Ed Corona Virus Conspiracy Theories....

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've looked a little into Rapoport, and don't find a lot that suggests some of the far out ideas some attribute to him, though that does not mean they don't exist.

What I have seen, though, is that he's a denialist of almost every mainstream medical idea out there, and a firm believer in the Matrix concept.

Among other things, he runs up against the same paradox that some here do, being a germ denialist who denies the importance of germs by saying that compromised immune systems don't fight off....germs. IN other words, germs don't cause disease. Germs cause disease. But they wouldn't if only they didn't.

Victim blaming at heart. It's not the bullets that kill you, its your failure to use a bulletproof vest. It's your fault if you're raped in the park. You shouldn't go to the park.

I haven't bothered to go further into Rapoport or his association with Infowars. On a purely subjective basis I suggest that he's a worthless idiot.
 
Tom, why won't you answer questions? Why do you refuse to respond properly to the questions people are asking you?
 
Tom Palven said:
That is a good example of an Orthodox Faucian Covidist smear...
Click to expand...
You certainly appear to have a weird obsession with Dr. Fauci. He really is your Great Satan - the source of all your fear. Even sadder then that you refuse to acknowledge that he is only one voice among many world-wide. I'm sure the vast majority of humans don't even know who he is.

...since Jon Rappoport doesn't believe in any of that stuff...
Click to expand...
Are you sure? Here's an excerpt from his 2008 book The New Magic Era: Adventures In Consciousness.

"Magic is an infinite concept, which means essentially that the universe operates through and by magic It may not appear that way but in fact it does. Magic (imagination) creates universes. An attempt to define exactly what magic is as a set of rules or principles, or as a networked system, is go-ing to fail. Systems are the things that we use to examine the products of our own imaginations.

The more you are able to do magic because magic flows from the uniqueness of you the more magic you will be able to do. That's what it is all about. And so, in the New Magic Age as energy and the anticipation of this age begins to bleed into the atmosphere of our planet, it is an invitation for each individual to set foot on that infinite road of magic."

...nor is he or I anti-Semitic, anti-Italian, or any of the other crap that has been vomited out.
Click to expand...
That was Paul Craig Roberts who was pointed out as an anti-Semitic holocaust denier. As far as I can tell, Rappoport is simply a kook. Although he is pretty tight with David Icke, who thinks The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a real book.
 
Caroline13 said:
I don't want or need any vaccines except I needed a Tetnus maybe 20 yrs ago and that's been it. Then I believe a smallpox to go to first grade in 1943. Give me good old clean natural immune system health. Works for me.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't have worked for smallpox, or polio or rabies though.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Is rubbish. Firstly, of course someone can be anti-semitic. While I'm sure we could quibble over examples people might give for someone being anti-semitic, people who call for the killing of Jews are obviously anti-semitic. How are they not, irrespective of whether we are part of one whole conciousness?

Unless you mean that if one follows the belief that we are part of one conciousness THEN one cannot be anti-semitic. Ok, let's say for the sake of argument that I agree with you, why does David Icke promote Protocols?

Secondly, regarding the "one conciousness" thing, ok. Please provide evidence of this, but first please define exactly what you mean by it.
Click to expand...


Yes, of course I mean that THEN, MarkCorrigan. It was the core of my message. And the core of David Icke's message is that "one conciousness thing". I always like to link people who smear the man to that old lecture he gave - "The Robot's Rebellion":


He has been consistent in this line of thought through the following decades.
 
Childlike Empress said:
What I see as the core of his message is that we are all one. One Consciousness.
Click to expand...

Sounds nice. It would probably be nicer if he pushed less utter BS alongside that.

Childlike Empress said:
And I know that to be true.
Click to expand...

This suggests to me that you wish it was true and have, for emotional reasons, assigned it disproportionate influence. That doesn't speak to whether it actually is reality or not, of course.

Childlike Empress said:
In this mindset, you cannot be "racist" or "antisemitic" or whatever you want to call it. You are a part of the whole. A necessary and unique one.
Click to expand...

This is a stretch, though. The attempted spin here is nice and pleasant, of course, but rather filled with holes of a number of varieties. Perhaps first and foremost is that the "cannot" relies solely on misusing semantics.
 
Last edited:
Foster Zygote said:
Because if you prune the stuff that's even too wacky for you, then he isn't really a reliable source of information, is he? And if you believe the crappy sci-fi stuff - well then that explains a great deal.
Click to expand...

Similar to the Flat Earthers that say NASA lies part from about the bits that say things the conspiracists agree with.
 
Aridas said:
This suggests to me that you wish it was true and have, for emotional reasons, assigned it disproportionate influence. That doesn't speak to whether it actually is reality or not, of course.
Click to expand...


What you perceive as a suggestion doesn't speak to whether it is true or not. We can agree on that.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Thank you, MarkCorrigan. Maybe actually take the time to watch the lecture I've linked. I'm not saying that David Icke doesn't make some extremely far out claims, but as I said, at the core of his message, he can't be a racist/anti-semite/etc.
Click to expand...

Just functionally indistinguishable from one?
 
Aridas said:
Just functionally indistinguishable from one?
Click to expand...


To you, maybe. In general one shouldn't use David Icke to smear Jon Rappoport (whoever that may be) to smear Tom Palven to smear everybody who isn't on line with the "common wisdom" on COVID-19. It just isn't the "skeptical" way.
 
Well I hope at least it's still okay to smear anyone who agrees with anything Anthony Fauci says for being an unthinking sheep. I mean, surely there's nothing wrong with that.
 
Childlike Empress said:
To you, maybe.
Click to expand...

To be clear, I'm dealing more with the general principle rather than Icke, specifically. "One consciousness" views only remove racism/anti-semitism and so on from the picture in a misused semantics way, however pleasant they may be made to sound on the surface by promoters. Thus, your attempted line of defense is fundamentally flawed. Personally, I don't care enough about Icke to try to call him anything beyond a thoroughly non-credible source of information and claims, though, given that my interest in him pretty much vanished once that was determined.

Childlike Empress said:
In general one shouldn't use David Icke to smear Jon Rappoport (whoever that may be) to smear Tom Palven to smear everybody who isn't on line with the "common wisdom" on COVID-19. It just isn't the "skeptical" way.
Click to expand...

That might have more weight if it were what was happening. It's not.
 
Last edited:
MarkCorrigan said:
No, no it might not be.

There are of course things we must be wary of when it comes to the ultra-wealthy and governments. There is no doubt truth in the claims that governments often do things that are, knowingly or unknowingly counterproductive for their citizens. There is a great risk is swallowing what governments tell you whole and that there is quite likely issues with rich people rubbing shoulders with people in positions of great power. Backroom deals, special interests, favourable outcomes for the select few...I agree this is reasonable to believe in and insidious. But this is neither unique to these lunatics nor is it the core of their philosophy.

But the core of Icke's insanity is that the world is fictional and that we effectively live in the Matrix. This is nuts. Even discounting his obvious reptilian lunacy the core of Icke's belief is not "have a healthy level of suspicion" but "reality is a lie". This is patently not true.

He claims he can walk on coals and lava because we live in a virtual reality. The mechanics of lava and fire walking are well understood and are to do with the poor conductivity of the material being walked upon. If you are fast enough you can walk across blisteringly hot rocks. However, if reality were a lie as he claims and this is why he can do it rather than the science, why doesn't he give a whole lecture standing on hot coals? I mean, if the reason they don't burn him is that he "realises they aren't real" then time spent on them should have no impact, right?

David Icke is insane. David Icke endorses The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a known forgery. David Icke got his start down the path to insanity after visiting a psychic and claiming that he was a prophet.

Please, tell me what elements of David Icke's obvious ******** philosophy and clear break from reality are compelling to you?

Incidentally, it is not guilt by association if Rappaport works with Icke on his book and publishes jointly. If you support Rappaport but not Icke then you must explain why their collaberation does not indicate that maybe Rappaport is orbiting Jupiter as well.
Click to expand...


And this is why...
 
Aridas said:
To be clear, I'm dealing more with the general principle rather than Icke, specifically. "One consciousness" views only remove racism/anti-semitism and so on from the picture in a misused semantics way, however pleasant they may be made to sound on the surface by promoters. Thus, your attempted line of defense is fundamentally flawed. Personally, I don't care enough about Icke to try to call him anything beyond a thoroughly non-credible source of information and claims, though, given that my interest in him pretty much vanished once that was determined.



That might have more weight if it were what was happening. It's not.
Click to expand...


This is utter rubbish, Ari.
 
Childlike Empress said:
This is utter rubbish, Ari.
Click to expand...

Hardly, though it's not hard to figure out that you would quite prefer that it is, on each point.

For the "one consciousness" and racism/antisemitism relation, for example, I can certainly agree that one consciousness is far less conducive to such and is probably more likely to attract less racist/anti-Semitic people than some of the more overtly hierarchical worldviews, but it's pretty easy for those already motivated to twist it to their less pleasant desires to justify racism and antisemitism. For that matter, it's not at all hard to imagine racists and antisemites who have accepted that racism and antisemitism is bad coming upon the one consciousness concept and adopting it under similar premises to what you're pushing, in fair part as a way to tell themselves that they aren't actually what they really are, rather than doing the much harder task of directly actually acknowledging and addressing the problematic beliefs or actions.

As for Icke, I'm definitely not interested in delving into him further right now, especially on this thread.

As for the what's happening? Your assessment is rather off, at best, by my observation.

In general one shouldn't use David Icke to smear Jon Rappoport (whoever that may be) to smear Tom Palven to smear everybody who isn't on line with the "common wisdom" on COVID-19.
Click to expand...

"Smear" is distinctly inaccurate in every case that it's used here, for example.

It just isn't the "skeptical" way.
Click to expand...

Given that what you're trying to claim is what's happening isn't actually what's happening, this is rendered meaningless from the start. Still, what the
"skeptical" way would be is worth a look. The skeptical way, in short, has a general base position of doubt that can be overcome with sufficient valid evidence and reasoning. That rather pointedly includes considering the validity and reliability of the sources of information. When those like Caroline13 and Tom Palven invoke lists of sources comprised overwhelmingly of those with very poor track records when it comes to validity and reliability, that's plenty worthy of note in a skeptical assessment.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom