Jump to content
The Education Forum

Conspiracy Theories & The Media: JFK & Beyond ....


Recommended Posts

On 3/11/2021 at 7:25 AM, Cliff Varnell said:

The freedom to poison other people because you're too vain to wear a mask?

Never before in history has a government (through the "advice" of technocrats like Bill Gates and Fauci) made healthy people so vilified. Real science has shown that asymptomatic people (who never develop symptoms, formerly called immune and almost never tested for a virus) are responsible for almost no transmission, within the margin of error of 0 in some studies. Pre-symptomatic people (those who test positive without symptoms and go on to develop them later) make up about 7% of transmission. Considering the lockdowns have possibly killed thousands, it makes absolutely no sense to require masks and lockdowns. There is also plenty of real science about negative side effects to wearing masks all the time, including psychological, medical, cultural and so on. But I understand this is already dead horse territory and that a 2021 Democrat will continually back the propaganda paid for by big pharma and their various supporters against any actual science.

 

On 3/12/2021 at 1:36 AM, Cliff Varnell said:

There would need to be a robust anti-vaccination movement to slow down community immunity, allowing the virus to spin off variants that might not get knocked out by vaxx.

I do not claim to have a PhD in Virology but, you are showing a complete lack of knowledge about viruses here Cliff. The vaccine (in a bizarre twist on vaccine expectations) does not prevent transmission or infection, it only has been shown to reduce symptoms, thus completely negating that argument attempting to blame normal healthy people for the "spin off variants". I am sure that going forward, the propaganda will attempt to further vilify those who simply wish to take the 99%+ chance of survival on their own immune systems. In my state, 150 people have died from Covid who had no prior health issues out of a population of about 7 million and over 500,000 "cases". It is completely insane to mandate an experimental nanotech vaccine to fight those odds.  

As (pro-vaxxer) Dr. Vanden Bossche recently stated, mass vaccination DURING a pandemic is a very stupid idea due to the probability of viral escape. This vaccine has the potential to displace your bodies natural NK cells which are adaptable at fighting virus variants and focusing it on a very small few. This is exactly what happened in every coronavirus vaccine trial for the last twenty years. The animals that were vaxxed then died at horrific numbers when actually exposed to a virus later on. This vaccine does not prevent infection or transmission, thus vaccinated people may become carriers of variants that are immune to the prior covid vaccine. Did anyone say permanent business model? Of course, a typical 7-10 year safety trial tends to prevent this sort of thing from happening, but I guess 6 months is good enough.

 

On a forum connected sidenote of recent JFK news mentions... did anyone watch Kristi Noem's speech where she quoted JFK? The surprising thing to me was when she revealed who the quote was from, the CPAC crowd cheered at the mention of his name. Also, Tucker Carlson recently made a comment about releasing the full Warren Report. I understand he's technically incorrect, but the point is not one you will see made on MSNBC, CBS, ABC or from the old timey rags either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

Let's not forget the Royal family Chris. Is virus loving Phillip still with us?

True - Another pantomime. 

They probably isolated him to keep him out of the Harry/Meghan debacle. He’s not known for his tactful nature. ☺️ 

Edited by Chris Barnard
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

Never before in history has a government (through the "advice" of technocrats like Bill Gates and Fauci) made healthy people so vilified.

Turning yourself into a victim, Dennis?

30 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

Real science has shown that asymptomatic people (who never develop symptoms, formerly called immune and almost never tested for a virus) are responsible for almost no transmission, within the margin of error of 0 in some studies.

The definition of "real science" in this context is that which conforms to Dennis Berube's steel-ribbed confirmation bias.

The truth about COVID-19 and asymptomatic spread: It’s common, so wear a mask and avoid large gatherings

https://www.uchealth.org/today/the-truth-about-asymptomatic-spread-of-covid-19/

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4851

The transmission rates to contacts within a specific group (secondary attack rate) may be 3-25 times lower for people who are asymptomatic than for those with symptoms.  A city-wide prevalence study of almost 10 million people in Wuhan found no evidence of asymptomatic transmission.  Coughing, which is a prominent symptom of covid-19, may result in far more viral particles being shed than talking and breathing, so people with symptomatic infections are more contagious, irrespective of close contact.  On the other hand, asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic people may have more contacts than symptomatic people (who are isolating), underlining the importance of hand washing and social distancing measures for everyone. </q>

30 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

 

Pre-symptomatic people (those who test positive without symptoms and go on to develop them later) make up about 7% of transmission.

From the article quoted above:

Earlier estimates that 80% of infections are asymptomatic were too high and have since been revised down to between 17% and 20% of people with infections. Studies estimating this proportion are limited by heterogeneity in case definitions, incomplete symptom assessment, and inadequate retrospective and prospective follow-up of symptoms, however. Around 49% of people initially defined as asymptomatic go on to develop symptoms.  </q>

30 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

Considering the lockdowns have possibly killed thousands, it makes absolutely no sense to require masks and lockdowns.

It makes absolutely no sense to regard the opinions of those who lie pathologically about everything.

30 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

There is also plenty of real science about negative side effects to wearing masks all the time, including psychological, medical, cultural and so on.

In Asia it's been a common practice for a long time and they don't seem to have a problem with it.

30 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

But I understand this is already dead horse territory and that a 2021 Democrat will continually back the propaganda paid for by big pharma and their various supporters against any actual science.

"Actual science" only applies to your confirmation biases.

30 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

I do not claim to have a PhD in Virology but, you are showing a complete lack of knowledge about viruses here Cliff. The vaccine (in a bizarre twist on vaccine expectations) does not prevent transmission or infection, it only has been shown to reduce symptoms, thus completely negating that argument attempting to blame normal healthy people for the "spin off variants".

 

What are the benefits of getting a COVID-19 vaccine?

 
A COVID-19 vaccine might:
  • Prevent you from getting COVID-19 or from becoming seriously ill or dying due to COVID-19
  • Prevent you from spreading the COVID-19 virus to others
  • Add to the number of people in the community who are protected from getting COVID-19 — making it harder for the disease to spread and contributing to herd immunity
  • Prevent the COVID-19 virus from spreading and replicating, which allows it to mutate and possibly become more resistant to vaccines. </q>

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dennis Berube said:

The vaccine (in a bizarre twist on vaccine expectations) does not prevent transmission or infection, it only has been shown to reduce symptoms, thus completely negating that argument attempting to blame normal healthy people for the "spin off variants".

 This vaccine does not prevent infection or transmission

 

 

I believe that is/was the general conclusion until more studies are performed:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid-19-pfizer-vaccine-may-reduce-transmission

https://www.verywellhealth.com/pfizer-vaccine-prevents-covid-transmission-5116193

Edited by Chris Davidson
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

I believe that is/was the general conclusion until more studies are performed:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid-19-pfizer-vaccine-may-reduce-transmission

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-02-covid-vaccines-block-disease-infection.html

"The limited data available suggests that vaccines will at least partly reduce transmission, and the studies to determine this with more clarity are underway," Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at the Center for Global Health Science and Security at Georgetown University Medical Center, wrote Wednesday (Feb. 24 2021) in the New York Times.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the Corbett Report videos, all I can say, having read through from start to finish all of the transcripts of the 2-hour video "Who is Bill Gates?" is: it is like reading LaRouche material or Alex Jones or QAnon. Lots of allegations and suspicions and sinister language, skipping over ever offering direct evidence for what is insinuated, going to the conclusion that therefore Bill Gates is sinister and simply cannot be, like the post-presidency Jimmy Carter, intent upon making a difference in the world for the better and doing so. See these two links:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/James_Corbett

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Bill-Gates-increasingly-becoming-a-right-wing-target?share=1

A number of times in the video I encountered shocking factual claims, which I fact-checked and found not to be true, on matters that the producers of this video would have known or had reason to suspect were not true but evidently prefer smear or propaganda effect to sober truth. Too much to go into here but I will comment on one point. A repeated smear in the video, which I have encountered in daily life believed as gospel truth by Trumpies, that Bill Gates is a eugenicist, is particularly egregious and is supported by zero evidence whatsoever in that video.

Eugenicists had an ideology of not caring or wasting time on conditions of poor people, whereas Gates has gone out of his way to direct his billions worldwide in a serious way to improve conditions for the world's poor. The video quotes the horrifying history of eugenics, then juxtaposes that with soundbites from Gates none of which are eugenics-advocating if examined. But unless the viewer is very alert that slight detail is likely to be missed.

It is the same way in the runup to the Iraq war Pres. George Bush II would give speeches putting the words "Saddam Hussein", "terrorists", and "911" in the same sentences, over and over, causing at its height according to polls nearly two-thirds of the American people believing that Saddam Hussein did 911--even though if you parse Bush's words he never actually claimed that: it was Big Lie by juxtaposition, repeated often enough, with intended outcome of whipping up popular belief in what the public understood to be a casus bellus, cause of war, for launching an unprovoked attack on Iraq. The evidence that these Bush word associations and their predictable outcome were intentional is because Bush never addressed the American people to directly correct the misunderstanding, never plainly told the American people that Saddam Hussein did not do 911. Big Lie with deniability ("I never said that"). 

The history of eugenics is cited in the video, juxtaposed with suspicious questions asking whether the Gates Foundation is covertly involved in a gigantic, sweeping, worldwide eugenics conspiracy, for which there has been not one single whistle-blower or confession or story showing evidence of this from credible investigative-journalism sources with track records for breaking true stories with evidence, such as Matt Taibbi/Rolling Stone, Mother Jones, "20/20", one of the credible NGO's, and so on. There are two key quotes from Gates set by the video in the context of the presentation of eugenics. The first is Gates saying (I am giving the sense of it not exact words) that when poor populations of the world have economic security and stable lives, when there is an end to infectious diseases and women have access to family planning and birth control, etc.--things that we take for granted in the developed world, nothing bad here at all--lots of data shows women by their own uncoerced choices will voluntarily space their childbirths farther apart and the world's population will peak and stabilize at 8.4 billion (less of whom are poor) sometime later this century instead of at 9.6 billion (more of whom are poor) according to projections. This is simply uncontroversial reality--that economically secure people have lower birthrates than people in dire poverty and desperation--and Gates cited this as a spinoff benefit of vaccinations and ending infectious diseases in poor countries.

The other Gates quote comes toward the end, in which a clip of Gates speaking is shown referring to policy tradeoffs in Third World nations between putting financial resources into money for teachers or into extremely costly extraordinary medical interventions at the end of life to prolong life by three weeks, and the video calls that eugenics. That is not eugenics. 

Similarly the video repeatedly speaks of Gates, like a drumbeat, as being about "population control" (put in quotes in the transcript), with its sinister overtones of China-like totalitarian government control over women's choices of childbearing, without documenting that that expression is either Bill Gates' language or intent (i.e. that that expression is used or advocated by him). That is, however, what the video wants the viewer to think, by images and insinuations cast in association. 

The video goes back and forth on whether Gates' "true motivation" or "true agenda" is to rake in more personal billions by large-scale covert grifting, or (contradictorily) not profit but rather totalitarian control and power over all the world's people. There is no evidence of any kind given in the video that either of these is Gates' motive with the Gates Foundation work, but the video explains that away with a wave of the hand by saying of course if there is a massive and deeply sinister conspiracy underlying Gates' "agenda", then it is not surprising that he would never speak of it openly. That is, lack of actual evidence is brushed aside as irrelevant.

The video criticizes objectionable business practices of Bill Gates with Microsoft prior to the Gates Foundation work. These criticisms may all be true for all I know, but their relevance or function is to have the viewer dislike Bill Gates and reflect negatively upon the motives and actions of the Gates Foundation work, but that is beside the point of assessing motives and deeds of Gates' work with the Gates Foundation. Similarly the video cites a story of the nerdy Bill Gates as a young man asking a young woman on a first date what her SAT score was (not the most romantic thing to win a woman's heart). That is sideshow. Allegations are cited of a tetanus vaccine in Kenya covertly laced with birth control given to women of child-bearing age without their knowledge or informed consent. I checked that, and from what I read, most likely that was not actually true, however there were certain things that looked that way and the priests in Kenya who raised those concerns were not doing so frivolously either and so my own conclusion is I do not know the full answer on that one (pretty serious if true, but I see no reports of Kenyan women who got that vaccine reporting inability to become pregnant, which I would expect to be the case if it were true, therefore I assume more likely it is not true). But the key point here: Gates had nothing to do with that! But it is told in the video giving the impression--by juxtaposition--that is what Gates is involved in doing!

The video cites Gates' embracing and funding of research for digital ID and other emerging technology, juxtaposing that with fears of losses of civil liberties and Orwellian totalitarianism. However no evidence is given that Gates himself wants the world to go totalitarian, as distinguished from networked. A more reasonable perspective would be to acknowledge serious risks and privacy issues with digitalization, as with any new technology, of misuse or totalitarianism, and politically wire in legal rights and firewalls, protections and democratic watchdog processes, into domestic and international law--but that digitalization for better or worse is going to happen.

In this world there are charlatans and there are good people, and we all have to make judgment calls, and attempt to develop the wisdom to know the difference. I judge Gates, referring to the Gates Foundation work here, as on the side of the better angels of this world, in terms of intent and accomplishments--within existing systems, which are far from perfect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Greg, 

Thanks for your thoughts, I am glad you have replied this way, as I think it adds some value to the thread in a constructive way. I have divided your post into quotes, not to diminish the meaning at all but, so its clear which points I am replying to. 
 

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

On the Corbett Report videos, all I can say, having read through from start to finish all of the transcripts of the 2-hour video "Who is Bill Gates?" is: it is like reading LaRouche material or Alex Jones or QAnon. Lots of allegations and suspicions and sinister language, skipping over ever offering direct evidence for what is insinuated, going to the conclusion that therefore Bill Gates is sinister and simply cannot be, like the post-presidency Jimmy Carter, intent upon making a difference in the world for the better and doing so. See these two links:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/James_Corbett

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Bill-Gates-increasingly-becoming-a-right-wing-target?share=1

I think you are perhaps doing the researcher a disservice comparing him to Lyndon LaRouche or QAnon. As mentioned further up on this now ever expanding thread, that's certainly a way to reduce the opinions of the documentary maker here, by putting the observations here in the same category as Alex Jones or the ridiculous "Flat Earth theory". It is the tactic of news outlets and internet giants alike. In some cases it may be warranted for them to do that and in others, it's a beautiful way to deflect criticism of anything they are allied or aligned to. I am going to use JFK comparisons, as it's something we are all familiar with on some level. In this case if we think about the origins of the term "Conspiracy Theory" in the second half of the 20th century, we can certainly see the CIA's history in coining the term to diminish public opinion in regard to the Warren Commission findings. I can also point out that Wiki says that LHO was the lone assassin of President John F. Kennedy. That may well open the thinking that Wikipedia can be wrong, and is quite often. You have a free site populated by the public, using links supplied by institutions with vast resources and sway. On a psychological level, we accept it under the premise that it's the world sharing accepted knowledge. I certainly don't agree with everything James Corbett or his acolytes support but, I do apply as much logic and critique as I possibly can to any theory, before its acceptable in my mind as probable. There are certainly times when I can be on the fence too, I just don't know either way. I obviously pointed out the "slant" in this video and it's very useful for us to break it down and validate or discredit. One thing I also do is try to understands (where possible) where the motives of the author / producer come from. ie is it resentful? Which can often be the case when people of great wealth are attacked in the public domain.

I do look at linguistics carefully, and everyday I am cognisant that news outlets are propagandising, the slant or bias is incredible. Maybe because I work in an industry that uses some of the techniques, I am more in tune to it. Agitation sells, not neutrality. So whilst this documentary is on one side of the spectrum, we should be aware of how many pro Gates articles have been thrust upon us using positive language. More often than not, you can see the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation are buying that PR, through paid partnerships. Should a stand alone good guy doing great things, need to buy all this public relations to be observed or heard? He is buying it on an astronomical level. You may well like to question how effective that is on the world population, having the repetition of positive articles in almost every walk of media. It's a tried and tested method. 
 

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

A number of times in the video I encountered shocking factual claims, which I fact-checked and found not to be true, on matters that the producers of this video would have known or had reason to suspect were not true but evidently prefer smear or propaganda effect to sober truth. Too much to go into here but I will comment on one point. A repeated smear in the video, which I have encountered in daily life believed as gospel truth by Trumpies, that Bill Gates is a eugenicist, is particularly egregious and is supported by zero evidence whatsoever in that video.

I would be interested in which information specifically and where you are fact checking that information to satisfy your opinion. I know we don't have all day to be sitting on the forum and replying, many of us are busy and this is time consuming. Isolating the Eugenics point, we have to ask ourselves whether the most famous philanthropist and donor of cash in history is being gravely mischaracterised or whether there is some level of validity. I can certainly see things like mentioning there was a William H Gates in the Population Council / Eugenics society is tenuous, without proof the two things are connected. It does shape the viewers perspective, but, as I have said, I see all of these tactics used when the shoe is on the other foot, also. Can we be critical of it on one side and not on the other?
 

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Eugenicists had an ideology of not caring or wasting time on conditions of poor people, whereas Gates has gone out of his way to direct his billions worldwide in a serious way to improve conditions for the world's poor. The video quotes the horrifying history of eugenics, then juxtaposes that with soundbites from Gates none of which are eugenics-advocating if examined. But unless the viewer is very alert that slight detail is likely to be missed.

 

Was it unfair of the producer to point out the 490k people paralysed with the Gates funded Polio jab? Should that be in the public domain in terms of balance? Or brushed under the carpet? Just like the late 40's, early 50's Polio jab which was pulled (nothing to do with Gates) but, it caused cancers and all sorts and it was a result of sapien virus's (from monkeys) used to procure/develop the vaccines. 
 

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

It is the same way in the runup to the Iraq war Pres. George Bush II would give speeches putting the words "Saddam Hussein", "terrorists", and "911" in the same sentences, over and over, causing at its height according to polls nearly two-thirds of the American people believing that Saddam Hussein did 911--even though if you parse Bush's words he never actually claimed that: it was Big Lie by juxtaposition, repeated often enough, with intended outcome of whipping up popular belief in what the public understood to be a casus bellus, cause of war, for launching an unprovoked attack on Iraq. The evidence that these Bush word associations and their predictable outcome were intentional is because Bush never addressed the American people to directly correct the misunderstanding, never plainly told the American people that Saddam Hussein did not do 911. Big Lie with deniability ("I never said that"). 

I think you and then producer of the video have some common ground here, as he has been very outspoken about the corrupt nature of the War in Iraq, manufacturing public consent, the 'Casus belli" etc. Never has "freedom" and "democracy" been used so much to stoke patriotism and public support as by GWB. All these guys are working from a playbook, PR firms and clever speech writers utilising the techniques of people like Edward Bernays, the godfather of modern PR, that doesn't have a red or blue colour, or political affiliations, they all use it. An interesting exercise might be to take a CNN article and a Fox article on the same topic and go down the page circling every time propaganda or bias is used in language. The news should be neutral, finding truth, not tribal. But, agitation and invoking passions is what sells news, not truth or neutrality. 
 

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

The history of eugenics is cited in the video, juxtaposed with suspicious questions asking whether the Gates Foundation is covertly involved in a gigantic, sweeping, worldwide eugenics conspiracy, for which there has been not one single whistle-blower or confession or story showing evidence of this from credible investigative-journalism sources with track records for breaking true stories with evidence, such as Matt Taibbi/Rolling Stone, Mother Jones, "20/20", one of the credible NGO's, and so on. There are two key quotes from Gates set by the video in the context of the presentation of eugenics. The first is Gates saying (I am giving the sense of it not exact words) that when poor populations of the world have economic security and stable lives, when there is an end to infectious diseases and women have access to family planning and birth control, etc.--things that we take for granted in the developed world, nothing bad here at all--lots of data shows women by their own uncoerced choices will voluntarily space their childbirths farther apart and the world's population will peak and stabilize at 8.4 billion (less of whom are poor) sometime later this century instead of at 9.6 billion (more of whom are poor) according to projections. This is simply uncontroversial reality--that economically secure people have lower birthrates than people in dire poverty and desperation--and Gates cited this as a spinoff benefit of vaccinations and ending infectious diseases in poor countries.

I think it's important to recognise that the over Eugenics movement pre-WW2, went underground after the German/Jewish holocaust. The world got together and signed agreements that mean body autonomy is paramount and that no government could force medical treatments or experiments on its citizens, with a caveat in regard to the mentally ill in most legal frameworks. You may well observe shades of the latter being abused in the Rosamund Pike 'I care for you' series on Amazon Prime.
On one hand it may seem a far stretch implying reducing human fertility, or bioethics, is in the same ball park, but, it absolutely is, there is an overlap. People suggesting ending the lives of full term babies (they've been born) is quite shocking, perhaps especially in your country where there is so much sensitivity about abortion. If we look at all of the organisations the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation is supporting/funding, is it wrong to highlight the vastness of this network or sphere of influence, particularly when we've seen the Rockefeller Foundation's apparent misuse of this grand influence in previous generations? 
When you refer to 'uncoerced' choices by women, we are coerced in almost every aspect of life, we assume the choices we make are our own original thought, but, the are largely influenced by propaganda which targets our subconscious and reaches us subliminally. This is what most people don't understand, the marketing of ideas is deeply psychological, just the same as products. The lowering birthrates can be attributed to many factors, not just wealth and the principal that your children were your retirement plan in days gone by (still are in Africa). Many people are struggling to conceive, people are less fertile, some of that is dietary, eating foods infused with things that reduce fertility, oestrogen in the water supply, lack of physical activity, sedentary lifestyles are one aspect. Another is entertainment being the "opium of the people" (a quote adapted from Marx by Huxley). We are so preoccupied with tech and dopamine triggering entertainment, that the incentive to mate is diminished. Look how we spend our time in 2021. Look at pornography, it's so abundant, it completely kills the male desire to go and find a mate. We are flooding our brain with dopamine from so many stimulants, that we don't have the need to have sex like we once did, which releases dopamine and serotonin, the happy chemicals in the brain. We are cheating the natural effort vs reward neurochemistry of the brain, and replacing it with artificial things that cheat that neurochemistry. Coffee, tea, sugary foods, alcohol, narcotics, prescription meds etc. Think back 120 years, we'd have been living in a house with no central heating, sugar was expensive, we worked in physical domains and you had no TV, internet, etc, you just had procreation as your delight and enjoyment. Another aspect is climate change, pressures on the environment, awareness of consumption of natural resources, there is a subconscious and conscious pressure to reduce birth rates. If our media, TV and internet is pressuring those ideas, we are almost certain to take them on board, which influences our decision making. The heavy taxation of the electorate, keeping most of the population's heads just above water financially, which is another distinct factor that inhibits people taking on the responsibility of having children. In fact academia has seen to it that we now have a whole generation (millenials) who don't want to take on any burden or responsibility, they certainly aren't having kids, they are big kids themselves. If you add to this scenario the absolutely out of control use of our data and preferences by tech giants to sell us things via digital marketing, it empties the accounts of most of the population in terms of disposable income. The funny thing is, I read an article from BBC last year telling us we need more migrants coming into the UK from war torn countries, because they are more fertile and birth rates are dropping in the UK. I guess the BBC journalist didn't think we could have more children ourselves as a population, the government hasn't really launched incentives and initiatives for us to increase the birth rates, if that is indeed necessary. Of course the above is a lie as we need cheap labour to stimulate the unsustainable economy that needs to perpetually grow, a surplus of labour is needed to keep wages low and ensure healthy profits for big corporations. But, that's another story. But, I am certain you can see how those things impact fertility rates. One more is the use of female contraceptive pills making it exceedingly difficulty for women to conceive in the aftermath of prolonged use. It really makes no odds whether we think the world can take a greater population or whether it should be reduced, the factors are there to reduce it and they are being pushed and we're given the explanation that it's a natural societal trend.
 

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

The other Gates quote comes toward the end, in which a clip of Gates speaking is shown referring to policy tradeoffs in Third World nations between putting financial resources into money for teachers or into extremely costly extraordinary medical interventions at the end of life to prolong life by three weeks, and the video calls that eugenics. That is not eugenics. 

That's bioethics. As mentioned earlier, there are some very worrying topics being discussed in regard to 'death panels' and this should be a matter of public discourse in a functioning democracy, not just limited to the few who are very wealthy. The more you read on bioethics and eugenics, you can see the parallels and crossover. The way you achieve a eugenics situation is by a softly softly approach, little by little expanding the boundaries of something like bioethics. Whilst decisions are made every day on prolonging the lives of the terminally ill, I am certain you can see how this can become a very dystopian scenario, even without reading Orwell or Huxley. We should have a free press reporting this impartially and constituents should vote on it. I am aware in the UK that we have a nationalised health service which we are taxed for and that in the USA you pay for it directly, there are differences. 

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Similarly the video repeatedly speaks of Gates, like a drumbeat, as being about "population control" (put in quotes in the transcript), with its sinister overtones of China-like totalitarian government control over women's choices of childbearing, without documenting that that expression is either Bill Gates' language or intent (i.e. that that expression is used or advocated by him). That is, however, what the video wants the viewer to think, by images and insinuations cast in association. 

This is where I will be in a very small minority on this forum but, I do subscribe to Huxley's Brave New World Revisited idea that the next great threat of tyranny will not come from a regime of forced or overt tyranny, I totally buy into the idea that it will come from a combination of propaganda and pharmacological methods. People will live in tyranny and servitude and they will be happy about it. Can you see any parallels with present trends and the way communist China or the USSR operated in the 20th century? Propaganda? Creating a neutral society? Erasing heritage/faith? Teaching populations to be ashamed of the past? As opposed to looking at it in context. I can see all of this with the way the 18-28 year olds are today, they think very differently, responding to passions fuelled by media and not logics or with understanding of history, they just feed you en vogue headlines. Are we losing liberties at an accelerating rate in the west, shifting toward authoritarianism? I certainly think so. I am not for 'we know best' governance. I like democracy, 'rule by the people, for the people'. Democracy only works if a population is vigilant, educated and is willing to stand up when freedoms and liberties are being taken away. I believe I am echoing not just Huxley there, but JFK & RFK. 

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

The video goes back and forth on whether Gates' "true motivation" or "true agenda" is to rake in more personal billions by large-scale covert grifting, or (contradictorily) not profit but rather totalitarian control and power over all the world's people. There is no evidence of any kind given in the video that either of these is Gates' motive with the Gates Foundation work, but the video explains that away with a wave of the hand by saying of course if there is a massive and deeply sinister conspiracy underlying Gates' "agenda", then it is not surprising that he would never speak of it openly. That is, lack of actual evidence is brushed aside as irrelevant.

To put this in context, let's look at all of the pro-Grates (bought) media coverage. Is there a single media outlet highlighting that he has monopolised a second global industry? There seems to be no focus on how he has more than doubled his fortune since giving $50bn away in 2010, aside from the Forbes rich list stuff and actuary reports from organisations like Price Waterhouse Coopers. If a guy is up on a pedestal giving us medical advice (despite not being a Dr) or expert in that field, should any apparent conflict of interest be pointed out in that scenario? ie if he stands to gain financially from the advice he is giving? That again is the role of the free press or government to question. 
So, his motive can be kindness, greed or something else. We need to find balance in our opinions on that. 

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

The video criticizes objectionable business practices of Bill Gates with Microsoft prior to the Gates Foundation work. These criticisms may all be true for all I know, but their relevance or function is to have the viewer dislike Bill Gates and reflect negatively upon the motives and actions of the Gates Foundation work, but that is beside the point of assessing motives and deeds of Gates' work with the Gates Foundation. Similarly the video cites a story of the nerdy Bill Gates as a young man asking a young woman on a first date what her SAT score was (not the most romantic thing to win a woman's heart). That is sideshow. Allegations are cited of a tetanus vaccine in Kenya covertly laced with birth control given to women of child-bearing age without their knowledge or informed consent. I checked that, and from what I read, most likely that was not actually true, however there were certain things that looked that way and the priests in Kenya who raised those concerns were not doing so frivolously either and so my own conclusion is I do not know the full answer on that one (pretty serious if true, but I see no reports of Kenyan women who got that vaccine reporting inability to become pregnant, which I would expect to be the case if it were true, therefore I assume more likely it is not true). But the key point here: Gates had nothing to do with that! But it is told in the video giving the impression--by juxtaposition--that is what Gates is involved in doing!

Neither you or I know his motives. We can say he was a prickly merciless character in his youth and we can also see latterly he has given $50bn away to causes. Whether he is doing something nefarious or not, it will all have been organised by the best public relations strategy that money can buy. The Kenya thing is addressed in a separate video in more detail, and giving clarity, public information was distributed on the back of that, this producer has relayed that as a journalist. I do agree with you, mentioning Bill Gates asking his first date her SAT score does paint a picture, so does focussing on the Kennedy's reckless behaviour or alleged affairs. It is propaganda, contrived and it sets a tone. It also perhaps establishes character on some level. Again can we have one rule for the goose and another for the gander?
Gates has nothing to do with the Rockefeller Foundations annual meetings and the discussion or fertility controlling vaccines, Norplant etc and the connection with the WHO. At that time the Rockefeller Foundation were incredibly prominent in the industry and now it's the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation who are in that position, also working with the WHO. I believe they are the biggest private funder of the WHO behind the US Govt. I think it's fair to draw a parallel and to make the public aware of this history. The public can make up their own minds. We shouldn't have an opinion purely based on bought and paid Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation press releases through news networks, in my view. You are right to scrutinise this, just as I might scrutinise supportive propaganda. 

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

The video cites Gates' embracing and funding of research for digital ID and other emerging technology, juxtaposing that with fears of losses of civil liberties and Orwellian totalitarianism. However no evidence is given that Gates himself wants the world to go totalitarian, as distinguished from networked. A more reasonable perspective would be to acknowledge serious risks and privacy issues with digitalization, as with any new technology, of misuse or totalitarianism, and politically wire in legal rights and firewalls, protections and democratic watchdog processes, into domestic and international law--but that digitalization for better or worse is going to happen.

It's a good question. If you were one of the worlds richest men, would you want more say in world affairs or would you be content for democracy to run its course? Would you see it being fair that the deep south redneck living on meth had an equal share in how government is run, as you? Or would you develop a sense of entitlement and superiority? As a person rises up a dominance hierarchy, very often behaviours change. My comments there don't provide any certainty of Gate's character, just like a CNN or BBC piece on him being an all round good guy, don't. Look at presidential campaigns, look at the meteoric rise of people with abhorrent personal views, yet in the public domain they seemed like butter wouldn't melt in their mouths and they talked about things like; love, compassion, unity etc. I am just trying to give some perspective here. 
I completely agree on the digitalisation statement you have made. It seems unstoppable at this point, we've had 50 years to see it coming, pretty much, with the DARPA project and it's now a train without brakes. Could Gates short term or long term be a facilitator of that? Maybe, maybe not. I have mentioned his involvement in funding some of that tech earlier in the thread and also mentioned Musks's Neurolink and its potential uses. 

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

In this world there are charlatans and there are good people, and we all have to make judgment calls, and attempt to develop the wisdom to know the difference. I judge Gates, referring to the Gates Foundation work here, as on the side of the better angels of this world, in terms of intent and accomplishments--within existing systems, which are far from perfect.

That's fair enough, Greg, that was really all I was asking on one of the above posts. There is a lot of information in this thread that is ripe for public discourse, as opposed to being censored or removed. Ultimately, it's the public as a collective who should decide what is acceptable or not, they will regulate that. 

Cheers

Chris

PS. 
About Matt Taibbi, I am half way through "Hate Inc." and so far it's confirming a lot of what I thought about journalism, in terms of agitation and narratives that are selected for print, it's a compelling read (so far). Please accept my apologies if I have missed any of your points, I have just woken up with a nice Bombay gin hangover from the pub last night and scrambled this reply out while eating brekkie. Time to do some work. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

intelligent conversation - so glad you both post here. 
for what it’s worth, my general take on Gates is that he thinks he is doing good things. But there is certainly a lack of public debate and media debate on initiatives he has taken in India, for one. I’ve spent a fair amount of time trying to figure out what is really happening at the World Economic Forum and other gatherings of the elites, and the one thing that is obvious to me is that there is a general level of secrecy and a lack of coverage in the media. Is that a good thing? Not to me. I followed closely RFK Jr’s efforts to counter the billionaire class, and really enjoyed his coverage of India. So I’m hoping that Chris could weigh in on this, since he has lived and worked there apparently. The efforts of Monsanto and apparently Gates to monopolize seed banks is disturbing. I’m sure that Gates thinks he can feed more people with GMO crops. But I don’t agree that this is the best way to do so. Mega farms producing meat and crops is the direction that we are going, and Gates and Monsanto and others are accelerating this global process. I much more a fan of sustainable farming, and I am able to eat that way here in Northern California. So I am a member of the ‘coastal elites’ but my wish for the poorer populations of the world is that they be able to eat the way I can, rather than the way they are being forced to eat. A man like Gates may have altruistic motives, and generally I agree with that, but his agenda may still be destructive. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

When extreme weather and climatic conditions created long term droughts over wide geographical areas in the past, the stress impact was great, but relatively not devastating to the degrees we now know they are going to be.

It's a matter of simple arithmetic.

Our world population has exploded in the last 70 years.

The population of Africa was 177 million in 1950, and it grew 7.6 times to more than 1.341 billion in 2020.
 
What was the population in Asia in 1950?
In 1950 the population of Asia was 1.4 billion people.
The 2020 population of Asia is now 4.5 billion.
 
When hundreds of millions of the world's population at a time are stressed to life and death extremes and mass violent protest and law breaking follows, political structures will devolve into total control police states with basic human rights nonexistent.
 
Every human on Earth will be effected. Every form of human rights based governments will be effected.
 
Mass migration efforts by the poorest and most stressed into safer and more productive nations will grow even worse than we see today.
 
This isn't overly exaggerated fear emotion doomsday paranoia projection thinking anymore.
 
The over population numbers are reality. They speak for themselves.
 
Food and fresh water resources are already stressed. Any number of major natural climate and Earth change events could be the trigger for worst case scenarios.
 
Where this goes with population control decision planning and implemenation is an ominous guess.
 
Basic human rights respecting nations and governments will be tested like they have never been tested before.
 
Hopefully, human ingenuity genius will come forth out of this unprecedented crisis challenge...and prevail enough to keep most of the world from utter human rights abandoning chaos.
 
 
 
Link to post
Share on other sites
Chris you bracketed Greg's assertion, as if to answer Greg  about the most critical point of Corbett's 2 hour presentation. Is Bill Gates a Eugenicist?
 
Greg said: The history of eugenics is cited in the video, juxtaposed with suspicious questions asking whether the Gates Foundation is covertly involved in a gigantic, sweeping, worldwide eugenics conspiracy, for which there has been not one single whistle-blower or confession or story showing evidence of this from credible investigative-journalism sources with track records for breaking true stories with evidence, such as Matt Taibbi/Rolling Stone, Mother Jones, "20/20", one of the credible NGO's, and so on. There are two key quotes from Gates set by the video in the context of the presentation of eugenics. The first is Gates saying (I am giving the sense of it not exact words) that when poor populations of the world have economic security and stable lives, when there is an end to infectious diseases and women have access to family planning and birth control, etc.--things that we take for granted in the developed world, nothing bad here at all-
 
 
And your response when confronted with a direct question of Corbett's charge of  Gates Eugenics. You segue from a short paragraph about the history of eugenics, to a voluminous list of evils of modern society,that was endearing because just about everybody would agree with most of  them.
 
There was:  dopamine triggering, ""Look at pornography, it's so abundant, it completely kills the male desire to go and find a mate." We are flooding our brain with dopamine from so many stimulants, that we don't have the need to have sex like we once did, which releases dopamine and serotonin, the happy chemicals in the brain. We are cheating the natural effort vs reward neurochemistry of the brain, and replacing it with artificial things that cheat that neurochemistry. Coffee, tea, sugary foods, alcohol, narcotics, prescription meds etcthat I think noe of us disagree with."
climate change, pressures on the environment, awareness of consumption of natural resources, there is a subconscious and conscious pressure to reduce birth rates.
The heavy taxation of the electorate, keeping most of the population's heads just above water financially
our media, TV and internet is pressuring those ideas, we are almost certain to take them on board,In fact academia has seen to it that we now have a whole generation (millenials) who don't want to take on any burden or responsibility, they certainly aren't having kids, they are big kids themselves. If you add to this scenario the absolutely out of control use of our data and preferences by tech giants to sell us things via digital marketing,
 
Do you ever just answer a question directly? How about this comment of yours, "Look at pornography, it's so abundant, it completely kills the male desire to go and find a mate."
 
You seem like an introspective guy. But I notice you don't mention "conspiracy porn". Do you think you've ever struggled with that? It is very addicting, isn't  it? And can  be rather isolating and alienating from society, or have you experienced that?.
All this alienation and anger and striking out might be more  justified if this were proven true, but Greg's point and mine also is that hasn't been proven here at all and your answer is to abstract the question so much into the  stratosphere it's pretty obvious you don't believe it because a simple "yes" would have been sufficient.
 
And what's the net effect? You're just defaming somebody with no real hard evidence, but that's cool. He's one of the world's richest men, we all know he'll live, no matter what we say. Good for him, so that gives us unlimited license. Good for us! So it's a Win-win situation, right Chris? 
 
Edited by Kirk Gallaway
Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact academia has seen to it that we now have a whole generation (millenials) who don't want to take on any burden or responsibility,

Sure, as long as you don't count enormous amounts of student debt, a shrinking middle-class, and the prospect of being the last generation with a shot to curb climate change.

Eazy peezey.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:
Chris you bracketed Greg's assertion, as if to answer Greg  about the most critical point of Corbett's 2 hour presentation. Is Bill Gates a Eugenicist?
 
Greg said: The history of eugenics is cited in the video, juxtaposed with suspicious questions asking whether the Gates Foundation is covertly involved in a gigantic, sweeping, worldwide eugenics conspiracy, for which there has been not one single whistle-blower or confession or story showing evidence of this from credible investigative-journalism sources with track records for breaking true stories with evidence, such as Matt Taibbi/Rolling Stone, Mother Jones, "20/20", one of the credible NGO's, and so on. There are two key quotes from Gates set by the video in the context of the presentation of eugenics. The first is Gates saying (I am giving the sense of it not exact words) that when poor populations of the world have economic security and stable lives, when there is an end to infectious diseases and women have access to family planning and birth control, etc.--things that we take for granted in the developed world, nothing bad here at all-
 
 
And your response when confronted with a direct question of Corbett's charge of  Gates Eugenics. You segue from a short paragraph about the history of eugenics, to a voluminous list of evils of modern society,that was endearing because just about everybody would agree with most of  them.
 
There was:  dopamine triggering, ""Look at pornography, it's so abundant, it completely kills the male desire to go and find a mate." We are flooding our brain with dopamine from so many stimulants, that we don't have the need to have sex like we once did, which releases dopamine and serotonin, the happy chemicals in the brain. We are cheating the natural effort vs reward neurochemistry of the brain, and replacing it with artificial things that cheat that neurochemistry. Coffee, tea, sugary foods, alcohol, narcotics, prescription meds etcthat I think noe of us disagree with."
climate change, pressures on the environment, awareness of consumption of natural resources, there is a subconscious and conscious pressure to reduce birth rates.
The heavy taxation of the electorate, keeping most of the population's heads just above water financially
our media, TV and internet is pressuring those ideas, we are almost certain to take them on board,In fact academia has seen to it that we now have a whole generation (millenials) who don't want to take on any burden or responsibility, they certainly aren't having kids, they are big kids themselves. If you add to this scenario the absolutely out of control use of our data and preferences by tech giants to sell us things via digital marketing,
 
Do you ever just answer a question directly? How about this comment of yours, "Look at pornography, it's so abundant, it completely kills the male desire to go and find a mate."
 
You seem like an introspective guy. But I notice you don't mention "conspiracy porn". Do you think you've ever struggled with that? It is very addicting, isn't  it? And can  be rather isolating and alienating from society, or have you experienced that?.
All this alienation and anger and striking out might be more  justified if this were proven true, but Greg's point and mine also is that hasn't been proven here at all and your answer is to abstract the question so much into the  stratosphere it's pretty obvious you don't believe it because a simple "yes" would have been sufficient.
 
And what's the net effect? You're just defaming somebody with no real hard evidence, but that's cool. He's one of the world's richest men, we all know he'll live, no matter what we say. Good for him, so that gives us unlimited license. Good for us! So it's a Win-win situation, right Chris? 
 

Thanks for your replies guys. I am conscious that we had a thread the other week that went south, and that I was partly to blame for that and I accept my proportion of responsibility in that debacle. In the interests of harmony on the forum, I am keen not to turn this free and open discussion into another thread of grown men nipping at each other for reasons other than having a dialogue on topics we are interested in. I am not here to point score at all, I get no gratification from it. If someone wanted to do that, what they would do is analyse all of the content someone had put up, look for a weak point that you thought you could win in front of the gallery and focus on that, and ignore the rest. That is the tactic or strategy is used by the press use every day, they then make that into something other than it was originally, distorting the meaning and original context. I sincerely hope that after me writing thousands of words on this thread, and you selecting only a tiny proportion of them to scrutinise, that the reason is purely and solely because; that is all that interests you. That said, I'll take your comments on face value, as entirely innocent. 

Regarding 'conspiracy porn', I had to google the term as I wasn't familiar and I am still not sure I am. My first thought was that it is when sexual blackmail is used, or something like that but, my best guess is that it means content online that draws people in to conspiracy theories, that may or may not be true?! If so, I think that is a fair comment, Kirk. Ultimately, my process is, to the best of my ability, to apply logic to the scenario in question, do some research and decide for myself if the conclusions made are indeed probable. As I have mentioned before, I may actually look at the outcome or, causal effects, to form part of my opinion. In some cases, it is mathematically possible that a striking series of coincidences take place, and you get an outcome that seems highly suspicious but, it is indeed an innocent yet unlikely result of probability. However, if results keep happening that go against mathematical probability, they we are right to assume that something is amiss. I am certain you guys can agree with that logic. If apply that logic to the JFK assassination for argument's sake, if we look at the untimely deaths of witnesses and people who were speaking out about what they knew in the years following Nov 22nd 1963, we may initially think, people die of many reasons, including violent deaths, road accidents, overdoses, heart attacks etc, so is the volume of deaths plausible or just coincidence? Many of us might agree that the mathematical odds would imply that you had better odds of winning the lottery (I think you call it sweepstakes, or something similar) multiple times, than all of those deaths happening naturally. So as a conclusion you would be right to suspect foul play. I wasn't there as a fly on the wall watching all of those people die, observing the build-up to their deaths but, I am happy to take the opinion that there was indeed foul play and accept there is a tiny tiny percentile chance that I am wrong. In many cases, we can use this same method, we do not have the investigative powers of the FBI or CIA, we are not surveilling businessmen like Bill Gates for large portions of their lives and we have zero access to their private lives, we only have what is presented to us, largely by privately funded media corporations and highly proficient PR teams and those very effective tools shape public opinion. I am happy to have doubts about the intentions or authenticity of Bill Gates as a person? Yes. Both Apple and Microsoft stole/used Open Source software and copied it to enhance their businesses. Some might say that is fair game, others might say, it's showing an unscrupulous lack of morality or integrity, at least comparing it to the way I was brought up. That for me is a mark on his character, does that make him ruthless, yes. Does that make him a Eugenicist, no. For me, the jury is out but, I do have doubts about his character, especially the way the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is being used when compared to say the Rockefeller Foundation, which does have crossovers with Eugenics organisations and population control, they appear as if they are mimicking that model of expanding influence. Again, I can agree with you that it isn't empirical evidence, it is conjecture, at this stage. I am open to the idea that something foul is at play. Despite admiring Elon Musk, I am open to the idea that his Neurolink will be misused and I think he shares those sentiments about AI in general, but, that's another topic. I don't want to be repetitive here but, for a society to function and democracy to be maintained, every citizen needs to be vigilant, educated and ready to speak out if they have concerns. In general, monopolies are not a good thing at all and the world is now full of them. I am sure you recognise that concern. In an ideal world, the more vast the influence or power of these huge multinational corporations and donors, the more public and governmental scrutiny I would like to see. We're all aware that's not exactly how things are working at present. We should all be concerned about people buying good press. I don't want to get off track here, so i'll answer you clearly and state that we are all susceptible to being drawn in by conspiracy theories but, the more educated you are, the more you safeguard against that. I am reading 1 or 2 books per week at present and applying the aforementioned logical process. 

Just touching upon the "Conspiracy Porn" topic again, while it's fresh in my mind. I think I have struggled to a much greater extent with lies and deceptions by government and MSM than I have from "Conspiracy Theories". In my early 20's I was right on board with bringing down Sadaam and Tarik Azziz in he build up to the second gulf war and I now regret believing in my government and yours. I realise I was propagandized by a media campaign for months but, so was almost everyone else. Is the threat greater from "Conspiracy Theories" or MSM/Govt propaganda? It's abundantly clear to me that conspiracy theories present far less of a threat to civilisation. If conspiracy theorists had MSM, Google, FB, Insta and Twitter, as well as a top grade publicity department at their disposal, my opinion would change. But, the reality is, it's overwhelmingly stacked against the little man who is supposed to be a dangerous threat to democracy. 

I watched "Dark Waters" on Amazon the other night, it starred Mark Ruffalo, and Anne Hathaway. It was a true story about Dupont and a compound they had made that has now caused 99% of the word's population to have it in their blood stream, the body can't break it down and it's causing cancers. That too began was a conspiracy theory. There are lots of examples like this going on in the world, some get covered up and some make it into the public domain. 
https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Waters-Mark-Ruffalo/dp/B081FJP1YN

Kirk, you have observed that I am very introspective, which is a good observation. I wasn't until I started to study psychology. I think reading people like Nietzsche, Jung, and Jordan Peterson makes everyone think differently. Because you then understand your own behaviour better, as well as others, you can't help but look at people analytically after reading psychology. It's a bit like reading Robert McKee "Story" or "Save The Cat" by Blake Snyder on screenwriting. If you learn how films are written and put together, you can never watch a film the same way after, as you understand the construct, it's not just a story it's something designed to trigger our thoughts and emotions. My reaction to reading those great psychologists is that; I wish I had read them when I was 20, as you have an enhanced look at the world and human behaviours. The world would be a much better place if everyone read psychology. 
As for asking if I ever answer questions directly; I think I do but, the more complex the discussion, the opportunity to answer in "yes" or "no" diminishes, as it's so multifaceted. How often do you hear Jordan Peterson, Bret Weinstein, Sam Harris or any intellectuals discussing complex issues answer with a yes or a no? The world isn't black and white, it's shades of grey. 

Regarding whether indulging in conspiracy theories, is isolating or alienating to me or anyone else, it can be. But, so can being an intellectual or having a high IQ. That's exactly why many very smart people seem socially awkward, they find it difficult to fit in etc. I listened to Peterson talk about this and he said something along the lines of:
 "The more you read, the lonelier you become". 
You can take that comment in various ways, and ultimately if you are becoming more and more enlightened, you want to share that knowledge and discuss complex topics with other people. The reality is, you actually have few people to talk to about those things. Certain personality types and minds are inquisitive, they persistently seek knowledge, it's an insatiable lust. Most people are quite content to live lives and seek entertainment in things that don't challenge their knowledge or expand it, they are content to just indulge in things that trigger their release of dopamine and make them feel happy and contented. If you are someone who persistently is learning and the topics are complex or niche, then you probably need other mainstream things that help you fit into society and where you can find common ground. For me; I avoid talking about most of this stuff in the pub or at dinner parties, as it's uninteresting to most people or it's something that they can't contribute to. I stretch to explaining marketing principals or the use of propaganda but, I wouldn't talk about JFK or Covid unless it was a topic already being discussed, as it can make you a pariah in a social environment, which is perhaps something many people here can relate to. A lot of people are closed-minded, to be honest, the human mind is a little downloading machine from ages zero - 8 years old and what happens in that period shapes a lot of us. The older you become, the harder it is to change your mind. A good example of that may be religion, the devout Benedictine monk or the Islamic radical is almost impossible to convert or change the mindset of, simply because their parents or a preacher, indoctrinated them at that very early impressionable age. As for social situations, it's much easier for me to talk about other passions I have, like sports, film, music, art, women etc. To be honest, I love fishing but, I leave that out of social chat too, as not many people can relate to angling this side of the pond. You have to be self aware to make those decisions. 

In your last paragraph, Kirk; If the net effect was that something was investigated and exposed, that was good for humanity, then it's a good thing, right? If the net effect was that a good guy, doing good things was stopped from doing good things, then it's a bad thing, right? I suspect we can agree there. The only "win win" situation I see is that public discourse is being had, as it should do in a functioning democracy. Maybe I misunderstand you, Kirk. Are you pro-censorship of a dialogue that doesn't break any laws? Or do you just find the nature of that documentary very unjust? 

 

6 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

In fact academia has seen to it that we now have a whole generation (millenials) who don't want to take on any burden or responsibility,

Sure, as long as you don't count enormous amounts of student debt, a shrinking middle-class, and the prospect of being the last generation with a shot to curb climate change.

Eazy peezey.


I know you, me and Kirk haven't got off on the best foot here on the forum, if you could avoid being irreverent or sarcastic, it will improve the quality of the thread for everyone and perhaps makes you feel you are not in conflict but, having a conversation with another human being. Just to be fair, if I can avoid doing those things also, it's better for everyone too. Let's stop grinding axes. 

I think that's a positive point there, Cliff. If it solves that particular challenge that the world faces like pollution and the deliberate destruction of the planet, it would be a very good thing. I also think the shrinking of the middle class is alarming as a trend which ultimately could end in the dystopian tyranny I have warned of in other parts of this thread, ending up with oppressors and the oppressed is a disaster. A middle class is vital, in my opinion.
As for student debt, regardless of the country, there are shared characteristics and ideals, in some countries further education is free (Denmark for example) in the UK, college is free and university gives you student debt. Regardless of the country, you make a decision to have the trade off of embarking on that further education, knowing whether you will be straddled with debt or not. Even choosing to study in free education loses you money, as everyone working instead is accumulating money.  It's a process of risk vs reward. Be poor now and be comfortable in the future. Choosing your field of study is important too, if you select one that isn't going to yield a return, you'll be in a dire situation, if you choose a boom industry like IT, you'll probably do well. Covid disruptions aside, you make decisions that can go either way. 
Every generation has its merits and flaws. 

This is actually another fascinating topic, which may be suitable for this thread. I contend the millenials didn't wake up compassionate and caring one day, by some divine intervention, they were made to be that by marketing, propaganda, schooling and the shift in further education. On face value there are certainly merits to that, aside from the nihilists, nobody wants to destroy the planet in their right mind. One of my best friends is a director of a big renewable energy company and not everything is as it appears on face value. 

Thanks

Chris

PS. I am happy to be wrong, as it makes the world a better place than I think it is. 

Edited by Chris Barnard
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

intelligent conversation - so glad you both post here. 
for what it’s worth, my general take on Gates is that he thinks he is doing good things. But there is certainly a lack of public debate and media debate on initiatives he has taken in India, for one. I’ve spent a fair amount of time trying to figure out what is really happening at the World Economic Forum and other gatherings of the elites, and the one thing that is obvious to me is that there is a general level of secrecy and a lack of coverage in the media. Is that a good thing? Not to me. I followed closely RFK Jr’s efforts to counter the billionaire class, and really enjoyed his coverage of India. So I’m hoping that Chris could weigh in on this, since he has lived and worked there apparently. The efforts of Monsanto and apparently Gates to monopolize seed banks is disturbing. I’m sure that Gates thinks he can feed more people with GMO crops. But I don’t agree that this is the best way to do so. Mega farms producing meat and crops is the direction that we are going, and Gates and Monsanto and others are accelerating this global process. I much more a fan of sustainable farming, and I am able to eat that way here in Northern California. So I am a member of the ‘coastal elites’ but my wish for the poorer populations of the world is that they be able to eat the way I can, rather than the way they are being forced to eat. A man like Gates may have altruistic motives, and generally I agree with that, but his agenda may still be destructive. 

Hey Paul, 

Thank you. I'll be perfectly honest, I wasn't following RFK Jr. Whenever I have seen information about him, it's always come from other sources. I have just discovered his Facebook page and there is so much content to get through, he's really fighting, in a way I am certain his father would be immensely proud. 

I have lived in Mumbai, Maharashtra & Surat, Gujarat. I'll be happy to shed any light or insight I can once I have done some reading. It's very interesting being immersed in their culture, I spent so many hours chatting with creative types (actors, producers and musicians) in the film quarter about philosophy, politics and their view of the world. I really do treasure those times. My feeling was that Indians in the states I was in are very subservient, almost like there is this legacy of British rule there. But, I question how I'd behave if the police hit everyone with sticks in my country, over nothing. However, I do know this paradigm shifts when you go further north to Delhi and beyond, there are complex historical reasons for this. 

I am sure I read last week that Gates is now the largest owner of agricultural land in the United States. Where I am living now, I eat fresh as much as I can, sustainably, buy from local farmers etc. I eat fresh fish a lot, the mercury situation isn't so bad where I am but, the microplastics now in fish is a big concern. Overall, this is where capitalism fails us, doing things almost solely for profit related reasons, it seldom yields the best outcome for the many. I have heard so many criticisms of Bayer Monsanto, the one that sticks in the mind is their chemicals changing the sexes of frogs. It's another giant out of public control. As I have mentioned in the previous post, "Dark Waters" with Mark Ruffalo & Anne Hathaway was a real eye opened for me, a true story about the damage Dupont has done. It's on Amazon Prime if you fancy a watch. 

I take on board your comment on Gates and that his motives may be altruistic and still causing harm. My deep question about these philanthropists is why aren't we seeing these things done for non-profit? We clearly can live in a world without money, there is a community in India full of international people who are doing exactly that. I am not implying we need to be the Amish. With technological advances shouldn't we be doing things that are good for humanity on a non-profit bases if we are true altruists? Let's look at vaccines as just one example, if this virus is a true threat to all of humanity, which has shattered the livelihoods of so many, do the pharmaceutical companies really need to be making a profit? Shouldn't shared data between these cutting edge companies yield a safer and faster desired result in terms of a treatment? Where is the incentive for them to actually give us a cure that solves this problem in one go, as a business model its better to get repeat business and make something thats needed every year, that the the consumer can be fleeced for, if its mandatory its even better. Call me a cynic but, there might just be a parallel that can be made with computer software viruses and bugs. It's amusing because of the name sake and because we are discussing Bill Gates but, we need to keep upgrading our software and virus protection to keep our computers safe. 

Cheers

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2021 at 6:19 AM, Chris Barnard said:

Thanks for your replies guys. I am conscious that we had a thread the other week that went south, and that I was partly to blame for that and I accept my proportion of responsibility in that debacle. In the interests of harmony on the forum, I am keen not to turn this free and open discussion into another thread of grown men nipping at each other for reasons other than having a dialogue on topics we are interested in. I am not here to point score at all, I get no gratification from it. If someone wanted to do that, what they would do is analyse all of the content someone had put up, look for a weak point that you thought you could win in front of the gallery and focus on that, and ignore the rest. That is the tactic or strategy is used by the press use every day, they then make that into something other than it was originally, distorting the meaning and original context. I sincerely hope that after me writing thousands of words on this thread, and you selecting only a tiny proportion of them to scrutinise, that the reason is purely and solely because; that is all that interests you. That said, I'll take your comments on face value, as entirely innocent. 

Regarding 'conspiracy porn', I had to google the term as I wasn't familiar and I am still not sure I am. My first thought was that it is when sexual blackmail is used, or something like that but, my best guess is that it means content online that draws people in to conspiracy theories, that may or may not be true?! If so, I think that is a fair comment, Kirk. Ultimately, my process is, to the best of my ability, to apply logic to the scenario in question, do some research and decide for myself if the conclusions made are indeed probable. As I have mentioned before, I may actually look at the outcome or, causal effects, to form part of my opinion. In some cases, it is mathematically possible that a striking series of coincidences take place, and you get an outcome that seems highly suspicious but, it is indeed an innocent yet unlikely result of probability. However, if results keep happening that go against mathematical probability, they we are right to assume that something is amiss. I am certain you guys can agree with that logic. If apply that logic to the JFK assassination for argument's sake, if we look at the untimely deaths of witnesses and people who were speaking out about what they knew in the years following Nov 22nd 1963, we may initially think, people die of many reasons, including violent deaths, road accidents, overdoses, heart attacks etc, so is the volume of deaths plausible or just coincidence? Many of us might agree that the mathematical odds would imply that you had better odds of winning the lottery (I think you call it sweepstakes, or something similar) multiple times, than all of those deaths happening naturally. So as a conclusion you would be right to suspect foul play. I wasn't there as a fly on the wall watching all of those people die, observing the build-up to their deaths but, I am happy to take the opinion that there was indeed foul play and accept there is a tiny tiny percentile chance that I am wrong. In many cases, we can use this same method, we do not have the investigative powers of the FBI or CIA, we are not surveilling businessmen like Bill Gates for large portions of their lives and we have zero access to their private lives, we only have what is presented to us, largely by privately funded media corporations and highly proficient PR teams and those very effective tools shape public opinion. I am happy to have doubts about the intentions or authenticity of Bill Gates as a person? Yes. Both Apple and Microsoft stole/used Open Source software and copied it to enhance their businesses. Some might say that is fair game, others might say, it's showing an unscrupulous lack of morality or integrity, at least comparing it to the way I was brought up. That for me is a mark on his character, does that make him ruthless, yes. Does that make him a Eugenicist, no. For me, the jury is out but, I do have doubts about his character, especially the way the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is being used when compared to say the Rockefeller Foundation, which does have crossovers with Eugenics organisations and population control, they appear as if they are mimicking that model of expanding influence. Again, I can agree with you that it isn't empirical evidence, it is conjecture, at this stage. I am open to the idea that something foul is at play. Despite admiring Elon Musk, I am open to the idea that his Neurolink will be misused and I think he shares those sentiments about AI in general, but, that's another topic. I don't want to be repetitive here but, for a society to function and democracy to be maintained, every citizen needs to be vigilant, educated and ready to speak out if they have concerns. In general, monopolies are not a good thing at all and the world is now full of them. I am sure you recognise that concern. In an ideal world, the more vast the influence or power of these huge multinational corporations and donors, the more public and governmental scrutiny I would like to see. We're all aware that's not exactly how things are working at present. We should all be concerned about people buying good press. I don't want to get off track here, so i'll answer you clearly and state that we are all susceptible to being drawn in by conspiracy theories but, the more educated you are, the more you safeguard against that. I am reading 1 or 2 books per week at present and applying the aforementioned logical process. 

Just touching upon the "Conspiracy Porn" topic again, while it's fresh in my mind. I think I have struggled to a much greater extent with lies and deceptions by government and MSM than I have from "Conspiracy Theories". In my early 20's I was right on board with bringing down Sadaam and Tarik Azziz in he build up to the second gulf war and I now regret believing in my government and yours. I realise I was propagandized by a media campaign for months but, so was almost everyone else. Is the threat greater from "Conspiracy Theories" or MSM/Govt propaganda? It's abundantly clear to me that conspiracy theories present far less of a threat to civilisation. If conspiracy theorists had MSM, Google, FB, Insta and Twitter, as well as a top grade publicity department at their disposal, my opinion would change. But, the reality is, it's overwhelmingly stacked against the little man who is supposed to be a dangerous threat to democracy. 

I watched "Dark Waters" on Amazon the other night, it starred Mark Ruffalo, and Anne Hathaway. It was a true story about Dupont and a compound they had made that has now caused 99% of the word's population to have it in their blood stream, the body can't break it down and it's causing cancers. That too began was a conspiracy theory. There are lots of examples like this going on in the world, some get covered up and some make it into the public domain. 
https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Waters-Mark-Ruffalo/dp/B081FJP1YN

Kirk, you have observed that I am very introspective, which is a good observation. I wasn't until I started to study psychology. I think reading people like Nietzsche, Jung, and Jordan Peterson makes everyone think differently. Because you then understand your own behaviour better, as well as others, you can't help but look at people analytically after reading psychology. It's a bit like reading Robert McKee "Story" or "Save The Cat" by Blake Snyder on screenwriting. If you learn how films are written and put together, you can never watch a film the same way after, as you understand the construct, it's not just a story it's something designed to trigger our thoughts and emotions. My reaction to reading those great psychologists is that; I wish I had read them when I was 20, as you have an enhanced look at the world and human behaviours. The world would be a much better place if everyone read psychology. 
As for asking if I ever answer questions directly; I think I do but, the more complex the discussion, the opportunity to answer in "yes" or "no" diminishes, as it's so multifaceted. How often do you hear Jordan Peterson, Bret Weinstein, Sam Harris or any intellectuals discussing complex issues answer with a yes or a no? The world isn't black and white, it's shades of grey. 

Regarding whether indulging in conspiracy theories, is isolating or alienating to me or anyone else, it can be. But, so can being an intellectual or having a high IQ. That's exactly why many very smart people seem socially awkward, they find it difficult to fit in etc. I listened to Peterson talk about this and he said something along the lines of:
 "The more you read, the lonelier you become". 
You can take that comment in various ways, and ultimately if you are becoming more and more enlightened, you want to share that knowledge and discuss complex topics with other people. The reality is, you actually have few people to talk to about those things. Certain personality types and minds are inquisitive, they persistently seek knowledge, it's an insatiable lust. Most people are quite content to live lives and seek entertainment in things that don't challenge their knowledge or expand it, they are content to just indulge in things that trigger their release of dopamine and make them feel happy and contented. If you are someone who persistently is learning and the topics are complex or niche, then you probably need other mainstream things that help you fit into society and where you can find common ground. For me; I avoid talking about most of this stuff in the pub or at dinner parties, as it's uninteresting to most people or it's something that they can't contribute to. I stretch to explaining marketing principals or the use of propaganda but, I wouldn't talk about JFK or Covid unless it was a topic already being discussed, as it can make you a pariah in a social environment, which is perhaps something many people here can relate to. A lot of people are closed-minded, to be honest, the human mind is a little downloading machine from ages zero - 8 years old and what happens in that period shapes a lot of us. The older you become, the harder it is to change your mind. A good example of that may be religion, the devout Benedictine monk or the Islamic radical is almost impossible to convert or change the mindset of, simply because their parents or a preacher, indoctrinated them at that very early impressionable age. As for social situations, it's much easier for me to talk about other passions I have, like sports, film, music, art, women etc. To be honest, I love fishing but, I leave that out of social chat too, as not many people can relate to angling this side of the pond. You have to be self aware to make those decisions. 

In your last paragraph, Kirk; If the net effect was that something was investigated and exposed, that was good for humanity, then it's a good thing, right? If the net effect was that a good guy, doing good things was stopped from doing good things, then it's a bad thing, right? I suspect we can agree there. The only "win win" situation I see is that public discourse is being had, as it should do in a functioning democracy. Maybe I misunderstand you, Kirk. Are you pro-censorship of a dialogue that doesn't break any laws? Or do you just find the nature of that documentary very unjust? 

 


I know you, me and Kirk haven't got off on the best foot here on the forum, if you could avoid being irreverent or sarcastic, it will improve the quality of the thread for everyone and perhaps makes you feel you are not in conflict but, having a conversation with another human being. Just to be fair, if I can avoid doing those things also, it's better for everyone too. Let's stop grinding axes. 

I think that's a positive point there, Cliff. If it solves that particular challenge that the world faces like pollution and the deliberate destruction of the planet, it would be a very good thing. I also think the shrinking of the middle class is alarming as a trend which ultimately could end in the dystopian tyranny I have warned of in other parts of this thread, ending up with oppressors and the oppressed is a disaster. A middle class is vital, in my opinion.
As for student debt, regardless of the country, there are shared characteristics and ideals, in some countries further education is free (Denmark for example) in the UK, college is free and university gives you student debt. Regardless of the country, you make a decision to have the trade off of embarking on that further education, knowing whether you will be straddled with debt or not. Even choosing to study in free education loses you money, as everyone working instead is accumulating money.  It's a process of risk vs reward. Be poor now and be comfortable in the future. Choosing your field of study is important too, if you select one that isn't going to yield a return, you'll be in a dire situation, if you choose a boom industry like IT, you'll probably do well. Covid disruptions aside, you make decisions that can go either way. 
Every generation has its merits and flaws. 

This is actually another fascinating topic, which may be suitable for this thread. I contend the millenials didn't wake up compassionate and caring one day, by some divine intervention, they were made to be that by marketing, propaganda, schooling and the shift in further education. On face value there are certainly merits to that, aside from the nihilists, nobody wants to destroy the planet in their right mind. One of my best friends is a director of a big renewable energy company and not everything is as it appears on face value. 

Thanks

Chris

PS. I am happy to be wrong, as it makes the world a better place than I think it is. 

The deeper thought reflective postings such as these in the thread above are well appreciated.

This forum is so much more than just a conventional JFK assassination education and debate one.

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...