posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 04:14 AM
Okay. I would have thought this premise was pretty simple.
If you're going to question if David Icke is right, you might want to consider sitting him down and at some point asking for some evidence.
But apparently not. Apparently, questioning whether we have been wrongly dismissing Icke as some sort of half-crazed, egotistical self-deluded weirdo
involves showing candid, excruciating footage of him spouting incoherent babbling about the concept of 'husband and wife':
"it's just some... thing that some guy, a few hundred years ago, sat down... and said... it would be. It's b*llocks."
WOW DAVE, SO INTELLIGIBLE, SO FLUENT, SO PROFOUND! As if you're the only husband and wife to split up and have a good relationship afterwards on the
entire face of the whole planet.
Then there's the predictions. Any one of which you could probably cite at least two other people as having said, both of whom probably reasoned their
arguments. Dave's research amounts to: "I got some information. From somewhere." How could you possibly be shocked that there would be a major
terrorist attack on American soil sometime in the new millenium? This is the same USA, is it not, that has had systematic attacks made on its
embassies in other countries by Muslim terrorist organisations over the last 20 years? Did you forget the World Trade Center attacks in 1994??? You
eejit. As for, "there will be a big hurricane on the Gulf of Mexico and New Orleans" - no kidding! Because THAT never happens, eh?
If George Orwell were alive now, what would he say? Well I doubt, very strongly, that he would care to mention interdimensional entities that manifest
themselves as reptiles when making his point. I can just about take most things, but buttraping the adjective "Orwellian" to within an inch of its
life is not one of them.
"The next Blair/Bush introduced law..."
Really? And what Law would that be? Since they are the leaders of entirely different state governments, they cannot actually jointly legislate a law.
They cannot even jointly come up with, say, a UN resolution, since that would require the cooperation of AT LEAST the other members of the UN Security
Council. LEARN YOUR SH*T.
Research, though. What research? What does your research amount to? Where is your documented proof?
Face it, the man cannot put together a cogent and convincing argument to save his life. Lizard people, for god's sake. Listen to what the #er is
saying. 90% of what you are agreeing with, someonein the media (yeah, that would be the thing he takes such a massive dump on as being an instrument
of the Illuminati) has already said, and with more backing up of their statement with facts.
Since you've clearly never in your life read anything that might possibly aid you in the construction of reasoned argument, let me guide you through
In order to make a statement that can be accepted as truth, you need verifiable documentary evidence. Don't fob me off with some excuse that due to
the conspiracy you don't have any, because you need first some evidence of a conspiracy.
Let's look at say, the bloodline theory. David Icke says that Princess Diana was drafted in to carry on the royal bloodline. Erm, yeah. Most people
agree with that. So far, so uncontroversial.Then, to back up his argument that the English royal family is part of a global hierarchical conspiracy,
he says, "William looks a lot like his Dad, but Harry doesn't." WOW! So, in order to prove that there is a bloodline running through a family which
was passed on via a mother to her son, you have said that a boy looks a lot like his Dad??? OF COURSE THERE'S A BLOODY RESEMBLANCE! OF COURSE
THERE'S A BLOODLINE! THEY'RE A FAMILY, YOU UTTER, UTTER IDIOT!!! As for Harry, he looks less like his Dad than William. He still looks a bit like
his Mother, quite a bit like his Grandmother, a bit like his cousins Beatrice and Eugenie... You know what that's called? That's called variation.
Stems from humans reproducing sexually. Simple biology for god’s sake.
As for the whole thing about hierarches: WE LIVE IN A SOCIETY DEFINED TO VARYING DEGREES OF RIGIDITY BY SOCIAL CLASS. You may want to consider reading
such works as The Communist Manifesto, The Condition of The Working Class In England, The Road To Wigan Pier, etc etc, to see how real journalists,
philosophers and writers deal with this idea.
Bush and Blair are terrorists
All politicians are liars
The media is a tool for government propoganda
- All assertions made regularly by much saner, much more reasoned people, and all made by you without a shred of real evidence to back them up. The
evidence that Bush and Blair are terrorists? YOU GOT THAT FROM THE NEWS, DAVD ICKE. Listen very, very carefully. David Icke has never been to Iraq.
David Icke does not know a single thing about the Iraq War other than that which he has gleaned from the newsmedia he constantly accuses of lying. He
is, in short, basing his argument that the media is a tool for government propoganda entirely on what he claims to be lies.
He claims, in another part, to be defending against the "Orwellian police state", whilst at the same time claiming that Al-Qaeda is a threat made up
by the Illuminati. He is yet another leftist moron claiming to be on the side of freedom and democracy whilst defending elements of the world that are
totally against both of them. Or was the Qu'ran written by George Bush's ancestors??? Is Shariah law applicable without a police state? Is the
intention not Muslim theocracy, rather than secular democracy?
Then there's what he probably thinks is superior satire: him, pretending to be an onsite westminster news reporter, saying he doesn't know whether
what he's saying is the truth or not, he just gets it from the politicians. As if no journalist ever bothers doing their own research but him. SORRY
DAVID. YOU FAIL.
Everything, apparently, has led up to this point. "Journalism taught me to write simply, being on television made sure I'd get heard." Sorry, erm,
surely you should be able to "write simply" before you go into journalism?
Obviously when confronted by this, David Icke will come out with the usual rubbish that I have been brainwashed into believing stuff by watching
television all my life when I should have been listening to David Icke chat b*llocks about lizards and infinite consciousness. But, here is another
very important part. I certainly do not believe most of what I read in the media. But that does not mean I have to believe what David Icke says. I
point blank refuse to believe anything anyone says unless they can back it up with verifiable evidence (and even then, I only labour under the
assumption that it is true - I am never, ever, convinced of a statement's truthfulness). David Icke wouldn't know verifiable evidence if it hit him
in the arse. If you are that easily brainwashed by a state conspiracy, you can just as easily be brainwashed by David Icke. You, in following what one
man says with so little in the way of actual, real argument, are merely replacing one manipulator with another.
And for David Icke, I have two words: Evidence Plz.