4 ms·

There are two views you can take of the world. You can take it at face value, or you can search for deeper meaning. If we take current events at face value, th

There are two views you can take of the world. You can take it at face value, or you can search for deeper meaning. If we take current events at face value, then yes covid is a real problem, the vaccine really helps, and governments are acting in the interest of the public with health and safety measures. But if you look behind the curtain, there is so much more going on. It remains to be seen just how much manipulation is involved. My analogy to the war on terror is meant to have layers. After the initial attack there was a patriotic fervor and an outcry for retribution. The "war on terror" was a justified response to the demand for national security. It's not until years later that much of the story we were told at the time had been revealed to contain false truths. The WMDs never existed. The Saudis were connected to the attackers. Our prolonged engagement in Afghanistan, a means to funnel billions (trillions?) to security contractors. The pentagon. Tower 7. Etc. There's a enough information to confound the official narrative, and we still don't have all the answers. I doubt we ever will. The pandemic mirrors this in many ways already. The global outcry, the unprecedented scale of government intervention. "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists" parallels today's divide. It wasn't something you could say no to then, and it's not something you can say no to now. To say these thing simply erode trust is a pittance. This plants a seed in one's mind that there are in fact manipulators at the highest levels of our institutions. There is even more evidence of this in the world today ex. Jeffery epstein and the ongoing maxwell trials. But maybe none of that applies to the current events. Perhaps my speculation is unwarranted. Sometimes the world simply is what it seems, and you have to take it at face value. But more often than not I've found the world is a lot like poker, and by the time you have all the information it's already too late.

ASalazarMX 5y ago
I don't think it's fair comparing the war on terror with the current pandemic handling. Back then the government attitude was "You killed 3,000 proud Americans, we will avenge them by killing 300,000 Arabs! A eye for a hundred eyes!". It was clear from day one that USA was overreacting, and doing it in a way that was suspiciously profitable. The WHO is very different than the military industry complex, they're not taking over the world, they making recommendations based on evolving scientific data, and the governments of the world are free to ignore them because not even the UN has enough authority to force them. That so many shitty governments have accepted those recommendations to some degree is a miracle, owed much in part to the effort of their own scientists.
- disambiguation 5y ago
  You call it unfair, yet don't give insight into your criteria for fairness. No analogy is perfect. But the parallels are too strong to ignore. Studying history is about using the past to make sense of the present, and possibly even predict the future. Saying the USA was obviously overreacting from the start is just hindsight, and not representative of the sentiment at the time. Further I'm sure years from now we'll say the same, that many things we did during this pandemic were overreactions, and that it was obvious at the time. Comparing the MIC to the WHO is a false dichotomy. The WHO is historically an institution for the USA to project power internationally. The question of who is "taking over the world" is the territory of speculation. I said originally it remains to be seen how much manipulation is occurring. For example, the lab-leak hypothesis, once the ramblings of a mad man, has gained traction among officials as a likely source for the disease. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17047986/wuhan-lab-leak-most-likely-cause-covid-pandemic/ https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17047986/wuhan-lab-leak-most-l... If this proves to be true, it will have radical implications on the past 2 years.

ASalazarMX 5y ago

I don't think it's fair comparing the war on terror with the current pandemic handling. Back then the government attitude was "You killed 3,000 proud Americans, we will avenge them by killing 300,000 Arabs! A eye for a hundred eyes!". It was clear from day one that USA was overreacting, and doing it in a way that was suspiciously profitable. The WHO is very different than the military industry complex, they're not taking over the world, they making recommendations based on evolving scientific data, and the governments of the world are free to ignore them because not even the UN has enough authority to force them. That so many shitty governments have accepted those recommendations to some degree is a miracle, owed much in part to the effort of their own scientists.

disambiguation 5y ago
You call it unfair, yet don't give insight into your criteria for fairness. No analogy is perfect. But the parallels are too strong to ignore. Studying history is about using the past to make sense of the present, and possibly even predict the future. Saying the USA was obviously overreacting from the start is just hindsight, and not representative of the sentiment at the time. Further I'm sure years from now we'll say the same, that many things we did during this pandemic were overreactions, and that it was obvious at the time. Comparing the MIC to the WHO is a false dichotomy. The WHO is historically an institution for the USA to project power internationally. The question of who is "taking over the world" is the territory of speculation. I said originally it remains to be seen how much manipulation is occurring. For example, the lab-leak hypothesis, once the ramblings of a mad man, has gained traction among officials as a likely source for the disease. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17047986/wuhan-lab-leak-most-likely-cause-covid-pandemic/ https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17047986/wuhan-lab-leak-most-l... If this proves to be true, it will have radical implications on the past 2 years.