David Icke at the Oxford Union
Report Abuse/Infringement 0 Seeds 0 Leechers1.17 GB
Great slideshow accompanied talk/lecture.
Talks, Debates, Interviews
May 08, 2009, 09:36:30
Number of files
649d , 10h 56m 7s ago
finally some of the good stuff!!!
May 08 2009, 09:56 CEST
They let the fucker into the oxford union? what gives?
May 08 2009, 13:28 CEST
isn't Icke the one with reptiloid invasion from outer space?
May 08 2009, 14:16 CEST
May 08 2009, 14:46 CEST
So .. if we're not getting any seeds on this nonsense, I'm going to have to take it down.
Anyway, I've always wondered, how do you pronounce that name? Like icky, as in "I feel kinda icky"?
May 08 2009, 17:50 CEST
Ike as in 'take a hike'
Probably the embaressment factor?
May 08 2009, 18:56 CEST
Here, streaming on YouTube : http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=9807968E4080BD74
May 08 2009, 19:49 CEST
so there is an active moderator? is it possible to filter out the noise i.e. crypto-fascist conspiracy theorists and state socialists? their inclusion is really an embarrassment to this otherwise great tracker.
May 09 2009, 06:28 CEST
hmmm, a reptile invasion....indeed. But of course he has is saying the "ruling class" -- aristocracy, modern bourgeois, etc. -- are lizard people. Is he being literal, or is he art? I'm actually not sure, but certainly those who would exploit men for petty profit, who would allow unnecessary suffering to prop up their privilege, ... is that human?
May 09 2009, 06:53 CEST
No, he's serious (..read nuts).
I remember him on the Terry Wogan show (a live British talkshow, no longer aired) sitting on the couch honestly explaining to the world that he was in fact Jesus.
May 09 2009, 21:21 CEST
it's worth noting that he can "believe" what he is saying, while still being art.
The key here is to understand the way in which the unconscious mind expresses itself. Even though the literal meaning is wrong and "nuts," the way that the unconscious mind shaped the ideas is more what i'm interested in anyways.
It's like marketing researches say, "I don't care what you SAY you want, I want to look at the intangibles and mannerisms and the psychoanalytic backdrop to sort out what is really going on."
Same thing here. Though I have to admit I've never watched any Icke, but will soon to pass a verdict.
May 09 2009, 23:30 CEST
Wow, I'd love someone to tell me what I was thinking behind what I was saying..
I'll wage I'm pure art at heart.
May 10 2009, 00:50 CEST
why would anyone bother with this guy? A little bit of fact mixed with a wild imagination resulting in good profits for Ike no doubt.
May 10 2009, 15:13 CEST
No wait, first you all struggle against the idea of 20th century conventions, the arbitrary inequalities of a governing and financial system that's pretty much all about the repression of so many of us it's absurd, so on and so forth, then you get all get bent out of shape and better than thou art about some relatively harmless bloke who's basically saying the same things but not from the point of view of expensive college educations, like the one's apparently you all have?
I don't get it, do you need to prove yourselves so badly that you've become closed minded? On so many of these blogs you read peoples observations that violate everything they supposedly believe in on so many different levels, that you just have to wonder. . .
May 10 2009, 20:08 CEST
ok put the brakes on..
there are no entrance requirements here - everyone is welcome to discuss, no-one says we all have to share the same opinions or political persuasions. It may be that those who choose to voice their opinions here happen to have some views in common.
The problem that I have with Icke is that he's a 'what if?' guy.. somewhat similar to Alex Jones..
I'd rather base my belief in facts.
May 10 2009, 20:28 CEST
The inequalities we (i.e. the left) fight against, aren't arbitrary. They're very much systematic. That's the whole point. The left has a sophisticated rational theory where those inequalities come from and somewhat of an idea on how to overcome them.
People like Icke, Jones, Griffin and all the rest aren't "basically saying the same thing". What they're doing is to look at some of the same PHENOMENA, and subject them to this borderline psychotic analysis where no point ever needs to be proven because it's all non-falsifiable to begin with.
There isn't any evidence that the Illuminati / Jews knocked down the twin towers? Well, their mason buddies / reptilian overlords made it so there wouldn't be any evidence. Case closed.
Rejecting this kind of nonsense doesn't have anything to do with wanting to prove oneself or being close-minded. It's a matter of intellectual hygiene.
May 10 2009, 20:45 CEST
May 11 2009, 00:42 CEST
gbb, martin, gcjm, et al:
I have viewed his "secrets of the matrix" and am ready to issue a review: this is decidedly NOT enemy propaganda.
This is a remarkable piece of contemporary folklore. Think vampires: you know, the people who live in a castle, with all the money, that suck the blood of the villagers who work for them? The leaders who "aren't human but bloodsucking mutants?" Yeah, you do know them -- the lizard people.
I think the left needs more of this kind of stuff. I can't find a single thing in his lecture that supports a conservative world view.
May 11 2009, 12:41 CEST
If just once I could witness his tongue in his cheek, then I could accept what you're saying.
This is not satire, nor metaphor.. or maybe I am missing the point.
You are right in one sense though; he is not to be taken seriously.
"a remarkable piece of contemporary folklore."
..then let him author childrens books..
In the end it comes down to
'whatever floats one's boat'.
May 11 2009, 14:26 CEST