| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2279
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 7:57 pm Post subject: Winning the argument in the 'Left'? |
 |
|
A report from the 'Weekly Worker' paper about a meeting that occurred this last week.
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/650/assembly.htm
| Quote: |
Lindsey German’s contribution to the discussion on racism was to say that if ghettos are a problem “it’s because the whites moved out, not the blacks moved in”. This was the kind of inane statement that brought a knee-jerk show of approval from the SWP rank and file - who also, by the way, applauded a 9/11 conspiracy theorist for saying it was not muslims who were responsible for bringing down the twin towers. |
The wheel is turning albeit slowly, but turning nevertheless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Snowygrouch
Validated Poster
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 628
Location: Oxford
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 10:27 am Post subject: A conspiracy theorist |
|
|
YAYYYYY!!
That "conspiracy theorist" was me and it was bloody tricky getting the microphone too!
(had to tell a a teeny-weeny porky pie on my "question request slip"  ) the buggers cut me off but not before I said World Trade Centre 7!! He he!
Glad to see my efforts made a difference however small.
The dam is cracking!
_________________
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist
President Eisenhower 1961 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 1:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Good man SG - Every litle helps!!
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2279
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 2:22 pm Post subject: Re: A conspiracy theorist |
|
|
| Snowygrouch wrote: | YAYYYYY!!
(had to tell a a teeny-weeny porky pie on my "question request slip" ) the buggers cut me off but not before I said World Trade Centre 7!! He he!
The dam is cracking! |
The truth will always find its way round bureacratic hurdles.
If the audience reacted as described that means that hardly anyone believes the official lies apart from the actual apparatus of the left, those who live off the movement and dont want to be associated with what most people believe for fear of the press getting hold of it.
Well done. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IronSnot
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Jul 2006
Posts: 595
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 7:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
good work Snowygrouch.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pincher
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Aug 2006
Posts: 242
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 7:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why are you lot so bothered about what the 'left' thinks anymore? All that's left of the left (pun intended) are a few Trots, their ridiculous front organisation, Respect, and a few Stalinist sandal wearing pensioners.
But if the sentiments of political pygmies are that important to you here are just three reasons why this rabble just don't want to know about 9/11:
1) Much of the world's conspiracy chatter is led and dominated by undeclared neo-Nazis masquerading as 'anti-Zionists' or sectionable Ickean nutcases - nowhere is this more apparent than the 9/11 movement.
2) The idea that a tiny dynastic elite and a handful of CIA operatives can shape history challenges Marxist orthodoxy. The left view the state as the instrument of the ruling class as a whole and history as bound by immutable laws.
3) Marxist and left wing parties and movements in liberal bourgeois democracies have been contolled and penetrated by intelligence services for a centurey and a half. International Trotskyism in general and the SWP in particular are virtually inventions of the OSS/CIA. COINTELPRO used people like Lyndon LaRouche to break up the counter culture of the '60's. I have long been suspicious about certain leading lights on the UK left.
Beware the rabble rousers, the demogogues and the populists for you will always find class traitors amongst them! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2279
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 8:41 pm Post subject: Base vs leaders... |
|
|
2 million British people demonstrated against the war.
Are they part of the CIA operatives?
You seem to be confusing the leaders with the masses. They aren't necessarily the same. Never have been never will be.
It shows that the base no longer buys the line peddled by the leaders.
What do you think it showed?
That the base are CIA operatives, led by Lyndon Larouche? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pincher
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Aug 2006
Posts: 242
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 10:45 pm Post subject: Re: Base vs leaders... |
|
|
| conspirator wrote: | 2 million British people demonstrated against the war.
Are they part of the CIA operatives?
You seem to be confusing the leaders with the masses. They aren't necessarily the same. Never have been never will be.
It shows that the base no longer buys the line peddled by the leaders.
What do you think it showed?
That the base are CIA operatives, led by Lyndon Larouche? |
Those hackles of yours conspirator, primed to rise at the faintest whiff of a Pincher post, seriously interfere with your powers of comprehension and reasoning.
Your (risible) contention is that it was the two million not-in-my-namers who were the real engine of history and not the CIA I take it? That's a slight overestimate of the numbers of saps and opportunists who marched against Gulf II down Whitehall . And, conversely, a massive underestimate of the number who tramped for the same (hopeless) cause worldwide.
Your unwitting 'Little Englander' ethnocentricity is a telling indicator of a wider narrowness of view (hope you hate the oxymoron). Tell me just how much sway did all these shuffling millions have over the Pentagon, the MOD and the other war machines of the so-called 'coalition of the willing?' Or, as old Joe Stalin might put it if the tyrant were alive today: 'How many divisions did the bohemians have?' The same number as the pope it seems...
So the invasion of Iraq, a plot hatched by a tiny New England elite, went ahead anyway, despite the mass protests. That ought to tell you where real power lies. Except that it is a false depiction of the actual struggle.
Have you ever asked yourself why those demonstrations were so large, why so many people turned up fancying themselves as autonomous, independently minded decision makers, thinking that collectively they were all powerful and were going to change the world?
Just as the Bonesmen plotted in Crawford, Kennybunkport and Jupiter Island the rag, tag and bobtail Franco-Russo-Sino coalition conspired too. Through their respective intelligence agencies they laundered much of their ill gotten gains from the Oil-For-Food programme to fund guess what? The international Stop-The-War movement. Now why would they want to do that I wonder?
Could it have been that they wanted to protect Saddam because of their oil installations in Iraq (and Germany's too) as well as their new drilling licenses? Could it have been that all of them were nervous about lines of credit they had given the Baathist regime? Could it have been that they didn't like the idea of $100 billion worth of assets, promises and IOU's going up in smoke? Whatever the good sheep of middle England thought they were flocking for in Hyde Park it wasn't peace. It was to protect Eurasian oil interests.
So, conspirator, you are doubly naive. A handful of bonesmen dumped on your masses, outmanoeuvered their own allies and even deceived their closest associates (the likes of Richard Pearle, Ken Adelman, William Buckley and other PNAC luminaries have only recently realised that the US did not go into Iraq to bring democracy but to dismember it). And all along your Not-In-My-Name/Stop-The-War coalition were just a propaganda tool of a Eurasian clique.
My advice? Bag up your 'rank and file' tut and take it to 'Help The Aged.' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hazzard
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 May 2006
Posts: 368
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 6:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lets not forget that many on the more liberal side of life still prefer big government to solve all of their problems becuase they believe a government is honest and just and a tool to create the world how they think it should best be, which is fine if it were just and honest but it isnt.
The left is used as a sledge hammer of power grabbing for the western governments everytime it is their turn to gain some kind of support. Be it an election or otherwise.
I spoke to a so called liberal just the other day, we got into a conversation about RFID tagging. She openly admitted that if tagging began what choice would she have? I ofcourse angrily stood up and declared that "I would never be tagged like a dog!" and she said "You and what army" to which I replied "I the a million others who wont be tagged like dogs either! BRANDED LIKE CORPERATE PRODUCTS TO BE BOUGHT AND SOLD!".
You should have seen her face after that, it was so obvious "Oh well good luck your gonna need it this world is to * for your kind of ideolgy" was basicaly what I saw written all over her face. I simply said "Just dont be angry towards those who decide not to go along with it, becuase I promise you this is going to be a more than heated debate at some piont in our future" she didnt answer which suggested to me that her brain was kicking into sheep mode.
I could almost see the glazed look taking over her, I thought she was about to stand up and start screeching at the top of her lungs and pionting like a host out of 'Invasion of the body snatchers' so I just stopped there lol.
_________________
Since when? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2279
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:52 am Post subject: Re: Base vs leaders... |
|
|
In response to Pincher,
I remember the arguements on the demos pal.
You still haven't answered my essential point that those who follow aren't necessarily the same as those who are being led.
Every social movement in history from the English civil war onwards started off with compromised positions of the main participants but it did not end in that way.
The neo-cons do control America but the do not control the rooftops in Baghdad or its backstreets. Their bodybags attest to that. If Vietnam was a tragedy for America Iraq is its farce. A country half its size has brought the worlds only 'hyperpower' to its knees. So much for the CIA-Pentagon-hightec weaponry.
Your argument is the following. Everyone is in the pay of everyone else so nothing is going down apart from the CIA roadshow.
Tell that to the Baghdad street. I don't buy it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pincher
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Aug 2006
Posts: 242
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 6:33 am Post subject: Re: Base vs leaders... |
|
|
| conspirator wrote: | In response to Pincher,
I remember the arguements on the demos pal.
You still haven't answered my essential point that those who follow aren't necessarily the same as those who are being led.
Every social movement in history from the English civil war onwards started off with compromised positions of the main participants but it did not end in that way.
The neo-cons do control America but the do not control the rooftops in Baghdad or its backstreets. Their bodybags attest to that. If Vietnam was a tragedy for America Iraq is its farce. A country half its size has brought the worlds only 'hyperpower' to its knees. So much for the CIA-Pentagon-hightec weaponry.
Your argument is the following. Everyone is in the pay of everyone else so nothing is going down apart from the CIA roadshow.
Tell that to the Baghdad street. I don't buy it. |
If you want your arguments to be taken seriously, Conspirator, I would advise that you first pay attention to your syntax and grammar. Your prose is simply awful and it makes you look dumb.
Next I recommend that you look-up the word 'tautology' in the dictionary and then examine the first of your miserable sentences that I have highlighted. More on its possible meaning in a mo.
The English Civil War was principally a political/military struggle between king and parliament over religion and taxation. It was not a social movement. I cannot see what bearing the second highlighted phrase has on what I have written. In fact, I can't work it out at all.
Where did I say that the 'Neo Cons' ran America? Neo conservatism is principally an intellectual movement and some of its followers are in key government posts and are members of influential think tanks like PNAC. But George W Bush is as much a Neo Con as he is an evangelical Christian. Neo conservatism is a fig leaf behind which this US administration hides.
The third passage highlighted demonstrates two things. Firstly, you have failed to grasp what I wrote in my last post. READ IT AGAIN. Secondly, and more importantly, you do not understand what is going on in Iraq. Now read my next few sentences very slowly and very carefully and then read them again.
You characterise the war as one between the insurgency and the US army. If that EVER was the conflict it ended sometime ago. And America would have to be in Iraq till 2050 before their body count matched that of the Vietnam War.
No, my naive friend, as the daily news tells us we are now in the throes of an ugly civil war, where Sunni kills Shia and vice versa, where Sunni kills Kurd and vice versa, and where Sunni kills Sunni and Shia kills Shia and where the US army (and the British too) largely spectates.
Because, oh ignorant one, this was the secret plan from the very beginning. What we are now witnessing is phase one of the 1980's Mossad plan - the breaking up of Middle Eastern states into into their religious and ethnic components. And you know what? It was so secret (known only to a handful of Bonesmen, top ' 40 Committee' spooks and their most trusted advisors) that most of the Neo Cons (if any at all) weren't in on it.
Conspirator, those 'Muslims' operating out of Syria and Iran (up whose backsides your nose is continually lodging itself) are CIA patsies doing the work of the US state within the US state. And a couple of thousand corpses and a few hundred billion on the deficit (what the hell - much of that goes to Halliburton and the Carlyle Group anyway) is the price that the Bonesmen have decided the great American unwashed have to pay to keep Russia and China out of the Middle East. I hope that all of this is not too much for you to take in.
Now, back to your ill considered, poorly expressed and wholly tautological statement on 'followers' and 'leaders.' By defintion a 'follower' takes his/her cue from someone else - a 'leader.' So testifying to the purity of heart of sheep who merely flock to order is a completely pointless exercise.
Please don't bother replying to this post if you can't be bothered to make sense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2279
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 10:39 am Post subject: Re: Base vs leaders... |
|
|
[quote="Pincher"]
| Quote: |
If you want your arguments to be taken seriously, Conspirator, I would advise that you first pay attention to your syntax and grammar. Your prose is simply awful and it makes you look dumb. |
Here speaks the schoolteacher. A dialogue on the net is like a dialogue on the street. It doesn't necessarily conform to scholarly work, indeed those who highlight syntax and grammar as a rule of thumb dont necessarily have much to say....
| Quote: |
Next I recommend that you look-up the word 'tautology' in the dictionary and then examine the first of your miserable sentences that I have highlighted. More on its possible meaning in a mo.
The English Civil War was principally a political/military struggle between king and parliament over religion and taxation. It was not a social movement. I cannot see what bearing the second highlighted phrase has on what I have written. In fact, I can't work it out at all. |
The forces that were involved on the side of Cromwell did become a social movement. Any civil war leads to a social split of each and every society. Unless of course we are to believe that Cromwell as a secret Catholic henchman in the employee of the Spanish inquisition. Those same allegations were made against him...
| Quote: |
Where did I say that the 'Neo Cons' ran America? Neo conservatism is principally an intellectual movement and some of its followers are in key government posts and are members of influential think tanks like PNAC. But George W Bush is as much a Neo Con as he is an evangelical Christian. Neo conservatism is a fig leaf behind which this US administration hides.
The third passage highlighted demonstrates two things. Firstly, you have failed to grasp what I wrote in my last post. READ IT AGAIN. Secondly, and more importantly, you do not understand what is going on in Iraq. Now read my next few sentences very slowly and very carefully and then read them again.
You characterise the war as one between the insurgency and the US army. If that EVER was the conflict it ended sometime ago. And America would have to be in Iraq till 2050 before their body count matched that of the Vietnam War.
No, my naive friend, as the daily news tells us we are now in the throes of an ugly civil war, where Sunni kills Shia and vice versa, where Sunni kills Kurd and vice versa, and where Sunni kills Sunni and Shia kills Shia and where the US army (and the British too) largely spectates. |
No, my naive friend, as the daily news now tells us we are now in the throes of an ugly civil war...
All in one sentence. I wont highlight the contradictions just laugh. First we had deadenders, then the Zarakawi myth, Al Quaeda, foreign jihadists, etc ad nauseum. Now we have a new version of the same story, a civil war!! At least naivety does not mean believing the daily news or does it mean believing it slavishly as you do most faithfully. Ever heard of El Salvador?
| Quote: | Because, oh ignorant one, this was the secret plan from the very beginning. What we are now witnessing is phase one of the 1980's Mossad plan - the breaking up of Middle Eastern states into into their religious and ethnic components. And you know what? It was so secret (known only to a handful of Bonesmen, top ' 40 Committee' spooks and their most trusted advisors) that most of the Neo Cons (if any at all) weren't in on it.
Conspirator, those 'Muslims' operating out of Syria and Iran (up whose backsides your nose is continually lodging itself) are CIA patsies doing the work of the US state within the US state. And a couple of thousand corpses and a few hundred billion on the deficit (what the hell - much of that goes to Halliburton and the Carlyle Group anyway) is the price that the Bonesmen have decided the great American unwashed have to pay to keep Russia and China out of the Middle East. I hope that all of this is not too much for you to take in.
|
At least you know the secret plans known only to a handful of...Bonesmen, top '40 Comittee spooks and their most trusted advisors...
Think if you didn't know, how unimportant you would be. After all it cant truly be a secret if you know about it now can it?
Every one in your warped world view works for the CIA. Funny how they have to spend so many bombs reminding them eg recent Lebanese invasion. I presume it was held for the fun of it for Nasrallah to let off a few weapons to ensure Israel had a cooridinated response and showed to the million of Arabs it is surrounded by that it is the strongest player in the region, hence they were holed up in underground cellars for nearly a month. Such strength, such sacrifice. What next? The Yanks may pay their patsies in Iraq to blow up the Green Zone as this was agreed in a ...secret 1980's Mossad meeting, privy to which were your ...sources.
| Quote: | Now, back to your ill considered, poorly expressed and wholly tautological statement on 'followers' and 'leaders.' By defintion a 'follower' takes his/her cue from someone else - a 'leader.' So testifying to the purity of heart of sheep who merely flock to order is a completely pointless exercise.
Please don't bother replying to this post if you can't be bothered to make sense.
|
There are no masses or leaders, just CIA and CIA.
Where does that leave you then?
A lone prophet from the future or was it from the past? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pincher
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Aug 2006
Posts: 242
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As usual, Conspirator, the bulk of your post consists of non sequiturs and tangential, incoherent ramblings. Your reasoning and yah boo style of argumentation are products of a disturbed, disordered, juvenile mind.
However, this much you have made clear:
1) You don't believe that there is a conflict amongst indigenous factions inside Iraq and by extension you can't believe that this conflict is being stoked both by Iran and Syria for their own purposes and by agent provocateurs and double agents run by the CIA.
2) You don't believe that there ever was a Mossad plan for the reconfiguration of the Middle East (a plan that most students of Middle East geo-politics are now aware of and one that has often been referred to by members of this board).
3) You don't believe that the break-up of Iraq is imminent or that this has been the objective of the inner circle of the current US administration since day one.
Your unwillingess to accept the above designs for Iraq is really an unwillingess to confront your own appalling ignorance, your desperately limited powers of analysis and your jejune 'mob' theory of history. And your deliberate misrepresentation of my general worldview as one in which 'there are no masses and leaders just CIA and CIA' is an embarrasingly feeble attempt to deflect attention away from my earlier assertion that the global 'Stop The War' movement was at root a Franco-Russo-Sino front (er...that means non CIA).
If you want to engage in the 'dialogue of the street' than I suggest you either do a bit of hip-hop or you join a hoodie crew and rip off a few ipods. Just don't come on here passing off your semi literate rantings as high brow political discourse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2279
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 7:00 pm Post subject: Mobs make history |
|
|
| Pincher wrote: | As usual, Conspirator, the bulk of your post consists of non sequiturs and tangential, incoherent ramblings. Your reasoning and yah boo style of argumentation are products of a disturbed, disordered, juvenile mind.
However, this much you have made clear:
1) You don't believe that there is a conflict amongst indigenous factions inside Iraq and by extension you can't believe that this conflict is being stoked both by Iran and Syria for their own purposes and by agent provocateurs and double agents run by the CIA.
2) You don't believe that there ever was a Mossad plan for the reconfiguration of the Middle East (a plan that most students of Middle East geo-politics are now aware of and one that has often been referred to by members of this board).
3) You don't believe that the break-up of Iraq is imminent or that this has been the objective of the inner circle of the current US administration since day one.
Your unwillingess to accept the above designs for Iraq is really an unwillingess to confront your own appalling ignorance, your desperately limited powers of analysis and your jejune 'mob' theory of history. And your deliberate misrepresentation of my general worldview as one in which 'there are no masses and leaders just CIA and CIA' is an embarrasingly feeble attempt to deflect attention away from my earlier assertion that the global 'Stop The War' movement was at root a Franco-Russo-Sino front (er...that means non CIA).
If you want to engage in the 'dialogue of the street' than I suggest you either do a bit of hip-hop or you join a hoodie crew and rip off a few ipods. Just don't come on here passing off your semi literate rantings as high brow political discourse. |
A civil war as any student of history knows, let alone someone who asserts they are privy to the Mossad plans of 2.5 decades ago involves parties in one country.
Iraq is not a civil war. It is an occupation. If Iran was involved as is alleged by British M15 and other security agencies the Yanks would have already left, as they did in Lebanon circa 1983 when one of their ships blew up. I presume the first invasion of Lebanon was planned by Mossad to lead to defeat and the 2nd invasion of Lebanon as well?
The main thrust of your argument has been that people are sheep, accomplices of Iran, Syria, North Korea or to put more bluntly the 'axis of evil'.
History is indeed made by mobs (what an elitist phrase!!). Their is no such thing as ultimate power. The hyperpower cant even beat a country half the size of Vietnam and is going on a begging bowl trip asking for other countries soldiers to die for an American ideal.
I presume Mossad planned all this circa 1980 as well?
Iraq like Yugoslavia before it may indeed break up. But that will not lead to a defeat of the resistance. The Yanks will leave the Middle East and the Arab world will be united, despite and against the wishes of its rulers. The mob as you refer to it will prevail.
No doubt about it. As for who is a member of a hoodie crew I would ask you to look into the mirror, for you have stated publically you are privy to secrets us mere mortals have no understanding of, presumabely due to our spelling, or lack of cognitive ability. But then again I could be wrong. You could be the Jeremy Kile of Mossad, are you not? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
