The USA and Israel

[Harbal]

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.

I don't entirely agree with your assessment, but I don't doubt that some of it is true to some extent.

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.

I wouldn't say I expected it, but I was prepared for it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

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

The example I referenced was the US Patriot Act after 9/11. To familiarize yourself with it, and it’s controversial aspects, you could read the article.

Did you follow Edward Snowdon’s revelations?

To understand “purposes” you’d need background in what these agencies actually do. Then you would be in a position to ask questions, and make suppositions, about purposes. Do you really need to have this spelled out?

Political elites: certainly the revolving door between corporate management and government, but also the military and academia.

Again, do you really need to have it spelled out? (I ask because to me the existence of elite classes is a given).

[Harbal]

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.

I don't know who or what the "WEF" is or are, but if they had enough power and influence to dictate how the world responded to the Covid situation, I think I would probably be more aware of them.

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.

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?

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

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?

Yes, and I would deserve the title.

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.

No, I don't really care to pursue it, but thanks anyway.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

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? 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."

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?

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.

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?

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.

[Harbal]

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

The example I referenced was the US Patriot Act after 9/11. To familiarize yourself with it, and it’s controversial aspects, you could read the article.

Did you follow Edward Snowdon’s revelations?

To understand “purposes” you’d need background in what these agencies actually do. Then you would be in a position to ask questions, and make suppositions, about purposes. Do you really need to have this spelled out?

Political elites: certainly the revolving door between corporate management and government, but also the military and academia.

Again, do you really need to have it spelled out? (I ask because to me the existence of elite classes is a given).

It was wrong of me to ask you a question knowing that your answer would involve my putting in some kind of effort that I am not prepared to put in. But thanks, anyway.

[Harbal]

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? 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.

Sorry, but this just missed the deadline for my attention span expiry. My interest in the subject has left the building.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

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.

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

[Immanuel Can]

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.

The Covid crisis disrupted everything, not just elections.

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

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.

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.

Sorry, but this just missed the deadline for my attention span expiry. My interest in the subject has left the building.

Well, it's funny how your attention span "runs out" at exactly the moment your grounds for protest do. The evidence is on hand. The willingness to engage it, you'd have to manufacture for yourself.

[Immanuel Can]

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'.

That's what they want you to believe: that something is untrue simply by being labelled as a "conspiracy theory."

And apparently, you're exactly the audience they love: those who don't question the label.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

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'.

That's what they want you to believe: that something is untrue simply by being labelled as a "conspiracy theory."

And apparently, you're exactly the audience they love: those who don't question the label.

Who are 'they'? I'm well aware that actual 'conspiracies' do happen, but those are not what interest 'conspiracy theorists'. FFS. Forget it. It's like trying to explain something to a gibbon. Why are there so many morons on this site? There are millions of people on Twitter who have no problem understanding this. It's really not that 'deep'.

[Immanuel Can]

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

That's what they want you to believe: that something is untrue simply by being labelled as a "conspiracy theory."

And apparently, you're exactly the audience they love: those who don't question the label.

Who are 'they'?

All the folks illegitimately using the "conspiracy theory" label to dismiss reasonable controversy. These people are looking for exactly the reaction you're providing for them.

If it is a "conspiracy theory," then those who say that owe us to prove to us that it fits the label. They can't just throw it at something, and expect it to stick. But far too often, we, the public, let it stick anyway; because nobody wants to get labelled as buying into a "conspiracy theory."

[vegetariantaxidermy]

That's what they want you to believe: that something is untrue simply by being labelled as a "conspiracy theory."

And apparently, you're exactly the audience they love: those who don't question the label.

Who are 'they'?

All the folks illegitimately using the "conspiracy theory" label to dismiss reasonable controversy. These people are looking for exactly the reaction you're providing for them.

If it is a "conspiracy theory," then those who say that owe us to prove to us that it fits the label. They can't just throw it at something, and expect it to stick. But far too often, we, the public, let it stick anyway; because nobody wants to get labelled as buying into a "conspiracy theory."

I just said forget it. It's obviously to complex for your brain.

[Immanuel Can]

Who are 'they'?

All the folks illegitimately using the "conspiracy theory" label to dismiss reasonable controversy. These people are looking for exactly the reaction you're providing for them.

If it is a "conspiracy theory," then those who say that owe us to prove to us that it fits the label. They can't just throw it at something, and expect it to stick. But far too often, we, the public, let it stick anyway; because nobody wants to get labelled as buying into a "conspiracy theory."

I just said forget it. It's obviously to complex for your brain.

Well, too much for somebody, anyway.

[Dubious]

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.

You wrote: empowered parasites in office to attempt to shut down the world.

Sounds monolithic to me requiring the collusion of the medical profession to accomplish by pretending it to be lethal when according to you and IC it's nothing more than a severe version of a head cold.

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.

I have a quirk of my own often waiting for three knocks before opening the door. Third knock accepted:

It's yours for as long it doesn't belong to someone else, as has been the case for many millions throughout history in which ownership of another human to whatever degree was considered neither immoral nor illegal. One way or another, humans have always treated each other as commodities according to status and regardless of age. It could manifest in myriad ways from absolute in which one's existence was itself a prerogative of the owner, to being indentured for whatever period of time with almost no recourse to protest any of the conditions subjected to. Though serfs too were not overtly slaves, they may as well have been by the conditions accorded to their status.

As mentioned, there are many ways in which your life is no-longer your own which subsisted throughout history, its morality and legality hardly ever in question from the most ancient times onward. It would take a huge volume just to define the most egregious types.

One kind I personally find most depressing happened not very long ago during the Industrial Revolution when children were forced into factories often working 16 hours a day. I read of one case in England where a child less than 10 years old fell asleep standing up, beaten back into awareness by a factory supervisor. At the end of his 16-hour day he was so exhausted his father had to carry him home. He fell asleep immediately but never woke up to return to life and what he considered to be his duty, which he took rather seriously to support the family.

In almost none of these instances did anyone forfeit their life by choice.

So my question to you - beyond merely stating it as if it were some objective religious or philosophical truth instead of the existential quandary it really is - when did any such absolute moral claim ever exist, when in practice both morality and legality colluded to endorse the ownership of another to whatever degree considered legal throughout history in almost every country?

In the light of all that reality, the real story denounces all your absolute moral claim propositions as nothing more than philosophic chimera...a kind of idealism to be discussed and only that.

To repeat: there is no absolute moral claim to anything regarding human behavior. All that's required for something to be acknowledged as resolutely moral is to have it endorsed both by authority and consensus, which, as it turns out, are often the seedbeds for every kind of subsequent deprivation and immorality.

[Dubious]

Duplicate