Y2K: Incompetence or Genius?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

I believe the Y2K potentially induced collapse is the result of typical stupidity and shortsightedness.

David Icke believes it is deliberate
He articulates the well known strategy of "Problem -- Reaction -- Solution" used by government, religions, and various other demagogs to increase their power.
Even though I hold to my belief in stupidity, Icke addresses that belief.
And I have to give some credence to his viewpoint, as it was the U.S. Military back in the 60s or 70s (?) that had the opportunity to set the standard which civilian enterprise would have to follow unless they were willing to become marginalized. The military settled on 2-digit year dates instead of 4-digit year dates.

Article by David Icke:
http://www.davidicke.com/icke/articles/y2k.html

If Y2K is only up to a 6 or 7 or so, you will KNOW you are slaves.
That's why I (as on a previous thread) promulgated my hope it will be a 9 or 10. Bad as that would be; and probably any new regime will be as bad as the existing, I see a 9 or 10 as the only possible hope of obtaining any measure of freedom.

-- A (A@AisA.com), August 28, 1999

Answers

I read a couple of David Icke's articles in the past - and some of what he said made sense. Then I was passed this link:

http://www.d avidicke.com/icke/articles/aliens.html

The result? Now I just break out laughing whenever I see his name. The guy's elevator doesn't even make it out of the basement!

-- Y2KGardener (gardens@bigisland.net), August 28, 1999.

No Spam: Note how Icke explains how "revoked" Executive Orders (EO) are consolidated into new one(s) with new number(s).

Note to all: This note to "No Spam" is in reference to Klinton getting ready to impose martial law.

-- A (A@AisA.com), August 28, 1999.


Y2KGardener: I have to agree that "shape changing", etc., seems to me also a stretch (a big stretch). But, if you line out that stuff, the rest still makes sense. Doesn't really make any difference what the composition of the bloodlines (human or hybrid) is; it's the attempt at preservation of it and keeping power in it, that is the bottom line.

-- A (A@AisA.com), August 28, 1999.

Awwww c'mon - have you read that article? If they aren't reptiles, then why call them this, and what's all this "turned into a lizard before my very eyes"? The guy is kuuuu- kuuuu.

His life is just one big coincidence - speaking to housewives who just happen to mention that they saw a politician turning into a lizard whilst at a dark ritual.

There are enough people trying to hoodwink the gullible masses into parting with money for books, videos and lectures. They don't need more advertizing. Maybe they're the evil aliens who have come to earth to make their fortunes?

-- Y2KGardener (gardens@bigisland.net), August 28, 1999.

Y2kGardener: What do you think of all these Catholic stigmata, "miracles", visions, etc.? "Bleeding statues and walls..." You willing to go with that and not Icke's similar stuff?

Actually I could put a little more credence in Icke's "reptile" theories. At least that doesn't require a belief in a "Big Bad Brother in the Sky" ("God").

-- A (A@AisA.com), August 28, 1999.



If you are going to discount EVERYTHING someone says, just because they have some wacko belief, you would have to discount EVERYTHING Christians, Muslims, Jews ... say. (IMHO)

But this is getting off-point. The point is: Y2K: INCOMPETENCE OR GENIUS?"

-- A (A@AisA.com), August 28, 1999.


Gross incompetence. And a lot of synchronicity.

-- a (a@a.a), August 28, 1999.

y2kgardener,

ya need to spread some weedkiller on your closed mind...

what is the difference between what Icke says about shape-shifting reptilians, and catholic demonic possession (The exorcist???)

shape-shifting is a phenomenon known in all cultures from whence time began... aborigines, zulus, celts, vikings - you name it...

why is it that a very large percentage of the UK population (54% or thereabouts) believe in aliens... an even larger percentage in ghosts...

No.. Icke makes many many good points - y2k gardener you need to be more open minded and curtail your propensity to mock that which you know nothing about!

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 28, 1999.


A (A@AisA.com),

I haven't had time to complete a comprehensive response to the invalidities in the arguments by Liberty and you in the earlier thread, but here's a couple of fragments (I'm condensing my summaries of your positions and my responses -- keep in mind that the following are just outlines omitting some details, and that my omission of parts of your arguments does not imply that I have not recognized them or that I consider them invalid):

(A) You argue that some EOs contain unconstitutional provisions. My response is that people who sincerely think so should challenge those unconstitutional provisions in federal court. That's been done in the past, and the court has indeed overturned some challenged provisions. If no one mounts a challenge, then it's hard for me to believe that anyone _sincerely_ and _knowledgeably_ thinks that the provisions you allege to be unconstitutional, are unconstitutional. IOW, put one's "money" (i.e., legal resources) where one's mouth is -- if you don't have the "money" (legal resources) yourself, then find someone who does who shares your opinions. _Surely_ if there is merit to your argument, you can find _someone_ who agrees with you among the thousands of people (attorneys and Congresspeople) qualified to initiate proceedings to challenge the constitutionality of the EOs in question. Have you tried?

(B) There seems to be some confusion in your argument between what laws can do and what people can do. You claim that the President can use EOs to accomplish some unconstitutional things and that military people may follow unconstitutional orders. My response is that we need to separate what laws do from what people do aside from laws.

It is of course possible for any individual (or group) to disobey provisions of the Constitution or lesser laws, and it is possible for such an individual (or group) to claim that his/her actions are justified by other provisions of the Constitution or lesser laws. _But this by itself does not invalidate the provisions which were disobeyed, or lend validity to the claims of justification._ We have to keep in mind that the individual (or group) is responsible for his/her actions. E.g., if a President were to order the unconstitutional creation of detention camps on the basis of some EO, that does not necessarily mean that the EO in fact justifies such action or that the creation of the camps is legal -- instead it would be an illegal action outside the law. The individual (President) would be to blame, not the EO. And the legal structure of U.S. government would still have validity to be obeyed by (law-abiding) citizens and to punish the President for illegal actions.

If part of the U.S. military were to stage a coup to take over control of the government, that would be a crime against the Constitution and derivative laws. Those laws might not be able to prevent the action of the coup itself, but the legal structure would still be valid, and those portions of the military and civilian population which still obeyed the Constitution and derived laws would still have their legal authority to oppose and punish those who didn't.

(C) You (and Icke) argue that the President will use some revoked EOs to do things. When I point out that those EOs cannot be used to do those things because they've been revoked, your (and Icke's) response is that the President can simply issue new EOs with repetition of provisions from the revoked EOs.

But that response just confirms that the revoked EOs cannot be used, which is what I was arguing! So why did Icke and you present the revoked EOs in the first place if you agree that they can't be used unless reissued???

And if one argues that the President can simply issue new EOs at any time to do unconstitutional things, then one is saying that all existing EOs are meaningless. So, again, why do you use existing EOs to bolster your arguments???



-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), August 29, 1999.


(continued)

And if Icke and others presenting these arguments on the basis of EOs are indeed knowledgeable enough about EOs to be arguing soundly, why is it that over and over and over those revoked-thirty-years-ago EOs are presented to readers as though they were still in effect? Why didn't Icke and others even mention the fact that those old EOs had been revoked, and why did he and they use present tense when writing about their provisions in the same manner as they wrote about EOs that were currently in effect?

Here's my answer:

The authors of those articles keep copying from each other without actually checking the facts. Most of them don't even know, at the time they write their articles, how to check whether a particular EO is still in effect. When someone subsequently informs them, they're reluctant to admit their oversights in "print", and just leave their mistakes up for others to read and copy ...

If authors do not know such an elementary aspect of EOs as whether or not they have been revoked, why in the world should their readers believe their claims about unconstitutional uses to which those EOs would be put?

If authors _do_ know, but present revoked EOs as though they were still in effect anyway, why should their readers overlook that deception and trust the rest of their articles?

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), August 29, 1999.



No Spam: Give it up. According to Icke, many of the revoked ones have been reborn, consolidated into new ones.

I'm supposed to go to court? When? The gov assumes sovereign immunity AND you have to have been already damaged before you can try to sue, anyway. So I got to wait until Klinton exercises an EO on me and THEN sue him? And what if one of the EOs says "due to crisis, during the duration, no attempts to sue the government"?

Which gets down to the crux of the matter. EOs, laws, or not, the government does what it wants, constantly pushing the envelope. The salami technique. It is lawless, acting under "color of law." The whole system is corrupt -- legislative, executive, judicial. You want me to scrape up bucks to bring a suit against them, who already have my money and yours, to fight them? The courts are their turd, excuse me, turf. Sun Tzu would say -- "do not fight where you are weak and the enemy is strong."

I ask you the same question I have asked one or two others here: Which government agency pays your salary or freelance fees?

You seem to be on a crusade to try to justify EOs as being both non-existent and yet innocuous if they do exist. You are getting tiresome.

NOW CAN WE GET BACK TO THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD WHICH IS "Y2K: INCOMPETENCE OR GENIUS?"

-- A (A@AisA.com), August 29, 1999.


A,

>According to Icke, many of the revoked ones have been reborn, consolidated into new ones.

Icke claims that "George Washington signed the first Executive Order or "EO" in 1789 and they were consolidated as one by President Clinton on June 3rd, 1994 as Executive Order 12919."

If by "they", Icke means all EOs prior to Clinton's, he is very wrong. If Icke meant something else ... well, what exactly *did* he mean?

>I'm supposed to go to court?

That's one possibility. Note that I recommended finding someone who both agrees with your point of view and is qualified to bring the suit.

>When?

Your choice.

>The gov assumes sovereign immunity AND you have to have been already damaged before you can try to sue, anyway.

No sovereign immunity -- what I was recommending was a challenge to the copnstitutionality of the EO provisions that you think are unconstitutional. Since they involve the already-created FEMA, surely you can find some damage -- if not, have an attorney find it for you.

>So I got to wait until Klinton exercises an EO on me and THEN sue him?

If you can't find a clause that already affects you, then either (a) you're not looking hard, or (b) you're blowing smoke about all your claims of dictatorial powers.

>The whole system is corrupt

That's a convenient excuse for failing to take any action.

>You want me to scrape up bucks to bring a suit against them, who already have my money and yours, to fight them?

It's been done before.

Of course, it would help if you had a valid grievance. So far, I see you allege stuff, but not present evidence to back up your claims. So show us the evidence.

>Sun Tzu would say -- "do not fight where you are weak and the enemy is strong."

Yeah, if you have no evidence to support your claims about dictatorial provisions, then you would be weak in court, all right.

>I ask you the same question I have asked one or two others here: Which government agency pays your salary or freelance fees?

None.

>You seem to be on a crusade to try to justify EOs as being both non-existent and yet innocuous if they do exist.

No, that is a misrepresentation of what I'm saying. Try stating my position correctly, if you want to refute it.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), August 29, 1999.


A,

As for:

>NOW CAN WE GET BACK TO THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD WHICH IS "Y2K: INCOMPETENCE OR GENIUS?"

Let me remind you that YOU, "A", are the one who wrote:

No Spam: Note how Icke explains how "revoked" Executive Orders (EO) are consolidated into new one(s) with new number(s).

Note to all: This note to "No Spam" is in reference to Klinton getting ready to impose martial law.

yesterday. If EOs are off-topic to this thread, then why did YOU, "A", introduce that subject into this thread yourself?

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), August 29, 1999.

ignoring "No Spam"

-- A (A@AisA.com), August 30, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ