David Icke on the Russell Brand show

[frogwoman]

I agree with Jazzz here. Anyone who can't see that not only our government but the US's have indeed removed age old safeguards against abuses of power hasn't been reading the news very carefully. If you don't want to read... or Alex Jones etc on this subject

It's not about not wanting to read something just because it's from alex jones, it's about not just accepting blindly what he's saying just because it sounds good ... and looking critically at what he is saying ... and why he is saying it ... has he got his own agenda, perhaps??

What safeguards?

The English parliamentary system has almost no safeguards on any abuse of power or anything. It has always been possible for a fascist regime to enter parliament - all they require is a parliamentary majority and they can do whatever the fuck they want. If a majority of people in the HOC vote for a piece of legislation the it WILL be able to become law no matter what it is. It has been this way for the entire 20th century.

Most of the damage to the safeguards you're tlaking about was actually done in 1911 when the government removed the powers of the House of Lords to veto legislation - something that was itself necessary because of the stranglehold the aristocracy previously had on British politics. The legislature in this country is very weak, it always has been, because of the nature of our political system and the prime minister's status as "leader of the commons" This is due to the historical opposition between the commons and the crown, which due to the crown having very little power at all now, is pretty irrelevant

If anything, America actually has a more independent legislature and judiciary although a few "dynasties" have dominated American politics for generations - but at least it has a far more independent legislature than Britain due to the electoral system in place there. the constitution is hard to amend - since the declaration of independence there've been under 30 amendments to it

the american gov't has often done things that are "unconstitutional" especially in war - look at the japanese people who were rounded up in world war 2, or the vietnam war being started without congress, which is needed to declare wars (it was called a "police action" rather than a war). People have always found ways of bypassing the law and manipulating it to their own advantage in America, and there have been frequent struggles between state and federal government - the state's rights thing with segregation and the American civil war being two examples - it isn't as simple as saying "a small group of people in the American government are removing all the rights and safeguards that there are, omg bush is the antichrist" because to a very large extent in america those safeguards are still there - the supreme court is able to declare things unconstitutional when it opposes the government on an issue, and it generally stands ... but at the same time, the "checks and balances" can work against what reasonable people would want - the citing of state's rights as a reason not to allow black people to attend white schools, or vote, etc, and some of them didn't even exist in the first place ...

It's perfectly possible to read about this stuff and form your own conclusions without listening to stupid stories about the knights templar and owl worshippers at bohemian grove, IMO

 

[Belushi]

Yes I am saying things have changed, from;

1/ a time when leaders were held accountable for their actions and impeached if they were found to have lied, to one in which no action is taken when both a prime minister and a president lied us into an illegal war, and;

When was that then?

 

[butchersapron]

Yes I am saying things have changed, from;

1/ a time when leaders were held accountable for their actions and impeached if they were found to have lied, to one in which no action is taken when both a prime minister and a president lied us into an illegal war, and;

2 / one in which ID cards were seen as a temporary measure during wartime and discarded soon afterwards, to one in which they're being introduced without any explanation which makes sense (and I've heard ministers try to justify them).

I'm out of here.

No they haven't. You think the US in the 70s was the height of democracy? If so, then i have little more to say other than open your eyes a little bit wider.

ID cards mean sweet FA. It's not the nazis all over again.

 

[butchersapron]

snip

Showing off now

 

[Meltingpot]

It's not about not wanting to read something just because it's from alex jones, it's about not just accepting blindly what he's saying just because it sounds good ... and looking critically at what he is saying ... and why he is saying it ... has he got his own agenda, perhaps??

What safeguards?

The English parliamentary system has almost no safeguards on any abuse of power or anything. It has always been possible for a fascist regime to enter parliament - all they require is a parliamentary majority and they can do whatever the fuck they want. If a majority of people in the HOC vote for a piece of legislation the it WILL be able to become law no matter what it is. It has been this way for the entire 20th century.

Most of the damage to the safeguards you're tlaking about was actually done in 1911 when the government removed the powers of the House of Lords to veto legislation - something that was itself necessary because of the stranglehold the aristocracy previously had on British politics. The legislature in this country is very weak, it always has been, because of the nature of our political system and the prime minister's status as "leader of the commons" This is due to the historical opposition between the commons and the crown, which due to the crown having very little power at all now, is pretty irrelevant

If anything, America actually has a more independent legislature and judiciary although a few "dynasties" have dominated American politics for generations - but at least it has a far more independent legislature than Britain due to the electoral system in place there. the constitution is hard to amend - since the declaration of independence there've been under 30 amendments to it

the american gov't has often done things that are "unconstitutional" especially in war - look at the japanese people who were rounded up in world war 2, or the vietnam war being started without congress, which is needed to declare wars (it was called a "police action" rather than a war). People have always found ways of bypassing the law and manipulating it to their own advantage in America, and there have been frequent struggles between state and federal government - the state's rights thing with segregation and the American civil war being two examples - it isn't as simple as saying "a small group of people in the American government are removing all the rights and safeguards that there are, omg bush is the antichrist" because to a very large extent in america those safeguards are still there - the supreme court is able to declare things unconstitutional when it opposes the government on an issue, and it generally stands ... but at the same time, the "checks and balances" can work against what reasonable people would want - the citing of state's rights as a reason not to allow black people to attend white schools, or vote, etc, and some of them didn't even exist in the first place ...

It's perfectly possible to read about this stuff and form your own conclusions without listening to stupid stories about the knights templar and owl worshippers at bohemian grove, IMO

Some good points there froggy, but have a look at my post immediately above; I still say things have changed - for the worse.

Now I really AM out of here.

 

[frogwoman]

No, but there have always been checks and balances before. We had Nixon, but we also had Watergate. Now we've got Blair poncing around America charging $200,000 a speech dexpite being a liar (about Iraq) on at least as big a scale as Nixon was. And no one does anything about it.

Another example. We managed fine without ID cards for 60 years (they were abolished in 1954, if memory serves, because the British public wouldn't stand for them). Now they're back on the agenda again. Why?

We also have rebellions in parliament and the House of Lords going against the government far more than it ever has done (in the days you were talking about it was even more of a rubber stamp than it is now, being almost entirely made up of Tories which were the "natural party of government), criticisms of the government almost every day in the media, far greater transparency - if stuff like the child benefit discs had gone missing in the 1950s there's a good chance people would have never find out about it, IMO

What you're saying is definitely true but it isn't proof of anything.

 

[8den]

Anyway you're missing the point here. I'm not saying you should agree with me or even take what I say seriously, merely not to indulge in gratuitous abuse. If you don't like my posts this board has an "ignore" function.

And if you don't like what I have to say you can ignore me, if you continue to post purile nonsense I'll call you on it.


You're perfectly entitled to post whatever you like, you cannot demand I stop reading it and referencing to it.

As to your claims that I should go research what else you've said in the vain hope that somewhere you've made a credible claim, well I've not seen anything from you yet, and don't fancy another wild goose chase.

 

[Doctor Carrot]

1/ a time when leaders were held accountable for their actions and impeached if they were found to have lied, to one in which no action is taken when both a prime minister and a president lied us into an illegal war.

This isn't strictly true though is it? Tony Blair didn't actually lie did he? no, he took us to war based on appalling intelligence, dunno whether the same can be said for Bush but I think it's wrong to call someone a liar when they didn't actually lie. Leaders are held accountable for their actions, it's called an election, if you don't like who's in power don't vote for them, granted the choice at the moment is pretty dire but it doesn't mean the population is powerless to do anything about it, as frogwoman says, the media are ruthless in their criticism of the government, even too ruthless in some instances.

I've looked at these theories alot and i've come to the conclusion that they're not telling us anything we don't already know really, it's obvious corporations have far too much influence over politicians, it's obvious that it's a bad thing to let one major corporation control most of the media and we all know that governments bomb and kill people but we're not going to change these things by paying any attention to people like David Icke.

 

[editor]

I think what you mean is:

'post a conspiracy opinion and you will be besieged with endless request for sources, more sources (any source that supports your opinion will likely be derided as a 'conspiracy site') you will have the burden of proof thrust upon you ....

But you don't post any proper proof Jazzz. Ever.

You just post up half researched, selectively quoted rubbish from highly dubious sites, and then spend the rest of the time avoiding awkward questions about the actual claims and the credibility of the source.

None of your wild conspiracy claims about holographic planes, faked calls, invisible explosives, invisible planes and all the other loon rubbish you've slapped up here have ever come true.

I would have thought that after making such an incredible dick of yourself with your stark raving bonkers "Ian Huntley was killed as part of a 9/11 plot" story would have made you seriously reconsider what you post, but you're still posting up the same old daft slop.

Glass of Pentawater anyone?

 

[Doctor Carrot]

I would have thought that after making such an incredible dick of yourself with your stark raving bonkers "Ian Huntley was killed as part of a 9/11 plot" story would have made you seriously reconsider what you post, but you're still posting up the same old daft slop.

Editor, you're winding me up surely?

 

[rorymac]

But you don't post any proper proof Jazzz. Ever.

You just post up half researched, selectively quoted rubbish from highly dubious sites, and then spend the rest of the time avoiding awkward questions about the actual claims and the credibility of the source.

None of your wild conspiracy claims about holographic planes, faked calls, invisible explosives, invisible planes and all the other loon rubbish you've slapped up here have ever come true.

I would have thought that after making such an incredible dick of yourself with your stark raving bonkers "Ian Huntley was killed as part of a 9/11 plot" story would have made you seriously reconsider what you post, but you're still posting up the same old daft slop.

Glass of Pentawater anyone?

Dr Jazzz has never made himself look like an incredible dick .. many posters do but he never has IMO

 

[editor]

Dr Jazzz has never made himself look like an incredible dick .. many posters do but he never has IMO

You clearly must have missed his "Ian Huntley is innocent" stuff then. It was quite disgusting.

Oh, and his Pentawater yarn was a hoot too. "It's better than water!"

 

[frogwoman]

Nah, to be fair to Jazzz he is almost always polite and I have no doubt that he isn't racist or an anti-semite, he may be a lot of things but he isn't that. Just because I disagree with his views doesn't mean I think badly of him as a person I just think he's wrong

 

[rorymac]

I remember the thread but not in detail so I can say no more but 'disgusting' is a surprising thought re Dr J's posts

 

[editor]

Editor, you're winding me up surely?

No. Jazzz insisted that poor old Huntley was the victim of a devilish trans-Atlantic government plot.

According to Jazzz, the two young girls were actually murdered by evil paedo USAF officers in the nearby base, with the bodies catapulted over the wall of the army base.

Fearful of causing an incident that might create embarrassment between the UK and US governments - and thus put the stopper on the evilly planned 9/11 conspiracy designed to lead to a joint war in Iraq - a cover up was ordered, with poor, poor, poor innocent Huntley framed for the murders.

Jazzz was absolutely insistent that Huntley was 100% innocent. He also came up with some bizarre yarn that Huntley was under some sort of mind control - a theory that won Jazzz the ' Conspiracy theory of the Year' award on 2003, which he nearly capped by insisting that a "police dog proved Huntley's innocence."
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=63165&

frogwoman: I like Jazzz as a person, but his defence of a child murdering scumbag with such a ludicrous story was pretty hard to stomach.

 

[8den]

When he lost his temper when the Architect was running rings around him it was pretty funny.

And I dislike his annoying habit of stating something as a fact, and when he's proven to be completely and utterly wrong, he just ignores it, slinks off, and then raises a different piece of loonaspudary on a different thread a few weeks later.

 

[Doctor Carrot]

No. Jazzz insisted that poor old Huntley was the victim of a devilish trans-Atlantic government plot.

According to Jazzz, the two young girls were actually murdered by evil paedo USAF officers in the nearby base, with the bodies catapulted over the wall of the army base.

Fearful of causing an incident that might create embarrassment between the UK and US governments - and thus put the stopper on the evilly planned 9/11 conspiracy designed to lead to a joint war in Iraq - a cover up was ordered, with poor, poor, poor innocent Huntley framed for the murders.

Jazzz was absolutely insistent that Huntley was 100% innocent.

frogwoman: I like Jazzz as a person, but his defence of a child murdering scumbag was pretty hard to stomach.

Where can I find these claims? i've done a search but can't really narrow it down, i'm not gonna reopen the discussion about it, it's just so crazy i've got to read it for myself!

edit: oh you lived up to your name and edited while I was typing

edit again: hang on, it was the link to the "conspirallon of the year" thread, have you got a link for the huntley being innocent, USAF paedos and police dogs proving huntley's innocence please?

 

[Xanadu]

I think what you mean is:

'post a conspiracy opinion and you will be besieged with endless request for sources, more sources (any source that supports your opinion will likely be derided as a 'conspiracy site') you will have the burden of proof thrust upon you (even if you were just saying you don't believe something), the ensuing argument will go on for absolutely ever and if you ever get anywhere you'll be asked to start again from the beginning and then editor (after his 14 millionth post - where does he get the energy from?) will have the chutzpah to claim that it is not him that's gone around in circles! Oh and there will be lashing of personal abuse along the way'

When it comes to conspiracy theories, I like to use Occam's Razor. It explains why the burden of proof should be on the conspiracy theorists.

 

[editor]

edit: oh you edited while I was typing

Sorry - we had to keep pruning the boards a few years back to conserve server space, so we lost a lot of threads on a host of subjects.

There's still quite a few threads of Jazzz containing truly bonkers claims if you can be arsed to look them up. He's nothing if entertaining and although we argue here like cat and dog, we've always got on just fine in real life when we meet (he's also a very gifted pianist).

 

[rorymac]

Sorry - we had to keep pruning the boards a few years back to conserve server space, so we lost a lot of threads on a host of subjects.

There's still quite a few threads of Jazzz containing truly bonkers claims if you can be arsed to look them up. He's nothing if entertaining and although we argue here like cat and dog, we've always got on just fine in real life when we meet (he's also a very gifted pianist).

Aw .. I'm sure Smoky will get over it x

 

[Doctor Carrot]

Sorry - we had to keep pruning the boards a few years back to conserve server space, so we lost a lot of threads on a host of subjects.

There's still quite a few threads of Jazzz containing truly bonkers claims if you can be arsed to look them up. He's nothing if entertaining and although we argue here like cat and dog, we've always got on just fine in real life when we meet

I've seen a few of Jazz's threads but the Huntley one sounds like it would've packed quite a few laughs, ah well nevermind.

(he's also a very gifted pianist).

Oh it's Jazz as in jazz pianist?

I always thought it was to do with this jazz

 

[fogbat]

I've seen a few of Jazz's threads but the Huntley one sounds like it would've packed quite a few laughs, ah well nevermind.



Oh it's Jazz as in jazz pianist?

I always thought it was to do with this jazz

Mags?

 

[Doctor Carrot]

Mags?

Jazz mags?

 

[fattboy]

Why not just show us the links you found?

its easier for u to google it urself, all the links are saying different things, and it aint like there gonna set up the most secretive society on the planet and then put it on google anyway is it, whatever google says is probably what they definitely didnt find.

 

[fattboy]

Heresy was on of the charges used by the church to get at their gold yes, but 200 years later - not the second they came out of Jerusalem as per your claim.

yeah but the fact remains that they found something when they did the excavation, this isnt disputed.

 

[fattboy]

So you've absolutely no proof at all, but that doesn't stop you trotting it out as some sort of fact?
Why can't you post the links you claim to have found?

Do you believe in Snow White and the Seven Dwarves too?

they excavated at the site of the Temple of Solomon pbuh, and they found something, that is a fact.
if u google it, ull see that theres no concensus on what was found, some say the Ark, others geometric knowledge, others some kabbalah type knowledge.
no harm in speculating is there.

 

[Jonti]

they found something

LMAO!

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

According to Jazzz, the two young girls were actually murdered by evil paedo USAF officers in the nearby base, with the bodies catapulted over the wall of the army base.

Fearful of causing an incident that might create embarrassment between the UK and US governments - and thus put the stopper on the evilly planned 9/11 conspiracy designed to lead to a joint war in Iraq - a cover up was ordered, with poor, poor, poor innocent Huntley framed for the murders.

Jazzz was absolutely insistent that Huntley was 100% innocent.

That would be quite the movie plot, if you took out the pedophilia.

 

[William of Walworth]

That's a fair point, but it overlooks a second variable; the cost of not heeding a warning coming from that source. The problem with conspiracy theories is that even if the risks of them being true are small, the costs you would incur if they were true and you chose not to heed their warnings are massive (failing to prevent the advent of a global fascist / "1984" type state).

It doesn't mean you accept what you say as gospel, but nor does it mean you dismiss them as nutters without at least being willing to put your preconceptions aside long enough to look squarely at what they're saying.

While it's fair that one should always balance the chance of a warning having some credibility against possible consequences, giving credence to a 'warning' emanating from the likes of Prison Planet or David Icke is going too far.

I suppose there is the possibility that even they are right now and again, a stopped clock is still right twice a day after all. However, given the track record of such CT theorists and their outlandish claims it's more than reasonable to dismiss them as the nutters they are, to do otherwise would involve giving all manner of crackpot nonsense a scrutiny which it doesn't deserve.

Should I "put [my] preconceptions aside long enough to look squarely at what they're saying."? That depends. Nothing is going to change the fact that people who believe in a reptilian plot to take over the word are nutters. That's not a preconception, that's a fact

Well said longdog -- bit in bold especially.

Froggy has also done a pretty good demolition job on Melting Pot's bizarre -- and dangerous -- assertion that a lower standard of proof is needed for the more outlandish claims made by conspiracists. Not believing in the sort of guff that Icke claims, doesn't mean you can't have a pretty clear grasp of what various Governments get up to and what the Establishment (in various guises) gets up to. Frogwoman herself demonstrates that -- you can build up a pretty damning picture using nothing but credible sources and proper proof and documentation. Proper analysis based on provable facts and creedible evidence.

But IMO longdog sums up my thoughts on all this even more closely.

Conspiracy theorists' regular efforts to slate rationalist sceptics of their claims as 'narrow minded' people stubbornly unwilling to move beyond their 'preconceptions', etc. really do fall down when you take a careful look at the sort of sources so many conspiracists cite in 'support' of their ramblings.

If you're any kind of analyst or historian, you are fully aware of the essential need to assess your sources and their credibility levels clearheadedly, independently, rationally. So the willingness of so many conspiracists to be suspend scepticism and to take the claims of patent and obvious nutters spouting patently obvious made up loonspud shite so seriously and gullibly, is actively offensive. To me as a sometime historian anyway.

Not only that, conpiracism is a distraction from analysing and exposing the real bad shit going on in the world. Bad shit perfectly easily open to examination without resorting to Icke style lunacy.

Conspiracy theorists, with their lower standard of proof to the point of ignoring the need for any, and with their slapdash, undiscriminating, cavalier approach to facts and evidence, serve to get in the way of and distract from finding out about real history.

The biggest enemies of conspiracy theorists are, or should be, the most radical and independent-minded historians, campaigners, investigative journalists.

 

[William of Walworth]

Bring On The Glorious Forward March of Rationalist Empiricism!!