One of the biggest problems facing humanity is the problem of electrical energy. As shown in the documentary “Planet of the Humans”, the much touted solutions of solar and wind energy, in the final analysis, require the expenditure of as much fossil fuel to create the equipment and subsidize them when they cannot adequately produce due to weather conditions, as if fossil fuel were just in place without them. And as for the so-called “Green Energy”, it is just a horribly misguided idea which involves massive deforestation. However, it must be noted that the only solutions big energy evidently wants to look at are the solutions which include keeping massive energy grids in place. The big energy corporations do not want solutions which would change the system to smaller grids, local companies, and/or house by house production.
Our current reality seems to be that big corporations, including energy companies, have become intoxicated with and addicted to wealth and control We cannot look to them for leadership in eco-friendly, human-friendly solutions to the world’s problems. Two solutions I know of, and I am not at all the most knowledgeable person about the myriad possible solutions that actually exist, are the (extensively documented) machine developed by Joseph Newman, and an invention by K.R. Sridhar I read about years ago which involved no moving parts but uses a chemical action to produce a significant amount energy. This system uses a unit the size of a microwave, or smaller, to produce enough continual energy to power a house. And there are other options which I’ have heard or read bits and pieces of here and there.
The thing is, these solutions would take much of the business away from the big energy producers we’ve grown accustomed to and place it right in the home being powered. These solutions hold the promise of being ecologically friendly and freeing people from exorbitant energy bills. So of course big energy doesn’t want us to adopt such solutions. And, interestingly, we don’t hear much about them unless we go digging.
The issue of energy production is just one arena in which a problem which is pervasive across many industries is coming to the fore. How do we manage an economy in which technological advances are continually decreasing the workforce needed for factory production and other jobs previously occupied by humans? People still need homes, food, education, etc. And, we need to feel that we are contributing to our communities, our collective wellbeing. It’s part of our reality as social beings.
We need to be actively involved in developing solutions to these challenges. I submit one aspect of the solutions will necessarily involve wealth being less concentrated in the hands of a few and more equitably spread across the whole of the population. I believe such system will incorporate some aspects of most, if not all, economic systems attempted in the past. Primarily, we need to be looking for answers that work for us as a species, as a whole and which take the entirety of our being, our make-up into consideration. Abraham Maslow gives us a solid foundation from which to expand our thinking.
We are hearing and reading a lot about “the science” these days. When it comes to the Covid-19 phenomenon, we are constantly being urged to trust the science. There seem to be many who believe that trusting the science is a knee-jerk type of thing. If it’s science, trust it, enough said. Without belaboring the point, that same unquestioning trust used to be expected by religion. Those who refused to offer up a show of obedience (trust) frequently found themselves facing harsh consequences, possibly death. But we’ve outgrown that type of thinking, right? Have we?
There seems to be a mind-set in the world the carriers of which truly want (need?) there to be an ultimate authority. A worldly parent (god?) figure, or institution, which can answer all the most difficult questions and protect us from that which we don’t understand. This mind-set is to be found within people of all ages, races, genders, ethnic groups and political persuasions. If you spend much time among people who want to dig for their own answers, those of this aforementioned mind-set are frequently called by derogatory names: sheep, cattle, or other such terms. I think using such terms just serves to muddy the water between us as human beings. Beyond a shadow of a doubt there are people scattered around the world who are more developed, in various areas of knowledge, than others. I tend to think we humans are spiritual beings, in search of a harmonious physical existence, and some of us have been around longer than others of us. We all most likely fit somewhere in the middle of an infinite spectrum of knowledge and development. So let’s be a little kinder with each other, okay?
Getting back to the original topic, in order to “believe in the science”, don’t we first have to know what science is? If you’re expecting a long, technical, complex explanation, don’t, it doesn’t take all that to define “science”. Science is just a methodical, systemized way of looking at things, or working with things. Good scientific methods can give us answers to our questions about the world which can be relied upon to be provable and consistent. And when they do that, it’s great. They don’t always do that however, sometimes the answers we find mostly give us more questions. But that’s okay too, because it means we’re in the process of understanding whatever it is we’re studying. When we’re using scientific methods in our efforts to produce a thing, those methods help us track and understand our efforts, and insure that if we are successful once, we can, most likely repeat the process and be successful again.
One of the great things about science, is that when we’re using it to understand things, or to create things, it almost always is an evolving process. Just think about all the things we humans were sure we knew at some point in our history, only to learn we missed something. Then, after a sometimes long and violent process of change, we again became sure we knew it for sure. Only to again find we needed to refine our thinking. I think it’s a safe generalization that the more complex the question being studied is, or the thing we’re attempting to produce is, the more likely it is that we are going to find ourselves facing many revisions over time. And that’s okay, because, again, science is a process and being involved with it is better than not.
It’s when we start thinking we have the ultimate answer, that we know it all, that we setting ourselves up for a fall. And that is a big problem when we have concurrently developed a culture that expects perfection. As with religion in medieval times, today people expect “science” to be infallible. It isn’t, and it never has been. It is a dangerous proposition to pressure scientists to be infallible. What that is likely to mean in a significant number of cases is that there will be a lot of effort put into defending the indefensible.
Which isn’t to say that scientists don’t ever get it right. The point is, it is often (always?) in our best interests to be circumspect when it comes to the “facts” and products brought to us by those professing to be utilizing science in their methods. The ethical position of “first do no harm” (meaning “…your actions should not cause injury or injustice to people“) is a position we should expect, if not require, from those developing new ideas and new products.
Science, scientific methodology, has no inherent ethic or morality. The positive motives and practices within scientific endeavors are there because the people involved brought them. There is nothing in our natural world, nothing in the human mind, that prevents those who may wish to do so from using scientific methodology (science) to produce things, even products which they may market as medicines, which are harmful to us. Some of the malignant things brought into the world by intelligent, highly trained, scientists include: DDT, water fluoridation, Zyklon B, the atomic bomb, microwave weapons, and many other devious means of incapacitating, enslaving, and killing our fellow human beings. Science is a method, not a product. The quality of the products produced by scientists is dependent upon the goals, the ethics, those scientists bring with them. Science is a tool, that is all. As with other tools, it’s utility is only as benevolent as the methods and goals of those applying it.
Through early human history we know, via centuries of hard work on the part of archeologists and anthropologists, that the subject of our spirituality and our spiritual reality occupied a great deal of our ancestor’s time and energy. Early humanity recognized that there is a spiritual aspect to our existence and some endeavored to understand it. The early explorers/discoverers in this field were called shaman, witches or witch doctors, sorcerers, seers, healers/medicine people, or prophets. They were, as far as we can tell, regarded with a mixture of appreciation, reverence and/or fear. As with the abuses that go on with every other area of specialization of knowledge and skill, some most likely tried to use their unique knowledge to bamboozle others into giving them an inordinate amount of the wealth and power to be had in their tribe/town/city/country.
As time went on, some began to organize the knowledge, myths and superstitions around our spiritual reality into collections of guidelines, doctrines; rules, even laws. The results were the origins of religions. Those occupying the seats of influence and power within the religions became known as priests or priestesses. Ceremonies were/are prominent features within the churches which formed around the doctrines. Often special titles, clothing, icons, utensils, and other paraphernalia became used as symbols of the authority of those who were deemed worthy, or sanctified, within the religion. Again, depending upon the variables at work at any given time/place, they could be regarded with appreciation, reverence and/or fear. And again, as with every area of specialization of knowledge and skill, some wielding the specialized knowledge within the religions saw ways to use the general public’s relative ignorance of the subjects at hand to distort the teachings and bamboozle the public into giving them inordinate amounts of wealth and power.
The tools and trappings of the religions became symbols of power. Gradually “what” was said was given little serious scrutiny as “who” said it become increasingly important. Truth was determined by the speaker, not the content. As time went on, the religious texts and doctrines came under periodic review by those wielding authority within both the religious and the political power structures of the time. Subsequently, the texts and doctrines began to be shaped to accommodate and to serve the aspirations and agendas of those in power rather than to reflect the original spiritual goals, revelations and understandings. The original goals, revelations and understandings which the original seers, saints and prophets had embraced.
In this process truth took a backseat to political utility. While the truth of genuine spiritual knowledge always points the way to health and well-being of all humanity and in fact all life, the goal of the editing taking place resulted in replacing that knowledge with material oriented to the establishment and perpetuity of the power and wealth enjoyed by those holding the reins of power.
In summary, the observations those adept at perceiving spiritual matters were of great importance to early humankind. As time went on the exploitative value of being seen as a spiritual authority became apparent to those with aspirations of power and wealth. Subsequently, religions, which sprang out of the original esteemed spiritual teachings, have too often became vehicles, directly or indirectly, supporting the subjugation of people and the accumulation of great power and wealth.
There is the proverbial saying that “power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely” Which expresses the observation that, as a person’s power increases, their moral sense diminishes. One does not have to look far in our world today to find proof that there is truth in this saying. Are there those, men and women, who are strong enough in their moral grounding that they can resist all temptation to abuse power, to attempt to increase and maintain their positions via the perversion of knowledge and systems? I believe such individuals exist. However, it seems that, if they have attempted to do so, they haven’t been particularly successful to date at gaining the worldly positions which would bestow the benefit of their wisdom upon us all. I imagine for such morality to exist in high positions of power, it requires more than one individual working together to reinforce such values in the face of the agents of greed and deception which would undoubtedly be aligned against them.
By this time those in high positions of worldly power have refined a method for the acquisition and retention of that power. This method can be clearly seen in the establishment of religious power/authority, and, with some examination, can be seen to be in play in other important and influential cultural arenas, such as the press (media) and education. It goes like this:
The practical, benevolent value of an area of knowledge is established organically by grass-roots adherents/practitioners.
As awareness of the area of knowledge grows, it attracts the attention of those who control the reins of political/economic power. Those in power assign agents/agencies to comprehensively study it.
The area of knowledge is evaluated for it’s utilitarian values, it’s potential economic value, and it’s potential as tool within the arena of political power.
On the basis of that evaluation an orthodoxy of the field of knowledge is proclaimed. That orthodoxy establishes tenets which may be manipulated by the power elite to increase and consolidate their wealth and power rather than merely reflect the content and/or goals of the original practical, benevolent knowledge.
Those who attempt to revive the original content and/or intent of the body of knowledge are given a derogatory label, largely ignored by the “system” at large, and often censored.Depending upon how much the powers-that-be deem to be at stake, those involved in the departure from the orthodoxy may find themselves aggressively persecuted.
As time went along the beginnings of what we call science today began to emerge. There had always been those opposed to the doctrines of the various organized religions for various reasons. The reasons could be trivial or substantial, true in nature or complete flights of fancy. But whatever the reasons, such opposition was often not viewed lightly by those in power within the religion(s). Penalties for expressing or acting in opposition to the religion(s) could result in anything from being looked at askance by other community members to being burned at a stake. Or any of numerous other penalties. To offer opinions or information which ran contrary to the official religious doctrines was to engage in heresy. And those who were engaging in systematic, methodical observations of our world, forming hypotheses which could be tested, the early scientists, were often the recipients of the disapproval, if not the wrath, of the religious authorities. Copernicus and Galileo are two of the more well known men of early science who suffered the displeasure of the religious authorities of their day.
In short, gradually the observations and persistent realities described by those using scientific methods could no longer be denied. The world is round, not flat. The universe does not rotate with the Earth at the center. The sun is the central celestial body in our solar system, etc., etc. Religions began to lose their self-proclaimed position as primary franchise holder on the truth. One might think this would be some cause for celebration; that new, more reality based, understandings of our universe, or our world, were coming into being. However, what was taking place was also a threat the authority, the power, the religions and their political associates enjoyed. Science was becoming a new, popular, authority among the people of the world.
What we are seeing in the world today is an all-out attempt by the elite powers-that-be, applying essentially the formula given above, to appropriate “science” in the same fashion that religion has been appropriated for centuries. The “ordained”, the “high priests” are being selected and introduced. The outliers, the new heretics, are being identified, censored, defamed. The orthodox doctrine, with big pharma at it’s hub, is being proclaimed and the call to worship is being spread far and wide.
Who remembers this time last year? There were demonstrations going on in France, Hong Kong and other places. There was an international undercurrent of dissatisfaction with the extreme economic imbalance in the world. People, especially young people, were traveling internationally more than any time in history. Through the use of social media and face-to-face conversations (remember those?) people from around the world were exchanging ideas, sharing recipes, and generally getting to know one another more than ever before. Then, well, you know what then.
So much of what was going on contributed to a growing sense of commonality and unity among people around the world. It was a time to rejoice in new experiences, new friends, new awareness. But that was leading to a world population which was emboldened, more competent, less satisfied with being perpetually handed the “short end of the stick”. It’s easy to understand how those occupying the seats of economic and political power in the world might see such a thing as a thing to be feared, to be ended. And so it was.
There can be no question that many (all?) of the people who most likely saw their privileged positions as being threatened by an empowered, emboldened, world population have managed to increase their wealth dramatically as a result of the much touted, cleverly engineered, pandemic. You know the phrase: “we’re all in this together”? Beyond a shadow of a doubt it doesn’t apply to behavior between the economic elite and the rest of us since the advent of Covid-19. The meetings, the sharing, the elevation in consciousness of the common people of the world which was dynamic and ongoing pre-Covid, could not have been more effectively curtailed.
Now we’re entering 2021 with the same media propaganda inspiring fear of Covid-19, rumors and articles about a mandatory vaccinations, vaccines using DNA-altering CRISPR technology, vaccination certificates being proposed for many activities, social distancing, cell phone tracking, highly controlled visas for international travel, restricted or closed restaurants and bars, live music being forbidden. It reminds me a WWII movie in which the protagonist is on a train within Nazi Germany and is confronted by a uniformed, armed, soldier demanding “your papers”.
But it’s all for our own protection…isn’t it?
As we enter the new year, a time that often brings an assessment of one’s life and behavior, one important aspect we have to consider is our trajectory into the future. What is the organizing principle of our lives? Is it fear? Is it love? Is it money? Is it life itself? Are we an intelligent world community? Or are we a collection of livestock to be herded and managed? Why on Earth are common people being led to feel we are defying “authority” if we wish to simply conduct our lives in the most common of manners? Why are we accepting that our ability to carry on our businesses, our family relationships, our community activities, should be unilaterally dictated by a few in some “official” position or another? Especially since some, or all, of those few are materially profiting greatly from their mandates and proclamations.
The twentieth century was rocked by devastation stemming from the arrogance shown by Adolph Hitler and the Nazis, along with the Japanese Empire of the day. It would be easy to believe, and I think many do, that a nation which played such an important part in defeating these two arrogant, abusive, murderous regimes would have an innate immunity from taking such an attitude itself. Yet somehow, it has happened. The behaviors of many American industries and the United States Government in relation to the people of many other countries, and, in many cases, to the citizens of the U.S. itself, demonstrate at least an equal amount of arrogance as that shown by the leaders of Germany and Japan prior to WWII.
As of this writing, within the U.S.:
There is a higher percentage of citizens imprisoned than within any other country.
Many of the prisons are being privately run for profit (slave labor).
The attention and the energies of the Government are being inordinately spent in the service of the wealthiest small minority of citizens.
Poverty, homelessness, and hunger are widespread and on the rise.
For decades the U.S. has been spending trillions of dollars not on infrastructure and well-being here in the U.S., but on destroying lives and infrastructure around the world. Often further enriching the already economic elite in the process.
There is a nationwide infatuation with stock prices and “profits” rather than genuine well-being.
Millions cannot afford routine healthcare.
Citizens are routinely and grievously fed information which is an outright lie, and if it is not an outright lie, often it is partial information presented in such a way as to mislead those exposed to it. This is done by the elected officials within the Federal Government, the CEO’s of many major industries, and too often by spokespeople for various governmental agencies.
The press, the “fourth estate” has too often become little more than parrots of the misinformation put forward.
For an elected official or other prominent business or entertainment personality to be linked in an incriminating manner to people engaged in human trafficking has become so routine it hardly raises an eyebrow.
The pursuit of money has come to be apparently accepted as an excuse in and of itself for grievous abuses of people and our environment.
“United we stand, divided we fall” has come to be replaced by “fuck you, I got mine”.
When faced with the abuses and the increasing cries of outrage, millions of Americans apparently accept it all with a complacent “it can’t happen here” attitude. Today, too often, being a proud American has come to mean being an arrogant American. To say this trend doesn’t bode well for the well-being of the U.S. is a horrible understatement. If the U.S. stays on this trajectory, the U.S. has nowhere to go but down.
I was born in the U.S., raised in the U.S., and live in the U.S. I have traveled a lot around the country. I have witnessed and experienced love, stimulating intelligence, positive human thoughts and attitudes and just plain human decency everywhere I have been. I cannot believe the greed, the callousness toward human life, the short-sightedness toward our environment and well-being, which are too often embodied and grievously displayed by those in prominent positions within government and various industries, and which are prominent within many of the ongoing policies and practices within the country, truly represent the heart and soul of the American people.
America desperately needs a reorganization of it’s operating principles. We can no longer sustain a country organized around what is good for mega-corporations and the wealthiest 1%. We need to prioritize the nation around what is good for human life, all human life. This includes fair wages, fair prices, affordable health care, affordable education, secure housing, clean water, nutritious food and a healthful environment.
In this post I am referring the reader to another article. It is a well-written examination of the events of the past year, which are still ongoing, as characterized by the observations of Hannah Arendt of Adolph Eichmann during his trial in Jerusalem .
It should be noted that while over 99% of people are simply going to survive Covid, the same can’t be said for starvation, and all the other afflictions mentioned above. So, if a group of politically powerful, medically knowledgeable, altruistic people decided to save a lot of people and have the money to do so, why not start with where it will save the most lives? Eradicate hunger. That would save over twice as many lives on a daily basis as eradicating Covid-19. The current numbers within the U.S. alone are evidence that the human immune system is over 99% effective in fighting off Covid. That is better than the questionable 95% effective claim of the vaccine manufacturers. The many billions of dollars which have been spent and will be spent on development of a vaccine, distribution and mass injections, could have ended starvation, made a big dent in homelessness (if not ended it completely), and/or addressed many of the other debilitating conditions humanity faces on a daily basis. And has for decades. So why now, why Covid? Why are accounts which have been totally closed to those in dire need in the world suddenly pouring money at Covid under the banner of caring for the people of the world?
Is it because it’s not actually altruism? Is there is something being purchased with this expenditure? Something that the funding sources firmly believe benefits them on a par with the expenditure?
Years ago, early in my education in human behavior, I was given a checklist which, while it might not be infallible, is actually a pretty good measure of whether or not something is true.
Does it fit with what we know to be true in the world at this time?
Does it fit with what we know to have been true in the past?
Does it feel right?
The incredibly expensive Covid vaccination program, if presented as an altruistic proposition, doesn’t pass any of those tests. Even two out three might be good sometimes, but it doesn’t pass that criteria either. So is it really a covert program to somehow affect the world population in a way the people who have planned, and are seeing that the program is funded, want to see accomplished? Are the conspiracy theorists right? How right? Is it a massive sterilization program? Microchipping? Something else that isn’t being revealed publicly? Because as a stand-alone proposition that those controlling the pharmaceutical industries and the purse strings of the world suddenly decided that they just have to do something good for people, on a worldwide scale, it just doesn’t hold up.
I don’t agree with everything the author of the article linked below has to say, however, I agree with a lot and I think he’s spot on with his view of the Covid vaccine:
I tend to focus a lot on the looming threats to humanity in my articles, especially recently when there is no shortage of material. However, looming threats are not what lead us to long, enjoyable lives. It is the appreciation of our own lives, the others around us, and the myriad wonders we have to enjoy in our world that elicit our desire for life. It is those life affirming things we should be, in the long run, spending the majority of our time and attention on.
I hope, in this unprecedented time of isolation for so many people, you are making the time and finding the pathways to listen to and play music, have dinner with friends, spend time with a loved one, take a walk, take a drive to a place of beauty. engage in those things which spark your desire for life.
In the video linked at the end of this post, doctors and scientists from around the world all say the same thing: the pandemic, as reported in the media by and large, is a fraud and the vaccine is dangerous, don’t take it. That summary is blunt and lacks the full authority and other details to be found in the video itself. It is not meant to be an introduction to the video and falls far short of doing justice in that regard. Please watch the video. There are two links in case one has been cut off. (Which presents it’s own question. In this land of “free speech”, why are presentations that call a worldwide vaccination program into question being pulled, not by their authors, from publicly accessible websites?)
So why not just post the video and skip the writing? Because I feel a need to say something about the larger question, which is: Is it really possible that enough of the world’s leaders, enough world media, and enough of the world’s highly placed medical authorities are working together to attempt such a large scale manipulation of people around the globe? I think most people are going to have the knee-jerk response to that question of “no, it’s unthinkable”. That is certainly an understandable response born of years or decades of repetitive presentations which, directly or indirectly, tell us that such a thing is unthinkable. Presentations within schools, colleges and by the media, along with maybe some wishful thinking. After all, who would want such a thing to be happening in our world? Certainly not me.
But here we are, with conflicting information flying around us. With experts in the fields associated with the events around Covid-19 (Covid) putting forward statements that absolutely contradict what seems to be the worldwide assumption: that Covid is a genuine, deadly pandemic, that it infects millions, has killed hundreds of thousands, and requires worldwide vaccinations if we ever want to be safe again. Yet, with so many outspoken, qualified, doctors and scientists, from many countries, with nothing to gain and a lot to lose by doing so, with their professional reputations and livelihoods on the line, telling us it just isn’t so, who are we supposed to believe?
There are some questions I think everyone should be asking, the answers to which are available within information, which is not disputed, which has been put forward as of this date. Here they are:
The first question is: Can we trust the numbers of Covid “cases” and deaths which the those in positions of governmental authority in the U.S. are putting forward. Numbers which the mainstream media by and large passes along unquestioned? The numbers which those in the positions of governmental authority are basing the lockdowns, the restrictions upon personal movement, and recommendations around vaccination on?
My response is no, we most certainly cannot. The reason I say that is because the numbers and the manner in which they are presented seem designed to deceive the public into believing the reality of the presence of Covid-19 (if it actually exists) is worse than it is. I inject “if it actually exists” because, as you will see in the video, there are some very knowledgeable people who are not convinced that it does. Some very knowledgeable and qualified professionals state the virus has never been isolated. However, if we assume for the time being that it does exist, and that it is resulting in actual illnesses and deaths, is it actually responsible for the numbers of illnesses and deaths the media are attributing to it? Again, the answer is clearly no.
Concerning the reported “cases” of Covid, in the U.S. the reality is that the PCR test being used to supposedly establish incidents of exposure to the virus is notorious for false positives. So in that alone we see an exaggerated figure being put forward. The second criticism I offer relates to a somewhat more subtle psychological ploy being used in reporting the number of “cases”. It is that the exaggerated number of presumed exposures to the virus is being called “cases” at all. In fairness, I have found that within the specialized world of the CDC the presence of a pathogen in a person warrants it being termed “a case”. However, in the day to day world of the average person a “case” of a disease commonly means someone is actively symptomatic, actively ill. Calling people who have no symptoms, are experiencing no ill effects, from a virus “a case”, while maybe defendable in a court of law, in fact, leads people to believe that things are worse than they are. If we had used this method with any other flu or disease that has shown up in the past, we would have seen numbers way higher than the numbers of active illness we used to define those outbreaks. It is a fact that relative to any potentially pathogenic virus that comes along, our body’s immune system will immediately begin defending us and, as is the case with Covid-19, the vast majority of us simply will not become actively ill. Why intentionally put forward a such a large and anxiety provoking exaggeration? What is there to gain?
Regarding the reported number of hospitalizations from Covid, what I have learned is some, or all (?), hospitals are testing people who may have been admitted for reasons entirely unrelated to Covid and, if the test is positive, that hospitalization is reported as a Covid hospitalization. Again, why? Why distort a number in a manner which will predictably increase anxiety and fear in the population at large? What is there to gain?
Concerning the reported Covid deaths, Dr. Deborah Birx, in explaining how the government is accumulating and reporting this number said they are taking a “very liberal” approach to death reporting and Covid-19. People who die with Covid (meaning the virus is reportedly present in their body) but not from Covid-19, are being counted as a Covid death. Again, if this method of reporting had been used with any flu in the past (as with the “cases” reporting) we would have seen greatly increased numbers of fatalities from any incidence of flu. Is this an accurate way of determining Covid deaths? The answer is clearly “no”. Which again begs the question, by implementing this clearly exaggerated method of reporting, what is there to gain?
So the second question: What is there to gain and by whom? The answer to this question doesn’t take long to answer, there are hundreds of billions dollars to gain. Not millions, not billions, hundreds of billions.But only if “we the people” believe we are facing a ferocious disease which threatens the very fabric of humanity. Because if we don’t believe it, we aren’t going to keep trotting ourselves out to the testing centers. We aren’t going to tolerate our businesses, our restaurants and bars, being closed down for weeks on end. We aren’t going to tolerate our schools being closed. We aren’t going to just accept the additional economic and emotional hardships the restrictions and lockdowns impose. And, maybe most importantly, we aren’t going to line up for the vaccinations in the numbers we will if we believe the mainstream narrative.
If we didn’t believe the narrative so far, Jeff Bezos and the other billionaires who are reaping windfall profits wouldn’t be the recipients of all that money. Big Pharma wouldn’t have received the billions in funding to develop a vaccine and they wouldn’t be looking at billions more in future sales. Wealthy real estate investors wouldn’t be looking at the properties coming available due to defaults on loans which they’re now looking at. And these are just the Covid related profitable situations I know about. How many are there I don’t know about…yet? So are there people with something to gain with what is taking place with Covid? Yes, big time. But again, only if we believe what those in positions of governmental authority and the media keep telling us.
Which brings us to our third question: Who should we believe? The many doctors and scientists from around the world who, with nothing material to gain and everything to lose, are telling us, essentially, that we’re being manipulated, lied to? Or the people who are looking at windfall riches if only we keep believing, keep feeling the fear the media has done such a effective job of creating and maintaining?
Finally, there is the question stated in the beginning of this post and implied in all of what is above: Could it be possible that people in key positions of government, media, and medical authority, in many countries, could all be brought on board to facilitate such an abuse of the general citizenry of the world? It would definitely be a first in recorded history. However, if the past 100 years should have taught us anything, it’s that we’re living in an age of “firsts”.
In a recent discussion on Facebook, it was pointed out to me that Denmark (and presumably other Nordic countries with similar economies and social programs) are not “socialist” or “democratic socialist” countries. I have to admit, as particularly the descriptor “democratic socialism” has been being used widely in the U.S. to describe the social-economic systems in those countries, I fell into using it. So in an effort to settle the matter once and for all in my own mind, I did what we so often do these days and went searching the internet. I found an article which does pretty conclusively settle the matter: “Scandinavian Socialism: The Truth of the Nordic Model”. In the article the Prime Minister of Denmark makes the following statement: “I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.” He then goes on to add: “Some refer to this as democratic socialism, though this is far from correct. Some economists refer to it as cuddly capitalism, contrasting with what is seen as cut-throat capitalism in other Western countries.”
Ok, I stand corrected, but not dissuaded from my very strong opinion that we in the U.S. need to adopt similar healthcare, educational, and social safety-net programs, programs which are paid for via taxpayer funding, as are in place in Denmark and other Nordic countries. My educational background and a lot of my work history is within social programs, social work, mental health. I tend to primarily reference things from this perspective. because a program works for the wellbeing of society, I tend to think of it as “socialism”. I think I’m not alone in that. However, from an economic perspective, while socialism and communism are not literally the same, they do share some important attributes and tend to be lumped together in the thinking of many in the U.S. That is another discussion.
My message here is that we cannot become so locked into labels, one way or the other, that we cannot move past them to, as a society, do the things we need to do best ensure a healthy populace. A populace that experiences life within the culture as welcoming, nurturing, safe, and that encourages each citizen to be a productive, contributing member within our communities. I would go further to say that as a general rule, if someone wants to be “taking from” society, we should require that they also be “giving to” society. To only be either taking or giving is not a healthy thing. However, for this to be anything other than a cruel, exclusive, policy, there must also be the support and training readily available to help those who need it to find real ways to contribute within their own set of abilities.