|
|
perverted_introvert
Joined: 06 Jun 2006
Posts: 2006
Location: Chicago |
Doublespeak
 Sat Sep 29, 2007 8:29 pm
|
 |
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak
Doublespeak is language deliberately constructed to disguise or distort its actual meaning, often resulting in a communication bypass. Such language is often associated with governmental, military, religious and corporate institutions and its deliberate use by these is what distinguishes it from other euphemisms. Doublespeak may be in the form of bald euphemisms ("downsizing" for "firing of many employees", "enhanced interrogation techniques" for torture) or deliberately ambiguous phrases ("wet work" for "assassination", "take out" for "destroy").
What do you know, Orwell was right.
I still say that 2 + 2 = 4, then again, I was never taught the New Math.
_________________
“To the last, I grapple with thee; From Hell's heart, I stab at thee; For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee” |
| |
|
|
Free World Order
tagged & banned
Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 2013
Location: Totalitarian EU |
|
Sun Sep 30, 2007 1:01 am
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by No Way Oligarchs
PI: 1984. Excellent film. Should be compulsory viewing, with Terry Gilliam's Brazil to follow.
FWO: Far be it from me to defend the admittedly appalling shenanigans of YT, but there seems to be a great many free energy and Gordon Brown vids on YT. What's missing?
Tally27: You seem very depressed about GB. Why do you think David Cameron would be any different? DC is Stuart lineage, DC is establishment trained, DC is Bilderberg attendee, DC is a front for the same world government. His tie might be a different colour and he's probably a good deal weaker than GB mentally and politically, but that's really where the differences peter out.
Democracy simply creates the illusion of choice. Minor and irrelevant differences are emphasized to keep us believing. We argue over tiny details and fail to appreciate the general and unchanging direction of the broader policy. Do you think we'd be allowed a democracy if it changed anything? Many civil servants are in post for 30 or 40 years. Most ministers and secretaries of state are in and out of post within 4 years at the most - and many in far less time. As a result of these two factors, civil servants have FAR greater power than most people realize. You want proof? Read Tony Benn's (Lab. Energy Minister) and Nicholas Ridley's (Con. Env Minister) memoirs. One hard left, the other hard right: both complain about the impossibility of effecting real change because of the inertia and intransigence of the civil service.
Even someone like Margarine Thatch, whom most people regarded as "strong" was no match for the "system" of world government. Proof? Read (a summary of) the Single European Act (1987). Almost as much as Ted Heath, though not quite on a par with that treacherous creep, SHE was the one responsible for our loss of sovereignty - all the while disguised by a willing Murdoch media which propagated the stupid and completely fallacious notion that she'd "handbagged" 'em. In reality she towed the globalist line on virtually every issue of substance. Same with Major John. See Maastricht Treaty (1991?). The idea that the Tories will resist the general direction of the European Union is a nonsense.
Think things might be different now? Then watch any new domestic initiative or law which comes on the scene. Nine times out of ten you'll be able to trace the lineage of the idea right back to the EU or the UN, whether it be environment, education, taxation, health, transport or whatever. It's all a sham. Don't take my word for it. Investigate and observe for yourself and you'll see. EU law supersedes UK law - and each treaty introduces more majority voting, ie we lose our veto in more and more areas. Slowly but surely our country has been taken over. Under this latest treaty, any EU country can leave the union at any time. Hoorah! However, the terms of the withdrawal will be determined by the REMAINING MEMBERS. Think about that.
Sorry for the thread hijack, but I hate to see someone labouring under false illusions. NOI.
PS: "Solitary trees, if they grow at all, grow strong". Winston Churchill
Yeah, I completely agree, the conservatives sold this country out long ago, look at how they privatised it all and profited in the same process of allowing the globalists to takeover. It is true the EU makes all of our laws, they all come from the EU but they try to keep it as secret as possible by even using British names or UK named government agencies for example. I still prefer Cameron, he just comes to me as less of a fascist than Brown but then I thought he was not as bad as he now is, they change their attitude toward the public once they get power and all parties are funded and controlled, they will always go with world government policies. Otherwise they would have integrity and honesty. They always break their own policies and words as soon as they get in power.
Do you really think a Democratic Republic is better system then than Democracy, since we have never experienced a Democracy, I mean the UK government never allow us to vote on anything important in referendums. I think government should not be ruled by just one main leader anyway, it leads to easy corruption and even with the house of lords we see that the government forces through its laws eventually no matter what as they did with ID cards. And they said they would do at any cost and still want to scrap the house of lords completely. I don't see things changing at all until we regain power of banks again. 
How do we stop world government effectively? Most people are blind to it and don't care or think we are conspiracy theorists or are unwilling to do much anyway. There seems to be no quick fixes.
_________________
http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/PoliceState.html
Disclaimer: all my posts are thought crimes and only IMO in the police state we all live in...
http://www.europeantruth.co.uk/index1.html UK is history, USA to RESIST?
http://www.freedom-force.org |
| |
|
|
Tally27
Joined: 11 Jul 2007
Posts: 218
|
|
Sun Sep 30, 2007 5:11 pm
|
|
|
Free World Order, I agree completely, but I honestly don't know what can be done. I was kind of surprised to see Margaret Thatcher come out in support of a referendum though, and condemning the whole EU thing so blatantly.
PI, Thanks for the link, have read the book but never seen the film.  |
| |
|
|
No Way Oligarchs
Joined: 05 Jun 2007
Posts: 305
Location: Entropia, South-west England |
|
Sun Sep 30, 2007 11:16 pm
|
|
|
FWO, for some reason your last post prompted a huge reply from me. So huge in fact that I've decided I'm going to source it and generally polish it up before publishing it elsewhere as a stand alone article (at my usual haunt). By way of compensation, here's a completely separate rant on something else, which kind of came out at the same time; the cutting room edits if you like. It's all sort of related to what you said. Sorry it's so long, rambling and over-indulgent, but there you go. It's still shorter than the other one and I'm not forcing you or anyone else to read it.
Government has always been used by powerful forces. Sometimes it serves us too. For example, we give 20 million to the govt. who passes it on to some private corporation and we get a hospital. With luck it may even be worth something. Most people are happy. People like me though, look at the companies who built the hospital and those who manage it, along with those who approved it. Sometimes I plot these out as a spidergram. Overlaps are not uncommon, i.e. so and so in govt. worked for such and such either before the contract or after, or is married to what's her name, or that's his cousin's sister, or whatever. Almost always these days it seems, it smells bad. Really rotten, right down into the core. I know this because I've seen it first hand, all over the place.
I'd like to give examples but I've upset enough people in my life already, so instead I'll mention this fairly innocuous and absolutely-nothing-to-do-with-me classic, should anyone wish to follow it up: compulsory seat belts in cars and crash helmets on motorcycles. Yes there are safety issues (though even that's not as clear cut as most would assume) and yes compulsory safety gear does appeal to common sense notions about the public good, but wait, WHO sponsored these bills through Parliament? Could it have been the owner of the leading seat belt and crash helmet manufacturer of that time? Indeed it could. Fancy being able to legislate your product into law like that? Nice work if you can get it eh?
For a wider, more general view, let's take a quick look at various bits of our utility sector. I'm going to be selective for effect but I don't care. Why should I try to remain impartial? Nobody else seems to bother these days and this IS a rant after all!
Our forefathers paid for the gas, electricity and water infrastructure in this country with their taxes, and many of them contributed their labour and more. As far as I'm aware none of those major infrastructure projects were the result of the benevolent act of some philanthropist or corporate benefactor, even though the top 5% (I prefer to think of it as the bottom 5%) have owned more than 75% of all the wealth in this country forever – not to mention the offshore holdings which probably dwarf that amount many times. No, they were owned and paid for by the public; which is why they used to be called public utilities. Others benefited too of course, like the private corporations who needed the utilities at least as much as we did, but they often paid a lot less for their services because they liked it that way.
So given all that we did for them, when the Tories flogged these national assets off to their mates, where was our kickback? Nowhere. Instead, my water bill multiplied by (at a rough guess) by a factor of 20. When they built the first of two nuclear reactors near me the media of the day foretold how the electricity would be priced on the basis of proximity to the power station. In other words, having one just down the road was a pretty fine thing and we should be grateful.
Of course, this was total nonsense and there never was any such pricing mechanism, but was anyone fired? Was anyone held to account for having lied to us? Not a chance. In fact, we went on to re-elect the sitting Tory MP, who's successor in still in post today - and the local paper still merrily pumps out the same tittle-tattle mixed with the same manufactured political propaganda that it always did.
Naturally, we do now suffer from hugely anomalous rates of breast cancer and childhood leukaemia, but that's OK, because there are a number of reports that tell us that, while they don't know what actually does cause the diseases to cluster in this area they are quite certain that the nuclear power stations have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it. Even a mother of a child with leukaemia told me that, so it must be true.
What's my point? Oh I don't know. Something about everything being a total bare-faced lie and how trying to explain it to people around me who are too stupid to care is beginning to get to me. Not you by the way FWO, or anyone else in the post. I mean the “real” people out there; the slack-jawed, hollow-eyed zombies doing the shopping in the 4x4. How can these idiots be expected to make any sort of rational decision when their entire psychological reality and sense of self is an impenetrable fog of half-truths and prejudices fostered by years of coordinated mind manipulation?
To get back on topic, the bottom line is that the application of party political labels is an exercise in futility. We live in a democracy and yet there IS NO democracy because our choices are all the same, barring tie colour and a few lines in the non-binding party manifesto – oh and of course the unique selling point, the “flagship issue”, which usually is just some scam to misappropriate more of our money: such as re-organising health or education or some other weak minded and mostly ineffective initiative. I worked in many places at quite high levels and I've seen this for real, time and time again. Groups effortlessly groupthinking themselves into some ridiculous compromise or other and costing us a fortune into the bargain. All dissent is seen as negative, so eventually, no-one ever questions anything.
Underneath all this guff however, the long term agenda can be discerned – a gradual descent into the global tyranny of globalism, with the new corporate entities filling a role quite closely related to the feudal lords of old: step by incremental step, down through the generations. Most dismiss it as a fantasy, a mere “conspiratorial view of history”, but to those with eyes to see it's as plain as day. I know you see it too, which is why I'm a bit surprised you “prefer” Cameron. What's the point? Haven't we seen enough of this pathetic theatre by now?
Real political choice disappeared some time after WW2 - unless you count the early 80s, when Labour "fought" Margarine Thatch on a platform consisting of the brilliant mind but rather unelectable persona of Michael Foot in charge of an agenda of uni-lateral nuclear disarmament. Both were widely considered ridiculous by the general public. Yeah, some choice.
Back then I didn't “get” it at all, but these days I like to think I have a somewhat better understanding and I'd even go so far as to say that the real powers MADE SURE Thatch ruled the 80s. Why? Because they knew they could never have maintained political and social control had it been a Labour government that had implemented the stringent public service cuts and other fiscal measures demanded by the IMF following the successive oil crises in 1974 and 1978. See, even back then we were owned. How many people today realize that Thatcher's public service cuts were the result of an IMF dictat issued to Labour Chancellor Dennis Healey and NOT the result of some ideological masterplan originating from the poisoned mind of “that bloody woman” (to quote Ted Heath, that master of U-turn politics!). Privatization isn't even mentioned in the 1979 Tory manifesto – but does anyone ever bring that up? Nah, too busy watching TV and stuffing their fat little faces to give a toss. I'm sick of 'em FWO. Sick of 'em I tells ya. They deserve what they're going to end up with.
Lab, Con, Lib? Who cares? Who cares which bunch of lawyers, psychophants, miscellaneous deviants and psychopaths get elevated to false-godhood in order to implement the plan of the globalists? Not me that's for sure. I can't swallow any more lies from any of them without choking. Each and every one of them drips with deceit and treats us all like fools. Three fake choices in a fake "competition" designed simply to defuse our anger once every four years or so. It's not democracy in the sense of voting someone IN is it; just getting the bastards out. The parameters of the debate are ALWAYS pre-defined to eliminate any real alternative to the status quo, aided and abetted by the hollow and deceptive mantra of political correctness. Yet on and on we go, playing along and convincing ourselves that the little X on the ballot paper constitutes an acceptable form of democratic expression. Often in recent years, we even vote the last lot back in because we're so easily manipulated! I find it astonishing behaviour.
You asked whether I thought a democratic republic preferable to a democracy? If you are referring to the existence of a constitution a la republic as opposed to not having one of much real value in our little representative democracy and constitutional monarchy I think the evidence from the US demonstrates that constitutional government rests solely on the ability and willingness of the people to defend it. In other words, at the end of the day, as noted by Dubya, it's just a goddamned piece of paper and slowly but surely you can use other bits of paper to dismantle it or just set light to the bloody thing and implement a police state regardless. I mean, any rational person who have said the US would be in revolt by now, but it patently isn't.
I don't think democracy works period. I used to and I'd still like to, but right now I don't. I'm not sure any political system can work anymore. We are truly at the end of an age and destruction and collapse seems inevitable. Maybe I'm wrong? Maybe I'm just a budding fascist like Dubya? Maybe I'll grow a moustache and invade Poland for old times sake? (Or maybe I'll just sit here and whinge while it all goes on around me).
You also said, “I mean the UK government never allow us to vote on anything important in referendums”
Well that's not true actually. We did have a referendum to join the EEC, as those old enough to have witnessed it might recall. What's not so well remembered however is that the YES campaign spent around 20 times as much in propaganda IIRC, which meant that we all toddled off to the polls to vote for one or other side of the debate as it had been presented to us. It reminded me of those shows where they get you to cast a vote on some BS issue or other, and it's like, “You decide who's right. Which do you as a viewer prefer, the argument presented by this good-looking, well-educated and immaculately dressed rational person or the smelly f*cking hippie who talks out of his arse?”
NLP really is the key to many things – and that's really where my other article fitted in (NLP in relation to the EU in fact), but that's enough for now, don't you think?
_________________
Parsons used the lavatory, loudly and abundantly. It then turned out that the plug was defective and the cell stank abominably for hours afterwards. George Orwell. 1984. |
| |
|
|
perverted_introvert
Joined: 06 Jun 2006
Posts: 2006
Location: Chicago |
| Housing Bubble
Mon Oct 01, 2007 3:04 am
|
|
|
Since we're on the topic of government, I thought this was interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_housing_bubble
"Mr. Bush said that his administration wished to alleviate the subprime mortgage crisis by "helping people who have good credit but who have not made all of their payments on time because of rising mortgage payments." However, homeowners with subprime loans have poor credit by definition; therefore, the immediate intent and scope of Bush's announced plan is not entirely clear. President Bush's largest campaign contributor was Roland E. Arnall, the former CEO of the largest subprime lender in the U.S., Ameriquest, which has since gone out of business; Bush nominated Arnall as the U.S. Ambassador to the Netherlands."
_________________
“To the last, I grapple with thee; From Hell's heart, I stab at thee; For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee” |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page Previous
1, 2
All times are GMT. The time now is Fri May 25, 2012 2:50 pm
|
|
|
|
|
Login
