ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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.
I have come across two people who have told me they are refusing the jab. One is a party member who believes in Nature Cure. The other is the daughter of an ex-party member who thinks that it is a plot by Bill Gates to reduce the world’s population. I suppose this will be a typical cross-section of the small minority of refuseniks.
It isn’t really a military coup as the military have held power there for decades. It is just that for the past few years they have handed over a part of the civil administration to elected civilians. What they have just done is to remove that façade. They never gave up real power. That’s why I can’t see them doing an Erich Honecker and giving up (though I imagine they could have a gilded retirement in China). They are talking of fresh elections. What will they do if they lose those?
So this isn’t really the hypothetical scenario that is put to us. Still, it is a case of a ruling class trying to rule in the face of mass popular opposition. Which they can do for a while. As long as the armed forces remain loyal to them they can see off strikes and street demonstrations.
Not really. The first sentence was a description of what is happening now, i.e. strikes and street demonstractions. The second sentence was saying we can’t predict what will happen next. The military might back down or they might crack down. It’s up to them.
On the face of it the situation is similar to what some imagine will happen if there is a socialist election victory — those in control of state power won’t accept it.
Elections there did give one party an overwhelming electoral victory which the rulers are trying to negate — interestingly from one point of view as they too are appealing to democracy to give some legitimacy to what they have done.
Our answer to this hypothesis has been that if there is a majority for socialism they will win one way or another sooner or later. The immediate reaction could be a general strike and mass demonstrations and civil disobedience as well as refusals in the armed forces and police to obey the government. In fact without this last the ruling clique is likely to win, temporarily. Which is what may happen in Burma. But in the longer term they will have to bow to the popular will. We will have to see what happens as nothing can be predicted. The next move is up to the coup leaders.
Incidentally I defend the use of the name Burma (and Rangoon) on the grounds that we don’t need to pander to the nationalism of the current ruling group. Even the Wikipedia entry says:
“In 1989, the military government officially changed the English translations of many names dating back to Burma’s colonial period or earlier, including that of the country itself: Burma became Myanmar. The renaming remains a contested issue. Many political and ethnic opposition groups and countries continue to use Burma because they do not recognise the legitimacy of the ruling military government or its authority to rename the country.”
