The Conspiracy Thread

[Norsemaiden]

Its very important to realize the importance of ocean salinity, especially in terms of the North Atlantic Deep Water Current. This, essentially, allows for a temperate climate in Europe, Russia, and North America (and similar latitudes).

Polar melting disrupts ocean salinity, which at some point will cross a threshold and essentially invert this current, triggering glacial expansion, mostly likely across the northern latitudes mentioned (Ice Age).

The frightening thing about this is that its not gradual- its a threshold. If the salinity reaches a point, it more or less "snaps". Severe climate change could be very rapid after this point (measured in terms of months, not decades).

Yes - the Gulf stream is slowing substantially and that will have dramatic results just as you say.

CLIMATE change researchers have detected the first signs of a slowdown in the Gulf Stream — the mighty ocean current that keeps Britain and Europe from freezing.
They have found that one of the “engines” driving the Gulf Stream — the sinking of supercooled water in the Greenland Sea — has weakened to less than a quarter of its former strength.

The weakening, apparently caused by global warming, could herald big changes in the current over the next few years or decades. Paradoxically, it could lead to Britain and northwestern and Europe undergoing a sharp drop in temperatures.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article520013.ece

"Models show that if it shuts down completely, 20 years later, the temperature is 4C to 6C degrees cooler over the UK and north-western Europe," Dr Bryden said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,3605,1654803,00.html

The global warming elsewhere would continue.

Even if a slowdown in the current put the brakes on warming over Britain and parts of Europe, the impact [of continued warming] would be felt more extremely elsewhere, he said.

This is the most up to date reference I could find - from 2 Feb 2007
http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/jamesdneovi

 

[Justin S.]

Its interesting that "offical" predictions are nearly always a comfortably padded "future" that we "don't have to worry about just yet" or truly take seriously- 30, 50, 100 years down the line, no worries (oh, well, you might want to think about a more efficient car [which won't do jack shit])...

Whether its fusion reactors, alternative fuels, technological singularity, population crisis, global warming, flying cars and the jetsons... its 30-50 years out. It was in 1950, it is in 2007. How fucking convenient.

So, we have alarmists for whom its always a "now", and those in denial for whom its "30-50 years" .

 

[Norsemaiden]

Its interesting that "offical" predictions are nearly always a comfortably padded "future" that we "don't have to worry about just yet" or truly take seriously- 30, 50, 100 years down the line, no worries (oh, well, you might want to think about a more efficient car [which won't do jack shit])...

Whether its fusion reactors, alternative fuels, technological singularity, population crisis, global warming, flying cars and the jetsons... its 30-50 years out. It was in 1950, it is in 2007. How fucking convenient.

So, we have alarmists for whom its always a "now", and those in denial for whom its "30-50 years" .

The alarmists are probably trying to wake up the ones in denial! But so many reports say that we have less than 10 years to do something drastic or else the point of no return will have been reached, and it is too late to save the planet.

The government is always at pains not to panic people, because there are always economic and social control issues. If millions of people realise that the area they live in will be flooded in a decade or so, then they will immediately want to sell up and houses in that area will be worthless. That sort of thing influences the way the facts are officially presented to the masses.

There are all sorts of facts kept from the public for fear of adverse reactions - and I am not just talking about climate change.

 

[Norsemaiden]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc

This BBC report is said to show the reporting of the collapse of building number 7, before it actually did collapse. The suggestion is that they were told it was going to, and they got their timing wrong.

 

[RookParliament]

You are all fools!!! Learn the truth and let your mind EXPAND!!!

http://www.timecube.com/

 

[Norsemaiden]

WHY IS IT THAT A FEW DAYS AFTER GETTING THIS POST TOGETHER WITH LINKS THAT WORKED, NOW ONLY THE LAST LINK WORKS?

One of them is still on the site but has been changed to another URL. Why?

MODERN HERESY: DIVERSITY CAUSES CONFLICT

The existence of “race” has been questioned, - yet the existence of ETHNIC DIVERSITY is undisputed.

"We found an enormous amount of diversity within and between the African populations, and we found much less diversity in non-African populations,"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0125073157.htm

Africa has always been a war-ravaged continent. Can there ever be peace in Africa?

Study paints bleak picture of ethnic diversity.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/c4ac4a74-570...0779e2340.html
“His [Harvard Professor Robert Putnam’s] research shows that the more diverse a community is, the less likely its inhabitants are to trust anyone – from their next-door neighbour to the mayor.”

So perhaps the question should be: Can there ever be peace anywhere ever again, thanks to immigration? And: how long until we have the same violence and corruption over the whole world?

Discrimination and Ethnic Nepotism
http://conservationfinance.wordpress...hnic-nepotism/
“We all discriminate all the time.”
“An abundance of research has shown that people tend to give preferential treatment to others who are genetically similar to themselves, whether they’re actual blood relatives or simply share an ethnic background.”

How well we treat others depends upon how much such behavior benefits copies of our genes .
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/
“Kin selection theory predicts that animals are more likely to behave altruistically towards their relatives than towards unrelated members of their species.”
Science agrees: “The importance of kinship for the evolution of altruism is very widely accepted today, on both theoretical and empirical grounds.”

We should not fight nature or try to change nature. The more homogeneous a society is the more peaceful it is. History proves this time and time again, yet this is a modern heresy.

The consequences of not facing these facts can only be catastrophic.

 

[speed]

I

 

[speed]

Is the neo-conservative philosophy a Zionist philosophy? The Prima Facie evidence seems to support such a claim. The founders of Neo-conservatism are Irving Kristol and Norman Podhertz, the current leaders are Robert Kagan and William Kristol (with Wolfowicz, fading into the background, and a list of other very jewish supporters: Perle, Abrams, etc).

Lets look at the evidence of neo-conservatives. On a foreign policy front, they have a total occupation with protecting Israel in any way possible. In fact, American foreign policy now seems obsessed with protecting Israel, and using Israeli tactics to fight terrorism, conduct diplomacy, solve problems, and respond to critics.

I have no problems with the jewish race, and think anti-semitism despicable; however, I have now run into this argument from a number of non-Americans. So, I did a little research, and besides Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld, well, I have to say, this conspiracy looks more and more compelling. Many leading commentators have made such a claim. And finally, my dislike of the whole idea of the zionism of neo-cons, is because I find Israel's actions and policy, despicable and deplorable.

 

[Silver Incubus]

sem·i·tism (sěm'ĭ-tĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. A Semitic word or idiom.
2. Semitic traits, attributes, or customs.
3. A policy or predisposition in favor of Jews.

This last definition would make me anti semitic just because I in no way favor jews or the jewish religion/culture.

 

[OldScratch]

Is the neo-conservative philosophy a Zionist philosophy? The Prima Facie evidence seems to support such a claim. The founders of Neo-conservatism are Irving Kristol and Norman Podhertz, the current leaders are Robert Kagan and William Kristol (with Wolfowicz, fading into the background, and a list of other very jewish supporters: Perle, Abrams, etc).

Lets look at the evidence of neo-conservatives. On a foreign policy front, they have a total occupation with protecting Israel in any way possible. In fact, American foreign policy now seems obsessed with protecting Israel, and using Israeli tactics to fight terrorism, conduct diplomacy, solve problems, and respond to critics.

I have no problems with the jewish race, and think anti-semitism despicable; however, I have now run into this argument from a number of non-Americans. So, I did a little research, and besides Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld, well, I have to say, this conspiracy looks more and more compelling. Many leading commentators have made such a claim. And finally, my dislike of the whole idea of the zionism of neo-cons, is because I find Israel's actions and policy, despicable and deplorable.

"With the end of the Cold War, what we really need is an obvious ideological and threatening enemy, one worthy of our mettle, one that can unite us in opposition." -Irving Kristol 1996

"Radical Islam" anyone??? Sounds like a conspiracy in the making to me...

 

[Norsemaiden]

Is the neo-conservative philosophy a Zionist philosophy? The Prima Facie evidence seems to support such a claim. The founders of Neo-conservatism are Irving Kristol and Norman Podhertz, the current leaders are Robert Kagan and William Kristol (with Wolfowicz, fading into the background, and a list of other very jewish supporters: Perle, Abrams, etc).

Lets look at the evidence of neo-conservatives. On a foreign policy front, they have a total occupation with protecting Israel in any way possible. In fact, American foreign policy now seems obsessed with protecting Israel, and using Israeli tactics to fight terrorism, conduct diplomacy, solve problems, and respond to critics.

I have no problems with the jewish race, and think anti-semitism despicable; however, I have now run into this argument from a number of non-Americans. So, I did a little research, and besides Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld, well, I have to say, this conspiracy looks more and more compelling. Many leading commentators have made such a claim. And finally, my dislike of the whole idea of the zionism of neo-cons, is because I find Israel's actions and policy, despicable and deplorable.

Yes the neo cons are quite openly Zionist.
They differ from the traditional right in ways that fit with Zionism also such as being pro gun control and pro immigration.

Here is a video from the BBC with a bunch of neocons explaining who they are and what they want to do. Most of them have dual-citizenship with israel.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6453738561338241311

 

[speed]

Yes the neo cons are quite openly Zionist.
They differ from the traditional right in ways that fit with Zionism also such as being pro gun control and pro immigration.

Here is a video from the BBC with a bunch of neocons explaining who they are and what they want to do. Most of them have dual-citizenship with israel.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6453738561338241311

Excellent article on the pro-Israel American lobby: http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2007/03/20/aipac/

Apparently, the second most powerful lobby in the US.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Excellent article on the pro-Israel American lobby: http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2007/03/20/aipac/

Apparently, the second most powerful lobby in the US.

Yes that is a good article. Were I a Jew I would be terrified and furious with what the neocons and AIPAC are doing. Haven't the Jews suffered enough pogroms throughout history to know that this kind of behaviour creates a deadly oppostion to them? An opposition which may not bother to distinguish the guilty from the innocent! All Jews may well not support AIPAC, but such are the consequences of what AIPAC is doing, that all Jews should fear being tarred with the same brush. They must do all they can to put things right.

 

[OldScratch]

Yes that is a good article. Were I a Jew I would be terrified and furious with what the neocons and AIPAC are doing. Haven't the Jews suffered enough pogroms throughout history to know that this kind of behaviour creates a deadly oppostion to them? An opposition which may not bother to distinguish the guilty from the innocent! All Jews may well not support AIPAC, but such are the consequences of what AIPAC is doing, that all Jews should fear being tarred with the same brush. They must do all they can to put things right.

Living as I do in New York, an epicenter of all things Hebrew(10%of the state's population - indeed nearly 30% of all Jews in the US reside in New York), I know and have known many Jewish folks.
Generally speaking I cannot figure out where most Jews I know stand politically - PERIOD! It's unlike anything I've experienced with anyone else. To an individual, they become very uncomfortable discussing policy, politics, etc.(though a few seem to favor the Libertarian Party message in loose terms) Trying to get a read on where they stand on AIPAC or Zionism - even Israel itself is like pulling-teeth. It's really odd and I've seen this for years. Most(but not all) of these tend to be more socially Conservative folks, but when anything to do with Middle-East policy, etc. arises...they clam-up completely, even in this supposed age of "Terror" and whatnot.
I wonder if some are afraid to speak against this Zionist foolishness lest they be dressed-down by their own as a "self-hating" Jew or some such?(Look at what is said of Norm Finkelstein who dared question what he terms "The Holocaust Industry")
It really creates an odd dynamic and I believe Norsemaiden is quite right - if Jews themsleves don't pipe-up about this Neocon/Zionist kookery, folks will become suspicious as to where their loyalties lie. Yet, even many Liberal Jews - but for a few vocal anti-war activist types - remain largely silent. Note the earger participation of the supposedly anti-war Democrat presidential hopefulls in a recent conference in Israel, where Clinton, Edwards, etc. were falling all over themselves to be more openly hawkish than the next on the matter of putting down Iran!

 

[Norsemaiden]

The devastating implications of a US strike on Iran are clear. And that begs the question: how could the US public be convinced to enter another potentially ugly and protracted war?

Former CIA Officer Philip Giraldi chillingly noted that the Pentagon's plans to attack Iran were drawn up "to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States." Writing in The American Conservative in August 2005, Giraldi added, "The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites ... As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States."

Chew on that one a minute. The Pentagon's plan would be in response to a terrorist attack on the US, but not contingent upon Iran actually having been responsible. How outlandish is this scenario: another 9/11 hits the US, the administration says it has secret information implicating Iran, the US population demands retribution and bombs start dropping on Tehran.

While even contemplating another 9/11 brings shudders, it's worth noting that last year, Congress quietly approved provisions making it easier for the President to declare federal martial law after a domestic terrorist incident. And recall that in late 2003, General Tommy Franks openly speculated on how a new 9/11 could lead to a military form of government: "a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world - it may be in the United States of America - that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution."

Meanwhile, Iran conducted war games in the Persian Gulf last week and just yesterday, the US Navy began its largest maneuvers in the region since the 2003 Iraq invasion, complete with over 100 US warplanes and 10,000 personnel.

The clock is ticking, and there's far too much at stake.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17440.htm

 

[derbeder]

i don't see why this thread in particular should be a sticky. too many stickies tend to clutter up the top of the page and that doesn't look that great. i will remove it from here unless anyone really objects.

 

[speed]

i don't see why this thread in particular should be a sticky. too many stickies tend to clutter up the top of the page and that doesn't look that great. i will remove it from here unless anyone really objects.

Well, the purpose of this thread was to act as sort of a stop-gap or collector of all conspiracy or other similar type ideas and threads posted on this board--to free up discussion and threads for more philosophical matters. Hence, if one made statements about anti-semitic conspiracies, aliens, etc, they used to be closed and then cut and pasted on this thread.

 

[derbeder]

i understand the purpose of the thread, and see that there may be a need for this sort of thread given the interests of some of the posters. yet i don't see why it should be a sticky. if anyone wants to spin off conspiracy theories, they could post them here. it just doesn't have to be staring at us in the face every time we come to this board.
i'm unstickying it now, but anyone's welcome to give a good reason to make it a sticky again.

 

[CatwomanEarache]

I'm not sure what makes something sticky or not, but has anyone ever read or seen any of David Ickes stuff? Basically he was a news reader/sports presenter in the 80's, I vaguely remember him being dropped by the Tv stations for being a "loony" or someone who had lost the plot, but recently hes been given some exposure and its amazing how some of the the things he says now make sense. Ive not read the book dont get a lot of time but worth a look for anyone who thinks maybe conspiricies/ government cover ups do exist. DavidIcke.com

 

[CatwomanEarache]

During the Falklands War, which was a waste of time and lives in my opinion, there was a song out by Massive Attack, and on the radio stations they had to give the artist as "massive" as you couldnt say attack while the war was going on, how silly is that?? My favourite conspiracy and Ive always wondered it even before all this stuff became popular was did man ever land on the moon or was it in a film studio somewhere? Answers on a post card please