alan2102

"I never said VAERS data is crappy I said it is noisy" -- I would say that is a distinction without a difference, but that would be wrong. It is not even a distinction! By "without trials" you know what I'm talking about, or should. There was no time for proper trials. Yes, those 3-month thingies -- a joke. No properly controlled long-term trials have been conducted, nor could there have been, since no time. We're flying half-blind. And there's a fair argument for the abbreviated "trials", given the urgency of the crisis. But to pretend that we have good trial data, as you do, is inexcusable. You're starting to sound like Pfizer PR dept. Yes, this is post-marketing surveillance, and a crappy kind at that. You might want to venture out from the self-styled "fact check" sites, which are generally poor and, paradoxically, are usually written with a distinct slant that discloses the very NON-objectivity of the writer(s). "Politifact" is no exception. On the other hand, there may be no hope at all trying to research the vaccine space, which seems to be uniquely littered with idiots, ideologues, shills, liars and whatnot. The pro-vaxxers are damn near as bad as the anti-vaxxers, and that says a great deal.

Yes, Space Coyote, of course that is true. We obviously lack GOOD DATA -- and indeed that is the real point. We do not know that these vaccines are dangerous, nor do we know that they are safe. Too early, and since they were rushed into application without trial, all we're doing now is crappy post-marketing surveillance. One does one's best with what one has. What one has IS, after all, all one has. For you to imply that you KNOW, one way or other, is ridiculous. "To date, VAERS has not detected patterns in cause of death that would indicate a safety problem with COVID-19 vaccines." VAERS itself does not "detect" anything. Humans do. They rely on data to detect things. Further, there can be disagreement as to what the data indicate; this guy (quoted above) has an opinion; others may disagree. Further, since we agree that VAERS data is crappy, there is obviously no way to come to a final conclusion on this matter. (Did I really have to write all that?)

The issue is Wakefield's character and behavior, and the concerted effort to slander him -- NOT whether or not vaccines are linked to autism. They may very well not be linked to autism, but to conduct a campaign of hysterical defamation against someone asking the question is... [you finish that sentence]. The link I posted speaks for itself on this subject. Check it out.

Please do some homework on this case. Here's a start: https://medium.com/@rosscocalrizian/a-thorough-analysis-of-the-case-against-dr-andrew-wakefield-by-mary-holland-jd-f4e7fa90602e (I said a START. Not the finish, not the last word.)

Are you sure? I'm not. NB: I am not anti-vax. Or pro-vax. I'm an interested onlooker. Maybe slightly biased in favor of vaccination, but open-minded with no fixed position. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/vaers-significant-jump-reported-injuries-deaths-after-covid-vaccine/ "VAERS data released today showed 118,902 reports of adverse events following COVID vaccines, including 3,544 deaths and 12,619 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020 and April 23, 2021" See also: https://thefallingdarkness.com/7766-dead-330218-injuries-european-database-of-adverse-drug-reactions-for-covid-19-vaccines/ .................................. Further: Not all vaccines are created equal. The West's rather weird mRNA stuff is not looking all that good on the safety front. Meanwhile, Russia's Sputnik V vaccine may be the safest by a large margin: https://twitter.com/alan2102z/status/1387905806989987844

May God Bless the great journalist Glenn Greenwald.

In fact, there is abundant poling and other data that almost all of Bernie's platform is desired by at least a majority, and often a super-majority, of American citizens. This is not theory or opinion, it is fact, not even disputed. Massive fuckery, on multiple levels, ensured that Bernie "lost" and Biden "won". This too can be documented, though it takes longer, and it is certainly disputed, though not very effectively IMO. To ignore all this seriously compromises one's view.

The hippies were never green. They were lifestyle anarchists, of a particular type that had green *potential*, partially actualized in a few cases, but in general (across the whole group) never actualized. The hippies were always about individual liberty, and were not politically sophisticated enough to understand the hard work necessary to overthrow capitalism and create a green society. Nice intents and all, and a great abundance of positive energy and creativity, but no cigar. As for "libertarians" (oranges) becoming green: this is happening more frequently now as the climate and other crises deepen. Former dyed-in-wool oranges -- especially in the sciences (higher intelligence and greater knowledge base) -- are going green. Not fast enough, but it is happening. And perfectly understandably, since orange is obviously inadequate to deal with these crises.

My point was: Why state right off the bat, thus emphasizing, the problematic possibilities? Of course, anything can be done to excess. That goes without saying. I want to give a lecture about vegetables and exercise, emphasizing the glaring fact that we all need a lot more of both, hence I will not BEGIN my speech with a warning about the harm of excessive vegetable fiber and the risk of overtraining injury, and perhaps I will not mention them at all, since for most listeners unnecessary. I am sensitive to this point wrt green, because of having read far too much creepy and destructive (IMO) green-bashing from Wilber and friends. Green is the vMeme that could have, and might yet, save the world from catastrophe, and it needs to be presented in a light opposite to the toxic one that the SD intellectuals have settled on (such as referring to its greatest strengths as "problems").

Is that a "problem", or a strength?

Yes.

Ah, but MIND OVER MATTER. LAW OF ATTRACTION. You wouldn't be in jail or poverty if it weren't for your STINKIN' THINKIN'! lol

Distant social goals cannot, by definition, "function in the real world" of today. Anarcho-communism is a distant ideal that will be many decades in the making, if it happens at all. Meanwhile, vision -- envisioning -- is important. Without a vision, the people perish. Which is one of the things that is happening right now in the U.S.

You speak from big assumptions, such as that you are not really a social being, and that you can pursue "personal development" disconnected from the social world, "politics", i.e. the rest of the world. That is, that you are an island unto yourself, and you can become so wonderfully great -- all by your lonesome, laboring diligently without any of those messy other people -- that you can "serve as a beacon of light in the world". Well, maybe you are right. If so, then hold forth. Demonstrate, compellingly, your beacon-hood. We'll wait. As for those "10 million channels" that deal with "fucking politics", surely you are aware that there are 10 million self-help/personal-development channels that NEVER deal with politics and that imagine -- just as do you -- everyone to be islands unto themselves, pursuing personal development without reference or connection to social or other context. Maybe one of those places would be more suitable for you.

Why? By the lights of some, anarcho-communism is the highest, most harmonic society that can be envisioned. They might be right.

Beg to differ, somewhat. Tools have vMemetic associations, resonances. I agree that it is wrong to say that a tool (or a person) IS some color or other. It is not a matter of BEing something, but rather of being in resonance with something. And of course humans are much more flexible in this respect than things; I can resonate with purple, blue, yellow and beige at different times all inside of 24 hours. The idea that tools ought not be characterized in terms of* the vMemes is a carry-over, I think, of the old Cartesian dualism, prominent in the SD community as elsewhere. Mind and body -- spirit and matter -- as separate things, with subsequent (and I would say consequent) privileging of the one over the other. ("The real me is up here [motions to head], not that lower base stuff down there".) "Mind over matter", rather than mind IN and THROUGH matter -- a glorious dance and lover's embrace. * Pls note I said "characterized in terms of"; I did not say rigidly categorized AS. See my first paragraph. I am still pondering all this, so everything I say is tentative. Or should I say "true but partial". I pray that my understanding, and ability to articulate, will be better in coming years. Background reading, which I have not yet fully digested myself; some of it goes over my head; still working on it: http://www.integralworld.net/kazlev8.html "In Western religious and philosophical thought, beginning with the platonic tradition and continuing through to Gnosticism and Hellenised Christianity, Medieval Christianity, Cartesian dualism, and contemporary Empiricism, the soul or spirit or mind, or in empiricism the conscious observer, is distinguished from the body or matter or nature. The former is good, the latter is ontologically inferior (Platonism), a prison for the soul (Gnosticism), a source of sin or shame (Catholicism, Puritanism, etc), or something to be experimented (empiricism) on exploited (consumerism)." "Instead of body and mind (Descartes' dualism, and its derivatives such as Wilber's exteriors and interiors), there is body, emotional feeling, and thinking. In this way the simplistic Cartesian and post-cartesian (including Teilhardian, Dual-Aspect philosophical, and Wilberian) dichotomy of subject-object or interior-exterior (with mind or consciousness on one side and body on the other) can be replaced by a more phenomenologically appropriate understanding, by which I mean corresponding to individual experience rather than abstractions." "[ We must go ] beyond the current Western academic, pop new age, and popular integral (Wilberian and much of post-Wilberian) paradigms. To begin with, it is necessary to get away from simplistic ideas of Cartesian dualism (mind and body, spirit and matter, etc), and for that matter also Wilberian integral theory holistic dualism (left and right quadrants) which maintains the same shortcoming but within a "dual aspect" or "quadra-aspect" framework which gives it a more holistic (and hence "New Age') feel."

For anyone who might be interested: here is a huge vault of purple-ish info, tools, products. "Hoodoo rootwork" (voodoo), magic spell work, altar tools/accessories, amulets and charms, and so forth. http://www.luckymojo.com/ Great series of anointing oils for all kinds of purposes -- attract love, money, good luck, etc. Each one with a unique "personality" and olfactory signature; sometimes wonderful whether or not they work for intended purpose. Also really great label art (you'll see what I mean when you look at them). https://www.luckymojo.com/mojocatoils.html No, I am not associated with the company. Just a satisfied customer.

Feng shui.

Yes, great advice. And to it could be added: not just the most emotionally difficult thing, but also the most physically difficult things. Like, say, deep squats. The worst toil imaginable. Hell to do them; heaven to HAVE DONE them.

Welcome to Michigan! Winters are a drag but the state has a lot to offer. Great Bear dunes are beautiful, as are the lakes, and the forests, and the Porcupine mtns. Everyone should drive across the Mackinac bridge at least once, in summer. Breathtaking. You will find ways to free yourself from darkness and lighten up, sister.

THIS X10 as well. And it may be hundreds of millions rather than thousands. Worthwhile to add that green sprouts were trying to emerge decades ago, but were clubbed to death while still in infancy. Look up "powell memo" in search. It was a signal document, in 1971, setting the stage for and initiating a massive corporate/neoliberal backlash against the green uprising of the 1960s. The backlash, as it developed, consisted of a well-organized and well-funded array of thinktanks, semi-scholarly publications and events, pop media platforms and placements, and so forth, (i.e. a big and ongoing propaganda blitz), designed to undermine green ideas and solidify orange hegemony. It was highly successful. The boomers -- the hippies and nascent leftists (greens) of the 1960s -- abandoned their ideals *en masse* and turned into a generation of narcissistic navel-gazers and wastrels at best; greedy self-centered careerist orange assholes at worst. Many of them went completely over to the dark side, became Reagan boosters, libertarian fanatics, etc. (e.g. John Perry Barlow). The boomers tasted green but were forcefully turned back to orange, often a low/mean orange, or even worse. This was a critical turning point, and the turn was onto the path leading to catastrophe if unchecked. Humanity, civilization, and the planet itself will pay very dearly, if they survive at all. Wilber blames boomer narcissism, and no doubt personal responsibility plays a role; I will buy that the boomers are character disordered and deficient, as a group. But Wilber gives short shrift (or even NO shrift, as though totally unaware) to the stuff I just mentioned, and the insidious structural forces that made it all but impossible for real green to breathe, much less prosper. Wilber ignores the elephants in the room, while railing endlessly about trivial and irrelevant shit like postmodernism. /rant off

Fantastic post, correct on every point, and displays an unusual and advanced understanding of SD in relation to politics today. Leo Gets It in a way I've never seen before. Good show! Just to add: I'll be damned if I will ever understand why Wilber, such a brilliant guy, got green so very wrong, and effectively (even if not explicitly) bought-in to the neoliberal narrative.

I wrote: "The phrases in question are just useful shorthand for rather obvious realities." Funny thing, but these days even bright 15 year old kids know that Marx was right about "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie". They would not of course use that phrase; they would put it in their own words. Point is that almost everyone of moderate awareness and intelligence knows that the U.S. is not a democracy, is not of by and for the people, but rather is a corrupt oligarchy of by and for the wealthy and the corporations. It is more or less common knowledge at this point. Marx' words may seem peculiar but they describe things well enough. I like the fact that there are two contrasting phrases, one of them suggesting that a better government, and hence a better world, is possible, rather than just focusing on the current depressing reality. Go Green!

"the whole premise of Social Democracy is the working class gets partial ownership" No, sorry, that is not the premise of social democracy. Hasn't been for a century. Early on, there existed radical social democrats (R Luxembourg, etc.) of whom that might be said, but they are long gone. As social democracy has actually evolved, i.e. in the real world, the working class never gets ownership. They might get a nice basket of compensatory goodies, but no ownership, and certainly no classless egalitarian society (the real goal of socialism, and essential to any worthy definition of green). I'm not putting it down; just stating facts. "My goodness, cool it with the Marxist ideology." Why should I? When something is right, its right. Or when useful, then useful. The phrases in question are just useful shorthand for rather obvious realities. "Marx is very wrong in the sense that he thinks that the end of Capitalism in inevitable" Maybe so. I said nothing about the end of capitalism being inevitable. To the contrary, I said that the U.S.' social democracy is in tatters and on the verge of collapse. Socialism is unlikely to replace it, and sure as hell is not "inevitable"! More likely things will devolve into the opposite, an ugly fascism/neo-feudalism. Marx made many mistakes. Just like Wilber and "SD integral" make many mistakes. "There are many forms of Green vmeme, Social Democracy is one of them" Disagree, though you'll note that I did say that SocDem had a transitional/in-between flavor to it. "High orange" (greenish hue). SocDem does not today have any radical or revolutionary collectivist content; it is merely reformist. Same-old same-old individualistic orange, just modified so as to make capitalism palatable to people with a conscience, and mostly in order to allow continued function of the orange capitalist system. SocDem is actually ANTI-radical and ANTI-revolutionary; the main purpose of it is to undermine revolutionary collectivist energies. A great example of this is FDR's New Deal, very social democratic, and the purpose of it was to prevent violent socialist revolution (which was a real possibility at that time). FDR served his class, the wealthy class, and saved their asses from revolution, and possibly for many of them, execution. SocDem is orange's way of preventing progress to green. If you can buy off the working class with a basket of goodies to sate their individual needs, they won't revolt and insist on a classless, egalitarian society (green). The most charitable way to describe SocDem is that it is has a superficial vaguely-greenish appearance, and does in fact accomplish some modest measure of green's social objectives -- the ones that can be accomplished without fundamental challenge of the individualistic orange system. (And if there is no such challenge, then it has not truly been transcended, has it? No transcendence, but just trying to work within, to accommodate; i.e. it is STUCK.) The least charitable way to describe it is that it is fake green, a dodge calculated to ensconce orange capitalism and undermine the possibility of real green -- social advancement up the spiral. It was quite successful at exactly that in the U.S. Progress up the spiral was aborted, and the revolutionary energies were dissipated in silly individualistic/solipsistic/narcissistic bullshit (identity politics, third-wave feminism, etc.). The result is that the U.S. stalled at orange and, because now long past its sell-by date, it is an orange increasingly mean and degenerate and riddled with impossible contradictions, on the verge of collapse/disintegration. The evidence for this is now all around us, just read the news. This is the fruit of the failure to move up the spiral to green, when the times have demanded such a move.

Sorry about the repeated stuff above. Funny enough, the forum software will not allow one to edit-out a quotation once in place. And even reloading the page does not get rid of it! Whatever. Just wanted to say for the record, from someone who has studied this stuff: social democracy differs a lot from socialism. Under socialism, the people, by way of the state, actually own the means of production, the corporations. Under some forms of socialism, private corporations exist and can make profits, but they are under strict control by the state and must behave in a way that benefits the whole nation and the people, not just their own stockholders, execs, etc.; see for example the PRC, which is set up this way (they call it "socialism with Chinese characteristics", referring to their particular form of it). In socialist theory this is called the "dictatorship of the proletariat", i.e. the state is organized by and for the common people, the proles, rather than the bourgeoisie, the wealthy. One result of this, a significant one, in the PRC, is that a larger percentage of the GDP goes to the workers every year; whereas in the U.S., worker share of GDP has gone down every year for decades. The result has been that hundreds of millions in the PRC have been lifted out of poverty over the last 30 years; while in the U.S. over the same period tens of millions have descended into either poverty or precarity. Inequality here is now at levels not seen since the Gilded Age. Social democracy, in contrast, prevails in Europe (in stronger forms), the Scandinavian nations (in still stronger forms), and in the U.S. (much weaker form). Social democracy is just capitalism with some safety-nets built in. The safety nets can vary a great deal; that's what I meant by "strong" vs. "weak". Strong social democracies, like in Scandinavia, have extensive social services and programs to meet pretty much everyone's needs, at least the essentials. No one goes hungry or homeless. In the U.S., a very weak social democracy, the safety net is riddled with holes, millions slip through them and DO go hungry and homeless, and so on. Notably, medical care is in the U.S. is now mostly for the wealthy or the boomers on Medicare. In strong social democracies, health care is universal, a basic service for all. The capitalistic U.S. is a "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie", i.e. the state is organized by and for the bourgeoisie, the wealthy and their adjutants. The common people get scraps, if they are lucky. This is nowhere more evident than just the last few months, with $trillions$ going to the corporations, the military-industrial complex, and the wealthy, and a pittance going to the people truly in need. Our social democracy is in tatters and may not survive at all. Might get truly ugly. Re: "the next step in stage Green economics is Social Democracy". I beg to differ. Social democracy is stage orange. HIGH orange, I would say, meaning capitalism with essential civilizing modifications (social programs) so that no one starves. That would be in contrast to low orange, like Victorian/Dickensian Britain: completely unchecked, unmodified capitalism with some people literally starving to death, and most living in misery. I suppose you could call social democracy orange with a patina of light green. But full-bore GREEN economics, where the productive forces of orange capitalism are more or less completely controlled by the collective, is socialism, not mere social democracy. The PRC is the leading example of this in the world today: mostly green though having partaken (since Deng) generously of orange, as developmental strategy. They are becoming more green all the time, and are heading toward communism, a more advanced stage, later in this century if things go well. Communism would be second-tier economics, if we make it that far; i.e. if humans do not blow up or burn up the planet.