Covid-19 and the madness of crowds

SteveG wrote: siLLy puPPy wrote: suitkees wrote: ^ Now, this sounds a bit different than what you said before, which was more a stance against the capitalist/corporate powers - to which I actually agree with, but especially in the sense to combat the inequalities between people that a capitalist system creates and/or tries to maintain. But the solution you seem to promote is just to adopt the same capitalist/corporate stance for your own financial gain, thus maintaining the inequalities between people of a same society - promoting egoism over solidarity. Exactly the same selfishness that drives people not to wear masks in these covid-dominated times (to get back to the thread topic...). Navigating the legal system and adhering to natural laws are two completely different topics. Anybody can still be a profit seeking psychopath as a sovereign secure creditor. Many of the rich elites already know all this stuff which is why they avoid paying federal income taxes. They research this information. Most don't. As far as masks go, there is no consensus on that. My point of bringing up this legal stuff is to show that those who are making decisions about public health are really corporations disguising as governments making these mandates for their own agendas. When it comes to this sovereignty stuff the financial part is a benefit but escaping the jurisdiction of the psychopaths is golden. Think of it like this. When you work for a corporation like Wal-Mart for example, you agree to abide by the company's policies while you are at the job. When you are a citizen of the US corporation (or any other around the planet) you are agreeing to its policies and therefore subject to its rules and regulations and forfeiting your constitutional rights. By going through all this legal mumbo jumbo you are basically becoming an independent contractor and can operate as benign or as maliciously as the freewill universe allows. Many of the richest individuals understand these concepts which is why they monopolize the markets. These principles very much apply to this service corporation dictating mask wearing, lockdowns etc. As a biologist who studies what's going on, i see more agenda playing out than actual science. What you have described is capitalism in the free market. That it is inherently a corrupt system is not mandated by any government contract with the rich as the government was simply created by the rich for the rich. And that includes all the perks that go along with being wealthy in that type of government. There's nothing secret or conspiratorial about it. That's the way it is and most every intelligent person knows it.

siLLy puPPy wrote: BaldFriede wrote: siLLy puPPy wrote: suitkees wrote: ^ Now, this sounds a bit different than what you said before, which was more a stance against the capitalist/corporate powers - to which I actually agree with, but especially in the sense to combat the inequalities between people that a capitalist system creates and/or tries to maintain. But the solution you seem to promote is just to adopt the same capitalist/corporate stance for your own financial gain, thus maintaining the inequalities between people of a same society - promoting egoism over solidarity. Exactly the same selfishness that drives people not to wear masks in these covid-dominated times (to get back to the thread topic...). Navigating the legal system and adhering to natural laws are two completely different topics. Anybody can still be a profit seeking psychopath as a sovereign secure creditor. Many of the rich elites already know all this stuff which is why they avoid paying federal income taxes. They research this information. Most don't. As far as masks go, there is no consensus on that. My point of bringing up this legal stuff is to show that those who are making decisions about public health are really corporations disguising as governments making these mandates for their own agendas. When it comes to this sovereignty stuff the financial part is a benefit but escaping the jurisdiction of the psychopaths is golden. Think of it like this. When you work for a corporation like Wal-Mart for example, you agree to abide by the company's policies while you are at the job. When you are a citizen of the US corporation (or any other around the planet) you are agreeing to its policies and therefore subject to its rules and regulations and forfeiting your constitutional rights. By going through all this legal mumbo jumbo you are basically becoming an independent contractor and can operate as benign or as maliciously as the freewill universe allows. Many of the richest individuals understand these concepts which is why they monopolize the markets. These principles very much apply to this service corporation dictating mask wearing, lockdowns etc. As a biologist who studies what's going on, i see more agenda playing out than actual science. I just want to point out that there is no such thing as "adhering to natural laws". Oh really? Gravity isn't a natural law? Go ahead and jump off a cliff and see if those laws don't apply to you whether you believe in them or not.

My hat’s off to Mike. It is very difficult to explain any of these things to anyone who has never read anything from the “other side”.
I’ve more or less completely stopped talking about these things because I am always having to explain myself to folks who’ve never read a single page of say WikiLeaks. People naturally assume that you’ve completely gone fishing...and yet fail to realise that I actually did the proper legwork myself. I read both(several) sides to X and simply chose to believe the things that seem the most plausible...which in essence sounds crazy when you first take a look at some of this stuff.
It’s way easier to shoot everything down without actually looking into it..instead of having to admit to being wrong.
Anyhoo I’m out. I just wanted to give a shout-out to the friendly canine

Guldbamsen wrote: My hat’s off to Mike. It is very difficult to explain any of these things to anyone who has never read anything from the “other side”. I’ve more or less completely stopped talking about these things because I am always having to explain myself to folks who’ve never read a single page of say WikiLeaks. People naturally assume that you’ve completely gone fishing...and yet fail to realise that I actually did the proper legwork myself. I read both(several) sides to X and simply chose to believe the things that seem the most plausible...which in essence sounds crazy when you first take a look at some of this stuff. It’s way easier to shoot everything down without actually looking into it..instead of having to admit to being wrong. Anyhoo I’m out. I just wanted to give a shout-out to the friendly canine

Lewian wrote: My impression is that many of those who understand that things are not as simple as how they look from the surface, and that not everything that comes "from above" can be trusted want to replace some kind of "official story" (which they represent as something pretty consonant and uniform but in fact is a hodgepodge of different thoughts containing hardly anything universally consistent)  with their own simplistic idea, and that's when things get murky.

Guldbamsen wrote:  I never know to where to start with these things unless I’m opposite a real life person so as I can better judge the recipient...but I certainly sympathise with a lot of what you write. Hell that could have been a post I made a couple of years back. All of this is indeed so very complicated by so many factors it literally boggles the mind...which also is why I simply stopped talking about it to other people. To have a meaningful conversation with anyone, you at the very least need to know that the other person know just a little of what you are refering to....and even if they do know a little, they know a small snippet seen from a tiny keyhole....and well I end up sounding like a mad man..and I don’t want to be Bernard Marx screaming lunacy from a hill top. Put another way: how many years have WikiLeaks been online by now? ..and how many regular people have seriously looked at it? There are some things you have to learn/find out for yourself. I would certainly never have believed any of this stuff if someone over the net tried to explain it to me...even by way of links.

Guldbamsen wrote: My hat’s off to Mike. It is very difficult to explain any of these things to anyone who has never read anything from the “other side”. I’ve more or less completely stopped talking about these things because I am always having to explain myself to folks who’ve never read a single page of say WikiLeaks. People naturally assume that you’ve completely gone fishing...and yet fail to realise that I actually did the proper legwork myself. I read both(several) sides to X and simply chose to believe the things that seem the most plausible...which in essence sounds crazy when you first take a look at some of this stuff. It’s way easier to shoot everything down without actually looking into it..instead of having to admit to being wrong. Anyhoo I’m out. I just wanted to give a shout-out to the friendly canine

Alternate realities are quite believable, but when someone acts as if they have all the answers, answers challenges by saying "do the reseach" instead explaining their argument and then claims to actually live off the grid by not being beholden to these "secret" government rules and dictates, than they are either not playing with a full deck or with a few extra jokers added in.

^ +1 to what suitkees said 3 posts above.

"Carrying" doubts? No, sir and ma'am. They don't hinder movement, on condition that you can turn them into "weightless" data. 

"Veritas, Credo, Oculos" 

Edited by Shadowyzard - December 13 2020 at 05:41

rogerthat wrote: Guldbamsen wrote:  I never know to where to start with these things unless I’m opposite a real life person so as I can better judge the recipient...but I certainly sympathise with a lot of what you write. Hell that could have been a post I made a couple of years back. All of this is indeed so very complicated by so many factors it literally boggles the mind...which also is why I simply stopped talking about it to other people. To have a meaningful conversation with anyone, you at the very least need to know that the other person know just a little of what you are refering to....and even if they do know a little, they know a small snippet seen from a tiny keyhole....and well I end up sounding like a mad man..and I don’t want to be Bernard Marx screaming lunacy from a hill top. Put another way: how many years have WikiLeaks been online by now? ..and how many regular people have seriously looked at it? There are some things you have to learn/find out for yourself. I would certainly never have believed any of this stuff if someone over the net tried to explain it to me...even by way of links. I think Lewian's point is that when he does get engaged, he doesn't have good answers.  Did you see how he clammed up when I said I was talking about THE City of London and not London city; at first he assumed I was talking about London the financial hub in general.  I do not like being underestimated and I think I speak for most people.  If anybody assumes their source of knowledge is that arcane, they can have it for themselves, I don't need to hear about it. We have exchanged PMs about the Kennedy assassination and the US Deep State, so it is not like I am totally unreceptive to views that don't align with the mainstream media.  Why should I believe in the American mainstream narrative anyway when I don't live there?  Sitting here in India, I knew that the Iraq war for which NYT and CNN were manufacturing consensus was a fraud.  We knew it before the war started and long before Bush finally fessed up about it.   All that doesn't mean I will uncritically accept a counter narrative because somebody shares the same conspiratorial tone as me.

My post was not directed at anything or anyone in particular in here, I’m sorry if I gave that impression
My point is merely that talking about this to anyone, especially over the net, seems so futile.
I could point to all kinds of different leaked papers and whistleblowers and I have tried this so many times by now...but all it really amounts to is ‘bullit-points’ for people to shoot down by way of a few Google clicks and/or merely by simple and common knowledge because we ALL know X about this part of human history.
I’m getting convoluted now so I’ll stop.
All I’m saying is that there are some things you need to find out for yourself. You’ll never believe it otherwise...and I certainly realise how proposterous that sounds, but I am looking back at a somewhat turbulent relationship with all of this. I didn’t magically believe in everything the first time I heard it. It sounded absolutely absurd to tell you the truth.
But when the penny dropped it was almost as if I’d lost a loved one in that I felt many of the things I learned growing up and many of the things I trusted in was an illusion or a twisted take on reality.
Another part of why I don’t point people in X direction is that I genuinely don’t want to colour their views beforehand. Truth be told, I would love for someone to wade all of this through, come back to me and say ‘I’ve figured it out - there’s nothing to worry about...it was just the most insanely elaborate hoax in human history’. That would make my day

Obviously we're not going to convince each other here, surely not with the repeating request to do more research elsewhere. But fair enough, I can accept that not everything can be explained straight away. So I do take the hint to look around some more on WikiLeaks.