The USA and Israel

[henry quirk]

Now, as for how to get the eight or so billion individual human beings, which you speak of here, to share, then this is extremely simple and easy.

Then it should be extremely simple and easy to explain, yes? Please do.

For example, what is to be done to a man who does 'touch' or 'takes' another one's life, liberty, or property?

The question is too broad. All I can say is self-defense comes into play. Give me a specific circumstance if you want details.

So, when you are so-called 'defending' what you believe is 'yours', then it one ways is it possible to do this?

You mean shoot someone? I'll shoot someone who threatens my life, yes. I'll do nuthin' to the freak who steals a used toothpick offa my restaurant table. It's a used toothpick, for Crom's sake.

To defend them from who and/or what, exactly?

Murderers, rapists, slavers, thieves.

And, in what ways are permissible to defend another's life, liberty, and property in what you 'maintain' here?

Again: you want details, give me a specific circumstance.

The very 'land', which you claim is 'your property', is 'stolen land'.

What. Is. Your. Evidence.

You assert but offer no evidence.

Yes. If human beings are not allowed to freely walk around the earth because one person claims that they 'own' 'this part of earth', then you are stealing, what is obviously 'not yours' anyway, from other living things.

So, I should leave my house unlocked and let anyone with a mind to wander in whenever he likes? I suppose I should let him take whatever he likes as well?

[Age]

I'm saying there is no absolute moral claim to it being mine.

If you have no absolute moral claim to your life, liberty, and property then that life, liberty, and property ain't yours.

Which can be clearly seen in and when you adult human beings vote for an/others to have control over your life, liberty, and/or so-called property.

[Age]

If you have no absolute moral claim to your life, liberty, and property then that life, liberty, and property ain't yours.

If you say so. Though it sounds incomprehensible to you, life doesn't grant you any absolute moral claim to anything, including your life. The idea of such is itself beyond ludicrous. What supreme power is there authorized to make any such claim conditionless?

Give me 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,

When a parent states and/or claims, 'This is my child I can do what I want to them'. Or, when you vote for another, who can then so-called and so claimed 'rightfully' treat you as they choose.

Obviously, you "henry quirk" only do some of the things that you do because others have, 'rightfully, dictated what you can and/or cannot do.

Or, are you still blind to this Fact?

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, examples please.

A great example of when the 'your life is yours except when ..', is in the very contradictory, 'your life is yours, except for when i, "henry quirk", decided I will defend my, absolutely moral claim, to my toothpick, over your, anyone else's, supposed, absolute moral claim, to their life'.

[phyllo]

The very 'land', which you claim is 'your property', is 'stolen land'.

What. Is. Your. Evidence.

You assert but offer no evidence.

You don't remember that it was stolen from the Indians?

[Age]

his absolute moral rights, compared to which, in practice, the rights of others are only relative.

So, we have a third option...

Retarded. Illiterate. Liar.

A person, any person, every person, including you, has an absolute moral claim to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

There ain't nuthin' relative there.

Can you "henry quirk" really still not yet see that when you decide to 'take' another's life, liberty, and/or so-called property for whatever reason you have decided to, even under some sort of claimed 'defense', then this makes all of 'this' relative?

I cannot, under any circumstances, declare you my property to use or direct as I see fit.

But you claim that you can make the, relative or subjective, 'decision' about when and how you can and will 'take' another's life, liberty, and/or so-called property.

you have, continually, specifically claimed that you can 'defend' yours or another's so-called, absolute moral claim, to your or their life, liberty, or so-called property.

So, there are, according to your 'logic' circumstances where you can declare another 'your property', which obviously you can use or direct as you see fit. For example, if someone just goes to touch your claimed toothpick, and to so-call 'defend' this so-called 'property of yours' you can declare that one under arrest, and as such you can use or direct them to remain still even to the point of you being able to tie them up, right?

You cannot, under any circumstances, declare me your property to use or direct as you see fit. We, you and I, cannot rape, slave, murder, steal or defraud the other justly. Full stop.

But you can 'take' the so-called property, liberty, and life of another when you are so-called 'defending' life, liberty, or so-called property right?

This means I can't beat your pussy ass just becuz you offend me (and, buddy, you do offend me), and you can't boxcar me off to the camp cuz you fear a cold (you want to cuz you do...pussy).

But if "dubious" or another touched your toothpick, for example, you can then beat them up, or take their liberty, and/or their life, correct?

Otherwise how else could you so-call 'defend' your so-called 'property' "henry quirk"?

[Age]

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.

Where I could suggest there might have been 'a scam' here is when people from an outside country introduced a 'corona virus' into the community of china. From where it was alleged to have begun and started. From which it was then being reported, by outside people, that "chinese" people have purposely, or maybe unintentionally, released a deadly virus into and around the whole world.

And,

One reason and benefit for doing such a thing could have been to stop or at least slow down the continually growing economic behemoth that china was becoming, from its continually expanding number of manufacturing facilities, so that manufacturing could begin or at least increase in an/other country/ies. Obviously, the people in china, itself, would have not done something on purpose that could have nor would make china look bad nor that could have nor would have slowed down its economy, but the people in an/other country/ies had reasons to slow down china and make it look bad.

Another reason and benefit is from the billions or trillions of dollars some people made and profited in other countries outside of china from the release of a virus from within china, where it was, supposed, have originated from.

I observed the people in charge of pharmaceutical manufacturing companies, among others, benefit from the billions of dollars that they profited from the release of such a thing, and, the downturn in chinese manufacturing and economy.

So, 'the scam' may have been in the 'releasing' of a virus and in the overstating of its 'deadliness'. The benefits of doing such a thing could be the monetary profits by some companies and/or the slowing down of an opposing growing economy.

But of course there could well be a countless number of other variables or scenarios here. But I know the fact is one country in particular was made to look especially 'bad' and that some people made billions of dollars in profits.

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.

When people panic, the result is usually not for the best.

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.

Are you able to see how it could be possible for any and/or all countries, except for one, to be motivated to stop or slow down, for a while anyway, the continually growing economy of that one country?

Now I am not at all suggesting that the "leaders" of two more, nor all the other countries had enough intelligence to work together, (for once), in order to come up with and create what happened, nor that they would even be as cruel or greedy enough to. But looking at the so-called "leaders" at the time, there might be one who is greedy, and self-centered, enough to come up with and do such a thing. But that, (all?), the rest just panicked, or at least just 'followed suit', as some might say here, seems rather apparent, and very possible.

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?

[Age]

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.

Talk about being 'paranoid' here.

Why would absolutely be concerned about, or fear or worry, about being called a 'conspiracy theorist' for just recognizing, or for even just naming, those who benefited from what took place here?

Also, why is there absolutely anything wrong with just being a so-called "conspiracy theorist"? After all is from 'theorizing' things how some things come to be known to be True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct.

Is the absolutely anything wrong, or negative, about being a so-called "particle theorist" and/or "theoretical physicalist"? After all these people are only doing the exact same thing and 'theorizing' about things as well.

Obviously, if a 'conspiracy' is being perceived to have taken place, then what is wrong with introducing 'theories', so that they can be looked at, and discussed? If people do not even begin to look at, and discuss, the 'conspiracies', which obviously 'play out' in 'this world' that you people are living in, in the days when this is being written, and which are 'played out' to 'conspire' to obtain 'more money' from you unsuspecting ones, then how else is that obviously very greedy, selfish, and Wrong of misbehaving every going to stop?

Also, could have you here been 'manipulated' to be, 'now currently', believing that looking for and/or talking about 'conspiracies', especially within governments, is some sort of 'bad' or 'negative' thing to do?

If absolutely anyone 'fears' or 'worries' about being called a "conspiracy theorist", then could have this 'fear' and/or 'worry' have been 'conspired' to be within 'you', so as to stop 'you' looking at and discussing 'them' and what 'they' are doing 'behind your back', as some might say here?

These are just some things to think about and consider anyway.

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.

What does it say?

They were thrilled. They were delighted. They called the crisis, "an unprecedented opportunity to reimagine our world," that we should "take advantage of."

And what do you think is better?

Do not take 'that time' to just chill and relax, spend more time at home with family and/or with friends, enjoy 'the world' without the hustle and bustle in an attempt to just try to make 'more money' only, and/nor to just consider what it is that you really want in Life nor where you are going in Life, or instead hurriedly speed up and want the demise of 'that time' so that you can quickly go back to work and 'make money', not necessarily for you but more so for the bosses, the families, royal or not, and/or for the governments, like a True "capitalist" would?

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.

Sounds like they were just suggesting to 'take some time' and just 're-consider' 'life and living' and what they are really about.

But, then you do have a very particular and very specific way of looking at, and seeing, things correct "immanuel can"?

But do not feel to alone nor left out as every other one you adult human beings looks at, and sees, things in the exact same individual way, based solely upon each of your own pre-existing individual beliefs and presumptions, alone, as well.

There were others who had motives, too. But again, mention them, and the first charge against you will be "conspiracy theory."

Again, where or why do you think you have obtained and are keeping this 'concern', 'fear', and/or 'worry' for, exactly?

Also, if you can produce a 'theory', which you could actually back up and support, with actual proof, like I can and have, then you have absolutely nothing whatsoever to be 'concerned about', 'fear', nor 'worry', at all. Exactly like I do not have.

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.

But did the 'crisis', itself, actually do what you claim here?

If yes, then just provide the actual proof.

Or, was it just more like adult human beings 'panicking', which was itself that caused some sort of disability in what were previously considered so-called 'normal voting procedures' in that one and only tiny little country Falsely and Wrongly called the "united states of america"?

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?

And look at and see just how indoctrinated and influenced these adult human beings, back then in the 'olden days', had been to perceive, presume, and/or belief things, which were totally False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect.

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.

Once again, this one still believes, absolutely, that 'the way' that it looks at, reads, and sees 'things' is the only one true and right way.

The laughingly called 'specific proof' is nothing more than its 'own take' on things, which could be the exact opposite of what was actually meant and intended, for example, in the writings of 'that book' here being referenced.

Adult human beings, back then, really had not yet fathomed and comprehend that to have obtained 'actual proof' one needs to have sought out and gained and obtained 'actual clarity', first, and foremost.

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.

[Age]

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.

Once again here we have another prime example of one who believes, absolutely, that its 'own take' on something is the one true and right one, only.

Of course 'that term' is, sometimes, used to describe what you said and claimed here. But, obviously, not always.

Also, I suggest looking at the two words, alone, and then working out what 'that term' could also mean, refer to, or be described as, as well as consider what 'that term' once meant and/or was intended to mean.

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.

What can be clearly seen here and proved irrefutably True is that when one comes to be believing something is true, then the way they look at, and see, things afterwards can be and is very skewed and/or narrowed.

[henry quirk]

When a parent states and/or claims, 'This is my child I can do what I want to them'.

This is an example of someone prepping to violate his child's natural rights. Parents parent, not own children.

Or, when you vote for another, who can then so-called and so claimed 'rightfully' treat you as they choose.

Elected folks offer themselves as proxies, not masters. That so many take on the latter role is one of the reasons many voters are disillusioned by politics.

Obviously, you "henry quirk" only do some of the things that you do because others have, 'rightfully, dictated what you can and/or cannot do.

Age, I'm one of the biggest scofflaws you'll never meet. I break laws all the time.

A great example of when the 'your life is yours except when ..', is in the very contradictory, 'your life is yours, except for when i, "henry quirk", decided I will defend my, absolutely moral claim, to my toothpick, over your, anyone else's, supposed, absolute moral claim, to their life'.

Already responded to all this just up-thread.

[henry quirk]

The very 'land', which you claim is 'your property', is 'stolen land'.

What. Is. Your. Evidence.

You assert but offer no evidence.

You don't remember that it was stolen from the Indians?

Who'd they swipe it from?

[henry quirk]

Can you "henry quirk" really still not yet see that when you decide to 'take' another's life, liberty, and/or so-called property for whatever reason you have decided to, even under some sort of claimed 'defense', then this makes all of 'this' relative?

Can you, age, really not see that your assertions don't mean spit without some kind of foundation? Show how it's relative.

But you claim that you can make the, relative or subjective, 'decision' about when and how you can and will 'take' another's life, liberty, and/or so-called property.

No, I don't. If you aren't threatening my life, my liberty, my property, I have nuthin' to defend against and no call to defend myself.

you have, continually, specifically claimed that you can 'defend' yours or another's so-called, absolute moral claim, to your or their life, liberty, or so-called property.

Yes. A very specific response (defense) to a very act (a violation of natural rights).

So, there are, according to your 'logic' circumstances where you can declare another 'your property', which obviously you can use or direct as you see fit.

No, age. I can never morally, justly declare another my property. I can't morally, justly murder them, slave them, rape them, steal from them, or defraud them.

For example, if someone just goes to touch your claimed toothpick, and to so-call 'defend' this so-called 'property of yours' you can declare that one under arrest, and as such you can use or direct them to remain still even to the point of you being able to tie them up, right?

No, age. I'm not a police officer. I don't have voluntary dealings with police officers. I'm not an agent of the State or courts. I don't have voluntary dealings with such agents.

But you can 'take' the so-called property, liberty, and life of another when you are so-called 'defending' life, liberty, or so-called property right?

You mean life, yes? I may take that life yes, to defend my own, yes. The lesson: if one wants to preserve his life, don't trade it off by trying to violate the life, liberty, and property of another.

But if "dubious" or another touched your toothpick, for example, you can then beat them up, or take their liberty, and/or their life, correct?

Questions: when did toothpicks become your fetish? When did common sense abandon you? is there a difference between a life and a toothpick? Are toothpicks and lives if equal value? Can a woman, as she's attacked by a rapist defend herself? If the rapist isn't dissuaded by the woman fighting back, is she, in your view, permitted to kill the attacker to stop him? If a father comes from work to find his six year old daughter being raped, is his permitted, in your view, to intervene and stop the attack? Is he permitted to kill the rapist to stop the attack? I can ask more: let's start with these.

[phyllo]

What. Is. Your. Evidence.

You assert but offer no evidence.

You don't remember that it was stolen from the Indians?

Who'd they swipe it from?

Does that make a difference?

Are you saying that if the Indians stole it from someone then it was okay to steal it from them?

[henry quirk]

You don't remember that it was stolen from the Indians?

Who'd they swipe it from?

Does that make a difference?

Are you saying that if the Indians stole it from someone then it was okay to steal it from them?

Oh, you were makin' a serious point.

Okay...

I didn't steal any land. As I told skepdick, many moons back, in a similar conversation, I'm perfectly willing to entertain any legitimate challenge to my ownership of my plot. To date: no one has stepped up with a claim. So, whatever the pedigree of my property (stolen multiple times, claimed multiple times, bought and sold multiple times) I traded fairly for it.

Do you wish to challenge my ownership, or are you the legit proxy for someone who wants challenge? If so: offer your evidence.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You don't remember that it was stolen from the Indians?

Who'd they swipe it from?

Does that make a difference?

Are you saying that if the Indians stole it from someone then it was okay to steal it from them?

According to your profile description you come from Ukraine. Are you a Goth or a Hun? Or perhaps a Greek, who stole it from 'some people' and then the Romans stole it from the Greeks and then the Slavs came along and took possession of it and then something called the 'Kieven Rus' whatever that is, and then the Mongols then the Crimean Khanate then a bunch of others, then the Ottomans, then blah de blah blah.................

[vegetariantaxidermy]

And not forgetting the Neanderthals. They were probably wandering around there first, killing mammoths.