Were have you been Sam, there has been a melt down in the giggeling pin department all caused by a loose woman on itv
I think both those artists were controlled by record companies, Prince had to change his name to symbol for that reasonI believe prince and david bowie were particular about how their music was used and yet since their passing have heard their music in places i'd not have associated previously.
I brew all grain beer.Feel free to put me on your ignore list then you wont have to read them in future, i have a 15,101 reaction score so forum members obviously don't share your view.
While discussing stats the picture/video thread has 57,000 views and 1000 posts and my supermarket juice wine thread has 474,000 views and 3,000 posts can any of your threads match that
Out of curiosity, what is WEF???
Ohh, that old re hashing of the 'Elders of Zion' bile.The World Economic Forum. Dominated by Jews and Lizards. Our overlords
And governments are completely in bed with them. I think it's a bit harsh people calling others "conspiracy nuts" when the WEF is saying these things and then you have top government ministers wearing their badges. Irish example attached.https://sociable.co/web/wef-director-youll-own-nothing-be-happy-disinformation-campaign/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/worlde...ifferently-well-live-in-2030/?sh=4d615c531735
Read these, unless Forbes and The Sociable are "far-right conspiracy nutters" aswell...
With a bit of googling you can find more articles about this, from sites like Politico and Medium, there are political thinkers and writers from both the left and right leaning spectrum expressing concern.
I am not trying to peddle the intergalactic reptilian jews ******** because that is, well, ********.
But what these billionaire self appointed guides of humanity are heavily implying what they want to do regarding societal develpmont is concerning, and you should be concerned.
Because it’s the latest buzz word in urban planning their is nothing particularly new about the idea that people living in cities should have most facilities within walking distance and as is pointed out in the policy document put out by Oxford city council the majority of Oxford does have these facilities within walking distance, seriously Oxford is a pretty small city.Why are Oxford and Canterbury implementing 15 minute cities?
We have ULEZ zones to reduce traffic and pollution, some towns and city centres are completely traffic free, why the need for something different, do ULEZ not work? Is it because it will be cheaper for citizens without ULEZ? Why not close off streets to traffic to encourage less car use?
Almost any conurbation you visit has the amenities, shops, green spaces and utilities you need within 15 minutes, are these lacking in Oxford and Canterbury? What benefits will the level of movement control bring to its citizens in terms of accessing amenities? Are they building more shops, schools, libraries, museums, hospitals all within the 15 minute zones?
On a philosophical note:And governments are completely in bed with them. I think it's a bit harsh people calling others "conspiracy nuts" when the WEF is saying these things and then you have top government ministers wearing their badges. Irish example attached.
If someone told me the earth was flat, which goes against my belief that the earth is round, then I wouldn't label them as a conspiracy theorist or tin foil hatter, just because they hold a different viewpoint, I would question their theory and try and understand their viewpoint, maybe even test their theory, you never know, it might just change your paradigm!
This post reeks of Alex Jones, I'm afraid. I've heard it all before.On a philosophical note:
The CIA originally invented the term 'conspiracy theory' to debunk claims of their involvement over the shooting of JFK and to discredit the people questioning what had happened and to shut down the debate. The term is used in just the same way today to shutdown debate of the 'tin foil' hatters, its meaning has become lost.
People that use the term conspiracy theory against others are usually in the early stages of the acceptance cycle of shock and anger, in relation to the subject matter, disbelief of the subject matter or even an unwillingness to look at it borne from the source who usually has been fully discredited elsewhere already (in this case Katie Hopkins).
Some people never get past the early stages and remain angry and shocked - new concepts that change paradigms are not easy to digest, this is understandable and the standard 'conspiracy theory' response should be recognised for what it is.
If someone told me the earth was flat, which goes against my belief that the earth is round, then I wouldn't label them as a conspiracy theorist or tin foil hatter, just because they hold a different viewpoint, I would question their theory and try and understand their viewpoint, maybe even test their theory, you never know, it might just change your paradigm!
Enter your email address to join: