I've just watched that, and I don't think it gave him credibility. I rather suspect the opposite motivation - you discredit questioning of the Bilderberg Group by having the case put by someone who you think lacks credibility.
Well the one thing they were not motivated by was the desire to have a sensible discussion about the Bilderberg Group and the questions that should be asked about the presence of elected figures at such 'off the record' events. It appeared simply to be set up to poke fun at the conspiracy theorist.
Not all publicity is good publicity. It might be good for his business, but that's not quite the same thing as being good as a means of advancing a cause. The comparison with Icke on Wogan is a good one, I think - the more people are exposed to Icke, the more he talks, the more credibility drains away from him. Icke appears to have a good business going on there, but his effect on the world outside his clique? Zero.
Definitely Icke has done much worse post-Wogan than previously.
In terms of influence on the world? The vast majority watching that will have thought 'what a nutter'. I can see the point ferrel hadley's making - people don't need to be protected from such ideas by the state apparatus.
Where does the burden of proof lie here?
He's done much, much, much better post than previous.
Fair enough, and I'll take your word that Jones is a nasty racist fuck. I'm far more scared by those who actually wield power, but yes, anyone who goes on about Jewish conspiracies deserves contempt and I don't blame you at all for not wanting to see them on tv screens.
Well, yes, your last point is a good one. The counter argument - 'well how come you're still alive?' - was rubbish. As usual in such staged bbc debates, there was a simple dichotomy presented - either there is a New World Order running everything in secret or there is nothing going on in secret to be worried about at all. Both positions are absurd.
My question here is whether or not the fact that you cannot show that you are likely to be able to 'take down' an ideology by 'exposing' it is the test you should be using for whether or not you do engage with it. Where's the proof that such publicity advances the causes? Icke did better after Wogan? Well sure, he was just starting out then. But I remember him being on Wogan rather clearly, and the reaction to it from people the next day - it will only have won over people who were already well on the way to irrationality. I find Icke's 'success' rather depressing, but he is, sadly, only one of many out there seeking to exploit vulnerable people. There are other groups most people have never heard of with similar numbers of followers.
So you're now saying that "the more people are exposed to Icke, the more he talks, the more credibility drains away from him" is false, yes?
