The USA and Israel

[Alexis Jacobi]

Fangèd One, Grumpy Granny: could you two survive this level of cognitive test?

[bahman]

No...I'm rejecting the substunce of your claim that I "refuse to talk about the creation," which is clearly untrue, as anybody who checks the thread will be able to see.

Ok, so feel free to respond to this whenever you have time.

I already responded to that. How come you don't realize that?

Could you please send me the link? I browsed the whole thread after my reply and I didn't find anything.

[henry quirk]

the entire medical profession on all continents...committed to shutting down the world

That didn't happen. There was and is no monolithic medical position on beer virus or beer virus mitigation anymore than there's 98% of climate scientists agreeing man is causing climate change.

See my response to Harbal above.


And I'm still waiting for an example of when your life is not your own, of when it belongs to someone else, of when another person rightfully can treat you as they choose,

I can give you examples of when you can, thru your choices, forfeit your life, but that's not the same as saying your life is yours except for when X.

So, an example please.

[Immanuel Can]

Ok, so feel free to respond to this whenever you have time.

I already responded to that. How come you don't realize that?

Could you please send me the link? I browsed the whole thread after my reply and I didn't find anything.

My apologies. You're right. I just passed it by, because nothing in your list of objections there was true. I couldn't find anything worth responding to.

For example, there are not sufficient fossils adequate to prove human evolution, so I couldn't respond by accepting your premise that they were, or that I was "ignoring" some body of adequate evidence. There are, at most, fragments of bone from not nearly enough fossils, put together by way of a proposed narrative: but if Evolutionism were true, we should expect to have an abundance of complete fossils, all attesting to the alleged billions of years claimed for human evolution.

So I just had to ignore the comment. It failed to reflect any reality. How can one respond to something that's plainly untrue?

[Harbal]

know now that the whole thing was a scam.

What was the reason for this "scam" that most of the world participated in?

Well, THAT it was a scam is beyond question.

I would say exactly the opposite. Where there is a scam, there is a beneficiary of it, and I see no beneficiary.

But WHY? Why did it get started, and why get the overblown reception it did? Was the worldwide health infrastructure just that incompetent? Were the politicians all just stampeded into panic at the first sniffle of a bad cold? I don't think either of those things sounds right.

I'm sure there was some degree of incompetence and panic, but I doubt we will ever know quite how much. I see no reason to think that the various authorities involved in managing the situation were doing anything other than attempting to deal with a perceived crisis to the best of their ability. I was put on furlough, which I experienced as 3 months paid leave from work, and a gift that far outweighed any inconvenience caused by social distancing, or mask wearing. The government paid my salary for that period, along with the salaries of millions like me. It cost them billions. At the same time, all none essential industry and commerce was shut down, or put on tick over, which obviously resulted in a massive drop in tax revenue. I don't know the figures, but that is certainly not an economic position any government would put itself in were it at all avoidable. And even if I suspected that my government had some sinister ulterior motive, it would be a remarkable coincidence if governments all round the world just happened to be similarly motivated.

So there were other reasons; and I have ideas about what they might have been, as do many others...but nothing we can prove beyond all possibility of doubt.

So what are those ideas?

[Immanuel Can]

What was the reason for this "scam" that most of the world participated in?

Well, THAT it was a scam is beyond question.

I would say exactly the opposite. Where there is a scam, there is a beneficiary of it, and I see no beneficiary.

If you recognize that there were beneficiaries, you'll get called a "conspiracy theorist." But the proof is there, if one is fair-minded.

One obvious place to find a group of people who were delighted with the COVID crisis was at the WEF. They actually published a book titled, "COVID 19: The Great Reset," in which they proposed it was a wonderful opportunity for Western societies to line up behind a universal socialist agenda. And that's not a "conspiracy theory" -- I have the book right here, if you ever want to know what it says.

They were thrilled. They were delighted. They called the crisis, "an unprecedented opportunity to reimagine our world," that we should "take advantage of." They revelled, "the possibilities for change and the resulting new order are now unlimited and only bound by our imagination." (Their words, C19:TGR, 19) They compared it to "The Black Death" (their term, again), and claimed it gave them practically unrestricted license to reshape the world order to their tastes...as long as they could capitalize on the panic. You can read it all yourself, if you care to.

There were others who had motives, too. But again, mention them, and the first charge against you will be "conspiracy theory." For example, if you point out that the COVID crisis was used in order to destabilize, expand and corrupt normal voting procedures in the last US election, which they certainly were, you'll be a "conspiracy theorist" again.

I see no reason to think that the various authorities involved in managing the situation were doing anything other than attempting to deal with a perceived crisis to the best of their ability.

Even when they collectively wrote and published books that said the opposite?

And even if I suspected that my government had some sinister ulterior motive, it would be a remarkable coincidence if governments all round the world just happened to be similarly motivated.

If you even suspected that, you'd be a "conspiracy theorist." See how that little meme works?

So there were other reasons; and I have ideas about what they might have been, as do many others...but nothing we can prove beyond all possibility of doubt.

So what are those ideas?

I've suggested one already...and provided specific proof, above. But I think we need to move this to a dedicated thread, if you care to pursue it further. Here, the topic is Israel, I would say.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Conspiracy theories start with the deliberate propagation of misinformation by movements such as QAnon. Someone has an agenda, and manipulating as many people as possible by feeding them lies is part of a strategy to further it; this much is obvious. In whose interests is it for people to believe the Covid conspiracy theory, and what could the nature of those interests possibly be? This is what puzzles me. Maybe I'm looking for something that isn't there; perhaps the purpose is to create social disorder merely for its own sake.

Conspiracy theories don't require lies. They merely require attributing reasons for events to individuals or groups with some particular intent. These reasons may be correct or incorrect.

Lies are ancillary.

We also have a new phenomenon today: the use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" to damn any criticism before the actual reasons for it can be produced. The term "conspiracy theory" has now become a tool of obscurantism by the mass media, just as "disinformation" has become the excuse for silencing dissent in other areas. In both cases, the point is to shut down the critique before it can even begin, and discredit the discussion before it can be had, without having to justify the silencing or censorship beyond that it's preventing a theory allegedly already known to be hair-brained to be aired.

Example: The fact of Joe Biden's cognitive decline has been abundant and impossible not to recognize. Let's face it: at this point, not just Republicans but Democrats too are very apprehensive about Biden's possible re-election. And a rudimentary cognitive test performed on Biden would show whether or not such anxiety was even remotely justified...but the Democrats will not allow such a test to be made, or made public.

Did the Democrats know, during the last election, that they were putting up a cognitively impared candidate? Of course they did. We all knew. We just had to see the man on TV for five minutes, and every one of us could see there was something badly wrong with the guy. However, that has not at all stopped the defenders of that choice from claiming any statement about Biden's incompetence is a "conspiracy theory." And that speaks to just how extreme the weaponized use of the term has become -- it's used to prevent a public discussion of the most powerful man in the world's mental competence, even when every last one of us knows he's got a problem.

That's a fair bit of power for a propagandistic term to have, isn't it?

Not true. 'Conspiracy theorist' is a term used to describe someone who believes anything as long as it's not true and has no actual evidence to support it. They get high on 'cloak and dagger' mysteries. Rational explanations are irrelevant to them. The more ridiculous the 'explanation' the more arounsed they get. It's political porn for morons.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Well, THAT it was a scam is beyond question.

I would say exactly the opposite. Where there is a scam, there is a beneficiary of it, and I see no beneficiary.

If you recognize that there were beneficiaries, you'll get called a "conspiracy theorist." But the proof is there, if one is fair-minded.

One obvious place to find a group of people who were delighted with the COVID crisis was at the WEF. They actually published a book titled, "COVID 19: The Great Reset," in which they proposed it was a wonderful opportunity for Western societies to line up behind a universal socialist agenda. And that's not a "conspiracy theory" -- I have the book right here, if you ever want to know what it says.

They were thrilled. They were delighted. They called the crisis, "an unprecedented opportunity to reimagine our world," that we should "take advantage of." They revelled, "the possibilities for change and the resulting new order are now unlimited and only bound by our imagination." (Their words, C19:TGR, 19) They compared it to "The Black Death" (their term, again), and claimed it gave them practically unrestricted license to reshape the world order to their tastes...as long as they could capitalize on the panic. You can read it all yourself, if you care to.

There were others who had motives, too. But again, mention them, and the first charge against you will be "conspiracy theory." For example, if you point out that the COVID crisis was used in order to destabilize, expand and corrupt normal voting procedures in the last US election, which they certainly were, you'll be a "conspiracy theorist" again.

I see no reason to think that the various authorities involved in managing the situation were doing anything other than attempting to deal with a perceived crisis to the best of their ability.

Even when they collectively wrote and published books that said the opposite?

And even if I suspected that my government had some sinister ulterior motive, it would be a remarkable coincidence if governments all round the world just happened to be similarly motivated.

If you even suspected that, you'd be a "conspiracy theorist." See how that little meme works?

So there were other reasons; and I have ideas about what they might have been, as do many others...but nothing we can prove beyond all possibility of doubt.

So what are those ideas?

I've suggested one already...and provided specific proof, above. But I think we need to move this to a dedicated thread, if you care to pursue it further. Here, the topic is Israel, I would say.

So using an event as an opportunity is 'proof' that those people either created the event or that the event was something that didn't happen? Take me through this 'scam' and the logistics of it, from beginning to end. I'm confused. If what you are say is true, then explaining it in detail will be easy.
ps Saying 'I've already answered this' is not an answer. I can't find it. Copypasting it shouldn't be difficult for you, as a courtesy.

A global-wide conspiracy involving all govts. to do 'what?' exactly, is a far more likely explanation than govts. trying to do the best they can with something they have never encountered before and which they know nothing about. Never mind that not all govts. did the same thing. China, which has probably had the most experience with virus outbreaks, had the most severe response to it.

[Harbal]

Conspiracy theories start with the deliberate propagation of misinformation by movements such as QAnon. Someone has an agenda, and manipulating as many people as possible by feeding them lies is part of a strategy to further it; this much is obvious. In whose interests is it for people to believe the Covid conspiracy theory, and what could the nature of those interests possibly be? This is what puzzles me. Maybe I'm looking for something that isn't there; perhaps the purpose is to create social disorder merely for its own sake.

Conspiracy theories don't require lies. They merely require attributing reasons for events to individuals or groups with some particular intent. These reasons may be correct or incorrect.

Lies are ancillary.

Some conspiracy theories turn out to be true, but when the few true ones are just bobbing about in a sea of false, dishonest ones, it's hard to notice them. Most conspiracy theories are based on lies.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Conspiracy theories start with the deliberate propagation of misinformation by movements such as QAnon. Someone has an agenda, and manipulating as many people as possible by feeding them lies is part of a strategy to further it; this much is obvious. In whose interests is it for people to believe the Covid conspiracy theory, and what could the nature of those interests possibly be? This is what puzzles me. Maybe I'm looking for something that isn't there; perhaps the purpose is to create social disorder merely for its own sake.

Conspiracy theories don't require lies. They merely require attributing reasons for events to individuals or groups with some particular intent. These reasons may be correct or incorrect.

Lies are ancillary.

Some conspiracy theories turn out to be true, but when the few true ones are just bobbing about in a sea of false, dishonest ones, it's hard to notice them. Most conspiracy theories are based on lies.

That entirely misses the point. If it turns out to be true then it was never a 'conspiracy theory' in the first place.

[Harbal]

The pandemic was real, no doubt. But it is said to have been used by political elites for a range of other purposes.

And I am asking what those other purposes were, and who are these "political elites", for that matter?

[Immanuel Can]

Conspiracy theories don't require lies. They merely require attributing reasons for events to individuals or groups with some particular intent. These reasons may be correct or incorrect.

Lies are ancillary.

We also have a new phenomenon today: the use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" to damn any criticism before the actual reasons for it can be produced. The term "conspiracy theory" has now become a tool of obscurantism by the mass media, just as "disinformation" has become the excuse for silencing dissent in other areas. In both cases, the point is to shut down the critique before it can even begin, and discredit the discussion before it can be had, without having to justify the silencing or censorship beyond that it's preventing a theory allegedly already known to be hair-brained to be aired.

Example: The fact of Joe Biden's cognitive decline has been abundant and impossible not to recognize. Let's face it: at this point, not just Republicans but Democrats too are very apprehensive about Biden's possible re-election. And a rudimentary cognitive test performed on Biden would show whether or not such anxiety was even remotely justified...but the Democrats will not allow such a test to be made, or made public.

Did the Democrats know, during the last election, that they were putting up a cognitively impared candidate? Of course they did. We all knew. We just had to see the man on TV for five minutes, and every one of us could see there was something badly wrong with the guy. However, that has not at all stopped the defenders of that choice from claiming any statement about Biden's incompetence is a "conspiracy theory." And that speaks to just how extreme the weaponized use of the term has become -- it's used to prevent a public discussion of the most powerful man in the world's mental competence, even when every last one of us knows he's got a problem.

That's a fair bit of power for a propagandistic term to have, isn't it?

Not true.

All too easy to verify as true. The case above is a very clear case of just that phenomenon. It's not at all a "conspiracy" to say that Joe Biden is senile. We all know he is. We've known it for years, and he's getting worse all the time. But if you doubt, we could settle it with a medical test today; but it won't be happening -- precisely because the Democrats know that what I'm saying is absolutely true. And I know you know it too.

Remember when the Biden laptop was called a "conspiracy"? It was right after it was called a "Russian plant." Does anybody anywhere believe either anymore? So there's another clear case. It happens all the time.

'Conspiracy theorist' is a term used to describe someone who believes anything as long as it's not true and has no actual evidence to support it. They get high on 'cloak and dagger' mysteries. Rational explanations are irrelevant to them. The more ridiculous the 'explanation' the more arounsed they get. It's political porn for morons.

That's the thing they want you to believe. And they want you to believe they're right, every time they call something a "conspiracy theory," and that the sheer disgust at the label will keep you from checking. That's exactly what they count on: your trust. Your willingness to accept the label and not to interrogate it at all. Your fear of being called a "conspiracy theorist" yourself.

The threat is, "Stand with the party line we give you, or we will silence you immediately." And that threat is real. They will, if they can.

[Harbal]

Conspiracy theories start with the deliberate propagation of misinformation by movements such as QAnon. Someone has an agenda, and manipulating as many people as possible by feeding them lies is part of a strategy to further it; this much is obvious. In whose interests is it for people to believe the Covid conspiracy theory, and what could the nature of those interests possibly be? This is what puzzles me. Maybe I'm looking for something that isn't there; perhaps the purpose is to create social disorder merely for its own sake.

Conspiracy theories don't require lies. They merely require attributing reasons for events to individuals or groups with some particular intent. These reasons may be correct or incorrect.

Lies are ancillary.

We also have a new phenomenon today: the use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" to damn any criticism before the actual reasons for it can be produced.

Similar to the way you use "Atheism" and "Scientism" for the same reason, you mean?

[Immanuel Can]

That entirely misses the point. If it turns out to be true then it was never a 'conspiracy theory' in the first place.

Now you've got it right!

Something isn't a "conspiracy theory" if there was an actual conspiracy. Then it's a "conspiracy fact."

[Immanuel Can]

Conspiracy theories don't require lies. They merely require attributing reasons for events to individuals or groups with some particular intent. These reasons may be correct or incorrect.

Lies are ancillary.

We also have a new phenomenon today: the use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" to damn any criticism before the actual reasons for it can be produced.

Similar to the way you use "Atheism" and "Scientism" for the same reason, you mean?

Not at all. I always point out the fallacies in both, rather than on relying on some label to carry the day. My disagreement with them is on their contents, their illogic, their flaws, not on invoking some pejorative.