Like with all things (and good grifts) there's a core of truth somewhere to be found. That our care for the environment is lacking is pretty much self-evident, though personally I would put the emphasis elsewhere (microplastics, pesticides, etc. - pollution, in short).

Putting people in the intellectual foetal position by convincing them the world is ending smells of grift to me, though. And I have no doubt certain uncouth agendas have inserted themselves into the climate debate.

Doomsday prophecies and claims to esotheric knowledge are signals to me that certain folks have been sent off the deep end.

The climate grift is just a lightning rod designed to keep your attention fixed on a problem that, supposedly, we are all responsible for, while keeping your attention away from problems that have clearly discernable causes, usually involving powerful lobbies and a lot of money.

When was the last time you heard anyone talk about pesticides causing Parkinson's disease in increasingly younger people?

I've noticed that people have been taking issue with the word 'genocide' being used to describe Israel's actions in Gaza.

I would like to remind everyone that the Srebrenica massacre that took place during the Bosnian war which involved the murder of 8,372 Bosniak Muslims was labeled a genocide by both the ICC and the ICTY (International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia), and the people responsible were convicted for genocide.

I hope this illustrates how Israel's actions are well within the scope of what could be considered a genocide, especially coupled with the rhetoric of Israeli officials and Israel's previous conduct.

Where are you getting your news? Tik tok? Lies. — BitconnectCarlos

From IDF documents and Israeli spokespeople themselves, actually. :brow:

But we also need to be honest that neither of us are in the IDF operations room and have a clear idea of Israel's proportionality policy. — BitconnectCarlos

That idea is quite clear, actually.

Israel in a few weeks killed more civilians than the Russians did in a year, while the Russians are conducting a massive operation and Israel is operating in an area the size of a post stamp.

Israel is massacring civilians on purpose, because it cannot effectively hurt Hamas.

It's established Israeli military "strategy", which they call the Dahiya doctrine. The murder of disproportionate amounts of civilians in order to pressure Hamas is an explicit part of that doctrine.

Let's not mince words here.

Henry Fonda is not responsible for the pregnancy, while the mother is, which is why the analogy doesn't hold water.

Which part is simple minded? — Paine

:lol: Come on, man.

And for the record: that the type of simple-mindedness that inhabits American politics has such a presence on a philosophy forum is a traversty in and of itself.

You charge me with complicity in a destructive force and then gloat about your view from a commanding height. — Paine

Indeed.

For the most part, I am just observing. Like I've said many times before, all of this would simply be amusing if it wasn't for the widespread suffering it creates.

Bla, bla. Whinge a little harder about the mess you yourselves create.

If you have convinced yourself that feeling disdain for roughly 80 million people is normal, I doubt I'll be able to change your mind. Personally, I think it suggests disconnection from reality.

For now, said political opponent poses a larger threat to their power than the lack of trust and impoverishment of the people. However, those two will eventually converge at which point it's curtains for the system.

Such change seems to always happen through oddballs like Trump (and for us, Wilders), but ultimately they're a symptom of the real problem that is the system.

In a sense it's a good thing that change now seems to be on the horizon, because the longer it is forestalled, the more extreme the eventual swing will be.

I wonder if people realize that this thread in a nutshell explains why Trump might win a second term.

The disdain for ordinary people, the "all means necessary" approach confirming one's own moral bankrutpcy while pretending to have a moral high ground, etc.

We saw the same thing in the Netherlands, though a little less extreme.

The irony of it all is amusing, but honestly it makes me want to wash.

American politics is comedy gold.

You've got a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.

Don't let the fact that this time around they pick the turd sandwich collapse your world view.

-

Yet philosphy should be welcomed and encouraged on a philosophy forum. — ssu

If you want to have a philosophical discussion, at least be so forthright as to clearly indicate what question or topic you want to discuss [...] — Tzeentch

This isn't primarily a philosophical discussion.

If you want to have a philosophical discussion, at least be so forthright as to clearly indicate what question or topic you want to discuss, rather than throwing up semantic smokescreens. What you're doing now smells of deflection and sophistry.

Which of the two? I think they're both pretty strong, but in the case of the AIDS video, it's almost like the reporters managed to find the smoking gun.

You think playing coy is a way to be taken seriously on this forum?

Ask me three honest and straightforward questions, and I'll answer them for you. I have no patience for whatever game you're trying to play.

Here's another blast from the past: a 2015 documentary about the pharmaceutical industry and its rotten business practices. Rather uncanny parallels can be drawn.





The bottomline is, politics, pharmaceutical companies, the science, even the doctors themselves - it's all compromised by lobbyists who are bought and paid for, and has been for years. Not a word from these people can be trusted.

There was a time when institutions had integrity and could be trusted to act in favor of public health. We are no longer living in such times. I wonder when people will wake up to that fact.

Perhaps interesting for you as well. It's from Zembla.

AIPAC hard at work, I see. :lol:

I'm reminded of a documentary I watched a little while ago. It's worth a watch - if I am not mistaken SV40 played a key role in the search for polio vaccines in the '50s and '60s and the link of those vaccines to the emergence of HIV.

If your argument that everything has happened because NATO and if NATO hadn't enlarged, Russia wouldn't have done anything is simply false. — ssu

That's not my argument, though.

My argument, or at least a part of it, is that NATO enlargement worried the Russians, and they expressed that worry over the course of 15 years. They were completely ignored by the West.

Ignoring other nations' security concerns is a highway to war, and NATO (with Uncle Sam at the wheel) took that path knowingly and willingly. That's why they are primarily responsible for the conflict.

And it's simply illogical to assume that you would annex territories if the only issue would preventing NATO enlargement and Ukraine being a bufferzone. — ssu

I think it's completely logical for Russia to annex parts of Ukraine if peace between Russia and the West is made impossible. That's a situation the West knowingly and willingly brought about when they blocked peace negotiations in March/April 2022. Of course the Russians are going to react to that.

A show of force would already done that... — ssu

I disagree.

What the US tried to do was simply turn Ukraine into a de facto US ally on a bilateral basis until circumstances were such that Ukraine could be fully incorporated into NATO.

Of course, Russia invaded before the Ukrainian military was able to provide the kind of resistance that would have made a US intervention feasible, which is why the US hung them out to dry in the end.

A show of force would have done nothing to stop that underlying threat, which is the US. NATO is simply a vessel.

Well what is it? Can Ukraine negotiate or not? — Echarmion

'Officially' probably not, but it should revoke Zelensky's idiotic decree and negotiate if it has any sense of self-preservation.

Your strategy seems to offer little other than the hope you are right about russian intentions. — Echarmion

Starting talks costs nothing.

Don't they? — Echarmion

No, obviously they don't. Does that really require explanation?

Ukraine is being utterly wrecked in every conceivable way. Europe threw its economy down the drain, now has a hostile great power on its doorstep while having completely stripped its military, and it has been turned into the world's laughing stock to boot.

Why exactly though? — Echarmion

I'm not going into the moral argument, because I don't think it's constructive for reasons I have already outlined.

That happened after the West blocked peace talks.

When the West clearly signals that peace is not an option, obviously the Russians are going to react accordingly. How is that in any way surprising?

A terrible strategy on the West's part, because the idea that they were winning and could thus continue to snub the Russians was based on an entirely erroneous idea of how the war was progressing. They basically started to believe their own propaganda.

Well - this is the result, which many of us have been predicting since the start of the war.

The support increases Ukraine's ability to impose costs and thus their position in negotiations. — Echarmion

But you literally just wrote that imposing costs on Russia is the basis of the Ukrainian position in negotiations. So the strategic goal of imposing costs to demonstrate your ability to impose future costs seems entirely sound. — Echarmion

We are far past that point. Zelensky is not moving to negotiate. He even signed a decree to make negotiations with Russia impossible. The absolute fool.

Obviously the support is achieving the opposite of sound strategy, which is why Ukraine is slowly (rapidly?) approaching the edge of the cliff. Quite extraordinary you're unable to see that.

What exactly is the moral argument here? — Echarmion

It's a strategic argument. Neither Ukraine nor Europe benefits from playing into Washington's hand.

From a moral perspective it is of course repugnant too.

It's not unable to resist. It's unable to win militarily.

It can still continue to resist militarily, unconventionally if need be, to impose a cost on Russia. This gives them leverage in negotiations. That leverage is now far lower than in March/April 2022, but it is leverage nonetheless. Furthermore, there is plenty of indication that the Kremlin would prefer a negotiated settlement over having to fight for every inch of Ukraine that they deem important. That can once again be used as a basis for talks.

However, continuing to resist without an actual strategy of what that resistance is supposed to accomplish is remarkably foolish. Imposing a cost on Russia is a sound strategy from an American point of view, not from a Ukrainian point of view, since it would incur a much larger cost on Ukraine itself - it would destroy Ukraine.

Now, that is of course the wet dream of policymakers in Washington: Ukraine fighting itself to the death against Russia, because it would impose the largest cost on Russia. Washington doesn't care at all about what happens to Ukraine in the process.

Neither Europe nor Ukraine should make themselves complicit in such a strategy.

The Russians aren't interested in taking all of Ukraine. They prefer a negotiated settlement that leaves Ukraine filling its role as neutral bufferzone between east and west. First it was the US that blocked such negotiations, now it's Zelensky.

If Russia wants to take all of Ukraine, it can. And neither Europe nor the US would be prepared to do what it takes to stop them, so they should stop pretending towards the Ukrainians.

Ukraine and its military is a shell on life-support. Europe and the US can either wait for a total collapse, or they can pull the plug now while Ukraine still has a chance at negotiations.

“Evil” in a moral sense? — neomac

No, 'evil' in a colloquial sense...

...so why do you think “neocon foreign policy” deserves the title of “primary” cause of this war? — neomac

Because this conflict started when the United States (led by the neocon foreign policy establishment) expressed its desire to incorporate Ukraine into NATO, and they never over the course of some 15 years took Russia's objections seriously.

So states do not enjoy moral rights but they enjoy legal rights like right to self-defence? How so? — neomac

States are not moral actors, so they have no moral rights. Individuals have moral rights.

And states obviously have legal rights because virtually all states on the world have signed the UN charter and thus recognize the legitimacy of international law, which includes a right to national self-defense.

Besides if you acknowledge that Ukraine has a legal right to self-defence and the West is not violating international laws by military supporting Ukraine, what should we do with the “provocation” accusation from Putin which doesn’t look neither moral nor legal, in your views? — neomac

I'm not sure what 'provocation accusation' you're talking about, but what Europe should do is pull the plug on military support for Ukraine. Helping another nation exercise their right to self-defense is only rational if it has a chance of succeeding. There is no such chance in the case of the Ukraine war, and thus Europe should not contribute to the illusion that Ukraine can win this war. Stopping the support will hopefully will bring Ukraine to stop sacrificing its people in vain sooner rather than later.

If Ukraine wants to continue throwing its people's lives away, then that's their right. However, Europe should not make itself complicit in such a senseless waste of life.

Is Putin’s aggression of Ukraine pure “evil” or just “necessary evil”? — neomac

The war in Ukraine is completely pointless and a shining example of the unnecessary evil of states - all states involved, including the state of Ukraine itself.

Why not in the same way? What is the difference? — neomac

The difference is that Russia tried to find a diplomatic solution, but was snubbed by the Americans on every occasion.

Israel on the other hand did everything it could to prevent a diplomatic solution.

The scariest thing (as you so aptly bring up in the third ¶) is how the majority tends to behave like the blob once it becomes mobilized - assimilating anybody it can get a hold of into its mindless mass. — Merkwurdichliebe

Flemish psychology professor Mattias Desmet has written a book about this in 2022, called 'The Psychology of Totalitarianism'. It discusses this exact subject in relation to the pandemic. He was subsequently invited to a lot of podcasts, and you can find plenty of interviews of him on YouTube.

In addition to providing a very lucid take of the whole ordeal, I also thought he was an inspiring human being. It's worth checking out.

And now there are cases of people claiming vaccine injuries all over the world who face an industry that has been protected by law in case of damages due to off label use. It is sickening how corrupt it all is. — Merkwurdichliebe

I would like mass lawsuits to provide justice, but I doubt it.

The industry has covered itself, and will not take responsibility for off label use. To whatever degree states will take responsibility - guess with whose tax money they will be paying the damages?

Ideally, the politicians who for whatever reason chose to completely ignore medical guidelines in both a narrow sense (the vaccines) and broad sense (our general knowledge of epidemics and immunity) should be tried seperately. But I guess the chances of that happening are almost zero.

Authority is a powerful thing and people are simple creatures: the government says it, the institutions say it, the news says it, everybody seems to believe it - it must be true.

Not to mention, all the common information sources I named have teams of experts that advise them on exactly what their messaging should look like to manipulate people into exhibiting the desired behavior or copying the desired beliefs. People who aren't aware of how this type of manipulation works are basically chanceless against it.

Even if you have a natural distrust for the first three, being confronted with an apparent majority of people who speak and act as though what's being presented is truth will seriously test one's trust in their own observations and intuition.

Have you seen this letter from the European Medicines Agency to members of the European Parliament in response to an inquiry?

As all these institutions are scrambling to cover themselves, they're starting to spill the beans.

I foresee more lawsuits in our future, but chances of success are low.

Big pharma and national governments clearly engaged in some sort of unholy pact that made the industry non-liable in case of damages due to off label use, in exchange for rapidly developed vaccines. Rampant off label use is what governments all over the world (including my own) engaged in.

From the letter:

You are indeed correct to point out that COVID-19 vaccines have not been authorised for preventing transmission frome one person to another. The indications are for protecting the vaccinated individual only. — European Medicines Agency

This is diametrically opposed to the story which many governments told their populations, and which they used to justify their actions.

It was not authorized for use to prevent the spread of the virus, and it was not authorized to protect anyone besides the vaccinated individual. In other words, getting vaccinated to "protect grandma" was nothing but emotional blackmail on a national scale.

I think a lot of things came together.

On one hand there are people in high places who probably felt they should "never waste a good crisis" - people like Schwab, Bill Gates, etc. - they've long had some funny ideas about what the world should look like. There's little hard evidence to implicate these people, but I have no doubt they have major influence on politicians on the national level. Schwab famously called the pandemic a "window of opportunity" to roll out his ideas. At that point, hard evidence or no, I know enough.

Then there's big pharma, which clearly had perverse incentives to contribute to the media storm, and did so on a gigantic scale.

Finally there are politicians on the national level, who probably realized at some point that they had made a grave error, but did not want to take the fall politically, and instead doubled down on the narrative.

The people themselves are simply not equipped to deal with this kind of fuckery. Under normal circumstances people are reasonably capable of critical thought, but not when the information landscape is thoroughly poisoned on this scale, from places of authority no less (WHO, national governments, etc.).

A perfect storm of all the worst elements of humanity.

US warns that Israel risks ‘strategic defeat’ unless it protects civilians in Gaza (Financial Times, 2023)

As expected, Israel throwing all caution and humanity by the wayside in pursuit of a punitive campaign and possibly other, even less savory goals will likely come back to bite it.


What Israel needs to do to win is murder or displace two and a half million people. All Hamas needs to do to win is survive.

I've heard several analysts state they believe Israel has barely managed to scratch Hamas' foothold in Gaza.

It makes you wonder what the brigade of US and European stooges were thinking when they gave Israel carte blanche to go to town on the civilian population in Gaza. Fools in charge in Israel, fools in charge in the White House, fools in charge in Brussels - this is what you get.

The small bit of good news; Netanyahu is finished.

That about sums it up. I can safely say that it has changed my outlook on humanity as a whole. Perhaps worst of all is the deafening silence afterwards. As all the lies were exposed and myths dispelled, there is still scarcely a sign of any reflection.

You say sheep, but I'm more reminded of stampeding wildebeest who don't care whom or what they trample in their blind panic.

From a moral standpoint I view states as being fundamentally flawed from the outset. — Tzeentch

Meaning? — neomac

For the sake of not derailing the thread I'm not going to go into detail. I'm a classic liberal in the practical sense, and an anarchist in an idealist sense. For me, states are a 'necessary evil' at their very best, and more often than not just 'evil'.

Do you mean that “those were blocked by the US simply to save Washington's ego” and “how many thousands of lives and billions in damages is Washington's ego worth?” do not express moral evaluations? Neither “my perspective presupposes peaceful coexistence is (or "should be") the goal of nations. Sadly, many nations and certainly the U.S. are not driven by that goal”?

How about the conduct of Putin, Zelensky, Biden, Macron, Scholz, Boris Johnson? Can we assess their political choices morally since they are moral actors? How about “These people are unhinged. The Netanyahu regime has got to go. Can we get regime change in Israel, please?” ? Does it express a moral evaluation? — neomac

We've already had this discussion before.

Picking out a handful of emotionally loaded comments is not very impressive considering this discussion has been going for years.

My arguments vis-á-vis Ukraine are not moral in nature, and the idea that this war is primarily caused by neocon foreign policy is not moral either.

Sometimes the sheer disgust I feel towards some of the clowns that inhabit the spheres of international politics shines through. Sue me.

Here is what I got so far, about your beliefs: Ukraine has a right to defend itself from a standpoint of international law. But not right to defend itself from a standpoint of morality because… it is not a moral actor? — neomac

Now the question: Putin who is a moral actor (right?) can invade Ukraine and violate its right from a standpoint of international law because from a moral point of view Ukraine has no right to self-defence? — neomac

States are abstractions and not moral actors, so they have no moral rights.

As I said, morality is simply not a useful lens through which to evaluate the behavior of states.

Note that in the case of the Israel discussion, Israel has no legal right to self-defense, which is why the discussion shifted to the question of whether it had a moral right.

And no, of course my belief is not that Putin has a moral right to invade Ukraine.

For the purpose of this discussion I've always supposed Ukraine had a legal right to self-defense and that Russia's invasion is illegal, and never claimed otherwise. The basis for that is international law, and not morality.

What you have conveniently removed from this presentation of your views is all your normative claims about what Ukrainian should have done, what the US/Europeans should do, and who is to blame. — neomac

Those aren't moral 'shoulds' though, and attributing blame isn't necessarily moral in nature either. These are questions of cause & effect, strategy, etc.

Let’s do another test, if I claimed: “Russia should stop illegally occupying Ukraine. That's an action that it can and should undertake unilaterally.
They should stop illegally occupying Ukraine, and stop committing human rights violations, war crimes and crimes against humanity. As long as Russia is the occupier and refuses to carry out the relevant UN resolutions, RUSSIA IS THE PROBLEM”.
Would you agree with that? — neomac

No, I don't believe Russia is responsible for the conflict in Ukraine in the same way that Israel is responsible for the war in Gaza.

Russia is part of the problem, and its invasion and occupation are illegal. I can agree to that much.

1. You believe that state do not have the right to fight in self-defence [1] — neomac

You're conflating two different discussions. From a moral standpoint I view states as being fundamentally flawed from the outset.

But my engagement in the discussion about the Ukraine war has never been moral in nature. Morality isn't even a useful lens through which to view the conduct of states, since they are not moral actors.

Ukraine has a right to defend itself from a standpoint of international law, which is something I would never deny.

You have to pay attention to what is said, not fill in the blanks with what you would like to believe "I meant".


As for the rest, I believe Ukraine will achieve nothing by continuing to fight, except for a worse bargaining position and further destruction of Ukraine.

There's nothing 'pro-Russian' about that, even if it's not what cheerleaders want to hear.

Yes, I believe Russia most-likely achieved its primary objectives. Yes, I believe the Ukrainiain bargaining position has only deteriorated since the negotiations of March/April 2022.

And on the topic of trust; it's Ukraine who stands to lose most in this war, so trust or no trust, refusing negotiations will only deteriorate its position further.