Quote:
|
First of all I will say this, although there are things that you have written I will totally disagree with, i.e. right wing interpretation of history, hand gun issue, Zionist conspiracy etc. I will agree that we were dragged into a needless war with Iraq. I will go as far to say that the reasons we were given at the time were pure fabrication and our leaders knew this when they were selling it to us. The only man in the government that asked “where is the evidence” and had the courage of his convictions to resign in protest was Robin Cook, who has now sadly passed away.
|
Do you disagree on the basis of research or simply because you find the idea inconceivable? Using 'right-wing' in its now fashionable perjorative sense, as though conservatism were itself somehow inherently offensive, probably answers my question.
Quote:
|
Secondly, and to be fair to the international readership of this forum, this is really not the place to air views on British politics, the majority that use this forum will not understand it.
|
I confined my remarks to Britain because I thought I was talking to people from the same neck of the woods. This is an international conspiracy, however, and what goes on here has clear implications for people around the world, since their own governments are mixed up in it. The 'international readership' probably has the intelligence to work this out for itself. My guess is they're enjoying the exchange, and are fascinated by the Herald material. The Left is always desperately pious, of course, but this is just a device to conceal the fact that what they denounce as suppression by the 'right' is actually part of the wider moral imperative among socialists, who then portray censorship as a means to enhancing human understanding - or indeed as an apparently laudable instinct for courtesy that wishes to avoid confusing our 'international readership'.
Quote:
|
Also, although we have a more diverse press and media coverage than ever before they, the press and TV barons, are still too cosy with the government (they would have the same relationship if the government was formed by our current opposition).
|
Diverse? Diverse enough, say, to uniformly sit on a story the public had every right to read? What does 'diverse' mean in your dictionary? That some newspapers have gothic letterheads while others go for Times New Roman doesn't make them diverse. They exist, they prosper, because they toe the line. You might want to look at the curious case of Lord Northcliffe and the Daily Mail. What happened in the 1920s to a supposedly all-powerful press baron holds many lessons for us today. Research Bob. Research. You've every right to disagree, but this is more than a mere conspiracy theory. The books and journals of senior military and political figures (including Lord Halifax, Neville Chamberlain and others) over many decades attest to what has been and is happening - figures who not only quickly found themselves out of favour for voicing their concerns but in some cases were actually (and illegally) imprisoned for doing so.
Quote:
I may be complacent but I believe that no society can be designed to last forever, throughout history there have been great civilisations that have crumbled to dust or have been swallowed up by the surrounding vegetation.
I honestly feel that as human beings we are temporary creatures and everything we do, no matter what it is, will be temporary. That is not to say we give in to the inevitable, we fight illnesses with new medicines, we fight ignorance with new methods of learning, we fight necessities with new inventions, etc. but we also fight injustice which would in instantly created under a world order.
|
You are wrong Bob. You have every right to be wrong, but wrong you are notwithstanding. You are wrong because you assume fighting injustice in any new society will be more or less the same as fighting it in ones that have gone before. It won't be, and cannot be. We are on the threshold of a world like no other in history, a world which will be, is intended to be, hell on earth. In what period of history has the population of the entire globe been monitored 24 hours a day? There is no precedent. To impose this on us, of course, they need an excuse, which is why we are having a flurry of terrorist activity.
The technology is easy. That's been around ages. The trick is to gain public acceptance. That takes years, which is why they are still coat-trailing. Haven't you noticed how, every time a child goes missing, some busybody or another speaks about microchipping offenders? Now, both here and in America, bought-and-paid-for politicians are speechifying about a microchipped population. Just think of the time you'll save not having to carry all that personal information around with you! Just think how relieved you'll be not having to worry about your child being abducted because we'll know where he/she is 24/7!
Americans sometimes refer to a frog in a pot. Put a frog in a pan of cold water and put the pan on a fire. The frog will not jump out of the pan. It will boil to death. And it will do so because the change in temperature has been so gradual as to go unnoticed, until it is too late.
Probably best to end it here, and to agree to differ, as you say.