Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.

[Pat]

As I've said before, that's why I think the greatest x-risk the human race faces isn't some cosmic catastrophe or even the development of AI, but the emergence of a one world government with surveillance powers that make those in 1984 look childish. I don't see any way back from it.

So you pretty much agree with me?

In general outline, yes. Which is why I've been pointing out that you haven't been reading what I said, because I've been very consistent on this point. But in specifics, no. You seem to be grasping at the most outlandish theories when simple explanations suffice. This isn't a carefully coordinated conspiracy with a concrete end result. It's a general ideology with a set of beliefs, backed up by a set of intellectual traditions, that are pushing a certain direction; along with people opportunistically taking advantage of the immediate situation to their immediate benefit.

Evolution might be a good analogy, but I'm not using evolution in the highly inaccurate pop science sense. Pop science treats evolution as a kind of destiny, but that's based on a fundamental misunderstanding. Evolution isn't about general improvement or developing into "higher" forms. No, it's much narrower. It's about adapting an organism to a specific environment. It's also highly progressive. Complex features like eyes or wings can't just spring out of nowhere, overnight. They have to evolve through a series of small, incremental steps. And every single one of those incremental steps has to provide a new, progressive benefit to the organism, or they won't happen.

Human behavior is similar. While humans do have some direction -- the Frankfurt school, for instance, laid out a lot of the intellectual underpinnings, and it was later merged with postmodernism -- grand conspiracies where large groups of people over multiple generations coordinate in secret to accomplish some grand goal are incredibly implausible. What really happens is you have a school of thought that gives some general direction to a group of people, but they're all reacting independently to their personal circumstances. As a result, it adapts and changes over time, and while there may be some thought-leaders, it's the result of a lot of independent people acting based on their own values in their own perceived interest. So there's no secretive cabal, and no head to cut off. And it also means the movements changes over time, adapting in unpredictable ways to new political climates.

Small increases in centralized power benefit those currently in power, so the movement in the direction of one world government doesn't require some grand conspiracy. It's just individuals acting in their own selfish interests. There are theories surrounding it and advocates who do promote the end goal of a politically unified world as a good in itself, but it's mostly just things like individual governors going "hey, there's a virus and people want me to do something. What solution can I give them? Lockdowns! Whether or not they really work, it makes it look like I'm doing something! Plus, I'm on the news every day, and I really love that! Oh, and some people are complaining. How do I discredit them? I know, I'll call them antivaxxers!"

See? Pretty much every atomized action that's been done is in the immediate self-interest of those currently in power. If it required everyone to agree on a goal and work toward it all at the same time, or required short term sacrifice in the interests of a long term aim, then it would break down almost instantly. Instead, this is people waking up every morning, and going "what's my best response to what's happening today?" While it is tending toward an end result, that's the natural result of all these independent, selfish actions. Which is also why it's so hard to fight, because to stop it you don't just have to defeat a few leaders, you have to change how broad swaths of people think.

[Pat]

The question you should be asking is: If there are evidences that point to it being augmented... then why isn't China being blamed for being "careless" with the virus? Why is the media and the international community silent on that? All of them complied with quarantines and put their economies and lives at risk because of this... and nobody demands an explanation? Nobody is asking China for compensations because of their mistake?

They aren't silent. The political winds shifted a few months ago from "China did nothing wrong" to "the lab leak is one of two possible origins". That was a remarkable shift, because just a couple days before they were banning people who even broached the idea that that it might have been a lab leak.

The reason why is money and geopolitics. The scientists who wrote that highly influential letter in the Lancet debunking the lab leak theory at the very start of the pandemic all received major funding and awards from China. It's similar to the reason so many companies are kow-towing to China; they see gold in the world's biggest market, and know saying anything that might reflect badly on the Chinese Communist Party can kill their chances. So they shut up, and ignore the slave labor, organ harvesting, and lax lab safety protocols. And once that caught on, it became firmly ensconced because there's a lot of social pressure in the media and among the political elite to adopt the prevailing narrative, and suppress alternate points of view.

That being said, if you do believe people work to centralize their power against the people's best interests and would take advantage of a crisis to increase their power... What's stopping them from wanting to install a world government to extend their influence worldwide? What's stopping them from releasing a virus to induce such a crisis? Absolutely nothing. What is so irrational about thinking the same people who pulled MKUltra, the Great Leap Forward, Holodomor, Operation Sea Spray, forced sterilizations and abortions, WMD in Iraq, KGB, CIA sting ops, lying media, 9/11, WW2, etc. would release a mostly harmless virus for political gain? No way, surely they wouldn't lie...

You know what all those things have in common? Incompetence and self-serving behavior. There's no need for conspiracy theories.

[SonTodoGato]

What is the outlandish theory I believe in? Both you and I agree that there is

1) A man made virus
2) Media silence and international compliance
3) A tendency towards world government

But saying this is intentional is too crazy. What you attribute to incompetence I attribute to a deliberate attempt. There's an adage that goes "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity", which is commonly accepted as a trueism. I do not rule out incompetence, but when it comes to viruses, top security labs, media coverup and a dictatorship superpower, I assume they're not that stupid. I could be wrong, but it's not adequate to just rule out malice. We know these people lie, kill and strive for world dominion. It's no secret. Or do you really think communists disappeared in 1991?

My questions to you are:

1) Why does the WEF predict a future in which "you'll own nothing and you'll be happy" for 2030? Does this have anything to do with Agenda 2030?

2) Why did the US accept as its official policy to strive for a "world federation", "world law" and "disarmament" of all nations to be replaced by a singly UN army?

3) Why did NATO officials talked about a transitions towards world government?

4) Two founders of the European Union (Churchill and Kalergi) meant for it to be a step towards world government, and Sutherland, another EU official said it had to "undermine national homogeneity" a couple of years ago. Is that project still ongoing or not? Why?

5) Did all the communists abandon their ideology of an international soviet union by 1991 or did they simply switch to a different strategy, as defectors Yuri Bezmenov and Anatoly Golitsyn and Fidel Castro himself stated (infiltration of the catholic church, oppressors-oppressed dialectic, media and university indoctrination, focusing on Latin America, etc.)?

6) When politicians mention the "new world order" in their speeches, is it just a coincidence or is it a cover reference to H.G. Wells' book, which advocated for a socialist world government?

7) The UN has the "Isaiah wall" outside of its HQ. What bible verse does it reference and what does it mean?

Anyway, here are a few more pics just in case anyone is interested:

Fabian Society, the socialist group that believes in gradual transition towards socialism. To this group belonged Tony Blair and Stuart Chase, from whom FDR got his "new deal".



Freemasonry's goal is the unification of all mankind





Unesco's job is to strive towards world government



Paul Ehrlich, environmentalist alarmist, and John P. Holdren (Obama's environmental advisor) arguing for world government.

[Pat]

So you didn't directly respond to a single argument I made, but instead gave me a homework project where I'm supposed to research and then give you an answer to 7 questions, each of which has massive implications that would require an entirely lengthy essay to unpack, yet are highly specific and esoteric, and have, at best, a weak connection to the topic on hand?

That's not engaging in conversation. That's trying to distract away from the conversation.

You're like Ken Hite, except you're not just having fun. You believe.

[SonTodoGato]

So you didn't directly respond to a single argument I made, but instead gave me a homework project where I'm supposed to research and then give you an answer to 7 questions, each of which has massive implications that would require an entirely lengthy essay to unpack, yet are highly specific and esoteric, and have, at best, a weak connection to the topic on hand?

That's not engaging in conversation. That's trying to distract away from the conversation.

You're like Ken Hite, except you're not just having fun. You believe.

Not at all what happened. You can't tell me I didn't offer any arguments or evidence. I didn't bother with the ad hominems and went straight to the point we have in common and stated my personal view quite clearly. I'm asking you a few questions but you're not obliged to answer any. I showed you official statements from US, UN and EU which state a deliberate world government project, yet you still think it's "irrational" to suspect the project is still ongoing and that the globalist trend is purely spontaneous and unintentional.

This is the denial of conspiracies because of feelings; you feel it is irrational and don't like it so it must be false. We've been told by the media that all conspiracies are irrational and that we must ostracize or ridicule those who dare question the integrity of authority, while we're advised to simply move along and pretend there isn't anything. I've seen it plenty of times, no matter how much evidence you show they still evade it. If you're intellectually honest with yourself, do think about it and see what arguments you have for and against.

Anyway; here are a few more quotes. This time from James Warburg, from the Warburg banking family:

The past 15 years of my life have been devoted almost exclusively to studying the problem of world peace and, especially, the relation of the United States to these problems. These studies led me, 10 years ago, to the conclusion that the great question of our time is not whether or not one world can be achieved, but whether or not one world can be achieved by peaceful means.

We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest.

--------------

Mr. Chairman, I am here to testify in favor of Senate Resolution 56, which, if concurrently enacted with the House, would make the peaceful transformation of the United Nations into a world federation the avowed aim of United States policy. The passage of this resolution seems to me the first prerequisite toward the development of an affirmative American policy which would lead us out of the valley of death and despair.

--------------

First: Senate Resolution 56 goes to the root of the evil in the present state of international anarchy. It recognizes that there is no cure for this evil short of making the United Nations into a universal organization capable of enacting, interpreting, and enforcing world law to the degree necessary to outlaw force, or the threat of force, as an instrument of foreign policy. It states the objective in unequivocal terms.

Source: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/James_Warburg_before_the_Subcommittee_on_Revision_of_the_United_Nations_Charter

[Pat]

Not at all what happened. You can't tell me I didn't offer any arguments or evidence.

It's exactly what happened. I made a lengthy post, and you didn't directly respond to a single argument I made in it. Instead, you gave me a homework project on minutia that exemplifies deflection and missing the forest for the trees.

And if you think you avoided ad hominems, what exactly would you call all the times where you told me what I was thinking and feeling, including in this very post?

yet you still think ... that the globalist trend is purely spontaneous and unintentional.

That's literally almost the opposite of what I said, which demonstrates you're still not reading what I have to say. While it finally sunk in that I do believe there's been a general trend toward more centralized government, there are a lot of other things I've said that you're completely missing.

This is the denial of conspiracies because of feelings; you feel it is irrational and don't like it so it must be false.

Okay, let's talk about feelings. As I've pointed out before, your quotes tend to support my position, but not yours, because my position is based on simple, logical extensions of what we know about events and human behavior. But you can't accept that, because you need a grand conspiracy to fill some emotional need. You feel it must be true. So you go with irrational conclusions based on reading far too much into a based on a web of isolated statements.

See?

[SonTodoGato]

It's exactly what happened. I made a lengthy post, and you didn't directly respond to a single argument I made in it. Instead, you gave me a homework project on minutia that exemplifies deflection and missing the forest for the trees.

And if you think you avoided ad hominems, what exactly would you call all the times where you told me what I was thinking and feeling, including in this very post?

I pointed out a typical behavior I come across; usually people who resort to personal attacks, which is what you did from the beginning. Saw it with wokes as well; they evade the point and try to insult you as a person, shifting the conversation to other topics.

I didn't give you "homework on minutia"; I asked you questions on official statements which you still didn't even answer; all you had to do is give your opinion. I guess you just think all of those statements are meaningless and irrelevant, but I think they were published for a reason and reflect an intended course of action.

yet you still think ... that the globalist trend is purely spontaneous and unintentional.
That's literally almost the opposite of what I said.

Here's what you wrote.

This isn't a carefully coordinated conspiracy with a concrete end result. It's a general ideology with a set of beliefs, backed up by a set of intellectual traditions, that are pushing a certain direction; along with people opportunistically taking advantage of the immediate situation to their immediate benefit

If you do think there is a general, intentional trend towards world government... What do you disagree with me on, exactly?

Okay, let's talk about feelings. As I've pointed out before, your quotes tend to support my position, but not yours, because my position is based on simple, logical extensions of what we know about events and human behavior. But you can't accept that, because you need a grand conspiracy to fill some emotional need. You feel it must be true. So you go with irrational conclusions based on reading far too much into a based on a web of isolated statements.

See?

I don't see how they support your position because at this point I'm not even sure what it is. You also assume you know what "human behavior" is, and think your position is logical just because it makes sense to you. None of those are "isolated" statements; they were official statements from heads of states, the UN, the USA, and the EU, as well as NATO and the WEF. They were not isolated comments with no relation to each other as you seem to imply. I don't have to resort to feelings when I have their admission.

[Zelen]

Can we get a separate thread for the bigger socio-political agendas at play and keep talk about SarsCov-2 & Covid to this thread?

[HappyDaze]

Can we get a separate thread for the bigger socio-political agendas at play and keep talk about SarsCov-2 & Covid to this thread?

I too would like to see the moronic conspiracy theories moved into their own thread.

[SonTodoGato]

Can we get a separate thread for the bigger socio-political agendas at play and keep talk about SarsCov-2 & Covid to this thread?

I too would like to see the moronic conspiracy theories moved into their own thread.

As usual, only personal attacks and ignoring the blatant evidence. No different from an average woke

[FelixGamingX1]

Today Australia realized they can't continue implementing draconian lockdowns. I still want to see the idiots who shot the dogs persecuted, hopefully for life.

[SonTodoGato]

Today Australia realized they can't continue implementing draconian lockdowns. I still want to see the idiots who shot the dogs persecuted, hopefully for life.

why would they do that?

[Pat]

It's exactly what happened. I made a lengthy post, and you didn't directly respond to a single argument I made in it. Instead, you gave me a homework project on minutia that exemplifies deflection and missing the forest for the trees.

And if you think you avoided ad hominems, what exactly would you call all the times where you told me what I was thinking and feeling, including in this very post?

I pointed out a typical behavior I come across; usually people who resort to personal attacks, which is what you did from the beginning. Saw it with wokes as well; they evade the point and try to insult you as a person, shifting the conversation to other topics.

As I pointed out, that's exactly what you've been doing by saying I'm emotional and irrational.

Conversely, all I did at the beginning was call your post "conspiracy theory nonsense". It's quite a stretch to call that an ad hominem, because it's specifically talking about what you said, rather than attacking you as a person. It's the difference between saying "that's a stupid argument". and "you're stupid".

So you yourself are using a typical Woke stratagem: You're attacking me for using the tactics you're using, in the apparent hope that it'll give you cover when I inevitably point it out.

I didn't give you "homework on minutia"; I asked you questions on official statements which you still didn't even answer; all you had to do is give your opinion. I guess you just think all of those statements are meaningless and irrelevant, but I think they were published for a reason and reflect an intended course of action.

Your questions are loaded with assumptions, which I'd have to unpack and dismiss in order to fairly address them. They also miss the point, because, as I've repeatedly noted, they all support my position. Since my position is based on simple extrapolation of what's known and standard human behavior, and your position is based on the same evidence, but requires belief in an inhuman degree of coordination and consistency, Occam's razor favors my position.

yet you still think ... that the globalist trend is purely spontaneous and unintentional.
That's literally almost the opposite of what I said.

Here's what you wrote.

This isn't a carefully coordinated conspiracy with a concrete end result. It's a general ideology with a set of beliefs, backed up by a set of intellectual traditions, that are pushing a certain direction; along with people opportunistically taking advantage of the immediate situation to their immediate benefit

If you do think there is a general, intentional trend towards world government... What do you disagree with me on, exactly?

I don't believe there's a conspiracy.

[Pat]

One interesting point being made in libertarian circles is the lockdowns have been good for the idea of decentralization and even succession. Because despite the dictates of the CDC, and several attempts to push toward a unified world response, each state and each nation went their own way, and there was a wide diversity of response. A consequence of that is people began to think of themselves as Californians or Floridians again, and not just Americans. There was an acknowledgement of the power of governors and states in general, and thus a slight revival of federalism. Combined with the previous attempts like sanctuary cities, marijuana legalization, and gay marriage; there are now strong precedents in place for states to go their own on way on key issues. Even in the EU, national sovereignty took priority over the Schengen region, and probably lent a bit more oomph to any future Eurexits. In Canada, you couldn't drive from Nova Scotia to British Columbia.

So while the lockdowns have strongly favored totalitarian measures rather than freedom, and they've set a lot of precedents that grant more power to central authorities, they also may have revived the formerly moribund concept that all politics are local, and the idea that people should be able to decide what the rules are in their own backyards.

[FelixGamingX1]

Today Australia realized they can't continue implementing draconian lockdowns. I still want to see the idiots who shot the dogs persecuted, hopefully for life.

why would they do that?

No such thing as a stupid question.