i promise i'm not just being cryptic for the sake of melodrama, but nevertheless—if you believe that rich and powerful people aren't occasionally killed as "part of the plan," you're not very well acquainted with "the plan."
to be slightly more specific: most people fail to appreciate the political usefulness of well-deployed public violence from an authoritarian perspective.
i have great news for you: i don't believe that. i only believe that the death of *this* rich and powerful man was not part of the plan. because it wasn't.
all evidence points to it. you can believe things that do not have evidence, but understand you take a leap that other people refuse to. rationality and reason are enough for most of us, faith in forces that are both invisible and impossible to discover is something lots of people have, but its unscientific. the rest of us are interested in the material facts. not the could be theories of high power interplay that is definitely a reality, but an ofuscated and cloudy one, far away from materialist analysis.
i'm so interested in this perspective, actually writing a post about it... what exactly is the value of this false appeal to science? we know it's not genuinely scientific, because science describes a closed system in which all the inputs and outputs can be controlled. in this case, there’s no defined data set; saying "all evidence points to it" is arbitrarily limiting what counts as "evidence" and what "all" means.
all of *what* evidence? all the evidence presented by the mainstream media? as if that was an objective, scientific survey of the available data, and not a contrived narrative created by people who, like you, are very concerned about being perceived as "unscientific"? it's ignorance dressed up as pragmatism.
doesn't take a scientist to speculate about what the larger significance of a public assassination might be—but this “scientific” perspective says that speculation is irresponsible, somehow. besides just being lethally boring on a purely intellectual level, we can see how that compulsive lack of curiosity benefits people who really are trying to conceal their own involvement.
my theory is that this has nothing to do with science or rationality or pragmatism. the bigger conspiracy is a bunch of self-deputized hall monitors who are desperately trying to deny their own powerlessness; not directly coordinating to advocate *for* the interests of the powerful, but *against* public acknowledgment of the fact that our perception is being actively managed, leaving us with very little idea of what's actually going on. it amounts to the same thing by different means.
He was murdered in cold blood by a person who also came from a rich and privileged background. No one is forced to buy the products of this company if they don't want to.
this whole business model is built on taking people's money and then refusing to give it back to them when they need it most. he got rich by successfully hording more lucre than his competitors and letting people die in the process. he never "produced" a fucking thing in his short, miserable life.
"no one is forced to buy the products of this company," and likewise, nobody is forced to profit from the continuance of this ghoulish, graverobbing industry, if they're worried about their personal safety. those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.
THATS CALLED MF BARS!!!
i promise i'm not just being cryptic for the sake of melodrama, but nevertheless—if you believe that rich and powerful people aren't occasionally killed as "part of the plan," you're not very well acquainted with "the plan."
to be slightly more specific: most people fail to appreciate the political usefulness of well-deployed public violence from an authoritarian perspective.
i have great news for you: i don't believe that. i only believe that the death of *this* rich and powerful man was not part of the plan. because it wasn't.
so in this case, you're pushing all your chips in on the "self-motivated, lone wolf assassin" scenario?
admirable confidence at this early stage in the game.
all evidence points to it. you can believe things that do not have evidence, but understand you take a leap that other people refuse to. rationality and reason are enough for most of us, faith in forces that are both invisible and impossible to discover is something lots of people have, but its unscientific. the rest of us are interested in the material facts. not the could be theories of high power interplay that is definitely a reality, but an ofuscated and cloudy one, far away from materialist analysis.
i'm so interested in this perspective, actually writing a post about it... what exactly is the value of this false appeal to science? we know it's not genuinely scientific, because science describes a closed system in which all the inputs and outputs can be controlled. in this case, there’s no defined data set; saying "all evidence points to it" is arbitrarily limiting what counts as "evidence" and what "all" means.
all of *what* evidence? all the evidence presented by the mainstream media? as if that was an objective, scientific survey of the available data, and not a contrived narrative created by people who, like you, are very concerned about being perceived as "unscientific"? it's ignorance dressed up as pragmatism.
doesn't take a scientist to speculate about what the larger significance of a public assassination might be—but this “scientific” perspective says that speculation is irresponsible, somehow. besides just being lethally boring on a purely intellectual level, we can see how that compulsive lack of curiosity benefits people who really are trying to conceal their own involvement.
my theory is that this has nothing to do with science or rationality or pragmatism. the bigger conspiracy is a bunch of self-deputized hall monitors who are desperately trying to deny their own powerlessness; not directly coordinating to advocate *for* the interests of the powerful, but *against* public acknowledgment of the fact that our perception is being actively managed, leaving us with very little idea of what's actually going on. it amounts to the same thing by different means.
what do you think?
Really one of the best essays I've read so far on this.
He was murdered in cold blood by a person who also came from a rich and privileged background. No one is forced to buy the products of this company if they don't want to.
what "products"?
this whole business model is built on taking people's money and then refusing to give it back to them when they need it most. he got rich by successfully hording more lucre than his competitors and letting people die in the process. he never "produced" a fucking thing in his short, miserable life.
"no one is forced to buy the products of this company," and likewise, nobody is forced to profit from the continuance of this ghoulish, graverobbing industry, if they're worried about their personal safety. those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.
People defending insurers is next fucking level
clownworld. There is truly no way these guys are not being sent in to damage control by arguing about this shit online.
What product? An empty box?