--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "brontebaxter8" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think we ARE shell-shocked. We are in denial. When someone moves > past confusion that into a radical understanding or solution, they > are hooted down as crazy or anti-American. David Icke, for example. > Here's a guy who has connected all the dots in a brilliant way that > deserves real consideration, but all you have to do is MENTION that > name to get branded as (quoting a former friend) "a bug-eyed cult > zombie."
I wouldn't brand you as a "bug-eyed cult zombie," but I do think you have a problem distinguishing reality from fantasy. People are scared to think outside the box, because of the > implications. Things are so seriously cockeyed and wrong, that even > to peak over the edge of the box is practically terrifying. Better > to pretend things are fine, have friendly debates about what > political candidate will save America, and totally disregard the > problems that go so deep no phony political system can ever address > them. For example, if you're convinced this description fits many of the participants in FFL, you're fantasizing big-time, and you haven't been paying attention to boot. > We have a two-party system? "The people" elect the president? Our > last election proved both concepts to be illusions. Two > presidential candidates, from "opposite" parties, who "never knew > each other" at their shared alma mater, Yale, though they were just > a year apart and in the same elite Yale secret society! FWIW: Bush and Kerry were two years apart at Yale, not one; and even just the college has thousands of students, so it's entirely possible that any two given undergraduates wouldn't know each other, especially if they were two years apart. As to Skull and Bones, members are recruited at the end of their junior year and participate only during their senior year, so Bush and Kerry would not have been active in the society at the same time. <snip> > The electoral college decides who gets elected, not > the people. Actually, the people decide who gets elected to the electoral college; they vote for the electors, not for the presidential candidates. However, each slate of electors is committed to voting for a particular presidential candidate and his or her running mate, and the ultimate voting process is quite public and really no more than a formality. The electoral college does not get together in secret to contravene the will of the people. There have been objections for many years to the fairness of the electoral college winner-take-all system, which have heated up since the 2000 election, in which Gore won the popular vote. But there are good arguments both pro and con the electoral college. > Democracy is an illusion and has been for a long time. > > How is it we miss that? Speak for yourself; many of us don't "miss" the fact that there are some major problems with U.S. democracy. But there's a wide range of positions between obliviousness and advocacy of the kind of nutty conspiracy theories you and Angela are trying to promulgate. <snip> > do whatever you like behind the > scenes to tighten the snare a little more around freedom, because, > who's really watching? The press ideofies anyone with intelligent > criticism "Ideofies"? Not in my dictionary, not on the Web anywhere. Was this a typo, perhaps? If not, what does it mean? <snip> > You are right to be outraged. You have great integrity. Keep > shoving it in our face, and eventually the very discomfort of > that has to wake people up. It's not a popular position, but a > heroic one. Such outcries are our only hope. You go, Edg. Outrage is fine. But hysterical outrage isn't likely to interest anyone but fellow hysterics, and hysterical people are of no use to anybody (least of all themselves). I can't recommend hugheshugo's post on Icke (151820) to you too strongly. He makes some excellent points about the psychological basis of conspiracy theorizing. Angela needs to read and think about it too.
