Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

The Global Royal Bloodline Conspiracy (and a troll)

210 replies to this topic
sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#211

Posted 10 November 2013 - 10:17 AM Edited by sivispacem, 10 November 2013 - 10:19 AM.

Wait, I'm perpetuating David Icke's theory?

 

Yes. The modern incarnation of the NWO conspiracy- that is, the version of it which implicitly claims that it's a secret cabal of masonic Jews running the world rather than explicitly claiming it, is basically his brain-child. By continuing to insist that such a theory is fact you are perpetuating his theory- whether the complicity is intentional or not, or whether the final scapegoat is the same, it's the same theory. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
 

But just two pages ago I was an anti-semite who was following a 200 year old obvious hoax

 

I never explicitly stated you were an anti-Semite. I never implied you were an anti-Semite. I merely implied that you have a very poor historical knowledge of the theory that you have been exceedingly vocal in supporting, and do not understand its historical origin, which happens to be in anti-Semitism.. If you've struggled to comprehend what I've been saying due either to ignorance or glossing over the points, I can only apologise for not spelling everything out in handy little bullet points for you. 1) and 2) are not mutually exclusive. You're perpetuating Icke's NWO theory, which is based on the Elders of Zion hoax.
 

then before that I was Alex Jones' shoe shiner who follows his every word

 

At no point in this thread have I mentioned Alex Jones in relation to your views. I fear you may have me confused with another poster. It would do you a whole lot more good in arguments of this nature if you would actually both keeping track of who said what, because then you don't end up creating straw men and arguing with your own shadow.
 

now I'm a reptilian believer and perpetuator of Icke's own theory.. lol

 

As usual, you have to resort to reductio ad absurdum to maintain your own argument. At no point have I stated or implied that you believe in reptillians. I've merely said that you are perpetuating David Icke's NWO conspiracy theory. That's a statement of fact; you are- you believe in a cabal of powerful Masonic figures drawn from the political and financial world who are seeking to instigate one-world government, exterminate the greatest proportion of the world's population and enslave the rest. That's basically a carbon-copy of his ideas which have been kicking around for decades now. His belief that these powerful people are reptillians is an entirely different and separate conspiracy theory.
 

Funny how you've already had your run through the mainstream discreditors.

 

Funny how you're incapable of producing a response which actually accurately reflects anything anyone else ever says. It's like you inhabit some kind of bizarre alternate reality where everything is taken to an absurd, illogical and not implicit conclusion, and where arguments non sequitur, ex culo and post hoc, ergo propter hoc are for some reason acceptable.
 

I like your effort but you're just trying a little too hard.

 

May I suggest an alternative hypothesis? Perhaps it's that you wish to imply I'm trying hard (really? These posts take all of 10 minutes at the most) because you've reached a point where you can't maintain the trajectory of your own argument and have to resort to style over substance fallacies to continue it?
 

I enjoy conversation but half of your posts are just filler that can be summarized in two sentences

 

This is just pure laziness on your part. You clearly aren't endowed with the perceptive ability to separate the points I'm making from their context, because you always get them wrong anyway, so why should I judge your opinion on what could and couldn't be summarised in how many sentences seen as you still utterly fail to take the point from it?

 

To be honest, though, it would be difficult not to look like you were trying hard in contrast with some of your responses so far.
 

and most the time you'll make false accusations

 

Actually, I don't. You just insist on creating straw men to argue with, which I can only presume is actually an intentional ploy to distract everyone from the fact you can't actually respond with anything meaningful, because it is abundantly clear to anyone with basic comprehension skills that many of the things you're claiming I've said or implied I haven't.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users