Charming.Than the one that you called everyone a cunt for suggesting was you. Fuck off to highbridge.
What is the point of this?
Charming.Than the one that you called everyone a cunt for suggesting was you. Fuck off to highbridge.
they've called false flag so many times in their world view there must be no genuine things whatsoever. The D-Day landings is false flag to these wankers
The reason they can only work on the large level is because they can only deal in broad generalities (until it's on their turf, then they're going to be as nitpicking as you like). We're both pissing in the wind by inviting taffboy to cite specifics - we know he can't, and he knows he won't.
What? Seriously - what?
I re-read the post which you were responding to. It's clear what I'm saying, whether or not you agree. I know you may be used to thinking such a dismissive post equates with rebuttal. Could it be some kind of confirmation bias of your own?
in what way?
knee jerk anti-conspiracism
you actually wrote this
Oh, do fuck off, there's a good little idiot.Looks like Jazzz is still missed then. Who next to kick?
Christ, don't you fucking start!Couldn't be further from the truth. You have two choices - keep on stalking me or put me on ignore. I have no intention of "fucking off" just because of your blatant bullying. Sartre must be turning in his grave.
In the way that when people purport that an event may not have been exactly as described via establishment channels they can be derided as conspiracy theorists. The term is used as pejorative, and is a pretty handy tool to bandy about in defence of possible / probable corruption and maybe worse.
And the "bravery" of the CTer rings rather hollow when a) the narratives they're claiming to be exposing appear to be nonexistent, and b) for all that they're blowing open some Grand Overarching Conspiracy that frequently seems to involve the secret liquidation of hundreds or even thousands of people, they - all of them - fail to disappear, die of strange or suspiciously contracted diseases, or even lose their jobs (barring some of the more certifiable types who probably got the sack for spending too much time making interminable YouTube videos and not doing their jobs).The issue is not sheeple who believe everything the media tells them vs brave people who have the courage to question everything.
It wasn't there to just say this is bad. It was an intervention. It needed an answer to 'well what you got?' I think it did that really well and there's no reason why the prior bit can't or shouldn't be used aside from whatever answers you may favour.
And the "bravery" of the CTer rings rather hollow when a) the narratives they're claiming to be exposing appear to be nonexistent, and b) for all that they're blowing open some Grand Overarching Conspiracy that frequently seems to involve the secret liquidation of hundreds or even thousands of people, they - all of them - fail to disappear, die of strange or suspiciously contracted diseases, or even lose their jobs (barring some of the more certifiable types who probably got the sack for spending too much time making interminable YouTube videos and not doing their jobs).
If it had said ...this is why you should join our group and only our group has the answers then i think you may have something, but i think it was pretty clear that it was pushing a way of seeing the world, of interpreting things based on wider collective activity so leaving ample room for varying approaches and positions within that broader framework. And frankly, i can forgive a bit of over-eagerness or clumsiness in interventions like this, esp when there appears to be so little comparable activity taking place.Pointing the finger at capitalism struck me as fine. I just found it to be a bit pre-digested in its conclusions which reminded me a bit of a religious tract.
If it had said ...this is why you should join our group and only our group has the answers then i think you may have something, but i think it was pretty clear that it was pushing a way of seeing the world, of interpreting things based on wider collective activity so leaving ample room for varying approaches and positions within that broader framework. And frankly, i can forgive a bit of over-eagerness or clumsiness in interventions like this, esp when there appears to be so little comparable activity taking place.
Perhaps the most annoying thing for me is that the disciples of CT stuff very rarely go "Full Conspiracy Theory". They quote from and allude to all manner of batshit stuff but then if questioned on it they retreat into "just asking questions", "finding it interesting", "weighing up the options" etc.
This means that all the vile anti-semitic stuff (for example) continues to circulate, but it gets covered with a layer of wishy-washy cop-outs and excuses.
If it had said ...this is why you should join our group and only our group has the answers then i think you may have something, but i think it was pretty clear that it was pushing a way of seeing the world, of interpreting things based on wider collective activity so leaving ample room for varying approaches and positions within that broader framework. And frankly, i can forgive a bit of over-eagerness or clumsiness in interventions like this, esp when there appears to be so little comparable activity taking place.
According to him... the following were / are all “insane”
- Anyone questioning the Met account of the deaths of De Menezes, Tomlinson, Duggan.
- Anyone who suspected (shock horror) that the corporate media were routinely breaking the law in spying on people and paying off police
- Anyone who thought the WMD claims prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq were more or less bollocks (this would include 2 chief weapons inspectors – Ritter and Blix)
- Anyone who thought the Bologna railway bombing and other terrorist acts carried out in the 1970s as part of Gladio weren’t as purported (they were originally blamed on the left to discredit them, as was the plan)
- Anyone who said that the Bilderberg Group even existed.
- Anyone who said that Operation Paperclip (extraction of Nazi scientists and war criminals to the US to serve various purposes) was nonsense
...
Who is this putative cyber anarchist? This is a straw man argument.
And the "bravery" of the CTer rings rather hollow when a) the narratives they're claiming to be exposing appear to be nonexistent, and b) for all that they're blowing open some Grand Overarching Conspiracy that frequently seems to involve the secret liquidation of hundreds or even thousands of people, they - all of them - fail to disappear, die of strange or suspiciously contracted diseases, or even lose their jobs (barring some of the more certifiable types who probably got the sack for spending too much time making interminable YouTube videos and not doing their jobs).
c) guess who it always ends up being the plot by