Connect with us

New Social Compact

Do our Geo-political Confusions derive from our Philosophical Confusion?

Published

on

[yt_dropcap type=”square” font=”” size=”14″ color=”#000″ background=”#fff” ] I [/yt_dropcap] t is the task of pundits and political science experts to elucidate, explain and untie our geo-political conundrums and knots, so to speak. It has become a veritable academic cottage industry whose father arguably is none other than Niccolo’ Machiavelli. But to judge even by only what can be empirically observed, it seems that the greater the effort of elucidation, the greater the confusion. This is a puzzling paradox which is sure to keep academics of all stripes up at night and very busy for the foreseeable future.

I’d like to modestly propose that this strange paradox of geo-political confusion can perhaps best be explored by analyzing the underlying philosophical confusion, that is to say, a confusion at the level of ideas. For example, one of the most frequent, most brazen attacks on modern thought is the one carried on by assorted Straussian classicists and absolutists of many stripes and persuasions. Straussianism is a respectable conservative philosophy held by the Chicago University philosopher Leo Strauss, which attacks modern relativism, reductionism and positivism. It views “modernity” or modern philosophy as a sort of cancer on today’s body politics and resorts to the ancients for answers to modern political perplexities. As it could be expected it is vehemently opposed by the vast majority of liberal progressive philosophies in academia (indeed the predominant majority in academia) which at least attempt a synthesis between the ancients and the moderns even when the tensions between the two remain and the synthesis is not achieved.

The Straussians’ stratagem seems to function this way: show that modern and post-modern thought leads to relativism, then that relativism in turn leads to pluralism and multi-culturalism. Thereupon attack multiculturalism and pluralism as a cancer on the body politic and the very unity of NATO, the EU and Western Civilization in general, never mind that quite often these attacks are redolent of the xenophobia and rabid nationalism, even fascism of old. Now, if the reader initially finds all this rather confusing, it is because it is. Without an examination of the underlying philosophical confusions it will probably remain confused.

We have the famous case of some years ago of Strauss and Momigliano branding Isaiah Berlin a shameless relativist and stubbornly persisting in the charge even when Berlin defended himself and denied it in the New York Review of Books. In politics we have none other than the former PM of France Sarkozi and the present PM of Germany Merkel encouraging the demise of the multiculturalist experiment in the European Union. The two don’t exactly advocate a return to good old nationalism or fascism, they are far from being right-wingers, but the message come through loud and clear nonetheless: you need to conform and assimilate to European ethos and culture or your life will become quite uncomfortable in the EU. In effect, the issue of multiculturalism has been slowly transformed in one of clash of civilizations; a dangerous explosive issue if there ever was one.

Without going into the more complex political and social aspects of this issue, which I have discussed elsewhere, I’d like, more modestly, to show here that it is a logical and philosophical fallacy to equate pluralism with relativism; that in fact the arguments in that regard are a gross equivocation, a red herring meant to distract from the real agenda of those anti-multicultural right wing politicians (I am thinking here of Wilder, le Penn, Bossi and Grillo, etc. etc.) bend on bringing back good old nationalism, totalitarian regimes, fascism, even advocating secession from the countries in which they operate.

This exploration will focus mostly on the philosophy of hermeneutics of a current modern philosopher: Gianni Vattimo who was a European parliamentarian for a while and whom I had the good fortune of having as a teacher at Yale University in the late seventies in a course he taught there on Giambattista Vico. I distinctly remember some face to face conversations I had with Vattimo. It soon became apparent that he follows a philosophical line which goes directly from Vico to Nietzsche through Heidegger to Hans Georg Gadamar (as student of Heidegger like Strauss and an influential Vico scholar in his own right). In that genealogy Vattimo would be the philosophical great-grandson of Vico, the grandson of Nietzsche/Heidegger and the son of Gadamer. As was the case for his predecessors in the field of hermeneutics beginning with Vico, for Vattimo hermeneutics which etymologically means “interpretation” is much more than one branch of philosophy; it is the constitutive element of philosophy itself. It is well known in philosophical circles that hermeneutics acquired great importance in the 20th century, especially in the “turn to language” as advocated by Heidegger and pioneered by Vico in the 18th century via The New Science.

After this necessary preamble, we will begin with this crucial question: Is pluralism possible without relativism? Some clear definitions may be needed at the outset. What do we mean by pluralism? Essentially this: the idea that there are multiple avenues to truth, multiple forms of truth, and multiple diverse (and potentially radically different) cultural lifeworld expressions operative at the same time and this forms are historical as well as geographical situated in time and space. The Straussians of course debunk this as historicism unconcerned with universals, but then some of them become self-declared experts in Far Eastern cultures to better stand apart from the unwashed ignorant oi polloi. The whole operation begins to smell of elitism. They even go around speaking mandarin knowing full well that few can judge and assess their knowledge of the language. Oh my, are we confused.

What do we mean by relativism? Basically, the belief that all of these various expressions are in some sense “equally true” and/or the notion that even if there were one right final truth to the universe we humans would never be able to ascertain it. As Vico put it, man can only know with absolute certitude only what he himself has made (languages, institutions, history) and to whose origins he can return, not what God and only God has made: i.e., nature and the natural world. Even Plato, who is generally considered the grandfather of absolutists of all persuasions, after recounting the myth of the cave as an allegory of knowledge and truth, exclaims: “only God knows if this is true.”

Nevertheless those two views are conjoined so that relativism gets portrayed as a sub-set of pluralism. But is that really the case? Pluralism may indeed be hallmark of postmodernism but not so relativism. Pluralism does not necessarily need to hold that all views are equal, as relativism does. Relativism takes the existence of plurality and then makes a decision that we cannot know how to judge between these various expressions of life and says that they are all equal and not to be compared and not to be judged.

Paradoxically, the statement that all views are equal is an absolute position, and it undermines relativism. The statement that all views are relative and in relation to one another is, in fact, correct. The idea that all views are related to other views and that no view springs out of the ether of Mount Olympus or outside of time and space completely on its own does not mean all those views are equally valid. That is to say, post-postmodernism accepts the pluralism that is already there in the postmodern world and then seeks ways to integrate it. This approach is different than any attempt to reinforce a single narrative (i.e. the modern world as positivists tend to do) upon the various diverse forms of expression in existence.

Enter Gianni Vattimo. His work is built around what he calls “weak thought”. Weak thought refers to the station of thought and philosophy in the context of life after modernity–that is after the death of European colonialism, the 20th century’s horrors, the rise of globalization, and the end of the Cold War. The opinions, views, and commitments we hold must necessarily be “weakened” in this age which Vico would place in the third era of extreme rationality. Vattimo, as I remember is quite fond of quoting this famous saying of Nietzsche: There are no facts only interpretations and this itself is an interpretation.

Nietzsche called the coming dissolution of modernity (and he was a prophet in that respect), the “fabling of the world.” The postmodern world is a fable; or in Vattimo’s terms, weak thought, which is to say the kind of logic one sees in fables, myths and fairy tales, is now the “weak” reality of life. According to modern thought which begins with the Descartes and Enlightenment rationalism, life follows an objective system of progress and rationality. But for Nietzsche the modern world’s self-view was not fact but interpretation. Vattimo insists in keeping both halves of that Nietzschean aphorism in mind: 1. There are no facts only interpretations and 2. Number 1 is itself an interpretation. The first point undercuts the modern view of pure objectivity. The second point prevents the postmodern insight concerning interpretation to become its own “fact.”

Hermeneutics is nothing else but the study of meaning and interpretation. This was brought home to me in the Vico course I took under Vattimo at Yale University in the late seventies, as mentioned above. Later, after writing a Ph.D. dissertation on Vico I ended up writing a book titled Hermeneutics in the Philosophy of Giambattista Vico (Mellen Press, 1993). For Vattimo, what hermeneutics has revealed is a thoroughly pluralized world. He writes that we can no longer believe in a final objective all-encompassing absolute metaphysical view of the universe—that is to say, a universe that perfectly describes the way things actually are.

Lately I have been reviewing Heidegger’s thought which I had originally studied in college via a book with which a friend and colleague who is an expert on Heidegger has gifted me (The Cambridge Companion to Heidegger edited by Charles Guignon). What come through in that book is that Heidegger persuasively argued that the attempt by metaphysics to describe rationally all of life under a single heading (God, Being, Truth, etc.) has destroyed our ability to actually live in the world and that the manifestation of this trend in our day is science and the scientific approach (positivism). For Heidegger this tendency to describe, control, and frame existence under the term of metaphysics led to the “oblivion of Being” or the human inability to live graciously in the world. Instead of first living in the mystery of existence, we seek to control, describe, and explain life and end up dehumanizing ourselves. For Heidegger as indeed for the anti-Cartesian Vico earlier, the best way to relate is through a kind of poetic-like relationship to the world. We let it arise and speak to us in its mysterious language instead of trying to impose upon life our categories of thought, for Nature is a shy maiden and will not be violated and dominated and observed naked. The truth too may be a shy maiden not to be used as a weapon of sort. This is what Heidegger describes as the post-metaphysical world. This is redolent of Vico’s idea that rationality is composed of the rational but also, and just as importantly, of the poetical and to separate the two is to dehumanize oneself.

Vattimo too argues that this trajectory arises from the early foundations of Christianity, that Christianity eventually destroys an absolutist metaphysics. Atheism is another form of metaphysics for him. The post-metaphysical world, the post-modern world, the world that is an interpreted fable, is one in which there are a plurality of cultures, languages, and life-worlds enacted by various beings on the planet. No one of them can ever be final.

So the crucial question becomes: how do we deal with plurality without falling into the trap of relativism? Vattimo nowhere says that all views are equally valid and, like Berlin, he never declares himself a relativist. For Vattimo the ethical implications of “weak thought” is charity. Love is better than the rejection of love and therefore not all views are equal and we must love each other in our differences or perish.

It is not hard to see that for this version of a postmodern worldview which recommends the “weak power” of love as a guiding ethical construct of a plural world would find unacceptable any theory that denies or represses plurality denying charity and forgiveness. Some of these world views that Vattimo would find flawed include religious fundamentalism, scientific materialism, and last but not least cultural relativism. Vattimo is concerned with bringing views, languages, and peoples at the periphery into the middle of the discourse. Vattimo in effect has given an answer to the Straussian classical absolutists’ debunking modern thought. Pluralism can hold on to ethical values that have meaning, practice love and forgiveness across cultural differences, reject violence, intolerance and relativism. Paradoxically, “weak power” unsure of itself overpowers intransigent absolutism sure of itself.

What did Shakespeare say: Maturity is all. I suppose part of maturity at every level is the ability to live with ambiguity. The greater one’s ability to live with ambiguity, the more mature one is. Most absolutists seem to be unable to accomplish such a feat; they need absolute certainty and are too clever and elitists by half for their own good. Vattimo’s weak thought on the other hand, as a form of pluralism seems to be quite mature, the way cultural relativism can never be. Cultural relativism recoils from the ambiguity of pluralism, of post-metaphysics and historicism taking refuge in the easy position of everything being equally right and so no view can ever be judged.

Indeed one can do worse than becoming a pluralist and a multiculturalist; one can become a relativist or an absolutist. I don’t pretend that the above has suddenly made the present confusion in our geo-politics and philosophical ideas suddenly clear and certain, but perhaps it can supply to thread to follow that may hopefully get us out of the confusing labyrinth in which we seem to be stuck in.

Professor Paparella has earned a Ph.D. in Italian Humanism, with a dissertation on the philosopher of history Giambattista Vico, from Yale University. He is a scholar interested in current relevant philosophical, political and cultural issues; the author of numerous essays and books on the EU cultural identity among which A New Europe in search of its Soul, and Europa: An Idea and a Journey. Presently he teaches philosophy and humanities at Barry University, Miami, Florida. He is a prolific writer and has written hundreds of essays for both traditional academic and on-line magazines among which Metanexus and Ovi. One of his current works in progress is a book dealing with the issue of cultural identity within the phenomenon of “the neo-immigrant” exhibited by an international global economy strong on positivism and utilitarianism and weak on humanism and ideals.

Continue Reading
Comments

New Social Compact

Grace and a Tennis Celebrity

Published

on

image source: Wikipedia

Among the character traits we cherish in fellow humans, grace is often more noticeable in its absence.  The recent saga of a Serbian tennis player and his manner of entry into Australia and subsequent events come to mind.  A champion athlete cannot help but serve as an ambassador for his country, and in Serbia’s case, after the horrors of the Yugoslavia civil war and its prominent role, it is a country that needs all the help it can get. 

Novak Djokovic is ranked number one in the world and is in Australia to defend his title.  He appears to have lied on his Australian entry form:  False declarations are grounds for revoking a visa, and immigration officials acted.  But as world number one, he is a draw for the tournament … and money talks — he is already scheduled to play his first match as this is written. 

Mr. Djokovic’s lawyers went to court which overturned the immigration officials’ order against him on the grounds they had not followed proper procedure.  Then the immigration minister, Alex Hawke, who had been thinking about canceling his visa actually did.  So it’s back to court.

But it gets worse:  Djokovic has not been vaccinated.  He claims that having had the illness, he is immune.  Scientists have found that to be of short duration.

He also broke isolation rules after he had tested positive, particularly by not isolating himself, thereby endangering his contacts.  Cavalier his behavior maybe, perhaps careless but possibly a sense that rules are not for celebrities, only for lesser mortals.

That it caused a sense of outrage is apparent.  A leaked video has a couple of news anchors discussing Djokovic in not very flattering terms:  “Novak Djokovic is a lying, sneaky asshole”, says one.  Yet the comment also is evidence of a coarseness that has gradually pervaded language.

In the meantime, Mr. Djokovic’s father has his own take on the affair.  He calls it a conspiracy to prevent his son from breaking the previous record of 20 Grand Slam title wins held by Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer because they are all against Serbia.  But Serbia, which still believes in little Jesus and is thus protected, will prevail.

Would aphorisms like ‘a storm-in-a-teacup’ or ‘mountains out of a molehill’ be descriptive?  Not if it’s news across the world.  Yet, if he continues to rant on the tennis court and win, it could be his way of getting rid of nerves, an eternal bugaboo. 

He must have another crucial concern:  the biological clock.  At 34 going on to 35 in five months, and with much younger rivals snapping at his heels, it has to be a race against time to win that 21st major title.

Just like grace notes relieve tedium in music, perhaps Djokovic’s rants relieve the boring baseline game that modern tennis has become.  No more a Frank Sedgman or a Pancho Gonzales charging up to the net to put away a dramatic volley, tennis now needs a grace note, or two, or three …  

Continue Reading

New Social Compact

Age No Bar: A Paradigm Shift in the Girl Child’s Marriageable Age in India

Published

on

Image source: indiatoday.in

India is a country known to have diverse culture, languages, social norms, ethical values, traditional customs, belief system, religions and their personal laws. With personal laws governing succession, adoption, divorce etc, one of the most important aspects governed by the personal laws is Marriage. Indian society has a deep-rooted belief of marriages being the most sacred bond between two people. Every religion of the country gives utmost importance to this sacred bond. Since this bond is of such great importance to the Indian society and to the people of the country, the legal system and the personal laws have made efforts to legalise the sacred bond. There are conditions and requirements laid down for the marriage to be solemnized and get a legal sanction. One such important condition is “age”. According to most of the personal laws and The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 the legal age for a man should not be less than 21 years of age and a woman 18 years of age. Recently the government introduced The Prohibition of Child Marriage (Amendment) Bill, 2021 to raise the age of marriage for women from 18 years to 21 years

Introduction of this bill shall prove to be a ray of hope for people struggling to curb the evil of child marriage in our country. One cannot claim progress unless women progress on all fronts including their physical, mental and reproductive health. The Constitution guarantees gender equality as part of the fundamental rights and also guarantees prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sex. This bill would bring women equal to the men as far as the legal age of marriage in concerned. Under the National Family Health Survery-5, it is stated 7% of the girls aged between 15 and 18 years were found to be pregnant and nearly 23% of the girls in the age group of 20 to 24 were married below the age of 18 years. There are researches to point that from 2015 to 2020, 20 lakhs child marriages have been stopped.

In my opinion, increasing the age of women from 18 years to 21 should not be seen solely as an equal opportunity for them to choose their life partners at the same age as that of men, but this is a step taken by the government to eradicate child marriages that still find way in to our society. It should be seen as an effort to bring down maternal mortality rate and infant mortality rate. It shall also try and curb the teenage pregnancies, which are extremely harmful for women’s overall health as well as the infants born out of it. We also have to take into consideration that a large part of our society still lack basic education and awareness about these laws and the advantages attached to it. We as educated citizens of the country should take extra efforts in making people aware and to make them understand about the disadvantages associated with child marriage and the overall consequences their children would face in the future. We should appreciate the efforts taken by the government to tackle gender inequality and gender discrimination adequate measures taken to secure health, welfare and empowerment of our women and girls and to ensure status and opportunity for them at par with men.

*The Views Expressed are Strictly Personal

Continue Reading

New Social Compact

Post Pandemic – What’s Next

Published

on

Setting aside the omicron hysterics leading to marshal law lockdowns, the absurdity of a last chance vaccine or risk a long winter of death; or the charade of standing in a ridiculously long line of humanoids seeking a covid test after being fully vaccinated; the more contagious omicron variant with much milder symptoms, akin to the common cold, looks more and more like a natural vaccine being wind swept across the world. If we are at the beginning of the end of the pandemic as the mountain of positive cases peak and immunity engulfs the herd of humanity, what is the next step for governments, businesses, health officials, and the people of earth?

We have entered our third calendar year with the pandemic, and one must wonder how society will move forward and under what guise and endgame. First, there are many questions on the more immediate future for the everyday person, and secondly, what is the impact of the actions taken by government, big pharma, and healthcare officials throughout pandemic, and lastly, will there be any accountability for the actions taken, whether mandating experimental medicine and the potential long-term implications to one’s physical and mental health, societal lockdowns and the economy, children’s learning and coping, and civil liberties removed.

Close to home, what will happen to our jobs and will those who refused the injections be allowed to return to the workplace that terminated their employment?  How will schools and colleges catch students up after all the disruptions? How emotionally and mentally stable will we be? What of broken marriages and abusive situations, bankruptcies, deaths from missed surgeries and acute care, drug overdoses and suicides. Will people refrain from shopping in-person, attending church, or traveling? Will families heal their rifts over the vaccines and find a way to move forward?

On a more macro level, it was not long ago that we were told one shot was safe and effective. During an April 2021 MSNBC interview, Rochelle Walensky, the Director of the CDC, unequivocally claimed vaccinated people do not carry the virus. President Joe Biden, during a CNN Townhall in July 2021, was emphatic that you cannot get COVID-19 if you are vaccinated.  Now, the vaccinated are being told not to attend restaurants or large gatherings with a tsunami of breakthrough cases, and you are required to go for a third shot and then a fourth new and improved injection currently being formulated. Explicitly, any expert telling you to get vaccinated or take the booster to prevent you from getting COVID or spreading the virus is not being truthful and potentially creating further damage.

The ineffectiveness of the vaccines to prevent COVID is clear; however, no one really knows how safe the experimental medicine will be with forgoing normal clinical research over five years of testing prior to the FDA’s regular approval process. This vaccine may have provided a level of support to make your symptoms better, but it never immunized the subject. Unfortunately, there is preliminary research coming to light that the vaccinated are now more likely to get COVID than the unvaccinated. One might even argue the longevity of the pandemic and viral mutations is now a pandemic of the vaccinated.

It was not long ago that some front-line healthcare workers were saving lives, and then were told they had to take the injection or lose their job. Now, many vaccinated healthcare workers are being infected with COVID-19 and being told they can remain at work or isolate for only five few days; yet the unvaccinated nurses who have not been infected could easily wear a n95 mask and be reinstated to provide care.

Sadly, many businesses and corporations abetted the enslavement of their employees by forcing them to choose between an experimental medicine or lose their job and ability to provide for their family’s survival. A gun was held at their head to take a vaccine that is not effective and perhaps unsafe, and they lost their basic freedom to determine one’s own health and medical treatment. These decisions need to be revisited in the future with ensuing tribunals and inquiries.

In the much bigger picture, a large segment of society has lost touch with reality and descended into a time warp of delusion through the relentless fearmongering fastened with the censorship and intimidation ploys to obey the rules or be labeled an anti-vaxxer conspirator. If science cannot be questioned, it is no longer science. It’s propaganda.

The policies nurtured by the national healthcare agencies and their cohorts on the daily news networks may have created the greatest mental illness ever witnessed where the long-term psychiatric effects evolved into a mass panic of irrationality.

“Mass Formation Psychosis” is a term gaining prominence after Belgian psychologist and statistician Dr. Mattias Desment proffered a theory for what he concludes as a global behavioural phenomenon derived from the coronavirus pandemic. Desment states several things are required to exist if you want a large-scale phenomenon to emerge. First, there needs to be a large population socially isolated that lack social bonds and who experience a lack of sense-making in life. Then it must be coupled with a lot of free-floating anxiety and psychological discontent without people being able to connect it to something – then society is highly at risk for the emergence of the mass phenomenon.

These findings can account for the form of mass hypnosis or a madness that dismisses scientific principles and adopts the government’s noble lies and dominant narrative concerning the safety and effectiveness of the genetic vaccines. What one observes is about 30% of the population is brainwashed and indoctrinated by the bombardment of daily misrepresentations and attack anyone who shares alternative information that contradicts the propaganda they have embraced to the point where families, friends, and workplace networks have been torn apart. The 40% of the population in the middle simply follow along with any alternative information being censored and deemed as anti-vaxxers not following the science or some right-wing conspiracy. The remaining 30% continue to question the narratives and in some cases fight against it.

We can compare the current “Mass Formation Psychosis” to the highly educated German population between the two world wars when they became decoupled into a free-floating anxiety and a sense that things have gone awry. Their attention was then focused by a leader or a series of events onto one small point where they literally went mad. A good percentage of the population got behind the hatred of Jews while a large swath of the nation simply went along, and a smaller percentage of dissenters were exposed and systematically removed. The famous French philosopher, Voltaire warned us of our civil liberties being lost when he said, “Those who can make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”   

Parents are being further coerced by the irrational fear of death being obfuscated through the news media to line up your child up for a potential life altering injection that has not come close to being assessed for long health implications. Even when data points to a very low fatality rate among children measuring .002% and young adults at .01%, the FDA throws mud at the wall with announcing a third shot in adolescents 12-15 years old five months after their previous injection.

We are on the cusp of an immense dedication to counselling for mental health and perhaps medical malpractice class action suits at a tremendous cost for many years to come. Imagine your child never seeing their teacher’s face all year as she pronounced words or smiled with encouragement. Imagine some students alone all day in a room on the internet and never socially interacting. Imagine the cost of a child breathing cotton fibers in the mask all day. The unleashed cruelty against our kids is a crime and will have lifelong consequences.    

In a trending microcosm across many jurisdictions, the CEO for OneAmerica, Scott Davison, a $100 billion insurance company located in Indianapolis since 1877, said during a news conference on December 30th, that the death rate is up a stunning 40% among working-age people 18-64; and that the data is consistent across every player in the industry and the highest ever seen in the history of the business. Davison shared just how bad it really is when he said a one-in-200-year catastrophe would be a 10% increase in deaths of this age group so 40% is just unheard of. Most of the claims for death being filed are not classified as COVID-19 deaths.    

During the same conference, Indiana’s chief medical officer said the number of hospitalizations in the state is now higher than before the COVID-19 vaccine was introduced a year ago – a weekly count ending Nov. 8th had 195 reported COVID related deaths where most of these were elderly compared to 1,350 people from other causes. The president of the Indiana Hospital Association added that hospitals across the state are being flooded with patients experiencing many different conditions and noted the average person’s health is now declining. The president confirmed the extraordinarily high death rate, and it was noted that the vast majority of ICU beds were occupied by people with other conditions than COVID-19.

What is responsible for the stunning 40% in deaths? Could it be one’s health condition in decline over the stress of the COVID mandates and lockdowns, or perhaps delayed medical care? Could there be effects from the vaccine? The Governor of Indiana and the various state level experts did not have a clear answer; however, they were clear that the high number of deaths and hospitalizations followed a year after the vaccine rollout.  

Dr. Robert Malone, an internationally recognized scientist/physician and original inventor of mRNA vaccination as a technology and the mRNA platform delivery technologies, including holding numerous patents in these fields with over 100 scientific publications and 12,000 citations, places him in the “outstanding” impact factor. The proven 30-year vaccinologist and inventor of the mRNA technology has recently become known for questioning the safety and bioethics of how the COVID-19 genetic vaccines were developed and forced upon the world.

Malone discovered many short-cuts, database issues, lies told in the developments of the Spike protein-based genetic vaccines; while advocating for drug repurposing and the rights of physicians, and finally the unethical mandates for administering experimental vaccines to adults and children by authoritarian governments being manipulated by large corporations (big pharma, big media, big tech) to such an extent that they no longer represent what is in the best interest of humanity. This once acclaimed doctor has been attacked, censored, and suspended permanently from Twitter for dissenting from reciting the government’s narrative.

Governments, the CDC, FDA, and leading healthcare officials will not willingly relinquish their grip on power and will continue to weaponization of the pandemic and prolong the totalitarian measures to silence scientific opposition and silence political dissention. How much longer will the unvaccinated be the scapegoat for the extended pandemic? Will the unvaccinated ever be allowed back into society to work without this vaccination? Will we ever accept ‘natural immunity’ that provides up to 27 times the immunity against the virus than the vaccine? Will we push injections into young children who are not at risk of death but may be at greater risk from the vaccine? For now, the answer from the top is clear. President Biden on January 4th maintained that COVID-19 to be a pandemic of the unvaccinated. 

One might hope that answers and culpability will take place once society looks back and realizes that the vaccines and mandates caused more damage across all spectrums of society, however it is unlikely anyone will be held accountable. One must consider whether the oppressive pandemic pendulum has swung too far never to swing back where our freedoms are peacefully reinstated. We must keep in mind that the mandates and lockdowns, Big Tech censorship, news media collaboration, and the fear-laden ‘Mass Formation Psychosis’ leading us down a path to a China-like Neo-Marxist society removes any notion that our civil liberties and democracy is preordained. We the people have a choice over collective self-annihilation.    

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Development16 mins ago

Xi Jinping Calls for Greater Global Cooperation to Tackle Common Challenges

President Xi Jinping of China called for stronger international cooperation in overcoming shared global challenges including defeating COVID-19, revitalizing the...

Style1 hour ago

Start your days with a better morning routine

Your morning sets the tone for the day to come. By starting the day with intent you’ll find yourself in...

Europe3 hours ago

The French Dispatch: The Year 2022 and European Security

2021 has been rich in negative events for European security: the world has witnessed the collapse of the Open Skies...

Africa5 hours ago

Pragmatic Proposals to Optimize Russia’s Pledged Rehabilitation of Ethiopia

Russian Ambassador to Ethiopia Evgeny Terekhin pledged that his homeland will help rehabilitate his hosts after getting a clearer understanding...

Energy News7 hours ago

Surging electricity demand is putting power systems under strain around the world

Global electricity demand surged in 2021, creating strains in major markets, pushing prices to unprecedented levels and driving the power...

New Social Compact9 hours ago

Grace and a Tennis Celebrity

Among the character traits we cherish in fellow humans, grace is often more noticeable in its absence.  The recent saga...

Central Asia11 hours ago

Kazakhstan, like Ukraine, spotlights the swapping of the rule of law for the law of the jungle

When a Russian-led military force intervened earlier this month, it did more than help Kazakh President Qasym-Johart Toqayev restore and...

Trending