conspiraloons

[laptop]

Look the government at its heart is corrupt but does that mean your local NHS nurse is an occultist?

Hook, line and sinker.

Our friend is indeed confusing the Tavistock Institute (a thinktank) with the Tavistock Clinic (an institution for the seriously confused - oppressive to purveyors of disconnected thought...)

 

[Azrael23]

www.guidestar.org

And no more posting until you've read all of it

I`m Sowwy

I`m also uber sowwy i got two words mixed up...

Anyway is ANYONE going to have the courage to respond to the articles and issues I posted?
Don`t pick on the weak areas of my own theory (I admit its a theory and I don`t mind you testing it at all) look at the evidence of the issues which aren`t theories....which are the factual lynchpins of whatever theory you`d like to advocate for the role of the banking families and UN.

 

[bluestreak]

wonderful thread. what makes me sad is that i think if azrael and zark could grab one of those subjects and really work at it they could open peoples' eyes quite a lot to some useful stuff. but the badly connecting stuff doesn't help. take a look at the sex trafficking stuff.... the UN claims it knows this stuff happens but hasn't been able to get enough evidence to convict yet. this is bad, and if zark and azrael could devote their energies to getting theat evidence, real evidence, not he said she said stuff, but actually physical proof then they'd be making the world a better place. instead they assume that the UN is clearly a supporter of child rape and anyone who disagrees is also a supporter of child rape. if they can't see where they are going wrong here then there's no hope for them.

 

[phildwyer]

My god, you're right! She's not really studying psychoanalytic psychotherapy! She's studying to be a lizard!

Not much difference if you ask me. If you *really* want an example of loony-tune pseudo-science, you couldn´t do better than psychoanalysis.

 

[Azrael23]

the UN claims it knows this stuff happens but hasn't been able to get enough evidence to convict yet.

The UN SAID they`d do this, the UN SAID such n such.

Tony Blair gets on TV most days and SAID a lot of things.

There is more than enough evidence to convict. Why would the UN want to convict? Why would they press for a conviction its not in their interests to do so is it?

Please don`t be naive.

Don`t forget dyncorp got caught out big time indulging in child sex trafficking....the US still ghave them more contracts...no bid contracts they are a favoured company. yet cynthia Mckinney (READ WHAT SHE HAS TO SAY) was removed from congress in an election with the infamous electronic voting machines mainly because of the media branding her a traitor for questioning the admin. on 9/11 and refusing to shut up about dyncorp.
So far from punishing the guilty, they are instead rewarded. Thats the way it is, Traitors are rewarded and Real patriots who want to defend people are derided and chased out of office.
I have heard shes been re-elected so you see, the truth does surface and we now have a decent congresswoman back in office.
THIS IS NOT A LOSING BATTLE.

Also i`m out in streets twice a week leafletting and talking to people about this stuff so don`t lecture me on making a change.
I find if you talk to people on their own then they are quite receptive and even small groups are relatively easy to get talking to. Its not that hard, here on the other hand its all faceless and people think they have a kind of unaccountability online. Its like when you give someone a uniform.

ONCE AGAIN WHO HAS THE GUTS TO ADRESS MY POSTED ARTICLES AND THEIR RAMIFICATIONS. Thanks for at least trying bluestreak.

 

[phildwyer]

wonderful thread. what makes me sad is that i think if azrael and zark could grab one of those subjects and really work at it they could open peoples' eyes quite a lot to some useful stuff.

What makes me sad, more on the "Banking" thread than this one, is the way Marxist and post-Marxist analyses of the postmodern economy are treated as if they were nutty conspiracy theories. Sign of the times I suppose.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

What makes me sad, more on the "Banking" thread than this one, is the way Marxist and post-Marxist analyses of the postmodern economy are treated as if they were nutty conspiracy theories. Sign of the times I suppose.

I rather thought the objection, at least it was in my case, was to indiscriminately mixing them up with nutty conspiracy theory.

 

[phildwyer]

I rather thought the objection, at least it was in my case, was to indiscriminately mixing them up with nutty conspiracy theory.

I´m afraid that may be a sign of the times too. But nothing is more nutty than mainstream economics. Give me lizards over the World Bank, they make more sense.

 

[Azrael23]

I rather thought the objection, at least it was in my case, was to indiscriminately mixing them up with nutty conspiracy theory.

And who are you to make the concrete distinction between truth and lies?

Your objection counts for nothing in the real world. The system continues regardless. This laughable idea that somehow everyone is entitled to their opinion and you can`t question it (unless its a whacko conspiracy theory of course!) has a lot to answer for.
I suppose Hitler was entitled to his opinion right?

 

[phildwyer]

Actually I´ve been thinking and writing a lot about this lately. The economic system, taken seriously and studied with reverence by intelligent people, is so clearly irrational and magical in nature that it appears to produce analogous magical thinking in non-economists. In many ways postmodern capitalism is the direct heir of the occult, as is postmodern philosophy with its explicit assault on reason. It is simply foolish to mock one kind of conspiraloon and yet defer respectfully, as Blagsta did on the other thread, to people with "economics degrees from Cambridge." They are two sides of the same coin.

 

[Azrael23]

Finally someone with a bit of clarity. BIG PICTURE.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Actually I´ve been thinking and writing a lot about this lately. The economic system, taken seriously and studied with reverence by intelligent people, is so clearly irrational and magical in nature that it appears to produce analogous magical thinking in non-economists. In many ways postmodern capitalism is the direct heir of the occult, as is postmodern philosophy with its explicit assault on reason. It is simply foolish to mock one kind of conspiraloon and yet defer respectfully, as Blagsta did on the other thread, to people with "economics degrees from Cambridge." They are two sides of the same coin.

Well, you sort of have a point there, perhaps especially in relation to the origins of property rights and associated laws, but I think you can push it too far. Mauss makes a pretty good case that James Frazer pushed that one too far someplace, can't remember exactly where.

 

[Azrael23]

Well, you sort of have a point there, perhaps especially in relation to the origins of property rights and associated laws, but I think you can push it too far. Mauss makes a pretty good case that James Frazer pushed that one too far someplace, can't remember exactly where.

I guarantee if you sit through economics lectures at any uni in the country (I drop in on lectures here all the time..I love stars and the universe lectures and certain modules of physics, its great, free knowledge 24/7) you`ll probably begin to see not only how badly educated we are in sucyh matters but also the conjuration present not only in the creation of credit (I`ve decided money is the wrong phrase) but also in its management and propagation.

 

[phildwyer]

Well, you sort of have a point there, perhaps especially in relation to the origins of property rights and associated laws, but I think you can push it too far. Mauss makes a pretty good case that James Frazer pushed that one too far someplace, can't remember exactly where.

Well of course you can push *anything* too far. But the idea that capitalism is magical thinking has a perfectly respectable heritage--Adorno hammers away at this point at length, for instance. Ritual magic relies on the assumption that mere signs are efficacious, and as we can now clearly see, capitalism is precisely a system of efficacious signs. Pre-modern Christians thought that magic was Satanic because they understood that belief in efficacious representation destroys belief in the logos. And today, concomitant with the worldwide triumph of capital, we see anti-logocentric thought triumphant in the academy and--as recent threads on here have illustrated--in the popular mind too.

 

[Azrael23]

Well of course you can push *anything* too far. But the idea that capitalism is magical thinking has a perfectly respectable heritage--Adorno hammers away at this point at length, for instance. Ritual magic relies on the assumption that mere signs are efficacious, and as we can now clearly see, capitalism is precisely a system of efficacious signs. Pre-modern Christians thought that magic was Satanic because they understood that belief in efficacious representation destroys belief in the logos. And today, concomitant with the worldwide triumph of capital, we see anti-logocentric thought triumphant in the academy and--as recent threads on here have illustrated--in the popular mind too.

Noooo he bought up logos!

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Well of course you can push *anything* too far. But the idea that capitalism is magical thinking has a perfectly respectable heritage--Adorno hammers away at this point at length, for instance. Ritual magic relies on the assumption that mere signs are efficacious, and as we can now clearly see, capitalism is precisely a system of efficacious signs. Pre-modern Christians thought that magic was Satanic because they understood that belief in efficacious representation destroys belief in the logos. And today, concomitant with the worldwide triumph of capital, we see anti-logocentric thought triumphant in the academy and--as recent threads on here have illustrated--in the popular mind too.

Sure, but you can make a pretty good case (I think) that maths is a kind of rhetoric. That doesn't mean you want to let people go around building bridges simply because they sound like they know what they're talking about. Just *why* maths has the property of letting you build bridges that (mostly) don't fall down is a deep question, but it happens to be the case.

 

[Blagsta]

Well, you sort of have a point there, perhaps especially in relation to the origins of property rights and associated laws, but I think you can push it too far. Mauss makes a pretty good case that James Frazer pushed that one too far someplace, can't remember exactly where.

I see phildwyer is still slagging me off in his posts, even though I've had him on ignore for ages now. Guess it shows how much I've got to him.

FWIW - I wasn't "deferring" to slaar because he has a degree from Cambridge. I was pointing out to Jazzz, that slaar actually knows what he's on about, whereas Jazzz thinks that lizards rule the world.

 

[bluestreak]

ONCE AGAIN WHO HAS THE GUTS TO ADRESS MY POSTED ARTICLES AND THEIR RAMIFICATIONS. Thanks for at least trying bluestreak.

guts? i don't know about guts, traitors, patriots or anything of that sort. i do know that governments and corporactions are greedy, corrupt and liars. i don't know what to do about it.

look, it's been shown by your posts that a number of people on here KNOW that they know how the world works in ways that us lowly mortals don't. of course, the fact that people disagree over how they KNOW the world works, shows that there is perhaps more knowledge to be gained. why get so het up when people mock your worldview, whether its lizards, conspiracies, rationalism or anything inbetween. make your point, people, laugh off the criticism, ignore all teh "facts" that others post to undermine you, and do things your own way. after all, you're RIGHT, dammit.

 

[Jazzz]

I see phildwyer is still slagging me off in his posts, even though I've had him on ignore for ages now. Guess it shows how much I've got to him.

FWIW - I wasn't "deferring" to slaar because he has a degree from Cambridge. I was pointing out to Jazzz, that slaar actually knows what he's on about, whereas Jazzz thinks that lizards rule the world.

You were indeed deferring to slaar, who in fact didn't know what he was on about.

Nor have I ever posted that I believe lizards rule the world, because I don't.

 

[phildwyer]

I see phildwyer is still slagging me off in his posts, even though I've had him on ignore for ages now. Guess it shows how much I've got to him.

FWIW - I wasn't "deferring" to slaar because he has a degree from Cambridge. I was pointing out to Jazzz, that slaar actually knows what he's on about, whereas Jazzz thinks that lizards rule the world.

I can´t imagine why you think it is "slagging you off" to criticize you for thinking that someone with an economics degree from Cambridge "knows what he´s on about" by virtue of that fact. Mainstream economics is no more sensible than the thought of David Icke, and I am amazed to find you, a man who claims to have read Marx, suggesting that it is. In any case, you must be remarkably thin-skinned to take my pointing this out personally.

 

[phildwyer]

Sure, but you can make a pretty good case (I think) that maths is a kind of rhetoric. That doesn't mean you want to let people go around building bridges simply because they sound like they know what they're talking about. Just *why* maths has the property of letting you build bridges that (mostly) don't fall down is a deep question, but it happens to be the case.

Hang on, you *can´t* make a good case that maths is a form of rhetoric. Maths is logical. But you *can* make a good case that capitalist economics is magical.

 

[Dilzybhoy]

I've noticed another new trend in conspiraloonary...

RE the Tóllíng gang <replaced> are all mounting an organised secret attack via secret forums and the likes.

There's been some crackers I can tell ya.

I can't be arsed searching for them all but they are there.
There are even some that have been deleted but can still be found through the "cached" service provided by google.

They usually get locked and or binned when it doesn't go the conspiraloon's way.

 

[Blagsta]

You were indeed deferring to slaar, who in fact didn't know what he was on about.

Look - its called thinking. Not just believing any old shite you see written somewhere on the net. Its about evaluating the likely knowledge (or lack of it) of a source. Its more likely that slaar is going to know about this stuff than a deluded jazz pianist.

Nor have I ever posted that I believe lizards rule the world, because I don't.

Yeah right Jazzz, whatever you say.

 

[Azrael23]

Prove it blagsta, is jazz has said something quote him.

For someone who vaunts themself as the enemy of speculation and theory (even though those are the ONLY path to progress, theories are always speculated before they are proven numbnuts!) you seem to rely mostly on your own opinion.

You also refuse to comment on any articles I post, So why should anyone have any respect for your comments?

 

[Blagsta]

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Hang on, you *can´t* make a good case that maths is a form of rhetoric. Maths is logical. But you *can* make a good case that capitalist economics is magical.

Depends on how much maths you know and how deep you take it. You're not a mathematician so you've no doubt missed out on the bloody theoretical battles fought out by badly dressed men with thick spectacles in deserted university lecture rooms...

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Hang on, you *can´t* make a good case that maths is a form of rhetoric. Maths is logical. But you *can* make a good case that capitalist economics is magical.

Well, perhaps that was a clumsy way to say it, but I'm thinking here about Wittgenstein's stuff on logical necessity in "Philosophical Investigations" and "Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics" when I say that. Perhaps another way to say it is that under close scrutiny, none of the traditional philosophical claims of priviledged status for logical necessity seem to stand up, but the bridges (mostly) still do.

 

[Azrael23]

You see blagsta can`t make points, hes a cynical mocker.

Those kinds of people are TEN-A-PENNY.

I think its probs a sign of unhappiness

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Bob puts it much better

 

[Jazzz]

Look - its called thinking. Not just believing any old shite you see written somewhere on the net. Its about evaluating the likely knowledge (or lack of it) of a source. Its more likely that slaar is going to know about this stuff than a deluded jazz pianist.

Well you have two choices - you either think about things for yourself, or you seek an authority to do the thinking for you. What you describe is the complete absence of 'thinking'.