You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Whilst there is undoubtedly many folks being misled by fringe groups with a whole lot of batshit nonsense sprinkled on, it's equally worrying to me just how eager everyone is to accept official stories, when time and again the authorities have lied (and continue to lie)
Perhaps it's just easier to accept the information you're fed, rather than going to the effort of delving deeper...
Perhaps it’s just easier to accept the information you’re fed, rather than going to the effort of delving deeper…
but you’re not “delving deeper” either. You’re just uncritically reposting alternative sources that feel truer to you because they happen to align with your own biases. Searching the net for “not mainstream” isn’t any better or a more accurate way of finding out what’s going on
It’s just a straw man. I don’t know anyone who just accepts what comes from government channels, on anything. Whether it’s checking out More or Less, or IndieSage, or any number of other sources… no one just takes the government line as gospel without challenge or checking.
However the prevalence of conspiracy theories appears to have grown significantly in recent times and now covers a range of bizarre subjects from alleged fake moon landings to apparently vaccines which contain microchips so that the government can keep a track of where you shop.
I think it must largely be down to the internet. Pre the millennium people had limited sources of information. Most* people would watch the news or read a paper, but those are regulated to an extent. If you were interested in a subject you then had to go t a library and get a book on it.
Beyond the limited reach of magazines and books you had to actually buy they couldn't spread. And the venn diagram of people who read books and are capable of some critical thinking is a decent overlap so the ratio of copies of new scientist to UFO monthly sold was probably quite good.
Now there is no barrier to "information" on the internet (often the opposite, the good stuff is behind a paywall). With far more people actively consuming it.
*Actually a minority
I don’t know anyone who just accepts what comes from government channels, on anything.
Count yourself as being in a lucky group of people then as there are many millions of people just in this country who accept all sorts of crap.
but you’re not “delving deeper” either. You’re just uncritically reposting alternative sources that feel truer to you because they happen to align with your own biases.
Oh that that was true; I spent years investigating matters, uncovering many scoops along the way and doing my utmost to ensure that information was available to the wider media.
Oh that that was true; I spent years investigating matters, uncovering many scoops along the way and doing my utmost to ensure that information was available to the wider media.
Posting the Google image results of "Jimmy Saville and" isn't a scoop.
I quite like the idea that this is all Dan Brown's fault.
I quite like the idea that this is all Dan Brown’s fault.
Yeah, makes you think
I reckon if you took the phones off a test group of 'conspiracy theorists', within a year most would give up their beliefs without the constant serotonin rush of validation.
I spent years investigating matters, uncovering many scoops along the way and doing my utmost to ensure that information was available to the wider media.
Of course you did. Reality you found a few things were a bit different then perceived and that was already known.
Posting the Google image results of “Jimmy Saville and” isn’t a scoop
Chortle, guffaw...
I got out of the game when I realized that no one was going to publish details of how Mark Sedwill and Matthew Rycroft, the guys behind the Iraq dossier were 2 of the most senior permanent members of Her Majesty's Government.
Sedwill has since moved on mind, to Chair a Panel of the G7 after nomination by none other than our dear Prime Minister and man of the party people, Boris de Pfeffel
doing my utmost to ensure that information was available to the wider media.
What you post on here is some information that is pretty open ended, and then you insinuate the conclusion that you appear to want. Don't you see a problem with that?
I realized that no one was going to publish details of how Mark Sedwill and Matthew Rycroft, the guys behind the Ir
I thought everyone knew that was a stitch-up without bring them into it?
I got out of the game when I realized that no one was going to publish details of how Mark Sedwill and Matthew Rycroft, the guys behind the Iraq dossier were 2 of the most senior permanent members of Her Majesty’s Government.Sedwill has since moved on mind, to Chair a Panel of the G7 after nomination by none other than our dear Prime Minister and man of the party people, Boris de Pfeffel
Not being rude, but.... So what? A long time, senior diplomat/politician got another job as a senior diplomat/politician.
The main problem I see is a lack of curiousity and excessive acceptance of the status quo...
I thought everyone knew that was a stitch-up without bring them into it?
Yup. And that was at the time, not just in hindsight. That report was an obvious stitch up that resulted in many of us protesting at the time. Almost like people don't just take what the government say at face value when corroborating evidence from else where isn't available.
The main problem I see is a lack of curiousity and excessive acceptance of the status quo…
Really? Still don't see this amongst people I know in the slightest. Challenging and questioning the "status quo" can happened without clinging to nonsense just because it is contrary to the status quo.
Not being rude, but…. So what?
Exactly... without all the drama that comes from a media frenzy, a huge scandal can be swiftly dismissed and forgotten and business can continue as usual
Course, all the lives lost don't matter, they were brown people
Still, at least we got the Chilcot report...
no one was going to publish details of how Mark Sedwill and Matthew Rycroft, the guys behind the Iraq dossier
The idea that a report created (although containing fictitious information) to aide the govt's case to go to war was written by members of the same Govt is hardly a startling revelation. Is it?
The main problem I see is a lack of curiousity and excessive acceptance of the status quo…
For lots of folks just managing to feed themselves and keep their homes is enough of a struggle. You have to be in a position of some privilege to be able to spend the time and resources flicking the bean of your own curiosity. For others the shenanigans of some random individual on some other continent has so little bearing on their lives, it may as well be the plot of a novel.
Well, aside from the fact that there was a nigh on 20 year time period in between...
(during which time ££millions was spent with Chilcot and Pals doing their utmost to muddy the waters get to the truth)
Rather than being sacked, or even disciplined, they were constantly promoted, to the extent that Mark Sedwill was the most powerful man in Government, what with not being elected.
As they tend to remain in place regardless of who is elected, who vets civil servants and their career paths?
Jive, couple of questions
How old were you out the outbreak of the war in Iraq and secondly have you ever lived in a country that’s not a 1st world democracy for any significant length of time?
What's with the diversion?
I thought we were talking about civil servants...
Indulge me
Get back to me on the civil servant question and I might think about it 😉
, who vets civil servants and their career
Errrr....Jimmy Saville?
Rather than being sacked, or even disciplined, they were constantly promoted
do you think that was because of, or despite their supposed involvement, in the dossier? And do you think that they wrote it under direction, or complied it themselves under no one else’s direction? What about the parts that were plagiarised? Why didn’t they correct spelling mistakes? (These are after all two well educated men) Why does John Steel (the head of JIC) tell the Hutton enquiry that the wording of the report is “entirely my control” when according to you he didn’t write it?
Not sure why you say supposed involvement; it's plain to see:
(scroll down to page 7 for the source document)
http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/media/75951/2002-09-02-Letter-Sedwill-to-Rycroft-Iraq.pd f">Source document
That said, it's a good question; either scenario doesn't sit well...
(EDIT: I see you've edited and asked all sorts of questions, which is a good thing; we should all be asking questions of how this was allowed to happen)
see you’ve edited and asked all sorts of questions
care to speculate on a answer to any of them?
Nope, I think it's better to let the facts speak for themselves
Reminds me of lawyer woman who would not engage on a single point of detail.
Quite, your choosing a strategy to get your point ignored.
The main problem I see is a lack of curiousity and excessive acceptance of the status quo
We don't like it, the problem is that we don't know how to change it. And to be fair, neither do you based on form.
Nope, I think it’s better to let the facts speak for themselves
No you're going to have to do MUCH better than that. That sentence right there is a weaselly non-statement that does nothing to further the debate. It diminishes your position because it makes it look like you don't have anything solid; but it also opens the situation up to wild interpretation by those who are so inclined which is pretty damaging.
If you were walking past a house that was being burgled at the same time, and later someone posted CCTV footage of you being there, would you expect the police to arrest you, put you on trial with that photo as evidence and say 'let the facts speak to themselves' ?
Nope, I think it’s better to let the facts speak for themselves
trouble is, you don't have facts, all you do is uncritically re-post endless Twitter speculation (or gossip as most people would recognise it) context-free photos, innuendo, your own world view biases and conjunction fallacies. You're as much as a consumer as the rest of this forum. Oh and weirdly; similar to most really far-right nutbars, it nearly always ends up in a pedophile ring. That must be a co-incidence though, right?
I've provided way more facts than you... i.e. the source documents, which show clear involvement
I could further the debate with Mark Sedwill's background as a UN Weapon's inspector:
I don't pretend this subject matter is pretty, but that doesn't stop it being true, however much you try to derail.
Speaking of derailing this thread is being totally derailed, can we get back on topic please.
Wait, whut? The government commissioned a report on iraq and then got one of their mos senior civil servants with extensive experience of the region to comment that report before issuing it? And youve single handedly discovered this scoop? Holy ****ing shit this is DYNAMITE, why hasn't anyone raised this before? And where's your Pulitzer prize?
Srzly though you're exhibiting all the click bait, breadcrumb, I know more than you , attributes discussed earlier in the thread, if you've got a point just state it.
How many of these people that believe in sinister cabals and 5G microchips etc have a mobile phone? I'd wager close to 100%. In which case every single interaction you have online is probably easily identifiable to your particular device. Your location is tracked 24/7. Your spending habits, if you used Apple Pay/Google Pay etc. Your physical health, if you have a smar****ch.
The irony is in being part of all these conspiracy groups they're probably handing over far more personal information to Apple, Samsung, FB/YT et al than the government could ever get, even via Bill Gates's 5G microchips.
Certainly a tricky one... if any group was sufficiently subversive to pose a legtitimate threat to government, it would swiftly be infiltrated and led astray
The logical conclusion of which is you are o e of 'them'
Define 'them'