David Icke Brixton Academy, London, UK - Saturday May 6

[ian neal]

FYI......


Details of a forthcoming talk by British author and researcher, David Icke at the Brixton Academy, London, UK.

David Icke live at the Brixton Academy, London, UK - Saturday 6 May 2006.

Who benefits from 9/11? Who benefits from the London bombings? Who benefits from the 'war on terror'?

Suicide bombers? NO. Muslim nations? NO. The people of the West? NO.

So who does benefit? Only one group and one group alone: Anyone who wants to justify taking our freedoms away and launching a global war of slaughter and conquest.

Coincidence? No way!

So What's Really Going On?

British author David Icke connects the dots over seven hours with hundreds of illustrations - and exposes the extraordinary truth of who and what is behind it all.

Icke has written 15 books and travelled to over 40 countries since 1990. His research exposes the Big Brother fascist dictatorship predicted by George Orwell in his epic,1984. His books reveal how a Hidden Hand is behind world-changing events like the attacks of 9/11 as part of a mass mind manipulation technique he has dubbed problem-reaction-solution - create the problem, then offer the solution.

What David Icke wrote in the 20th century has proved to be so astonishingly accurate in predicting the events of the 21st and continues to be so.

This presentation over seven hours using hundreds of illustrations is simply not to be missed.

'Freedom or Fascism? The Time to Choose'

Brixton Academy, London, UK. Saturday May 6, 2006.
Presentation starts at 1pm. Doors open 12.15. Tickets are going really fast.

Call the box office on 08700 600 100 or go to www.davidicke.com where you will also find the daily stories that unravel the global scam.

See also David Icke's unique and amazing books available from www.davidickebooks.co.uk (For the UK and Europe) and www.bridgeoflove.com (for the rest of the world).

This is a unique opportunity to discover the truth about apparantly unconnected world events and the ultimate goal for those behind them.

Enjoy a uniquely interesting and informative day at one of London's most well-known venues.

Guaranteed to be a sell out.

[Pikey]

Thanx for that Ian.

I experienced an Icke lecture at the Leeds Varieties theatre in 2000. A non stop 4 hour one man talk and presentation which covered his vast research and findings. This guy is the best speaker that I have ever listened to.......he channels information and is an amazing positive energy of love and light delivering an important message with a sense of humour!

Hopefully I will be able to make Brixham.

If you are a truthseeker and you have not experienced an Icke lecture I would strongly recommend it. It enabled me to make sense of a mad chaotic world and changed my life for the better!

If anyone deserves the Nobel peace prize this guy is that person.

David's book "Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center disaster" was the first 911 book I read.

Peace & truth

[Steven]

I'm sure this lecture will again be very eye-opening. Icke may be a guy who holds some pretty unusal points of views, but on 9/11 he hit the nail on the head!

Unfortenately I've bought some tickets last month but now it appears that i'm unable to go... If anyone is interested in tickets at a much cheaper price, contact me trough private message.

[Spectre]

My views on David Icke might not be popular with some posters on this site, but in my own humble view he is exactly the sort of person to attract derision and ridicule from the general public.

If we are seen to be allied with him then we might as well pack up and go home over here. Those who are impressed with Icke in his conferences or monologues are being won over by his undoubted charisma and energy ... but precious little else.

I wouldn't waste money going to watch this loose cannon. I have seen a few of his videos and his views are very dubious at best. Having studied various aspects of history for many, many years myself, I can say without fear of contradiction that much of his own historic argument about the movements of various elites throughout time and the continents are just utter nonsense. In fact the word nonsense was designed exactly for circumstances like this. It is a prefect little word that says so much about the subject at hand.

As for the shape-shifting lizard stuff ... well do me a favour! He must be president of the British "V" Sci-Fi Series fan Club.

If we aim to be a serious movement basing our arguments upon well-reasoned scientific argument and fact-finding - upon whistleblowers and patriots who dare to stand up and say what they know - upon the general suspicion that all is not right ... then that is fine. But one bloody reference to aliens, lizards or illuminatii in the popular media in connection with the 9/11 Truth Movement will sink us for good.

The fact that Icke is a 9/11 sceptic should not surprise anybody. Even a crackpot like him is bound to stumble upon a genuine conspiracy once in a while. It's a mathematical certainty. However, the rest of it is just junk and he is the home-grown equivalent of these dodgy TV evangelists in the States who are obvious transparent ego-maniacal crooks after your money and your sanity... usually in that order.

Please distance yourselves from David Icke and rely on the likes of Michael Meacher, Mike Ruppert and David Ray Griffin.

Let's keep it serious for God's sake ... let's keep it real ...

[Justin]

Hi Spectre,

I think most of us agreed earlier on that we are a broad movement, united by seeking the truth about 9/11. From Michael Meacher to David Icke was the spectrum given to us - from the political orthodox to the radical unorthodox.

Back in the Autumn of 2004, I put out a plea on David Icke's website for people wishing to expose 9/11 to get in touch with me. It was then I discovered that Noel, Ian and the London Group were already up and running. From the coming together of the London Group with myself and others in the Cumbria Group, our present network came about. It was also David who first publicly exposed 9/11 in his book 'Alice in Wonderland - the truth about 9/11'.

The public are slowly and surely starting to accept what David Icke is saying - witness the thousands who turn up to his talks and the millions who visit his website.. IMHO it is all about a fusion of advanced quantum physics with the pure wisdom of the indigenous peoples. I'm not asking you to accept all this, Spectre, but I think it would be less divisive and more honest if we simply accept that 9/11 Truth activists come from a diverse range of backgrounds, some orthodox, some less so, and we all work harmoniously together - strength through diversity!

Best wishes

Justin

[ian neal]

Hi Spectre

In many ways I agree. For the 9/11 truth movement to be effective (here or anywhere else), it requires convincing more and more people of the validity of our arguments based on professional presentations of the evidence. Clearly if David Icke's style was an effective one in convincing mainstream public opinion, I suggest his impact would have been greater by now.

In the eyes of the general public it is a safe assumption that Michael Meacher and David Ray Griffin will be seen as far more credible than David Icke (not so sure about Mike Ruppert's credibility) and so their analysis and contribution should be the starting point for introducing people to 9/11 truth.

However, it is the aim of this site to unite campaigners across the full spectrum of belief and opinion (from Meacher to Icke), hence the reason that this site does not endorse any one position or viewpoint.

Those who have followed the 9/11 truth movement especially in the states will be aware of the divisions and unpleasantness caused by infighting. This infighting has a range of causes: genuine disagreements over evidence, egos and quite possibily a good deal of mischief making by the PTB, but the divisions in essense boil down to those wishing to present the most 'credible' case vs those who see this as censoring of the message, as gatekeeping which keeps wider important truths (from their perspective) from being discussed. Plus the reluctance of people like Mike Ruppert to engage in the debate of physical evidence also raises the question of who is to decide what is the most credible evidence. If this is to be a genuine grassroots movement (as it must surely be) it cannot be easily policed from the centre.

So rather than replicate these divisions and squabbles, this site aims to take a different tack. A clear statement and position on the front page (always room for improvement) with links to key presentations of evidence together with a forum. This forum is in affect a big online community and just as with real communities not everyone will see eye to eye.

There has been talk at the past 2 national meetings (London in the Circle Community and Blackpool) of key activists forming a more slick professional platform to present the case (us in suits if you like) but it has always been envisaged that the forum will continue with minimum moderation as a place for all views (within the sites principles: no promotion of violence or hate, no commercial endorsement, no personal attacks or insults). If this means that the forum is used by some to discuss lizards, UFOs or other taboos, so be it (although I have recently suggested that non 9/11 discussion be placed in a separate section just to keep clarity).

If you or others would like to help kick start the more professional platform I suggest contacting people who attended the last Blackpool meeting such as Ian Crane or Belinda to discuss making this happen. I would love to see this happen, but with a job, 4 kids, etc I simply don't have the time to do it justice and I know many others are in this position

What I think is required is a clearer explanation on this site's front pages of this approach so that new visitors are not put off by some of the content on the forum that they would probably not view as credible.

Would welcome feedback.

Best wishes

Ian

[ian neal]

[HERA]

If anyone thinks that " the general public " are of some importance in the campaign for 911 truth they haven't understood the basics.
As for controversial views ; the difference between the intelligent person and the other is that, whatever subject is under review, the same set of criteria apply. Whether it is UFOs or architecture, shape-shifting lizards or anthropology : the sequence is hypothesis, investigation, analysis, conclusion/conjecture.
Comments like "nonsense", "that blokes a nutter", "do me a favour" etc etc show more about the mental state of the observer than the subject.
For those who have great difficulty in accepting anything outside of their pork-pie and antibiotic world, start with the fact that we experience less than 1% of the electro-magnetic spectrum and ponder on what may be in the rest.
However, dont overload and burn out in the process.

[Andrew Johnson]

David Icke had presented in his books much of the background information which relates to how the 9/11 Black Op came about. Just because he has a particular interpretation about one set of evidence doesn't automatically invalidate all the rest of his research.

Also, Mike Ruppert recently said:

"In front of a wildly enthusiastic throng of supporters, listeners, activists, and those just needing to learn and listen, Ruppert explained to them that although the 9-11 cause is still alive it is no longer useful as a political tool by activists. The window on 9/11 has closed. Simple as that."


http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011905_university_washington .shtml

Is this, perhaps, because not enough believe believe that we are currently at Peak Oil? (even though prices are going up again - as they have been doing for 70 years). For those who weren't aware, we have an interesting thread on Peak Oil here:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=746

[ianrcrane]

Andrew Johnson wrote:

[Andrew Johnson]

OK Monsieur Crane!

I am guilty as charged! I merrily fill-up my tank and wop my card on the counter.... I am just now more aware of how much I am being shafted - even more so, thanks to your lovely graph!!

Talking of being Shafted, for some reason, reminds me of this:

http://www.alinden.demon.nl/humor/doceng/company.htm

[Spectre]

As I said - I know this view about David Icke would be unpopular with some.

The gist of my comments is this. If you want to strengthen something and push across an argument it has to be wholly convincing. It has to be reputable and as beyond repproach as possible. It has to above all else be plausible and delivered by a convincing messenger.

I have had the crackpot accusation levelled at my own self as well. I'm sure we all have. One close friend who suffers a bit from a latent conservative mindset and over-trustworthiness of government and authority - and couldn't quite get his head around all the facts and figures, times and movements, people and places etc.; did admit one point to me - he said: "I agree about the Pentagon problem - if they want us to believe their story about the jet impact then why not just show us the videos - that's a dead giveaway!"

The crack in his armour came about because he saw the basic illogic in that very issue. The unwillingness of the accusor to produce the evidence for their argument. He has at least started to think about it now. If I had directed him to Icke or Illuminati or whatever - I doubt he would have ever taken me seriously about anything again. It really doesn't matter whether Icke is a saint or a sinner - rightly or wrongly in the eyes of Mr. and Mrs. Joe Public - he is tainted goods and I'm afraid that makes him a liability.

But please don't think I don't respect individuals rights to differing views. We are also about the protection and promotion of freedoms of speech and ideas here aren't we? I know that. I also know we are all after the same thing in the long run. My concern is that in our zealousness to achieve this - some courses of action may prove counter-productive.

So apologies to the Icke fans out there but I can just imagine him being interviewed by Paxman or Parkinson (take your pick) and the audience (studio or home or both) groaning and laughing in equal measure. My heart would then sink at the thought of all the good work over the last few years dribbling away down the drain ...

[ian neal]

[ian neal]

[Garrett Cooke]

I find myself in agreement with Spectre. I bought Daivd Icke's 911 book. After a couple of chapters I realised it combined some acceptable evidence with other very dubious material. I didn't read much further and sold it on. Now if that had been my first exposure to 911 truth I would have been quite unconvinced and likely put off confronting the real evidence for sometime. Luckily I was already only too aware of the likely truth through the more sober analyses of Griffin and others. As a campaign it is quite correct that we shouldn't endorse one set of views of the truth of what took place, primarilly because the true truth is so shrouded in doubt and uncertainty, however when we need to put out public statements we must do everything possible to ensure that they are accurate and based on verifiable facts. It is possible (almost certain?) that some people are part of this campaign with the sole intention of spreading disinformation and exagerated speculation in order to discredit the whole 911 truth movement. Of course it is hard to work out who these people might be but no doubt we all have our suspicions. It is a worry (to me) that if (for example) Icke were seen a spokesman for the campaign then our credibility would be very much strained.

Garrett

[Jayhawk]

I also agree with Spectre. All it would take for the BBC to shut down the issue would be to get Paxo to interview Icke about 9/11. He already has no credibility with most of my friends; it's hard enough getting even my wife to address the issue! I'm sorry but the whole alien reptile thing is just a joke, I'm interested in truth, and I know it's hard to pin down, but the reason this 9/11 thing bothers me so much is the outrageous injustice that they can get away with such a huge lie. Along with Griffin, I am a christian (I assume he is), and that sort of thing bothers me! Also the fact that a vast number of American christians seem to have bought into something which their founder himself would have seen through in an instant! For me integrity is a valuable commodity and I think Icke has precious little; but then I can only go by what I read...

[ian neal]

Here's my take.

1) There is much to thank David Icke for. A lot of what he has to say checks out, but from my perspective not everything and for me he fails to clearly distinguish what is cast iron fact and what is more speculative. However he doesn't claim to be an infallible oracle of truth. He asks his readers to use their own judgement and discernment and think for themselves. I see no reason at all to question David's sincerity or integrity. In deed his willingness to speak his truth in the face of unrelenting ridicule (especially in the early days) shows considerable integrity

2) This forum has a no endorsement policy so it follows that it has no spokesperson or spokespeople. However, that is not to say that we can't all speak in support of the campaign statement in a personal capacity. When approached we (collectively or individually) can recommend people to put the case forward and clearly we will choose the most credible, articulate and knowledgeable. In deed we already do. Some of the main public speakers to support this campaign have been Ian Henshall, Ian Crane, David Shayler, Nafeez Ahmed, Annie Machon (apologies to others I should have mentioned). But likewise they will not be infallible and those that follow these things will know if you look hard enough you will find these speakers have their critics (with the exception of Ian Crane). But give it time. Basically anyone who is brave enough to take to a public platform and support 9/11 truth can expect criticism from somewhere

3) I believe even the most ardent supporters of David Icke recognise that David would not be the ideal candidate to be a 'spokesperson' or front man for any 9/11 truth camapaign, so in effect as far as I'm concerned no one is disagreeing with each other here. Assuming no one is asking for 'the moderators' to intervene to ban any particular material then we have no argument.

4) One way to view this forum is as a network that connects people and groups. Through the network, people/groups with similar ideas and approaches can link up and collaborate. Within this network there is a whole range of opinion and it is the better for it. My suggestion is to use this network to link up with people with similar approaches rather than using it as a platform to air differences with people who have a different perspectives. Live and let live.

So as I say here

[flamesong]

Those who know me know my feelings on the issue of credibility and the value it can lend or damage it can cause and I will refrain from revisiting my areas of concern. However, I endeavour to be as objective and balanced as I humanly can.

I have spoken to David Icke on several occasions and have visited him at his home on the Isle of Wight and find him to be very sincere. There is a great deal which of which he speaks with which I cannot agree and struggle to even visualise.

We were discussing a proposed documentary and I had wanted to express to him that the more radical ideas he had, particularly 'the lizard thing', would not endear him to new listeners. I had laboured long and hard about how to raise the issue but before I could say anything he said he thought that we should, 'leave the reptilian agenda at the door'.

I cannot speak for David but I can imagine that his nightmares include struggling to get toothpaste back in the tube.

It is difficult to reconcile the metaphysical of some of what he says, especially the nature of reality, with the physical arguments surrounding the events discussed on here. After all, if everything is an illusion then physical laws are not applicable and are irrelevant, are they not?

On a more mundane level, though...

[ian neal]

Great to hear from you again 'flamesong'. For those not familiar with 'flamesong's' site I would strongly recommend it

http://www.flamesong.com/

[flamesong]

Thanks for the big-up, Ian.

However, I regret to say that when the domain is due for renewal very soon the site will cease to be.

It was originally launched on the back of a lot of promises of contributions from activists I had met from around the world but ultimately it proved to be unworkable and too many other things, not least work, got in the way of the daily news updates I maintained.

Ironically, I was recently made redundant so I now have the time but can no longer afford the luxury of paying for the website.

I am interested in co-producing documentary films if there are any other co-producers who are interested. I have access to just about any equipment which may be necessary.

[Jayhawk]

Take your point Flamesong, Icke made Wogan look foolish this time.

[John White]

Well I for one will be in Brixton for this event

I've written extensively about Icke over the past year, as some people here will know: as a brief comment I would say his work is misunderstood by those looking for facts...Icke works on the right brain, not the left, presenting themes through his information, not concrete detail: he hits a lot more than he misses

As a general comment about the credibility of public figures exposing conspiracy information, my POV is that regretably that credibility is an Illusion, and always has been: anyone the system builds up (wether a sports presenter or a movie star, as in the recent example of Charlie Sheen) can be knocked down simply by no longer complying with the public image previously presented of them...as such public figures normally play footloose with the "rules" as a result of their status, inevitably they are all strawmen (cocaine, prostitues etc etc)

there are two bits of good news in this though:

1) It means that getting the truth out is up to "ordinary"people: good, it belongs to them anyway, and a job worth doing is worth doing properly

2) What is heard cannot be unheard: returning to the case of Icke, even amongst the majority who would have nothing to do with anything remotely "lizardy", the number I have found who questioned 911 becuase of a seed of doubt planted by people like him (and Bill cooper, Alex Jones etc etc) is staggering: Silver linings are found by those who seek them

And of course, some of us are coming from the spiritual perspective and bringing it down into the murk of conspiracy land, not the other way around....earth those energies for Planetary Transformation!!!

*ahem*