ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I don’t think scientists are involved or even interested in seeking an answer to Pilate’s question. That’s a pursuit of theologians and philosophers.
In any event, philosophers have nothing useful to say about the coronavirus vaccines and their efficacy. Whatever they say, they will all have the jab in the end. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Or rather the refutation of the pudding is.
I don’t think scientists are involved or even interested in seeking an answer to Pilate’s question. That’s a pursuit of theologians and philosophers.
In any event, philosophers have nothing useful to say about the coronavirus vaccines and their efficacy. Whatever they say, they will all have the jab in the end. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Or rather the refutation of the pudding is.
He may have attacked “science” but the following suggests that this was a bit of an intellectual pose. When it came down to it, he accepted its application:
“Less than two years after my meeting with Feyerabend, The New York Times reported that a brain tumor had killed the “anti-science philosopher.” I called Borrini in Zurich to offer my condolences. She was distraught. Paul had complained of headaches, and a few months later he was dead.
Recalling Feyerabend’s excoriation of the medical profession, I could not resist asking: Did he seek medical treatment for his tumor? Of course, she replied. He had had “total confidence” in his doctors’ diagnosis and was willing to accept any treatment they recommended; the tumor had simply been detected too late for anything to be done.”
(https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/was-philosopher-paul-feyerabend-really-science-s-worst-enemy/)“Anyway we now know that some of it is useless for combating the new variants and for the over 65s”
I think that the words you are looking for rather than “useless” are something like “not effective enough” or “not (yet) proved”.
I agree, though, that competition and profit has to have been a factor with the various pharma companies competing to get their vaccine out first and to rake in profits whether short-term or long-term.
I meant extended the recommended three weeks not three months of course as hopefully the context made clear. My three weeks are now up so I am now a guinea pig.
Having defended the right of anti-vaxxers to be allowed to put their view on the grounds that the way to deal with them is to let them put it and then shoot it down, I can’t criticise Dissident Voice for publishing this. However, I think they can be criticised for allowing “Makia Freeman” (presumably his adopted name) to describe himself,without challenge, as:
“Makia Freeman is the editor of The Freedom Articles, a long-time truth researcher and a promoter of freedom. He provides insightful, non-partisan, unique and cutting-edge analysis on who’s running the world, how they’re doing it and what the deeper agenda is – as well as solutions for restoring peace and freedom to the world.”
His articles are not “non-partisan”but present a decidedly partisan view — about the world being run by a cabal who want to impose a “New World Order” restricting the freedom of individuals (and nation-states). In fact the very first paragraph of his article talks of “the covid cult” and references another articles of his which calls the current pandemic a “scamdemic”.
The basic arguments in his article in Dissident Voice is that mandatory mask-wearing and mass vaccination infringe the Nuremberg Code in that “masks” are “medical devices” and the vaccination programmes are medical experiments. I doubt that a court interpreting the code would decide that masks were “medical devices” unless they were also prepared to rule that crash helmets and safety belts were.
The Vaccination programmes could only be called an “experiment” if you regard the pandemic as a “scamdemic”. Having said this, there is an element of experiment in the UK programme — not giving the second jab within the recommended three-months. They have extended the time limit to 12 weeks without knowing what effect this will have. It probably won’t have any adverse effect but they don’t know and are in effect carrying out an experiment to see if this is the case. Whether those responsible should be face a Nuremberg-style trial for this is another matter.
So, if someone wants to do a detailed refutation of the views of this anti-vaxxer, the elements of this this would be (1) that the virus is real (2) that it has caused a pandemic and (3) that the world is not run by a cabal who have a hidden agenda (it is not run by anybody but is subject to the vagaries of the impersonal capitalist economic system).
I don’t think that there can be any doubt that (for most of his life at least) Churchill was a “white supemacist”. It went with the terrority if you thought that a European state should have a colonal empire. Of course he was not alone. All supporters of the British Empire were white supremacists as were those of the French, Belgian, Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese empires and those in Germany and Italy who thought their state should have one too.
It is also true that the Second World War was one between the British Empire and expansionist Germany, and at the start was presented as such by both sides, though later the rulers of the British state decided that this wasn’t a good way to retain popular support for the war. The rulers of Germany, on the other hand, played to the end that card for all that it was worth. As for the American state, when it joined in it fielded a segregated army.
In one of his podcasts Peter Joseph has analysed well the so-called Great Reset, so well in fact that we are thinking of using in it in next month’s Socialist Standard under the title “Capitalism cannot be reset” (to work other than as a system that runs in profit).
Here is what he said (scroll down to last post on 24 January):
M, I think the lack of response to this could be due to people here not seeing the essay as directed at them because of its opening paragraph:
“There is a propensity amongst those on the left to discuss revolution in the context of physical violence. I do not know of any communist who has not, at one time or another, spoken feverishly of toppling the old order with brutal excess.“
We don’t talk of the revolution in terms of physical violence and hanging capitalists from lampposts. Certainly there are plenty of reasons to be angry about what capitalism does to us and others and some may hate the capitalists (our early members certainly did) even though they know that it’s the system not individual capitalists that’s to blame. It seems to be by a Leninist directed at other Leninists.
On the other hand, this question of yours is perhaps more relevant:
“Is being a modern revolutionary simply a futile, theatrical exercise?”
The answer to which is obviously No! And even if it was theatrical that would not necessarily mean that it was futile.
As it happens, we had a discussion on this sort of thing a couple of months ago that can be listened to here:
In the days when gold and silver coins circulated as the currency this was an obvious ways of resources. The anti-state libertarians who created Bitcoin as an electronic equivalent of anonymous cash have found a way of recreating this waste. Lots of electricity is required to “mine” ( their term) Bitcoin and it has now been calculated that so much is wasted for this purpose that it amounts to as much as is consumed in Argentina:
I don’t see the logic or justification for the authorities wanting to ban anti-vaxxers from social media.
The same principle applies in this case that the way to deal with objectionable or mistaken views is to let them be expressed and then to refute them, not prevent from being expressed.
So let them put their case and then shoot it down. Banning them is not likely to change their minds and provides them with ammunition to argue that they are being suppressed because the authorities have something to hide. And who who is not already inclined that way is going to be convinced by hearing or reading then?
There is also this passage from that report on state-owned oil companies (NOCs):
“Many of the countries with NOCs are highly dependent on oil and gas revenues. They should be helped to overcome this dependence, according to Manley. “These countries are often quite poor, and it’s not their fault – it is not as easy as saying to BP and Shell they should shut down,” said Manley.”
Another reason why a rational world energy policy is impossible under capitalism — the sectional interests of the various capitalist states into which the world is divided politically get in the way.
That would suggest that the US government thinks that the Chinese rulers are behind the coup or at least gain from it and is preparing to punish the ordinary people of Burma for being ruled by a government considered hostile to the overseas interests of US capitalism. Just as it has done to the people of Iran, Venezuela, Cuba and Syria. The US government is not interested in “human rights” in these places but in “regime change” — to one favourable to its interests.
He jumped ship too soon. If he had stayed on he would have had a good chance of becoming chancellor of the exchequer. At least he now realises that the LibDems are a waste of time.
It’s the same in nearby Madagascar:
https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-africa-53756752
What will keep the death rate down in these countries is not these quack remedies but the fact that they have so high a proportion of young people compared to the USA, Japan and European countries. The good news is that his concoction probably won’t do any harm. It sounds as if it might make a good soft drink.
