The USA and Israel

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Aboriginal North Americans HAD no conception of land ownership. What they had was interminable inter-tribal warfare over broad swaths of territory. Most of them were nomadic, sitting on a piece of land so long as it met their needs, then, when it ran out of what they wanted, moving on to another place, sometimes at the expense of displacing other tribes, and sometimes just occupying land that was open to them. The whole of North America was open, in that sense. What need had they of deeds, titles and land contracts? Where would such even have been recognized? They had few permanent settlements, no central governments, and their technology was so primitive that they didn't have the wheel. Why would they have land titles?

So there's no sense in talking as if the land was "theirs," and somebody came and stole it from them. They sustained any "claim" they had to it only by squatting and force; and they were eventually forced out by a civilization more advanced than their own, one in which land ownership was an established concept. It's sad that they got such a bad end of the stick; but they weren't hesitant, themselves, about taking land from other tribes when they found it advantageous to do so.

So the whole critique that you "owe your land back to the Indians" is nonsense.

[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.

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.

Just so you become aware, to some people, the term or phrase 'conspiracy theory' just refers to 'a theory' in regards to a perceived 'conspiracy'.

Which, on some occasions, turn out to be actually true. Just like 'a theory' of, perceived, 'evolution', turned out to be true, well to some anyway.

[Age]

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.

And yet "joseph biden" still won, and/or still got in.

Which could say a lot about the people in that country who voted at that time.

But I guess choosing between one who is cognitively impaired in another one form, from the cognitive impairment of the one they voted for, did not leave the voters 'much', to choose from at all.

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.

But which, obviously, must of been 'less badly wrong' from the 'other guy'.

Otherwise why was 'that one' chosen, after all?

But what the voters cannot blame, other than "themselves", is that they had 'chosen' those two obviously and very clearly 'cognitively impaired' human beings to be the only last two left to be able to choose from.

Which, actually, does show and say a lot about the people in that country, who vote.

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.

The real 'problem' I see and observe here is;

Do you people, when this is being written, really consider and class one human being and especially that human being, over absolutely anyone else, as the so-called 'most powerful one in the world'?

If yes, then really?

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

If 'I' were 'you' I would, first, start off by having a discussion about how and why through 'cognition' some of you people class and/or consider that just one very little and very tiny human being in one very little and very tiny country on earth, in one very little and very tiny moment is supposedly 'the most powerful one in the world'?

Before I moved on to looking at other's 'cognitive impairments'.

[henry quirk]

Aboriginal North Americans HAD no conception of land ownership.

In the legal sense, you're right. But me & age (and phyllo, I guess) are debating the moral claim.

I'm told, age, I'm a thief becuz my plot was, at some point, stolen (no doubt multiple times) from others. I contend I am not a thief and my plot was traded for fairly. And, as I say, 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.

The onus is on age (and phyllo, if he's in on this mess).




*a moral challenge

[Age]

Why do you think they did it, henry? Why do you think governments all round the world put massive holes in their economies by taking measures that were completely unnecessary?

Let me rephrase your question...

Why did thousands of mediocre men, elected and appointed, adopt asinine public heath policies that ultimately did nuthin' to stop the spread and severity of a cold virus and gave economies a thumping?

Becuz these gray lil men, these glib puppets, these mediocre used car salesmen don't know what they're doin'. They each are gifted with extraordinary authority and outside of the purely pedestrian applications of that power, they have no clue what to do with it. They're told a biological disaster is just around the corner by folks who mostly don't know what they're doing either and they flail about lookin' for fixes.

There's corruption and agenda in there as well, but mostly, bottomline, it's incompetence.

What and where is this, alleged, 'corruption', and what was the 'agenda', exactly, which you speak of and talk about here?

I know you expected a rant about lizard people from Planet X or extra-dimensional demons or The Devil or Corporate Cabals or sumthin' worthy of tinfoil whackadoodlism, and, from time to time, I entertain such notions, but, as I understand things, shit happens not as result of world-girdling EVIL conspiracies but becuz dumbasses up and down the line fuck up and then fuck up more trying to save face.

you say this like you have never done wrong nor made mistakes.

Now, of course, mistakes were made. And, one could think mistakes made by adult human beings will happen again. However, if you are going to use words like, 'There is 'corruption' and 'agenda' in there as well', then are you going to back up and support this claim, with actual proof?

If yes, then great, we will wait.

But, if no, then why not?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

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.

Aboriginal North Americans HAD no conception of land ownership. What they had was interminable inter-tribal warfare over broad swaths of territory.

Doesn't that qualify as having a concept of land ownership?

[Age]

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.

one could browse this whole forum and still never find 'it', and this is simply because "immanuel can" never actually answered and clarified what was actually asked for, once more.

[Age]

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.

How come you can see, and point out, the fallacies and flaws in some things, which incidentally is always on 'the side' of what you do not believe is true, but never seem to see, and recognize, the flaws and fallacies on 'the side' of what you do presume or believe is true?

Is this just a coincidence?

[Impenitent]

there were hundreds of tribes with their own languages and tribal laws, understanding, lands, farming and hunting grounds

not all were nomadic

to claim all "Indians" did this or lived uniformly is an illustration of ignorance

-Imp

[Age]

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.

I don't know who or what the "WEF" is or are,

World Economic Forum. Look it up, or read the book, and you'll know.

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.

The Covid crisis disrupted everything, not just elections.

But ALSO the elections. And in just the right way to get Biden elected. Coincidence?

If this was not coincidence, then this means that the covid virus eventuated or came about, purposely, at just the 'right time'.

Which would make it one very smart little virus, right?

The Dems would like you to think so. But there's plenty of evidence they took every advantage of that situation. Mention any of it, and you're a "conspiracy theorist."

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

I'm not aware of any such publication from my government, or any other.

"COVID 19: The Great Reset." It's all there. Now you're aware of it.

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

Yes, and I would deserve the title.

You maybe would: but only if you didn't have the evidence. But in the case of Biden's senility or the so-called "Laptop from Hell," you certainly do; and yet, you'll still be a "conspiracy theorist" if you mention it.

[Age]

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.

'conspiracy theories' never turn out to be true. That's the whole point of them. They never turn out to be 'anything'.

So, 'they' are called and labeled what 'they' are not, correct?

If yes, then one could have thought these human beings, back then, could have come up with better and/or more accurate descriptive words.

[promethean75]

Do watch The Killers of Flower Moon if u can. Great fuckin movie. So a big oil reserve is struck on federally protected Osage land so they get all the money, etc. Then the white man moves in and conspires to marry into the Osage families to get rights to the fortune... then sets'ta killin off all the goddamn injuns one by one assassination style. DiCaprio and De Niro are in it.

[Immanuel Can]

Aboriginal North Americans HAD no conception of land ownership.

In the legal sense, you're right. But me & age (and phyllo, I guess) are debating the moral claim.

Well, fair enough...but you can't do somebody dirt by camping on a piece of ground they didn't even claim to own, so it's hard to see what the moral issue can even be. As you say, you can't be made responsible how many people did what to whom on that patch of ground; they may not have done anything bad at all, and even if they did, what's that got to do with you?

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Aboriginal North Americans HAD no conception of land ownership. What they had was interminable inter-tribal warfare over broad swaths of territory.

Doesn't that qualify as having a concept of land ownership?

I wouldn't say so. It's just butting heads over resources, really. The idea of owning a particular patch of dirt, especially one that had no resources they wanted on it, never seems to have occurred to them; nor does the idea that the other tribe "owned" the land on which they were taking over. It seems to have been all about getting for the tribe what the tribe needs right now...and there was no formality for the exchange of territory.

Heck, they didn't even have maps. They didn't have surveyors, or geographers, or deeds and titles, or even a sense of how much of the stuff was "out there." They were pretty darn primitive. How could they claim any particular piece of land when they had no concept of land except what they were presently using?

[henry quirk]

you can't do somebody dirt by camping on a piece of ground they didn't even claim to own, so it's hard to see what the moral issue can even be.

Trappers and such often trekked out into the territories and wintered in unclaimed (as far as they knew) areas. They'd build rough shelters -- far more substantial than lean-to's -- where they'd hunker down for winter's worst. No one authorized their use of the land or trees or game. And, across years, these same trappers would habitually use the same hunker-down camps again and again.

I'd say these folks had a moral claim to those camps. In the same way all nomadic peoples, as they trudged back and forth over the same areas, year after year, had a claim to those familiar areas.

My point is: even though all these nomads had, to my mind, legit moral claims, none of those claims has diddly to do with someone living and using some part of that land today, even if the land was ultimately stolen from them. Their beef, or the beef of their ancestors, lies with the original thieves or their ancestors. Someone who fairly transacted for a plot today -- even if that plot was stolen from a former moral claimant -- is blameless.

As I say: I didn't steal my plot, even if it has been stolen multiple times in the past.