeper. Maybe he could dish some dirt on Jimmy Hill.
Click to expand...
:D :D
 
I don't think it's that offensive compared to some shit that happens on here...

it's quite a throwaway/knee-jerk term I thought...something people would wheel out when there point of view is instantly dismissed
 
I find it quite offensive.

Although I'm used to that from sparticus et al.

"You're wrong because of this, this and this. Your source X is not true based on information Y and Z."

"Thought police!"
Click to expand...

Water off a duck's back by now.
 
So, what, you're okay being accused of being somebody who wants to police other people's thoughts, crush their individuality, suppress debate for the benefit of the government etc?

Blimey. I'd rather someone just called me a cunt.
 
FridgeMagnet said:
"You're wrong because of this, this and this. Your source X is not true based on information Y and Z."

"Thought police!"
Click to expand...

Water off a duck's back by now.
Click to expand...

Bit like calling gravity the "weight police", innit :D

Awaits arrival of a Maharishite claiming that we can overcome gravity if we just open our minds...
 
FridgeMagnet said:
So, what, you're okay being accused of being somebody who wants to police other people's thoughts, crush their individuality, suppress debate for the benefit of the government etc?

Blimey. I'd rather someone just called me a cunt.
Click to expand...

you're definitions are particularly extreme...and in the context of things here I don't think it's useful to go to that extreme....

I think it could also be used by those finding problems with people attempting to stop or discredit the expression of unorthodox ideas

I just wouldn't call it "such an abusive label" ok?
 
easy g said:
you're definitions are particularly extreme...
Click to expand...
There are lots of possible interpretations of "thought police"? Apart from somebody who wants to police thoughts? Maybe I'm being dumb, but I can't think of any others.
 
well you mentioned three yourself...and I mentioned another

I'd rather somebody labelled me as thought police than a Nazi...or a paedophile or a Smiths fan or indeed a cunt, as calling someone a cunt (viciously not joshingly)...or indeed a pathetic cunt is a more personal attack

as I've said...and I won't be swayed....using the term thought police does not seem to me to be 'such an abusive label' especially in the context of these boards....as you said, 'water off a ducks back'
 
easy g said:
well you mentioned three yourself...and I mentioned another

I'd rather somebody labelled me as thought police than a Nazi...or a paedophile or a Smiths fan or indeed a cunt, as calling someone a cunt (viciously not joshingly)...or indeed a pathetic cunt is a more personal attack

as I've said...and I won't be swayed....using the term thought police does not seem to me to be 'such an abusive label' especially in the context of these boards....as you said, 'water off a ducks back'
Click to expand...
They're all part of the same definition.

However, the point is that sparticus did the usual whingy-fucker thing of calling a bunch of people "thought police" without even naming them. Be nice to see people have the courage to actually say "you, X, Y and Z, are the thought police" so they could respond rather than raising vague accusations.

Admittedly it's the sort of mindless insult that people who have no argument frequently raise, but it's still an insult and I don't see why somebody should be allowed to insult people just because they're acting like a twat.
 
FridgeMagnet said:
They're all part of the same definition.
Click to expand...
in your opinion...and I believe what I gave is another definition of it's common useage

as for the rest of what you said, well, there's what I'm saying....saying an insult is an insult is different from the overblown and melodramatic use of the phrase "such an offensive label"

anyway...for the second night in a row I'm using the "ah well I'm off to bed" excuse because...I'm off to bed :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom