Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

"Please don't riot, it's just what they want"

taffboy gwyrdd said:
SpineyNorman.

The analysis of your first paragraph looks pretty sensible. Thing is, some people feel ill qualified to pontificate on economics, I am lucky that I did A level, was well taught and always maintained an interest. But so many "experts" are clueless suckers for the neoliberal orthodoxies that keep them in work, so your estimations are as well qualified as many peoples. Take fucknuts Osborne who is supposed to be running the show. He is driving the economy into the ground and making the worst of a bad situation.

Anyhow somewhere between your analysis and a more conspiracist analysis (I reckon) is "confessions of an economic hitman" which is well worth looking into. The author is up on Youtube talking about his background.

And Bilderberg? Would they STOP conspiring if we stopped them. ' course not. Are you now accepting they might be conspiring? Have you become a CONSPIRACY THEORIST?
Click to expand...
 

An ad hom. attack from Butchers? Surely not. Good job I was sitting down when I read it.

I asked you sometime ago for some kind of template to fill out regarding what constituted posts that were acceptable to you.

You finished it yet, or are you too busy prowling the threads for the next mistake according to your immaculate judgement?

Oh look, you made an entertaining pun out of a typo. Would I be better of telling you to grow up instead of finding it amusing?
 
Hearing David Icke spout his bonkers theories on that video really makes you wonder: what kind of raving fucking idiot can possibly believe such a load of incoherent, paranoid, cobbled-together bollocks?
 
editor said:
Hearing David Icke spout his bonkers theories on that video really makes you wonder: what kind of raving fucking idiot can possibly believe such a load of incoherent, paranoid, cobbled-together bollocks?
Click to expand...

I don't think he does believe it.
 
taffboy gwyrdd said:
Anyhow somewhere between your analysis and a more conspiracist analysis (I reckon) is "confessions of an economic hitman" which is well worth looking into. The author is up on Youtube talking about his background.
Click to expand...

John Perkins has also written on indigenous cultures and shamanism. His books on these subjects include:

Psychonavigation: Techniques for Travel Beyond Time
Shapeshifting: Shamanic Techniques for Global and Personal Transformation
The World Is As You Dream It
The Stress-Free Habit
The Spirit of the Shuar
Click to expand...
Make of that what you will sheeples.
 
i've met people who believe, wholeheartedly, in this sort of crap with the lizards etc, and without exception they all have some sort of mental health problem, and i mean a serious problem which affects their cognition and their ability to percieve reality. i don't think icke is like this, i think he knows exactly what he is doing. did you see the huge house he has in the isle of wight on the video? people who generally believe this stuff literally (as in beleive that there are actual reptilian lizards etc, not in the zionist dog whistle stuff), live chaotic lifestyles and can probably barely take care of themselves, never mind manage huge financial assets like that, go on speaking tours, with the lights etc (and if you looked at david icke's talk in the video, the "choreography" of it, the lighting, the sound effects, etc, are really designed in a particular way, to give people a certain feeling and to make it feel more dramatic, almost like a cross between a concert and a political rally). he's too much the showman to be a loner in his bedroom obsessed with aliens. he knows exactly what he's doing, i think that he was probably ill once, but has now found a way of making money out of it. i don't think that he believes much of it himself - although he probably does the anti-semitism stuff. i'm willing to be proved wrong, but he comes across too well, like it's TOO coherent, too well-worked out for him to actually believe it himself.
 
taffboy gwyrdd said:
SpineyNorman.

The analysis of your first paragraph looks pretty sensible. Thing is, some people feel ill qualified to pontificate on economics, I am lucky that I did A level, was well taught and always maintained an interest. But so many "experts" are clueless suckers for the neoliberal orthodoxies that keep them in work, so your estimations are as well qualified as many peoples. Take fucknuts Osborne who is supposed to be running the show. He is driving the economy into the ground and making the worst of a bad situation.

Anyhow somewhere between your analysis and a more conspiracist analysis (I reckon) is "confessions of an economic hitman" which is well worth looking into. The author is up on Youtube talking about his background.

And Bilderberg? Would they STOP conspiring if we stopped them. ' course not. Are you now accepting they might be conspiring? Have you become a CONSPIRACY THEORIST?
Click to expand...

No, I haven't. Whenever two or more people get together to plan anything in secret they are, by definition, conspiring.
 
It has been pointed out to me that on one of Icke's videos he's sitting backstage drinking from a can of special brew or tennents super or something. I can't decide whether that's significant.
 
did you see the other guy in the video spiney, the security guard who belived he'd seen aliens? to me his whole manner, and his behaviour, were entirely different to that of icke's. icke was confident and knew what he was doing, he looked relaxed, whereas the guy who saw the aliens, he behaved oddly, was nervous, and clearly wasn't comfortable talking on camera (and probably speaking to people in general). it's that that makes me think that icke probably does not believe half of what he's saying, whereas the other guy clearly did.
 
frogwoman said:
did you see the other guy in the video spiney, the security guard who belived he'd seen aliens? to me his whole manner, and his behaviour, were entirely different to that of icke's. icke was confident and knew what he was doing, he looked relaxed, whereas the guy who saw the aliens, he behaved oddly, was nervous, and clearly wasn't comfortable talking on camera (and probably speaking to people in general). it's that that makes me think that icke probably does not believe half of what he's saying, whereas the other guy clearly did.
Click to expand...

Yeah definitely, he mentioned that he'd been bullied at school too.
 
SpineyNorman said:
No, I haven't. Whenever two or more people get together to plan anything in secret they are, by definition, conspiring.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Conspiracy is one of the central factors in politics. But whenever people theorise about it they are derided as swivel eyed loons or even anti semites.
 
Anyway, I had a chance to skip through some of the documentary upthread, didn't have enough time with sound but will watch all of it properly with sound. Am likely to have some issues with the findings and methods as well as some agreements.

But to say that one aspect of conspiracist orthodoxy that is really getting on my tits at the moment is the notion that the NATO help in the removal of Gaddafi is all some zionist plot.

Now I know that the whole issue has divided the left quite a bit and is very complex. I am no NATO stooge for sure. But the idea that the millions of Libyans who wanted rid of mad dog are all Zionist dupes is just crazy. I'm sure not everything he did was bad, and I know there are other threads for this but having got to know as many libyans as i have in recent months (not all of whom I agree with poltically but that's life) the simplistic chiding of the conspiracists is offensive. The fact that they are generally devout muslims makes it pretty absurd as well. I can't be arsed to take them up on it. They'd probably call me one of the sheeple or summat till I reeled off the pluses and minuses of the latest theories from Ben Fulford, Freeman Fly, David Wilcock or whoever. But life's too short.
 
taffboy gwyrdd said:
Exactly. Conspiracy is one of the central factors in politics. But whenever people theorise about it they are derided as swivel eyed loons or even anti semites.
Click to expand...

Nope, when they try to make out that events that don't, and can't possibly, have a single cause were in fact all pre-planned by evil puppet masters (who just happen, honest to be Jewish) they're derided as swivel eyed loons and antisemites. Quite rightly too.

It's not possible to plan events in the way loons claim - and by making such claims they express utter contempt for ordinary people - it suggests that we're essentially powerless, mere puppets in the hands of ill defined "elites". The reality is that when they get together and "conspire" they're reacting to events on the ground - and their plans are carried out right in the open. They meet because it's convenient for them to get together and strategise, that's all. If Bilderberg was as important as the loons claim we wouldn't even know about it.

I happen to think that, as ordinary people, we have more power than that. We are the prime movers in society - "they" can merely try and nudge things in one direction or another. It's like a stone rolling down a hill - they can try and slow it down, or try and make it roll faster - but whatever happens that stone's gonna roll down that hill.

Please stop misrepresenting my posts to make out I'm agreeing with conspiracy theorists - I'm not. There's nothing conspiratastic in acknowledging that people meet in private to make plans. But when it's claimed, with little or no evidence, that these meetings are the prime mover in shaping events, or that it's part of an age old strategy on the part of teh Jooz to enslave mankind, (because of course people are weak and stupid enough for this to be possible) then I'm gonna call it as I see it.
 
SpineyNorman

It's not possible to plan events in the way loons claim

Depends on the event surely. If it's a one off thing like an assasination then it is certainly possible.

Political parties, corporations, police forces putting out false accounts of events?

"not possible?" - the other one has bells on.
The reality is that when they get together and "conspire" they're reacting to events on the ground

You think people only get into such positions by being reactive and not foward thinking / proactive as well?

If Bilderberg was as important as the loons claim we wouldn't even know about it.

The loons can't really say how important it is. A lot of what they say is conjecture (though they claim they have "insiders" which may well be true. People do leak stuff.) In any case we didn't know about Bildeberg for many years and it is only thanks to the 'loons' that there is a bit more attention on it know, so your anti 'loon' case is essentially predicated on a Catch 22.

Branching off to discuss the thread topic though, one 'loon' case on the riots is also predicated on a Catch 22: "the police just stood around and let it happen (at least at first)" This was probably due to the suprise element and numbers, the idea that they received orders to facilitate mayhem is pretty ludicrous in this instance. There are other instances that are a bit weirder, won't get into them here. I am far from a friend of plod (won't go into details here) but they are kind of fucked if they do and fucked if they don't (like social workers).

Please stop misrepresenting my posts to make out I'm agreeing with conspiracy theorists - I'm not. There's nothing conspiratastic in acknowledging that people meet in private to make plans

Well this is the nub, there absolutely is. "people making plans in private" is exactly what a conspiracy is. Your problem isn't with me, but with the English language. What has happened is that the term "conspiracy theorist" has been built up in such away as to discredit any theory about a conspiracy. What people really mean when they say "conspiracy theory" is usually "conspiracy theory I don't agree with" or "conspiracy theory I want to sneer at". You are going along with that misrepresentation.

My whole position is that is as absurd to dismiss a theory about a conspiracy out of hand as it is to accept it. There is far far too much polarisation on the issue.
 
What people really mean when they say "conspiracy theory" is usually "conspiracy theory I don't agree with" or "conspiracy theory I want to sneer at". You are going along with that misrepresentation.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't.
 
Pathetic rhetorical trick - some people do things in secret = all this shit being valid. You're not an anti-semite but i tell you what sam, you're spending a lot of fucking time defending not their right to be idiots but their views.

Grow up.
 
taffboy gwyrdd said:
SpineyNorman

It's not possible to plan events in the way loons claim

Depends on the event surely. If it's a one off thing like an assasination then it is certainly possible.

Political parties, corporations, police forces putting out false accounts of events?

"not possible?" - the other one has bells on.
The reality is that when they get together and "conspire" they're reacting to events on the ground

You think people only get into such positions by being reactive and not foward thinking / proactive as well?

If Bilderberg was as important as the loons claim we wouldn't even know about it.

The loons can't really say how important it is. A lot of what they say is conjecture (though they claim they have "insiders" which may well be true. People do leak stuff.) In any case we didn't know about Bildeberg for many years and it is only thanks to the 'loons' that there is a bit more attention on it know, so your anti 'loon' case is essentially predicated on a Catch 22.

Branching off to discuss the thread topic though, one 'loon' case on the riots is also predicated on a Catch 22: "the police just stood around and let it happen (at least at first)" This was probably due to the suprise element and numbers, the idea that they received orders to facilitate mayhem is pretty ludicrous in this instance. There are other instances that are a bit weirder, won't get into them here. I am far from a friend of plod (won't go into details here) but they are kind of fucked if they do and fucked if they don't (like social workers).

Please stop misrepresenting my posts to make out I'm agreeing with conspiracy theorists - I'm not. There's nothing conspiratastic in acknowledging that people meet in private to make plans

Well this is the nub, there absolutely is. "people making plans in private" is exactly what a conspiracy is. Your problem isn't with me, but with the English language. What has happened is that the term "conspiracy theorist" has been built up in such away as to discredit any theory about a conspiracy. What people really mean when they say "conspiracy theory" is usually "conspiracy theory I don't agree with" or "conspiracy theory I want to sneer at". You are going along with that misrepresentation.

My whole position is that is as absurd to dismiss a theory about a conspiracy out of hand as it is to accept it. There is far far too much polarisation on the issue.
Click to expand...
you're a fucking shitferbrains loon wanker.

and everyone knows it.
 
taffboy gwyrdd said:
The loons can't really say how important it is. A lot of what they say is conjecture (though they claim they have "insiders" which may well be true. People do leak stuff.) In any case we didn't know about Bildeberg for many years and it is only thanks to the 'loons' that there is a bit more attention on it know, so your anti 'loon' case is essentially predicated on a Catch 22.
Click to expand...
The most insightful insights into Bildeberg haven't come from loons.

In fact, loons have a remarkable inability to back up their wild claims with facts, while investigative journalists who use boring old things like groundwork, credible sources and proper research have managed to unearth all manner of important matters.

Only a fucking idiot looks solely to loons for the truth about anything.
 
frogwoman said:
No it doesn't.
Click to expand...

Do they mean "theory about a conspiracy" then?

Because that is what the words mean.

Example:

A while ago, Nick Davies at the Guardian had a theory that NI journalists were eavesdropping on all sorts of people. Turned out to include the families of murdered kids and stuff.

There must have been lots of panicked secretive meetings about damage limitation and the general argument put out there was that this was "one bad apple" etc.

Turns out that the practice was rife. Anyone who claimed such a thing 5 or so years ago could and quite possibly would have been denounced as a conspiracy theorist.

Anyone who claimed in the early 70s that Operation Gladio was a CIA op to discredit Italian Communism would certainly have been denounced as such . Turned out they were right.

Some conspiracy theories turn out to be true. Some turn out to be bollocks. Some we will never know for sure but can perhaps try and figure out a likelyhood. Please tell me what is wrong with this approach.

If there is something wrong with it, it must be that "conpiracy theory" doesn't mean "theory about a conspiracy" after all, that people have appopriated new meanings and definitions (I know some people have, the cartoonist Polyp (Paul Fitzgerald) did a piece for New Internationalist about it that folks may want to look up, he's a "conspiracy skeptic"). If it is somehow a "sociological recognised term" that "conspiracy theory" means "conspiracy theory that is basically wrong" then that is an unfair subversion of language.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
“Be Lazy. Just Vote”
Replies
3
Views
2K
Monkeygrinder's Organ
M
Wilf
After the Far Right/Fash Riots?
Replies
17
Views
1K
hitmouse
hitmouse
Maggot
What is wrong with government borrowing?
2 3
Replies
61
Views
2K
LakieLady
LakieLady
editor
  • Poll
Do you want a separate sub forum for the General Election 2024?
2 3
Replies
83
Views
3K
PR1Berske
PR1Berske
P
In Blackpool South, did people vote because they are head over heals with Labour
Replies
27
Views
963
A380
A380
Back
Top Bottom