Just wondered if people on here are happy or unhappy at the general election result last week? I stayed up most of the night to watch the results come in.
It would be wonderful if we could have a calm, logical, reasoned political discussion on here that doesn't result in anger, name calling and the mods locking the thread
Come on guys lets prove we can do it!
Very soon, Labour will find themselves out of their depth given the scale of problems in the U.K. and the strong possibility of serious social unrest in the U.K. taking into account other problems outside of the U.K. - they will find themselves in a position where they will have no other option but to hand over all power to a provisional milltary government which will involve a national state of emergency, police state, martial law and curfews - the timescale for this is roughly 12-18 months from now, unless something really significant happens at the last moment behind the scenes to avert this from happening
Have you got a thing about men in uniform or something? Military rule seems to be your answer to everything!
*************************************
I pleased that the Tories are gone, I'm not happy at Reform getting seats, I'm happy that Galloway lost his. I think Starmer has hit the ground running and he needs too, I wonder if he's under-promised, so as he can dole out bits of help, like liftiing the 2 child benefit cap that will be seen as a success.
I think after two terms in office most governments run out of steam and need to be pushed aside, although I didn't like him, I though Blair did some good stuff in his first term in office, it was after that and his *** swinging with Presdident Bush was were it all went wrong.
I didn't vote Labour for several reasons and I'm waiting to see what they do for the next 4 or 5 years before deciding if they're a good or bad thing.
I simply believe that there is no longer any political nor democratic solution, given the harsh truths and lessons of reality taught to us during Covid, which itself was a watershed moment - we now know that democracy itself and the democratic process is too vulnerable to and is riddled with infiltration, hijacking and corruption of all kinds and at every level - we can never vote our way out of our current situation (and by voting we are allowing a criminal cartel to succeed) nor can we ever reform nor change an inherently corrupt and rotten system from within, regardless of how pure our intentions are and by those who we give our votes to, even if they are independent or non-party, which rotten and corrupt system needs to be allowed to collapse under the weight of its own corruption right down to its rotten foundations - we now know that regardless of the democratically expressed wishes of the people, political leaders are “selected not elected” - all of us need to simply walk away from the whole corrupt system that democracy and the democratic process has become because it only serves its globalist deep state masters, not the interests of ordinary people like us and simply uses “divide and rule” tactics to control all of us, if we allow it by playing any part in that circus of corruption that it has become - I truly believe that the best and most transparent form of government is by and under an absolute ruler, martinet, dictator or failing that, a provisional military government, because democracy and the democratic process is sustained by deception and corruption of all kinds and at every level
Recenlty I watched a video where a lady from the washington post addressed either the U.N or the W.E.F. and compalined that "the Alt media has taken away their power to shape the truth".
Or something that sounded exactly like that.
The (threatened) existing media machine has been caught repeatedly with it's pants down and the alt media is merciless in exposing it's widespread perfidy.
That particular hit piece suggests that conspiracy theories "incite violence", yet anyone who posesses a childs understanding of violent people know, they'll just find another reason to do violence.
As a fully radicallised but non-violent individual, I may well experience similar levels of outrage to the violent man about some of the true stories I've come across, but I express my rage by sarcasm and by being ready with the right bit of the truth, at the right time when people need to know.
Currently we are closer to nuclear annhilation by the russian federation than we were in the infamous "Cuban Missile Crisis", and they have put the missiles in place a few years ago, run excercises ever since and told us in no uncertain terms via the U.N. and that dipperlomacy stuff, that if we act in a way that threatens mother Russia existentially,they will use them.
Us giving the ukranians the means and support to blow up two (so far) Russian Fedration nuclear defence early warning radars inside russia like they have been doing, is covered by their doctrrine, and we really should stop doing it.
BUT you read or heard NONE of THAT easily verifiable factual information on the mainstream media, but they did install that alarm thingy on everyones phones and the government DID tell us just after the Russians moved those yars bateries into position, we should keep a certain amount of suplies on hand at all times...
I know a few things about military matters and I've played the excellent board game "Nuclear War" and I can tell it in terms of operating a motor vehicle safely.
Natos political/military situation right now resembles a a 1980's BMW 5 series that been recently fetched out of a garage after a LONG lay up to be the ride for a gang of coke heads being driven at speed head on towards one of those huge great trucks that pull the sarmat missiles about.
They think they are "playing chicken" whereas the other driver knows that his vehicle is too big to swerve, it's built to survive greater shock than a poorly driven BMW can inflict, so all he can do is lean on the horn and brace for impact whilst hoping some sense enters the other drivers head, or oen of teh pasenegrs oevr powers him and takes control of the wheel...
Kapisch?
"but if you have the capacity to do some research" - unfortunately many conspiracists believe searching the internet and watching flashy YouTube videos constitutes research. It doesn't. Of course we should apply critical thinking to the stuff we read and watch. But that doesn't mean tossing a well-formed explanation for the way things are because you can't empirically observe the evidence for it yourself. You do have to trust that there are enough people out there *who can indeed* repeat the experiment and get the same results, or that in the age of citizen journalism and a free press, complex fictions leak and fall apart. For example for the moon landings to be a hoax would require a conspiracy of silence by millions of ordinary people. It's not effective "critical thinking" to question whether we went to the moon, it's an ignorant rejection of the testimony of millions of people.
The reason why a position holds popular appeal, and is the "current consensus" is not because the "deep state" are controlling the narrative, it's just that's the way all the evidence points. And those who go against the consensus need strong evidence to the contrary. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But the moon-hoaxers, and flat-earthers have none. It's not "critical thinking" to examine a body of evidence and reject it out of hand *without counter-evidence*. It's just ignorance of how things work: the scientific method, replication of studies, the effort needed to perpetuate a lie among a large community of people.
LTTP, You say that like it's a bad thing!
I Sperg makes a very valid point.
While I disagree with most conspiracy theories for various reasons I do not dismiss them out of hand as I've experienced enough things in my life and working career to see behind the veneer of what we see presented to us (I worked in the government, civil service and a military contractor at stages of my life).
I know there is some substance to some of the conspiracy theories, not because of something I read on a blog or was told but from what I have seen / touched.
To always blindly accept what we are told is the path of a fool in my opinion. There may be times when it is expedient (eg policeman telling everyone to get off a train) but if you have the capacity to do some research then it often shows shades of truth to create an outcome.
Live and let live, that's the way. Besides when there is a thunderstorm then the tinfoil hat brigade will all get zapped anyway ;)
LTTP, You say that like it's a bad thing!
I Sperg makes a very valid point.
While I disagree with most conspiracy theories for various reasons I do not dismiss them out of hand as I've experienced enough things in my life and working career to see behind the veneer of what we see presented to us (I worked in the government, civil service and a military contractor at stages of my life).
I know there is some substance to some of the conspiracy theories, not because of something I read on a blog or was told but from what I have seen / touched.
To always blindly accept what we are told is the path of a fool in my opinion. There may be times when it is expedient (eg policeman telling everyone to get off a train) but if you have the capacity to do some research then it often shows shades of truth to create an outcome.
Live and let live, that's the way. Besides when there is a thunderstorm then the tinfoil hat brigade will all get zapped anyway ;)
"but if you have the capacity to do some research" - unfortunately many conspiracists believe searching the internet and watching flashy YouTube videos constitutes research. It doesn't. Of course we should apply critical thinking to the stuff we read and watch. But that doesn't mean tossing a well-formed explanation for the way things are because you can't empirically observe the evidence for it yourself. You do have to trust that there are enough people out there *who can indeed* repeat the experiment and get the same results, or that in the age of citizen journalism and a free press, complex fictions leak and fall apart. For example for the moon landings to be a hoax would require a conspiracy of silence by millions of ordinary people. It's not effective "critical thinking" to question whether we went to the moon, it's an ignorant rejection of the testimony of millions of people.
The reason why a position holds popular appeal, and is the "current consensus" is not because the "deep state" are controlling the narrative, it's just that's the way all the evidence points. And those who go against the consensus need strong evidence to the contrary. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But the moon-hoaxers, and flat-earthers have none. It's not "critical thinking" to examine a body of evidence and reject it out of hand *without counter-evidence*. It's just ignorance of how things work: the scientific method, replication of studies, the effort needed to perpetuate a lie among a large community of people.
