The Conspiracy Theory
Comments
-
Manc33 wrote:Lets see how Tony Blair reacts when asked about Bilderberg Group...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQf2-3EiAxs
He can't tell you any more, all his other lies are classified.
Good question:
"Do you not think that your involvement in the Bilderberg group is somehow a vested interest?!"
Giant leap of faith [fill in missing links, pun intended]
Jump from Bilderberg question in a handy <2m clip to:
Suggestions that due to T Blair's involvement in the Bilderberg group, the 7/7 bombings were a conspiracy.
Unfortunate because the Bilderberg question has now been shattered by the lack of authenticity in the follow up. So these conspirators simply add some credibility to the perpetrators/orchestrator's of the Iraq war.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Kieran_Burns wrote:I believe you were taking me too seriously.
You mean I took something most people would regard as a joke deadly seriously, and started to construct an elaborate scenario around it? Well, that just makes me a typical conspiracy theorist!Kieran_Burns wrote:I was talking about pooing standing up.
Sounds like Reptilian behaviour to me...0 -
The vaccine thing was more about the Government forcing vaccines on people, making it illegal not to take it, making mothers sign waivers for their children to opt out of it and so on. Then there's the fact that vaccines had mercury in, which they called "Thiomersal" to distract away from the fact that is contains mercury. Clever, but not clever enough to fool everyone. They routinely do this with drugs, they call Prozac "Fluoxetine" hoping you won't type it in the internet, most people probably don't and are oblivious to what they are even taking, makes me shudder.0
-
Here's one you can't explain - when the Government wanted us all to have ID cards, they tried to push it through Parliament seventeen times before they stopped asking us to have ID cards.
So how come they have to be told "no" seventeen times before they stop asking for something?
Even a child would only ask for something maybe three or four times, for them to understand it is final.
These people aren't representing anyone except their masters, of whom they are infinitely more fearful than anyone that is "voting" for them.
As one astute gentleman once said, you could pick people at random to run the Government and it would run better. The Government everyone currently enjoys enduring only exists to make sure the public never has a legitimately operating one, with transparency. For example, politicians should not have any privacy whatsoever because of the nature of their work (affecting the lives of millions of people) and if you don't agree with that, you don't get to be a politician, because there's hundreds of thousands of other perfectly capable people we can replace people like that with.0 -
Capt Slog wrote:Manc33 wrote:Then there's the fact that vaccines had mercury in, which they called "Thiomersal" to distract away from the fact that is contains mercury.
No.
They call it thiomersal because that's it's name. What are we supposed to call it?
Ethyl(2-mercaptobenzoato-(2-)-O,S) mercurate(1-) sodium
If you say that three times in a row while looking in the mirror, it will summon a Reptilian.0 -
Manc33 wrote:The vaccine thing was more about the Government forcing vaccines on people, making it illegal not to take it, making mothers sign waivers for their children to opt out of it and so on. Then there's the fact that vaccines had mercury in, which they called "Thiomersal" to distract away from the fact that is contains mercury. Clever, but not clever enough to fool everyone. They routinely do this with drugs, they call Prozac "Fluoxetine" hoping you won't type it in the internet, most people probably don't and are oblivious to what they are even taking, makes me shudder.
If it is unnerving you to that extent, get yourself to your GP, he could prescribe something.0 -
RDW wrote:Capt Slog wrote:Manc33 wrote:Then there's the fact that vaccines had mercury in, which they called "Thiomersal" to distract away from the fact that is contains mercury.
No.
They call it thiomersal because that's it's name. What are we supposed to call it?
Ethyl(2-mercaptobenzoato-(2-)-O,S) mercurate(1-) sodium
If you say that three times in a row while looking in the mirror, it will summon a Reptilian.
Bollox. My jaw cramped up mid-way. I shall never know.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Ballysmate wrote:Manc33 wrote:The vaccine...cod stuff...shudder[/b].
If it is unnerving you to that extent, get yourself to your GP, he could prescribe something.
Yeah right. Then they can control you from any angle.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Actually he's got a point. I've just realised - there is a massive conspiracy to conceal that fact that beer has mostly water in it, by calling it 'beer' :shock:Capt Slog wrote:Manc33 wrote:Then there's the fact that vaccines had mercury in, which they called "Thiomersal" to distract away from the fact that is contains mercury.
No.
They call it thiomersal because that's it's name. What are we supposed to call it? "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Water? Doesn't that contain hydrogen?0
-
I just saw a video (via a recommended link from one of manc33s videos) and it turns out Avril lavigne is a reptilian, I used to quite fancy her when I was younger, is that still OK now she's not human?www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0
-
..and the Thermite. Don't forget the Thermite...pinarello001 wrote:RDW wrote:Water? Doesn't that contain hydrogen?
...and oxygen.
I think Stevo is trying to make bombs to defeat the mogul(s?).0 -
Wunnunda wrote:
..and the Thermite. Don't forget the Thermite...pinarello001 wrote:RDW wrote:Water? Doesn't that contain hydrogen?
...and oxygen.
I think Stevo is trying to make bombs to defeat the mogul(s?).
Is that like Marmite but more volatile?seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Like Marmite. But hotter.0
-
0 -
I thought those Aussies were into that contraband 'Vegemite'?seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
-
Manc33 wrote:Here's one you can't explain - when the Government wanted us all to have ID cards, they tried to push it through Parliament seventeen times before they stopped asking us to have ID cards.
So how come they have to be told "no" seventeen times before they stop asking for something?
Even a child would only ask for something maybe three or four times, for them to understand it is final.
These people aren't representing anyone except their masters, of whom they are infinitely more fearful than anyone that is "voting" for them.
As one astute gentleman once said, you could pick people at random to run the Government and it would run better. .
OK - let's see if I've got this right.
The government (who have a majority in parliament) aren't representing anyone but their masters.
The masters want ID cards so that they can control us even more than they already are.
The ID bill gets voted down 17 times (according to you).
How did that happen? I know it must be complex being a master with all the things that you have to manipulate and there can't be many of them...but 17 times! Heads will roll at Masters Towers...0 -
The sheeple who don't know the Truth probably think that the rocky progress of the ID card legislation was perfectly normal for a controversial policy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_C ... e_progress
We conspiracy theorists know differently. There are, of course, two warring factions vying for control of Parliament. At the time, the House of Commons was controlled by the Illuminati, who wanted ID cards as part of their sinister plan to impose the New World Order. The Lords, on the other hand, are mostly Reptilians, and are opposed to widespread use of biometrics that might reveal their evil lizard features. Eventually, the two factions formed an uneasy truce, abandoning ID cards in favour of a much more sophisticated scheme that would require everyone to carry a 'smart phone' that tracked their movements, contacts, conversations and internet access all of the time. I hear this is proceeding according to plan...0 -
Stop it, you know that Manc's head will probably explode when he reads thisRDW wrote:We conspiracy theorists know differently. There are, of course, two warring factions vying for control of Parliament. At the time, the House of Commons was controlled by the Illuminati, who wanted ID cards as part of their sinister plan to impose the New World Order. The Lords, on the other hand, are mostly Reptilians, and are opposed to widespread use of biometrics that might reveal their evil lizard features. Eventually, the two factions formed an uneasy truce, abandoning ID cards in favour of a much more sophisticated scheme that would require everyone to carry a 'smart phone' that tracked their movements, contacts, conversations and internet access all of the time. I hear this is proceeding according to plan... "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
pinarello001 wrote:I thought those Aussies were into that contraband 'Vegemite'?
0 -
You're all safe for now. We won't be inserting the cranial implants until Phase 2.Wunnunda wrote:0 -
What gets me about the ID card thing not going through... what was so different about that seventeenth time that they did stop asking?
Whatever it was, I think it needs noting for future reference. Steps could be taken to ensure that it never happens again, as they say to us. If you ask for something five times and get told no five times and you ask again, that is already ludicrous, you'd be getting funny looks, but asking seventeen flaming times?
Listening isn't their strong point, that's for certain. That is just off the charts and I think extremely unprofessional. It proves they have an agenda going against the will of the people. The only thing they actually have left protecting their evil agenda is the fact that people call it a conspiracy theory that there is an agenda, but I think enough people have investigated enough stuff by now to see what's going on, for it not to even matter anymore even if a majority think it is not true. A majority of teenagers back in 1995 probably bought Spice Girls singles, what does it matter, they are kids, who cares what they think and so it is the same with conspiracies, most people just think "Haha the UFO crowd" like that is all there is to it.
All it takes is someone coming along and saying "By the way chaps this is all a conspiracy theory" and that would be it, everyone would automatically believe him (choosing to, going off no facts at all) and shy away thinking "Thank god for that, I was starting to feel unfashionable there".
Most people live in a state of mind where as long as they aren't being laughed at by their mates for what they think, they are doing well. Sorry to have to break it like this but that is what allows all the bad stuff to take place, people pretending it isn't happening, laughing at it etc. Can't look into that, what would my mates think lol. You could just have a mind of your own though.
Its the same with terrorism, you can get taken in by it or you can ask questions. For example a bunch of Palestinians on the news throwing rocks at Jewish cars, but the news doesn't tell you why those Palestinians are so angry, or why they are throwing the rocks. Do you really accept the answer "Oh they are just nutcases" lol. If you do then you deserve to get lied to, because you're perfectly happy to not look any deeper into anything and believe anything based on no facts as long as a mainstream news programme or newspaper told you it. I suggest listening to Ken O'Keefe where that is concerned. Its the only time you'll hear that side of the story on the news, that is... the news channels that dare to have him on.0 -
The sheeple will point you to the Wikipedia link above, which records 7 (not 17) significant votes against the Government amending various aspects of the ID card legislation, all of them in the House of Lords. They might wonder why you think it's a good idea to let the Lords block the manifesto commitments of a democratically elected government, and note that after the usual political bickering, the legislation was passed back in 2006. They'll tell you that some people (foreign nationals) actually received ID cards, and that wider rollout was planned from 2011. They'll probably also have you believe that the only reason we don't have them today was the 2010 general election, which supposedly brought in a new Government that legislated to scrap ID cards.Manc33 wrote:What gets me about the ID card thing not going through... what was so different about that seventeenth time that they did stop asking?
We know differently, of course. Like all elections, 2010 was obviously a sham and the result was decided in advance by the Bilderberg Group. The Government was instructed to scrap the legislation by the ruling cabal of the Reptilian/Illuminati alliance, who had negotiated a truce after agreeing to install a Reptilian Prime Minister, David Cameron: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... n-a-lizard0 -
Manc33 wrote:blah blah blah
I'm guessing you have watched a YouTube video recently about ID cards, as with some things on youtube it appears not to be based on the truth, that is the problem where people can say what they like online with little to no regulation.
If you looked (a 10 second Google search would do it) you'd know there were no where near 17 votes and it wasn't rejected the last time (flies in the face of your theory about being stupid to ask more than 5 times). It had begun being rolled out when the government changed and abandoned it.
Do you accept you were wrong on this one?
As for the middle east conflict, I have not heard the news favour one side over the other, do you think this is unduly biased?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28252155www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
Take a look at Israel, where Palestinians are kept in one area because a big wall surrounds the city, or made to wait in cages for hours when they are just trying to get to work. Look at the extreme racism going on there and please, go ahead, link to a BBC report on it.
To answer the earlier post...
Quoting Wikipedia isn't much use, anyone can edit it.
Lets suppose it was seven times, not seventeen - how would that change the childishness of asking for something over and over again when they have already been told no six times over? This is why I say we are dealing with a bunch of Ben Linus types where they just persevere regardless, because they are sticking to an agenda that's why. If they weren't, what's the problem? Why try to push something through that many times when it is crystal clear that the public does not want it by that point? Why do they ignorantly carry on asking? Are they demented? Only when it suits. :roll:
I can understand how people have to make alien jokes and so on, space crocodiles lol... but how the hell else are you going to deal with it? You can't take it seriously because that might mean having to take it seriously... yep, I used to react the same way. Thats the way you're persuaded to react by social "norms".0 -
The Conspiracy has also set up some sort of fake disinformation website where they pretend you can read the actual content of all the debates in the Houses of Parliament:Manc33 wrote:
Quoting Wikipedia isn't much use, anyone can edit it.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/hansard/
It probably just supports what you'll read on Wikipedia, so I wouldn't bother with it if I were you - Youtube is a much more reliable source of information.
Well, the fiction the Conspiracy puts forward is that everyone just votes about the issues, and stuff only gets passed if there's a majority in favour of it. This time around, They had engineered things so that the ruling party only appeared to have a relatively small majority. Even so, the ID card legislation was never defeated in the Commons, just amended in the Lords, and most of these amendments were rejected by the Commons. The bill received Royal Assent (presumably by the Queen in her human form) less than a year after the 2005 general election (where it had been a manifesto commitment). To most casual observers, this would have appeared like a pretty normal course of events for controversial legislation that (to be fair) many people thought was a bloody stupid idea in the first place - only highly perceptive conspiracy theorists could spot the sinister pattern.Manc33 wrote:Lets suppose it was seven times, not seventeen - how would that change the childishness of asking for something over and over again when they have already been told no six times over?
Edit: Also, if you think MPs behave 'childishly', then you are completely... Oh, wait, you actually have a point there.0
