David Icke lecture @ Wembley Arena, October 2012

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.

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?

btw, how is saying that

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

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.

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

Is this gonna be worth staying up for?

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?

Nope - she don't reply quick enough.

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

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.

Does this sound like the sort of oh i was just 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?

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)

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

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?

Still no answer, then.

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

What is it he gives these people...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

You don't even know what tiresome is yet.