POLITICS Re: Dirty Secrets of H1N1 Vaccine?

[Guest guest]

>

> I really don't want to get into another big argument, but boy this is a

really bizarre,

> scary book--it's scary that she was an adviser on education to Reagan.

Most of the

> book's list of dangerous authors were authors who wrote positive, useful

things

> about education or tried to provide scientific approaches to psychology

and

> education (science free from religion seems to be disallowed by the

author). It

> lumps together authors like Dewey, Rousseau, and Bertrand

with

> Hitler and Communist Party representatives, along with alleged devious

policy

> initiatives, like implementing formal budgeting requirements in government

> agencies.

>

> It suggests that we ought to avoid active learning and critical thinking,

so I guess

> indoctrination and passive, rote learning are in. Finally, it is written

in a

> conspiratorial tone, where all these unconnected fragments are made to

seem

> " deliberate " steps in some unfolding conspiracy. The discussion of the use

of the

> dialectic by " change agents " looking to subvert traditional values was

priceless.

> Honestly, I don't really want to convert anybody to my own views on

politics and

> education, but I'd really love to know why this kind of Birch-style

analysis is so

> popular among the natural foods community.

Firstly, I was not endorsing the book as I haven't read it. I was suggesting

that it seems to be along the lines of the Gatto book that Renate mentioned.

It IS though on my list of things to read when I get a chance.

Secondly, did you read the book? Just wondering if your analysis is based on

your reading of it or scanning chapters quickly on the web.

Thirdly, I would guess that my analysis would be different than yours as I'm

not anti- Birch society, although I'm also not Christian nor

conservative.

And lastly, you will find a lot of independent thinkers among the WAPF

community - especially those of us who have been involved for a long time

and have seen a lot in that time to convince us that liberty and freedom to

choose what we eat, drink, read, watch, listen to and the freedom to educate

ones own children, etc. is becoming a very rare commodity and something we

are willing to fight hard to protect. If that is what you consider to be a

-Birch style analysis, then so be it. Of course this is just the

opposite of *avoiding* active learning and critical thinking - two things

which are perhaps the main characteristics of many in the WAPF community -

definitely not fitting your interpretation of Iserbyt's message.

Suze

[Guest guest]

Also, people who will believe practically ANYTHING as long as it

promotes their pet conspiracy theories, discounts any role of the

government in helping people, as well as the uncritical promotion of

nutcases like .

>

>

> And lastly, you will find a lot of independent thinkers among the WAPF

> community - especially those of us who have been involved for a long

> time

> and have seen a lot in that time to convince us that liberty and

> freedom to

> choose what we eat, drink, read, watch, listen to and the freedom to

> educate

> ones own children, etc. is becoming a very rare commodity and

> something we

> are willing to fight hard to protect. If that is what you consider

> to be a

> -Birch style analysis, then so be it. Of course this is just the

> opposite of *avoiding* active learning and critical thinking - two

> things

> which are perhaps the main characteristics of many in the WAPF

> community -

> definitely not fitting your interpretation of Iserbyt's message.

>

> Suze

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> Also, people who will believe practically ANYTHING as long as it

> promotes their pet conspiracy theories, discounts any role of the

> government in helping people, as well as the uncritical promotion of

> nutcases like .

Also, cantankerous, crabby contrarians....

Suze

[Guest guest]

>

> I have read it--it was fascinating in its own way-- and I stand by my

comments. I

> understand why readers of this list might be concerned about liberty--but

not

> everyone posing as promoting liberty actually does and this is definitely

part of the

> paranoid-style of American politics.

What do you mean by " paranoid-style of American politics " ?

Certainly I don't think being a Reagan

> appointee makes you a defender of liberty, and the content is definitely

in the

> Bircher-mode, which is to say American-form fascism. It has got nothing to

do with

> liberty, in my opinion, since it is primarily a means of accusing everyone

else who

> disagrees with you as being part of some grand conspiracy to undermine

traditional

> values. That's virtually the definition of fascism, so I really find it

hard to not

> comment on that even if I understand why the appeal to liberty from

oppressive

> governmental interference is attractive.

Where did you find this definition of fascism?? This is not at all what

classic fascism is typically defined as. And as far as the Birch

society goes, where are you getting your information about that

organization? I'm no expert on that group, but I've read a very well-cited

book by one of its members on globalism and know one or two people that are

members, and they and the book all represent what I understand the group to

be about and that is that they are extremely anti-globalism and pro-liberty

Which, by default, would mean they are anti-fascism as well. This is

anecdotal of course and maybe they have some hidden agenda that I'm not

aware of, but I also think it's likely that you and I interpret things

differently.

Suze

[Guest guest]

> > What do you mean by " paranoid-style of American politics " ?

>

> See

http://www.amazon.com/Paranoid-

> Style-American-Politics-

> Essays/dp/0674654617/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8 & s=books & qid=1257009851 & sr=8-2

>

> or http://tinyurl.com/yzwz2xt

Ah, interesting fellow - longtime Communist calling those at the far

opposite end of the left-right continuum paranoid. Very unbiased viewpoint,

I'm sure. It's like Rush Limbaugh writing a book about communists. Hehe...

> The essential shared viewpoint of fascist groups is an extreme nationalism

that

> targets enemies " within " who allegedly seek a conspiratorial takeover on

behalf of

> international communism or some comparable globalist conspiracy.

Huh? Fascism, at its core, is authoritarian and a melding of corporations

with the state. This, as I understand it, is what the JB society is against.

Again, I'm no expert on the group but I have enough sense not to trust

far-left authors as being unbiased critics just as I don't trust far-right

authors as being unbiased critics of leftist politics.

.. They also go on quite a

> bit about banking conspiracies as a communist plot and the like. Standard

fascist

> rhetoric.

Communist plot notwithstanding, I just can't imagine our banking overlords

conspiring about anything. Their only goal and desire is to help us little

people have better lives. Bleeding heart bankers. The lot of 'em. We should

all have a shrine in our home to honor their sacrifices.

>

> A few scary quotes:

> " In April 1966, the New York Times reported on " the increasing tempo of

radical

> right attacks on local government, libraries, school boards,

parent-teachers

> associations, mental health programs, the Republican party and, most

recently, the

> ecumenical movement. . The Birch Society is by far the most successful and

> 'respectable' radical right organization in the country. It operates alone

or in support

> of other extremist organizations whose major preoccupation, like that of

the

> Birchers, is the internal Communist conspiracy in the United States. "

Yeh well, I'm sure they are up near the top of the Dept. of Homeland

Security's homegrown terrorist list along with the supporters of a sitting

Congressman, a former Congressman and a Baptist preacher - all presidential

candidates in 2008 (, Barr and Baldwin). But then again, the list covers

just about every group on the left and right that one could imagine,

effectively making all Americans suspected terrorists.

And of course, the NY Times, with its probable connection to the CIA

(Operation Mockingbird) and its general unreliability in reporting

accurately, is not a publication I would trust to report without bias or an

agenda a certain percent of the time.

Suze

[Guest guest]

He was not a communist historian, sorry. He opposed Beard's class-based economic

analysis of American history. And his appeal to psychology in history is about

as far from Marxism as you can get. Just googling his name and seeing that he

was a communist member in his youth doesn't count. That applies to a whole group

of eventual neoconservatives from that era.

Nor is the point of my post to endorse his political views, but to refer you to

the classic analysis of the topic of the paranoid style and anti-intellectualism

in American politics, since you asked. The comparison of a noted historian with

a demagogue who can't reason is actually typical of this kind of

anti-intellectualism he talked about. Critical thinking is not just figuring out

what political slant an author has (or had) and adding appropriate " penalty

points. "

Bill

>

> > > What do you mean by " paranoid-style of American politics " ?

> >

> > See

> http://www.amazon.com/Paranoid-

> > Style-American-Politics-

> > Essays/dp/0674654617/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8 & s=books & qid=1257009851 & sr=8-2

> >

> > or http://tinyurl.com/yzwz2xt

>

> Ah, interesting fellow - longtime Communist calling those at the far

> opposite end of the left-right continuum paranoid. Very unbiased viewpoint,

> I'm sure. It's like Rush Limbaugh writing a book about communists. Hehe...

>

>

> > The essential shared viewpoint of fascist groups is an extreme nationalism

> that

> > targets enemies " within " who allegedly seek a conspiratorial takeover on

> behalf of

> > international communism or some comparable globalist conspiracy.

>

> Huh? Fascism, at its core, is authoritarian and a melding of corporations

> with the state. This, as I understand it, is what the JB society is against.

> Again, I'm no expert on the group but I have enough sense not to trust

> far-left authors as being unbiased critics just as I don't trust far-right

> authors as being unbiased critics of leftist politics.

>

>

> . They also go on quite a

> > bit about banking conspiracies as a communist plot and the like. Standard

> fascist

> > rhetoric.

>

> Communist plot notwithstanding, I just can't imagine our banking overlords

> conspiring about anything. Their only goal and desire is to help us little

> people have better lives. Bleeding heart bankers. The lot of 'em. We should

> all have a shrine in our home to honor their sacrifices.

>

> >

> > A few scary quotes:

> > " In April 1966, the New York Times reported on " the increasing tempo of

> radical

> > right attacks on local government, libraries, school boards,

> parent-teachers

> > associations, mental health programs, the Republican party and, most

> recently, the

> > ecumenical movement. . The Birch Society is by far the most successful and

> > 'respectable' radical right organization in the country. It operates alone

> or in support

> > of other extremist organizations whose major preoccupation, like that of

> the

> > Birchers, is the internal Communist conspiracy in the United States. "

>

> Yeh well, I'm sure they are up near the top of the Dept. of Homeland

> Security's homegrown terrorist list along with the supporters of a sitting

> Congressman, a former Congressman and a Baptist preacher - all presidential

> candidates in 2008 (, Barr and Baldwin). But then again, the list covers

> just about every group on the left and right that one could imagine,

> effectively making all Americans suspected terrorists.

>

> And of course, the NY Times, with its probable connection to the CIA

> (Operation Mockingbird) and its general unreliability in reporting

> accurately, is not a publication I would trust to report without bias or an

> agenda a certain percent of the time.

>

> Suze

>

[Guest guest]

> You seemed to have missed my point about " bias. " So-called bias is an

essential

> part of history, indeed all scientific endeavour. It's pointless to search

for the

> historian who writes without a point of view and whose interpretations

don't show a

> focus on some facts rather than others.

We hope that the community structure of

> science will bring different points of view to the table, as his supposed

" urban " bias

> enriches the discussion previously dominated by a " rural " bias. The

argument

> stands by itself, in any event. It can be illuminatng to consider an

author's

> background, but not if we're just gonna play " gotcha. "

And you seem to be working on a PhD in strawman arguments. It goes without

saying that all historians bring their own bias to their work. I was not

looking to see IF Hofstadter HAD a bias, but rather was looking to see WHAT

his bias was. In fact, originally I was just looking to get info on the

author of the book you cited and his communist history came up right away.

I don't disagree that authors' biases can enrich the discussion on a topic

but in some cases extreme bias can also prevent an author from considering

contradictory evidence.

" Gotcha " ? Sounds like you are projecting...

> And, again, you missed my point. Instead of asking whether Hofstadter is

right or if

> his perspective has anything to offer, we immediately begin the game of

seeing if

> he has a " bias " and using what we find to discount the argument.

Strawman #2 and counting.

You didn't tell us anything but the headline so we can hardly have a

discussion on the content of his argument unless you'd care to present

anything beyond the headline.

Secondly, who said I was discounting his argument entirely due to his

particular bias? IF he had been a communist historian writing about the far

right, then I would be VERY cautious in reviewing his work just as I'd be in

reviewing the work of a far right author writing about the far left. But I

wouldn't automatically assume that everything the author writes is

necessarily unsubstantiated. However, it deserves a very critical eye.

And this is part

> and parcel of what's wrong with American political culture now, and it is

related to

> the paranoid and anti-intellectual strains of the American political

tradition that

> Hofstadter first brought attention to.

Where does he stand on strawman arguments?

Worse, you take snippets out of wikipedia

> without being able to put them into context.

First, you point out that he was a

> communist as a young man, missing that he articulated the alternative

> historiographical framework to Beard, the closest that mainstream history

had come

> to embracing the Marxist perspective. So he was one of the most important

anti-

> Marxist historians of his era. Second, you pull out a variety of alleged

biases that

> have little relevance from wikipedia, other than that we can call them

biases,

> though they seem reflect differences of interpretation with other

historians. Third,

> you ask me to account for these biases, as if referring to the tradition

of anti-

> intellectualism he identifies requires me to sign on to all of these

" biases " as my

> own.

I didn't ask you to account for anything. Other than the communist

reference, I used the quoted criticisms of his works during the time he

wrote the paranoia book because one of them seemed to be representative of

the criticisms that I read elsewhere. Although in retrospect, I could've dug

around to find the original critiques, all of which basically said his work

was short on facts, and the impression I got wasn't that they meant it

wasn't an archive of factoids. But I could be wrong on what these critics

meant by it.

> > Empiricism is my number one criteria when evaluating theories, as I

> > personally think it should be for any scientist or any evaluator of

> > information. If a theory doesn't have empirical evidence to back it up,

then

> > it should be discarded for a better substantiated theory. The main

criticism

> > I read about Hofstadter, as mentioned above, even by his supporters(!),

is

> > that he doesn't pay much attention to empirical evidence and is mainly

an

> > armchair intellect. Whether that criticism is earned or not, from what

> > little I do know about him, he's earned my critical eye - " noted "

historian

> > or not. (WHO decides who's noted or not? Does " noted " by a certain group

> > make one's work somehow more accurate?)

>

> Empiricism is a bad philosophy of science--the evidence matters, but that

doesn't

> mean that the evidence is not subject to interpretation or that better,

more accurate

> theories only get developed by those who look at the evidence without

theoretical

> preconceptions.

I'm just going to stop counting the strawmen at this point, as I think they

are self-evident.

It goes without saying that evidence is subject to interpretation and that

simple fact collecting is not enough. What I was saying is that empirical

evidence is critical to any sound theory. If someone is long on theories but

short on evidence to back them up, there is a serious problem. It doesn't

necessarily mean a theory without much empirical evidence to back it up is

inaccurate, but it certainly makes it more doubtful, at least in science.

As an example: The CDC is promoting the theory that H1N1 is a pandemic and

that the number of Americans becoming ill with the virus is extremely high.

Yet they told the states to stop testing for it back in July or Aug. So

their estimates of the number of infected people are simply guestimates.

Enter an investigative report by CBS News where they actually acquired the

exact number of cases testing positive for H1N1 in each state and it turns

out that the true number of cases is a fraction of what the CDC is saying.

For instance, the number of cases in CA turns out to be only 2% of the

number of cases that the CDC reported.

So here we have the erroneous theoretical numbers with no basis in empirical

evidence an then we have the empirical evidence - the actual numbers - as

reported by CBS. In this case the CDC's theory of the degree to which the

virus has spread is fiction. But we also know their particular bias is in

favor of the pharmaceutical industry so it's hardly surprising that they

cook the numbers to drum up panic so people will take the pharmaceutical

products which will put several billion dollars into the coffers of many

pharmaceutical giants.

Thus the CDC was long on theories but short on empirical evidence. The

theory they promoted benefited them financially and probably in terms of job

security as well. This example is perhaps more clear cut than others might

be, but a decent illustration, IMO, of the critical role of empirical

evidence if one is at all concerned about accuracy.

So if empiricism is a bad philosophy of science, let's just throw out the

scientific method for which empirical evidence is foundational.

I'm guessing you didn't meant that though, just as I didn't mean the

opposite.

>

> But let the more comprehensive discussion of anti-intellectualism in U.S.

political

> history proceed, as I'm sure it has.

Why do I suspect that many of those using the term " anti-intellectualism "

actually mean " anti-academia " ?

The work is noted because it provided fodder for

> latter historians who agree or disagree with the analysis to refine our

understanding

> of the topic. That's how knowledge advances, but none of this has very

much to do

> with my reference to the work, which was to point you to the basic

discussion of a

> concept I invoked in describing the Birch Society.

Right, and looking at an author's bias is a necessary and legitimate part of

looking at a topic. And let me reiterate that I'm not saying in any way that

the discussion ends when the bias appears to be extreme, but simply that

understanding the bias is an integral part of understanding the work.

Suze