British Democracy Forum - View Single Post

aarable · 18-03-2008, 08:21 PM

I became alerted to the existence of BDF only this February, when ‘Google Alert’provided notice of malicious posting against me on this forum, otherwise I should have continued in blissful ignorance.

I consider I have, based on results over 12 years, been a relatively successful and tenacious campaigners against the EU in my vicinity, and, to some extent, had a positive impact at a national level as well. If I had not come under ‘attack’, as I have on this forum and elsewhere, then I would consider my endeavours unproductive. That is the upside of the nastiness we sometimes receive as reward.

Anyway for your information, I decided to enrol in BDF with a view to providing readership information substantiated from researches. Where there is speculation, I shall say so; providing a probability of authenticity based on the evidence or sometimes intuition (not an aspect to always be ignored). I am not particularly given to debate on this forum due to the presence of certain assets who are uninterested in advancing initiatives that might lead to ‘damage’ to the EU and its apologists in this country; I confine debating (and planning initiatives) to my friends and colleagues on the internet.

I have to say, though, that since my enrolment at the end of February, I have quickly formed the view that this site is misnamed and would be better known as the ‘British Disinformation Forum’. This is not a reproach to the good chap who invented this thing, but a reproach to those disinformation assets of the Foreign and Colonial Office (and others), an organisation that has agitated and worked against the best interests of the people of this country since at least 1970. The proof, by their own hand, is to be found in the records released under the 30 year rule - how stupid they were not to burn them, but then they were, and still are, arrogant and strutting people. They must have thought dissent would have been suppressed by now.

David Noakes has his faults, don’t we all, but he has a heart of gold, and has put his finger on 5 disinformation specialists. I am aware of two of these (operating in consort), though I could be wrong – they may just be bitter and vindictive. If so, I feel sorry for them, and forgive them. If they are, on the other hand, as DN believes: assets, then they will receive a hard time on this forum.

My rules for this forum (or any other) is never to rubbish people’s input, only respond with reasoned argument (or none) as my long and successful professional engineering career has found worked so well; people are human beings in the most part and deserve respect and consideration, no matter how insignificant or lowly their contribution. I will never diminish people with belittling comments about conspiracy theories, lizards, people who dress in traditional Cossack dress etc. I will never use juxtaposition techniques, taught in all the best disinformation schools, to falsely associate good people with known baddies.

I will end, with what will be rare involvement with comment on this site, with something for those who have been taught to dismiss inconvenient post, by referring to it as: ‘conspiracy theory’:

When this sort of language is used, it signals but one thing - the user has run out of ideas or never had any in the first place. There is a vocabulary current, employed to diminish and to close down discussion, used when facts or line of discussion have become inconvenient.

They should read an enlightened book by Robin Ramsay at £9.99, called simply: Conspiracy Theories.

Here are a few excerpts:

‘ .…….. to talk of conspiracy is to risk being called a conspiracy theorist; and to be so described is the kiss of death, the intellectual equivalent of being labelled a child molester.

- ‘The unquestionable belief, on the other hand: 'As usual the c**k up theory of politics turns out to be true' (Sean Gabb in his book; 'Cultural Revolution, Cultural War', is clear that the ruling class know full well what they are at).

- ‘Belief in the c**k-up theory of history and politics is at the heart of what passes for political and intellectual sophistication in liberal democracies. ......... The subtext here is: only ignorant simpletons believe the world can be explained by conspiracies.

- ‘It is [only] false information and poor or non-existent attention to rules of evidence which discredit the classic conspiracy theory.

I await the expected disinformation attack on this post from the usual culprits – but they can be assured that they can say what they like – I shall not respond.

They would be wise, however, to refrain from an attack, because everyone would then know that there is no real interest there in defeating our EU dragon.

18-03-2008, 08:21 PM	#27 (permalink)
aarable Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 109	Conspiracy theories and other put downs I became alerted to the existence of BDF only this February, when ‘Google Alert’provided notice of malicious posting against me on this forum, otherwise I should have continued in blissful ignorance. I consider I have, based on results over 12 years, been a relatively successful and tenacious campaigners against the EU in my vicinity, and, to some extent, had a positive impact at a national level as well. If I had not come under ‘attack’, as I have on this forum and elsewhere, then I would consider my endeavours unproductive. That is the upside of the nastiness we sometimes receive as reward. Anyway for your information, I decided to enrol in BDF with a view to providing readership information substantiated from researches. Where there is speculation, I shall say so; providing a probability of authenticity based on the evidence or sometimes intuition (not an aspect to always be ignored). I am not particularly given to debate on this forum due to the presence of certain assets who are uninterested in advancing initiatives that might lead to ‘damage’ to the EU and its apologists in this country; I confine debating (and planning initiatives) to my friends and colleagues on the internet. I have to say, though, that since my enrolment at the end of February, I have quickly formed the view that this site is misnamed and would be better known as the ‘British Disinformation Forum’. This is not a reproach to the good chap who invented this thing, but a reproach to those disinformation assets of the Foreign and Colonial Office (and others), an organisation that has agitated and worked against the best interests of the people of this country since at least 1970. The proof, by their own hand, is to be found in the records released under the 30 year rule - how stupid they were not to burn them, but then they were, and still are, arrogant and strutting people. They must have thought dissent would have been suppressed by now. David Noakes has his faults, don’t we all, but he has a heart of gold, and has put his finger on 5 disinformation specialists. I am aware of two of these (operating in consort), though I could be wrong – they may just be bitter and vindictive. If so, I feel sorry for them, and forgive them. If they are, on the other hand, as DN believes: assets, then they will receive a hard time on this forum. My rules for this forum (or any other) is never to rubbish people’s input, only respond with reasoned argument (or none) as my long and successful professional engineering career has found worked so well; people are human beings in the most part and deserve respect and consideration, no matter how insignificant or lowly their contribution. I will never diminish people with belittling comments about conspiracy theories, lizards, people who dress in traditional Cossack dress etc. I will never use juxtaposition techniques, taught in all the best disinformation schools, to falsely associate good people with known baddies. I will end, with what will be rare involvement with comment on this site, with something for those who have been taught to dismiss inconvenient post, by referring to it as: ‘*conspiracy theory’: When this sort of language is used, it signals but one thing - the user has run out of ideas or never had any in the first place. There is a vocabulary current, employed to diminish and to close down discussion, used when facts or line of discussion have become inconvenient. They should read an enlightened book by Robin Ramsay at £9.99, called simply: Conspiracy Theories. Here are a few excerpts: ‘ .…….. to talk of conspiracy is to risk being called a conspiracy theorist; and to be so described is the kiss of death, the intellectual equivalent of being labelled a child molester. - ‘The unquestionable belief, on the other hand: 'As usual the ck up theory of politics turns out to be true'* (Sean Gabb in his book; 'Cultural Revolution, Cultural War', is clear that the ruling class know full well what they are at). - ‘Belief in the ck-up theory of history and politics is at the heart of what passes for political and intellectual sophistication in liberal democracies. ......... The subtext here is: only ignorant simpletons believe the world can be explained by conspiracies. - ‘It is [only] false information and poor or non-existent attention to rules of evidence which discredit the classic conspiracy theory. I await the expected disinformation attack on this post from the usual culprits – but they can be assured that they can say what they like – I shall not respond. They would be wise, however, to refrain from an attack, because everyone would then know that there is no real interest there in defeating our EU dragon. Last edited by aarable; 18-03-2008 at 08:33 PM.