A. It's not a theory. It's a suggestion that we hold different data points without necessarily drawing "hard and fast conclusions".
I would suggest you might wish to evaluate what assumptions you have to make in order to make the statement "Netanyahu forced more jabs on Israelis, per capital, than the rest of the world".
I'm not saying you are wrong. However, consider Trump's situation over covid. Was he responsible for all the actions and policies made during the COVID era in the USA? Or were others also involved? Is the "president" or the "prime minister" a dictator who can dictate how everything goes?
What if, for example, Netanyahu is a patriot but surrounded by a fiercer and more ruthless deep state infrastructure than even that which exists in the USA?
B. I think its OK to consider various possibilities, and eschew "hard and fast" conclusion. Here, "fast" means rigid, inflexible, stuck.
I don't know that I can reconcile the jabs situation in Israel. But that's the point.
It would be pretty easy as pie to come back to your comment with:
(factoid: reconcile that!)
E.g. The Globalist propaganda machine and Cabal are attacking Netanyahu! Reconcile that!
But that approach gets us no where. It bears more resemblance to doctrinal thinking that is a characteristic of divide Christian denominations (fixating on this or that or the other doctrinal principle above all else) than a research and discussion board.
There are many conflicting data points. If any of us think we know exactly what is going on there, well, how do we reconcile ALL those data points? We don't. Because we have limited information. In the face of ignorance or limited knowledge humility is a great thing. (Note: ALL knowledge is limited knowledge.)
It's comforting to reduce everything to one or two issues (the jab), but that's more like a religious faith than an open, enquiring mind. In my opinion.
So that's what I'm saying. Avoid the compulsion to "reconcile" every data point, and keep an open, inquiring mind.
C. All the above notwithstanding, your comment raises an important point. Would be nice if you discussed your ideas more!
A. It's not a theory. It's a suggestion that we hold different data points without necessarily drawing "hard and fast conclusions".
I would suggest you might wish to evaluate what assumptions you have to make in order to make the statement "Netanyahu forced more jabs on Israelis, per capital, than the rest of the world".
I'm not saying you are wrong. However, consider Trump's situation over covid. Was he responsible for all the actions and policies made during the COVID era in the USA? Or were others also involved? Is the "president" or the "prime minister" a dictator who can dictate how everything goes?
What if, for example, Netanyahu is a patriot but surrounded by a fiercer and more ruthless deep state infrastructure than even that which exists in the USA?
B. I think its OK to consider various possibilities, and eschew "hard and fast" conclusion. Here, "fast" means rigid, inflexible, stuck.
I don't know that I can reconcile the jabs situation in Israel. But that's the point.
It would be pretty easy as pie to come back to your comment with:
(factoid: reconcile that!)
E.g. The Globalist propaganda machine and Cabal are attacking Netanyahu! Reconcile that!
But that approach gets us no where. It bears more resemblance to doctrinal thinking that is a characteristic of divide Christian denominations (fixating on this or that or the other doctrinal principle above all else) than a research and discussion board.
There are many conflicting data points. If any of us think we know exactly what is going on there, well, how do we reconcile ALL those data points? We don't. Because we have limited information. In the face of ignorance or limited knowledge humility is a great thing. (Note: ALL knowledge is limited knowledge.)
It's comforting to reduce everything to one or two issues (the jab), but that's more like a religious faith than an open, enquiring mind. In my opinion.
So that's what I'm saying. Avoid the compulsion to "reconcile" every data point, and keep an open, inquiring mind.
A. It's not a theory. It's a suggestion that we hold different data points without necessarily drawing "hard and fast conclusions".
I would suggest you might wish to evaluate what assumptions you have to make in order to make the statement "Netanyahu forced more jabs on Israelis, per capital, than the rest of the world".
I'm not saying you are wrong. However, consider Trump's situation over covid. Was he responsible for all the actions and policies made during the COVID era in the USA? Or were others also involved? Is the "president" or the "prime minister" a dictator who can dictate how everything goes?
What if, for example, Netanyahu is a patriot but surrounded by a fiercer and more ruthless deep state infrastructure than even that which exists in the USA?
B. I think its OK to consider various possibilities, and eschew "hard and fast" conclusion. Here, "fast" means rigid, inflexible, stuck.
I don't know that I can reconcile the jabs situation in Israel. But that's the point.
It would be pretty easy as pie to come back to your comment with:
(factoid: reconcile that!)
But that's the whole point here. There are many conflicting data points. If any of us think we know exactly what is going on there, well, how do we reconcile ALL those data points? We don't. Because we have limited information.
it's comforting to reduce everything to one or two issues (the jab), but that's more like a religious faith than an open, enquiring mind. In my opinion.
A. It's not a theory. It's a suggestion that we hold different data points without necessarily drawing "hard and fast conclusions".
I would suggest you might wish to evaluate what assumptions you have to make in order to make the statement "Netanyahu forced more jabs on Israelis, per capital, than the rest of the world".
I'm not saying you are wrong. However, consider Trump's situation over covid. Was he responsible for all the actions and policies made during the COVID era in the USA? Or were others also involved? Is the "president" or the "prime minister" a dictator who can dictate how everything goes?
What if, for example, Netanyahu is a patriot but surrounded by a fiercer and more ruthless deep state infrastructure than even that which exists in the USA?
I think its OK to consider various possibilities, and eschew "hard and fast" conclusion. Here, "fast" means rigid, inflexible, stuck.
I don't know that I can reconcile the jabs situation in Israel. But that's the point. being able to entertain various perspectives without necessarily going all in on only one of those, that approach is important to staying aloof from the manipulative forces that attack us constantly with propaganda, narratives and (attack) data.