From: Richard Ridge (richard_ridge@tao-group.com)
Date: Fri Feb 08 2002 - 10:31:58 MST
> naturally it was a tenous link....but one which certainly some
> people regard
> as not just the benign ravings of a complete loony: apparently he was
> recently attacked by ADL members with eggs at a book-signing in the US (I
> cant confirm this as anything other than heresay evidence, can anyone
> else?).
There was a documentary on the subject, which followed all of said
proceedings in considerable detail. He was indeed attacked in that manner by
an ADL member dressed up as a giant lizard (in Canada though). It was
probably one of the funniest things I have ever seen, though the faces of
two conspiracy theorists when confronted with a set of bilderberg minutes
runs it close (said minutes showed a set of tedious economics seminars
presented by people like the CEO of Tescos).
> However, David Icke, whilst he might be regarded as a nutter for his
> theories on 9 foot shapeshifting extraterrestrial reptiles,
> certainly raises
> an awful lot of interesting points about Globalisation,
They are not interesting in any way - trite and cliched would be more
accurate descriptions. If you want to read about globalisation I suggest On
the Edge, by Will Hutton and Anthony Giddens, both of whom have the
advantage of not being mad.
> world domination by
> a group (or groups) who are referred to as the Illuminati, Bloodline
> connections between world leaders and prominent figures in government and
> commerce and Secret societies & conspiracy theories.
I would respectfully suggest that the one area the ADL were correct was the
Nazis did create prejudice through conspiracy theory - suggesting that jews
controlled business, government and so on. The same does apply to most
conspiracy theories, though it is more usual now to see corporations as the
power behind the throne. The problem is that both variants cited the same
sort of 'evidence' which was equally convincing in either case.
> 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, especially when one begins to examine the roles
of secret
> societies in history, from La Prieure Du Sion to modern Masonic Lodges.
This conversation begins to remind me of a Doctor Who episode, where a
fanatical druid has just informed the doctor that the wrath of the goddess
is to be visited upon him. The Doctor replies that he rather doubts the
antiquity of the druids and had always presumed that John Aubrey had made it
all up as a joke. He loved a good joke, did old John... With that in mind I
would suggest you read Serendipities: Language and Lunacy, by Umberto Eco,
for an explanation of who it was cracking the joke in this case.
>And he may well be
> right...the question is, how do you prove it?
You do not prove it, as indeed, you cannot prove it. The 'theories' he
presents are no more capable of substantiation than the existence of the
gods, which means that all he has to offer is Pascal's wager without the
attendant benefits of a possible afterlife. If we refuse to accept that gods
exist without some form of evidence to demonstrate that to be the case,
might I ask why we should pay any more attention to Icke? It is possible,
but then so are leprechauns. As such, the only reason to entertain it, even
as a possibility, is because we wish to believe it ("even a technologist
such as myself likes to believe that the world is a little stranger than it
appears"). Which is far from ideal.
Above all, given that the hypothesis is that of Mr Icke, is to has to be
observed that the onus is on him to provide evidence for his assertions, not
supposition and speculation.
> My view is that david Icke is not a complete nutter.
I would refer you to the article wherein he asserted that anyone who had
ever attended Oxbridge was a lizard. On that basis, you are currently
engaged in a conversation with a very large komodo dragon typing at a
keyboard.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:42 MDT