knobmeup wrote:
It's one thing to say someone is controlled opposition and another thing to show that they are controlled opposition.

David is increasingly allied with mainstream forces: with Steven Tyler, Russell Brand, Ron Paul. He's also agreed to licensing by ofcom. He's also stated that TPV will air views that he doesn't agree with. But he is also a megalomaniac and his ego probably enjoys the attention he receives from association with celebrities.

Also, Russell Brand is far more mainstream than David is, yet he is praised as an agitator. Ridiculous.

What would you deem to be evidence of being controlled opposition? Some might view his preaching sufficient truths to convince folk he's legit, then blending in his spaceship moon / reptile queen jibber to his 'followers as evidence.

Someone is controlled if they are under the direct orders and/or funding of the established powers they claim to oppose. This is easily demonstrated with individuals such as amy goodman.

A weaker definition of controlled opposition is when it is inferred from their unwillingness to criticize certain individuals or organizations which are widely assumed/demonstrated to be in power and oppressive. Alex Jones is often mentioned in this regard.

There is little to no evidence that David Icke is either a government agent, directly or indirectly funded by powerful interests, or that he steers clear of controversial topics, or is unwilling to criticize specific individuals or groups who are in power. Instead there is OVERWHELMING evidence that David is willing to criticize most anyone. If anything, he is TOO QUICK to name names, to the point of risking defamation or libel.

Theorizing about the moon being a spaceship or reporting that some of his sources claim that the queen and others in power are reptilian does not show that he is being funded or reports to powerful interests, or that he is unwilling to criticize certain aspects of the power structure.

Obviously these claims sound ridiculous to most people, but that is not a criteria of being controlled opposition.
Gilly wrote:

Yes, we know what controlled opposition is.

I disagree.

I know some people believe he is funded in order to influence by feeding an element of nonsense, effectively casting ridicule on the whole conspiracy scene. It's pretty successful. Despite there having been many proven conspiracies, a lot of people will just snort with derisive laughter at the mere mention of the word 'conspiracy', because they associate it with just such BS as mentioned above.

Personally, I get the impression he's just a self-aggrandising, money-grabbing plagiariser.

But I can't proclaim as a case of fact that the other point of view is wrong.

Gilly wrote:
And yet you have no evidence. You don't even mention who his funding sources are. Or what their motivations might be. It's just hearsay.

David was obviously "funded" by the BBC and the green party since he worked for both. Are you saying he was hired by them with the ultimately game plan that he would become a conspiracy guru who would take about the spaceship moon and reptilians in order to compromise conspiracy researchers in general?
Gilly wrote:
Go back and read David's sources for yourself.

You can find who built the moon by knight and butler on amazon for the price of a couple of cups of coffee.

I disagree with the book's conclusions but the data itself is fascinating.

Or, try reading Cathy O'Brien's book, which is one source of the documentation David uses to develop his shape-shifting reptilian assertion/theory. O'Brien's lectures are widely available. You don't have to believe David. Go back to his sources and check them out for yourself.
Gilly wrote:
Who cares what other people think? The whole point of all of this is to make a decision on your own. Discovering the truth is not a popularity contest. If you care what other people think and use this as a criterion for what you consider to be the truth, then you are just as bad as the sheeple you think are misinformed.
Gilly wrote:
David IMO clearly shows megalomaniacal tendencies. It is also very easy to show where his research is internally contradictory, poorly documented or not even documented at all. I also suspect that he has plagiarized work, although this is difficult to prove.

But as far as the spaceship moon and reptilian theories are concerned, you are dismissing them because they sound silly to your sensibilities. There is actually plentiful historical and archeological evidence of 'reptilian' gods who may or may not have actually existed.

The conclusion you reach is your own, but to dismiss these claims without thoroughly investing them yourself is irresponsible.

Mickey wrote:
Investing?

mikey mikey wrote:
Investigating.

G it. After all this talk of giving money to TPV I was a little confused.

Gilly wrote:
Thanks Gilly There have been a few reports that Icke's ahem research has been ripped off of others. There was also a guest on Alan Watt's show that claimed Icke is a freemason, and Watt agreed with her, saying that Icke had used some sort of masonic hand sign. I think it was that annoyingly smug gorilla person that found a photograph of Icke sitting on a masonic chair in a masonic lodge. As Icke was working for the Beeb then the chances of him being a mason are pretty much 100%. Why would any sensible person take the risk that he was not? Add to that that Icke often makes the mano cornuto hand sign supposedly because of his arthritis, but he is always waving his hands around and gesticulating. You would have thought someone in his position would be a bit more careful about that sort of thing.

I have a natural aversion to those pompous enough to pretend they have all the answers, and then say they got them from the other side. It's laughable, really. People are quite welcome to believe that he is not controlled oppostion, and that Icke really, really believes what he says, but even if he is not the fact that he talks to entities who he himself admits sought him out to begin with is a dealbreaker for me.

I am a human being. I don't need help from the other side. They are on the other side of the veil for a reason. They should stay where they belong. I ain't fraida no ghost.

Well this gives me a better sense of where you're coming from.

1. how do you arrive at the conclusion that anyone who works for the BBC has to be a freemason? What is your evidence for this claim? (What IS a freemason anyway?)

2. did you consider the possibility that Icke might've been mocking the freemasons by occupying the chair?

3. Icke says that he doesn't have the truth: only that he is trying to get closer to it.

4. If you dismiss or distrust Icke because he communicates with spirits, are you saying:

a. these spirits don't exist, therefore he's a fraud

b. these spirits DO exist, but they are actually demons

You seem to argue it both ways: if the ASSERTION that he spoke to 'the other side' is 'laughable' ie untrue, then you can't claim they are demon spirits, since these spirits don't exist.

What you are saying is:

1. factually incorrect

2. open to alternative explanations,

3. internally contradictory
grackus wrote:

grackus wrote: That guy is a total idiot and a fraudster, Icke himself released that picture.

Mickey wrote: A weak assumption. If you'd read me last post correctly you would have seen that I said "controlled by fiat". Which is my contention. Icke is paying dem bills at the offy. Nowt wrong with that per se. Unless ofc you choose to say shit like "if you don't give me your fiat your grandchildren will be forced to live as inmates of a slave camp" or whatever the fuck he said/says.

Fiat is the great controller for most folk. Including Icke.

Facepalm.
knobmeup wrote:

What do you find so palmworthy?

wake_up_bomb wrote:
I stand corrected. That annoying smug gorilla person may be an idiot and a fraudster, but I don't know enough about him either way, but there is a photo of Icke sitting on a silly masonic chair or whatever it's supposed to be, so obviously Icke has at least visited a masonic lodge, which considering what he says about them on his website you would think he would steer well clear. gorilla could really be a satanic, child sacricifing douche, but there is still a photo of Icke on a masonic chair, so one of the lovely brothers let him in despite all the stuff that Icke writes about. Maybe the picture was taken before Icke became the SON OF GGOOOOODD! I don't really know enough about that particular photo.

Just out of interest, does anyone else just get bad vibes off Icke? I think he's a wrong-un no matter what he says.

grackus wrote: Oh yeah, he don't exactly exude peace and love do ee....

So, you've drawn conclusions before knowing the facts, and don't particularly care what the facts are in any event. Got it.

Shows you what this forum is all about then.
grackus wrote:

grackus wrote: The photo in question was taken by one of Icke's friends, and it's in one of Icke's books. This gorilla character then pretended that he'd uncovered it, and perhaps people that don't know that he simply photocopied it believe him. The other photo he's got of Icke at a supposed Masonic meeting is one of the most obvious forgeries you will ever see.

In terms of the vibe you get off him, that's fine, you're welcome to your opinion. Comment is free, facts are sacred.

Mickey wrote:
Are you being forced to post against your will?

No?

Then you can always fuck off if you don't like this forum.

hugorune wrote: