David Icke on the Russell Brand show

Discussion in 'Compendium Of Kerrrr-azy Conspiracies' started by Jazzz, Jan 5, 2008.

  1. longdog

    longdog What is it you can't face?

    It's the false logic that goes "Something must have happened*, this is something therefore it must have happened"

    *arguable to say the least.
  2. Meltingpot

    Meltingpot Living in our pools we soon forget about the sea

    Just to take your first one (and maybe the lizards as well). I saw an extract from the Wogan interview where he mentioned the climatic catastrophes that were to befall us. He didn't actually say he was the Son of God, as I recall, but he didn't deny it either; it was a bit muffled.

    But onto the main course. Not long after he first started giving talks following the "Son of God" episode, he was at a university and students who had turned up to the meeting started laughing at him and jeering at his points. He stopped and said to them;

    "How many of you here think I'm mentally ill?"

    A lot of hands went up, along with more jeers.

    "Right. So you've paid money to come and jeer at someone you think is mentally ill. What does that say about you?"

    That shut them up. Something to think about.
  3. Meltingpot

    Meltingpot Living in our pools we soon forget about the sea

    I find this point of view oddly compelling. You (and Structaural) are saying that to start with he did believe in conspiracies, the lizards etc., and then at some point he came to his senses and realised it was all a load of hogwash - but either he continued with it anyway for the craic and the attention, or he was in too deep to back down now, and hey the money was rolling in anyway?

    I don't know what to make of that one, but thanks to you both for the suggestion.

    One thing no one's mentioned about him yet is that he has used ayahuasca, which he calls the "teacher plant," and indeed he has been organising ayahuasca workshops in South America (Brazil I think). I wonder how much that would explain about him.
  4. editor

    editor hiraethified

    He should have been grateful that people bothered to show up to put money in his pocket.
  5. smokedout

    smokedout criminal

    in fairness his early book 'It Doesn;t Have to be This Way' was considered a bit of an environmental classic at the time

    dont think it made him much cash though

    he's no madder than someone who thinks a bloke with a beard created the universe in 7 days and for anyone to suggest he is shows a real ignorance of mental health problems

    personally i think more and more these days he's got his tongue firmly in his cheek, he may have believed it at first but these days i agree that hes found a niche which brings a degree of fame and a lot of cash and hes sticking with it
  6. Meltingpot

    Meltingpot Living in our pools we soon forget about the sea

    Yeah, I've got a copy. It's very clear and well written but I prefer the Ecoropa book covering Green issues from the same period; "The Green Alternative."
  7. butchersapron

    butchersapron blood on the walls

    Or Davdd 'another son of god' shayler.
  8. butchersapron

    butchersapron blood on the walls

    In what way does it show a real ignorance of mental health problems?
  9. rorymac

    rorymac Well-Known Member

    There are a few very clever folks at Talksport to be fair. Adrian Durham is one for example but James Whale probably isn't.
    Well he's not in truthness but I suppose Ickey can't help that.
  10. smokedout

    smokedout criminal

    well his consistency for a start and his ability to manage what seems to be a very lucrative business

    he certainly doesnt display any signs of schizophrenia

    and what he's saying isn't that mad, in fact its as old as the hills, gnostism updated

    he's wrong, but to suggest that everyone with a belief system which doesnt rely on rational empiricism has a mental illness would to be to condemn 90% of humanity to an institution
  11. Jazzz

    Jazzz the truth don't care Banned

    he pokes fun at himself as being a bit out of it then, and I don't think he meant it like Shayler

    Why big alarm bell? Do some research on the Rothschild family, you will see that they silently took over Europe hundreds of years ago by accumulating the most phenomenal wealth

    'Give me control of a nation's currency, and I care not who makes its laws'

    ...you know who said that, froggy?

    Oh but I forgot, we Jews are immune from any scrutiny! Because that's anti-semitic! Whatever we do.

    With all due respect, I think you're making that up.

    hardly. There's a mass of evidence for this. Just for an example, did it not surprise you that both George Bush and John Kerry were members of Skull & Bones? And neither could talk about it? What kind of power does that give Skull & Bones?

    He has said that a small cabal of "Jewish and non-Jewish" wealthy people financed World War 2 and Hitler ... Jews+non-jews = everyone, so why did he even feel the need to mention it?[/quote]Well if you actually looked at the whole book, several hundred pages, instead of just cherry-picking bits from the internet, you'd have some idea. He is outlining how he thinks a network of bloodlines rule, and how conflicts are engineered by them to pit the masses against each other on these silly divisions of race/religion/etc, while the elite are all in bed together (notice how European Royalty always intermarried although the nations would often be war all the time?)

    I've barely heard him talk or write about these Protocols in two lectures and having read a fair bit of his books.

    Well that's worth bearing in mind isn't it? :cool:
  12. butchersapron

    butchersapron blood on the walls

    Sorry, don't see how Icke not habing a specific condition 'show's a real ignorance of mental health problems?'

    And i don'tt think anyones suggesting the last bit but you. And maybe grmarthews.
  13. butchersapron

    butchersapron blood on the walls

    Barely? Has he mentioned them at all these lectures or in these books? If so, what did the millionaire say?
  14. frogwoman

    frogwoman лягушкая женщина

    Yeah, but going on a message board to laugh at someone you've never met, who isn't participating in the discussion and who isn't there to be offended, is different to laughing in their face and calling them a nutter

    I think david icke is seriously mentally ill, either that or he was once and now he is just using this stuff to make money, and i think the people who went along deliberately to laugh at him may have been tossers, but there's no reason to treat his views with respect based on the idea that it's wrong to laugh at the mentally ill - anyone making some sort of claim like that in the public eye needs to be challenged
  15. 8ball

    8ball Can be a bit of a git sometimes

    This is a very good point, I think.
  16. frogwoman

    frogwoman лягушкая женщина

    I'm not making the charles and camilla stuff up jazzz - I've actually heard this theory from someone who believed it and said that they got it from one of david icke's videos

    I don't actually know if Icke made these allegations but can you seriously look at the stuff he's saying and think that he's telling the truth???

    http:// stargods.org/StudyOfReptilians.htm

    I don't really want to go on arguing this with you because it's pointless and you'll never change what you believe.
  17. rorymac

    rorymac Well-Known Member

    It's the point of 2008 so far .. nice one Urban 75

    he's wrong, but to suggest that everyone with a belief system which doesnt rely on rational empiricism has a mental illness would to be to condemn 90% of humanity to an institution

    Nice one guys !
  18. smokedout

    smokedout criminal

    having spent much of my life working with people with genuine mental health problems i just find crass pronouncements on someones sanity a little distasteful

    he's a successful businessman, a skilled self-publicist, has successfully raised two children and appears to have maintained a successful relationship

    sadly that is not the experience of someone with a genuine mental health condition

    and tbh the fact that someone of his age with a mental health condition who has not at some time had intervention/treatment from mental health professionals is unheard of
  19. frogwoman

    frogwoman лягушкая женщина

  20. Yossarian

    Yossarian free shrugs

    Fucking hell, there's people out there who actually believe that stuff about reptiles?
  21. butchersapron

    butchersapron blood on the walls

    I'm sure you would. You've not really established that this is the case though. Not being treated doesn't mean that it's not there.

    [I'm not saying that he has a mental health condition - i suspect he has, and that it'e evident from his behaviour -to tooey bollocks]
  22. rorymac

    rorymac Well-Known Member

    He's not the full shilling but no one is .. there is not one single solitary person who is not a bit tapped at least imo
  23. frogwoman

    frogwoman лягушкая женщина

    There's loads of stuff out there about it.

    I appear to be mistaken ... what david icke seems to have said is that diana was sacrificed herself and that the place of her death used to be a shrine to the "godess diana" and that they wanted her to marry prince charles in case they became too reptilian and weren't able to change into a human form ... :rolleyes:

    The fact is though, that David Icke's star "witness" arizona wilder claims that she witnessed and participated in sacrifices of children by the royal family and other public figures ... and he doesn't appear to contradict her at any time - in fact he describes her in his book and videos as a "mind controlled sex slave"
  24. smokedout

    smokedout criminal

    one of the things that winds me up about Icke is his indulgence of people like Arozona Wilder who do appear to have some form of mental health condition

    i suspect that Wilder is just attention seeking but in the case of Cathy O' Brian she is clearly someone with a (well documented) history of mental illness and needs treatment and support, not indulgence and exploitation from the likes of Icke who uses her case to flog more of his books

    and jazzz icke's book the Robots Rebellion is almost entirely based on the protocals which he renames the protocols of the illuminati
  25. snadge

    snadge metal alchemist

    Good 'un, at least I'm not the only one to believe that. ;)
  26. frogwoman

    frogwoman лягушкая женщина

  27. longdog

    longdog What is it you can't face?

  28. frogwoman

    frogwoman лягушкая женщина

    And Jazzz - it's not anti-semitic if its' true
    i criticise judaism all the time but there's a difference between making criticisms of israel and of jewish culture and religion which are actually valid and which no sensible person would say was anti-semitic, such as saying that some of the rules in orthodoxy are outdated and can be quite sexist, or saying that some aspects of our beliefs can occasionally lend themselves to racist ideas, and making malicious anti-semitic accusations based on myths that have been discredited and lies which have been made up in order to hurt the jewish people and create a scapegoat when everything else in the country is going badly and to repeat lies which led to millions of peoples deaths over centuries and apply them to a new set of victims who might not all be jewish this time

    everyone's basic instinct is survival and it is true that some jewish families did build up significant amounts of wealth in order to gain some sort of political clout so that they wouldn't be targetted or so that they would gain greater acceptability in society ... disraeli's family were one of these families and they did socially acceptable things like get their children baptised rather than bring them up as jewish ... and to say they "took over europe" is nonsense when other agencies which were hostile to anything about jews still had such a lot of wealth and power

    the ONLY way jewish people had any kind of guarantee of surviving in much of europe was if they were rich enough to be able to get some degree of acceptability by the ruling class - meaning the aristocracy, and abandon their beliefs and adopt such a watered down version of them that they would be unrecognisable
    so obviously people would have done that becuase they wanted the best future for their family, even if it meant getting really wealthy and screwing over some people in the process ... and it wouldn't have screwed over nearly as many people as the existing ruling class had done

    it's a big alarm bell because people have been saying that sort of thing about the rothschilds and criticising the Jews' "accumulation of wealth" for ages and it ignores the fact that bigger accumulations of wealth went on all the time - the church of england is the biggest landowner in britain and the catholic church is in several other countries, and the fact that barons and feudal lords were fighting with each other in Europe until a few hundred years ago all the time for control of territory, because they thought it was theirs or they were too removed from society's problems and had been brought up to dehumanise ordinary people, that they thought it would be all right to kill people and get them to fight in their name because of private vendettas

    and of course revolutionary movements were also built up - it ignores the power of ordinary people to change things if they really wanted to

    how can, for example, the soviet union be proof of a global conspiracy with bloodlines going on for thousands of years if lenin's family came from the russian intelligentsia (a persecuted class in pre-revolutionary russia) and stalin was a georgian peasant, and it itself was so beset by feuds and factions that people ended up getting killed who had previously fought on the same side?

    the royal families of europe were full of family feuds and divisions and sometimes countries were plunged into war BECAUSE of who someone was meant to marry and didn't want to - it wasn't like they all exactly agreed on what they wanted to do and conveniently went to war to keep the public distracted - the royal families HATED each other half the time and their disagreements and the political culture were intensely personal ... or because someone's brother was left more money than someone else in their will or because there were rival heirs to the throne, it was the politics of a gigantic family feud conveniently dressed up to the people who fought in these conflicts as the right thing to do for the country, or not even that ... they didn't even pretend to be looking after the interests of the public half the time, they were there by divine right or because they had conquered the land and it was "their land" ...
  29. frogwoman

    frogwoman лягушкая женщина

    Further proof of the conspiracy :eek:

    My uncle, who works as the head of the SA nuclear agency, owns two Bouvier dogs, and my mum's family are related to some old aristocratic families

    Why would they buy such terrible looking dogs if they weren't being loyal to their heritage of the house of bouvier??

    that proves it, IMO i think my uncle must be a lizard. and my mum, and her mum, and everyone in the family ...
  30. Doctor Carrot

    Doctor Carrot Bear Grylls grills bare bears


    Frogwoman, earlier today.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice