• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Pissed_and_messed | Shinji Ikari

EADD - Conspiracy Megathread - MONEY+POWER+SICKNESS=

Sammy G said:
I don't think tactical voting was behind the massive Lab-Lib swing. That wouldn't be very tactical, would it? Unless the intended tactic was to hand the election to the Tories, or bank on a Lib/Lab coalition that was never on the cards anyway.

Maybe tactical voting played a part in a few seats, but it was mostly due to the kind of mass optimism / stupidity which occasionally grips the British public. Oh, and the fucking Guardian.

?
Click to expand...

First of all, there was no massive swing from Lab to Lib. There was no universal swing. The facts are Labour lost about 7% of their vote and the Libs gained 1% on theirs.

The issue was why, in a two party system dominated by FPTP, the Lib Dem vote didn't collapse totally like it ought to.

The answer is (partly covered by your second paragraph) that many people were taken in by the possibility of 'change' and that a lot of voters voted out of self-interest and were particularly attracted by the Lib Dems stand on tuition fees. The 'tactic' was to produce a good sized protest vote. This was seen as a practical, pragmatic way of raising the issues of change and the disgust for tuition fees. Many voters who voted in such a way could not envisage what was to come, that the Lib Dems would enter into coalition with the Tories and throw their ideals, and policies, out of the window. Evidence of this is the polls six to nine months after the election which showed the support for the Lib Dems cut in half (from 24% to 12%) I.E a collapse in the vote.

I look forward to a Lib Dem collapse in the vote this time. It's the only schadenfreude some of us can draw. But where do your principles actually lay? Hypothetically, what would you do if the only choice were Tory or BNP? Do you vote Tory as the best of two evils? What if it was one stage further. BNP or some even more extreme right wing nutjobs? Do you vote BNP?

Just asking.
 
Sinn Fein forever.

And as for the Libs supposed ideals and policies, again: Orange Book.

You didn't have to do much digging to find out about that, so leftist Lib Dem voters were simply dim, or at best, lazy.
 
Well funnily enough the only time I ever voted, in 1983 too FUBAR, having not long turned 18, was for Sinn Fein.

In Colchester.
 
BecomingJulie said:
No conspiracy needed (about the 11/9 thing). The USA really are capable of pissing people off enough to persuade them to hijack a bunch of planes and crash them into buildings. G. W. Bush most probably got a hard-on when he was presented with the ultimatum, "do this OR ELSE!!!1!" All he had to do was default on the demand, and pretend there was no ultimatum; so the payback would look like an unprovoked attack a.o.t. a provoked one. Cue a whole bunch of people ready to sacrifice essential liberty to obtain an illusion of temporary security -- and a government more than ready to oblige.
Click to expand...

Back on topic, of course there are people who would have done it if they could - the question is did they? And if they did, who told them to do it? And how did they manage to pull it off? Bin laden released a statement not long after 911 in which he denied having anything to do with it:

I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children, and other people...
Whoever committed the act of 11 September are not the friends of the American people. I have already said that we are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks, the common American people have been killed.
Click to expand...

At the very least there seems to have been an element of LIHOP with how there were so many coincidental security failiures together. Also the amount of increasingly specific warnings that were given to america by different countries' intelligence agencies in the months leading up to 9/11 is mad. Nafeez Ahmed is an author i trust (he's no twoofer) and he's done a good book called the War on Truth which outlines the evidence well and leans towards LIHOP.

As for MIHOP, there's building 7 and the evasion about the evidence from NIST; not to mention the bbc report of it falling down with the building still shown behind, or the whole jet fuel burning steel beams thing. Then there's most of the 911 comission report being based on torture confessions, partly from a bloke they've now admitted was a fantasist who made it all up.

I don't know but it seems dodgy, and the us government has got form (the neocon 'Project for a New American Century' are just the sort of bond villains who might conceivably scheme something like that, and they'd already wrote that document saying america needed a new pearl harbour...).

(and as for 7/7 have you seen those pictures of the holes exploding upwards through the floor of the train when the bomb was supposed to be on the lap of a muslim several metres away? (oooh, i've just tried to find them and they've all gone 404... (it's the illuminasties! (or my crap googling (or i made them up in my head))) they're in that ripple effect video from memory)
 
Last edited:
Scotsman said:
Not a conspiracy as such...
Click to expand...

That story is more or less the very definition of a conspiracy: People secretly conspiring to effect a change that will come about under false and manufactured pretences. As noted in the clip, the Tory chap and the EDL chaps are essentially caught out conspiring to create a "false flag" event which is precisely what one of the most common accusations made about larger scale conspiracies are. The principle is the same even if it is for considerably smaller scale scandal as 9/11, 7/7, Gulf of Tonkin, Pearl Harbor and so on (all of which have been accused of being false flag operations of one form or another).
 
http://rt.com/uk/244221-met-police-spied-labour/

Police kept very extensive files on Labour politicians

This is the police. Not even MI5. Harriet Harman has asked to see hers. She's been told its unlikely this will be allowed.

Brilliant quote from Ken Livingstone.

Did they think we were a threat to the western system? If only this were true. What a load of crap....People like me and Tony Benn were never a threat to capitalism because we never had the powers....I'd like to see my file. My kids would like to see my file. Because its probably full of utter rubbish.
Click to expand...
 
Scotsman said:
What I meant was it was an actual proven event and not something that could be debated as conspiracy ‘theory’
Click to expand...

This is actually another of those oddities that seems common to conspiratorial matters. Take, for example, the Gulf of Tonkin incident. There is no question and no debate that this event was fabricated and used as the excuse to make the Vietnam War what it became. All sides accept and agree that this was a false flag incident engineered to stir up the public mood to expand the military action in Vietnam. Yet to discuss the matter is still generally considered fair grounds for bringing out the standard tinfoilery accusations thusly preventing any risk of actual discussion and real consideration of the fact thet the US government and military fully and freely admit they fabricated the Gulf of Tonkin incident completely in order to turn what was relatively limited military intervention in Vietnam into the full-on and horrific war that it had been decided by those in power that it should become.

The problem with conspiracy theories - more specically the problem with those who use that term purely pejoratively - is that the thought of more or less any of the main conspiracy "classics" being even a bit true is very hard to take. Nobody feels comfortable living in a world where popular presidents can be conveniently disposed of by anybody other than a lone gunmen. And that's probably one of the least queasy possibilities given some of the truly terrifying prospects involved in some of the others.

I'm pretty sure "conspiracy theorists" are so heavily ridiculed by pretty much anybody who isn't also at least a bit of a conth (I am determined to find an abbreiviation for "conspiracy theorist" and that will be my first half-arsed attempt) is the same reason people laugh when they're nervous. The world is a scary ol' place sometimes. There's good arguments on both sides as to whether or not the conthy version of reality or the chaotic nature of the simple complexity of countless interactions and intentions clashing, colliding, colluding and creating is scarier.
 
Shambles said:
I'm pretty sure "conspiracy theorists" are so heavily ridiculed by pretty much anybody who isn't also at least a bit of a conth (I am determined to find an abbreiviation for "conspiracy theorist" and that will be my first half-arsed attempt) is the same reason people laugh when they're nervous. The world is a scary ol' place sometimes. There's good arguments on both sides as to whether or not the conthy version of reality or the chaotic nature of the simple complexity of countless interactions and intentions clashing, colliding, colluding and creating is scarier.
Click to expand...

I'd actually be inclined to disagree, but only on one point - the people who most viciously mock 'conths' tend to be those who don't embrace 'consensus reality' either, but practice a healthy skepticism which prevents them diving headfirst into Ickedom.

I'd argue that 'conspiracy theories' (pejorative) offer more comfort to the 'nervous' than the chaos which you rightly mention is at the centre of events in our little Universe; because there's a narrative, because it's human-centric, and because it's (more often than not) rests on binary notions of 'good' and 'evil'.

The Daily Mail prints more conspiracy theories than any other newspaper.
 
At the end of the day, you can watch even mainstream news and see there's no grand 'conspiracy': it's nearly all fucking happening in front of our eyes.

The real 'conspiracy' is to make us believe we live in a just world to begin with.
 
And yes, I'm saying that anybody who disagrees with Tory policies should vote for the strongest contender when it comes to keeping them out. Unfortunately, in most constituencies, ironically, this is Labour. That's reality.

Couldnt agree more .
 
Sammy G said:
At the end of the day, you can watch even mainstream news and see there's no grand 'conspiracy': it's nearly all fucking happening in front of our eyes.
Click to expand...

If thats an example of your healthy skepticism you can shove it.

There are conspiracies even within so-called democratic government and the cabinet. If there weren't there would be no need for the thirty year rule. This allows politicians to directly lie about contemporary situations while we can do nothing but get grumpy thirty years later when the truth comes out.

Example.

The Labour party is to call on the government to issue an apology for the conduct of Margaret Thatcher's administration during the miners' strike of 1984-85, after recently released Whitehall papers showed a secret plan to close 75 pits.
Click to expand...

Mainstream news colludes with the conspiracy. In front of our eyes? We may as well be blind.
 
I'm referring to current / recent world events here, and I said 'even' mainstream news, which strongly implies that I don't believe it to be the most reliable source.

The information to which you refer would have remained secret anyway, save for a leak, as you readily admit. I can't see how that relates to Ukraine, Syria, etc. We're talking theatres of war, not dusty cabinet papers. As disgusting as the unearthed information may be.
 
blondin said:
...chemtrails anyone?
Click to expand...

Now that's another example of a "conspiracy" where the basic facts (that planes have been dumping vast quantities of a specific combination of very highly toxic, very finely powdered heavy metals across vast swathes of the US in particular but also many other parts of the world) are not in dispute. The US military (the navy as I recall) have taken responsibility for doing - and continuing to do - this very thing. The specific chemicals, their concentrations and the ratios involved are also not disputed and are in no way a propriety formula as we know much of this stuff from the official research papers published by the US military on this very thing. They don't use the term "chemtrails" obviously but the research involved large quantities of this specific blend of heavy metal powders being sprayed into the atmosphere from planes in criss-cross patterns to maximise area coverage - ie chemtrails as has been reported for many years.

The only disputes are over what the reasons for this supposed research may be. Government/military says it's to do with an experimental over-the-horizon radar system, tinfoilers say a whole lotta shit but main contenders include "dumbing down the populace" (cos yer lizard folk don't breath the same air as the rest of us) or spreading disease, malaise, infertility, environmental damage - whatever the individual tinfoiler happens to find most personally abhorrent. As such, the "open minded sceptic" types focus purely on the most ridiculous claims made by the most ridiiculous conths they can find whilst conveniently skipping over the very real questions that should be raised over the fact that there are people who think it fine to dump thousands of tonnes of highly toxic material over populated areas without asking if the residents have any objections.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top