Those weren't the "informed masses"; they were the uninformed masses.
The informed masses were telling everyone that Earth is round.
Obama is a fraud!
- Thread starter magick
- Start date
Those weren't the "informed masses"; they were the uninformed masses.
The informed masses were telling everyone that Earth is round.
Firstly, I was in a different country. It was different where I lived.
Secondly, the so-called "acid house breakthrough" was over-hyped. How was it even a "breakthrough"? It was just a rehash of an old fad with new music.
Some "breakthrough".
It might have been called acid house but more people were taking ecstasy than doing trips.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
Thought not to it making any difference technically speaking but practically speaking I agree that it will matter, regardless of how silly that may be.
Or it could simply be that most people are right to disregard the views that Icke has posited, you can't know the logical process that most people in this thread have taken to evaluate the information.
Conversely you could ask what is the point in questioning when the questions you are asking are not the right ones? If you're just throwing up random misinformation based on half truths or half understood positions then why is that any better than what the media "brainwashes" us with?
That one is a fallacy I'm afraid, very few people have ever thought the World was flat.
Perhaps.
I prefer to see it as a classic case of social Darwinism at work; sensible people moving quickly to stamp out stupidity, because we realise how dangerous it is to a species which relies on its superior intelligence to maintain its position at the top of the food chain.
I have a low tolerance for ignorance. I have a very low tolerance for wilful ignorance.
And I have no tolerance whatsoever for wilfully ignorant people who claim to be better informed than intelligent, educated people.
Remember, in the battle for the shape of Earth, it was the people with the scientific evidence who won. They did this by refuting the people whose belief was founded upon ideology, not facts, and who claimed to possess a higher insight.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 6,712
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 6,712
Firstly, I was in a different country. It was different where I lived.
Secondly, the so-called "acid house breakthrough" was over-hyped. How was it even a "breakthrough"? It was just a rehash of an old fad with new music.
Some "breakthrough".
I think he meant breakthrough as in rise in popularity.
There was no "acid house era". Acid house was a passing fad, not an era.
LOL, you really haven't clue have you Mr-Im-Of-So-Superior-Intellect.
You just keep watching top of the pops and mtv to keep up to date.
A rise in popularity compared to when?
It's never been as popular at as it was in the 60s, when people were chugging an average of 250mg (compared to around 65mg today).
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 558
didn't mean it in a scathing way was just curious
Permabanned
- Joined
- 6 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 1,176
I would call the early 80s to the early 90s more than "a passing fad".
atleast that made me laugh
Magick, I'm guessing you're a young adult, early twenties at most. You're old enough to try to pay attention to politics (a good thing) but not old enough yet to have gained the cynicism that comes with familiarity.
edit: Just saw your post above. You're in your 30s and this is still new to you? Wow..
You want truth (rather than that David Icke garbage), here comes some truth:
The concept of a democratic government is fundamentally flawed. Democracy is a great idea, everyone having a voice, but people are fickle. We are prone to knee jerk reactions. Our animalistic instincts are to react first and think later. Consider India where the government only a few months back was on the verge of banning alcohol following several dozen deaths caused by bootleg alcohol, it didn't occur to them until very late in the process that banning alcohol would make the bootleg problem much worse, and that if they banned it they'd be facing a general public revolt.
That gut instinct behind knee jerk reactions is often great for preserving life in the short term but rubbish at long term. We're fools for a silver tongue and a charming smile. We react favourably to people that tell us what we want to hear, irrespective of their track record. We're suckers for things that make us feel good rather than things that are good for us.
Politics is nothing more than a popularity contest. Naïve people believe that elections are about policies and reasons, and an understanding of what changes a country needs to survive.
The reality is, the Politician that gets elected, at any level, is the politician that people like. The one that says things people want to hear.
If you want a prime example in UK politics, consider David Cameron. Under him the Conservative party have come on leaps and bounds in popularity. Why? He's a young(ish), charismatic, charming leader, where the others were old and dull seeming. He also tells the people what they want to hear, his politics are decidedly left leaning for a Tory.
Being elected based on saying what people want to hear is not the worst of it either. Once in power the politician has a short period of time in which it's possible for them to make smart, reasoned choices, say maybe a year, two tops; even assuming they're either intelligent enough to do so, or even so inclined.
After that they'll have to focus on making the popular decisions, because their focus will now have to be on re-election. The intelligent decisions are rarely ones the general population are happy with, and those 'popular' decisions are very rarely what a country actually needs. After all you're pandering to the average man, and when you look around and consider how scarily stupid the average man is a worrying thought that they're dictating politics. The average man (as I mentioned earlier) is more interested in the things that feel good than those that actually are good.
Obama got elected on vague promises "Hope", "change". Yes the US desperately needs that. They've had two terms of GWB's republican government and the population is tired of it. They needed a change after Bill Clinton's democratic government and it's perceived corruption, and the immoral behaviour of the president. The resulting change, the rule of the neo-cons might not have been the change they actually wanted, but it was clear to everyone that the Democrats had been in power too long.
The UK was identical. Not knowing your age, I've no idea whether you remember the UK election in '97? We'd had years of Tory governance, from Thatcher on to John Major, during which we saw many examples of corrupt politicians, highly disputed decisions, which lead to a nation utterly fed up with them. The Labour party at the time was led by a charismatic young leader, who's campaign hinged on the simple phrase "Things can only get better". It's that dear old "Hope" and "Change" theme again. I'll leave it up to others to debate whether things really have improved under their rule.
So what are the alternatives? Communism? So far that's proven to be atrocious in every implementation, though to be fair to Communism none of the implementations have been true Communism, but instead more of a dictatorship in the guise of communism.
Theocracy? Religion should never run a country. God is used to excuse so much already it would be horrific on a country scale.
Meritocracy? Probably the best alternative, in theory, but then how do you rate an individuals ability? It's nigh on impossible to implement.
Dictatorship? In theory that means the ruler is able to make the hard choices without fear of losing power. Reality? Far from it. History has had very few, if any, benevolent dictators.
Autocracy? One man making all the decisions. Bad idea, no one is smart about everything, and again all that power would tend towards dictatorship.
Hoplarchy, whereby the military rules? We all know of the oxymoron that is Military Inteligence. Hoplarchy would encourage strict obedience, reduced civil disorder, and survival of the most capable. Downsides would be lack of personal freedom, a highly increased likelihood of picking fights with other nations, and an overwhelming urge to use the biggest stick possible to achieve aims.
Technocracy? This one is actually pretty interesting in theory. It's similar to meritocracy in that decision makers are selected based upon how highly knowledgeable they are, with a heavy focus on those of a problem solving mindset. Downside? Their answers are liable to be technology focussed, trying to use technology to solve a social problem, rather than looking at what social change ought to be encouraged or instigated. Also a fair risk of corruptibility. Consider your average totally unreasonable BOFH / Sysadmin type, and just how frequently you come across them.
Bureautocracy, rule by the Bureaucrats. To a fair extent that's what we've got so far, but no one wants to be ruled by faceless civil servants, and if we switched to one completely we'd see so much red tape and paperwork the government would collapse under it's own weight. To quote Einstein "Bureaucracy is the death of all sound work"
I'll leave you with one final quote to fill you with hope, by the German Fraz Kafka:
"Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy."
edit: Just saw your post above. You're in your 30s and this is still new to you? Wow..
You want truth (rather than that David Icke garbage), here comes some truth:
The concept of a democratic government is fundamentally flawed. Democracy is a great idea, everyone having a voice, but people are fickle. We are prone to knee jerk reactions. Our animalistic instincts are to react first and think later. Consider India where the government only a few months back was on the verge of banning alcohol following several dozen deaths caused by bootleg alcohol, it didn't occur to them until very late in the process that banning alcohol would make the bootleg problem much worse, and that if they banned it they'd be facing a general public revolt.
That gut instinct behind knee jerk reactions is often great for preserving life in the short term but rubbish at long term. We're fools for a silver tongue and a charming smile. We react favourably to people that tell us what we want to hear, irrespective of their track record. We're suckers for things that make us feel good rather than things that are good for us.
Politics is nothing more than a popularity contest. Naïve people believe that elections are about policies and reasons, and an understanding of what changes a country needs to survive.
The reality is, the Politician that gets elected, at any level, is the politician that people like. The one that says things people want to hear.
If you want a prime example in UK politics, consider David Cameron. Under him the Conservative party have come on leaps and bounds in popularity. Why? He's a young(ish), charismatic, charming leader, where the others were old and dull seeming. He also tells the people what they want to hear, his politics are decidedly left leaning for a Tory.
Being elected based on saying what people want to hear is not the worst of it either. Once in power the politician has a short period of time in which it's possible for them to make smart, reasoned choices, say maybe a year, two tops; even assuming they're either intelligent enough to do so, or even so inclined.
After that they'll have to focus on making the popular decisions, because their focus will now have to be on re-election. The intelligent decisions are rarely ones the general population are happy with, and those 'popular' decisions are very rarely what a country actually needs. After all you're pandering to the average man, and when you look around and consider how scarily stupid the average man is a worrying thought that they're dictating politics. The average man (as I mentioned earlier) is more interested in the things that feel good than those that actually are good.
Obama got elected on vague promises "Hope", "change". Yes the US desperately needs that. They've had two terms of GWB's republican government and the population is tired of it. They needed a change after Bill Clinton's democratic government and it's perceived corruption, and the immoral behaviour of the president. The resulting change, the rule of the neo-cons might not have been the change they actually wanted, but it was clear to everyone that the Democrats had been in power too long.
The UK was identical. Not knowing your age, I've no idea whether you remember the UK election in '97? We'd had years of Tory governance, from Thatcher on to John Major, during which we saw many examples of corrupt politicians, highly disputed decisions, which lead to a nation utterly fed up with them. The Labour party at the time was led by a charismatic young leader, who's campaign hinged on the simple phrase "Things can only get better". It's that dear old "Hope" and "Change" theme again. I'll leave it up to others to debate whether things really have improved under their rule.
So what are the alternatives? Communism? So far that's proven to be atrocious in every implementation, though to be fair to Communism none of the implementations have been true Communism, but instead more of a dictatorship in the guise of communism.
Theocracy? Religion should never run a country. God is used to excuse so much already it would be horrific on a country scale.
Meritocracy? Probably the best alternative, in theory, but then how do you rate an individuals ability? It's nigh on impossible to implement.
Dictatorship? In theory that means the ruler is able to make the hard choices without fear of losing power. Reality? Far from it. History has had very few, if any, benevolent dictators.
Autocracy? One man making all the decisions. Bad idea, no one is smart about everything, and again all that power would tend towards dictatorship.
Hoplarchy, whereby the military rules? We all know of the oxymoron that is Military Inteligence. Hoplarchy would encourage strict obedience, reduced civil disorder, and survival of the most capable. Downsides would be lack of personal freedom, a highly increased likelihood of picking fights with other nations, and an overwhelming urge to use the biggest stick possible to achieve aims.
Technocracy? This one is actually pretty interesting in theory. It's similar to meritocracy in that decision makers are selected based upon how highly knowledgeable they are, with a heavy focus on those of a problem solving mindset. Downside? Their answers are liable to be technology focussed, trying to use technology to solve a social problem, rather than looking at what social change ought to be encouraged or instigated. Also a fair risk of corruptibility. Consider your average totally unreasonable BOFH / Sysadmin type, and just how frequently you come across them.
Bureautocracy, rule by the Bureaucrats. To a fair extent that's what we've got so far, but no one wants to be ruled by faceless civil servants, and if we switched to one completely we'd see so much red tape and paperwork the government would collapse under it's own weight. To quote Einstein "Bureaucracy is the death of all sound work"
I'll leave you with one final quote to fill you with hope, by the German Fraz Kafka:
"Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy."
Last edited:
Fixed
David Icke is closer to the truth than a lot of people who comment on such matters. Anyone with an intellectual capacity greater than that of a peanut can clearly see the massive manipulation of the populace that takes place by corporations, governments and the media. USA and the world got Obahma because it was who 'they' wanted and not because it was who 'we' wanted, the status quo must be maintained - nothing will change and you can quote me on that in four years time.
He may be strange but if Icke is right, we are all well and truly ****** and YOU have let it happen because you do not listen, you do not see and, most importantly, you do not think. I mean, REALLY think.
He may be strange but if Icke is right, we are all well and truly ****** and YOU have let it happen because you do not listen, you do not see and, most importantly, you do not think. I mean, REALLY think.
he's 32. or at least he says he is.
It was a popular genre, but in historical terms little more than a passing fad. Call it what you like; it was definitely not an "era". And contrary to to the popular belief amongst today's young people, its origins had nothing to do with the drug called "Acid".
I was a bit of a KLF fan for a while, and I did enjoy some of Moby's early work. But on the whole, acid house wasn't really my thing.
An insulting accusation with no substance whatsoever. Why am I not surprised?
My dear boy, ToTP & MTV were never on my entertainment menu. They're children's fare.
But thanks, that answer dates you; you've just demonstrated that you're substantially younger than myself.
David Icke is closer to the truth than a lot of people who comment on such matters. Anyone with an intellectual capacity greater than that of a peanut can clearly see the massive manipulation of the populace that takes place by corporations, governments and the media. USA and the world got Obahma because it was who 'they' wanted and not because it was who 'we' wanted, the status quo must be maintained - nothing will change and you can quote me on that in four years time.
He may be strange but if Icke is right, we are all well and truly ****** and YOU have let it happen because you do not listen, you do not see and, most importantly, you do not think. I mean, REALLY think.
How much did our green reptilian overlords pay you to write this?