http://educate-yourself.org/lte/skepticismthatsall17aug04.shtml
August 17, 2004

----- Original Message -----
From: "Raymond Dexter" <radex10034@hotmail.com>
To: <Editor@educate-yourself.org>
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 10:38 PM
Subject: Skepticism...

Dear Ken,

I don't think your responses to Vinnie were clever in any way other than to demonstrate your own mastery of the dark arts of sophistry. Like David Icke and countless others in his league, you use the term "Illuminati" with wild abandon. Yet when it comes to reliable sourcing one finds that you fall short. I not that in Icke's works numerous people are labelled as Illuminati, yet actual evidence is lacking. We have only his cynicism and his willingness to make any sort of allegation to go on.

I might be old-fashioned, but I think evidence is important. If persons such as yourself and others whose works you link from your website intend making fairly remarkable abllegations, you shold be surprised if some query the lack of evidence and the numerous intonations that we must make the mental adjustment accept that being told it's true is reason enough to believe, rather than being shown.

That's All.

---- Original Message -----
From: "Editor" <editor@educate-yourself.org>
To: "Raymond Dexter" <radex10034@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 1:54 PM
Subject: Re: Skepticism...

Hello Raymond,

The evidence of most of Icke's assertions about the Illuminati and the NWO agenda are overwhelming, voluminous, and glaringly obvious for those with the eyes to see and the mind to comprehend. The signs and in-your-face-evidence are EVERYWHERE: movies, TV shows, rock music, books, advertisement, Corporate logos, the daily news, etc., etc. etc. The references in Icke's book, chapter by chapter, are staggering. If you must complain about a lack of backup evidence, .Icke is the worst example you could have chosen to cite.

A lack of will to discover and examine that evidence - on your own- is your only real objection. You want someone else to take the time and expend the tremendous educational effort to deliver to you -the self assured skeptic- all the evidence that it might take to win you over. Sorry Mr. Dexter, but it's a do-it-yourself universe.

Instead of being grateful for having been given such wide and easily accsessible overviews and summaries of the Illuminati's intentions, you choose to complain and demand more. After I read Bill Cooper's book, Behold a Pale Horse in 1995, I didn't need to call or write to Cooper and demand bulletproof documentation. He OPENED the door for me and that's ALL THAT I NEEDED to do the rest on my own!

A common trait that I notice among skeptics is a lack discernment in noticing details. Small clues lead the alert mind to areas of investigation and study that the dull mind will overlook or never see in the first instance. For example, have you REALLY taken note of the name of my web site?

The depth of effort and energy that has been expended by the Illuminati to keep people like you-and people like you are surely the great majority- in the dark has been nothing short of the greatest deception in human history. You are unaware that the municipal water you drink, the electromagnetic spectrum that surrounds you, and the chemtrail laden atmosphere that you breathe daily are working in tandem to KEEP YOU DULL AND UNAWARE.

The Illuminati are MASTERS of deception and Luciferians (and Lucifer is the greatest deceptionist of all times, in case you haven't heard).

The twin attributes of the die hard skeptic are self satisfied ARROGANCE and LAZINESS.

The skeptic KNOWS that the sun and the moon travel around the earth because it's OBVIOUS and plainly SELF EVIDENT, isn't it?

Sophistry indeed. Plato and Aristotle were men: not gods, or saints, or infallible. You need more than the left side of your brain today Mr. Dexter.

Sincerely, Ken Adachi

----- Original Message -----
From: "Raymond Dexter" <radex10034@hotmail.com>
To: <editor@educate-yourself.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 11:19 PM
Subject: Re: Skepticism...

Hello Ken,

Inspiring response, but again you miss the point.

In your tirade against skeptics you fall into the trap of stereotyping them as people who have already decided what the truth is and because your claims, and those whom you endorse and/or provide links to at your site, are variance with that "truth" are therefore "un-truths" that must be rejected.

Need I point that there is more than one type of skepticism?

Some of us are skeptics in the sense that we are curious and open-minded, but are not convinced YOU have told us the truth because your evidence is slim and unreliable, there is frequent resort to conjecture and screeching howls of outrage when someone blasphemes and dares to doubt the "truth" of what is claimed.

According to you:

>The evidence of most of Icke's assertions about the Illuminati and the NWO agenda are overwhelming, voluminous, and glaringly obvious for those with >the eyes to see and the mind to comprehend. The signs and in-your-face-evidence are EVERYWHERE: movies, TV shows, rock music, books, >advertisement, Corporate logos, the daily news, etc., etc. etc.

When anything and everything is evidence just because Icke or some other individual who seems clever enought to spot this incredible level of deception and control says so, we enter the realm where anything could be true. Anything YOU want.

>The references in Icke's book, chapter by chapter, are staggering. If you must complain about a lack of backup evidence, .Icke is the worst example you >could have chosen to cite.

And for your information I have read most of David Icke's books and I have William Cooper's "Behold A Pale Horse", and I when I read them I did not place my common sense in the rubbish bin because their tales were so extraordinary it must be true. No, I have read them and considered them carefully to the point that I note that neither author is able to furnish any documentary evidence that - aside from Adam Weishaupt and some of his known disciples - any of the long list of persons of power he damns as 'Illuminati' actually belong any organisation called that, or related in any substantial way to the original Illuminati, let alone the precursors Cooper and Icke seem content to invent out of thin air.

You think Icke is the worst example a sKeptic could chose. On the contrary he is the best because on page after page he calls powerful people of today members Illuminati, but he NEVER proves it. That is his ARROGANCE.

His conclusions are always inferred. The facts don't matter. His books are masterpieces of propaganda and but as serious research they are an insult and an abomination.

You say:

>The Illuminati are MASTERS of deception and Luciferians (and Lucifer is the >greatest deceptionist of all times, in case you haven't heard).

Then does that make Icke Illuminati? I think I have his measure, each of his titles is a book-within-a-book that subtly undermines people's perspectives.

See here for what I REALLY thnk Mr Adachi, you've been fooled by Icke's sophistry:

http://groups.google.com.au/groups?q=dexter-raymond-3rd&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-&selm=c023d791.0302211541.739a37b6%40posting.google.com&rnum=2&filter=0

>The twin attributes of the die hard skeptic are self satisfied ARROGANCE and LAZINESS.

Let me ask you, Ken, have you checked it all out? Have you researched Icke's every claim about Illuminati membership for the legion of individuals he damns so easily? Done it properly for even just one, say someone prominent whose connections can be discovered with ease, like Henry Kissinger? Just checked it out for yourself?

Answer yes, please, so I don't have to conclude that you also are too LAZY and too ARROGANT to check on Icke's claims becuase you have chosen to believe.

I have written things, here and there, in addition to the other piece. Here's one.

http://www.previewmysite.com/canadiangrassroots.ca/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=1935

I don't think I'm lazy. I don't think I'm arrogant. I know there are answers out there. We don't find them by pouring abuse on people who find fault in extraordinary claims that are not backed by much evidence.

You make me sad.

Dexter.

*******

(To be rebutted by Editor...)

*******
----- Original Message -----
From: "Raymond Dexter" <radex10034@hotmail.com>
To: <editor@educate-yourself.org>; <tarzan@ncws.com>
Cc: <bdanner@maa.org>; <complink@texas.net>; <fotima@mydesk.net.au>; <cnmike@hotmail.com>; <browha@rugbyschool.net>
Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2004 5:49 PM
Subject: No Ken Adachi, not "That's All", THERE WAS MORE....

Ken,

What are we going to do with you?

I see with great delight that my message to you and your brave response under the title : 'Skepticism: "That's All"' published on your website.

I'm touched.

But YOU know that the conversation did not stop right there as you imply witht the 'That's All' title.

I actually responded to your missive. In fact I did more than that. I directed you so something I'd written about your hero David Icke. Something that you might have read. It was at this address:

http://groups.google.com.au/groups?q=dexter-raymond+and+icke&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-&selm=c023d791.0302211541.739a37b6%40posting.google.com&rnum=3

I thought that perhaps you were going treat these issues seriously and consider all points of view.

Obviously I was wrong.

By publishing just a short segment of our exchange you have demonstrated, like Icke, you have absolutely no qualms about blocking out, if not censoring points of view that threaten to make too many waves.

Sure, it's all too easy to damn skeptics of the illuminati thesis as having closed minds.

That's easy. Even fun. Your less critical readers will even feed off the ritual slaying of the enemy.

But if one of these damned disbelievers goes one step further and dares to point out to you that using Icke's own methodology on his own books he too, is revealed to be an advocate of an authoritarian one-worldism then the blinders must come down, the blinkers are put on, the offending passages must be erased, the thought-crime is banished from memory...

Obviously you are a COWARD, Ken.

You bravely say only those things people in your line of "work" are supposed to say.

You make me sad.

Now, this probably is ALL, but we'll see.

Dexter.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Editor" <editor@educate-yourself.org>
To: "Raymond Dexter" <radex10034@hotmail.com>
Cc: <bdanner@maa.org>; <complink@texas.net>; <fotima@mydesk.net.au>; <tarzan@ncws.com>; <cnmike@hotmail.com>; <browha@rugbyschool.net>
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 2:01 AM
Subject: Re: No Ken Adachi, not "That's All", THERE WAS MORE....

Hello Dexter,

OK. Well, as already demonstrated, you presume many things and jump to quick conclusions. What you assume is cowardice in the face of your withering intellect is in reality, a matter of insufficient time on my part to answer your sophomoric rebuttal. Currently, I'm forced to devote all of my time to affairs which are far more important to me than a debate with you, however, I will answer your previous e mail, in good time, and include this e mail as well.

Until then, your ego will have to be content to remain on idle until I have the time to answer.

By the way, you keep ending your letters to me with this missive about how "sad" I make you. Isn't your condescension obvious enough with out adding that wanker at the end?

If I make you so sad, why don't you just take out your hankie and have a good cry for yourself and get over it?

Cheers, Ken

----- Original Message -----
From: "Raymond Dexter" <radex10034@hotmail.com>
To: <editor@educate-yourself.org>
Cc: <bdanner@maa.org>; <complink@texas.net>; <fotima@mydesk.net.au>; <tarzan@ncws.com>; <cnmike@hotmail.com>; <browha@rugbyschool.net>
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: No Ken Adachi, not "That's All", THERE WAS MORE....

"Sophomoric"! "Withering intellect"!

Oh please Ken, will the harsh insults ever stop!

I don't think my fragile ego can take it anymore.

If you're not careful I might have to start calling you names as well so we'll be even.

But seriously Ken, you published our exchange as though it were completed. It wasn't.

I suspected, not without good reason, that what I had written ("The One World Ideology of David Icke") modest though it was, would not be too your liking - assuming that you even read it - and that avoidance and suppression would be your preferred policy.

So it's up to you to prove me wrong on that count.

I went out on a limb and looked for the book hidden within all of Icke's books. I think it's there. Perhaps you don't. Good for you if that's case. Either way, please kindly explain why....

Dexter.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Editor" <editor@educate-yourself.org>
To: "Raymond Dexter" <radex10034@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 8:47 AM
Subject: Re: No Ken Adachi, not "That's All", THERE WAS MORE....

Dear Dexter,

I'll reply when I have the time and right now, I don't. Debating may be something your ego craves, but it's not important to me.
.
Somehow, it's OK for you to characterize me or David Icke as guilty of sophistry, cowardice, fraud, etc. yet my characterization of your retort as weak and immature (sophomoric) is now described by you as "harsh insults".

Well I suppose arm chair Professorship does have its perils

I haven't read any of your links yet,. so I don't know what you had to say about Icke, but it's now clear that you have an agenda to promote and you are not just an average reader who spontaneously reacted to my comments addressed to a skeptic-as you inferred in your first e mail to me. You are on a mission Dexter.

I'll close by saying that I am under no obligation to prove anything to you ("prove me wrong"), as I believe I suggested in my first reply. Your education is up to you and only you. The One World Government conspiracy has to be the most complicated, Byzantine, and voluminous topic in existence. To ADEQUATELY describe all of its permutations and then to document it, would require a lifetime of effort and a building the size of the Library of Congress. Yet, in essence, that's what you are telling me to do when you say "prove it".

When you use Henry Kissinger, of all people, as your illustration of the innocent elder statesman being wrongly maligned by the reckless David Icke (or me), you tell me volumes about YOU:

IF you are sincere in you suggestion that Kissinger is an innocent, then you have a knowledge base no greater than that of a 12 year old child and shouldn't be wasting the time of people who are light years ahead of you in politics and history.

Or, If you are not sincere, then you are a team player (or zealot) for some arm of the Octopus who today controls us.

Or, you are a fool.

It's one of the three and your words (as glib as they are) will reveal your colors.

Until I have the time to respond, I'll bid you adieu.

Sincerely, Ken

.