Why do you avoid an app that is the only remaining free speech platform of the planet?
Meta and Google keep censuring what you see, even Microsoft's MSN censures comments.
You should never avoid the truth about any topic, otherwise you leave the door open for governments and lobbies to manipulate your opinion for self-gain.
X offer a self-regulated, community-driven fact checking, like any responsible society, the power is in the hands of the people - THEY - rather than big government - determine what the truth is, there is no totalitarian ideological programming. This is extremely valuable in a democracy when truth-finding is democratic.
If you prevent speech, you can no longer have meaningful discussions about difficult topics. People feel punished, shamed and castigated for their disagreements with the Regime, it is exactly what we see in Totalitarian regimes like Russia and China.
I think anyone who avoids X is out of their mind, or just haven't caught up to the lies and manipulations of the NATO bloc and WHO (who by the way this very moment are trying to secretly get a treaty signed for them to have supranational authority in the event of further pandemics - meaning your government will be forced to imposed any medicine the lobby decides you need, upon you). You owe it to yourself to speak up against war mongering lobbies, pharmaceutical lobbies, food lobbies (Monsanto) that want your right to cultivate your own natural cultivations and food removed and replaced with GMO's and fake meat.
I prey for us that we do not end up in a nuclear conflict because of the lies and ideological programming of our Western Governments, but if we you do, you can bet, we will have lost the last shreds of freedom we still have. Just like what happened with Covid, it will be used as a pretext to restrict what we are and are not allowed to do.
You absolutely need to support platforms like X, Epoch Times, The Hill that don't shove government fake fact checking down your throat and offer a balanced, multi-polar view of the world.
For my part, since the censure on Youtube, I have cancelled my premium subscription and taken a premium subscription on X. With AI getting ideological programming baked into it, we can't let Truth manipulation be woven into our lives. If X falls, then our future will be very gloomy indeed.
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
>Why do you avoid an app that is the only remaining free speech platform of the planet?
lol
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/04/elon-musk-twitter-still-banning-journalists
https://english.elpais.com/international/2023-05-24/under-elon-musk-twitter-has-approved-83-of-censorship-requests-by-authoritarian-governments.html
Uh-huh
Also Elon Musk openly simps for the PRC and Russia.
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
See what I mean? You only get the lies they feed you instead of the fact checked version of the facts that you would have gotten on X.
Even just yesterday, you would have seen that X is actually fighting those injunctions to censure in court when foreign governments are trying to impose censure on them. Which other platform do you know where they will take legal action WHILE they are still complying?
I am begging you, don't let dishonest sources like Vanity Fair, the Verge, Business Inside drive your opinion.
And I have proof that Musk is not simping for Russia. It will be a shock to you when you listen to this (I am reuploading it as it was removed from YT). Will post it in 10 minutes.
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
>See what I mean? You only get the lies they feed you instead of the fact checked version of the facts that you would have gotten on X.
Did those journalists not get banned?
>Even just yesterday, you would have seen that X is actually fighting those injunctions to censure in court when foreign governments are trying to impose censure on them. Which other platform do you know where they will take legal action WHILE they are still complying?
Can I see a source where Musk is fighting the Turkish and Indian governments on this stuff, please?
>And I have proof that Musk is not simping for Russia. It will be a shock to you when you listen to this (I am reuploading it as it was removed from YT). Will post it in 10 minutes.
What do you think of Elon Musk's comments about China and taiwan?
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
You have to know that Musk has Aspergers, this means that his empathy is not expressed in the neurotypical way. Because he is a visionary and has access to political information thst none of us has access to, and based on the video I shared, it is very easy to guess what motivates Musk's views on Taiwan and China.
The war in Taiwan, just like the war in Ukraine is already planned (members of congress have said there is a plan in Washington for a war within the next 5 years). You can tell it is true because the US is currently have TSMC build a chip factory in the US and I think it was Japan and the EU who are also following suit.
This means Musk, as the pragmatic humanist he is, is trying to avoid the casualties under the constraints of how NATO and China think about this issue, finding the solution that costs the fewest lives.
Of course this is not palatable to a lot of people, he himself said as much, just like going back to the Minsk peace accords is not palatable to NATO because we know today that they had bases in Ukraine all along, despite what we were told.
Musk's views won't flatter the need for symbolism of neurotypicals, his thoughts are purely dictated by the avoidance of the most catastrophic outcomes for humanity. Once you have understood that about him (easier if you have autisitc friends) you understand that he is motivated by a desire to do what is the most effective in protecting humanity. In the process he ruffles feathers because of course the economical military complex has no interest in averting escalation, it revives thair industry (France recently reopened a missile factory that was about to close).
Even though his decisions are not popular on either side, they represent the most balanced and pragmatic solution for the preservation of humanity.
I think it is mostly neurotypicals that misunderstand Musk's motivations, since they tend to favor short term symbols and empathy to long term results and historical empathy.
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
>You have to know that Musk has Aspergers, this means that his empathy is not expressed in the neurotypical way. Because he is a visionary and has access to political information thst none of us has access to, and based on the video I shared, it is very easy to guess what motivates Musk's views on Taiwan and China.
And what "information" is this?
>The war in Taiwan, just like the war in Ukraine is already planned (members of congress have said there is a plan in Washington for a war within the next 5 years). You can tell it is true because the US is currently have TSMC build a chip factory in the US and I think it was Japan and the EU who are also following suit.
Show me evidence of this "plan".
How would this war start by Washington, exactly?
>This means Musk, as the pragmatic humanist he is, is trying to avoid the casualties under the constraints of how NATO and China think about this issue, finding the solution that costs the fewest lives.
Elon Musk suggested Taiwan should essentially give up their independence and be annexed into the PRC. Why would the PRC object to his viewpoints?
"Their (Beijing's) policy has been to reunite Taiwan with China. From their standpoint, maybe it is analogous to Hawaii or something like that, like an integral part of China that is arbitrarily not part of China mostly because ... the U.S. Pacific Fleet has stopped any sort of reunification effort by force,"
What would the PRC find objectionable about that? He's not promoting some "middle-ground". He's saying pro-PRC stuff.
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
Did you listen to the video I posted? I think it was in this video, about the war in Taiwan.
Both China and US are waiting until they are independent in terms of chips. SMIC is 2 years away from catching up with TSMC, US is 3-4 years away from catching up with Taiwan production for their own needs.
Listen to the video, I know it is long but it is very smart and genuine people on the call. It helps you understand the motivations of NATO for provoking the war in Ukraine. As long as Merkel and Holland were in power,, the EU had opposed the war in Ukraine and protected the accords. Merkel was a pragmatic herself and the access to cheap energy was crucial for the EU, Germany was one of the few EU countries that was reducing its debt thanks to cheap energy fueling its industrial exports. In an ecommy where production is robotized cheap energy is the ansolutenkey. Merkel understood that. Scholz is an idiot and was too wet behind the ears to oposose the US, he folded and let the US revive the conflict. Prime misister Harper made the peace accords fail in 2014, convincing Ukraine to renegate on their intention to sign. Scholz now has to explain to his population why he chose war in favor of the US military complex and fracking gas industry when he could have kept peace and the prosperity of his own country.
The war is only benefiting Russia. US is ruined, through sanctions the dollar went from world currency down to 3% of energy trade, and world inflation is benefiting Russia becsuse the high energy prices means they keep getting richer while the US is in the verge of ruin.
Musk's plan was the best for the US and the EU. And Ukraine. Not the best for Russia but they would have accepted it.
We failed to be pragmatic and may yet pay a steep price.
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
>Both China and US are waiting until they are independent in terms of chips. SMIC is 2 years away from catching up with TSMC, US is 3-4 years away from catching up with Taiwan production for their own needs.
That's not what I asked you. I asked how will the USA "provoke" a war in 5 years in Taiwan? What will they do?
Where is your evidence that this is the plan?
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
In the video I shared plus other testimonies that I have to retrieve.
Sorry I failed to respond to your point on the journalists.
Musk wrote:
“I will investigate. Obviously, it is ok to be critical of anything, but it is not ok to call for extreme violence, as that is illegal,” Musk wrote. “For the record, I do not personally agree with your views. Nonetheless, the point of freedom of speech is allowing those whose views you disagree with to express those views.” Shortly thereafter, the accounts were restored.
We all know social media platforms rely on algorithms to detect illegal or copyrighted content.
Musk has always said it will allow free speech to the extent allowed by the law (which is why he is fighting the new EU legislation that would allow them to censure content they dislike, since platforms that don't comply would have to pay heavy fines). He is doing more to oppose foreign governments than other other platform.
The fact is social media platforms are under attack from governments to enable censure. You probably saw in the Twitter files that Big Tech had back doors that allowed the FBI and other federal agencies to ban content. Some officials (e.g., Pfizer Board member using his clout as ex FDA commissioner) had asked for the removal of scientific information that showed natural immunity is superior to vaccine immunity both for mortality and transmission). Democrats also used the platform to suppress or de-emphasize political opponents on the platform. FBI used it to suppress the story about the Hunter Biden laptop, the Wuhan gain of function research, etc.
It is extremely difficult I think even for someone as powerful as Musk to oppose legislators and foreign governments (Musk can at least trade access to starlink and shipment of satellites like he did with the EU in bargain for free speech).
What I appreciate is that on X errors are corrected, people that had been banned by mistake were immediately reinstated. They truly stand for free speech. They fight for it, and it is only possible for people who themselves have something that governments want!
This is why Musk is tolerated by the establishment.
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
The PRC already consider Taiwan as one of their province. The new legal status would at least not put lives at stake or change the lives of Taiwan people under his plan - they would have a different, more protected status than Hong Kong.
I am not saying it would seem fair to the Taiwanese population on a symbolic level, but it is better than the alternative, which is the completely unprotected annexation of Taiwan further down the line, which would happen with violence and will be inevitable considering US is spread too thin on too many fronts by allies of China (Russia and Iran, who stirred the conflict in Gaza to weaken the US).
Musk is thinking on a different timeline than we do, his mind is naturally visionary, so the solutions he offers will only make sense to other people further down the line. Think about NATO, 10 years after a global nuclear war. Everyone will agree that Musk's solution was the right one. But most humans have a short-term orientation based on current necessities and symbols.
Musk as an Aspergers of course is completely powerless to make his positions justifiable from a purely symbolic standpoint. Most people won't understand and think it horrible when from his position it is the best possible future outcome.
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
>The PRC already consider Taiwan as one of their province. The new legal status would at least not put lives at stake or change the lives of Taiwan people under his plan - they would have a different, more protected status than Hong Kong.
Have you considered that the Taiwanese do not want to be under the control of an authoritarian totalitarian state, and rather value their liberal democracy?
Again, I am asking you for evidence that the US plans to start a conflict in Taiwan in 5 years.
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
I think I have responded twice already that it is in the video you refuse to watch, and in other videos I need to retrieve.
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
I want text excerpts. I'm not watching a 43 minute video. Where did government officials or cabinet members or the military propose starting an actual war in Taiwan in 5 years? If the USA is already spread too thin due to supplying Ukraine and the Gaza-Israel situation, what is the logic of starting a war against a nuclear power through Taiwan?
How would Taiwan even be goaded into doing this?
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
Yes, in the rest of my message I have completely acknowledged that. Whether or not you desire something is irrelevant if the choice is a pure illusion and the alternative is actually much much worse. The world is not fair and governed by sociopathic forces. Autism, because it is pathologically truth-seeking, is the natural enemy of pathological lies and the most potent enemy of sociopaths. it can match sociopaths both in intelligence and wherewithal (some would say obstination, thanks to aspi's fixated interests).
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
First you claim that China is going to attack in the future, possible. But then you claim that the USA plan is to prompt an attack anyway.
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
No, did not say the US is planning to attack, I am saying the US is preparing for an attack. Military voices have been quoted saying there is a plan, why would there not be a plan. They have to run simulations for these scenarios, it would be irresponsible if they did not. This is why they have to move chip production outside of Taiwan!
Some say it will happen as early as in 2025, while other military and congress men say it will happen within the next 3-5 years.
The only way to avoid it seems a compromise, where Taiwan benefits from superprivileges an the annexation is only on paper and the Taiwanese population still live under a different law system to mainline China. At the end of the day, US were forcing China's hand by suppressing chip supplies through sanctions, to cut them off the AI race. If China were minded like the US, they would have done what the US did to secure resources in the past, which is to invade innocent countries like Irak, Lybia, etc.). Instead they chose to bolster their own chip production and technology so that Taiwan does not need to be the nexus of geopolitical danger to their survival.
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
>No, did not say the US is planning to attack, I am saying the US is preparing for an attack. Military voices have been quoted saying there is a plan, why would there not be a plan. They have to run simulations for these scenarios, it would be irresponsible if they did not. This is why they have to move chip production outside of Taiwan!
Yes, the US simulates and brainstorms scenarios. They *plan for the worst* but that doesn't mean they are going to deliberately cause a war. US also does wargames over North Korea attacking South Korea, and many other circumstances.
>The only way to avoid it seems a compromise, where Taiwan benefits from superprivileges an the annexation is only on paper.
Elon Musk didn't propose a compromise. He essentially just said that the USA should give up and let the PRC annex them.
> At the end of the day, US were forcing China's hand by suppressing chip supplies through sanctions, to cut them off the AI race.
That's not the basis of the PRC claim. There could be no chip production there at all, and they'd still claim Taiwan.
>If China were minded like the US, they would have done what the US did to secure resources in the past, which is to invade innocent countries like Irak, Lybia, etc.). Instead they chose to bolster their own chip production and technology so that Taiwan does not need to be the nexus of geopolitical danger to their survival.
This is as much as anything due to a lack of PRC power. And what resources did the USA "secure" there? The USA could've just backed Gaddafi and Saddam in those countries if all they wanted was resources.
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
No Musk did not purpose annexation like any China province, he proposed that they still maintain autonomy beyond what Hong Kong currently have. A bit similar to the how EU countries integrated provinces that initially wanted to remain separate (Pays Basque and Catalonia in Spain, Corsica in France, Scottland in the UK, etc.). By having separate governance over a number of years, it eases in the integration over a number of years.
I don't think PRC lack power, I think they just show a lot of restraint compared to our more imperialistic Western powers.
Lybia, Mali and Niger were key to protect Uranium exploitation, it has been revealed by French politician Manuel Vals. Syria was key to favor the supply of oil from Qatar and Saudi Arabia (backed by the US) instead of the competing project (Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon-Europe friendship pipeline). In the Iraw conflict, the US merely wanted to maintain access to cheap oil prices thanks to the supply of Kuweit, also abetting Qatari and Saudi Arabia allies. They alleged weapons of mass destruction and links of Iraq to Al Qaeda to maintain control of oil reserves in the region. Those claims were later debunked.
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
>No Musk did not purpose annexation like any China province, he proposed that they still maintain autonomy beyond what Hong Kong currently have. A bit similar to the how
Why on earth would Taiwan ever trust that the PRC would hold to that?
>EU countries integrated provinces that initially wanted to remain separate (Pays Basque and Catalonia in Spain, Corsica in France, Scottland in the UK, etc.). By having separate governance over a number of years, it eases in the integration over a number of years.
Corsica has been governed as a part of France since 1796. It has nothing to do with the EU. Catalonia and Basque have been incorporated into Spain since 1808. It has nothing to do with the EU.
Scotland chose to merge with England to form Great Britain in 1707. It has nothing to do with the EU.
In addition, France, Spain and UK are all democratic nations.
These are nothing like the situation in Taiwan.
>I don't think PRC lack power, I think they just show a lot of restraint compared to our more imperialistic Western powers.
Based on what? Ask Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Phillipines how they feel about the PRC supposedly having "restraint".
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
Their army is almost 3 times the size of the US army. Technologically speaking they are now about on par with he US. They lack experience in military conflicts, but their ally Russia does not.
You make important nuances about the difference in situations between separatism within the EU and separatism in the ex-USSR bloc but I still don't think it was fair for NATO to interfere after Ukraine were ready to sign the Minsk accords, to have them renegate on them. It was purely US, Canada and UK interference - unlike Germany and France they had been triyng to make them fail for years.
Macron was foolish, he saw an opportunity to stir the EU away from NATO to create its own defense (pure ideology if you ask me), and that's why he intentionally let the conflict play out, thinking it could help him father European support to finance France's military industry.
And Scholz, well he was stupid beyond imagination, having the most to lose in the conflict, he still complied. If it were the US Scholz would be charged for treason and would have to take refuge in a foreign country like Assange and Snowden have had to do. 😂
Joke aside, I have become increasingly disillusioned with our own governments, their short-sightedness, increased use of censure and suppression of freedom and ideological programing to support the pharmaceutical and war lobbies. It makes no sense to me. Especially sending Ukrainian people to their death in a conflict they cannot win. Even if you give them new artillery or aircrafts, they don't have the manpower to operate them, let alone the expertise for airborn combat.
By now it should be clear that NATO cannot fight on all fronts. US is a declining power, their best bet is to cut their losses and stop harming their own economy by wasting money in a conflict that is by now purely driven by pride and a refusal to face reality. Sending innocent men to fight their war by procuation is criminal from a pure pragmatic standpoint. BRICS countries represent the majority of global trade today and G7 have declined from 47% to 30% if I am not mistaken. It is just not in our interest to antagonize countries with the best demographic and technology outcomes in the future years) Woke ideology and DEI has weakened US competitivity. China is hard working and is about to overtake US in technological domination. Trump's last ditch effort to delay them was not without merit, but delay on an economic level and antagonize BRICs on a military level are two entirely different things.
We (the NATO populations) have not been consulted as to whether we want a global war escalation. It is definitely the case that a majority of Europeans don't want world inflation and nuclear escalation, and yet our governments take these decisions away from us.
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
>Their army is almost 3 times the size of the US army. Technologically speaking they are now about on par with he US. They lack experience in military conflicts, but their ally Russia does not.
US also completely outfunds them and has way more international allies than the PRC and Russia.
>You make important nuances about the difference in situations between separatism within the EU and separatism in the ex-USSR bloc but I still don't think it was fair for NATO to interfere after Ukraine were ready to sign the Minsk accords, to have them renegate on them. It was purely US, Canada and UK interference - unlike Germany and France they had been triyng to make them fail for years.
How did the EU "interfere" in Ukraine? That implies some level of underhand meddling. Did Ukraine not want to move and look westwards, as opposed to Russia? Did they not have the right to explore joining the EU?
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
After the Minks 2 accords, Putin said:
“All the participants of today’s meeting confirmed that the basis of a settlement in southeastern Ukraine must lie in the Minsk agreement. And all confirmed their commitment to this agreement.”
President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine declared the roadmap would show “the steps we are taking to implement the Minsk agreement and guarantee their implementation.”
On February 18, US Senators McCain and Lindsay reiterated their accusations against Angela Merkel in a statement. They accused her of complacency and political weakness toward Moscow, while also criticizing Obama’s inaction".
But even if President Obama hesitated and Canadian Prime Minister Harper wavered well into 2015, it was known that behind the scenes, the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Poland, Georgia, and the Baltic countries had been providing arms supplies to Ukraine for months. Initially, this involved old equipment, but it was intended to help the fragile Ukrainian army adapt to NATO standards.
I have to give credit to Obama for not allowing the conflict to escalate at that time.
Unfortunately with Obama, Merkel and Hollande out of the way, in April of 2022, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson visited Kyiv and reportedly pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to cut off peace negotiations with Russia.
Johnson’s position was that the collective West, including the UK, should continue ramping up military and economic support for Ukraine.
The issue has been and remains the desire of NATO to arm Ukraine despite the peace accords, and the dishonesty of doing so while pretending to abide by the Minks accords. Merkel and Hollande both confirmed it.
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
>Unfortunately with Obama, Merkel and Hollande out of the way, in April of 2022, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson visited Kyiv and reportedly pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to cut off peace negotiations with Russia.
And was Zelensky forced to do this by Boris Johnson?
>The issue has been and remains the desire of NATO to arm Ukraine despite the peace accords, and the dishonesty of doing so while pretending to abide by the Minks accords. Merkel and Hollande both confirmed it.
https://cepa.org/article/dont-let-russia-fool-you-about-the-minsk-agreements/
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
>By now it should be clear that NATO cannot fight on all fronts. US is a declining power, their best bet is to cut their losses and stop harming their own economy by wasting money in a conflict that is by now purely driven by pride and a refusal to face reality. Sending innocent men to fight their war by procuation is criminal from a pure pragmatic standpoint. BRICS countries represent the majority of global trade today and G7 have declined from 47% to 30% if I am not mistaken. It is just not in our interest to antagonize countries with the best demographic and technology outcomes in the future years) Woke ideology and DEI has weakened US competitivity. China is hard working and is about to overtake US in technological domination. Trump's last ditch effort to delay them was not without merit, but delay on an economic level and antagonize BRICs on a military level are two entirely different things.
"The BRICS countries represent 43% of the world’s population, 16% of the world’s trade, and a larger share of the world’s GDP than the G7."
Note that the actual co-operation between BRICs countries is loose, at best. The notion that they're some counterpart to NATO is laughable. Half of the countries in it are rivals with each other.
You talk a big game about freedom of speech, yet praise authoritarian autocratic regimes with deeply damaged democracies, or in some cases, no democracy at all.
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
The conflict is not very different from the conflict between Irland and the UK, in the end Ireland ended with a mostly peaceful resolution where the Republic of Ireland maintains its independence and Northern Ireland is now part of the UK.
Note that if a similar solution has been approved by NATO (Minsk accords), the Donbass region would have been Northern Ireland in that scenario (part of Russia), and the rest of Ukraine would have been the independent Republic of Ireland.
I don't know why we had to artificially skew the conflict in our favor by encouraging the Ukrainian government on a path to civil war and bombing its own Donbass population and building NATO bases all over the country. Probably for oil control.
If there are been no oil im Dombass, you can bet NATO would have let Donbass have its peaceful referendum-based independence like the Republic of Ireland had with the UK. Instead we made sure the Minsk peace accords get broken.
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
>The conflict is not very different from the conflict between Irland and the UK, in the end Ireland ended with a mostly peaceful resolution where the Republic of Ireland maintains its independence and Northern Ireland is now part of the UK.
The UK did and does de facto and de jure governs Northern Ireland. Taiwan is not de jure governed by the PRC.
The UK is not a one-party totalitarian state. The PRC is. Northern Ireland republican movements are not suppressed. They are literally power-sharing in the Northern Ireland Assembly right now.
Less than 10% of Taiwanese want to "reunify" with China. There's no evidence of a majority in favour of Northern Irish people wanting to join Ireland.
These are not comparable situations.
>Note that if a similar solution has been approved by NATO (Minsk accords), the Donbass region would have been Northern Ireland in that scenario (part of Russia), and the rest of Ukraine would have been the independent Republic of Ireland.
The comparison here also doesn't make any sense. When Ireland formed and gained their independence, they didn't take with them Northern Ireland. When Ukraine formed they did take the Donbass and they had been part of them for over 30 years. Russia themselves openly encouraged separatists in the Donbass region to declare independence and split off form Ukraine. Some of the earliest antagonisers in the region were literally from Moscow. Russia invaded to fully take the Donbass. Your scenario rewards aggression by another country.
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
Let us not pretend US did not try to influence the Ukrainian government, they themselves had agreed to the peace accords. It was only because of then Prime Minister Johnson that the peace accords failed. This is a conflict that was engineered by the NATO alliance as much as Russia. You assume that the Donbass people were swayed in some way when in reality they have held strong ties to their motherland forever. I think the subversive influence has been more on the side of NATO in this conflict, I regret to say. NATO after promising there would be no further advances of NATO towards the east deceived Russia multiple times and kept expanding their area of influence. Russia drew the line at the provinces that had remained loyal to the mother land, like Crimea and Donbass. It is not unreasonable to protect territorial integrity that you would not want NATAO bases and missiles close to your border. What if Russia had installed military bases in Cuba with strike power range reaching into US territory, where it has no business being in the first place. Wouldn't that cause reaction (at the very least trying to support revolt against the Cuba regime and create propagandist media to turn the population against Russia)?
Those are not black and white situations.
But to go back to the discussion about Musk, Musk is not advocating for either side, he is just choosing the path he believes is the path to least human casualties.
He knows imperialistic powers have to do what they have to do. Only compromise can maintain peace. If one side acts too weak it will be expoited by the other side.
Balancing power and weaving in prosperity through commercial cooperation and trade was not a bad solution, it had worked well to improve Russia and EU coorperation before US finally managed to sever those ties. From a EU perspective, we would have gained much more from an alliance with BRICS countries AND Nato at the same time instead of choosing camps. Once you pick a camp, you are...
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
>Let us not pretend US did not try to influence the Ukrainian government, they themselves had agreed to the peace accords. It was only because of then Prime Minister Johnson that the peace accords failed.
Did Boris Johnson somehow force the Ukrainian government into their decision?
And sure, the US government and Uk government and EU have tried to sway Ukraine westwards. So what? I never denied that, but seem to be portraying Russia as an innocent bystander in all of this who did nothing, said nothing and watched with horror as Ukraine looked westwards.
>This is a conflict that was engineered by the NATO alliance as much as Russia. You assume that the Donpass people were swayed in some way when in reality they have held strong ties to their motherland forever.
Some did, some didn't. This is demographically much more obviously true for Crimea, not the Donbass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Antyufeyev
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Borodai
Some of the major players in the Donetsk Republic. From Russia.
>I think the subversive influence has been more on the side of NATO in this conflict I regret to say. NATO after promising there would be no further advances of NATO towards the east deceived Russia multiple times and kept expanding their area of influence.
This was never a "promise" written down. It was a verbal comment said by people who have long since left NATO. In addition, the Baltics and Poland joined NATO over 20 years ago now. What does this have to do with Ukraine?
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/exposing-the-myth-of-western-betrayal-of-russia/
This is essentially Russian mythos, a low-key 'stab in the back' post-hoc justification for aggression, or potential aggression.
>Russia drew the line at the US provinces that had remained loyal to the mother land, like Crimea and Donbass. It is not unreasonable to protect territorial integrity that you would not want NATAO bases and
Ukraine was not anywhere near joining NATO.
>What if Russia had installed military bases in Cuba with strike power range reaching into US territory, where it has no business being in the first place. Wouldn't that cause reaction (at the very least trying to support revolt against the Cuba regime and create propagandist media to turn the population against Russia)?
Perhaps the US should ask themselves in such a circumstance why they are considered such an awful neighbour that all of their surrounding countries hate them. Russia never seemed to manage the concept of soft power.
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
I am not saying Russia is an innocent by stander, this is what I mean by "in a game between opposing sociopaths".
You can only win if you let autism triumph over sociopathy.
All I am saying is propaganda, persecution of political opponents is not a feature of just Russia or China, it is actually more eminently a feature of US imperialism. By controlling the media, and supporting the installation of governments that favor your geopolitical interests, you can indeed stealthily favor your economic interests. Indoctrination is a very powerful weapon, and this is also why China build the Great Firewall, to cut itself off from US propagandist influence, recognizing their supremacy in teleguiding the fate of entire nations through political meddling.
US have the perversity of calling sociopathic handling "virtue". The US represent the female side of sociopathy (covert narcissism), ruining others through innuendo, gossip, reputation destruction, gaslighting and pathological lies. Russia on the other hand represents the male side of sociopathy (overt narcissism). This is why you see the Woke movement in the US with his hyperfeminization preference be so vehemently against Russia.
As far as I am concerned, I despise both emanations of sociopathy equally. I stick with the autistic and neurodivergent people. The people who think outside of the box and fight for true dialogue and washing your laundry publicly instead of behind back doors. This is why I support X. They will publish any government injunction to remove content so that it is not a stealthy act hidden from the population anymore. They are telling governments "censure at your own peril, your populations will know what you asked us to take down, and we will publish it for all to see".
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
>All I am saying is propaganda, persecution of political opponents is not a feature of just Russia or China, it is actually more eminently a feature of US imperialism. By controlling the media, and supporting the installation of governments that favor your geopolitical interests, you can indeed stealthily favor your economic interests. Indoctrination is a very powerful weapon, and this is also why China build the Great Firewall, to cut itself off from US propagandist influence, recognizing their supremacy in teleguiding the fate of entire nations through political meddling.
So now you're openly justifying China's great internet censorship?
Your free speech veneer is slipping.
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
No, absolutely not, I dearly wish for an equivalent to X in China.
This is precisely my point. You need to support X because X is the last vestige of US freedom of speech. If X shuts down, there will be no obstacle to the West behaving exactly the same way China or Russia do.
This was exactly where I was going with my entire argumentation all along!
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
>This is precisely my point. You need to support X because X is the last vestige of US freedom of speech. If X shuts down, there will be no obstacle to the West behaving exactly the same way China or Russia do.
What are you on about? If the west behaved like China, then Twitter would be shut down or neutered and they wouldn't care what Elon Musk thought about it. Opposition media would be censored, and journalists, activists, politicians would be arrested. This does not happen. These things do happen in Russia.
This shows an incredible ignorance to just how authoritarian Russia and China are.
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
You travesty what I said. Until now you had been fair in your discussion of those points.
The point I made earlier is we are one slither away from having freedom of expression take down completely. Before Musk took very Twitter the general population were essentially in the dark about many decisions that impact our lives, including health, food, the stealthy cancelation or persecution of political opponents, wars.
What differentiates us from Russia and China is precisely that we are democracies and in a democracy, the people decide what is true, not the regime. Once you remove the last vestiges of these mechanism, you open the door to people becoming accustomed to a social credit society like China or repressive regime like Russia. I hope you understand now why it is important to protect what we have that is different to those regimes, and fight against everything that is the same as in Russia (pardon Assange already!), like censure and ideological programming through social media (and even more scary, AI).
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
>The point I made earlier is we are one slither away from having freedom of expression take down completely. Before Musk took very Twitter the general population were essentially in the dark about many decisions that impact our lives, including health, food, the stealthy cancelation or persecution of political opponents, wars.
No we weren't. What are you on about.
What political opponents have been persecuted? Who has been "cancelled" unjustly?
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
Assange
Snowden
Pr Raoult was persecuted with multiple enquiry commissions and pushed to resign (worlds most published and quoted immunologist who argued that Ivermectin and HCQ are effective early treatments of Covid) and boosters are ineffective and vaccination is only indicated with at risk populations and should be a medical decision since mass vaccination cannot stop epidemics in Corona viruses)
Pr Perrone lost his job (previously in charge of EMEA vaccination at WHO, he lost his job for sharing the truth about WHO having 10+ pharma companies seating at WHO for the last 10 years and other information on the shift in policies he observed as a result from an insider perspective)
Multiple US conservative voices were silenced (de-emphasized) on Twitter at the behest of FBI requests during elections, as was published in the Twitter files.
Juan Franco, a political opponent to Macron in France, was accused by a women he had an affair with of rape, before she admitted she was paid to seduce him and ensure he is removed from the media. She later felt guilty about it and admitted it was a lie.
Tariq Ramadan, in France was illegally imprisoned for 9 months on false charges, he was later discharged thanks to the Swiss lawsuit acquittal and released on probation in the French procedure over the same allegations.
I am by no means implying that we are at a level similar to Russia or China, but I am very worried that we are on a slippery slope after what we experienced during the Covid period, and when I see that governments seek now to control not only the media but the justice department. We are very lucky to have supreme courts and resistant media that combat totalitarian power grabbing by the elite. And we should not take it for granted based on recent history.
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
>Assange
>Snowden
Are you implying no-one knew about these prior to Elon Musk taking over Twitter?
Tell me, is it a surprise to you that the USA would object to an employee dropping confidential national security related information?
>Pr Raoult was persecuted with multiple enquiry commissions and pushed to resign (worlds most published and quoted immunologist who argued that Ivermectin and HCQ are effective early treatments of Covid) and boosters are ineffective and vaccination is only indicated with at risk populations and should be a medical decision since mass vaccination cannot stop epidemics in Corona viruses)
Do you mean Didier Raoult? He's French.
I await for evidence that his sanctions in the medical community are due to the US government.
>Pr Perrone lost his job (previously in charge of EMEA vaccination at WHO, he lost his job for sharing the truth about WHO having 10+ pharma companies seating at WHO for the last 10 years and other information on the shift in policies he observed as a result from an insider perspective)
Another French guy, and no, he was never high up in the WHO:
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N2U61ZD/
>Multiple US conservative voices were silenced (de-emphasized) on Twitter at the behest of FBI requests during elections, as was published in the Twitter files.
https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/07/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-twitter-and-hunter-bidens-laptop/
https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/20/no-the-fbi-is-not-paying-twitter-to-censor/
No, they were not.
>Juan Franco, a political opponent to Macron in France, was accused by a women he had an affair with of rape, before she admitted she was paid to seduce him and ensure he is removed from the media. She later felt guilty about it and admitted it was a lie.
Can I have a source on this please? Can't find anything by this name relating to France, rape, or Macron.
>Tariq Ramadan, in France was illegally imprisoned for 9 months on false charges, he was later discharged thanks to the Swiss lawsuit acquittal and released on probation in the French procedure over the same allegations.
He's still facing charges. I await evidence that all of these charges were manufactured by the state.
I also might note that France is not the USA. And I await for any evidence that these people were damaged professionally due to orders from the US, French or any government. Or any shady organisation.
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
One more thing, in the EU we are very sensitive to the fact that the US announced they would destroy Nordstream 2 (both Trump, and later Biden said this was in the cards, with Biden saying "we will find a way to do it").
Pinning it on Russia is just one example of the disinformation of the US, who backstabbed their allies to sell their more expensive shist gas. Germany now rely on a regasification station in France for their gas supply and pay a premium for their energy.
The fact that the information about the Swiss scientific expertise that only the US had the thermonuclear bomb necessary to carry the operation was not published in US media, just goes to show you why free information is so important. When you manipulate 99% of the information, you can literally get away with anything.
Western populations need to be able to make informed voting decisions.
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
This does not happen because Musk has power to keep the balance. HE has technologies that NATO leaders need (Starlink, SpaceX).
But you have to realize that it is a very tenuous balance. Why do you think every media controlled by Blackrock and the Soros elite is writing 10 articles a day to descrdit him and down his enterprises? You don't need to be a genius to add 1 and 1 together.
The establishment would very much like to have Musk weaker than he is currently. Don't you think that if they had a choice to do it without alienating voters, they would do that?
If Trump had not awarded the NASA contract to SpaceX and had instead awarded it to Amazon, don't you think things might have turned for the worst in our beautiful free nations? Mind you, they tried to overturn that decision...
I think most people don't realize how much of our freedom rests on the shoulders of Musk and his ability to keep power in check.
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
>But you have to realize that it is a very tenuous balance. Why do you think every media controlled by Blackrock and the Soros elite is writing 10 articles a day to descrdit him and down his enterprises? You don't need to be a genius to add 1 and 1 together.
I continue to await for evidence for claims of control.
This genuinely cult-like thinking. You are honestly speaking about Elon Musk as if he is your savior. It is quite disturbing to watch.
The government, if they were suitably authoritarian and willing (you claim they are both) could easily ruin Elon Musk and seize everything of his. But they don't do this. Why is this?
What do you think would happen if Twitter was somehow ripped away from Musk?
>If Trump had not awarded the NASA contract to SpaceX and had instead awarded it to Amazon, don't you think things might have turned for the worst in our beautiful free nations?
No.
>I think most people don't realize how much rests on the shoulders of Musk and his ability to keep power in check.
I think you've failed to demonstrate how he does this, other than "just trust me bro" levels of reasoning.
If Musk complies with little resistance to takedown requests from Turkey, and India - why wouldn't he fold if the USA demanded he remove content? What could he do to stop them?
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
"Don't you think that if they had a choice to do it without alienating voters, they would do that?"
Voters! You just have to come to the same conclusion that I did that in a democracy, manipulating the media is the only thing a covert sociopaths needs to exert total domination over its population!
They try really hard but as I showed to you Musk prevented it. For example, when the EU tried to shut down free information on X via European Commissioner for Internal Market Thierry Breton, we discovered that Musk had bargained satellite launching on behalf of the EU for the EU to change their stance on freedom of speech on the platform). As another example, Musk fully showed that he had free decision making when it came to suppressing access to Starlink, something that US and Ukrainian military had been relying on for communication. Those are examples of how Musk uses technologies that NATO leaders need to enforce decisions he is fixated on, such as freedom of expression and pacific conflict resolution.
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
Musk isn't popular in much of the EU. The US itself could legislate and pass laws to essentially just take over and/or shut down Twitter if they want to. Starlink is based in Washington state, and they could do the same there.
>They try really hard but as I showed to you Musk prevented it. For example, when the EU tried to shut down free information on X via the European Commissioner for Internal Market Thierry Breton, we discovered that Musk had bargained satellite launching on behalf of the EU for the EU to drop change their stance on freedom of speech on the platform). As another example, Musk fully showed that he had free decision making when it came to suppressing access to Starlink, something that US and Ukrainien military had been relying on for communication. Those are examples of how Musk uses technologies that NATO leaders need to enforce decisions he is fixated on, such as freedom of expression and pacific conflict resolution.
Except your very premise that without this, the big bad US would be coming in to censor Twitter is unargued for.
The Twitter Files were a big heap of very little:
https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/07/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-twitter-and-hunter-bidens-laptop/
https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/20/no-the-fbi-is-not-paying-twitter-to-censor/
---
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/eu-investigates-x-over-potential-violations-of-social-media-law
And Twitter is still under investigation here. And the EU has not changed their position on freedom of expression. So what are you on about?
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
Have they not? Musk has not been fined. Publicly they have not changed their stance. There are still tractations happening behind closed doors.
Unargued for? The censure is proven and documented. Big Tech have had FBI backdoors, even to this day Google openly admit in their Medical Disinformation policy that they will remove scientific content that contradicts the pharma lobbies. It is hidden in plain sight!
Even just on Covid it is documented:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDJJ483kvGQ
Or the censure of political opponents without cause:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gy7mtoyrlXI
You are in denial I think, and this shows to me the incredible power of mainstream media in misleading the general population and creating alternate realities.
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
>Have they not? Musk has not been fined. Publicly they have not changed their stance. There are still tractations happening behind closed doors.
These things take years to happen.
>Unargued for? The censure is proven and documented. Big Tech have had FBI backdoors, even to this day Google openly admit in their Medical Disinformation policy that they will remove scientific content that contradicts the pharma lobbies. It is hidden in plain sight!
How do you know Googles policy is related to government telling them to have it?
And if that's true, why can you see many anti-vaxxers who use youtube? Such as John Campbell?
I'm fed up with hearing you prattle on about the Twitter Files without acknowledging these links:
https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/07/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-twitter-and-hunter-bidens-laptop/
https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/20/no-the-fbi-is-not-paying-twitter-to-censor/
>Or the censure of political opponents without cause:
What did Twitter ban Lauren Boebert for?
>You are in denial I think, and this shows to me the incredible power of mainstream media in misleading the general population and creating alternate realities.
You have not backed up any of your examples of anti-vaxxers being sanctioned by their colleagues for misinformation as being ordered by the US state, or any state.
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
You are asking for a lot of information but I will do my best to tell you what I know.
Regarding French politics, I include them in NATO, which was our subject of discussion. The fact that we employ some of the same methods but just better disguise so as not to lose votes.
I don't see a rebuttal to the facts given in the two videos I shared in the Techdirt article.
You are also probably aware that it was Van der Leyen is being investigated for corruption for over-purchasing vaccines in the EU, and then forcing the EU states to buy it from the EU, which then lead to the nonsensical booster policies for people who already had immunity.
Are you also aware of the same FDA interference regarding Invermectin and vaccination, or Fauci's claims that vaccination is 99% effective.
Whether it is Fauci was mislead by FDA who was mislead by WHO or he was part of the problem I can't tell you, all I know is WHO failed to get a new treaty voted by governments a few months back and are now trying to get a revised version voted in France and in the US at the moment, which would give them full authority to deny the release of virus sequences to governments, and would be able to comply them to enforce any pandemic measure it judges necessary in a supranational way.
I don't know enough of the situation in the US regarding who dropped the ball (Fauci, FDA, WHO) but I know for a fact that in the EU the issue started with corruption at the very top.
I also know FDA is not innocent, as they clearly tried to push false science during the pandemic, before admitted that they actually did not have authority to do so (impose their recommendations on doctors) once confronted about it months after the fact.
Of course I can't prove to you interference of lobbies in the FDA decisions but what other reason do you think there was? If they and/or WHO admit that Ivermectin has efficacy, the entire Pharmaceutical industry would see their investments into a treatment reduced to zero profits.
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
>Regarding French politics, I include them in NATO, which was our subject of discussion. The fact that we employ some of the same methods but just better disguise so as not to lose votes.
You haven't backed up your suggestions that Didier Raoult and Peroune were targeted by the US, French or any supranational organisation who conspired to silence them.
Nor the allegations against Tariq Ramadan.
Juan Franco, I can't find anything on. I did ask for a source.
>I don't see a rebuttal to the facts given in the two videos I shared in the Techdirt article.
Lauren Boebert being banned by Twitter prior to Musk has nothing to do with The Twitter Files, and thus you mean "one video".
>Whether it is Fauci was mislead by FDA who was mislead by WHO or he was part of the problem I can't tell you, all I know is WHO failed to get a new treaty voted by governments a few months back and are now trying to get a revised version voted in France and in the US at the moment, which would give them full authority to deny the release of virus sequences to governments, and would be able to comply them to enforce any pandemic measure it judges necessary in a supranational way.
Oh not this scaremongering. With what army would the WHO compel any country to impose pandemic restrictions? International organisations, including the UN, are famously utterly toothless. It is utterly meaningless. Lockdown restrictions ended in 2021 for most people, yet we're still seeing people obsess and cry over restrictions that have been absent for 3 years.
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
I have not backed my claims because my sources are French interviews in French, which i did not save at the time (a mistake I am not making anymore considering how hard it is to retrieve videos like those) and it would take me hours to retrieve them.
My point stands that Twitter pre-Musk did censure political opponents and valid science, including at the behest of ex FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb.
Are you from the US? Isn't the US a "democracy by donors"? Don't politicians who are not Billionaires depend on donors in the pharmaceutial, food, energy or military complex for donations?
Are you of the view that the US government, contrary to EU politicians is way above corruption, and they do not represent the particular interests of certain lobbies? When you see that all US presidents of the last 30 years except a couple left office several times richer than when they joined, that Nicky Haley in the Republican party and Hilary Clinton made a fortune thanks to their work as contractors for those industries. I mean I thought it was common practice in the US to take money and pay back with passing certain laws that favor such and such industry (e.g., Monsanto has been a prime beneficiary). Pfizer and other pharmaceutical groups have been fined in the past for billions of USD.
I have the impression that you have this idealistic vision about the US government, as if they have never pushed a law that is a disservice to the American public or goes against their interest just because the political-economic complex needs that decision enough to reward politicians for it.
What is your understanding?
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
>I have not backed my claims because my sources are French interviews in French, which i did not save at the time (a mistake I am not making anymore considering how hard it is to retrieve videos like those) and it would take me hours to retrieve them.
Then what you insist without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
>My point stands that Twitter pre-Musk did censure political opponents and valid science, including at the behest of ex FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb.
I don't really see any evidence you actually looked at the analysis from Techdirt on this issue.
Have you actually read or watched any arguments or writings or videos that scrutinise the relevance of the Twitter Files claims?
>Are you of the view that the US government, contrary to EU politicians is way above corruption, and they do not represent the particular interests of certain lobbies? When you see that all US presidents of the last 30 years left office several times richer than when they joined, that Nicky Haley in the Republican party and Hilary Clinton made a fortune thanks to their work as contractors for those industries. I mean I thought it was common practice in the US to take money and pay back with passing certain laws that favor such and such industry (e.g., Monsanto has been a prime beneficiary). Pfizer and other pharmaceutical groups have been fined in the past for billions of USD.
I said no such thing. I simply state that the notion that Twitter itself is the only site online where you can read dissident views, as you portray, is absurd on its face. The idea that all media other than Twitter (which isn't a media site per se) is compromised and controlled by the state is an huge claim that requires immense evidence. And that Elon Musk himself is some virtuous figure who only wants to save the world.
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
Either way you can't deny that Musk has been opposing this for 3 months now, and he clearly said that if the EU want to censure on the platform, they have to make a public demand so that the public can judge what they will censure:
https://www.wired.com/story/the-eu-is-playing-by-elon-musks-rules/
I don't see any other platform even attempting to do the same. Is it because Musk is autistic and only believes in following rules that make sense or because he can get away with it? Probably both.
White House Comments On Paying For Starlink Service For Ukraine:
"The Pentagon and US allies are exploring all options to maintain Starlink satellite services for Ukraine after tycoon Elon Musk said he’s no longer willing to provide the communications for free, the White House press secretary has said. During a briefing on Friday, Karine Jean-Pierre was asked if the Biden administration had considered Musk’s request for the Pentagon to foot the bill for satellite internet communications in Ukraine. “Look, we understand the importance of these capabilities to ensure stable communications for Ukraine’s forces in particular,” Jean-Pierre responded. Starlink, operated by Musk’s SpaceX company, has become the main communication tool for Ukraine’s forces since the start of the conflict with Russia."
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
>Either way you can't deny that Musk has been opposing this for 3 months now, and he clearly said that if the EU want to censure on the platform, they have to make a public demand so that the public can judge what they will censure:
It is public. It hit the news.
It's not hidden. We're talking about it.
>I don't see any other platform even attempting to do the same. Is it because Musk is autistic and only believes in following rules that make sense or because he can get away with it? Probably both.
What do you mean "do the same"? Other platforms have different owners and rules.
Again: Musk isn't popular in much of the EU. The US itself could legislate and pass laws to essentially just take over and/or shut down Twitter if they want to. Starlink is based in Washington state, and they could do the same there.
If the US was an authoritarian state that could just roll over business, they could do that.
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
No, by public I mean that the EU should write what infractions they have observed directly on X, because he wants them to say exactly what infractions so that people can be the judge, instead of an intransparent process.
Yes other platforms have other rules in place, I see it every day, it is very difficult to write on what I call "asocial" platforms like Youtube and Microsoft news, I routinely have to rewrite my comments to get them through, and I constantly have to monitor with a second account if my comments are being shown.
When you find censure, Microsoft gives you no explanation at all. On youtube they just tell you it can be due to a number of things, ranking from guideline violation, bot prevention, channel specific restrictions and rules (like banned words), which makes it impossible to predict with certainty that your posts will be seen. A platform that prevents social interaction by design is asocial.
"Musk isn't popular in much of the EU. The US itself could legislate and pass laws to essentially just take over and/or shut down Twitter if they want to. Starlink is based in Washington state, and they could do the same there."
So you essentially agree with me that it is a tenuous balance of power. If Musk did not have usefulness to NASA or the CIA, then he might be removed more quickly. Look at what they did with Assange because of Wikileaks? I don't think they would shut down Twitter, it would be too obvious and would create protests. More likely they would frame him for something he did not do, because in a democracy you still need votes. But it is enough that the public is convinced someone is criminal for the decision to be accepted by a majority of people. Covert sociopathy has its ways of doing things without force, just using deception.
In a democracy the last power check is free media and independent justice system that is not weaponized by governments to imprison political opponents. It is worth preserving. Musk is fighting to do just that.
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
>No, by public I mean that the EU should write what infractions they have observed directly on X, because he wants them to say exactly what infractions so that people can be the judge, instead of an intransparent process.
They will. The proceedings will be able to be followed by anyone who cares enough.
>Yes other platforms have other rules in place, I see it every day, it is very difficult to write on what I call "asocial" platforms like Youtube and Microsoft news, I routinely have to rewrite my comments to get them through, and I constantly have to monitor with a second account if my comments are being shown.
No-one uses Microsoft News to comment, dude. Youtube comments are ass too.
>So you essentially agree with me that it is a tenuous balance of power. If Musk did not have usefulness to NASA or the CIA, then he might be removed more quickly. Look at what they did with Assange because of Wikileaks? I don't think they would shut down Twitter, it would be too obvious and would create protests. More likely they would frame him for something he did not do, because in a democracy you still need votes. But it is enough that the public is convinced someone is criminal for the decision to be accepted by a majority of people. Covert sociopathy has its ways of doing things without force, just using deception.
No, I said no such thing. I said that they could easily shut down his operations and take them over if they are as authoritarian as you claim. But they don't. Why is this?
Why would an authoritarian government care about protests?
>In a democracy the last power check is free media and independent justice system that is not weaponized by governments to imprison political opponents. It is worth preserving. Musk is fighting to do just that.
There are tons of independent media outlets in the USA. Twitter is not the only source (I mean it's a content aggregator rather than a source anyway).
Does Musk ever criticise the right-wing? Has he made any comment about Project 2025?
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
I never said authoritarian, I said totalitarian, which for me includes ideological programming, removal of free media and justice system weaponization. Democracies can be totalitarian when there is no alternative opinion allowed, when political opponents are de-emphasized, deplatformed, censured, denied loans (like in France) when the public is being gaslighted, when you can lose your job and means of subsistance because of your political opinion (or your social credit is not high enough), when you can seize the assets of foreigners purely on the basis of their nationality, like we did with Russian oligarchs, when free media like Wikileaks and RT are being shut down. We are essentially slowly building our great firewall, with Google actively censuring search results and shutting down foreign-owned media like Sputnik and RT on exactly the same grounds that China invoke to censure Western media...
I don't think our governments are exempt of the same flaws and that we see in Russia and China. I haven't even actively been trying to find out more about these issues but there are already so many examples of this.
Do you think that covert sociopathy as we found in the G7 sphere of influence is more excusable than overt sociopathy as found in authoritarian regimes?
I read the very long article you shared. Mark Zuckerberg has a history of lying, I am utterly unconvinced by his testimony, but that's also because I have first hand experience with sociopaths, and I know the signs of someone who is gaslighting (Megan Markle, Amber Heard, Andrew Tate, Karine Jean-Pierre, etc.)
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
>I never said authoritarian, I said totalitarian, which for me includes ideological programming, removal of free media and justice system weaponization.
No, that's not the definition of totalitarian.
"a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state."
What subservience is required for American citizens?
> Democracies can be totalitarian when there is no alternative opinion allowed
What alternative opinions are banned?
>deplatformed, censured, denied loans (like in France) when the public is being gaslighted, when you can lose your job and means of subsistance because of your political opinion (or your social credit is not high enough)
Any examples of people having their careers completely ruined due to their opinions, and can you tie their career deaths specifically to an order from the state?
>when you can seize the assets of foreigners purely on the basis of their nationality, like we did with Russian oligarchs
Are you against sanctions?
> like we did with Russian oligarchs, when free media like Wikileaks and RT are being shut down. We are essentially slowly building our great firewall, with Google actively censuring search results and shutting down foreign-owned media like Sputnik and RT on exactly the same grounds that China invoke to censure Western media...
I can literally find RT and Sputink on Google. I can access Wikileaks.
>Do you think that covert sociopathy as we found in the G7 sphere of influence is more excusable than overt sociopathy as found in authoritarian regimes?
What "overt sociopathy" are you referring to?
>I read the very long article you shared. Mark Zuckerberg has a history of lying, I am utterly unconvinced by his testimony, but that's also because I have first hand experience with sociopaths, and I know the signs of someone who is gaslighting (Megan Markle, Amber Heard, Andrew Tate, Karine Jean-Pierre, etc.)
Is that the only part of those articles you're taking issue with? Them referring to Zuckerberg's testimony? And it's wrong because you just *know* he's lying because you claim to have sixth sense for detecting sociopaths? You think I should find this remotely convincing?
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
No, the points I made stood independent from the article you shared. However I also had to object Zuckerberg's testimony that the FBI only came with suggestions. This is utterly laughable, especially for someone as smart as you are!
According to Hannah Arendt
Totalitarian regimes manipulate ideology and racism as tools for imperialism.
Racism becomes an ideological weapon used by totalitarian states. Not only do you need to agree with the regime, but you also need to signal virtue and say that you agree with the regime.
This is exactly what we are seeing with the Woke ideology being pushed to education institutions in the G7 sphere of influence. It is an ideological programming that ensures that people signal virtue or risk being deplatformed, canceled, etc.
It is not the same thing as in an authoritarian regime where the political force is directly visible. Rather it is a long-ranging ideological programming that ensures people mutually check each other for failing to adhere to the dominant ideology.
Woke ideology, based on its foundations philosophical foundations (French theory, critical race theory, genre theory, etc.) seeks to inverse values. Just like Marxism put the blame on economical domination, Woke ideology puts the blame on culturally normative domination so that even if you are poor and faced discrimination, it won't make you a victim if you are a white straight man. Woke ideology is seeking to inverse all values, make the norm evil and the fringe virtuous without consideration for the individual, or their actual merits and flaws. It is all based on group belonging, not competence or individual merits - the individual is entirely defined by his belonging. For example:
- Feminine rather than masculine (feminism)
- Racial minorities instead of white majority (antiracism)
- Animals instead of humans (anti-speciesm, veganism)
- Homosexuality rather than heterosexuality (gay rights activism)
- Fluidity rather than binary (transactivism)
....
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
>No, the points I made stood independent from the article you shared. However I also had to object Zuckerberg's testimony that the FBI only came with suggestions. This is utterly laughable, especially for someone as smart as you are!
Any comment on the points from the techdirt article?
>Racism becomes an ideological weapon used by totalitarian states. Not only do you need to agree with the regime, but you also need to signal virtue and say that you agree with the regime.
That's nice. What things are people "forced" to agree with by the "regime"?
No-one is forced to agree with any of the waffle you just blathered out there. Literal [citation needed] to all of that.
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
Tell me you never read a book on Woke ideology without tell me?
You need to disprove that what I write about Woke ideology is not indeed what they profess. You can't just discard it because you have not done the work to study the subject.
Regarding the techdirt article you shared, I did not disagree with the points it made. I thought it was well written and documented, apologies if I gave the impression that I did not care about it.
But rather than trying to convince you that Woke ideology is doing its work across US society (and France, where school programs have been changed to include Wokist propositions), I think a more important question is whether or not you believe that the danger is real for weaponization of Wokism to support lobby decisions, war decisions in the name of virtue signaling.
I don't think we should engage in a conversation around every example of virtue signaling and deplatforming for "deviant people" (people who don't abide by the demands of the Woke left for compelled speech), because it is not something that is happening overtly through transparent decisions.
Rather it is happening perniciously via the policies set by social media platforms based on direction they take from lobbies and governments.
You dismiss the discarding of Ivermectin as a treatment and the loss of lives it has caused as trivial because the FDA and WHO are not directly taking orders from Biden, correct?
You trivialize the millions of lives lost, and the thousands of jobs lost by healthcare workers in the US and France where healthcare workers who were immune to Covid still lost their job because of FDA and WHO dictated policies of mandatory vaccination and collusion of Big Tech who repeated and even enforced the same nonsensical policies on their platform, taking down videos that were actual science.
If anything the article you shared showed that those Big Tech media platforms when presented with unreasonable demands for censure essentially applied tools that.
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
What you insist without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It's that simple.
>You dismiss the discarding of Ivermectin as a treatment and the loss of lives it has caused as trivial because the FDA and WHO are not directly taking orders from Biden, correct?
I haven't even been given any evidence whatsoever that Ivermectin was ever regarded, or is regarded as a credible treatment for COVID.
>You trivialize the millions of lives lost, and the thousands of jobs lost by healthcare workers in the US and France where healthcare workers who were immune to Covid still lost their job because of FDA and WHO dictated policies of mandatory vaccination and collusion of Big Tech who repeated and even enforced the same nonsensical policies on their platform, taking down videos that were actual science.
No, governments and jobs within local laws mandated these requirements. They were not "taking orders" from the FDA or WHO.
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
The FDA is The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA or US FDA). As such it is a federal agency of the Department of Health and Human Services, which is the Cabinet-level department of the Federal executive branch of the White House.
Sorry but that's the reality.
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
The FDA does not dictate the actions of the UK or French or German governments.
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
...tools that were way to crude.
Do you realize that even today medical channels replace the word "vaccination" with "medical intervention" in their video to avoid triggering censure or being demonetized?
Do you find the loss of lives and jobs trivial and something not worth protesting about?
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
>Do you realize that even today medical channels replace the word "vaccination" with "medical intervention" in their video to avoid triggering censure or being demonetized?
>Do you find the loss of lives and jobs trivial and something not worth protesting about?
If you work in the medical field, or medical-adjacent field, and you refuse to get vaccinated - that's your stupidity, to be frank.
You know you have to get many vaccinations in life if you want to do certain things, right (depending on country)? This didn't just happen with COVID.
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
You never had to vaccinate against the flu. Especially not if you already have immunity, which can easily be tested with an antibody count and/or T-Cell test.
I have no issue with people being required to be immune, but I have an issue with people being required to be immune ONLY through vaccination OR they lose their job.
Do you think FDA and WHO were wrong to downplay Ivermectin as an effective medicine?
And if you agree they were wrong, why is it acceptable that those governmental institutions got to make those decisions in a centralized way, which cost the lives of millions of people around the world. There was a big time gap between Ivermectine and Paxlovid. And don't you find it incredivle that Redemsivir, which has been shown to be ineffective was purchased for millions of dollars after it received emergency approval, whereas Ivermectin, which by now has 150 studies showing its efficacy, was denigrated and downplayed by WHO and FDA, and they even recommended doctors should not use it?
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
>You never had to vaccinate against the flu. Especially not if you already have immunity, which can easily be tested with an antibody count and/or T-Cell test.
Plenty of elderly people get regular flu vaccinations. And yes, in certain jobs you did need to vaccinate for the flu. At least in many medical fields.
>Do you think FDA and WHO were wrong to downplay Ivermectin as an effective medicine?
I've seen no evidence that it ever approached an "effective medicine". There are studies done on this, you know.
https://www.medsci.ox.ac.uk/news/study-supports-evidence-ivermectin-not-effective-to-treat-covid-19
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2797483?resultClick=1
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
CDC does not make vaccination against the flur mandatory but they made it mandatory for Covid. We all know why. Pharma industry big money.
I appreciate you trying to quote a couple of sources regarding Ivermectin but the scientific consensus is that it was effective.
https://c19ivm.org/
Do you want to switch to email or Instagram or Telegram? It is getting rather crowded here and I am having trouble finding each thread.
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
...
- The victim rather than the hero, defunding the police (victimism)
- Ego instead of humility and kindness (narcissism, Machiavellianism)
- Third world instead of the West (postcolonialism)
- The inform rather than the beautiful (contemporary art)
- Pathological obesity instead of health (body-positivism)
- Handicap rather than the functional (anti-ableism, neurodiversism)
- Present and future rather than the past (presentism)
- Faithlessness rather than religion (atheism)
- Matter rather than soul (materialsm)
- Chaos and criminals rather than order, law, police and authority (anarchism)
- Deviance rather than conformity (attack on Sound of Freedom and pathological defense of pedophilia)
- Chaos instead of order and authority
- Desire instead of responsibility
- Irrational feelings and relativity rather than rational objectivity (objectivity is the subjectivity of the white male aka mansplaining)
Woke ideology does not stop at rebalancing - it seeks a complete inversion, as can be read in the fathers of Woke ideology. (Derrida, Lacan, Foucault,..). Wokism is a nihilism that seeks to invert and destroy all that once was (including status and symbols of the past).
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
[citation needed]
Also, are you suggesting there's something wrong with atheism? Is there something wrong with someone being non-comformist? I thought you were against collectivism?
And what are you calling "deviance"?
I also await evidence that there's a "pathological defence of pedophilia". Criticising a movie is not it, chief.
And it's funny how you seem to object to chaos when you describe the state, currently, as functioning with an apparent sense of enforced authority.
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
I am not passing judgements on Woke ideology. I am just stating what it defends.
The issue is not necessarily the objectives it pursues, many of which I share, it is rather the fact that it has become totalitarian, in that it does not accept deviation from the accepted virtuous narrative. You can see many career broken in Holliwood for failing to adhence to the ideology and stating your own opinion. There is a definite ostrcization.
Also Woke ideology went too far when it started to become intolerant to other points of view that don't state they they agree with every precept down to the T. In the media you often find interviewers starting to "suspect" guests as soon as they don't follow the talking points and go off script.
Wokism has become gangrened by narcissists and the vocal fringe of Wokism to this day is still defending and pushing anti-men, anti-white points of view, and requiring everyone to agree with chemical castration of 13yo children.
We all have in our mind the video of Rihanna trying to stick to the script to avoid being canceled:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1Jme1SYviI
If you watched the excellent show on Apple TV The morning show, you will find an excellent satyre of US society and US media where everyone weaponizes Woke ideology to score points in the social status system.
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
>The issue is not necessarily the objectives it pursues, many of which I share, it is rather the fact that it has become totalitarian, in that it does not accept deviation from the accepted virtuous narrative. You can see many career broken in Holliwood for failing to adhence to the ideology and stating your own opinion. There is a definite ostrcization.
What ones other than Gina Carano?
Also, are you implying that atheism is somehow tied with wokism?
And you haven't provided any evidence for your insinuation that there's some attempt to promote pedophilia. Nor what you're defining as "deviance".
>Wokism to this day is still defending and pushing anti-men, anti-white points of view, and requiring everyone to agree with chemical castration of 13yo children.
Who is forced to agree with those things? What happens if you don't?
>We all have in our mind the video of Rihanna trying to stick to the script to avoid being canceled:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1Jme1SYviI
You assume that she holds strong opinions against this in the first place.
>If you watched the excellent show on Apple TV The morning show, you will find an excellent satyre of US society and US media where everyone weaponizes Woke ideology to score points in the social status system.
It being socially unacceptable - to the point of being career damaging in some areas, in certain spheres of civil society doesn't mean that it is enforced by the government. Of course peacocking ideals for social and career status exists. But it's not a phenomenon that only began to exist when it became popular to complain about 'woke'.
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
It started as politically correctness in the US, but seen from the EU we can see the contagion via social media.
We can see it imposed by governments via universities and what is being taught.
Again, I am not saying that there is a direct interference, it is much more pernicious than that.
MeToo activists are sometimes overshooting the goal, we have seen it with men who were accused and then later found innocent, unfortunately the press does not report on the outcome, and so their career has already taken the hit.
I honestly think that before Musk took over Twitter, it was not normalized at all to speak your mind on certain subjects contrary to the mainstream media narrative. You were being cut off at best, or attacked on social media or deplatformed.
Everyone was being very cagey when talking about immigration, Ukraine, vaccines. In France if you didn't have complete, unreserved adoration for the vaccine you were called an anti-vaxxer and a grandma killer, you were automatically a conspiracy theorist and a paria of society.
I think it took a few courageous voices for the narrative to start shifting and for the truth to be restored but it left a lot of damage in its wake. Patients who had heavy symptoms had to fight for their rights to get compensation and indemnification.
Again, I think our minds are a bit different, I see the potential danger and signs of totalitarianism, and you tell me nothing to worry about, there was no big push for restriction of freedoms. I think we always need to be vigilent.
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
>We can see it imposed by governments via universities and what is being taught.
I await evidence that the UK, French, German etc government dictates the course content to universities.
>MeToo activists are sometimes overshooting the goal, we have seen it with men who were accused and then later found innocent, unfortunately the press does not report on the outcome, and so their career has already taken the hit.
What are you on about? Major trials where the person is found not guilty are very much reported.
>I honestly think that before Musk took over Twitter, it was not normalized at all to speak your mind on certain subjects contrary to the mainstream media narrative. You were being cut off at best, or attacked on social media or deplatformed.
What topics were not normalised?
>Everyone was being very cagey when talking about immigration, Ukraine, vaccines. In France if you didn't have complete, unreserved adoration for the vaccine you were called an anti-vaxxer and a grandma killer, you were automatically a conspiracy theorist and a paria of society.
What are you talking about?
In France, anti-immigration parties got 28% of the vote in the first round. This was before Musk had bought Twitter. I have no idea about anti-vax attitudes, but being anti-vax has always been associated with conspiracy theories, and has always been unpopular.
>I think it took a few courageous voices for the narrative to start shifting and for the truth to be restored but it left a lot of damage in its wake. Patients who had heavy symptoms had to fight for their rights to get compensation and indemnification.
Again, I think our minds are a bit different, I see the potential danger and signs of totalitarianism, and you tell me nothing to worry about, there was no big push for restriction of freedoms. I think we always need to be vigilent.
We always need to be vigilant, but you're acting as if the government exercises total authoritative control of society and culture.
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
Regarding pedophilia, I think there is a tendency to trivialize it and differentiate between pedophilia and ephebophilia (15 to 18) in the LGBTQ community, to which I belong (not politically, just by virtue of my sexual orientation). In "our" movement, you find associations that defend the rights of Minor Attracted People, and the fact that the media, which have a lot of LGBTQ members, participated in bashing the film was disturbing. Conspiracy theories were fabricated to denigrate the film, and why else would it happen if it were not inconvenient to the Epstein crowd? I mean who has an interest in the film being bashed while it is so popular at the box office?
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
I have literally only seen libertarian edgelords (not people known for being 'woke') and weeaboo reprobates trivialise or make excuses for pedophilia.
The "MAP" is a fringe group that almost no-one takes seriously, much less has heard of.
>Conspiracy theories were fabricated to denigrate the film, and why else would it happen if it were not inconvenient to the Epstein crowd? I mean who has an interest in the film being bashed while it is so popular at the box office?
What conspiracy theories were fabricated?
And to be frank, the irony of you complaining about conspiracy theories can surely not be lost on you.
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
>- The inform rather than the beautiful (contemporary art)
Objectively define beauty, please.
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
You asked questions about Musk's positions on certain subjects being conservative. He clearly stated that he voted Biden in the last election but would prefer someone moderate, "in the middle of the Gauss curve"). He has described himself in the past as "socially very liberal but not a communist". He has shown himself favorable to Univeral Basic Income and legal immigration to protect the talent flow, and shown concern for climate change. More recently he has described himself "Right of Centre". I think this reflects the trend in the general population to start off as an idealist, then realize ideals don't achieve goals, and becoming more pragmatic and conservative as you age.
I don't think that political labels matter to him, though, as an autistic person he will align with the candidates that he believes has the most sensible policies. He might not agree with certain view points pushed by the left, but he will fight so that they can express them.
But he also disagreed with some view points defended by conservatives, for example he said that if you kill children in Gaza, you have made at least a few Hamas members who would die to kill Israelis. According to him Israel should engage in the most conspicuous acts of kindness possible.
he acknowledges that Israel believes in the “eye-for-an-eye” approach, but has often suggested that they must also provide mobile hospitals, food, water, and medical necessities transparently.
He fights extremes on both ends, both the Woke establishment and the anti-Palestine right.
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
In a democracy, if you don't have separation of press and judicial power from those in power, you are effectively in a dictature.
We should prevent and advocate against any political decision that takes us closer to such a state.
This starts by shining bright spotlights on government actions to hold them accountable. What Musk is doing is basic sanitization of our democracy. It is necessary work but at the end of the day, he cannot save anyone if we the people do not want to save ourselves. The true heroes will be the people who anticipate the evil that looms on the horizon and remain unbending because of their conscience (like Sophie Scholl in Nazi Germany).
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
You continue to compare western governments to authoritarian dictatorships, all-the-while claiming you're not making that comparison. If the US government, or French government, or any western government was remotely comparable to Nazi Germany then there would be no political opposition in these countries. There would be no free internet at all. All activists, dissidents, journalists of any oppositional nature would be arrested.
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
Nope. I am making that comparison, while also saying there is no equivalence at the moment.
I think you and I just have different ways our minds work. Like Musk and I am intuitive thinker (my job is in anticipating future needs aka innovation). Because of this I am more tuned to trends and what will happen to what is currently happening.
Intuitive people function much like an AI using a probabilistic model, the most computations, the better the AI prediction will be. If you give an intuitive person like Musk an IQ of 150, then his ability to make decisions that prevent catastrophes years down the line is much improved.
Deductive people on the other hand function much like traditional scripts and logic-deductive models, one issue at a time. They tend to be more present oriented since they are essentially blind to the future perceive intuition as pure conjecture and speculation. In other words, they rate future imperatives as less important than current necessities. What cannot be deducted for sure is unimportant.
When people with opposite ways of thinking discuss, it will always be very difficult to find common ground. Visionaries are often misunderstood because most other people are not equipped to compute what transpires to them intuitively.
It is apparent that we have reached a roadblock on our discussion. You keep talking about the present, and I keep talking about the trend I am seeing and where humanity will be in 5-10 years time. We simply do not have the same order of priorities.
It is in human nature to always analyze events and other people's intentions based on our own personality structure. We always have bias based on our most natural mode of decision making based on our preferred cognitive pathways.
There is no right or wrong way. I think it is vital that people as different as you and me can keep the dialogue open and consider the arguments and insights that their counterparts have. This is precisely why I would like to thank you for your...
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
..perspective and insights. I do fully accept that I have a future bias. As an innovator I always get frustrated when a company makes short term decisions that close off future opportunities because they are too risk adverse or just other leaders can't see the play ahead of time, how things will play out.
At the same time, visionaries sometimes fail to express their opinion in a way that is understandable by the general population, or consider the practicality of the solutions they propose - to them it is self-evident why it is a good solution, and as pragmatic absolutists they expect every sensible decision to be easy to follow and for others to bow down and operationalize what they propose, which is not realistic.
Musk has his own limitations, but he is working hard to at least explain his thoughts on important problems to bring important perspectives that might otherwise have been neglected. This is part of democratic debate and I highly value it.
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
...drawn with them into an escalation. I think the EU failed to play their role as an independent balancing power in that conflict. A role that Merkel with her 20 years of experience had been upholding so well in the not so distant past. Very sad to see what is happening with our world. We need to go back to the pre-war peace accords, which is essentially what Musk is proposing. In a game between sociopaths, there can only be imperfect compromises. By failing to understand this, we can only run towards catastrophic outcomes.
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
You don't use email?
Right and yet the Biden government itself made vaccination mandatory for healthcare workers, even though the CDC had no mandate for the flu...
So in the end it was an executive order by the Government.
"The FDA does not make decision for the French or UK government"
Oh no, but that was not my point. I criticized WHO as much as I criticized FDA, as they made the exact same decision in mirror, against the well being of global populations. The best proof they force the hand of governments is they tried it with India, and then India after initially following the advice changed their decision (India of course being a BRICS country is more independentfrom the majority of the WHO sphere of influence).
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
>You don't use email?
I don't use IG or Telegram.
>Right and yet the Biden government itself made vaccination mandatory for healthcare workers, even though the CDC had no mandate for the flu...
Other vaccines were ALREADY mandatory.
I really do not have a problem with vaccines being mandatory for health-workers
>Oh no, but that was not my point. I criticized WHO as much as I criticized FDA, as they made the exact same decision in mirror, against the well being of global populations. The best proof they force the hand of governments is they tried it with India, and then India after initially following the advice changed their decision (India of course being a BRICS country is more independentfrom the majority of the WHO sphere of influence).
And the WHO doesn't dictate things to the UK government or French government either.
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
But they do. You see, if you are the only country in the EU who does not follow WHO advice, then you pay a high political price if things don't go your way.
Also in the EU Van der Leyen was driving these decisions because she forced the member states to purchase that stock. She also notoriously purchased Redemsivir for several millions and then I think we ended up donating it to India or China.
https://www.politico.eu/article/5-things-to-know-about-ursula-von-der-leyens-pfizergate-court-cases/
The problem with pharma lobbies is that they influence:
- Media opinion though TV doctors who portray the wrong opinion due to conflicts of interest they have
- Scientific literature publications (we have seen the retracted studies in The Lancet)
- Government officials, who may receive compensation for their service
- Persecution of select individuals to discredit them in the media or via Medical Associations or government mandated enquiries (as was the case with Pr Raoult)
I have seen it with my own eyes.
All in all I would say that I never used to suspect that amount of Callousness is possible before Covid. But because I follow scientific studies very closely, I have suddenly discovered that the media were lying about many things and the media never seemed to contradict it, or enquire about it. It pushed me to investigate and write to multiple media to ask why they were not saying the truth, giving them all of the tools to rectify false information. Even when presented with he facts they were absolutely not interested in correcting their mistakes.
Only one journalist responded - he quoted exactly one study on Ivermectin, one that was already present in the study library link that I shared with you earlier, the same study that was listed with methodology concerns and multiple conflicts of interest (the page keeps track of Pubpeer comments and conflicts of interest). He completely failed to acknowledge the 200+ other studies and meta analysis....
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
>But they do. You see, if you are the only country in the EU who does not follow WHO advice, then you pay a high political price if things don't go your way.
What political price is this?
>Also in the EU Van der Leyen was driving these decisions because she forced the member states to purchase that stock. She also notoriously purchased Redemsivir for several millions and then I think we ended up donating it to India or China.
That the EU chose to follow WHO guidelines, and advice doesn't mean the WHO were dictating anything to them.
>- Media opinion though TV doctors who portray the wrong opinion due to conflicts of interest they have
>- Scientific literature publications (we have seen the retracted studies in The Lancet)
>- Government officials, who may receive compensation for their service
See, now this is just a conspiracy theory. There are studies from universities, laboratories and scientists all across the world. They all mostly say the same things. You are arguing that the pharma industry is secretly waging an invisible war where they intimidate epidemiologists, virologists, researchers and doctors to keep quiet and create false reports for the effectiveness of their vaccines and/or intimidate them into producing discrediting reports against the viability of ivermectin?
>- Persecution of select individuals to discredit them in the media or via Medical Associations or government mandated enquiries (as was the case with Pr Raoult)
You have just assumed this was persecution, and have provided no evidence for it.
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
"Other vaccines were ALREADY mandatory."
Yes but Covid is a Corona virus, as such it mutates and you always have multiple strains making the vaccines notoriously ineffective. Scientists said that for the same reason, a vaccine against Covid would not be effective, it would only encourage mutations and new variants.
I don't have an issue with other vaccines being mandatory, I have an issue when it is an EMERGENCY approval for people who already have immunity. The risk to benefit ratio does not make sense. At least France aknowledged they made a mistake and reinstated the healthcare workers 2 years later.
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
>Yes but Covid is a Corona virus, as such it mutates and you always have multiple strains making the vaccines notoriously ineffective. Scientists said that for the same reason, a vaccine against Covid would not be effective, it would only encourage mutations and new variants.
All viruses mutate. The flu mutates much more regularly than coronaviruses, sits roughly at 50% efficacy, is updated every year and yet is still recommended for elderly people.
>I don't have an issue with other vaccines being mandatory, I have an issue when it is an EMERGENCY approval for people who already have immunity. The risk to benefit ratio does not make sense. At least France aknowledged they made a mistake and reinstated the healthcare workers 2 years later.
So it was only people in select jobs that had to get the vaccine. Not everyone. And again, vaccine mandates for particular jobs is nothing new.
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
I only ever talked about Healthcare workers. I think it was a cruel thing to do with an untested vaccine, especially requiring boosters which we know today was due to corruption at the highest level of the EU!
You may not have a problem with ethics as long as it doesn't seem to far-fatched, but I have a problem with it in principle because as I said policies were not made in the best interest of the health of populations. Instead they were made with the fallacious appearance of having the wellbeing of people at heart while pursing gain maximization that cost lives and livelihood.
I come back to my initial point - if you dont have platforms like X that don't suppress scientific truth at the behest of FDA and WHO, then you enable misguided policies by governments, whether they are just ignorant and being mislead or anxious to satisfy their population or corrupt, it varies from country to country, but it is certainly something that is only enabled once you trivialize censure on Big Tech and mainstram media. I think it is wrong one every possible level.
How do we ensure this does not happen again?
Have you read the WHO treaty proposal?
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
You do realise that anti-vaccine commentary and skepticism was running rampant online way before Elon Musk bought Twitter, right?
The EU is nowhere near approving ivermectin, or discrediting vaccines. Neither is the USA. You seem to have dreamt up some alternative reality where the world now supports the use of ivermectin, and regrets taking the vaccines - and all because of Twitter not banning people so much.
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
I am not complaining about skepticism, rather about the impossibility to share skepticism and actual science that contradicts WHO or the FDA without being censured, as per the Google policy on medical disinformation which states that you can only share videos that agree with the pharma lobbies.
I am not dreaming up any reality. I know full well that they will not reevaluate Ivermectin for the reasons I have mentioned - it goes contrary to lobby interests as it prevents emergency approval of novel medicines that cost 100 times more. Why would they reevaluate?
However in the scientific community, it is an accepted fact that Ivermectin is the most studied and most effective treatment.
https://imgur.com/a/i02DMyJ
https://c19ivm.org/
You can clearly see the treatments ranked in order of average benefit, as well as the number of studies for each medicine.
The fact that you would rather believe in the virtue of your government and insitituations/lobbies rather than the scientific literature is touching and easily explains why you don't see a need for free speech protection or that we are at a dangerous crossroads.
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
>However in the scientific community, it is an accepted fact that Ivermectin is the most studied and most effective treatment.
c19ivm does not represent the collective opinion of the wider scientific community, and I don't trust that websites honesty in how it interprets many of the studies it is citing.
>The fact that you would rather believe in the virtue of your government and insitituations/lobbies rather than the scientific literature is touching and easily explains why you don't see a need for free speech protection or that we are at a dangerous crossroads.
What "free speech protection" are you claiming that is needed, that supposedly does not exist?
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
This is bad faith on your part, all studies are quoted with a link to the original publication, including methodology concerns from Pubpeer, the most prestigious study criticism web site on the Internet and conflicts of interest.
Interesting that you would not trust it and prefer to believe that there is no lobby money involved in shaping your opinion a certain way, when you yourself seem teleguided by some unshakable belief in your institutions.
What interest would such a page have to prevent the use of the most effective treatment? You realize that Ivermectin is generic, nobel prized medicine discovered in the 1960's and there is no money to be made in Ivermectine since it is dirt cheap and the country that produces the most Ivermectin (India) is not even allowed to import the 71 generic brands they produce to the US or the EU?
Your conspiracy theory that someone is trying really hard to make Ivermectin producers rich, when they actually study every other medicine on the sa page using the same standards, is just beyond preposterous.
Who would gain from a mass manipulation to misinterpret studies?
You conveniently forget to think about who BENEFITS from discrediting honest meta sources. That's right, Pharma lobbies are highly motivated to do that.
I encourage you to do as much meticulous reading of the studies as I did over the last few months so that you can come up with your own conclusions.
When it comes to decisions that involve human lives (war, health), I think we owe it to ourselves not to censure valid scientific information and to read the literature. I don't get how people can still believe in the well-being being the primary driver of politics in capitalistic societies. It used to be the case in the EU because we don't have government by donors like in the US, but now with the EU we just fell into the same trap.
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
>This is bad faith on your part, all studies are quoted with a link to the original publication, including methodology concerns from Pubpeer, the most prestigious study criticism web site on the Internet and conflicts of interest.
Have you bothered to click on any of the studies that I've provided that say the opposite? Are you going to allege that the entirety of the WHO, EHS, FDA, National Library of Museum, and basically every single state health regulatory body and research groups and scientists are all wrong?
Out of interest, if the establishment (governments and big pharma) are so interested, and capable of shutting down any and all dissent - then why hasn't c19ivm been shut down?
>Your conspiracy theory that someone is trying really hard to make Ivermectin producers rich, when they actually study every other medicine on the sa page using the same standards, is just beyond preposterous.
I haven't said that.
>When it comes to decisions that involve human lives (war, health), I think we owe it to ourselves not to censure valid scientific information and to read the literature. I don't get how people can still believe in the well-being being the primary driver of politics in capitalistic societies. It used to be the case in the EU because we don't have government by donors like in the US, but now with the EU we just fell into the same trap.
But your site is not censored. But according to you it should be. Why is this?
You still haven't provided any example of any studies supposedly shut down and censored by governments.
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
God, you are so lazy, I shared with you the meta analysis web site because it includes the studies you referenced:
https://c19ivm.org/schilling.html
https://c19ivm.org/activ6ivm.html
As I said, all methodology issues tracking from Pubpeer are included on the website, they authors are contacted when issues are being found. Also conflicts of interest are listed.
WHO didn't say that Ivermectin doesn't work.
https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-advises-that-ivermectin-only-be-used-to-treat-covid-19-within-clinical-trials
This was in March 2021 and based on 16 studies. Two years and 200 studies later, they still never said that Ivermectin doesn't work. This is because most scientific studies agree that it works. What they said is that they don't recommend it outside of severe Covid cases.
"The update also includes a strong recommendation against the use of ivermectin for patients with non-severe COVID-19."
This is because if they recommend it, Pharmaceutical companies would never have been able to obtain emergency approval for Redemsivir. Why don't you worry about Redemsivir? Why was it approved on the basis of only one study that showed no benefit in mortality?
You can see the double standards?
- Most studied molecule with highest effectiveness: "we continue not recommending the use 200 studies later after we complained there were only 16 studies"
- Single study with no benefit and huge price tag (at the time it was approved): "emergency red carpet approval"
It is a glaring case of lobbies selling wrong narratives at the expense of public health (I have no issues with the approval of Paxlovic, but it would never have been commercialized if WHO had recommended Ivermectin, it is simply not allowed without full clinical trials when there is a better medicine available. That's the only reason.
You can see the distribution of all studies including the average % improvement in patient outcomes here:
https://imgur.com/a/i02DMyJ
You can see the same distribution with all other molecules but with a different worse consensus or much fewer studies.
Regarding censuring information, they managed to do it. Try linking the web site on Youtube, it will not go through (your post will only be visible to you). It goes through on X. This completely changed public knowledge.
In France we had many TV doctors with conflicts of interest who were shaping opinion every day of the pandemic. They don't need to suppress the web site. Hardly anyone is autistic enough as to actually fact check the media.
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
>God, you are so lazy, I shared with you the meta analysis web site because it includes the studies you referenced:
https://c19ivm.org/schilling.html
When I click on "source" on this page, it takes me here: https://elifesciences.org/articles/83201
"High-dose ivermectin did not have measurable antiviral activity in early symptomatic COVID-19. Pharmacometric evaluation of viral clearance rate from frequent serial oropharyngeal qPCR viral density estimates is a highly efficient and well-tolerated method of assessing SARS-CoV-2 antiviral therapeutics in vivo."
>https://c19ivm.org/activ6ivm.html
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2797483
"Conclusions and Relevance Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with ivermectin, compared with placebo, did not significantly improve time to recovery. These findings do not support the use of ivermectin in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19."
>WHO never said Ivermectin doesn't work.
"The update also includes a strong recommendation against the use of ivermectin for patients with non-severe COVID-19. WHO continues to advise that in patients with severe or critical COVID-19, ivermectin should only be used in clinical trials."
https://www.who.int/news/item/10-11-2023-who-updates-guidelines-on-treatments-for-covid-19
>Regarding censuring information, they managed to do it. Try linking the web site on Youtube, it will not go through (your post will only be visible to you). It goes through on X. This completely changed public knowledge.
I can literally find c19vm.org via a google search.
That's hardly censored.
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
Did you read the links? They highlighted the conflicts of interest and methodology issues.
I have no problem with studies having different outcome compared to the mean tendency, this happens with every studied molecule, the studies you mention are referenced on the graph I shared, they represent only 2 dots in the distribution, aka consensus.
WHO didn't say that Ivermectin doesn't work.
https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-advises-that-ivermectin-only-be-used-to-treat-covid-19-within-clinical-trials
This was in March 2021 and based on 16 studies. Two years and 200 studies later, they still never said that Ivermectin doesn't work. This is because most scientific studies agree that it works. What they said is that they don't recommend it outside of severe Covid cases.
"The update also includes a strong recommendation against the use of ivermectin for patients with non-severe COVID-19."
This is because if they recommend it, Pharmaceutical companies would never have been able to obtain emergency approval for Redemsivir. Why don't you worry about Redemsivir? Why was it approved on the basis of only one study that showed no benefit in mortality?
You can see the double standards?
- Most studied molecule with highest effectiveness: "we continue not recommending the use 200 studies later after we complained there were only 16 studies"
- Single study with no benefit and huge price tag (at the time it was approved): "emergency red carpet approval"
It is a glaring case of lobbies selling wrong narratives at the expense of public health (I have no issues with the approval of Paxlovid, but it would never have been commercialized if WHO had recommended Ivermectin, it is simply not allowed without full clinical trials when there is a better medicine available. That's the only reason.
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
>WHO didn't say that Ivermectin doesn't work.
https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-advises-that-ivermectin-only-be-used-to-treat-covid-19-within-clinical-trials
This is far beyond endorsing it for any level of general use, as you seem to be implying it should be regarded. And it was not mentioned in March 2021, after just 16 studies. Most of the sources that I have given you are older, if not all of them are older than 2021.
>This is because if they recommend it, Pharmaceutical companies would never have been able to obtain emergency approval for Redemsivir. Why don't you worry about Redemsivir? Why was it approved on the basis of only one study that showed no benefit in mortality?
Okay, so you're accusing the WHO is just outright lying?
Can you be clear on that?
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory-overview/public-health-threats/coronavirus-disease-covid-19/covid-19-medicines/public-health-advice-during-covid-19-pandemic#ema-inpage-item-13337 The EMA makes the same assessment
https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19 FDA makes the same assessment. Are they lying?
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
Where did I say that they lied? They obviously used a very carefully crafted language so that they don't have to lie (to avoid lawsuits and liability further down the line) while still not recommended it.
They know full well that it works.
Even FDA have had to rectify that they never gave medical advice not to use Ivermectin:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVgec9M0DfI
They were being accused of overstepping their role beyond their prerogative.
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
>Where did I say that they lied? They obviously used a very carefully crafted language so that they don't have to lie (to avoid lawsuits and liability further down the line) while still not recommended it.
You depict the FDA as reasonably fragile for an institution that supposedly dictates policy to the government and collaborates with websites to mass-censor dissent.
>Where did I say that they lied? They obviously used a very carefully crafted language so that they don't have to lie (to avoid lawsuits and liability further down the line) while still not recommended it.
>They know full well that it works.
Based on what evidence do you claim they "know" this?
You keep claiming that I've only source you mid-2021 studies when I have done no such thing. There are many post-2021 which conclude the same thing: Ivermectin is ineffective at treating COVID.
>They were being accused of overstepping their role beyond their prerogative.
Right. And this still doesn't mean they approve it, or as an institution regard it as an effective tool to treat COVID.
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
No, I only talked about 2021 recommendation from WHO and said that 200 studies later they never changed their recommendation.
I never mentioned 2021 related to your links.
Which studies that you mentioned are omitted on http://c19ivm.org/
You have only given me studies with conflicts of interest, participant fraud, methodological or data issues so far. Or did you mean to post other studies?
All I want to know from you is which studies are not included in the scientific consensus on the meta source page.
As I said, there are always bad actors and retracted studies due to conflicts of interest, this is why you need to consider many studies and take the mean tendency. Now that there are 245 studies, 190+ peer reviewed, it is the largest scientific basis for any molecule regarding Covid treatment.
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
>No, I only talked about 2021 recommendation from WHO and said that 200 studies later they never changed their recommendation.
And why do you think that is?
>You have only given me studies with conflicts of interest, participant fraud, methodological or data issues so far. Or did you mean to post other studies?
Provide evidence for this claim please. You haven't scrutinised any of them. You've just insisted they were fraudulent, or had major methodological errors.
I did, ironically, provide examples of pro-ivermectin studies that were invalidated because of poor data or fraud.
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
Wrong I gave you the links where the issues were analyzed above, including conflicts of interest.
Pubpeer is the most trusted study scrutiny website on the net. Every scientific in the medical community participates in it and responds to claims. If you want more details on the issues, please refer to Pubpeer.
https://pubpeer.com/publications/8C61778D77BEA27A33A0FE8CE03BBE
But it doesn't matter because you were only able to find 2 studies that don't weigh enough in the overall consensus since Ivermectin is the most studied molecule (I wonder why people keep studying useless molecules, considering the cost, despite WHO and FDA; I really wonder *facepalm*). Even if we consider them, it doesn't change the consensus.
Sorry but I won't spend any more time ramming into open doors. This does not add anything because the body of work is overwhelming and the consensus is clear, the quasi-totalitry of scientists who have studied Ivermectin disagree with WHO and so do doctors who have used it for treatment. I myself have used it when I had reinfections, and the effects happened immediately
I am really angry at people like you who caused MY suffering because of stupid WHO I wasted 10,000 EUR in useless tests and medical visits after my long Covid started. I had to import Ivermectin from India just so I could feel better.
Believe what you want to believe, your government and institutions are wonderful and they didn't harm anyone, there was no corruption at any level or conflicts of interest, all the advice we got was motivated not by greed but by kindness.
By now I just think you are trolling me. You know I am right and just do this to spite me. It is a waste of time.
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
>But it doesn't matter because you were only able to find 2 studies that don't weigh enough in the overall consensus since Ivermectin is the most studied molecule (I wonder why people keep studying useless molecules, considering the cost, despite WHO and FDA; I really wonder *facepalm*). Even if we consider them, it doesn't change the consensus.
Uh, no. I found more than that.
How many sources do you want me to provide you? I can keep going and going.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9308124/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9587497/
https://corporate.dukehealth.org/news/study-finds-no-benefit-taking-ivermectin-covid-19-symptoms
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2801828
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2801827
https://corporate.dukehealth.org/news/study-confirms-no-benefit-taking-ivermectin-covid-19-symptoms
https://www.ndm.ox.ac.uk/news/moru-study-shows-ivermectin-not-effective-treatment-against-covid
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/yet-another-study-shows-little-benefit-ivermectin-covid-19
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01535-y
Many pro-ivermectin studies and articles were subsequently regarded as highly misleading or fraudulent:
https://capital-cdmx.org/falso-y-enganoso-estudio-del-gobcdmx-sobre-ivermectina-para-tratar-covid/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9946064/
https://www.science.org/content/article/mysterious-company-s-coronavirus-papers-top-medical-journals-may-be-unraveling
The literal developer of the drug warned against using it:
https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/
Literally every single health organisation, the WHO, the EMA, the FDA all advise against it.
>Sorry but I won't spend any more time ramming into open doors. This does not add anything because the body of work is overwhelming and the consensus is clear, the quasi-totalitry of scientists who have studied Ivermectin disagree with WHO and so do doctors who have used it for treatment. I myself have used it when I had reinfections, and the effects happened immediately.
You are the king of useless, unevidenced anecdotes and claims - I'll give you that. Apparently its the body of scientists outside of any major health organisation. I can find, quite trivially, plenty of doctors warning against using ivermectin just by googling.
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
I am the king of sourced scientific evidence, and you are the king of useless nitpicking forcing others to argue useless points that don't matter and do your own work for you, while also refusing to read or watch anything that is too long.
With an attitude like yours anyone can convince himself of any lie.
Previously I thought you were just being naive and was willing to help you. Now I think you are doing this on purpose or by narcissism and insecurity, projecting your own flaws onto others.
I am going to ignore your messages. You clearly have no gratefulness at all. You wasted 8 hours of my time for your stupid ego.
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
I've given you tons of sources here, not just the only 2 that you claim I sent. I could find more that produce results that reject the claims that ivermectin is helpful.
reply
share
Melton (2529)
2 months ago
With an attitude like yours anyone can convince himself of any lie.
Previously I thought you were just being naive and was willing to help you. Now I think you are doing this on purpose or by narcissism and insecurity, projecting your own flaws onto others.
I am going to ignore your messages. You clearly have no gratefulness at all. You wasted 8 hours of my time for your stupid ego.
Excellent summary of Skavau.
You’ve arrived at the same conclusion as does everyone who engages him in good faith.
At first you answer his stupid questions because you give him the benefit of the doubt and generously assume that he’s a sincerely inquisitive interlocutor. Eventually it becomes apparent that he’s constantly strawmanning your position, and getting you to run around answering questions based on a premise you don’t even hold.
He will also play The Hatchling - pretending he’s not aware of self-evident and well established facts and asking endless questions about them so that you have to run around finding evidence to support the patently obvious. He’s trying to exhaust you so that when you eventually stop answering his insincere questions it looks like you’ve bailed from a line of Socratic questioning, to manufacture a fake ‘win’ for himself.
Of course,
none of his questions are sincere, and he’s just a bag of deceitful rhetorical tricks. The only thing he cares about is being a bitch for the regime and gaslighting people into thinking wokism and regime dominance aren’t real… so that they can continue. The same principle as Holocaust denial.
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
I return the question to you? Why do you think WHO and FDA were so cagey and came under scrutiny for their statements related to Ivermectin?
You can clearly see that they tried to interfere with doctors prescribing Ivermectin even though they had no legal basis to do so! This is a clear case of abuse of power that harmed the health of people because they delivered advice and pressured doctors to ignore the available science.
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
Can I ask you a personal question? #
Do you consider yourself empathetic?
How old are you?
Have you had personal experience with sociopaths?
Do you know that sociopaths represent 10% of the general population (and likely much more in politics)
Do you know that sociopathy combines narcissism, callousness, Machiavellianism and empathy deficit according to the diagnosis criteria.
Based on this, why are you so hesitant to accept the notion that people are able to fool you despite the appearance of virtue and pretending to have your well-being at heart?
Why is it so shocking to you that you can't accept it even when presented with the scientific evidence? I don't get it.
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
According to you, the entirety of the WHO, NHS, FDA, EMA and the vast majority of epidemiologists, virologist and scientists advising governments and researching treatment and vaccines after COVID are actually sociopaths.
The level of conspiracy required to keep this together is beyond absurd.
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
I have proven to you that they carefully avoiding the lie. Regarding the scientists, the quasi totality disagree with the pharma lobbies. Big shock!
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
Your claim that they are "carefully avoiding the lie", which is tantamount to claiming they are lying. So you are essentially implying a global conspiracy to criticise ivermectin as a form of treatment for COVID.
>Regarding the scientists, the quasi totality disagree with the pharma lobbies. Big shock!
You haven't sourced this claim. I await actual polling from the majority of scientists on this matter. We have this sort of polling on the support for global warming from climatologists, for instance.
reply
share
Melton (2529)
2 months ago
Notice how Skavau expects you to run around answering his incessant Hatchling questions, and yet when you ask him some sincere questions he just ignores them.
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
He's ignored tons of questions, and admitted he had no sources on hand for some of his claims about the supposed persecution of French researchers (and some claim about some political opposition in France arrested for rape, that I can't even find anything about online).
reply
share
Melton (2529)
2 months ago
He absolutely tore you to pieces.
This thread stands as a monument to what happens when a regime bitch meets the real world and fails to gaslight someone far more informed and intelligent.
Once again you fell flat on your face because you’re not bright enough to pull off the sophistry you’re attempting.
Now, amuse everyone here by attempting to rewrite history. Frantically pretend that you ‘won’ instead of being utterly humiliated, despite all evidence to the contrary right here in this thread 🤣 Go…
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
He gish-galloped, and made tons of unsubstantiated claims that he never returned to and instead peddled yet more claims. As I said:
He ignored tons of questions, and admitted he had no sources on hand for some of his claims about the supposed persecution of French researchers (and some claim about some political opposition in France arrested for rape, that I can't even find anything about online).
Are you going to claim that the west is akin to Nazi Germany? That is what he implied repeatedly. And that the entire medical world, scientific world and government is specifically undermining ivermectin as a treatment for COVID purely so they can peddle their own treatment? That this is a global conspiracy that requires the uniform collaboration of every government, every university, every medical body, every research department specifically so they can market their own product successfully? It's as small as that?
Oh, and he also seems to be an autism supremacist.
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
>Now, amuse everyone here by attempting to rewrite history. Frantically pretend that you ‘won’ instead of being utterly humiliated, despite all evidence to the contrary right here in this thread 🤣 Go…
He wasn't trying to argue with me, he was trying to convert me with likely prior-written expanded talking points he's used many times before. He presented a whole selection of claims, many truths, many half-truths, many unsubstantiated claims (some of which he admitted he had no evidence for) and topped it all off with conspiracy theories.
He also seems to treat Elon Musk as some autistic hero, with borderline religious reverence.
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
On Youtube they prevent it, since it presents information that contradicts the pharmaceutical lobbies.
From their policy, it is written black on white:
"We do not allow content that promotes information that contradicts health authority guidance on treatments for specific health conditions, including promotion of specific harmful substances or practices that have not been approved by local health authorities or the World Health Organization as safe or effective, or that have been confirmed to cause severe harm."
I know it for a fact because I know medical lecturers and medical channels who review scientific literature who had their videos removed or demonetized, so much so that they had to clone their entire channel on Odissee!
I have tried so many times to post comments referencing sources, then my comments are hidden from other accounts, I am the only one who can see them. I asked friends to post the same in case I am somehow flagged, and they couldn't get them through either.
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
>On Youtube they prevent it, since it presents information that contradicts the pharmaceutical lobbies.
So why isn't it blocked on their google search? Same company. Why can I find it trivially via google?
reply
share
puremind (163)
2 months ago
Because 2 years later the medicines are already approved and no one cares anymore. They got what they wanted.
Also now with X, other media platforms are being increasingly scrutinized and held accountable for censure.
For example 1 year ago, the video that talked about Pfizer's guided evolution where a journalist got a gay Pfizer director to talk about it during a romantic date, was removed on Google, including his Linkedin credentials and pictures of the Pfizer intranet pricing his employment at Pfizer.
The same information could still be found on Duckduckgo.
I have to try finding it on Google again now that the media attention has gone down!
reply
share
Skavau (9881)
2 months ago
>Because 2 years later the medicines are already approved and no one cares anymore. They got what they wanted.
So why wasn't it ever blocked? Do you have evidence that it ever was?
>For example 1 year ago, the video that talked about Pfizer's guided evolution where a journalist got a gay Pfizer director to talk about it during a data, was removed on Google, including his Linkedin credentials and pictures of the Pfizer intranet pricing his employment at Pfizer.
I cannot comment on a completely random unsourced claimed
This entire discussion is full of you just making these types of claims.
reply
share