Let's look at the European Union

[the_leander]

Do you not belong to some kind of organization that is attempting to accomplish something? People that are trying to get things done often do. The livestock usually doesn't though - and that's for the best, don't you think? Wouldn't want them getting in the way.

That reads back as "You're sheeple unless you agree with my position."

If that's genuinely the way you view things, then I don't see that there is very much more to discuss.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

If that's genuinely the way you view things, then I don't see that there is very much more to discuss.

There is precious little a person can accomplish on their own. Most things take more than one person to do. Simple as that - but for some reason a lot of people think that nobody ever colludes because it's impossible. I don't think that way because of my personal experience.
Have you ever been active in a political party? In a social movement? In a secret society?
Groups are constantly at war. Peace movements and anti-war movements are constantly infiltrated by police and intelligence groups because undermining the war making ability of the elites is seen as dangerous by the elites, just as an example. Unions are infiltrated and undermined by corporate elites because unions give too much power to workers and eat into "profits" - (actually it eats into the top level compensation packages but companies say "profits" instead because that is more palatable).
Political parties are further examples and they are constantly infiltrated by people from other groups (which are called "special interest groups" if they favour positions out of line with the ruling elite's positions).
It doesn't matter particularly if the Illuminati still exist in some form or not. As far as I know they were fully dismantled by the ruling elites of Bavaria but splinters can hide deep - who really knows - no one really knows. But then, if they were around they'd only be one of many groups.
"New World Order" is a phrase that came from the elites. Whatever else you may think about the kinds of creatures that slouch around the halls of power, they ARE elite.

 

[the_leander]

There is precious little a person can accomplish on their own.

I watched that Age of Greed film you put up the other day, in fact I watched it several times and even went so far as to look up several of the points he made to get a better understanding of what was being said. One of the first points made was that the crises we face today were down to individuals actions. Not secret organisations, not a deity, but individuals. Whilst other individuals may well have joined in and created something of a feeding frenzy from time to time. The concept of this all being handled or choreographed from above by some supah seakrit (or not) organisation has yet to be proven and requires some spurious leaps of logic in order to get it to fit.

Right now, Glaucas's point about loonspuds and fundies being alike holds true, all they've got is the equivalent of "goddidit".

Most things take more than one person to do. Simple as that - but for some reason a lot of people think that nobody ever colludes because it's impossible.

I'm sorry, but in my own experience conspiracy theory is not only wrong most of the time, but its proponents are often actively toxic to open debate. I saw this with the September 11th attacks, the London bombings and more recently with Medicine. I sparred with many of the people in these groups for years, I wasted my time because they refuse to entertain any contrary information presented to them, regardless of detail or evidentiary value.

<snip>

Given that you didn't deny the read back I can only assume that it is accurate.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

I watched that Age of Greed film you put up the other day, in fact I watched it several times and even went so far as to look up several of the points he made to get a better understanding of what was being said. One of the first points made was that the crises we face today were down to individuals actions.

One man says it's a tree. No, says the next, it is a snake. You are both wrong, says the third, it is a brush. Would it be possible to keep all the observations long enough in memory to realize that it's an elephant. Having to move the spotlight around all the time but having everyone forget what they've already seen makes things difficult and it means having to go over all the parts again and again (though hopelessly I fear).
Individuals act because they are the only actors. They must act individually but they can act according to common plans if they want to be more effective (or they can act just outside of a common plan to attempt to gain further advantage at the expense of their fellow conpirators at the same time as nbenefitrting from the conspiracy).
The term conspiracy may be too specific (and highly ridiculed by the media) to be an effective description but is a good general term nonetheless for what it describes. It can encompass the deliberate plans of groups (in my company we conspire, among other things, to take market share from Cisco - that's not a secret - but what we are planning IS a secret and I cannot tell you what I know - and that is just NORMAL BUSINESS. Cisco conspires, among other things, to stop us).

The concept of this all being handled or choreographed from above by some supah seakrit (or not) organisation has yet to be proven and requires some spurious leaps of logic in order to get it to fit.

Of course, if they were "supah seakrit" but for the most part they are merely under reported. Yes, things DO get choreographed from the top. Almost all organizations of significant reach and impact are hierarchical. That is SO normal it is easy to overlook. Soldiers act, generals command. And everyone down the chain of command will keep their mouth shut about what's going on, and mostly won't have access to the full plan anyway, because they are "all in it together" - they believe in what they are doing, don't leak and do as they are told for the greater good. Only the elites know the full plan.

Of course, they run up against someone else's soldiers run by some other elite with their own plan and things don't go as "desired".

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

I'm sorry, but in my own experience conspiracy theory is not only wrong most of the time, but its proponents are often actively toxic to open debate. I saw this with the September 11th attacks, the London bombings and more recently with Medicine. I sparred with many of the people in these groups for years, I wasted my time because they refuse to entertain any contrary information presented to them, regardless of detail or evidentiary value.

I'm sure they feel the same about you. I don't think that any conspiracy theory can be correct in detail because even where there is a conspiracy the conspirators likely aren't aware of all the details themselves. Everyone suffers from incompleteness of information. Some conspiracies are less likely to be correct (or less likely to work effectively even if correct) than others but excluding them a priori is not necessarily more accurate.
Intelligence agencies work with incomplete information all the time but they are in the business of both conspiring and detecting conspiracy. They develop theories all the time to help planning counter intelligence and by counter intelligence refine their theories. Some are false positives (but have to be looked at anyway), and some are never detected and others are elucidated more or less accurately depending on resources and the structure of the "enemy".

Given that you didn't deny the read back I can only assume that it is accurate.

If you are not sufficiently suspicious then you are too easily lead. Say "sheeple" if that is your favourite term for the naive and over trusting.

 

[the_leander]

I'm sure they feel the same about you.

Difference is, I actually bothered to look at the evidence first hand and draw my own conclusions. Have you ever read the NIST report? I have, all of it. Where I came across things I didn't understand I researched things, I talked to specialists in things like concrete for instance to find out how things were done. I must have spent thousands of hours over the years researching this stuff.

A complete lack of discipline in terms of evidence gathering, instead relying on people like Alex Jones and the like to receive their pre digested and often out and out fraudulent information. By wilfully refusing to accept any contrary information that didn't for the most part count towards the answer "jews did wtc" or "NWO did wtc" or any number of similar claims they have gone from being a movement looking for the truth to being nothing more than quasi religious fundamentalists. With "Global Elites" taking the place of a deity.

Everyone suffers from incompleteness of information. Some conspiracies are less likely to be correct (or less likely to work effectively even if correct) than others but excluding them a priori is not necessarily more accurate.

Haven't come across a troofer yet that wasn't talking utter bollocks.

If you are not sufficiently suspicious then you are too easily lead. Say "sheeple" if that is your favourite term for the naive and over trusting.

"Sufficiently suspicious", according to whom? You've said some horrifically egocentric shit in your day Fluffy, but goddamn that's on a whole new level.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

"Sufficiently suspicious", according to whom? You've said some horrifically egocentric shit in your day Fluffy, but goddamn that's on a whole new level.

Don't look at me like that. You have your own measure for "Sufficiently suspicious". Look what you have just said about "troofers". You've been much the same as me but to them.

 

[the_leander]

Don't look at me like that.

Watch me.

You have your own measure for "Sufficiently suspicious". Look what you have just said about "troofers". You've been much the same as me but to them.

What I said about the "troofers" is based on nearly a decade of dealing with them. When they act in a manner reminiscent of religious fundamentalists, they are absolutely deserving of scorn from a purely objective level when you take into account that they claim to be seekers (and now holders) of "the truth" about 9/11.

That is markedly different from attacking someone who has spent time independently investigating and researching political and corporate history and because their results do not mesh with yours declaring them "naive and over trusting". Especially when on any kind of serious review of my posts both here and in other places would show that claim is utter bunkum.

Game, set, match.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

That is markedly different from attacking someone who has spent time independently investigating and researching political and corporate history and because their results do not mesh with yours declaring them "naive and over trusting".

Oh. So you decide that since I can't get you to see what I'm talking about then I must be insulting you personally?

 

[the_leander]

Oh. So you decide that since I can't get you to see what I'm talking about then I must be insulting you personally?

Hey, you had multiple chances to back out of it when I called you on it. You didn't, declaring, and I quote:

If you are not sufficiently suspicious then you are too easily lead. Say "sheeple" if that is your favourite term for the naive and over trusting.

Given that that was a direct response to me, how is it not an ad hominem?

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Given that that was a direct response to me, how is it not an ad hominem?

Because it's written in English. Do you really expect me to say "if ONE is" or "if a person is ... then that person ... blah blah". But I'm not taking responsibility for you attacking yourself with it. If you read a description and a definition and decide that the description sounds like you so you have to apply the label to yourself then leave me out of it because I don't need to watch that. I'm serious. I didn't slap that on you - I just left it lying around waiting for a counter. I know what I was doing with it and I suspect that you did too, but if this is a gambit, I'm not biting. I didn't insult you so you shouldn't be insulted.

 

[the_leander]

I'm serious. I didn't slap that on you

You would have done well just to have left it at that tbh. But you didn't...

Because it's written in English.

... Not helping your case here.

On a somewhat related note, this place needs a facepalm smiley.

But I'm not taking responsibility for you attacking yourself with it.

Nice try. Fact was, you were responding directly to something I said. The implication, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, was there. If I, or anyone else didn't agree with you, they were naive and easily led.

If metalman or red had tried such a ploy you'd have eaten them alive and we both know it. That you can and do do it more subtly doesn't change the fact that its every bit as low. I know you are much better than this.

I know what I was doing with it and I suspect that you did too

Strangely enough Fluffy, as much as I can play word games and can handle myself fairly well, I prefer plain speaking and that is my default for good reason - it avoids situations like this.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Nice try. Fact was, you were responding directly to something I said. The implication, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, was there. If I, or anyone else didn't agree with you, they were naive and easily led.

I chose not. The implication was - if you agree that this is what sheeple is (my definition for your term) then we agree, and if you think it's a different definition then we disagree. If you think that my definition applies to you (something which I did not ask) and you agree with it then you might imply that I am calling you sheeple even if I don't imply it. If you do so you do so. I would not have voluntarily done so.

Now, simply, I did not retract what I said because I do not think it says what you think it says. I will leave it to you to reject your interpretation or not. I am not about to decide what to call you on this. Now, instead of telling me that I am calling you names why not just say what you mean instead. It is not my place to disagree with you on what you think you are.

I feel as strongly that I have been unjustly accused as you feel that you have been slighted. We are at an impasse.

Now, how about the European Union? It certainly doesn't sound very democratic.

 

[the_leander]

Now, how about the European Union? It certainly doesn't sound very democratic.

Short answer is: As far as I can tell it isn't.

From a UK perspective it certainly wasn't what we signed up for, as far as I can tell the budgets have never been balanced even what, 17 years after the film you put up the other day. The politicians seem to be completely untouchable as far as the electorate is concerned however lobby groups seem to have easy access. When votes don't go the way pro EU politicians want, they simply recast the ballot, with added scaremongering until they get the decision they want. It also seems built on some pretty shaky ground in terms of economics - different countries have vastly different cycles and speeds at which they operate. By having a single currency, it was inevitable that the med states economies would cook and the northern ones stall.

A lot of it seems... Policy by wishful thinking rather than evidence.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

From a UK perspective it certainly wasn't what we signed up for,

It strikes me as all very familiar to the way Canada has been going over the years after "Free Trade". Its starts off with "wouldn't it be nice if we could buy and sell stuff between neighbours?" which, I believe actually WAS possible before "Free Trade" - and ends up with "Wouldn't things just be easier if we had the same government as each other (that you can't really vote for)?" and I dare say that it IS easier ... for some.

I used to feel differently about Europe with their approach to patents and copyright and GMOs etc. Now I suspect that those things weren't so much high-minded as simply reflecting the fact that Europe didn't have strength in those areas the way the US did.

A lot of it seems... Policy by wishful thinking rather than evidence.

Like policy on a software life cycle. Ship it as soon as someone will buy it. We'll make it actually work in future releases. Then you find the design was wrong and there's nothing you can do but pack it with *features* and hope no-one notices that it's broken.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

I guess after this thread went off topic a little I forgot to get back to this but I would guess that most people here abouts don't even know who Norris McWhirter was. I recognized him because I was raised in the UK and I'm old so I think I'm a minority - but if you've ever heard of the Guinness Book of World Records .... well, that was created by Norris and his brother Ross.

They created the book when approached by Sir Hugh Beaver to do so (when Sir Beaver was then the managing director of Guiness). Sir Beaver was also a big Empire booster and was interested in the rebuilding of the British Empire after WWII.

Ross and Norris were also politically active. Both were active members of the Conservative party, Ross ran for a seat in (unsuccessfully) Edmonton and Norris worked to recover (unsuccessfully) Orpington which had gone Liberal.

They also both helped set up the National Association of Freedom along with an army Major and a Viscount who was an illegitimate descendant of William IV. They didn't like apartheid, nor trade unions, and they also didn't like the idea of a European Union even back then (1975).

Ross opined that the British were being too soft in Northern Ireland and on the Irish in England. He even put up rewards for information to gain convictions for several bomb attacks and was then assassinated by the IRA. That is an event I remember as a kid because both of the McWhirter brothers were familiar faces to me from frequent appearances on the BBC show Record Breakers.

Norris obviously hadn't changed his stripes by the time this film was made (he died in 2004 so that's the latest time at which at least his segments could have been filmed).