Pots and Pans, Ducks and Drakes

For the past few days, David Icke has been taking pot shots at a flaky character called David Wilcock who has fallen under the spell of the former editor of Forbes Magazine, Benjamin Fulford.

There have been various crazy sounding stories emanating from the Fulford camp regarding secret high level meetings of the global elite on yachts in the Mediterranean, a secret cabal of goodies called the White Dragons and an imminent programme of mass arrests of the leadership of the New World Order.

It has all looked like the deluded creation of an overactive imagination. Whilst many would like to see this movie version of events manifest, it is only a credulous few who have taken it with any more than a few grains of salt.

But since David Icke has taken it upon himself to start ridiculing David Wilcock and Benjamin Fulford, an interesting scenario has developed; a man with some very outlandish ideas which go far beyond the established realm of what some disparagingly call conspiracy theories (the reptilian agenda and moon matrix to name but two) has launched a flame war on somebody with equally outlandish ideas.

I'm sorry David (Icke), but as much as you have a great deal of very worthy and interesting information which finds ears throughout the world, you ask people to believe in certain other aspects of your philosophy without the slightest shred of evidence and the hypocrisy of your pisstaking is breathtaking.

I'd like to see you get the opportunity to raise awareness of the global conspiracy and I was one of thousands who signed the petition to encourage the BBC to invite you on Question Time but the elephant in your own living room, David, is that all but your most ardent devotees cringe when you start talking about shape-shifting reptilians.

And you know (because you have taken side-swipes at critics who have mentioned it) that theses issues are the stumbling block which prevents many people from taking any but contemptuous notice of what you have to say. Maybe if you were to address this in some way without calling into question the probity of those who like to see evidence and are not the blindly faithful who you also frequently criticise for their religious beliefs.

In short, and speaking as an agnostic who thinks the whole Wilcock/Fulford affair is pure fantasy, it's a bit rich that you draw attention to and take the piss out of anybody who believes in anything which is bizarre and/or without material evidence.