David Icke lecture @ Wembley Arena, October 2012

[equationgirl]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Jack Black]

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]

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]

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]

Immanentize. Some people.

You want to immanitize some people?

 

[Jack Black]

'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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[longdog]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[faux pas]

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]

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

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

 

[butchersapron]

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

How? By osmosis?

 

[butchersapron]

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]

How? By osmosis?

'one of his latest'

 

[butchersapron]

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]

'one of his latest'

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

 

[manny-p]

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

The truth about the lizards.

 

[faux pas]

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.