Agenda 21

[BorrowToLeech]

12 hours ago, Wayward said:

Seems you don't understand how markets work. ? What do suppose would happen to prices if half the population died in some pandemic....?

Prices would fall because demand would fall. The price of land is set by demand, not supply. 

[crazypabs]

11 hours ago, Beary McBearface said:

That's mad.

You bumped a mad as badgers thread from fully two years ago and not word one about the bump, not a word of explanation of why you were bumping it. Straight into some batsh!t mental idiocy about the UN reducing the population of the Earth.

Two things. 

Firstly, are you as relieved as I am that the UN population plans are restricted to the Earth and leave the Clangers and the inhabitants of Button Moon free to explore their own resource/population equilibrium?

Secondly, "Agenda 21" WTF? If you're looking for a context to peddle some totally delusional idiocy you may have picked the wrong ground. Let's dance.

that's a bit caustic...if threads are meant to be a place to attack people on the basis that they want to be thought provoking then I you sure have the right idea, however I didn't mean to upset you.

I had never heard of A21 before the other night, frankly I thought it all sounded as mad as the march hare but it was thought provoking, and I wanted other peoples opinions as to what they thought, so don't be rude and discuss. If you don't wish to discuss, then you don't have to read this.

[Kosmin]

On ‎21‎/‎03‎/‎2018 at 8:55 AM, crazypabs said:

Got talking to a friend and he told me about the attempts by the UN to reduce the population of Earth from 7bn to 500million along with the carbon emission mullarky.

It's not crazy to be concerned about increasing population. It's now thought the population may reach 9 billion as soon as 2050 and 10 billion by 2100 (see 10 billion by Danny Dorling). The Earth may be able to support 10 billion, but it's likely to exacerbate conflict between nations for resources.

So there probably are efforts to prevent the population growing too quickly. It's generally just things like providing access to contraception, empowering women, promoting growth and development (as countries get richer population growth generally slows down). I doubt anyone with any power wants to reduce the population to 500million.

 

What is the carbon emission mullarky?

 

 

Edited March 22, 2018 by Kosmin

[Wayward]

On ‎22‎/‎03‎/‎2018 at 8:21 AM, BuyToLeech said:

Prices would fall because demand would fall. The price of land is set by demand, not supply. 

really??  okay so what would happen to house prices if planning controls were abolished and anyone could build what they wanted where they wanted???

 

[guest_northshore]

6 hours ago, Wayward said:

really??  okay so what would happen to house prices if planning controls were abolished and anyone could build what they wanted where they wanted???

Landowner 1 decides to build/offer at a price undercutting everybody else. Landowner 2 bids the price back up to secure their own value, or bids anywhere between Landowner 1's offer & yesterday's price then flips it to Nonowner at yesterday's price, pocketing the difference. Landowner 3 also plannned to undercut, but now realises there's no need to do that b/c land is a cartel; any Nonowner still has to buy it from a Landowner so they can offer out at yesterday's price because they know it can be paid.

Unless you believe landowners would suddenly decide to act irrationally after millennia of not, planning relaxation won't make any aggregate difference beyond making landowners more powerful and wealthier on paper (all land also absorbing any potential strategic and price gains from planning in one go).

[Bland Unsight]

On 22/03/2018 at 12:11 PM, crazypabs said:

I had never heard of...

[snip]

That's really interesting.

Further to my earlier question, if you had never heard of it before "the other night" could you give me some more details regarding the sequence of events that led you to

1. hear about it
2. find an HPC thread from two years ago that talked about it
3. feel that the best way to  move forward was to bump that thread

I'm sure you're in earnest but you must accept that the sequence of events sounds odd and thus demands explanation and therewith an individual of whom explanation was demanded but from whom came there explanation none would be therefore inherently a puzzle to all.

 

Edited March 24, 2018 by Beary McBearface

[Bland Unsight]

On 22/03/2018 at 12:11 PM, crazypabs said:

frankly I thought it all sounded as mad as the march hare 

As I understand matters, certain people who are not native English speakers struggle to use articles correctly and make errors in usage that a natural English speaker would never make. For example, "mad as a march hare" is idiomatic but "mad as the march hare" is alien and if you google it you get nothing but links to a 2005 song by a  New York metal band called 'My Precious Blood'.

I am sure that there is a good explanation both for your odd construction (a vs the) and your choice to bump two-year old threads -  I am just struggling to work out what it might be.

Obviously I am being polite and not "caustic" so I anticipate that you will be able to explain these oddities and I beseech thee to be prompt and exhaustive in the thy answers.

Edited March 24, 2018 by Beary McBearface

[Bland Unsight]

On 22/03/2018 at 7:42 AM, The Spaniard said:

Here is the lad himself .

[snip]

I am neither endorsing this presentation, nor condemning it, but I do find some of it to be thought provoking, and the variety of comments is interesting.

What parts of that did you find "though provoking" and why/how did they provoke your thoughts?

[The Spaniard]

8 hours ago, Beary McBearface said:

What parts of that did you find "though provoking" and why/how did they provoke your thoughts?

I find the uncanny accuracy of the predictions by Albert Pike in 1871, Dr Richard Day in 1969 and the PNAC document in 2000 to be rather unnerving. Why are these not more widely known about and discussed?

Has Icke cherry picked these from an historic plethora of various and contradictory predictions? Or is there indeed a secret long term agenda being orchestrated by very powerful people to impose a New World Order? How might we possibly find out?

The low key, some might even say stealthy, implementation of Agenda 21 is concerning. Ideally such a sweeping global agenda should be centre stage for public discussion, should it not? Why are we not all talking about it, MSM included? Just imagine if it enjoyed the same air time as Brexit!

I also wonder why Icke is so vehemently opposed and suppressed. Nutter or prophet, with his professed attitude of compassion and love, he seems harmless enough to me. Some of his more extreme claims ('Archons' etc.) are extraordinary, and as such require extraordinary evidence, which is not yet forthcoming IMHO.

How about yourself, Beary? What did you think of Icke's presentation?

[chronyx]

I'd heard that by reptiles he meant the reptilian part of the brain which i accept.

Archons though? Get out and walk.

[Kosmin]

2 hours ago, The Spaniard said:

I also wonder why Icke is so vehemently opposed and suppressed. Nutter or prophet, with his professed attitude of compassion and love, he seems harmless enough to me. Some of his more extreme claims ('Archons' etc.) are extraordinary, and as such require extraordinary evidence, which is not yet forthcoming IMHO.

Have any of his books been banned? Has he been prevented from making speeches? I'm not aware of this. Instead I think most people ignore him.

[The Spaniard]

1 hour ago, Kosmin said:

Has he been prevented from making speeches? I'm not aware of this.

I was thinking of the recent cancellations of his book launch at Manchester United and his proposed talk at the Athena in Leicester due to the lobbying of the venue owners by apparently very influential organizations.

According to Icke there is no good reason for either the lobbying or the cancellations and his freedom of speech is being unjustly and disturbingly curtailed.

It does seem rather heavy handed.

 

[Kosmin]

10 minutes ago, The Spaniard said:

I was thinking of the recent cancellations of his book launch at Manchester United and his proposed talk at the Athena in Leicester due to the lobbying of the venue owners by apparently very influential organizations.

According to Icke there is no good reason for either the lobbying or the cancellations and his freedom of speech is being unjustly and disturbingly curtailed.

It does seem rather heavy handed.

I can't see the video unfortunately as it's blocked on my work laptop.

He's given lectures to thousands of people in many countries in big venues (Wembley, Brixton Academy) and at the heart of the establishment (Oxford Union). This has gone on for decades and he has sold hundreds of thousands of copies of his books.

Having a talk cancelled does not constitute an infringement of freedom of speech. All sorts of groups get their meetings or talks cancelled. If it's only happened once to Icke then he has been suppressed less than many (this seems consistent with him being ignored).

 

Outlandish conspiracies are lucrative which is good for the conspiracy theorists. They also deflect interest in the real conspiracies (military-industrial complex, War on Terror, War on Drugs, banking, housing, etc.), which is good for special interests who benefit from them. 

[CanAffordWontPay]

On 3/22/2018 at 7:42 AM, The Spaniard said:

Here is the lad himself giving 'Agenda 21' his full attention.

Over 2.2M views! Are people waking up, or paying too much attention to a nutter?

I am neither endorsing this presentation, nor condemning it, but I do find some of it to be thought provoking, and the variety of comments is interesting.

 

2

Tried to watch this last night but didn't like Icke's presenting style. He is all over the place, jumping from one thing to another, no sourcing and just not very cohesive. I much prefer James Corbett's method and recommend his two-part documentaries How Big Oil Conquered the World and Why Big Oil Conquered The World. 

[CanAffordWontPay]

19 hours ago, chronyx said:

I'd heard that by reptiles he meant the reptilian part of the brain which i accept.

Archons though? Get out and walk.

[Bland Unsight]

19 hours ago, The Spaniard said:

How about yourself, Beary? What did you think of Icke's presentation?

There was one bit where he talked about "Rothschild Zionism" (he goes then 'explains' how none of this is anti-Semitic).

Quote

I laid out in simple terms last week the agenda behind the unfolding global financial crisis and today I will expose the coordinating force, or at least a prime one, behind that agenda. Most conspiracy researchers either don’t realise the fundamental significance of this network or are too frightened to say so if they do. Sod that.

It is widely known as Zionism or, as I call it, more accurately, I suggest … Rothschild Zionism. I add the ‘Rothschild’ to constantly emphasise the true creators of Zionism and its controllers to this day ...

 

Source

Quote

I strongly believe that a small Jewish clique which has contempt for the mass of Jewish people worked with non-Jews to create the First World War, the Russian Revolution, and the Second World War. This Jewish/non-Jewish Elite used the First World War to secure the Balfour Declaration and the principle of the Jewish State of Israel (for which, given the genetic history of most Jewish people, there is absolutely no justification on historical grounds or any other). They then dominated the Versailles Peace Conference and created the circumstances which made the Second World War inevitable. They financed Hitler to power in 1933 and made the funds available for his rearmament.

Source (wikiquote cites Icke's 1996 book The Truth shall set you free as the source)

Read an article a while back which sums a lot of this up. Icke's conspiracy theories are more like a form of religious practice than they are akin to a method of inquiry which is sincerely invested in finding truth and structure.

Quote

In the 20th century the concept itself, fittingly enough, became the subject of a conspiracy theory. “There are those who claim that the words ‘conspiracy theory’ were introduced by the CIA to discredit people who were promoting these sorts of ideas,” says McKenzie-McHarg. “All my work is about demonstrating that the conspiracy theory about the concept ‘conspiracy theory’… is not true.”

In fact, as he points out, the origins of the phenomenon are deep-rooted. Ironically, it seems that this behaviour, which today we associate with those who feel impotent in the face of forces they can’t control, may bestow a sense of agency. McKenzie-McHarg links conspiracy theorising to the age-old notion of the scapegoat. “Identifying the scapegoat gives you the opportunity to do something – to marginalise or persecute those who have been identified as the guilty party. It’s far better to be doing something than nothing.”

Neuroscientist Professor Paul Fletcher traces conspiracy theorising behaviour back to an even more fundamental origin: the brain. His work on delusion and hallucination points to a conclusion both startling and persuasive: that conspiracy theories, like other forms of belief, arise from the natural function of the mind.

“The brain – our minds – have an impossible task in making sense of a world that is noisy and ambiguous,” he says. “We have to take short cuts. We have to add our own evidence rather than being a passive receptacle of the world. The majority of our beliefs and precepts are useful – but they are not a facsimile of what’s out there.”

In other words, conspiracy theories, like more sanctioned forms of belief, are our attempts to craft an explanation of the world around us. And what’s crucial in determining whether those explanations are acceptable or not, is context. In many cultures, Fletcher says, it might be “perfectly reasonable” to believe that you were being communicated with by a godlike entity. Not so in Western society today.

Source

 

[Bland Unsight]

16 hours ago, Kosmin said:

Outlandish conspiracies are lucrative which is good for the conspiracy theorists. They also deflect interest in the real conspiracies (military-industrial complex, War on Terror, War on Drugs, banking, housing, etc.), which is good for special interests who benefit from them. 

(Emphasis added)

These aren't "real conspiracies" because they aren't conspiracies. A conspiracy is a secret plan. There's nothing secret about any of these things. They are just ad hoc coalitions of powerful interests and constructing narratives involving such coalitions is just normal scholarship or journalism.

[Bland Unsight]

17 hours ago, The Spaniard said:

According to Icke there is no good reason for either the lobbying or the cancellations and his freedom of speech is being unjustly and disturbingly curtailed.

It does seem rather heavy handed.

It seems to me that Icke (who is very possibly not an anti-Semite) has found a way to repackage old anti-Semitic Protocols of the Elders of Zion nonsense. The attempt to detoxify it is rather artless and whilst it may convince Icke, I can quite understand why people charged with enforcing the law aren't buying it.

If you repackage material which was intended to foment hate you've got very little cause to act surprised when you feel the hand of the law on your shoulder.

One analysis would be that Icke is too lazy to do any research and find any actual conspiracies and lacks the creativity to invent a genuinely new conspiracy theory, untainted by anti-Semitism. This is not about free speech, it's about a lack of effort and a lack of talent.

[Maynardgravy]

2 minutes ago, Beary McBearface said:

(Emphasis added)

These aren't "real conspiracies" because they aren't conspiracies. A conspiracy is a secret plan. There's nothing secret about any of these things. They are just ad hoc coalitions of powerful interests and constructing narratives involving such coalitions is just normal scholarship or journalism.

There's nothing open about them. It's never been admitted that there's an agenda to economise war - that most wars are purely run for profit and power. It's never been admitted that the war on terror is fabricated to to facilitate the MIC. Has the CIA ever admitted its role in drug running?. Libor was a conspiracy. HTB is a conspiracy in that only a few people know the original reason for its corrupt inception.

A secret plan is anything that is kept from public knowledge, no matter how many share that secret.

 

[spyguy]

David Icke lives on the Isle of Wight.

Had to go on holiday there once, to satisfy my sons hovercraft obsession.

Everything is explained by him living on Isle of Wight.

[zugzwang]

10 minutes ago, spyguy said:

David Icke lives on the Isle of Wight.

Had to go on holiday there once, to satisfy my sons hovercraft obsession.

Everything is explained by him living on Isle of Wight.

That's a rubbish limerick.

[Bland Unsight]

23 minutes ago, Maynardgravy said:

HTB is a conspiracy in that only a few people know the original reason for its corrupt inception.

Help to Buy is not corrupt. If people elect a Conservative government, given that the public record shows that the volume builders have long been generous donors, it is not a conspiracy when public policy favours the builders (everybody can see that why it is happening because of publicly available evidence) and it's perfectly legal.

The definition of conspiracy does not cover the difference between the intent behind the action and soundbite presentation of the intent. Is it a conspiracy that Theresa May failed to provide 'strong and stable leadership'? All her colleagues knew that she was a bit of a control freak with poor tactical and strategic judgement. Over years journalists had publicly documented the same thing when covering some of her decisions at the Home Office.

You claim that "only a few people" know the "original reason". Are you suggesting that you are one of them? If you're not, how do you know what the "original reason" was? If you are one of them, how did you become one of them? How did you obtain this secret knowledge?

Edited March 25, 2018 by Beary McBearface

[spyguy]

1 minute ago, zugzwang said:

That's a rubbish limerick.

The holuday was worse.

I did like the hovercraft. Shame it ran? flew? sailed? between two places you would not want to visit.

[zugzwang]

Lest we forget, David Icke did not 'expose' Jimmy Savile as he so often claims.

http://yournewswire.com/david-icke-lied-about-jimmy-savile-explosive-claims-and-2000-reward/

[Maynardgravy]

20 minutes ago, Beary McBearface said:

You claim that "only a few people" know the "original reason". Are you suggesting that you are one of them? If you're not, how do you know what the "original reason" was? If you are one of them, how did you become one of them? How did you obtain this secret knowledge?

Because I use the information at hand and expertise mined from forums like these. Ask any politician involved in peddling HTB and the answer you'll get it 'to help those who can't find a deposit get on 'the ladder''. The real reason is never made public - it is a secret.

Just because someone can decipher what the conspiracy is / might be, doesn;t make it less of a conspiracy.