Below is the latest essay from our Israeli correspondent MC.
The Narrative
by MC
In 1922 the British were mandated to construct a homeland for Jews in the Middle East in what is now Israel and Jordan. This was enshrined in international law and passed into the accepted policy of the United Nations, to which most countries have signed up. This is true, and it is provable history, but it is as if it never happened. The narrative is about the Now, and history and truth are irrelevant when and where they deviate from the narrative.
The narrative describes a commonly held view, to which mainstream players must adhere if they want to remain mainstream. United we stand; truth be damned; so we inevitably fail to learn from our histories. Many millions of people were murdered by Communists, but that is simply brushed under the narrative carpet. It never happened (until it happens again, that is).
The narrative dominates our lives in so many ways. To go with the narrative may mean acceptance; to go against it is to be despised and rejected. It is almost religiously pre-ordained. But the age-old problem has always been: Just who defines the narrative? Who laid the yellow brick road? And who is behind the curtain? For he who defines the narrative rules the West, if not the world.
The narrative controls almost all aspects of our lives. For example, there is absolutely no evidence for the idea of ‘herd immunity’ as related to vaccines; herd immunity is the idea that a vaccine only works if everybody gets it. So we find that we are increasingly coerced into having our bodies violated by vaccines that are supposed to protect us from things from which we don’t need protection. But the narrative says one thing on this subject, and one thing only: get your shots, or get out. A handful of people a year die from complications arising from measles, but having caught measles as a child one is subsequently immune (and, it would appear, the immune system is enhanced as a result). But why is the immunity offered by an expensive vaccination so compromised when one comes into contact with somebody who is unvaccinated? Do I detect snake oil here?
But the narrative rules, so the questions not only go unanswered, but one is punished just for asking them.
In early post-Darwin USA, a liberal narrative was evolving, a narrative of social Darwinism and eugenics where the racist and misogynist elements of Darwinism were taken forwards and became the accepted narrative of the Left. This was closely watched by a young Adolf Hitler in Germany, who then adopted it for his embryo Nazi party and sold it to enough of the good folk of Germany for it to become the given narrative, and woe betide the deviants.
The current narrative is that National Socialism was ‘far right’ and that liberal conservatives who reject this narrative are also ‘far-right’. A rational person can clearly see the disconnect here, but the huge crevasses are papered over by the cognitive dissonance of narrative-compliance.
I grew so rich that I was sent
By a pocket borough into Parliament
I always voted at my party’s call
And I never thought of thinking for myself at all
No, he never thought of thinking for himself at all
I thought so little, they rewarded me
By making me the Ruler of the Queen’s Navy
He thought so little, they rewarded he
By making him the Ruler of the Queen’s Navy— From ‘HMS Pinafore’ By Gilbert and Sullivan (1878).
The current narrative is that Islam is the religion of peace, whilst it is most obviously is not, but the narrative is always right.
But Jesus said:
“Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Do not let your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful.” — John 14:27 (NASB)
But, of course, those Christian fundamentalists who actually believe this are terrorists — says the narrative, and the narrative is inerrant. Everybody knows that Christian fundamentalists get together to plot the suborning of the people by outreach, and speak of luring children and trapping them in their cults and half drowning them by total immersion.
Incredibly, the narrative is being challenged. Throughout Europe we see people standing against the narrative and gaining considerable support. Over 45% of Austrians, and some 50% or more of (living) Americans (we are not sure of the numbers of dead Americans, but they voted unanimously for the narrative anyway).
For several hundred years until relatively recently the narrative was based upon the Ten Commandments and two corollaries, but that was laughed at as ‘old-fashioned’ and mocked out of the ball park. A new sexier model replaced it based upon the all-men-are-gods philosophy. When all men are gods, then all are equal, and each should have the same share as all the others. Those who have should pay for those who have not, forcibly if necessary. The work required to gain wealth is considered to have zero value, and the proceeds of the work can thus be redistributed to those who would rather not work.
There is a word for unpaid labour: slavery.
The narrative states that no culture is ‘superior’ and that those whose culture begot civilization must understand that they must compromise that same civilization because barbarism is also an equally valid way of life. One must therefore also share one’s children. If a barbarian wants your ten-year-old son or daughter, then he has as much right to them as you do. This is the new narrative, and family is not part of it.
It does not matter that society is disintegrating, the narrative is always right, and a new and fairer world lies almost (well nearly, just around the corner, soon) within reach, if we all comply and keep to the narrative (and expect a miracle).
But only if the infidels are dealt with. Those who do not keep the narrative spoil the zeitgeist of the moment. They quench the spirit, and might even tell everybody just who it is behind the curtain.
The thanes of the narrative consider us to be cattle, donkeys following a carrot, and sheep. They want to go back to a feudal system and the droit du seigneur; to have the first choice at the pizza parlour. They think that they can turn back history and become dukes and duchesses, and that if they can keep the charade going, they will have it all. Bad news folks: the narrative is a fickle tool. It is as unpredictable as a Greek demi-god.
Our current narrative is defined by crypto-communism, the iron-fisted policies of the Communist agenda suitably hidden behind a smile and a cuddle. Hetero-communism did not work. It failed to bring the Utopia because, surprisingly enough, the man-made miracle did not happen. So the phoenix woke up, put on its new make-up, and said a little prayer to Chaos and lo! Crypto-communism with a fascist side salad.
Blogs like GoV are not without power, and in some circumstances right is might: the power to pervert the narrative, the power to wheedle into the cracks and expose the coprologous swamp for what it is, and to make public its stench. This blog may perhaps reach 100,000 people per month, but 100 honest blogs reach a million, and so on. The ‘fake’ news slur is double edged. When ‘fake’ is twisted to mean ‘anti-narrative’, one can then start a debate, and history and truth may be aired.
And when it comes down to it, it is the truth, not work, that makes us free.
MC lives in the southern Israeli city of Sderot. For his previous essays, see the MC Archives.
Those who work should pay for those who have not…the proceeds of the work can thus be redistributed to those who would rather not work”.
All very fine, but what of those who are unable to work through no fault of their own?
Ever hear of charity?
Yes. It begins at home.
Bravo!
*golf clap*
Of course, and Americans are generous in this regard, but someone who genuinely can’t find work needs to know where the next rent payment is coming from, etc. Only government, national or local, can guarantee this.
Our republic is not a welfare state…yet. We see what it has done to the moral fiber of Europe, particularly the spreading phenomenon of drug addiction and we flee in the other direction.
That said, fiscal corruption at the highest levels in the U.S. – including the criminal “Obamacare” headache has caused a dire environment in which people who want to work cannot find work.
One suggestion has been to severely cut the permanent bureaucracy which is ruining our productivity. Instead we could put the savings toward a guaranteed income…after watching the reality, I agree:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dFpam0IMbc&t=20s
Trey Gowdy, three years ago, ought to be required viewing…and until the corruption at the top is cleaned out, “guarantees” of rent from the government simply makes the problem worse. The corrupt tax code and the corrupt, totalitarian IRS, which violates the Constitution every single day, needs to be reined in. I am hoping that one of its perennial targets, Donald Trump, is in a good position to drain the abscess.
This is an opportunity to talk about those concepts that MC summarily rejects: specifically eugenics.
Eugenics carries the idea that human traits are inherited, and that it is meritorious to try to raise the quality of the population by discouraging the breeding of unfit people, and encouraging the breeding of fit people. The showcase example of this was a family of extremely low IQ who had been on public welfare for generations, and who were relatively prolific in having children who were also low IQ and on public assistance.
One of the ways in which Eugenics went wrong was to involuntarily sterilize its victims. Someone, a judge, social worker, or whatever, decided they should be sterilized, and the victim was often operated on without his or her consent or knowledge.
But, we have scientific knowledge now, and we had better, for our survival and that of our culture and our nation, recognize the effects of inheritance on human intelligence and character.
Do we really want to take a pure “hands-off” approach, and simply let those unfit for supporting themselves die of hunger or neglect? Or, do we wish to support the prolific breeding behavior of populations that have been on welfare for generations?
Eugenics was discredited by successfully associating it with the Nazi doctrine of simply killing people and races the Nazis didn’t like.
MC mentioned the taking of money from people who work, and giving it to support people who don’t wish to work, are unsuited for work, or aren’t capable of working. The effect is to discourage the breeding of the productive people, who generally spend more on children anyway, and encourage the breeding of non-productive people, who put much less work and effort into having children. So, for unproductive people, a thousand dollars will finance maybe 3 children, while five thousand may finance one child for productive people. Obviously, the specific sums are different, but I’m illustrating the unbalancing effects of welfare as we practice it.
Socialism is a very selfish ideology that can be summed up with the following phrase: “I breathe, therefore you owe me!”
Just how many people are *truly* unable to work through “no fault of their own”? Those who are so disabled that they cannot do ANY work? Very very small percentage – overwhelming majority of those who receive welfare are perfectly able to work. Why wouldn’t they work? No incentive to do so, when they can receive stuff WITHOUT work…
Funny how the Welfare State maximizes the number of pathetic losers who are just so sadly unable to work, isn’t it? Instead of being a reasonable number of dependent persons, mostly without arms and legs and who are deaf dumb and blind or otherwise severely incapacitated, now millions of people can’t work because they are so stressed out, man!!!
The more people they manage to convince not to work, the more welfare workers needed to service them; so the Welfare State has a vested interest.
Thank you MC, I appreciate your eloquence. As usual this essay was right on the money. I wish I could express my thoughts such a coherent way without ending in endlessly cursing at the knowledge of evil I witness and the sheer stupidity I experience from people whom I thought of as my friends (no longer)… But I do not need to do it, because you were able to express it well.
Thanks!
In 1922 the British were mandated to construct a homeland for Jews in the Middle East in what is now Israel and Jordan. This was enshrined in international law and passed into the accepted policy of the United Nations …
Anyone interested in a reasonably informative discussion of this topic could do worse than to go here:
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2016/11/have-arabs-weaponized-balfour-irene.html
The discussion of this post had some comments that brought out some more scholoarly references on this matter:
http://www.mythsandfacts.org/conflict/mandate_for_palestine/mandate_for_palestine.htm
This one, by Matthijs de Blois, is scholarly and provides effective counter arguments to well-meaning dolts who claim, “Israel has no right to exist”. Unfortunately, I cannot point to the entire article just now, although I believe I got access to it by hook or by crook just last month.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309359969_The_Unique_Character_of_the_Mandate_for_Palestine
That same paper also may be obtained here:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/israel-law-review/article/the-unique-character-of-the-mandate-for-palestine/9E5788EDFCA20BC2B6536735CCDE2E8B
The premis of this agument is flawed inas much as we are asked to judge on our existing knowledge of the U. N.
In truth in 1922 it was the league of Nations simlar but not the same as the U.N
International Law as laid down by the League of Nations was wholly and specifically absorbed into the United Nations Charter as signed by all UN members. So the 1922 mandadate remains the valid International Law governing these matters until it is specifically repealed. It has not yet been repealed thus it stands to this day in spite of the narratives of the BBC, WaPo HuffPo NYT etc..
Article 80 (of the UN Charter)
Except as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship agreements, made under Articles 77, 79, and 81, placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.
Paragraph 1 of this Article shall not be interpreted as giving grounds for delay or postponement of the negotiation and conclusion of agreements for placing mandated and other territories under the trusteeship system as provided for in Article 77.
What a shame MC, that you have to damage your essay with a [redacted], and unsupportable ‘narrative’ of your own:
>> For example, there is absolutely no evidence for the idea of ‘herd immunity’ as related to vaccines; herd immunity is the idea that a vaccine only works if everybody gets it.
There is a huge amount of evidence for herd immunity; smallpox was eradicated because of it. In fact, the problem probably is just that you don’t understand what it means. Herd immunity has never been what you said “the idea that a vaccine only works if everybody gets it”. Herd immunity is the provable fact (and actually obvious if you understand its meaning) that if enough people get vaccinated and the vaccination works, than the remaining few who won’t get the vaccine will be less likely to get the disease–this follows from the fact that there will be fewer infectious people around. Obvious and uncontroversial.
Shame, shame, shame. The anti-vaccine ‘narrative’ would probably be one of the most destructive possible ‘narratives’ in the world, but happily, not enough people follow this [redacted] for it to do the terrible destruction it would do if enough followed it.
Have to agree with you on this too. Case in point would be the curious phenomenon of the third world invaders bringing their unvaccinated selves into the West and spreading their noxious infections among the susceptible; especially those in unvaccinated hippie/liberal enclaves. When a westerner goes to the third world, they don’t bring diseases such as dyptheria or measles with them to infect the locals, but are protected from same if they have been vaccinated.
This could be turned into an empirical study though; western do-gooders can encourage muslim populations worldwide to forsake vaccinations of all kinds, while we here in the west endure being compulsively vaccinated against contagious disease, and after a decade or so we can compare the number of deaths from childhood illnesses to see who’s belief system is stronger. Mohammed, or Salk and Pasteur.
My money is on Salk and Pasteur.
I would suggest you read the available material on Bechamp and Pasteur before making statements like that.
““The specific disease doctrine is the grand refuge of
weak, uncultured, unstable minds, such as now rule
in the medical profession. There are no specific
diseases; there are specific disease conditions.”
–
Florence Nightingale
http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/history/biographies/Bechamp-or-Pasteur.pdf
Hear hear.
Well said, as a former research scientist, I can confirm what you have said.
Agreed. I am a populist deplorable, but also a retired medical virologist. It grieves me to see the anti-scientific narratives of so-called alternative medicine and climate change denial being not so subtly interweaved with the entirely logical objection to the imposition of new or resurgent forms of totalitarianism.
So who mentioned climate change, and which of the doctors quoted are pushing alternative medicine? You appear to be adding dimentions to the article.
You are demonstrating just how deep the narrative runs, and how engrained it is.
If you would just read the links you would learn that the original research on Herd immunity was done in the 1930’s (pre-vaccine) with NATURAL measles.
At no point do I say that vaccines dont work, I just lambast the idea of herd immunity due to vaccines. But I just question the basis of forcing (California?) vaccines on people who don’t want them, because people still get the diseases that vaccines are supposed to protect them from, and that this is then blamed upon those who are unvaccinated is a logic error. It smacks of big pharma disinformation.
But the narrative is the narrative, and those who doubt the narrative must be belittled and insulted…..
MC. Please accept my apologies. Indeed your article mentioned neither climate change nor so-called alternative medicine. I should have made it clear that my response, while triggered by the vaccine-sceptic aspects of the article, was directed at the scientific illiteracy observable in a wide range of other forums.
Other responders have commented in some detail on herd immunity, which does exist as Cautious Billy-Bob describes. It follows both vaccine-induced immunity and natural immunity. In the latter case herd immunity declines as immune older individuals die and are replaced by susceptible youngsters. Eventually an epidemic ensues and, for a while, herd immunity is restored, usually at an appreciable cost of severe disease and death. Measles, for example, is not the mild somewhat humorous spotty illness as often portrayed. In an significant minority of sufferers it leads to a range of severe complications, particularly neurological, that have all but disappeared since the advent of near-universal vaccination which has reduced both the frequency and extent of Measles epidemics by limiting the number of susceptibles.
The Leicester Method was an effective example of infection control by quarantine and exclusion which was used against the recent Ebola epidemic in West Africa. Had there been an effective Ebola vaccine at the time the epidemic would have ended much sooner with far fewer deaths. Alone, the method was not enough to control Smallpox but was a useful adjunct to vaccination. Agreed, a good and varied diet helps to build resistance to infectious diseases but, nonetheless, many fit and healthy young adults have succumbed to them.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I would suggest that the skin lesions referred to in the Breitbart article might have resembled archive pictures of Smallpox but that they were of a different aetiology. Should there be laboratory proof of Smallpox infection I would, of course, readily revise my opinion.
In one response I quote Florence Nightingale. she was very aware that the environment condition causes the disease. The Leicester method was effective because it purged the infected area, possibly of bedbugs! Insects have a history of passing pathogens and bedbugs have been associated with smallpox.
The epidemiology as recorded in history does not support vaccination in the context of smallpox, Jenner was challenged within weeks, but he was being well paid for his services. These are FACTS, the medical examiner in Leicester kept concise records from the point at which vaccination was made non-mandatory. They show a marked and continuous improvement in outcomes.
To me the Breibart article is interesting, as you imply, it should have provoked a thourough investigation and rebuttal, but the fact that there has been nothing makes me suspicious. It was not just reported in Breibart and its implications, if true, are profound. Either the US/Russia are engaging in biological warefare, or Florence Nightingale is correct and that reproducing the conditions reproduces the disease.
Your alternative, to just rubbish the report, is unhelpful. But it is the narrative…..
This is not:
Charles A. R. Campbell, discovered the cause and cure of smallpox. Through a series of carefully controlled experiments (even using himself as a subject) Dr. Campbell, along with Dr. J. A. Watts, discovered that smallpox, like yellow fever and malaria, was transmitted by an insect, cimex lectularius (Latin for bedbug). They also discovered that the disease was neither contagious nor infectious and that vaccinations did not prevent it.
Even more importantly, Dr. Campbell discovered that the severity of the disease was directly proportional to the general ill health and malnutrition of the patient. He spoke of “scorbutic cachexia” and related it to scurvy, the “disease caused by lack of green food.” He said, “the removal of this perversion of nutrition will so mitigate the virulence of this malady as to positively prevent the pitting or pocking of smallpox.” (Bacteria, Inc., Cash Asher, Bruce Humphries, Inc., Boston, MA, 1949).
MC, you lambasted herd immunity due to vaccines, falsely claimed that there was no evidence for it, and totally misrepresented its definition.
I criticize this for two reasons. One, it is wrong and destructive in itself. The second problem is that you could not resist contaminating a largely counterjihad platform with controversial anti-vaccine opinions. The first problem is that your facts are wrong, the second is this would not have been the place for them even if you had been right.
Take it on the chin as a lesson learned and move on. Don’t try to cover for yourself because it sinks you deeper.
I have appreciated many of your essays here, and may they continue, on counterjihad and anti-multicultural themes.
And do you have a factual basis for these assertions or is this just an attempt to bully me into submission to your emotional opinions?
Have you actualy read any of the linked material yet? or are your opinions so entrenched as to dismiss them out of hand?
Does your behaviour not demonstrate the very dedication to the narrative that this essay is about?
I cant reply to MC below, so L shall do it above.
I have already thoroughly refuted what you said in the artucle regarding herd immunity.
And the answer to yiur last wuestion is ‘no’.
The problem with the vaccines has to do with the evil wickedness of the giant pharmaceutical corporations who inflict them upon us. Frankly, the giant corporations cannot be trusted. And doctors cannot be trusted at this point because they are corrupted by the money and power of the giant corporations. Absolute power has corrupted all of society absolutely.
Good point, and one one strangely ignored by the great unwashed.
Why, for example are doctors (at least here in British Columbia) pushing Tylenol (acetaminophen) for all they are worth, when it is “by far the most common cause of acute liver failure in USA….” (Medpagetoday.)
Aspirin in one form or another has been around since the ancient Greeks, but now–“Oh no, that’s a poison…”
Funny, but when I was a kid we not only had aspirin but could buy A.P. Codeine over the counter, and I’m not aware of anyone becoming a ‘druggie’ because of it. The codeine is now available only by prescription, and almost only in combination with–you guessed it–Tylenol–the liver killer! Why?
Someone is making a lot of money pushing acetaminophen, that’s why!
Aspirin and other medicines containing salicylates( eg Kao-pectate and Pepto-Bismol) were no longer reccomended for use in children from the early 1970’s because of Reye-Johnson syndrome (commonly referred to as Reye’s syndrome)This advice came in Canada only after the death of a prominent politician’s daughter.I believe there are now less than 20 cases of Reye’s in Canada per annum.Liver damage from Tylenol is from inappropriate dosing and the fact that people consider the product safer than they should.Ibuprofen (Motrin ) is a suitable replacement for both aspirin or tylenol.
Nazis where never Far-right.They hated everything of it -the Middle Class,the Nobility,the Monarchists,the Capitalists,Bankers etc.
You will not find one speech where a Nazi sayed that they are rightwing-they are always talking about SOCIALISM-thats why they get many votes not teh racisms.The german cancellor Hemlut Schmidt sayed he didnt heard much Anti Jewish propaganda,he sayed if you wanted than you can,but if not…
The same goes for Fascism.Fascism was a word that belongs to the LEFT,also Mussolini was a LEFTIE-but people will tell us that from one day to another it, and he was Rightwing???
I think that MC means that Nazis are *considered* as far-right by the current leftist narrative.
We currently live in a socialist paradigm as defined by the MSM and the braying “intelligentsia”. The left are basically communist (code word “progressive” ) while the right is portrayed as fascists, often with the racist overtones that were characteristic of the Nazis.
Now place in the perspective of that how the two main opposition parties always claim to be different but function as two halves of coin. When I hear “bipartisan,” I now cringe because the real screws are coming. PATRIOT Act anyone?
In the end, both ideologies are the spawn of Marx. It’s up to us to refuse to play their game and seize the narrative.
MC, thank you for this essay, and thank you for living in Sderot.
Sderot is one of the front lines in this battle, and by your very presence, you are an active participant, protecting the rest of us.
I stopped reading MC’s [deprecated essay] (why doesn’t he or she tell us their name?) after bringing up Herd Immunity. You and your children are so fortunate we do.
As Jonas Salk so eloquently put it: ” . . . There is no patent. Can you patent the sun?”
1. If I released my name, I would probably get an unwelcome visitation, not 3 miles from where I live, they would murder me for just being who I am. There is a real danger to thos who contribute here, our enemies are both violent and cunning. Is your real name “Rose of Sharon” (or maybe “Lily of the Valley”), the Sharon is about 60 miles away from where I sit at the moment, but there are few roses there now unless planted by people like me.
2. You believe the narrative? why not do some research on the ineffectiveness off the Salk vaccine and see if you still believe……
They changed the name of the ‘disease’ to hide the fact that the Salk (and Sabin) vaccine never worked, in fact the ‘Cutter’ version of the vaccine killed many children because the virus content came alive again. This is recorded history, but it is not the narrative that we are required to believe. Here is the alternative, you can make up your own mind….
“According to Dr. Suzanne Humphries M.D., shortly after 1955, a cover-up was created to hide the fact that the polio vaccine was even spreading polio. Dr. Humphries went on to explain how a deadly live polio virus strain had infected the Salk vaccines and created an epidemic of polio-type diseases labeled aseptic meningitis or Acute Flaccid Paralysis (AFP). The term AFP includes Guillain-Barre’ syndrome aka “French Polio”, traumatic neuritis, Reye’s syndrome, enteroviral encephalitis, transverse myelitis, and poliomyelitis.”
http://naturalsociety.com/vaccine-fraud-the-polio-elimination-by-vaccine-hoax/
Decide for yourself which version is the ‘narrative’
You should quit the medical analogy. It’s off topic and damaging your cogent political arguments.
the topic is the narrative and nowhere is the narrative more entrenched than in the medical professions.
BTW How can the author be off topic?
MC,
As someone who had both types of measles at the SAME time three days before the Gamma Globulin vaccine was available and had to suffer 103F+ fever for almost 5 days (the priest was called but didn’t show up as I recovered), I will beg to disagree with you about the vaccines. Even now, my recent bout with the winter flu was mercifully shorter as the result of Kaiser Medical’s Flu Shot with an Ambulance Chaser I received this past October for free because I was covered under their health plan.
I will call out the State of California because they mandated vaccinations for young children without providing for recourse against the vaccine suppliers but gave the suppliers virtual immunity.
As for the narrative, it is the face of Fascism. You either believe as you are told and goose-step appropriately or you are consigned to the trash heap or worse. I learned that back in the mid-1980s when I returned to college and was amazed at how much had changed and how the college degree had become the gatekeeper that kept all of the unwanted opinions out of the Agora where the debates took place. The Moral Relativism that plagues us all these days is a product of the 1960s students graduating college and then giving legs to what they had been taught, (I mean indoctrinated).
An absence of a moral control and moral compass for a society can only result in the onset of anarchy which is then followed by tyranny.
You got 2 out of 3 correct MC, your grade for this essay is a B. The documentation on the British Mandate kept the essay from a C grade.
Respectfully, Acuara
Here is a non narrative expose of herd immunity:
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/herd-immunity-myth-or-reality
And here is a historical study on non narrative smallpox vacination in UK:
http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2013/08/27/vaccination-a-mythical-history-by-roman-bystrianyk-and-suzanne-humphries-md/
You can judge for yourselves
“The experience of unvaccinated Leicester is an eye-opener to the people and an eye-sore to the pro-vaccinists the world over. Here is a great manufacturing town having a population of nearly a quarter of a million, which has demonstrated by a crucial test of an experience extending over a period of more than a quarter of a century, that an unvaccinated population has been far less susceptible to small-pox and far less afflicted by that disease since it abandoned vaccination than it was at a time when ninety-five per cent of its births were vaccinated and its adult population well re-vaccinated.[31]”
MC, you do not prove your point with “websites”; you require peer-reviewed medical journals reporting on more than one study.
Vaccines work. It’s not a hypotheses but a well established fact. Universal inoculation worked in the US and in other countries to wipe out small pox and polio (until we started letting in every obscure Third Worlder). You want universal inoculation because a disease that at one point cannot be spread at all is gone forever, unless we bring it back.
I also find your complaints about the sexism of Darwin ridiculous. It is well established that while mean IQ is the same between the sexes, the variance is very different. This leads men to have more idiots and geniuses than women. Darwin was correct. In addition, females don’t compete with each other for men. Men compete for women. That provides the motivation men have and women lack for great endeavors.
I will take your advice to keep to the narrative under consideration, and then I will reject it.
Suggest you re-read the ‘websites’ especially the bits about so called peer reviews, a now much discredited part of the global narrative.
Darwin’s views on women are patronizing in the extreme, suggest you actually read the link provided.
I am so pleased you have responded, you have proved my point, I hung those subjects in there purposely as bait to demonstrate how people follow the narratives provided by those who profit, without ever questioning them or researching them.
Great, you’ve flushed out a contributor to this web site and annoyed him.
I agree that certain issues do flush out the loony conspiracy mongers: vaccines & intelligent design are the best for that purpose. I dismiss anyone who opposes vaccination and evolution.
‘Bye
Wow, skzion, you display the same intolerance as the progressives.
There were peer reviewed studies questioning vaccines as currently manufactured. Does Dr. Tim Wakefield ring a bell? You do know he won a libel suit against the journalists who “discredited” his work. I agree with vaccination in principle but not as currently run by Big Pharma. Adjuvant need to be seriously examined and studied. Right now vaxx manufacturers enjoy complete immunity from any adverse reactions. 15 month old child will have received 25 injections.
As for Darwin , please cite some examples of transgenic evolution. Species do evolve within their kind. Quantum physics points towards the distinct possibility that the universe was designed for lack of a better word.
My apologies for being an inveterate Luddite and questioning everything. Why annoyed? Perhaps it’s cognitive dissonance. The narrative run strong in this one…
Do you have a link? These ideas parallel my own wondering.
MC. As the retired virologist who replied above I can inform you that anti-Smallpox vaccination was in a major factor in the extinction of the disease (notwithstanding stocks of Variola kept by Russia and the USA). Non-vaccinated populations are no longer at risk because the virus is not circulating.
Even respecting your status as a retired virologist, I suggest you read the links provided, each written by qualified medical people with field experience, we can all learn something new….
The article is about following a narrative, not about the effectiveness of the ‘Leicester method’ which eventually brought smallpox under control, that and better and more plentiful diet, and if Leicester means nothing to you in the context of smallpox then you have something to learn still.
Not a reply to any of you, but an observation.
The CEO and I never get ‘flu shots, and have not had the ‘flu in the last 24 years. My doctor can’t understand it!
On the other hand,
We know people who get their shots religiously every year–and almost immediately get the ‘flu….
Nor is this unusual. Anyone?
We never get flu shots nor do we get the flu. Right now that’s optional, but with the way government has its hand in medical care, I’ll bet there will be a penalty for refusal before too long.
I’ve taken a look at your first link and found straw men akl over the place. The author if the first article misrepresents the meaning of herd immunity and you may have mislearned from him.
MC, seriously, this science stuff is not your forte. If you cannot spot that authors straw men, then stay clear. Stick to your strong suit, and indeed to Gov’s focus.
And describing something as ‘narrative’ says in itself nothing bad about it and describing something as non-narrative says nothing good. They just mean ‘mainstream’ and ‘fringe’ respectively. Sometimed things are fringe for a good reason, like your anti-vaccine opinions. Please spare us them at GoV; I think it’s bad for us all if you use this as a platform for fringe antivaccine opinions.
Now you are actually beginning to make progress; you have read one of the links and found it lacking. Now you must elucidate upon your ‘straw men’ and explain your theory. This is real science. Pseudo-science is making a ‘settled science’ statement and then mounting ad-hominems to try and shut down your opponent.
This article is about narratives, it is not about ‘herd immunity’ the herd immunity was put in there as a red rag so that maybe people can see how entrenched the narratives can be.
True to form, you are still attempting to shut me down. Why is that, have I trodden upon one of your sacred cows? You have not provided any counter evidence but now you are pleading that this is the wrong place and the wrong time. This is exactly what the article is saying happens when the narrative is challenged.
MC, sometimes the fringe is right and the mainstream wrong, sometimes the other way around.
As i said, I’ve already, in my first post, briefly but thoroughly debunked what you said in your article regarding herd immunity.
Are you pretending that you deliberately put in [material that I deprecate] to show how ‘entrenched’ sense can be? If you did, it does not support your article very well.
People rejecting the fringe just because it is fringe is bad. But people rejecting the fringe because it’s nonsense is good.
What is happening here in the comments to your article is that a lot of effort is being put into debunking your fringe antivaccine opinions because they are [not supported by evidence]. It’s not my job to handhold you through all the errors that are getting by you. If you can’t see that the opinions you expressed in your article are wrong, I can’t help you.
But i can point out that by dome oretty objective criteria, your includion of your antivaccine opinions was a major failure with your readers–and readers very open to fringe opinions at that.
An epidemiologist friend said since we have stopped vaccinating against smallpox since 1982 (in US) an outbreak could be devastating to younger people. I asked him why don’t we resume vaccinations? He said politically impossible, the smallpox vaccine has enough live virus that anyone with a compromised immune system could die. This includes transplant patients, cancer patients, HIV infected, etc. anyone on immuno-suppressive drugs. It seems we have done society a disservice by ceasing vaccinations against smallpox.
We do not currently need vaccination against Smallpox. Vaccinia, the vaccine strain, is a live virus in its own right. When it was widely used there were cases of severe disease and even deaths amongst, mainly but not exclusively, immunocompromised recipients and immunocompromised contacts of healthy recipients. This was acceptable, however, when Smallpox was widespread because the frequency of severe disease and death with the infection was much greater. Furthermore, the number of such individuals has increased several-fold since vaccination ceased. To use Vaccinia now would not be so much politically impossible as downright dangerous. Should the need for protection against Smallpox or a similar virus re-emerge then a more attenuated vaccine and/or a genetically-engineered (which point might well elicit howls of outrage) vaccine would be produced. The science of anti-viral agents too has advanced markedly since Smallpox became extinct, which offers another approach in control of an outbreak.
The historical data does not support your conclusions, neither does the current data:
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/11/23/migrants-unable-leave-camp-spread-infectious-illness/
Where did this smallpox come from? Russia or USA? or did it evolve spontaneously by pleomorphism as in the link above about Pasteur and Bechamp.
My point here is that right or wrong, the article is about narratives, and in a narrative people refuse to consider alternatives as is amply demonstrated by commenters here, just as I intended.
It does not matter what the actual truth is, the narrative must be maintained at all costs, and information to the contrary has to be either rubbished or ignored, and those bringing it to notice must be isolated and insulted.
Not one of my medical critics above has looked at the data provided as a possible truth, it has all been dismissed without so much as a valid counter argument except to spout the accepted paradym, the acceptable narrative.
It really does not matter what scores points, but what is really dangerous is when intelligent people accept the narrative at face value. In this case it is the medical narrative. But it could be 101 other narratives which rule our lives and most of which are toxic.
I believe you’re running into cognitive dissonance, MC. I see exactly from where you’re coming. It also the fallacy of “appeal to authority.”
I disagree with many of the things that the Israeli government does however I am under no illusion that the Palestinians are innocent victims but vicious, brutal cowards like most of their Mohammedan brethren.
Israel is at war with a cruel, cunning and relenless enemy that will genocide us if given the slightest opportunity. That enemy has created a narrative that any defense raised by Israel is a ‘Human Rights’ violation.
I would ask you to look at the actions of the Israeli govenment in this light.
There is only one Jewish state, there are 57 Muslim states, ask the question, where do Jews flee to if Israel falls? the answer is Treblinka, Sobibor or the sea….
Have a look at what happened at the Evian Conference 1938.
This is the historical spectre that haunts the Jewish State, Never Again!
H5N1 was a partucularly lethal strain of influenza A. We–mostly Asia–were involved with this about ten years ago, recall? The death rate was like 50-90%. The lay called it bird flu. We were just getting ready to produce its vaccine when it markedly diminished in numbers infected because its transmissability from birds to people never was matched in people to people spread. Thank god. But virologists were very concerned that it might pick up some human antigens that would facilitate its transmission among people. This could happen if a person was simultaneously infected with, say. H3N1 and H5N1.
We were all concerned that this was going to become epidemic and that we would not have effective vaccines quite on time. In the 1918-1919 epidemic there were @ 22 million deaths, IIRC. So we could have had a genuine world disaster….like the plague.
Virologists were suggesting a form of herd immunity as a mitigating factot in managing this potential mess. It was suggested that people get vaccinated with any current strain (idiotype) of flu and try to repeat this same vaccination in a few months time. The idea was that all flu viruses do have some common antigens and that, even if these were not particularly effective in developing neutralizing levels of antibody, they were partially effective and that a small protection might ensue… such that the death rates could be mitigated…a bit.
In other words, it was better to be heavily immunized against the wrong strain of flu than it was to not be immunized at all.
And this wonderfully demonstrates the speculative nature of the argument.
BTW the 1918-1919 ‘Spanish Flu’ was probably a compination of influenza and the side effects of the new wonderdrug Asprin.
It has been noted by some researchers that many of those that died were given massive doses (by modern standards) of Asprin. Asprin eradicates vitamin C from the body and causes lung bleeding.
http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/49/9/1405.full
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leo-galland-md/aspirin-and-vitamin-c-tog_b_529058.html
Now I’m really confused. As a UK citizen aged over 60, I qualify for a free ‘flu vaccine in the autumn. But the plot thickens…
I’d be entitled even if younger, having a rare condition called Small Vessel Vasculitis, which attacks the immune system through the blood vessels, often showing up first in the kidneys (as mine did in 2010). I came off steroids recently (and Omeprazole; hence my interest in acid reflux here recently) but still take immunosuppressants (Azathioprine), so I get the ‘flu vaccine (which didn’t prevent my being hospitalised in an isolation room due to ‘flu a few years back, but it was in the summer). Any thoughts, MC or others? Sorry if this is too personal or just boring.
I have worried about your medicine regimen for a long time. IIRC, they also gave you calcium as a mineral without suggesting you look into the 14 or so other trace minerals your body needs. Calcium by itself causes osteoporosis in some people. Omeprazole can lead to Alzheimer’s. Since you’ve been on it so long, the rebound acid reflux must be severe. Poor Mark!
Not too personal. Not boring, either. I don’t know the long-term effects of immunosuppressants should they decide to take you off, but I certainly hope they do it slooowly. As I’m sure they did with the acid suppressant.
I’d suggest getting a second opinion in all this, but it’s my understanding that state medical care is pretty much one-size-fits-all. It’s getting to be that here, for sure.
I hope you do some research on your root condition and on the various meds they’ve had you on. Here’s a report on a fellow who had it, plus some enlightening comments:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/harold-ramis-dies-what-is-autoimmune-inflammatory-vasculitis/
Obviously, anything ending in “-itis” is inflammatory. In my research on auto-immune disease conditions, I am learning they are delayed (sometimes delayed) mind-body responses to unavoidable chronic stress. Thus some non-medical modalities that address long-term low-level stress might be helpful. Chinese medicine is one.
I read Linus Pauling (non-narrative) and it made a huge difference to my life, I was able to walk again after years of conventional medicine.
My Tibia, fibula and foot were smashed up and a reasonable repair was effected but the foot is off centre and bent and with a lot of tissue damage.
Pauling highligted the roles of Vitamin C and Lysine in the production of the collagen that the body uses to repair tissue damage of all kinds, including arterial damage around the heart. I don’t know if this would be appropriate for you. Pauling too is ignored because he is not part of the club. But most people do not get enough either Vit. C or lysine in their regular diet, and many are effectively suffering from incipient scurvy. The 50mg RDA for Vit. C is just not enough. Hamsters, which produce their own vit. C, produce the equivalent of 3000 mg per kilogram per day!.
This gets to the nub of the matter:
http://www.hearttechnology.com/pauling_therapy.html
and a quick visi to Holland and Barratt provides the remedy…..
Thanks,Dymphna. I took myself off the calcium a while back; the reflux is now much less severe, though they didn’t taper off the Omeprazole; I did following the recent correspondence here.
In 2002 I suddenly developed symptoms of arthritis, but the medics couldn’t find anything in my blood; much later the rheumatologist opined that this was actually an early manifestation of the vasculitis. From 2010 the more powerful drugs I received got rid of most of the pain and swelling.Thanks MC, I’ll check it out.
Wow, what can I say? After all, what good is a PhD. in microbiology in the face of so much expertise? Everybody goes after Pasteur, but ignores Koch’s postulates, which were what really tied down the connection between specific microorganisms and specific diseases. It is also true that there have been plenty of vaccine accidents, where vaccination has been attempted. However, when comparisons have been made during epidemics of the incidence of that disease in vaccinated vs not vaccinated persons in the affected population, the incidence of disease has always been higher among those who had not been vaccinated. When I was a kid, polio epidemics were part of the summer newscape, how many outbreaks? how many deaths? in this or that city or town. Yes, the Sabin and Salk vaccines did cause a good number of cases, and we are supposed to
believe that the disappearance of those regular summer epidemics “just happened” to coincide with the use of those vaccines. For anyone who believes that I am prepared to offer you the Brooklyn Bridge at a real bargain price!
The polio vaccines were perhaps the biggest breakthrough since the advent of penicillin. Having read both sides of the argument on vaccines, I would love to have some informed discussion from someone in the field without an axe to grind.
First, I have always disagreed with the aggressive, mult-vaccine approach to protecting infants from measles, mumps, rubella, and whooping cough. There is no reason those vaccines could not be spaced more humanely so that babies are not flooded with vaccine materials all at once. Even if it entailed more doctor visits, it is kinder to the child.
Second, the numbers of individual vaccines have increased since the 1990s. And they’re simply added onto the schedule – get ’em all done at once – for the convenience of the medical community, not the best interests of the child.
I don’t know what is causing the increase in autism in children. I doubt it’s vaccinations, but something is at work, and discovering the cause ought to be the focus rather than a defensive refusal to look.
Two, perhaps three, things have changed: (1)the possible quality of the vaccine material used today versus what was being used 40 years ago. “Boosters” are required earlier than used to be the case; (2) the increase in the diseases being vaccinated against; (3) the rise in autism in the same time period that children are being so heavily vaccinated.
When autism first started showing up, mothers were blamed. It was the mother/child relationship – i.e., “cold” mother, claimed to be at fault. Instead, I wonder if it’s not the huge increase in “other-care” as women return to work while children are still infants. It could indeed be an attachment disorder as the Freudians claim but not for the reasons they claim.
Autism is increasing. We need to understand why. Is it a disease of developed countries, does anyone know? And can we ascertain if there is a coincidence between onset of symptoms, severity of symptoms, and any other co-morbidities for the child (i.e., his or her general physical health).
It’s a multifaceted mystery, but it may end up having a fairly simple answer. And I haven’t even touched nutrition, both for mother and child, or the ubiquity of cellphones and the possible damage that the CDC is raising for long term health.
Excellent questions. There has been an increase in autism in children. Something has gone wrong with the frontal lobe, as evidenced by the motor and verbal stereotypies, extreme sensitivity to stimuli, and detachment from people (in more extreme cases). I am so glad that “refrigerator mothers” are no longer being blamed for their peculiar children.
Neurologists and researchers specializing in frontotemporal dementia, another horrific disorder which is becoming more prevalent, are looking at autism because some of the behaviors in FTD overlap with autism.
Also, roughly 1/2 of the people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis show signs of frontal lobe dysfunction, 20% of whom have full-blown FTD.
I, too, think the cause of these related diseases is simple. I believe they are autoimmunities, but triggered by what?
I know it sound bizzare, but the body excretes heavy metals through the hair, and it has been demonstrated that those with ASDs (Autistic Spectrum Disorders) have less Mercury in their hair, what is the significance of this is open to speculation. We inevitably imbibe mercury, it occurs naturally and is particularly prevalent in fish.
We hope that now thimerosal (organic mercury) and Aluminium are not part of the heavy vaccine load given to the very very young (with not so much hair).
It is fairly obvious that, historically, medicine has been an enormous cash cow, and that there have been many official snake-oil hoaxes pulled at the highest levels, and the patient can easily become a victim of financial ambition. From the time of the witch hunts, governments have also been involved, so when the village herbalist (usually female) was burnt as a witch, medicine was put into the hands of the barber (usually male) and his razor. So medicine lost a thousand years of progress in one coup.
Most corruption revolves around fraudulent coersion of victims, and medicine is particularly vulnerable. In UK we see ‘socialized medicine’ where staggering amounts of public money are redistributed from public to private hands. There is therefore much opportunity for graft. The recent rotovirus scam? is a case in point. People have commented about the revolving doors between big pharma and CDC and NIH. This is where the narrative HAS to be questioned. Wakefield (as mentioned above) questioned the narrative, and big pharma had him silenced in a kangaroo (GMC) court. His research has since been vindicated, but the damage to his reputation was enormous. He was not anti-vaccine, but he was critical of the safety of a particular vaccine (MMR). Instead of taking his crticism on board, big pharma used their influence and money to destroy him personally. Which incidentally opened many people’s eyes to the risks involved in bypassing the body’s defences using vaccines. Are vaccines safe? do they do what the label says? we just don’t know because big pharma greed and its propaganda makes everything obscure and difficult to assess.
Koch poses a dilemma, does the disease cause the bacteria, or does the bacteria cause the disease. This is the basis behind the Bechamp/Pasteur controversy as well. The narrative says Pasteur and Kock, but few people ever read Bechamp and pleomorphism (the idea that ‘germs’ change to suit their environment rather than germs cause their environment). This is very fundamental and Bechamp ‘won’ the academic arguments, but Pasteur became very rich and had royal patronage.
Eventually big pharma supported Pasteur and Kock, presumably because it was more profitable. This is history, the papers are in the Academie Nationale in Paris, but in French. But if Pasteur and Kock were wrong, and Bechamp was right then the modern medical narrative needs to be thoroughly questioned.
All narratives need to be questioned. If they are correct, and well-grounded in fact, they have nothing to fear from being questioned.
Whenever you get a strong ad-hominem reaction to questioning an element of the narrative, it tells you that you’ve hit a nerve, and that more data should be aired and discussed.
If people are indifferent to your questioning, then chances are the narrative is close to the truth, insofar as factual truth can ever be fully settled.
That’s just a general rule, obviously. There’s a lot of individual variation, depending on the issue.
Definitely your last paragraph is an important qualifier. In the light of it, your paragraph beginning ‘whenever’ might better begin with ‘often’.
Sometimes the only ‘nerve’ that has been hit is intolerance for nonsense, especially dangerous nonsense.
An “intolerance for nonsense” often masks a fear that one’s own long-established conceptions may be mistaken.
To assess a differing viewpoint as “dangerous nonsense” is to grant that viewpoint power. Why does any “nonsensical” opinion have power? If it is truly nonsense, then surely it is not worth spending time and effort on.
Suppose someone asserts that the earth is a flat disc surmounted by a hemispherical dome on which the stars are placed. You would find that assertion to be nonsense (as would I). But it’s not dangerous nonsense.
A “nonsensical” assertion becomes dangerous when it veers close to what I consider the truth, a truth to which I have considerable emotional attachment. Then I have two options:
1. I can ask for evidence and then examine the evidence presented. Through patient and careful assessment I can determine whether my own understanding is correct, or whether the “nonsensical” assertion is in fact true, based on the evidence. If the latter, then I must make the very difficult emotional decision to shift my worldview and accept the new truth, acknowledging my previous error. This is often called a “conversion experience”, because of its similarity to the sudden onset of religious revelation.
2. I can reject the assertion out of hand and be angry at the person who presented it, dismissing their viewpoint as foolish, misguided, stupid, insane, wicked, etc.
Why would I choose #2 instead of #1?
Because I am afraid of the second outcome in the process described in #1. Careful investigation might lead to the discovery that I was wrong, and that the other person was right. If I have a deep-seated emotional investment in the truth of my belief, then the fear of being wrong is simply too great. Fear induces anger — anger is always caused by (often subliminal) fear — and I lash out at the person who made the assertion.
There is lots of ‘dangerous nonsense’ Baron. The common belief in Africa that albino body parts make good cures is an example.
You seem to have assumed that the sense if ‘threat’ is always to ones own belief system. False if so. Often the sense of threat is to innocent third parties.
//The current narrative is that National Socialism was ‘far right’ and that liberal conservatives who reject this narrative are also ‘far-right’. A rational person can clearly see the disconnect here, but the huge crevasses are papered over by the cognitive dissonance of narrative-compliance.//
I had a knockdown-drag-out last year on one of the conservative websites, in the comments-section, about the current narrative within Conservative circles that the mid-Century, German, Nazi Party was “of the Left.” I considered my analysis of this Conservative narrative to be unchallenged or, better, not refuted. (My first exposure to this “Conservative narrative” was decades ago on the Rush Limbaugh show. Recently–within the past three years–I heard another “top-rated” Conservative radio host state his theory that the left/center/right, political spectrum is NOT a straight line extending left and right from some center–that it curves upward at each end and the despotic, violent tyrants become so similar in appearance and RESULT, that the straight-line analogy or representation becomes invalid, or, at least, problematic.)
Needless to “say”, I was gratified to hear this, as I have great respect for this other radio host.
Perhaps, the content-makers here can create an entry on this subject and we can “have at it” as I don’t wish to hijack the subject at hand.
Jonah Goldberg’s book on the subject is considered the definitive work (“definitive” at least in terms of accessibility, popularity, and his sources)
Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change
http://amzn.to/2iko2aG
Here’s the editorial from Publisher’s Weekly:
Goldberg’s book was published in 2009. Nothing is going to top his effort in the foreseeable future.
It’s worth going over there just to see the cover illustration…and btw, be sure to check out the one-star reviews. It’s a swamp, but sloshing through it makes you realize that some will hold on to their ignorance no matter what.
Thanks, Dymphna.
//In January 1919 Anton Drexler decided to join with right-wing journalist, Karl Harrer, to form the German Worker’s Party (GPW).//
RIGHT-WING JOURNALIST, WORKER’S PARTY — was this worker’s party a new Left party formed by a “right-wing journalist”. You would lose that bet.
//On 12th September 1919, [Karl] Mayr sent Adolf Hitler to attend a meeting of the German Worker’s Party (GWP).//
Hitler was sent to a meeting of the right-wing GWP.
//Anton Drexler had mixed feelings about Hitler but was impressed with his abilities as an orator and invited him to join the party. Adolf Hitler commented: “I didn’t know whether to be angry or to laugh. I had no intention of joining a ready-made party, but wanted to found one of my own…Hitler was urged on by his commanding officer, Major Karl Mayr, to join. … Drexler wrote to a friend: “An absurd little man has become member No. 7 of our Party.”//
Hitler did join what must have been a right-wing party. Perhaps, Hitler was “of the Right” during these years. He wanted “to found one of [his] own”. Are we to believe that he wanted to start a party of the opposite political stripe?
Nazi Party (NSDAP)
All the above was NOT part of my original analysis of this subject.
Goldberg must be like every other right-winger or Conservative–they all want DESPERATELY for Hitler to be “off the Left.”
I don’t have this bias, though I be firmly off the Right.
In the final two sentences above, “of the…”, instead of “off the…”
He didn’t add the word “Socialist” to it for nothing!
What was his reason?
Read his writings. He was a socialist, committed to the workers’ cause. But he was also a nationalist and hated the Jews. Hence the evolution of National Socialism.
To understand the socialist character of Nazism, one must read extensive excerpts from Hitler’s writings, speeches, and table talk. There is socialism galore in them.
In lieu of your answer, here is my next installment:
//Hitler’s stormtroopers were often former members of the Freikorps (right-wing private armies who flourished during the period that followed the First World War) … Accompanied by bands of musicians and carrying swastika flags, they would parade through the streets of Munich. At the end of the march Hitler would make one of his passionate speeches that encouraged his supporters to carry out acts of violence against Jews and his left-wing political opponents.
As this violence was often directed against Socialists and Communists, the local right-wing Bavarian government did not take action against the Nazi Party.
…
in the elections of December 1924 the NSDAP could only win 14 seats compared with the the 131 obtained by the Socialists (German Social Democrat Party) and the 45 of the German Communist Party (KPD).//
He hired former members of right-wing private armies and fomented violence against left-wing opponents. Are we to believe that the “local right-wing Bavarian government” turned a blind eye to the violence of the left-winger Hitler who committed acts of violence to his fellow left-wingers?
When Hitler wished to obtain support from the industrialists (capitalists), he was told by these right-wingers that his policies were “too far left”, that is, not right-enough for the industrialists. A pamphlet Hitler wrote and which was, “only meant for the eyes of the rich industrialists”, revealed to the capitalists that his original anti-capatilist programme, “would not be implemented if he gained power.”
//Some prosperous industrialists were convinced by these arguments and gave donations to the Nazi Party, however, the vast majority continued to support other parties, especially the right-wing German Nationalist Peoples Party (DNVP).//
OTHER RIGHT-WING PARTIES.
//In the General Election held in May, 1928, the Nazi Party won only 14 seats, while the left-wing parties, the German Social Democrat Party (153) and the German Communist Party (54) still continued to grow in popularity.//
Nazi Party (NSDAP)
Hitler’s animus was directed at the Communists — i.e. the INTERNATIONAL Socialists. He was a dedicated Socialist, but his Socialism was designed for the German people. Other countries were to be (1) defeated and enslaved or exterminated, or (2) absorbed into the Reich, depending on how Aryan they were. He admired Britain, and for a long time hoped to absorb it into the Reich, even though the Anglo-Saxon bloodline had been so contaminated with Celtic and French genetic material.
This plan was only for Europe (which included Russia). Contrary to popular myth, Hitler did not see himself as the conqueror of the world, just of Europe. Although he did expect Germany to dominate the world, with Japan playing a secondary role and allowed to have East Asia as its playground. Each group intended to enslave the lesser races in its area of influence.
Hitler’s main problem was the United States. And declaring war on it was a major strategic blunder.
[This is placed here due to the ‘reply’ nesting limit and is in response to post at ‘December 24, 2016 at 11:00 am’.]
——————————
As you wish.
I already had my next installment prepared, though I need to make one thing clear. If I find ANY of this content–I mean MY content–appearing here and written by anyone here then I will hire the most unscrupulous lawyer with an outstanding boat payment.
I await your response before I continue.
Merry Christmas to you, too, Scherado.
I find you comment both opaque and threatening. Perhaps other readers can help me out here?
I’ve followed this comment thread for a while now and realize we’re in a swamp…happens every time Hitler, the Jews, religion, or the Russians come to the surface in a thread that approaches nearly a hundred replies…
Threatening civil suits – for some purported plagiarism one, that I’m unable to find – is not a stress I plan to encourage. What it makes me want to do is delete all your comments and bid you fond adieu.
However, I’ll let the Baron make that decision since he carries 95% of the workload here.
It is really about big government politics and small government politics, big governments need to control the minute details of people’s lives. Small government politics is about keeping government (and politicians) firmly in their places doing the only jobs the people require and designnate of and for them by means of the Constitution or its equivalent
So much here to respond to and so little time – until after Christmas at least.
More to follow, especially on former Dr Wakefield.
Such a shame that anti-jihad and anti-science strands have become entwined in this narrative and its responses.
A suggestion for holiday reading, Dr Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science website.
Seconded, TF; I read Goldacre’s book only recently.
I wanted the commenters to know that at least one person has read through the discussions as of 12:01 pm 12/24 CST.
One comment I want to add that I consider important is that the expansion of government over territory and the elimination of small nation-states is possibly the largest threat we face. A federal government will be driven by its bureaucrats to centralize power to itself. Once that happens, there is virtually no experimentation. The original concept of the US federation was that the federal government would handle foreign relations, provide a unified defense, and prevent armed conflicts between states. The states themselves would be laboratories for different forms and philosophies of government.
So, in MCs terms, one state might mandate all sorts of vaccinations, throwing every vaccine ever conceived of into a bucket of juice given to newborns. Parents to whom this was intolerable would take the enormous, but not disastrous, step of moving to another state more suited to their own views or knowledge. It might be rough on the babies in the state, but the damage, if any, would be limited, and any benefits would eventually become apparent.
The expansion of the powers of the federal government, and under Obama, it’s relentless war on local cultures and prerogatives, ensures that there is no experimentation. A federal bureaucracy issues rules, and a power-hungry and corrupt Justice Department initiates ruinously expensive lawsuits against any state or locality that doesn’t toe the line. Similarly, the centralization of funding for education and research ensures a centralized control over the lines of research followed and the types of scientific conclusions that are made.
For this reason, I think what is now the US would have been vastly better off if the south had won the Civil War and maintained secession; or better yet, if Jefferson Davis had never begun the Civil War in the first place with his insane attack on Fort Sumter. The Confederacy was at least as committed to the idea of freedom and liberty as the US, with the exception of slavery (which was still legal in the US as well, in slave states).
Imagine the harm if only one vaccine in the panoply of immunizations did long-term damage to the intelligence and genetic viability of babies. Under a federally-administered regime, there would be simply no opportunity to gauge the effects through regional differences in requirements. In one fell swoop, you would do major damage to virtually all the future generation.
I would be pretty happy to see the US split up into three or more different countries. This is not because I don’t love the US, but because of my opinion that the country is simply too large and too diverse to be governed by one government. A despot like Obama can do major and permanent harm to the country and to the people. A major task of the Trump administration will be to simply roll back the abuses of the last 8 years. And chances are, there will be an establishment candidate (either of the Democrats or Republicans) after 8 years of Trump, who will continue to expand the federal powers, though not with the obviousness and obviously-racist intent of the Obama administration.
I did skim the Pasteur vs Beauchamp book to some extent, and find some major problems with it. In the first place, (according to Microbe Hunters) Pasteur, (an organic chemist by training, with some notable achievements in that field) decided to try to help some manufacturers of cheap wine solve the problem of why they were getting so many bad or “sick” batches. In the process he discovered that he was dealing with a variety of “microorganisms”. Based on his findings, he made a series of recommendations to the manufacturers to solve the problem. Not being intellectuals, they simply followed his advice and instead of facing financial ruin, they found themselves turning out batch after batch of good wine with monotonous regularity. Out of gratitude, they set him up in the Pasteur Institute. The French scientific establishment (in biology) was another story altogether. He couldn’t be studying organisms of different species that had ancestors and descendents because that would be against “spontaneous generation”, which at the time was a key part of evolutionary theory. Beauchamp, on the other hand was talking about “enzymes and factors”, a very different point of view. Therefore, I can’t see how Pasteur could be credibly accused of stealing from Beauchamp. Anyway, Pasteur was given a hearing because the physical scientists in the Academy had a lot of respect for his previous achievements in chemistry. In the end, the Academy offered a prize for an experiment that would prove or disprove spontaneous generation. Pasteur won the prize with an experiment suggested by a collegue, the swan-necked flasks. Boil the growth media inside the flask, which was open to the air, but with a neck too convoluted to allow bacteria to just fall in, and some of those flasks were still waiting for spontaneous generation 100 years later. Break the neck of the flask, and practically instant contamination. Spontaneous generation was declared dead, and evolutionary theory has survived just fine with out it. I never thought of Pasteur as an establishment figure, the biology and medical establishments fought tooth and nail against the germ theory of disease. Many evolutionists are not happy with the idea of species as a concept, so would tend to favor Beauchamp. As for the medical establishment, look what they did to poor Sammuelweis. He was drummed out of the profession and ruined for running an experiment that showed that making doctors wash their hands between patients could stop the spread of child bed fever. He even demanded that they clean their fingernails! Can you imagine the horror of it! They couldn’t do that to Pasteur since he never pretended to be a doctor. Even so, he took up the child-bed fever cause and got results. Frankly, I have always been grateful that Louie was a tough old rooster who wasn’t afraid of a fight in a good cause, even if he did make some spectacular mistakes (eg. the first attempt at Anthrax vaccination).
Quite a paragraph, Marinka…