Originally posted by The Axeman
Originally posted by Loungerist
These "facts" include such claims such as David Icke provides no evidence for his theories,when anyone who's actually read Icke's books(which the
author of the page admits he hasn't even done for Icke's most popular book) knows he almost always provides extensive amounts of evidence for his
claims and provides referrence after referrence after referrence for them.
The question isn't whether he provides references... it's the credibility of the references.
Credibility the site in no way,shape,or form lessens or weakens at any point anywhere on the page. All the site does is say he has no evidence. Which
is immediately a lie to anyone who's read an Icke book. For better or worse,in his books Icke wouldn't claim the sky was blue unless he could
explain why it's that color and could footnote at least 14 other people who all said the same thing.
Like the guys who used "ex-Masons" for references, when they weren't even ex-Masons. I mean, the guy claims that the royals are reptilians, and
that he is the Messiah. What more do you need to show the guy's a loon?
Something Icke actually said would help. If you can find where Icke said he was The Messiah then it would make more of a case. Icke said that we are
all the sons and daughters of God. I assume that is what you're referring to. Now,have you actually seen him say he was the messiah or are you just
going by disinfo on the web?
Well, each page I read, showcases a different active anti-Mason with outlandish theories about Masonry.
As outlandish as claims that Icke says he's the messiah? I don't see the pages showcasing "anti-Masons" so much as smearing people personally.
The Bill Schno--whatshisname page is nearly %100 personal attack. I don't know who Bill is and have never read any of his books to my knowledge. And
as it stands I still don't know what Bill said because the page conveniently doesn't touch his arguments,it only attacks him personally.
And it does the same thing to the "anti-Masons" that it rails against being done to Masons:taking claims from the web and running with them
Sometimes Brother King throws a little sarcasm in for humor, and I'll agree that it could be classified as "slanted editorial" comments.
OK. So long as we agree on that that was really all I wanted to point out. The rest is just a sidenote.
But the claims (and conclusive rebuttals) of the anti's claims themselves is enough to convince me. Takesome time, look around. You will be amazed at
some of the accusations, I'm sure of it. You're telling me that just because Ed King pokes a little fun at them for being so damned over the
top that is makes them right, or more credible? Please.
It's not so much that he makes them more credible,it's that when you have such an obvious slant you make yourself less
So the guy had a laugh over it. Sue him. He still refutes theyr claims with facts and that's more than I can say for any anti I've
come across yet.
But refute what claims? Out of the "anti-Mason" pages I read so far I saw at most only one charge against Masonry he attempted to refute. The rest
of the pages are just character assassination. He doesn't refute a single thing on Icke's page and the page is full of selective quotes from
others(as the author of the page has not even read the book himself,though ironically this doesn't stop the nearly blind attack) instead of something
he himself could present. If there's refuting of claims there I must have missed them.
I didn't read every page there but I read enough to get the theme of the method being used.
Try to focus less on what Ed says in editorial comments, and more on the facts and your own common sense to help you discern the truth forom absolute
OK. But what facts did he present on either the Icke or Schnoebelen pages against the actual charges against Masonry and not just personal(and at
times false) stabs at people he's deemed "anti-Masons"?
Masons say one thing, anti-Masons say another -- whom should I believe?
No, the matter of whom to believe is not one which requires hard thought to resolve.
So you see, it's not "character assassination," as you put it. It's countering lies with truth, and laughing at the absolute ridiculousness of
some of these claims.
But it's not countering lies with anything. That block you quoted is just his personal spin on things and nothing more. One thing immediately jumped
originally posted by Masoninfo.com
The history of Freemasonry is well documented, and its major players include a vast number of contributors to society--men such as Washington, Truman,
and Churchill in politics, Goethe, Schiller, and Conan Doyle in literature, Burl Ives, Ernest Borgnine, Gene Autry in the performing arts, Mozart,
Haydn, and Irving Berlin in music, and on and on....
Among the anti-Masons, one can count a single president of the US, John Quincy Adams (thirteen presidents were Masons), two literary figures (Edgar
Allan Poe and Charles Dickens--and it is not clear whether Dickens was really an anti-Mason, or one who simply felt that the Masons of his time were
not living up to their standards and were therefore hypocrites), and almost no one else of any consequence in history or who has made a significant
contribution to the humanities.
How could someone even make a claim like this? How would he know who all has been for or against Masons? Also, John F. Kennedy isn't listed and also
spoke out against secret societies who have secret codes of recognition,etc. And I believe he was a president too,just like Adams. I think it's also
safe to say that Kennedy was of as much consequence in history as Ernest Borgnine,as the author touts for the Mason side.
In other words, there are very good reasons to believe that Masons, rather than anti-Masons are telling the truth about the Fraternity, based
on the history of Freemasonry, the known character of those who have been Freemasons, and the principles of epistemology. Of course, if one is
ignorant of the history and background of a witness, as well as ignorant of the theory of knowledge, one is at the mercy of every smooth-talking
mountebank and charlatan to come along. (Why do you think that criminal defense lawyers seek the most uninformed jurors possible?)
Sounds good. Except he misses the glaringly obvious point that by virtue of being a Mason a Mason is not as likely to incriminate his own brothers
and almost no man would incriminate himself. To stick with his court analogy,why do you think family members,friends,and business partners of an
accused person aren't allowed on the jury?
So while he's perfectly entitled to put his views on his page,I'd have to disagree with the idea that he's "refuting lies with facts". All I see
is a guy presenting his own opinion mixed in with some factual errors. No more no less.
[edit on 20-8-2005 by Loungerist]