But I think I kind of get it, now—-he got “A“ vaccine, therefore, he is still “on the side of science.“
Look, I sympathize with the sentiment of wanting to trust, doctors, experts, agencies, and so on. It’s a tough leap to make, that the preponderance of institutional medical advice can be that consistently and systematically wrong, let alone, dangerous, let alone able to deceive/self-deceive on such a grand level. I read the essay Daniel linked in his comments here, and I actually find myself agreeing with maybe 85%, almost 90% of what he says. For instance, I agree that the dangers of Trump presidency are quite self evident, in that those backing him are aligned with the intent to govern in a technocratic and dystopian fashion. Peter Thiel, etc. I doubt very much that Charles Eisenstein is not aware of that.
Where I step off from Daniel’s way of seeing this is when he calls people like Charles Eisenstein, Glenn Greenwald, Russell, Brand, Matt Taibbi… Turncoats. To call someone a turncoat is quite incendiary. That is war talk. When you do that, you were aligning yourself with the kind of establishment thinking that wants to rid itself of all opposition. Hillary Clinton just did an interview in which she proposed the prosecution of people spreading misiformation information, as she defines it. When you align yourself with that kind of thinking, that kind of intent by calling people “turncoats,” you are actually calling for them to be prosecuted… Imprisoned, punished, etc.
Daniel, with the growing powers of technocratic surveillance and control that you yourself express worry about, calls like this are really no joke.
So anyone who disagrees with you, or with the central version of the truth that you yourself profess to have many problems with, you seem to be almost enthusiastic about having them eliminated as threats. Which is the very definition of the kind of totalitarianism that you are worried about. It’s the kind of bullying that does happen in totalitarian states, that you decry.
I’ll be honest, it’s this kind of divisive thinking that makes me feel quite certain there is no political solution at stage in our history. Charles joined with RFK Junior‘s campaign in the hope that a political solution was still possible, and , it seems to me, although I don’t know him, kept that hope alive. as a matter of principle and practice, trying to keep optimism alive.
But it seems clear to me, from the overt calls for censorship, prosecution, assassination, and hate… And these are sometimes very direct… in Daniel’s comments on Charles previous post. I read him saying that, “Charles deserves hate.”—-that whatever happens after the election, and whoever wins, the main concern for the average person, and for fair minded people trying to go about their lives, whether Democrat, leaning or Republican leaning or somewhere beyond or in between, is going to be figuring out how to deal with the flavor of tyranny or totalitarianism that gets brought in. The other main concern is going to be how to deal with the insane levels of back and forth hate, which will likely lead to ever more violence and social disruption. Add in the potential of war on some pretty scary levels, and Charles‘s message is exactly the elixir we need to be drinking. It’s either that or Kool-Aid mixed up by the systemic manipulation of naturally occurring ideological factions.
The whole rotten corrupt unwieldy system needs to collapse and fall - out of the ashes! There is always chaos before a paradigm shift and that's where I believe we are at....we just have to ride the waves, keep our cool and extend love and tolerance - the tremendous division is exactly what the establishment wants - they're warmongers after all! We must hold the vision of 'the beautiful new world we all believe is possible' (thank you Charles...)
Also, apologies for grammer mistakes etc in this long diatribe—I narrated it into my ipad and then went back quickly trying to fix things without much time
Question for Daniel should he care to answer, and anyone else who agrees with the gist of what he says:
Should dissenters like Charles have potential criminal charges brought against them for spreading “propaganda” as Hilary proposed in her recent interview with Rachel Maddow?
What are your thoughts on that? I’m trying to get a read on what kind of thing to expect from left wing thought leaders such as him, under a Harris administration, especially if things ramp up on the Russia Ukraine front and the feeble anti-war movement grows in the US in response.
I wanted to be clear that the article I’m referring to in the above post is not the one Daniel links in the comment to which we are replying. I just looked through that and it is full of fallacious assumptions and deep misunderstandings . Atrocitious and insulting.
So, the one and done, which was then discontinued. No boosters. Meanwhile, younger family members going to college in various dem-heavy states have had to stay current (meaning get multiple mRNA shots) just in order to attend and get their careers started. And mRNA ptoducts are just getting started—big Pharma wants to use them for practically everything despite people like us, and like Daniel, prudently avoiding them.
He got the Johnson vaccination IIRC. That's not an MRNA one.
But I think I kind of get it, now—-he got “A“ vaccine, therefore, he is still “on the side of science.“
Look, I sympathize with the sentiment of wanting to trust, doctors, experts, agencies, and so on. It’s a tough leap to make, that the preponderance of institutional medical advice can be that consistently and systematically wrong, let alone, dangerous, let alone able to deceive/self-deceive on such a grand level. I read the essay Daniel linked in his comments here, and I actually find myself agreeing with maybe 85%, almost 90% of what he says. For instance, I agree that the dangers of Trump presidency are quite self evident, in that those backing him are aligned with the intent to govern in a technocratic and dystopian fashion. Peter Thiel, etc. I doubt very much that Charles Eisenstein is not aware of that.
Where I step off from Daniel’s way of seeing this is when he calls people like Charles Eisenstein, Glenn Greenwald, Russell, Brand, Matt Taibbi… Turncoats. To call someone a turncoat is quite incendiary. That is war talk. When you do that, you were aligning yourself with the kind of establishment thinking that wants to rid itself of all opposition. Hillary Clinton just did an interview in which she proposed the prosecution of people spreading misiformation information, as she defines it. When you align yourself with that kind of thinking, that kind of intent by calling people “turncoats,” you are actually calling for them to be prosecuted… Imprisoned, punished, etc.
Daniel, with the growing powers of technocratic surveillance and control that you yourself express worry about, calls like this are really no joke.
So anyone who disagrees with you, or with the central version of the truth that you yourself profess to have many problems with, you seem to be almost enthusiastic about having them eliminated as threats. Which is the very definition of the kind of totalitarianism that you are worried about. It’s the kind of bullying that does happen in totalitarian states, that you decry.
I’ll be honest, it’s this kind of divisive thinking that makes me feel quite certain there is no political solution at stage in our history. Charles joined with RFK Junior‘s campaign in the hope that a political solution was still possible, and , it seems to me, although I don’t know him, kept that hope alive. as a matter of principle and practice, trying to keep optimism alive.
But it seems clear to me, from the overt calls for censorship, prosecution, assassination, and hate… And these are sometimes very direct… in Daniel’s comments on Charles previous post. I read him saying that, “Charles deserves hate.”—-that whatever happens after the election, and whoever wins, the main concern for the average person, and for fair minded people trying to go about their lives, whether Democrat, leaning or Republican leaning or somewhere beyond or in between, is going to be figuring out how to deal with the flavor of tyranny or totalitarianism that gets brought in. The other main concern is going to be how to deal with the insane levels of back and forth hate, which will likely lead to ever more violence and social disruption. Add in the potential of war on some pretty scary levels, and Charles‘s message is exactly the elixir we need to be drinking. It’s either that or Kool-Aid mixed up by the systemic manipulation of naturally occurring ideological factions.
The whole rotten corrupt unwieldy system needs to collapse and fall - out of the ashes! There is always chaos before a paradigm shift and that's where I believe we are at....we just have to ride the waves, keep our cool and extend love and tolerance - the tremendous division is exactly what the establishment wants - they're warmongers after all! We must hold the vision of 'the beautiful new world we all believe is possible' (thank you Charles...)
Also, apologies for grammer mistakes etc in this long diatribe—I narrated it into my ipad and then went back quickly trying to fix things without much time
Question for Daniel should he care to answer, and anyone else who agrees with the gist of what he says:
Should dissenters like Charles have potential criminal charges brought against them for spreading “propaganda” as Hilary proposed in her recent interview with Rachel Maddow?
What are your thoughts on that? I’m trying to get a read on what kind of thing to expect from left wing thought leaders such as him, under a Harris administration, especially if things ramp up on the Russia Ukraine front and the feeble anti-war movement grows in the US in response.
I wanted to be clear that the article I’m referring to in the above post is not the one Daniel links in the comment to which we are replying. I just looked through that and it is full of fallacious assumptions and deep misunderstandings . Atrocitious and insulting.
So, the one and done, which was then discontinued. No boosters. Meanwhile, younger family members going to college in various dem-heavy states have had to stay current (meaning get multiple mRNA shots) just in order to attend and get their careers started. And mRNA ptoducts are just getting started—big Pharma wants to use them for practically everything despite people like us, and like Daniel, prudently avoiding them.
same in NZ - it's beyond disgusting
ah that explains a lot!