Covid vaccine - opinions?

[Kieran]

There are practical reasons why both fail IMO. Capitalism ends up eating itself... at least where checks and balances are removed. Complete systematic failure leads to revolution.

Communism certainly levels the field - everyone becomes poor, except the inevitable tyrants, who always take over. A social system with a conscience would require some (regulated) freedom in the markets to generate capital, to allow ideas to flourish, to create wealth - but also a system of making sure the old and poorer members of society are looked after. This level of care isn't because of socialist policies, or communism, but because our roots are Christian. And that's a crucial distinction.

A rat race benefits nobody, but funnily enough, because of the nature of man, communism always ends up as a rat race too, but one which always ends in tyranny, and poverty for the poor sods who have to suffer it. It's an interesting topic, and I remember years ago reading Dostoyevski's book Demons, written when he lived in Germany in the 1880's, I believe, but he was watching the commie agitators from afar, and reading their agenda of permanent revolution, regardless of the cost to human life. It's a great book, very prescient. We see something of that mentioned in the ex-KGB video you showed us, and we see that he's right, there are even now useful idiots in the west who seem to be permanently making up strange ideological shit just to destabilise society.

The west isn't perfect, and there's huge work to be done - and I agree, if the system fails it deserves revolution - but compare it to anywhere else on offer, I think I'd prefer to be here, than the ME, China, Russia. There's great work been done in the west, compared even to what it was like when I was growing up. I remember visiting the missus homeland around 12 years after they threw out the commies and it was a dilapidated place, with zero infrastructure and poverty everywhere. Go there now and see the difference. Communism couldn't build that, and again, there's still a lot of work to be done...

 

[britbox]

Communism certainly levels the field - everyone becomes poor, except the inevitable tyrants, who always take over. A social system with a conscience would require some (regulated) freedom in the markets to generate capital, to allow ideas to flourish, to create wealth - but also a system of making sure the old and poorer members of society are looked after. This level of care isn't because of socialist policies, or communism, but because our roots are Christian. And that's a crucial distinction.

A rat race benefits nobody, but funnily enough, because of the nature of man, communism always ends up as a rat race too, but one which always ends in tyranny, and poverty for the poor sods who have to suffer it. It's an interesting topic, and I remember years ago reading Dostoyevski's book Demons, written when he lived in Germany in the 1880's, I believe, but he was watching the commie agitators from afar, and reading their agenda of permanent revolution, regardless of the cost to human life. It's a great book, very prescient. We see something of that mentioned in the ex-KGB video you showed us, and we see that he's right, there are even now useful idiots in the west who seem to be permanently making up strange ideological shit just to destabilise society.

The west isn't perfect, and there's huge work to be done - and I agree, if the system fails it deserves revolution - but compare it to anywhere else on offer, I think I'd prefer to be here, than the ME, China, Russia. There's great work been done in the west, compared even to what it was like when I was growing up. I remember visiting the missus homeland around 12 years after they threw out the commies and it was a dilapidated place, with zero infrastructure and poverty everywhere. Go there now and see the difference. Communism couldn't build that, and again, there's still a lot of work to be done...

Just for the record, I'm not a commie, and some of what you say, I'd agree with. I'm a bit puzzled with the Christian comment though, and would like you to expand on it. I get a little bemused with Middle America who seem to think YHVH and Jesus were free market capitalists... when scriptures tell you the complete opposite.

 

[Kieran]

Just for the record, I'm not a commie, and some of what you say, I'd agree with. I'm a bit puzzled with the Christian comment though, and would like you to expand on it. I get a little bemused with Middle America who seem to think YHVH and Jesus were free market capitalists... when scriptures tell you the complete opposite.

What I meant by that is that our roots in the west have been Christian for the last 2000 years, and so our historic ideals should tell us that the making of wealth also contains an opportunity to use some of the wealth to help the less fortunate. We could do with some of that sense of seeing our fellow traveller as a sister, and a brother, again. As we know, we're not simply animals who fight to eat but don't share the spoils. I have seen these forms of Protestantism that associate financial gain with being good and God-chosen Christians, and they have some success proselytizing on those terms, unfortunately...

 

[britbox]

What I meant by that is that our roots in the west have been Christian for the last 2000 years, and so our historic ideals should tell us that the making of wealth also contains an opportunity to use some of the wealth to help the less fortunate. We could do with some of that sense of seeing our fellow traveller as a sister, and a brother, again. As we know, we're not simply animals who fight to eat but don't share the spoils. I have seen these forms of Protestantism that associate financial gain with being good and God-chosen Christians, and they have some success proselytizing on those terms, unfortunately...

Yet, all the power centres in the world - DC, The Vatican, and the City of London are proudly displaying Egyptian/Babylonian Obelisks in all their primary squares. Symbology is powerful. Another language even. On another note, the biggest financial benefactors from Christianity is without doubt, the Catholic church. Sure, you might have a couple of semi-crazy evangelists buying private jets to spread the word... but it's not a patch on the well oiled Rome machine.

 

[Kieran]

Yet, all the power centres in the world - DC, The Vatican, and the City of London are proudly displaying Egyptian/Babylonian Obelisks in all their primary squares. Symbology is powerful. Another language even. On another note, the biggest financial benefactors from Christianity is without doubt, the Catholic church. Sure, you might have a couple of semi-crazy evangelists buying private jets to spread the word... but it's not a patch on the well oiled Rome machine.

A deft switch of approach there, brother, one that has nothing to do with your previous question to me.

But like the commies, that’s whole nother topic. Some day, even Protestants will see that they should be grateful to the Catholic Church, but even the church itself isn’t immune from human greed and weaknesses. It’s not the human element, however, that makes it the Church…

 

[britbox]

A deft switch of approach there, brother, one that has nothing to do with your previous question to me.

But like the commies, that’s whole nother topic. Some day, even Protestants will see that they should be grateful to the Catholic Church, but even the church itself isn’t immune from human greed and weaknesses. It’s not the human element, however, that makes it the Church…

What do you think of the Pope's handling of the current situation?

 

[Kieran]

What do you think of the Pope's handling of the current situation?

To be honest, he’s a very uninspiring pope, a man who spreads confusion by talking loosely to journalists, then backtracking and having to explain what he really meant. There are a lot of reasons why I’m disappointed by him, because despite being an orthodox pope, he projects himself differently, as if orthodoxy was something he doesn’t quite want you to know about. I haven’t followed what his views are during the pandemic but I can guess that they’re very much in line with the prevailing winds and he hasn’t said anything different to the rest of the contradictory mouthpieces who want us to follow each contradiction as if it hasn’t happened. I doubt he’s encouraged people to look at their own immunities, health and to build themselves up. I’d guess he’s just repeating what all the big government leaders are repeating…

 

[Kieran]

This was a story I read a while ago and forgot during the summer need to bronze my skin and get out and enjoy myself a little, but I think it’s something that could become a huge issue if governments once again decide they need draconian lockdowns this winter - and I can sniff the wind fairly well on our completely spineless bunch of oafs in Ireland and suspect that they’re already planning further lockdowns.

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2...ll-in-high-numbers-due-to-covid-immunity-debt

RSV is a common respiratory illness. In adults, it generally only produces very mild symptoms – but it can make young children extremely ill, or even be fatal. The size and seriousness of New Zealand’s outbreak is likely being fed by what some paediatric doctors have called an “immunity debt” – where people don’t develop immunity to other viruses suppressed by Covid lockdowns, causing cases to explode down the line.

We are losing our common sense, by ignoring the usual bugs and viruses that we easily shrug off in normal circumstances, by focusing all our attention on just one. There maybe a savage flu this winter that affects people who normally would blow it off with a single sneeze. The common cold has been seen posing in front of a mirror and fancying itself again. The first people affected by this are children, who haven’t been able to build their natural immunity because they’ve been kept wrapped in cellophane for almost two years.

This is relevant to the vaccine issue because we know that the response to this threat will be further urgent world saving medication, and not what’s needed, which is to let kids loose to run around and fall over in the muck and build up their young bodies resistance by playing and meeting their friends…

EDIT: record numbers of RSV in Ireland now, when we had very few in previous years:

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news...cord-levels-seen-among-children-40967314.html

The rise is partly linked to lockdown and other Covid-19 restrictions last year and the fact children are now more exposed to the infection with less immunity.

 

[Kieran]

A very reasonable and truthful article in todays Sunday Times Irish edition, about the Irish response to vaccines, the legal rights of the unvaccinated, and the perils of an unthinking - and therefore generally intolerant - group mentality of scared people who are trying to pressure those who prefer to choose differently to them, with regards to their own health choices:

 

[Front242]

 

[Kieran]

Yeah, that’s always been an unforgivable thing, a good argument for social media platforms to be treated very differently. Their ideological biases are going to bite them…

 

[El Dude]

Nice discussion, folks. I think it is unfortunate that there's an assumption that we must choose between two things: capitalism or communism. I would suggest that we need a dialectic approach: to take the best of both, jettison the worst, and create a new system.

By "best of both" I mean the underlying idea that is at the heart of both: the sharing resources and community orientation of communism, and the liberty of capitalism.

The problem with both is similar: they both end up becoming tainted by people and the lust for power and profit. I would also suggest that the problem with capitalism is in the word itself: it is based on capital--on economic wealth, rather than on the true uniqueness of the individual. Thus we have a system that benefits business people--who create and build nothing--but not artists (except those who generate profit for business people). Perhaps in reaction, communism is overly based on power, and thus ends up being more about control than "a rising tide that lifts all boats." Meaning, the "solution" of communism is to create one big boat that still ends up being controlled by a very few, and with different layers based upon how close you are to the center of power, rather than focus on the tide itself, and allow for the uniqueness of the individual boats.

A great analogy of this is the film Snowpiercer (I haven't seen the series, but am talking about the 2013 film).

What we see playing out in the real world is the worst of both making an unholy alliance that benefits the very few at the expense of the many. It isn't only the "1%" but the 10% (or so) that go along with it, because they benefit. So we still have kings and aristocracy, and a feudal system and slavery - just under different guises.

Another missing component is that of existential meaning. Both communism and capitalism are at least indirectly related to Social Darwinism and scientific materialism, which posits a world completely devoid of meaning, an ever-shifting battlefield in which we are essentially and only complex apes vying for survival.

The answer is not to go back to old religious forms, which are still based upon systems of control and power, but to find and embrace a more humanistic vision in which the human being itself is seen as meaningful. That is, who we are as both individuals and a community. Meaning, we don't need any metaphysic or religious structure, but we do not revelation and realization of our deeper potentialities, both individually and collectively, and perhaps all come to a place in which we recognize that the things that are of greatest value cannot be assigned a dollar figure.

 

[Kieran]

Nice discussion, folks. I think it is unfortunate that there's an assumption that we must choose between two things: capitalism or communism. I would suggest that we need a dialectic approach: to take the best of both, jettison the worst, and create a new system.

By "best of both" I mean the underlying idea that is at the heart of both: the sharing resources and community orientation of communism, and the liberty of capitalism.

The problem with both is similar: they both end up becoming tainted by people and the lust for power and profit. I would also suggest that the problem with capitalism is in the word itself: it is based on capital--on economic wealth, rather than on the true uniqueness of the individual. Thus we have a system that benefits business people--who create and build nothing--but not artists (except those who generate profit for business people). Perhaps in reaction, communism is overly based on power, and thus ends up being more about control than "a rising tide that lifts all boats." Meaning, the "solution" of communism is to create one big boat that still ends up being controlled by a very few, and with different layers based upon how close you are to the center of power, rather than focus on the tide itself, and allow for the uniqueness of the individual boats.

A great analogy of this is the film Snowpiercer (I haven't seen the series, but am talking about the 2013 film).

What we see playing out in the real world is the worst of both making an unholy alliance that benefits the very few at the expense of the many. It isn't only the "1%" but the 10% (or so) that go along with it, because they benefit. So we still have kings and aristocracy, and a feudal system and slavery - just under different guises.

Another missing component is that of existential meaning. Both communism and capitalism are at least indirectly related to Social Darwinism and scientific materialism, which posits a world completely devoid of meaning, an ever-shifting battlefield in which we are essentially and only complex apes vying for survival.

The answer is not to go back to old religious forms, which are still based upon systems of control and power, but to find and embrace a more humanistic vision in which the human being itself is seen as meaningful. That is, who we are as both individuals and a community. Meaning, we don't need any metaphysic or religious structure, but we do not revelation and realization of our deeper potentialities, both individually and collectively, and perhaps all come to a place in which we recognize that the things that are of greatest value cannot be assigned a dollar figure.

Well, this is kind of what I saying about us needing market economies, but with a sense of community. Communism doesn’t have a sense of community, it has at it’s base the concept of permanent revolution and anarchy, and inherent unfairness. It doesn’t create strong, successful communities, and never has. And of course, ideologically it can’t share space with the creative, entrepreneurial spirit, which is a natural part of humanity.

Often we see people point to Scandinavia as examples of how socialism is successful, but of course, there are No socialist countries in Scandinavia. They are, at most, social democrats, with the market economy picking up the tab, and a healthy regard for their people with safety nets for the old or those who are struggling. Even this isn’t perfect, but it holds together so far because of the nature of those countries. Nothing is ever perfect, but the rising boat metaphor actually applies quite well to the west in general, since ww2. We’re often too spoilt here to admit it…

 

[El Dude]

Well, this is kind of what I saying about us needing market economies, but with a sense of community. Communism doesn’t have a sense of community, it has at it’s base the concept of permanent revolution and anarchy, and inherent unfairness. It doesn’t create strong, successful communities, and never has. And of course, ideologically it can’t share space with the creative, entrepreneurial spirit, which is a natural part of humanity.

I hear you, although think the word "anarchy" is misplaced. Anarchists actually believe in freedom and responsibility, whereas communism generally crush the former by enforcing the latter. Meaning, the communist approach to the "societal good" is through enforcement, be it top-down mandates and laws and/or policing each other (e.g. China's social merit system). Anarchists put the burden on the individual, which of course requires people to have some degree of conscience.

Often we see people point to Scandinavia as examples of how socialism is successful, but of course, there are No socialist countries in Scandinavia. They are, at most, social democrats, with the market economy picking up the tab, and a healthy regard for their people with safety nets for the old or those who are struggling. Even this isn’t perfect, but it holds together so far because of the nature of those countries. Nothing is ever perfect, but the rising boat metaphor actually applies quite well to the west in general, since ww2. We’re often too spoilt here to admit it…

This is less so the case in the US. I mean, it was basically true for the first 30+ years after WW2, but especially with Reagan and his "trickle-down economics," the gap between the rich and the poor has increased to such a degree that I don't think we can really be considered a "First World" country anymore, more "Second World" ala the more developed Latin American countries and Eastern Europe. Remember, in the US we have a very poor social net; our medical system is trash, there's no real maternity leave, terrible public transportation, a very low minimum wage, etc.

In the US, we're still beholden to the Horatio Algernon myth: all you have to do is pull yourself up by your bootstraps and you too can be Elon Musk or Jay Z.

Meaning, we can't really talk about the West as a monolithic whole, as there's a huge difference between the quality of life for the average citizen in the US vs., say, Denmark.

As for Scandinavia, that's an example of the type of (relatively successful) integration of underlying elements of "communism" and "capitalism" that I was implying.

 

[Kieran]

I hear you, although think the word "anarchy" is misplaced. Anarchists actually believe in freedom and responsibility, whereas communism generally crush the former by enforcing the latter. Meaning, the communist approach to the "societal good" is through enforcement, be it top-down mandates and laws and/or policing each other (e.g. China's social merit system). Anarchists put the burden on the individual, which of course requires people to have some degree of conscience.

This is less so the case in the US. I mean, it was basically true for the first 30+ years after WW2, but especially with Reagan and his "trickle-down economics," the gap between the rich and the poor has increased to such a degree that I don't think we can really be considered a "First World" country anymore, more "Second World" ala the more developed Latin American countries and Eastern Europe. Remember, in the US we have a very poor social net; our medical system is trash, there's no real maternity leave, terrible public transportation, a very low minimum wage, etc.

In the US, we're still beholden to the Horatio Algernon myth: all you have to do is pull yourself up by your bootstraps and you too can be Elon Musk or Jay Z.

Meaning, we can't really talk about the West as a monolithic whole, as there's a huge difference between the quality of life for the average citizen in the US vs., say, Denmark.

As for Scandinavia, that's an example of the type of (relatively successful) integration of underlying elements of "communism" and "capitalism" that I was implying.

I agree with you about the west not being monolithic, which makes it problematical to transfer one system that works into other countries which aren’t suited for it, or ready for it. I don’t believe, for instance, that the Scandinavia model would work in such a diverse country as the USA. But also another thing, yes, the rich have become richer, but so have the poorer. I gave the example earlier of the working class estate I grew up in, in the seventies and eighties. My dad worked 27 hours a day at seventeen jobs that paid 50 old Irish pennies a month, and he was taxed 150% on all that by the socialists. A “foreign holiday” meant peeking through the neighbours curtains, accompanied by me loyal pet cockroach. Dinner was fumes from the exhaust of a double decker bus.

Oh wait, I feel a comedy sketch coming on!

 

[El Dude]

Yeah, of course you can't just transfer the exact same system from Scandinavia to the US, but you can take the same basic approach and adjust accordingly, especially considering that there are more absurdly wealthy people here. I think the whole "too diverse" thing is a common saw used to discourage the idea, but is sort of like saying, "I can't exercise because I've got arthritis." All that means is that one probably can't lift weights, but there are other ways to exercise.

I'm intrigued by Andrew Yang's third party. I know it is virtually impossible for any third party to edge into the duopoly, and of course the same old folks--the Bill Mahers and Michael Moores of the world--will probably beg him not to run so we don't get Trump again, but this is part of the problem: The Republican party is so awful that the Dems only have to be slightly better, or even just better in appearances, in order to get people voting for them. Yang talked about this on Maher, but didn't say it so explicitly. I'd even go so far as to suggest that Trump was fabricated, to provide a "big bad guy" to get people in line, and thus to re-consolidate the establishment. He's not the rebel savior his cult thinks he is, but he's also not the new Hitler that MSNBC says he is.

I don't agree with everything Yang has said, but at least he's trying to push the conversation into the 21st century.

As for your anecdote, that might also be specific to Ireland which, if I'm not wrong, isn't commensurate with Scandinavia--or even the UK, France, and Germany. In the US, the middle class has bifurcated into those that have managed to join the "elite"--the 10% I mentioned, which is basically upper middle class--and the majority who have fallen into a lower middle class (if we can even call it that) that is in debt, lives paycheck to paycheck, can't buy a home, etc. And of course the cruel irony is that this 90% has been propagandized that they can live the American Dream of the 10% through participating in endless consumerism, which has only furthered their debt slavery.

Now it may be that the lot of the very poor has improved, but I think this is part of the illusion. I mean, homeless people have smartphones! Maybe the "middle" has gotten larger, but it has gotten poorer. It is just that we have more gadgets and entertainment options, so there's a delusion of advancement. But it is sort of like saying that the future obese people of the Pixar film Wall-E live in a more "advanced society."

 

[Kieran]

I like Andrew Yang. Any time I watched him being interviewed, he’s always impressed me, a man of ideas who’s interested in making bridges, not feeding the flames…

 

[El Dude]

I like Andrew Yang. Any time I watched him being interviewed, he’s always impressed me, a man of ideas who’s interested in making bridges, not feeding the flames…

Yes, exactly. He also stands out in that he tends to always uplift the discourse, in terms of sophistication. He really stands out when he appears on MSM.

 

[tented]

Do you think this came to fruition?



Either way, if it wasn't the Russians, the concept still appears valid.

A caveat before I begin: I’m going to respond to this before having read anything else which follows in this thread. This could very well backfire. We’ll see.

It’s a fascinating video. I don’t agree with everything he said, but I do agree with a lot. There certainly has been a trend within academia (universities and colleges, really) to teach Marx and to encourage Marxist interpretations, but I fail to see how that has been the beginning of the decline of America. It’s not as if professors have only been teaching Marxism, although I highly doubt (but am not certain) it was part of higher education prior to the last several decades.

I have been suspicious of Russia for a long time, so it wouldn’t surprise me at all if this has been their game plan since the 1950s or 1960s. They know they can’t take down the US militarily, so they have turned to psychological/sociological tactics. It’s smart, really, albeit dangerous. It didn’t surprise me they were heavily involved in the last few presidential elections. Of course they wanted Trump to win. Putin is no dummy. He knows how to manipulate people and situations, and certainly knew he could greatly influence Trump.

And let’s be honest: it’s not as if the US has been an innocent country when it comes to interfering with affairs in other countries. We’ll never know the extent of what the US military and the CIA have done. It has been nearly 60 years since Kennedy was assassinated, yet there are still agencies within the US which are trying to keep information classified. (But I’m not going to go down that rabbit hole.)

There has clearly been a huge rift forming within the US for a few decades, which has been gaining momentum at an exponential rate. I‘m not completely convinced this has been the result of the Russians, but at the very least they have used it to their advantage and encouraged it. It would be naive to ignore other powerful actors responsible for this, beginning with Rupert Murdoch. He has made billions off either creating or furthering political divides. We wouldn’t be where we are today had he not created Fox News. Period. He militarized TV news, by creating the new shiny object which attracted viewers in huge numbers, and retaining those viewers by outraging them. That meant other news outlets had to follow suit. There wouldn’t be MSNBC if not for Fox. So MSNBC has had to enrage viewers and get them to be as angry at the right as Fox has made their viewers angry of the left. It’s the embodiment of the aphorism the answer to 99 out of 100 questions is money.

Bezmenev’s final point about normalization is arguably the scariest part of the video, although he’s wrong about the extinction of free market capitalism due to Big Brother government. If anything the reverse has happened. Corporations have slowly undone the restraints imposed on them by the government, beginning in the early 20th century when Rockefeller’s Standard Oil was declared a monopoly and split up. The communications industry underwent its own form of this when AT&T was forced to split up in the early 1980s. Now look: telecommunications and oil/gas companies have merged into larger ones. Facebook is the Standard Oil of social media. Google is the Standard Oil of the web.

The situation is dire, for sure. The politicization of covid is a prime example of how askew things are. I firmly believe what we’ve seen over the last year and a half wouldn’t have happened even 20 years ago. There wouldn’t have been a left/right information war about science and vaccines during, say, Reagan’s or Clinton’s or Bush’s presidencies. This isn’t to say Big Pharma would have acted in humanity’s best interests back then. They’re always about themselves first, everyone and everything else second. As many have pointed out, their business model is based entirely on sickness. It’s not a coincidence a disease hasn’t been 100% eradicated since small pox 40 plus years ago. It wouldn’t surprised me at all if one or more drug companies do have the cure for multiples diseases but wouldn’t dare divulge that because they would lose money if everyone were healthy.

OK, end of post. Now I’ll see what follows in this thread.

 

[britbox]

A caveat before I begin: I’m going to respond to this before having read anything else which follows in this thread. This could very well backfire. We’ll see.

It’s a fascinating video. I don’t agree with everything he said, but I do agree with a lot. There certainly has been a trend within academia (universities and colleges, really) to teach Marx and to encourage Marxist interpretations, but I fail to see how that has been the beginning of the decline of America. It’s not as if professors have only been teaching Marxism, although I highly doubt (but am not certain) it was part of higher education prior to the last several decades.

I have been suspicious of Russia for a long time, so it wouldn’t surprise me at all if this has been their game plan since the 1950s or 1960s. They know they can’t take down the US militarily, so they have turned to psychological/sociological tactics. It’s smart, really, albeit dangerous. It didn’t surprise me they were heavily involved in the last few presidential elections. Of course they wanted Trump to win. Putin is no dummy. He knows how to manipulate people and situations, and certainly knew he could greatly influence Trump.

And let’s be honest: it’s not as if the US has been an innocent country when it comes to interfering with affairs in other countries. We’ll never know the extent of what the US military and the CIA have done. It has been nearly 60 years since Kennedy was assassinated, yet there are still agencies within the US which are trying to keep information classified. (But I’m not going to go down that rabbit hole.)

There has clearly been a huge rift forming within the US for a few decades, which has been gaining momentum at an exponential rate. I‘m not completely convinced this has been the result of the Russians, but at the very least they have used it to their advantage and encouraged it. It would be naive to ignore other powerful actors responsible for this, beginning with Rupert Murdoch. He has made billions off either creating or furthering political divides. We wouldn’t be where we are today had he not created Fox News. Period. He militarized TV news, by creating the new shiny object which attracted viewers in huge numbers, and retaining those viewers by outraging them. That meant other news outlets had to follow suit. There wouldn’t be MSNBC if not for Fox. So MSNBC has had to enrage viewers and get them to be as angry at the right as Fox has made their viewers angry of the left. It’s the embodiment of the aphorism the answer to 99 out of 100 questions is money.

Bezmenev’s final point about normalization is arguably the scariest part of the video, although he’s wrong about the extinction of free market capitalism due to Big Brother government. If anything the reverse has happened. Corporations have slowly undone the restraints imposed on them by the government, beginning in the early 20th century when Rockefeller’s Standard Oil was declared a monopoly and split up. The communications industry underwent its own form of this when AT&T was forced to split up in the early 1980s. Now look: telecommunications and oil/gas companies have merged into larger ones. Facebook is the Standard Oil of social media. Google is the Standard Oil of the web.

The situation is dire, for sure. The politicization of covid is a prime example of how askew things are. I firmly believe what we’ve seen over the last year and a half wouldn’t have happened even 20 years ago. There wouldn’t have been a left/right information war about science and vaccines during, say, Reagan’s or Clinton’s or Bush’s presidencies. This isn’t to say Big Pharma would have acted in humanity’s best interests back then. They’re always about themselves first, everyone and everything else second. As many have pointed out, their business model is based entirely on sickness. It’s not a coincidence a disease hasn’t been 100% eradicated since small pox 40 plus years ago. It wouldn’t surprised me at all if one or more drug companies do have the cure for multiples diseases but wouldn’t dare divulge that because they would lose money if everyone were healthy.

OK, end of post. Now I’ll see what follows in this thread.

Good points. Interesting that you mention the Rockefellers because David Rockefeller wrote about being accused of working against American interests in favour of international bodies... and confessed to being proud of it. If you look at the Rockefellers role in shaping education, energy and pharmaceuticals, together with their influence in the UN and WEF it raises a lot of questions.