With the exception of Ron and Rand Paul I have never favoured a Republican US politician in the past.
Instead, I have favoured Democrat politicians such as Kennedy, Clinton, Obama and Kucinuch.
Only since Trump was elected have I sided against the so-called left or progressive side of politics.
To me the left has fallen into a ditch (of its own making) and has lost all perspective on what is actually going on in the world.
Instead, they seem to have fallen into some kind of fantasy land.
A very unpleasant fantasy land, where they seem to think the sky is falling.
Heads up, the sky is not carving in. Things are proceeding as before with the difference that Donald Trump is not doing the bidding of the old power elite, at least not all of it.
The TPP which seemed important to the old, hegemonic powers was killed.
The corrupt EU is also in trouble.
Macron was elected but they can't keep the wolf's at the door for long.
The signs are blowing in the wind.
People are waking up and r…
The problem with politics is that it's pushing against something all the time, rather than creating a vision of what you want to create with your life.That isn't a good way to set up your life as it turns life into the enemy rather than the friend and this will manifest in your relationships. You will end up fighting with people, at home and in your head. Rather, what we want is to embrace all life and focus on what we want to experience and create. This is how we best contribute to the world.
Before new chemicals are allowed on the market they are tested individually on caged animals. The problems with this approach are many, and include:
(1) The effect of the chemical on humans may not be the same as on the animals,
(2) This is cruel to animals, and,
(3) It provides us with no idea about the synergistic effect multiple chemicals in the environment have on human health, or the health of any living thing.
Ultimately, we are playing Russian roulette with our lives every time a new toxic chemical is released on the market.
Only time will tell what combined effect these chemicals will have, but increasing cancer rates and rates of other diseases, particularly auto-immune ones, may be as a direct result of our increasingly "chemicalised" environment.
The sad thing is that this game of Russian roulette is not even necessary because the majority of these new man-made chemicals are not needed as we have natural alternatives that have existed in this world for millennia …
Whether or not fluoride is added to the water you drink, you will have dental decay if your diet is poor or you don't brush your teeth thoroughly and regularly enough.
And by poor diet I mean the diet of 95% of westerners - high in sugar and processed foods that stick to the teeth.
The only person I know with no fillings grew up in a family that avoided junk foods- a habit she has keep up as an adult (she's now 49 years old).
So I think the attention paid to putting fluoride in the water to improve the health of small children's teeth is almost certainly a red herring, as it focuses on an element that is insignificant compared to diet and tooth care.
As for the negative effects of adding fluoride to the water due to its neurotoxicity and other negative health effects, I think it wise to follow the lead of European countries and not take the risk of adding contaminated industrial waste (fluoride) into the water supply with the spurious hope dental carries will be avoided.
Rather that expecting everyone in a country to live under communist rule, people who want to live in a communist society should start a commune of their own.
In such a commune they can share possessions and take care of each other economically.
This is a vast improvement over the imposition of communism on a whole country by the use of force, as happened in Russia and China last century, leaving millions dead.
Imposing an economic system on people through force is both immoral and ineffective. People will perform much better if they get to choose what type of society they get to live in.
Otherwise it gives rise to rebellions and attempts to sabotage and destroy the system from within.
So for those who are happy living in a society with property laws they can continue to do so, while communists get to form their own communes with like-minded people.
In the modern age there are many seemingly intelligent people who are "true believers" in establishment science. That is: they accept the truth of what is promoted as the "consensus view" among scientists, without questioning or digging deeper.
These people believe that establishment science is free of political or financial pressure to promote a certain view above others.
They believe that it is impossible for science to become corrupted due to built in safeguards and so they accept whatever notion mainstream science promotes through the mass media.
There is another group, generally more broadly educated (particularly in the history and sociology of science) than the first group, I would suggest, who believe publicly promoted science not only can be corrupted, but that it is corrupted by political and financial concerns, and largely "owned" by them.
As a result, this group takes what is expressed publicly about "scientific consensus" with a gr…
Just as there is no dividing line between the military-industrial complex and governments around the world, nor is there any dividing line between the medical-industrial complex and government health agencies.
What the government promotes or supports in the medical field is almost entirely what the profit-based medical-industrial complex wants them to promote or support.
Whether this collision between governments and the private sector in medical care is due to kickbacks or bribes being offered, or due to threats being made, I don't know.
What is clear is that the public, including governments, have been brainwashed by the medical-industrial complex to see the world through the lens they have created to further their business interests.
Those who have studied the history of medicine are aware that governments have been bought to support a system that enhances the power of current medical players, at the expense of the people.
As a result, conscientious folks question all medical …
Collusion between government agencies and the industries they are meant to police can result in over protective policies, which harm the consumer, but enrich the colluding partners.
These protective policies work to either:
(1) shield existing players in the market from outside competition to protect their profits, or,
(2) favor certain preferred entities in the market at the expense of others, so that they will eventually come to dominate the market. In both cases a small number of insiders benefit while the public loses out through higher prices and lower quality products due to the reduced competition the collusion creates.
People hate indecision. They hate confusion. So the simplest way to deal with the vaccine issue is for people to accept one of two polarities.
One of the polarities says vaccines are safe and effective. You can take them without any fear whatsoever and expect them to protect you from whatever disease they are aimed at.
The other polarity says vaccines are unnecessary and best avoided. The reasons given for this may be many. It could be that the person feels in charge of their own health and sees no need for an intervention to protect against diseases they have no fear of.
Alternatively, a person may avoid vaccines because they think they are dangerous, ineffective, or both. Both of these polarity positions make decision making around vaccines simple.
The people in group one, are happy to receive any recommended vaccine for themselves and their children as they believe them safe, while those in group 2 just avoid vaccines for themselves, and their children, if they feel strongly enoug…
People can define themselves however they like and other people can define us however they like, as well. After all, there is no way to stop this. But why define at all?
Why not just enjoy the mystery that is life and the self and just let things be as they are, free of the need to compulsively define everything?
If you trust the world to be full of people with as much integrity as yourself you may be disappointed!Particularly among the elite that hold the power...That is why so-called conspiracy theorists exist. They have read history and know how the power elite operate - generally free of concern for the common man.As a result the outcomes are often very bad, even while they say how good things are.So war is good, or at least necessary, and so are many other ideas they have to control our lives.Empty promises, mostly, but sometimes much worse- soul or body destroying activities or beliefs.
I believe vaccines are overdone,
particularly for small babies,
To the extent that I would call it
A crime against humanity.
Vaccines are not harmless
And should not be piled one on another
And then flooded into a small infants body.
The sellers and PR agents of such activity
Claim such toxic inputs are safe
But we know from experience
These things are neither safe
Nor particularly effective.
I usually move onto something else.
Of course, "settled for me" has nothing to do with what is popularly promoted in the press.
To me, that's just PR nonsense.
Truth lies behind the scenes, not in the spin of the PR agents that are wheeled out as "experts" and paid to spout the establishment line.
People who think they know the truth and want to impose their “truth” on others are very dangerous indeed.
Richard Pan, medical-industrial complex "true believer" and author of anti-freedom, health destroying mandatory vaccination laws in California.
There is nothing wrong with thinking you know the truth about a matter, but trying to enforce that “truth” on other people, against their will, is very evil indeed.
It is doubly bad when such coercive behavior becomes institutionalized and has the force of the law behind it.
This is why I despise compulsory vaccinationlaws and other coercive attempts to control people’s, or their children's, behavior, which may, in the extreme, involve removing children from their homes and forcibly injecting them with toxic chemicals (for cancer treatment or in the case of vaccination), because their parents don’t subscribe to the same unquestioning beliefs as the overreaching government agencies.