Because both of them agree David Icke is a full of it con man. A man so blatently full of it, it is astounding that you dont see it and makes one wonder at your credentials.

If you send everyone packing, who would be left?

Credible Posters.

Do you have a problem with that?

If you cant see through this fraud you're dumber than I thought.

Besides. It was a "taunt".

this entire thread went belly up.
i hope the research continues and is posted on this forum,
since it isn't elsewhere.


aside from all the inflated bs,
this one of the greatest threads i've ever read.


hey guys ... cleanup on aisle 2b,
and charge debus for destroying the merchandise!


debus the destroyer - love it! lol

Like you I realise that Icke's espousal of reptiles is BS. I saw A Jones make the 'turd in the punchbowl' comment.

Neither Jones not Icke would I put money on being onside with exposing truth, because neither admit to the Israeli involvement in 911. However, FWIW, my chums @ goldismoney.info assure me that most Icke supporters 'know' that lizards is a pseudonym for Jews.

As for the Son of God and hollow inhabited Earth delusions, well these are simply ridiculous.

He is a commercial enterprise, like Jones, so a red flag there.

Mike Rivero seems more on the level. His site is still a hobby, and he's been at it 13 or 14 years. Unlike Jones who IMO emerged just in time for 911. Possibly part of the operation. His accuracy in predicting 911 suggests insider knowledge.

Can you be sure that Darko really does actually realise that Icke's espousal of reptiles is bullshit? You have the right to change your mind!


Rivero is a man who, as I have already stated, I have respect (oops...I said THAT word again) for. Smith, however, believes that Michael is, "proving himself to be a liar," and, that Rivero's web site, What Really Happened, is a "Goy Pen." If Smith's claim is correct, Rivero must then be placed in the same category as Jones and Icke.

Daryl Bradford Smith stated on 5th December that he believed there to be Zionist deception on this forum. Rather than just take his word for it, I decided to find out for myself. I second Smith's claim. There are indeed Zionist deceivers at work within this forum. Debus, I believe, was one such deceiver, and Donnie Darko, another. How many more?


You have raised an extremely important point here Rodin. Some believe that Alex Jones is indeed "part of the operation," as you put it. This school of thought contend that Jones is not only running a money-making operation, but that he is also running a "Goy pen." Acting as a shepherd, Jones and his ilk represent the first layer of defence. Truthseekers who have strayed from the meadows policed by the mainstream media, and stray further afield in their search for the truth about what really happened on 9-11 will inevitably 'discover' Alex Jones. And when they do, how can they fail to be anything other than hugely impressed by him 'predicting' the attacks two months before they happened? How many of us were taken-in by Alex Jones' 'prediction', and how many more continue to be duped?

The stray sheep are thus shepherded by Jones into the pens of Infowars and Prison Planet. Contained within the pen, the stray sheep can then be prevented from straying anywhere near the actual truth of who was really behind 9-11. It is upon 'predicting' the attacks in advance that Jones has built his 'credibility', and it is this 'credibility' that sustains him. His 'credibility', however, suffered a self-inflicted blow when his "90%-certain" prediction of "bone-shattering mega-attacks" that he stated would occur not later than October 2005 ultimately failed to materialise.

I cover these issues in-depth, and elaborate, during the second part of my research on the 'conversation in Hebrew'. My report is written awaiting publication on this board. I will, however, not publish my work here until the thread has returned to a discussion of the topic of 'conversation in Hebrew' rather than a discussion of David Icke and shape-shifting Lizards. The 'conversation in Hebrew' is, obviously, an important issue that I cannot continue to keep postponing on an indefinite basis. I have a definite time-frame in mind with regard to how long I am prepared to continue sitting on my second report.


A pertinent question, Amonvanroark, to which the obvious answer is: nobody. But I doubt very much though, if there is going to be a mass exodus from the forum due to the persistent malevolence of one psychologically disturbed individual. What I can say with absolute certainty and without reticence, is that I am outta here if Donnie Darko's disruption is allowed to continue unabated. One of us has to go. It's that simple. And if it is I who heads into the sunset, then my research on the 'conversation in Hebrew' accompanies me on my journey.

Donnie Darko has made some serious accusations against me. He has called into question, my integrity, my honesty, and my truthfulness. Although he and anyone else have the right to do so, the onus then lies with those making the allegations to furbish evidence in support of their claims. Donnie Darko has failed to do so. Anyone accusing me of what he has accused me of, can expect me to mount a ferocious defence. I will defend myself against allcomers. Let this serve as a warning to anyone else who may misperceive me as an easy-target. And let only him who is without sin cast the first stone.

I have made counter-accusations against Darko. I will now begin to go about substantiating what I have alleged.

Darko entered this thread last Friday, seven weeks after I had opened the discussion on the 'conversation in Hebrew', and without making a single reference to the topic under discussion, he then makes three posts within half-an-hour, each of which are directly aimed at me, each intended to draw blood. He succeeded, he drew first blood.

In his first few lines, he insults me by asking if I am a "fucking retard." He then insults me again by calling me a "moron." After insinuating that I am a supporter of "the Lizardman," he then insults me a third time by telling me that I 'have to be' a "fucking retarded genius." He completes the fifth line of his post, by demanding that I explain myself "immediately."

He begins his sixth line by quoting my request to Debus that we return to the topic under discussion - the 'conversation in Hebrew'. "Dont even think about it," he warns me.

So, let's see what we have learned from Darko's first five lines.

He is uncivil, hostile, and prone to abusive, insulting and provocative behaviour.

He wishes to discuss David Icke and Lizards.

He intends to prevent me from returning the thread to the topic for which it was created - the 'conversation in Hebrew'.

I never realised that I could ever glean so much about an individuals character and intent from just six lines of text. In two concise paragraphs, Darko reveals why he has joined the thread - to prevent the 'conversation in Hebrew' from progressing any further. His opening gambits leave no doubt whatsoever about his intents and purposes.

Rule numbers five, seven and eighteen have just been put into practice.

Darko then demands that I explain "that bombshell," before seeking my counsel on whether David Icke is, "a man to be respected," before specifically stating that David Icke  blames "the lizards," the Vatican, "the aliens," and the "Illuminati" for carrying-out the 9-11 attacks.

While I was aware that Icke believes that Reptilian entities and Illuminati bloodlines were involved in September 11, I have to admit that I did not know Icke also believes that the Vatican and and "the aliens" were in league with the Lizards and the Illuminati. And since Darko is a greater authority on Icke than I am, I defer. Will Banyan's critical analysis of Icke's book, Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster, can be used as an independent reference point for anyone seeking to establish the validity of Darko 's statement regarding who Icke believes to be responsible for the 9-11 attacks.

Darko completes his eleven-line post by informing us that Icke is "best buddies" with Henry Makow, who, Darko states to be a "Zionsit protector." Darko then demands that I either quickly "explain" a "ridiculous assertion," that he asserts I have made, although he does not specifically state what this "ridiculous assertion" actually is. And as I am unfamiliar with the dynamics of David Icke's personal life, I cannot confirm whether Darko's claim that Icke and Makow are indeed "best buddies is true." I again defer to Darko's greater knowledge of David Icke.

The second paragraph of the Darko's post provide a vivid example of how rule numbers four, nineteen, twenty, twenty-two, and twenty-three are brought into play. Having already introduced Icke and Lizards into the equation in the first paragraph of his post, Darko then constructs his 'straw-man' argument by stating, correctly, that Icke believes Reptilian entities and the Illuminati participated in the 9-11 attacks. Darko then offers false evidence by stating that Icke also believes the Vatican and "the aliens" to also have been involved. Darko specifically names four players yet, according to Will Banyan, Icke believes Reptilian entities working through Illuminati bloodlines to be guilty of carrying-out 9-11. By adding two new actors - the Vatican and "the aliens" - Darko manufactures a new truth in the hope of creating an even bigger distraction.

Darko has just stated that that Icke believes the Lizards, the Illuminati, the Vatican and "the aliens" to be those responsible for 9-11. Darko does not make any reference to the US government. Yet in his third post, he claims that Icke also blames the US government for 9-11 as well as the four parties that Darko has just named.  See rule numbers twenty, twenty-two, and twenty-three once again being brought into play. Not only does Darko attempt to further deceive by adding the US government to the list of culprits who he says that David Icke believes to be the perpetrators of the 9-11 attacks, Darko also deceives when encloses 'admire' within quotation marks to create the impression that I have actually said what he quotes me as saying. When Darko states that I "admire" Icke and Monteith he lies. What Darko has just stated is not misrepresentation of the facts, it is a black lie. I have never said this. Not here, not anywhere.

Seven minutes after firing the opening salvo, Darko returns to the board to introduces Stan Monteith. Dr. Monteith M.D. is knowledgable in many subjects. These fields include the study of AIDS, vaccines, and population control. Dr. Monteith has been researching secret societies for over forty years, and has amassed considerable knowledge in this field. Darko states that Monteith believes "it's a mix of the Illuminati, Jesuits, Vatican, OTO, Satanists, Luciferians etc..." without telling us specifically what the 'it' is a "mix" of. Darko specifically names six of the secret societies which he claims Dr. Monteith believes the undefined 'it' to be a "mix" of. He then leaves it to the reader to determine precisely who the "etc" that he added to the end of his statement might be.

Darko has stated that Monteith believes the Vatican to be a constituent part of the "mix" of the unspecified 'it'. Darko's statement is, however, wholly contradicted by Mr. Gordon Comstock, who complains during his review of Dr. Monteith's book Brotherhood of Darkness that Monteith, "simply refuses to expose the nefarious intrigues of the Jesuit Order of the Vatican...." This is not what Darko has stated to be the case. And as I have not read Brotherhood of Darkness, I cannot arbitrate between Mr. Darko and Mr. Comstock's opposing interpretations of Dr. Monteith's beliefs.

I feel that the best method of resolving the conflict of interpretations that exist over the competing opinions of what Dr. Monteith actually believes regarding the Vatican being a constituent part of the "mix" of Darko's undefined 'it', would be for Mr. Darko, Mr. Comstock and Dr. Monteith to organise a tripartite conference wherein that which Dr. Monteith holds as being truly representative of his beliefs in respect (oops...said THAT word again) of what relevance he may perceive the Vatican to have in regard of being a stated component part of the "mix" that Darko claims the unspecified 'it' to be, may be ascertained. Such a conference would certainly dispel the confusion!


For the record, I personally do not care one way or the other what Dr. Stanley Monteith believes with regard to the Vatican or any other secret society. It his work in respect (oops...said THAT word again) of  AIDS, vaccines and population control that is of interest to me. I have learned much from him in this respect (oops...said THAT word again), and it is for bestowing upon me important knowledge that he merits my respect (oops...said THAT word again). And whatever views Dr. Monteith may hold on any other issue are his concern, his concern alone, and of no concern to me. I care not.

I do, however, care - passionately - about getting to the bottom of the 'conversation in Hebrew', and would prefer to discuss this particular issue rather than what Dr. Stanley Monteith may or not believe about the Vatican, the Illuminati, the Jesuits, the Ordo Templi Orientis, Satanists, Luciferians or any of the other unspecified secret societies who constitute Darko's  "etc", and who when combined with the six component factions that he did actually identify, represent the entirety of the "it" which Darko has stated them to be a "mix" of.

And after having brought Dr. Stanley Monteith into the proceedings in precisely the same way by which he introduced Icke and the Lizards, and by precisely the same methodology that Debus introduced Daryl Bradford Smith, Eric Hufschmid, and Christopher Bollyn - via rule numbers four, seventeen and twenty-three, Darko's straw-man argument in relation to Dr. Monteith has now been exposed and completely demolished, as was Debus'. Substitute Debus with Donnie Darko, exchange Smith, Hufschmid, and, Bollyn for Icke and Monteith, and what has changed other than the poster's identity?

One thing has changed though - one of Darko's straw-men has just left the board. And it is at this juncture where we bid farewell to Dr. Stanley Monteith.


While Debus succeeded in hijacking the thread and switching the conversation away from Ed Haas, Alex Jones and the 'conversation in Hebrew', and onto Eric Hufschmid, Daryl Bradford Smith and Christopher Bollyn, he did so only temporarily. Debus has now gone, and Donnie Darko has come along to replace him. But before the discussion on Ed Haas, Alex Jones and the 'conversation in Hebrew' could be resumed, Darko, like a Greyhound coming out of the traps, quickly picked-up where his predecessor left off, and commandeered the thread. He immediately made David Icke and Lizards the main issue.

He appears suddenly, and homes-in on a few sentences of comments I made almost seven weeks ago. And while he has raised objections to my comments, he has waited until I attempted to return the discussion to the 'conversation in Hebrew' before raising them. His sole point of objection is that I respect (oops...said THAT word again) David Icke. This he offers as absolute, concrete, rock-solid, cast-iron, undeniable, irrefutable proof that I am a "disinfo agent," a shill, "101 shill." We shall soon see whether or not his allegation has any basis in reality.

In the third of the posts directed at me, Darko rather peculiarly amplifies the font size and then posts "But never Zionists and jews" in bold, as if he were trying to emphasise a point. I am not one for generalising or applying the broadbrush when painting my words, and thus when I discuss Zionists and Jews, I always make a clear distinction between the two. Zionists are not always necessarily Jewish, and a Jew is not necessarily a Zionist - as Darko already knows full well. But although he already knows this, Darko weds Zionists and Jews together as one happy couple with alarming regularity. One can only wonder why he does this.

Those who accuse critics of Zionists, Zionism and the Zionist state of Israel of being 'anti-semitic' invariably imply that Jews and Zionists are one and the same. Thus to criticise or attack one is to criticise or attack the other. And it is precisely for this very reason that I always make the distinction. I see no sense in leaving myself vulnerable to criticism by lumping Zionists and Jews together as one complete package nor do I see any sense in providing one's opponent(s) with ammunition.

Darko then concludes his second post by asserting that I should clarify 'HEAVILY', my "position's" on these subjects before I "move on." Well, I think that there can be little doubt that I have indeed stated clearly and unambiguously where I stand with regard to Dr. Stanley Monteith...so let's move on, Mr. Darko. Let's discuss something else instead. As you have an obvious interest in Lizards, I will oblige you in a discussion about Lizards, but not now. You will just have to be patient. I WILL discuss Lizards later. You have my word. I assure you. This is a definite promise. My word is my bond, and I will deliver the goods. I will clarify "HEAVILY" my position - most "HEAVILY"  indeed. So "HEAVILY" shall I clarify my position, that it will hit you like a ton of bricks - just like a certain book once did!

Just over a quarter-of-an-hour later, Darko returns to make his next post, which he opens with a misplaced insult. He calls me a "Pom." This is a rather peculiar name to call a Scotsman resident in the UK, considering a 'Pom' is a disparaging Australian term for English immigrants to Australia or New Zealand. I shall resist the temptation to return the insult - for the time being at least" Darko then momentarily waffles-on about Cricket, before closing his post by implying that I am a "Zionist shill," and that I will be "be in trouble" when he 'exposes' me. Perish the thought. I'm quaking in my boots.

Darko ended his third post by warning me that he is "not to be trifled with." Neither am I - and I exact a heavy toll from those who trifle.

You owe me Donnie Darko - you WILL pay - "HEAVILY".

Calling me a shill was insulting. Calling me a Zionist shill is outright slander. I can think of no bigger insult. What you have said Mr. Darko is absolutely unforgivable. Your name has been entered into my black book from which there is no rubbing-out. Zionists are, in my humble opinion, the scum of the Earth thus to call me a Zionist is to say that I am the scum of the Earth. You might as well have broken into my house, stole my money, scratched my collection of Status Quo CDs and DVDs, and dumped on my bed.

Retribution WILL follow.

This means war.

I am sorry to SKUNK and several others here who i bagged for their overt paranoia about just what it is we are facing here. I am a fairly decent fellow and admitting that their exists a multi generational conspiricy to enslave mankind by people little better than a sadistic paedophile ring is REALLY hard to finally admit.[/quote]

Darko is very much the new kid on the block. It's been eighteen weeks since the chief inquisitor suddenly realised that there is a "conspiricy" to enslave mankind. The conspirators behind this dastardly plot to enslave the human race, Darko has cleverly deduced, are not:


Would we be correct to presume that prior to his great awakening, the factions that Darko refers to are who he believed to be the dark forces behind this "conspiricy"? And if our presumption is correct, then it is rather a tad obvious from where he would have derived information pertinent to the King of Spain and Germanic death cults! And one can but wonder from whom he learned about the Illuminati and freemasons!!

If, however, we are incorrect in our presumption, and Darko did not learn about the King of Spain and German death cult from Alex Jones, and if he did not learn about Illuminati and freemasons from David Icke, then from where exactly did he? And should Darko deny that four months ago he believed the King of Spain, Germanic death cults, the Illuminati, freemasons and bankers to be the prime movers of the "conspiricy" by which humanity are to be reduced to slaves, he is then obliged to offer a comprehensive explanation of what he did believe prior to his enlightenment so that we may ascertain just exactly what he does and does not believe.

Having already eliminated the King of Spain and Germanic death cults, the Illuminati and freemasons from the "conspiricy", Darko also eliminates bankers from the equation. And in doing so, confirms that he has not yet fully awoken from his slumber. Having eliminated the possibility of bankers being involved, Darko thus eliminates the possibility of the Rothschild banking family being involved in the "conspiricy." A monumental error indeed.

After stumbling upon a "Jewish plot" to enslave the world, we are told that this plot does not involve any bankers. And since  the Rothschilds are a bankers - of Jewish origin - they therefore cannot, according to Darko, be involved in the "conspiricy." This is not what my research tells me. Perhaps Darko might like to explain how he has arrived at a conclusion which many researchers have not. Has Andy Hitchock got it all wrong then?

Having now informed us who he believes are not the conspirators, he then tells us who is.


Oh, the suspense. Alfred Hitchcock - eat your heart out.

This monstrous "conspiricy" to enslave humankind is, the newly-enlightened one tells us....


Well fancy that. Cor blimey. Strike a light Guv. Blow me over. Knock me down with a feather. Gordon Bennet. What a surprise. Sherlock Holmes - eat your heart out.

Darko then reveals that:


From Germanic death cults to Judaic death cults...from Alex Jones to Donnie Darko we go. I had no idea that Juan Carlos and "Judaic death cult" were in direct competition with one another. Are the "Judaic death cult" vying with Carlos for control of the trans-Texas corridor? Does the king of Spain want to kill more Goyim than the Judaic cult of death?

And how did Darko come to the  conclusion that the "conspiricy" to enslave humanity is a Jewish plot? Obviously not by studying the research that Andrew Hitchcock has published. Did Darko discover the truth come via the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or from what Harold Wallace Rosenthal had to say in 1976? From what Benjamin Freedman revealed in 1961, or from what Myron Fagan also revealed that same decade? Is his realisation that there exists a Jewish "conspiricy" the fruit of him reading the written works of  Henry Ford, George Pitt-Rivers, Roger Garaudy, Douglas Reed, Jackie Patru, Christopher Jon Bjerknes, Eustace Mullins or Carol A. Valentine, or Edgar J. Steele amongst others?

How does Darko make the sudden and swift transition from heretic to true-believer? By which means does he finally make his "leap" of faith? He makes his "FINAL" leap via one solitary book, but this book is not just any old book. The book which bestows great knowledge, insight and awareness of the Jewish plot upon him is a very special book indeed. The book that has awoken him from his slumber, and enlightened him is, he states, a book called:

Predators: Peadophiles, Rapists, And Other Sex Offenders

What is a "peadophile?" Is this someone who has a penchant for peas? Split or whole? Garden or processed?

Darko proclaims himself to be fully-awake to the Jewish plot, but so far as spelling is concerned, he is still fast-asleep. As is the case with "conspiricy", he also encounters problems with the correct spelling of 'pedophiles'. Incidentally, has anyone else noticed the amount of elementary spelling mistakes that Israelis posing as truthseekers make when they post on Internet forums? Just a small point that I thought I would mention en passant.

And here is a demonstration of the point that I have just made.


By their atrocious spelling ye shall know them.

The point of Anna Salter's book, the illuminated one proclaims, is to, free people from any pre-conceived beliefs they may hold with regard to the dynamics of how our world works. Anna C. Salter is THE researcher whose research in the field of clinical psychology is solely responsible for exorcising any pre-conceived notion that Darko may have held regarding the participation of the King of Spain, Germanic death cults, the Illuminati, freemasons and bankers in the "conspiricy" to subjugate humankind.

And what has been the sum of knowledge that he has derived from Salter's book?


This is stating the obvious. It stands to reason sociopaths and psychopaths think differently from non-sociopaths and non-psychopaths. You might well have told us that water is wet and fire is hot. And if Anna Salter's book "simply" drew your attention to the rather obvious observation that sociopaths and psychopaths have a different thought-process to people who are not sociopaths and psychopaths, then you have a mountain of explaining to do sunshine.

Indeed, so high is this mountain of explanation that Darko needs do in order to - and I take immense pleasure in ramming his own words down his throat - "clarify his position," that Mount Everest is but a mere hillock by comparison.

Predators: Pedophiles, Rapists, and Other Sex Offenders: Who They Are, How They Operate, and How We Can Protect Ourselves and Our Children is a book that you say hit you "like a ton of bricks" three hours after you finished reading it. So profound was its message, that you were instantly able to eliminate the King of Spain, the Illuminati, Freemasons, bankers and Germanic death cults from the "conspiricy."

So powerful was this book, that it induced a sudden flash of inspiration which awakened you to the fact that the "conspiricy" is indeed a most-evil Jewish plot, and ultimately allowed you to make a quantum jump from the edge of darkness to the realm of enlightenment.

But in actual fact, the overall effect of Anna Salter's book had, was that it, "simply pointed-out" to you that, "sociopaths and psychopaths do NOT think like us." And what else do you conclude? Upon what do you rest your case? You "rest" your 'case' by asking us to:



Huh? Is that it? After being hit by a ton of bricks three hours after reading this book, and in the wake of your subsequent enlightenment, you "rest" your 'case' by asking us to fantasise that we are nut-jobs running the Federal Reserve.

You fucking idiot. Are you for real or what?

Have you got nothing better to do than to post messages on Internet forums asking people to try and imagine that they are a person with an anti-social personality disorder who is bereft of empathy or remorse, prone to aggressive, perverted, criminal or amoral behaviour, and who is working for/running the Federal Reserve? Are you trying to take the piss? What kind of psychobabble is this you are trying to lay on us?

You are off your trolley. Toys in the attic. Truly gone fishing. Over the rainbow. Bars in the window.

Do you seriously believe that you can make grandiose statements that are later totally contradicted by yourself, and expect to be accepted as credible?

Do you seriously believe that you can just appear out of nowhere like a fucking Jack-in-the-box, waltz in here with all guns blazing, begin bad-mouthing me, and expect me to just sit back and take it?

Do you seriously believe that you can make a big issue out of me respecting (oops...said THAT word again) David Icke then attempt to use this straw-man argument that you have constructed as the means by which you can continue to disrupt the thread and prevent discussion of the 'conversation in Hebrew,' and expect me to do nothing about it?

Hell yes, I believe you do. But you are so, so wrong. You underestimate my tenacity and my determination, and if you think that you can succeed where Debus fell flat on his arse, then you are in for one big surprise.

Until I unearthed My Name Is Donnie Darko And I Am A Recovering Zionist Denier, the name Anna. C. Salter was unfamiliar. I had never heard of her before. I was eager to discover how Salter had impressed Darko with such great magnitude, and brought about his enlightenment. I was intrigued by how a book about pedophiles, rapists and other sexual deviants could play such a significant role in bringing him round to realising that the plan of the master race to create a new world order under which insects such as myself will be ruled with a rod of iron, forced to lick the feet of our divine Gods and masters, and serve as their slaves.

Whatever effects Anna Salter's book initially may have had on Darko four months ago have evidently since dissipated. The posts that you have made so far on this thread prove conclusively that four months after your "FINAL" leap from ignorance to enlightenment, you are still performing "intellectual gymnastics." And your performances over the last few days are most worthy indeed of an Olympic gold medal.

Despite what you said last September, you continue bending and twisting in the wind like Harry Houdini on a breezy day.

But unlike the great Houdini, you will not find it easy to free yourself from the chains that are now being wrapped around you. And you are pissing in the wind if you persist in deluding yourself that you can continue to meet rational argument with vitriolic abuse on an indefinite basis. As you are already aware, you vomitous maggot, I too am more than capable of dishing-out verbal abuse. The difference between you and I though, is that I much prefer intelligent debate and discussion to trading insults. And while I can match whatever insults you throw my way, you are finding it rather onerous to compete on an intellectual level.

I don't know about you, dear reader, but whenever I have ever been deeply affected by what I have learned whilst reading a book, I invariably have to put the book down for a while so that I can dwell upon whatever it is that has just made such a profound impact. Never in my experience has a book taken three hours to kick-in. The effects of a hard-hitting book, I have found, are always immediate.

And in his time-delayed state of enlightenment, who does the newly-illuminated one perceive to be the threat?

We find the answer in the following quotation:


According to WkiPedia, the total number of Jews has been estimated to be circa sixteen million. And even if we were to accept Darko's figure of twenty-million as being accurate, then simple arithmetic tells us that there is a shortfall of four million. I have a hard time believing that six million Jews disappeared in the 1940s, and I have a harder time still, believing that four million of them have suddenly appeared out of nowhere since WikiPedia published the data I refer to.

I cannot accept Darko's notion of there being a surplus of four million Jews that no one else appears to have noticed as being the truth, nor can I accept as the truth, his incredible claim that the entire Jewish global population plus the four million extra Jews that only he can see, are all enrolled in the military. Indeed, I would not trust Darko to tell me the time in a room full of clocks. Donnie Darko is about as genuine as a $4 bill or a Russian CD listed on eBay.

And since, Mr. Darko, you have already confirmed on several occasions yourself to be a useful idiot along with Debus then who, may I ask, are your other 99,999,998 companions?

Anna C. Salter's book has received several reviews over on Amazon. Nobody who has written a review of her book has made the same 'Jewish' connections that Darko has. He is alone in his perception. He sees 'connections' where none exist, but we have already learned that he sees things that others do not - like four million Jews - and my supposed belief in twelve-foot Lizards from the fourth dimension.

Darko casts aspersions upon my mental health. But what of his? The man who sees millions of Jews who do not exist tells us that he is:


If 'am', 'immensely', 'proud' 'to', and 'it' are deleted, the statement then reads:

"I have finally cracked both intellectually and emotionally."

Amen.


EXACTLY? As in precisely? As in unequivocal? As in unambiguous? As in absolutely definitely? As in without exception?

Oo-err...I do believe that we are about to witness an astounding revelation.

...EXACTLY who does the enlightened one now know himself to be dealing with?

...EXACTLY what does the enlightened one now know himself to be dealing with?