oioioi wrote:
He just plays off some shite about the 'reaction word' anarchy because the guy questioning him used it first.
He'd do the same thing if he used the word 'conspiracy theory' instead.

oioioi wrote:
I agree. It's bullshit. How people convince themselves handing everything over to private corporations will liberate us all is quite beyond me. It's a bit like saying the answer to murder is to give serial killers automatic weapons.

It would make society more hierarchical than ever. It would lead to extreme poverty and deprivation side by side with ultra, wealthy people reveling in how awesomely liberated everyone is because they can smoke spliffs in the supermarket.

andyh wrote:
I think it's simply a case of him not knowing the term means anything beyond its standard usage. All he does is crib from other people's conspiracy output and add stuff he made up. I wouldn't trust him to 'research' a shopping list.

dogsmilk wrote:
I agree.
He's not come up with anything new for the past few years now. Just the same old recycled crap and he#s always been very vague.

For example, this talking about 'other vibrations that we can't see' is so ridiculous, it's not like science hasn't known about it for yonks.
If you want to see in those other frequencies you can do so with infra red or uv scopes or radio telescopes etc etc.
I'm like...so amazed...

andyh wrote:
But Andy, if you really want to understand you need to watch this film. It explains everything



This post sponsored by Nokia

dogsmilk wrote:
Please explain what exactly, what does this film explain

oioioi wrote: To memory he makes a few points, a about war and bombs being dropped over resources, rather than lawful exchange or even free exchange of commodities, b he mentions the abundance vs global poverty, which can only really IMO be attributable to anarchy in production.

It's not at all to say all anarchists are greedy or selfish, it's just that some people are, if you got rid of money, the government and all laws, ie anarchy would you remove greedy, selfish, dominating tendencies?

I'd say the top of the hierarchy probably do enjoy a degree of anarchy, they have no god's no managers anything is available to them for a price, if you have millions you can live a very "anarchistic" life.

Mike wrote:
A hell of a lot of it yes.
All of it no, no way. Such a thing is impossible, as is utopia...unless you're KOTG and the entire planet is culled except for you and 5 or 6 whores for your harem.

I watched this before but switched off half way through because he was just rambling on again about the frequency spectrum so I missed this...
What a dick!

Black Dog wrote:
It explains the nature of reality and stuff. It's like the world is like the Matrix and you're Keanu Reeves. It's like the world seems real but what if it isn't??? - whoah!
And there's lizards that are computer programs like agent Smith. Straight up!

www.karmapolis.be/pipeline/interview_icke_uk.htm
[/quote]

Icke is like Laurence Fishburne. You read his books and see him at Wembley and become awesome, like with a big black coat and kung fu skills and that.


...Or you could just read Descartes if you prefer. He may be someone else Icke has never heard of.

truth mixed with lies... is the work of a deceiver.
He's flogging himself to death at the minute... going all mainstream... just to get the word out there, Obviously.

andyh wrote:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Om

andy:
This is the reason that I see the state as a logical adaptation in human affairs, power became so monopolised so entrenched in the Feudal system, that the ideas of people like Montesquieu, Tom Payne, Locke, Mills, America's founders etc gave rise to a new system of governence based on "freedom, equality and fraternity", instituted via representational democracy and the state.

I'm not saying it is successful, if anything greed, selfishness, dominating tendencies have spoilt it for everyone, now that is with the existence of a representational state, huge entrenched wealth, huge land holdings and huge global trade routes have influenced the development of the modern Democratic state since then dramatically, I don't see how an Anarchist, having abolished law, government, the state and it's protections will be more able to defend himself against the abuses of Absolutism and Feudal oppression people like Montesquieu wrote against.

Black Dog wrote:
"there is no moon spoon"

I think.

Mike wrote:
Fuck off.

Did you really think I was gonna bite that turd of a bait?

Mike wrote:
The idea is that without laws biased against the little man he is just as entitled to use force as the big guy is, or for that matter to gang up with pals as the big guy is.
The 'law' just like govt and money has failed, that much is patently obvious so why continue to defend it?
We will end up going one of two ways, either stronger authoritarian rule and submission with untold deaths and suffering or every man for himself and tbh I'd actually prefer the latter.
Something new has a chance of coming out of such a mess, nothing new will come out of fascism.

Just watched the whole thing back, watch it again...see which word makes him lose it. Holographic universe etc., in his flow for a good 7-8 minutes with(little) interruption and tripping over his owntongue...chuck in the @ word...watch him fluster for a few minutes until the end.

Hmmmm.

I think I might have to watch his icketoid vid

CV gave faking it a go.

It fell apart rapidly.

Could be fun to see DI explain his stance on anarchism and/or the 'utopian' society he envisages.

At least there is someone with some brains in that clip, a Kiwi