From: Dylan Sunter (dylan.sunter@fisystem.com)
Date: Fri Feb 08 2002 - 07:43:04 MST
Read my original post again and tell me if I said I agree with him? In fact,
I think you will find that at a number of juntures I disagreed. merely, I
pointed out a brief synopsis of his own beliefs. Perhaps in future, when I
paraphrase someone else, I should add the text "THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY THE
VIEW OF THE AUTHOR". I will try again. Here are my personal opinions as I
wrote them exactly in the text before. Everything else is carefully noted as
being the basics of David Ickes beliefs, as i am sure you will see if you
read it carefully:
1. However, I do think that the notion of a global illuminati
which has persisted in at least one form throughout many ages is
very much a
possibility
NOTE: NOT THAT I BELIEVE IT TO BE FACT, BUT A POSSIBILITY based on my own
understanding and research. I DONT KNOW, so im discussing it, to see if
anyone would like to present a reasoned arguement or insight. If you wish to
do this, feel free.
2. If you ask me the closest you can get to a real illuminati are the
biggest
corporations, who pretty much have the power to install and bring
down
governments whether at will or accidentally. (I think this is
equally apt at
the moment)
NOTE: IN THE CURRENT WORLD ECONOMIC CLIMATE, THIS CERTAINLY HAS A STRONG
CASE. Note. Once again, I have not used attempted to pass off as fact, but
my own opinion, which you are clearly welcome to find a structured arguement
against. However you havent yet.
3. My view is that david Icke is not a complete nutter. Perhaps
misguided,
certainly misunderstood and whether he talks a load of bollocks or
not is
irrelevant as he certainly does raise a number of interesting points
and if
nothing else his views are a catalyst for intellectual discussion
NOTE: AGAIN, I am not even attempting to defend the fact that he may well
be wrong. I merely point out that I have read a lot of his work, and I have
concluded that not all of it is rubbish which should be off-handedly
ignored. Certainly, some of it raises points of interest for discussion.
Yes, a large amount of it is based a lot on coincidence, conspiracy and
whatever. But its classic real-life X-FILES stuff isnt it? People love a bit
of mystery. Even a technologist such as myself likes to believe that the
world is a little stranger than it appears, and considering belief is the
basis of memetics, do you feel qualified to pass off what I or anyone else
says as 100% garbage given that YOU DONT HAVE THE FULL FACTS EITHER??????
Please read back over my post again. You will notice that at all other
times, I have used terminology such as "HE BELIEVES....". When I talk about
interesting points, they are there to be discussed in all their glory in
many different settings and arguements, not specifically related to Mr Icke
and friends.
Let me give you an example. The Bilderberg group for example exists. It is
real, and has in recent years seen the likes of Presidents, Prime Ministers
and other western heads of state, Chairs and leaders of NATO, US Governers,
Bankers and Financiers, Media Moguls, Ambassadors, CEO's of global companies
etc....
David Icke talks an awful lot about the Bilderberg group, which meets behind
closed doors, and never releases minutes of its meetings. Not very
democratic...surely policy should be open to the electorate? Surely
governments hobnobbing with Media giants, corporations and bankers is likely
to raise one or two questions, or are you naive enough to believe that
powerful people arent corrupt and are always acting in our best interests?
So, my question remains...does this group not deserve some examination?
Whether David Icke is a complete fruitcake or not is not the issue. The
issue here remains that the Bilderberg meetings are an affront to democracy,
not that David Icke is mentally incapable.
The same can be applied to a number of topics that David Icke chooses to
speak on. Not all of which I agree with, in fact some appear to be downright
lunacy. So I stand by my view that Truth told by a fool is still the Truth.
And as the truth is pretty hard to determine with absolute accuracy, Perhaps
you aight to refrain from denouncing what COULD BE (BUT MIGHT NOT BE - WHO
REALLY KNOWS) "truth" with opinions.
I had thought that you would be able to see above this, but simply at the
mention of his name you have not applied any logical thought to what I
wrote. If it were 50 years ago, I would have suspected that you left school
to "work down't pit" at 15.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]On Behalf
Of L' Ermit
Sent: 08 February 2002 13:24
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: virus: David Icke
Dylan suggested:
<snip>
My view is that david Icke is not a complete nutter. Perhaps misguided,
certainly misunderstood and whether he talks a load of bollocks or not is
irrelevant as he certainly does raise a number of interesting points and if
nothing else his views are a catalyst for intellectual discussion.
<snap>
[hr]
Hermit responds:
Dylan, you should practice being skeptical. At least a few times a day.
When somebody suggests something, first ask, "on what evidence." When they
have no evidence, relegate them immediately to the dubious category.
Assuming that they they have some basis for their theories, if the evidence
is apparent collusion or secret societies, first ask if it can be explained
by stupidity or coincidence before ascribing it to malice.
Conspiracy is very unlikely. A secret is only a secret while one person
knows it. Humans as a group are not designed for keeping things secret. When
an hypothesis revolves around an organization as public as the WTO, secrecy
is almost impossible.
Coincidence is common. It has to be. There are over 6 billion people doing
pretty similar things on this planet. Odds are, when you think about it,
that some of them will be doing unlikely things at the same time. Say the
odds against something happening are a million to 1 for any day. That means
that at least 6,000 people are doing it today... Any argument from
unlikelihood can probably be explained on this basis.
The only "secret society" likely to have survived for over 1,500 years is
the Vatican. And that is only because they were the most powerful
organization in the world for a thousand or so of those years.
Even leaving "reasons of state" out of the equation, family connections are
inevitable in any social grouping, simply because they attend the same
functions and places.
David Icke is a complete loony, so far over the edge that any connection
with reality is long lost. If it were 50 years ago, I'd suspect neurological
syphilis. Heck, I still do.
Regards
Hermit
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:42 MDT