Matt, thank you for your objective opinion! I agree with a lot of what you say, however I still disagree with several of your assertions :) Before I start, Skull & Bones is in fact based at Yale University and not Harvard; though I'm sure you will find, with some research, that similar organisations exist at most 'elite' universities and other similar institutions.
Very much soClearly it is natural to distrust those who hold secrets.Especially when they are (supposedly) running the 'most powerful country on Earth' ... Does it not seem sensible to consider that in order to *avoid such speculation altogether*, no president or politician with that level of power should be allowed to be a member of a secret society? The risk of allowing this behaviour is inherently massive.
You see, we are left with the burden of absolute proof - and when attempting to expose corruption at the highest level, committed by individuals with massive amounts of power, does it not seem sensible that such proof might be a little hard to find? On the flip side of the coin, I have seen no evidence that Bonesmen are NOT members of a wider Illuminati sect. I have, however, seen plenty that suggests to me that the 'New World Order' agenda (whatever its intricacies may be) probably does exist.I have seen no evidence that Bonesmen are members of a wider Illuminati sect seeking to bring about a New World Order. Nor have I seen evidence that such a thing would be a bad idea in any case.
Speculative - yes and no, due to the very nature of secrecy speculation is to be expected, the sensible approach to this is to base any speculation on known facts, but keep clear on the difference between these facts and the speculation derived from them. Irrelevant? I think not; if this *is* real (which, for all any of us know, it could be), it pretty much makes an absolute laughing stock out of the concept of democracy, and the way in which the governments of the western world are run. More specifically, it makes a laughing stock out of us - the people.Such conspiracy is highly speculative and largely irrelevant.
The thing is, I fully and completely understand the standard "no global conspiracy" worldview; it was the view I held myself, for a long time. I understand that many of the things that are spoken of by people such as myself are explainable in 'other ways', and once again I would once have adhered to this myself. However, I have seen too much (I mean, a lot) that implies to me that there is a consistent, organised agenda being enacted by the powers that be in this world, and that many of the things we view as 'normal' or 'coincidental', and have viewed as such for our whole lives, are anything but.
Anyway, now that I've made myself a target for the typical 'woo' remarks, I'ma don my Aegis of Skeptic Deflection :)
Originally Posted by augur
Ah, ye olde "the lack of evidence IS the evidence" tactic, a favourite of the conspiracy theorist
On the flip side of the coin, I have seen no evidence that Bonesmen are NOT members of a wider Illuminati sect.
I've seen no evidence that you are NOT a space lizard, does that mean you are one?
I have, however, seen plenty that suggests to me that the 'New World Order' agenda (whatever its intricacies may be) probably does exist.
Well lets see it then!
Well, I only really entered the debate here to point out that these societies do exist, Bush is a member, and that Skull & Bones is only one of many. I'm not here to prove the entire conspiracy to you guys, in fact I would suggest you research for yourself. On another note, it is very typical for skeptics to continually shift their demands for evidence; first of all the idea that Bush is a member of Skull & Bones (the 'Brotherhood of Death', believe it or not) is ridiculous, laughable! Then, oh my word, it's not ... but suddenly we're not debating whether they exist, its whether they are doing anything wrong, and proof of this is now demanded - otherwise, the conspiracy apparently does not exist.Ah, ye olde "the lack of evidence IS the evidence" tactic, a favourite of the conspiracy theorist
As I mentioned previously, I have been through this subject with people many times. Let's remember the skeptic typically does not believe Skull & Bones exists; they are then shown evidence which indicates that it does. They then seek to disarm the rest of the argument by explaining it away - but crucially, they don't know what they're talking about, because they have only just been introduced to the topic! They tend to pull these type of rationalisations out of thin air, if you get my drift.
That's not my point; I am not saying that because it cannot be disproved, it must be the truth. I am saying that the apathy displayed by the majority of people towards this type of information is staggering, considering the implications - whatever is going on, it needs to be brought into the public eye and seen for what it is, not left in the dark.I've seen no evidence that you are NOT a space lizard, does that mean you are one?
Regarding the NWO, as I said I'm not here to prove things to you, research it for yourself! To get the ball rolling, here is a quote from George Bush Sr, also a member of Skull & Bones:
"We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves, and for future generations, a New World Order; a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful - and we will be - we have a real chance at this New World Order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promised vision of the UN's founders."
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...arch&plindex=2
This is just one of many quotes from officials who have publicly used the phrase 'New World Order'; others off the top of my head include former US senator Gary Hart and current British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Yes, I realise this is not 100% bona-fide proof of the sinister evil plot to enslave mankind; it should however, be a good indication to you that there is at least *something* to this apparently secret agenda (by the way, I have also already heard "if they're talking about it then it can't be very secret!" This is not so, there are a number of reasons why they would publicly mention it; I am sure you are familiar with the political concept of 'spin').
I'd like to re-iterate; I'm not here to prove everything to you guys, just to point out a few things that it seems some of you may not have been aware of, and to encourage you to at least keep an open mind (try not to let your brain fall out though)! Peace
GORDON 'NEW WORLD ORDER' BROWN MANSION SPEECH 2007
http://youtube.com/watch?v=l8l6Af74rCY
Gordon Brown New World Order Speech http://youtube.com/watch?v=Uv5cqh26CC0
Back on topic. I don't know if Icke is a con man, I have no idea. I certainly don't trust all that he says.
There must be something horribly wrong with me as that seems quite a reasonable line of inquiry to me.
As I mentioned previously, I have been through this subject with people many times. Let's remember the skeptic typically does not believe Skull & Bones exists; they are then shown evidence which indicates that it does. They then seek to disarm the rest of the argument by explaining it away - but crucially, they don't know what they're talking about, because they have only just been introduced to the topic! They tend to pull these type of rationalisations out of thin air, if you get my drift.
I'm afraid I can't speak for the "typical skeptic".
That's not my point; I am not saying that because it cannot be disproved, it must be the truth. I am saying that the apathy displayed by the majority of people towards this type of information is staggering, considering the implications - whatever is going on, it needs to be brought into the public eye and seen for what it is, not left in the dark.
The implications of what exactly? Are we supposed to forbid powerful people from fraternising outside of work unless we are privy to all they say and do?
Yes, I realise this is not 100% bona-fide proof of the sinister evil plot to enslave mankind; it should however, be a good indication to you that there is at least *something* to this apparently secret agenda (by the way, I have also already heard "if they're talking about it then it can't be very secret!" This is not so, there are a number of reasons why they would publicly mention it; I am sure you are familiar with the political concept of 'spin').
I'm afraid I don't follow, how would blowing the cover of their secret plans fuction as "spin"?
An admirable goal IMHO. That's how the global community should be run.
What do you dislike about the above quote?
The actions of the US undermine the UN, if anything, despite the above noble words.
Never mind, China is on the ascendancy and will counter balance US "self interest" in the not too distant future.
Personally, I don't think Icke is a con man. People point to the fact that he makes money from his books; well, everybody needs to make a living, and if he feels strongly enough about his views then he should be welcome to write or speak about them!
Whether you believe anything he says is up to you; he has said himself that he does not censor information in the way that the media do (meaning, he will not discard information that appears bizarre or unorthodox, and will rather present it for the reader's judgment).
I'd like to re-iterate; I'm not here to prove everything to you guys, just to point out a few things that it seems some of you may not have been aware of, and to encourage you to at least keep an open mind (try not to let your brain fall out though)! Peace
This seems rather like tilting at windmills, when has anyone here denied the existence of Skull & Bones?
Because he said "New World Order*", that's code for "take over the world"!
*Got to remember those ominous capital letters!
Yes, so go and research it. Don't expect me to spoon-feed it to you
That is not the issue at all; they're quite welcome to have a chat outside of work. Do you not see anything wrong, however, with the candidates for both major political parties being members of the same umbrella organisation - and that the fact (and the organisation's goals etc) is/are "so secret we can't talk about it"?
In this way:I'm afraid I don't follow, how would blowing the cover of their secret plans fuction as "spin"?
As I mentioned in my previous post, I am not here to prove or explain the entire conspiracy to you! I believe the topic of discussion is in fact whether David Icke is a con-man
Here:
I'm terribly sorry, please PM me a brief summary of the grammatical rules & conventions I am expected to adopt while visiting this fine forum.
You're talking about politicians. Back-stabbing, self-serving, career-advancing politicians.
Do you really think they can work together, globally, to achieve a common goal?
Yes - back-stabbing, self-serving, career-advancing politicians! Blatantly corrupt
Are you true skeptics?
Technically we're scientific sceptics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism
Research what exactly? I'm quite familiar with the conspiracy theorist arguements.Yes, so go and research it. Don't expect me to spoon-feed it to you
That is not the issue at all; they're quite welcome to have a chat outside of work. Do you not see anything wrong, however, with the candidates for both major political parties being members of the same umbrella organisation - and that the fact (and the organisation's goals etc) is/are "so secret we can't talk about it"?
Since when was Skull & Bones an "umbrella organisation"? It does concern me the world is run by people that like to muck about in these silly clubs but not for the reasons it concerns you.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks