You'd think they would've killed him by now if he was spreading the whole unadulterated truth.
That's plausible deniability.Nobody cares if the unadulterated truth you reveal is so outrageous nobody will believe it anyway.
I don't know, but killing people usually makes their message stronger. Instead they smear your character like they did to Alex jones and Michael Jackson
>>42378885David kikel is Masonic controlled opposition
>>42378885Killing him would give him credibility. Not that it matters. We really don't care if you know.
He's got a problem with absolutizing things for sure; definitely takes the "everything an everyone is out to get you" approach, especially in his more recent books where (absolutely blackpilled in The Dream and The Road Map). Whether or not that is part of an agenda or a result of him playing to his audience more and more, shedding all nuance in the process, is your call to make. He definitely has dropped some real redpills before conspiracies were in vogue which lend credit to him being genuine in intent; there was little money in talking about ayy lmaos and lizardniggers pre 911 and if he just wanted money and fame he had a pretty cushy gig as a bbc broadcaster laid ahead of him.
The thread “Is David Icke a reptoid spreading misinfo about reptoids?” is basically a long, chaotic argument over whether Icke is:a genuine believer in reptilian conspiracy theories,controlled opposition/disinformation, ora deliberate grifter mixing truth with absurdity.Main themes in the discussion:A lot of posters argue that Icke’s “reptilian elite” narrative functions as a distraction. Their logic is that by attaching bizarre alien-lizard claims to real-world elite corruption, anyone questioning power structures gets dismissed as crazy by association.Others defend him, saying he exposed or predicted things about media manipulation, surveillance, or elite networks long before they became mainstream topics.Several anons claim that if reptilians were real, Icke wouldn’t still be alive or publicly speaking, so they conclude either:reptilians aren’t real,he’s protected because he’s part of the system,or the theory is symbolic/metaphorical rather than literal. Similar arguments appear in older 4chan and Reddit discussions.Another recurring idea is “controlled opposition”: posters speculate he intentionally mixes plausible criticism with outlandish claims to poison broader conspiracy discourse.Some users interpret the reptilian concept psychologically or spiritually instead of literally — e.g. “cold-blooded elites,” predatory behavior, or nonhuman consciousness.The thread also drifts into the usual /x/ territory:occult speculation,anti-establishment rhetoric,claims about intelligence agencies,arguments over whether censorship of Icke proves or disproves his credibility.Contextually, David Icke is best known for popularizing the reptilian-humanoid conspiracy theory in the late 1990s. His ideas have been debated for decades in conspiracy communities, with many critics arguing the “lizard people” narrative overlaps with older antisemitic conspiracy tropes.
>>42378885yes, or either he was substituted.i can already identify reptoids with simple key aspects.
Icke is mostly just recycled Jew conspiracy theories without having the courage to say "Jew". It's the same thing with Alex Jones and "Demons" or "Goblins". And I don't say that to be /pol/, but the opposite. Icke is a political commentator with no balls, not someone talking about ayys.
>>42378934Bingo
>>42380966>>42380949I think there’s a missing aspect here. I’ve heard him comment how reptoids could just be a personality thing with evil people, or a possession type thing, or an alien in a suit thing. I think he gets that we can’t really tell which one is real until the collapse of the triplicate crystal timeline. But he also has to consider what his followers think, and I get the feeling a lot of what all these people say is to not piss off the followers they have, so while many times he might want to mention “this might just be a human with a demon or a bad personality”, but doesn’t, because he wants to keep his message smooth and probing has alot more backroom info on what makes viewers stick around and what gets people to click off. So this probably dictates to some degree what he says, tho I do get the sense he would say something that would piss his viewers off if he really belived it and thought it was something he ‘HAD’ to say, rather than just general, useless, previously stated and debated jargon or theory. >>42380966A ladder is more useful when it has many rungs.
