Chidakasha

The following is an excerpt from an article on socialism by Albert Einstein. It succinctly and simply outlines the meaning of and moral necessity of socialism. It provides a clear framework for discussion of the sociopolitical, geopolitical, existential, ecological and moral isuses that confront us. Einstein at least implies that a global and planned economy and centralised world government are necessities but he reminds us that this is not sufficient without the guarantee of individual rights. Please share your thoughts on this.

Why Socialism by Albert Einstein – May 1949Excerpt:

This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion.

A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?

More,

It’s difficult to know where to start because we don’t want to start from a place of confusion. But admitting that, accepting that, not apologising for it, or using it as an excuse, that is the only place from which to start and that in itself is the best response to the confusion.

I haven’t written on my blogs for almost a month but I have been writing, incessantly, on social media. Posts on Facebook or Twitter, the platforms I use most are very transient. Even if they on occasion express something profound, they are still expressions in and of the moment, immediate and in the context of a conversation, a mood or a particular event.

Sometimes I am pleased with what I have posted. Sometimes I wish I had not posted it. Others who see the posts will, similarly, like them or wish I had not posted them. But whether well constructed like a complex pebble sculpture or put together like a few stones laid together on the beach, they should be washed away naturally by the tides of time and attention. If there is an expression that I want to preserve, maybe to extend and expand on later, then like photographs of the pebbles, I should commit that expression on a blog. But then it will be something else because the context will be different apart from the conversation and the original moment and perhaps part of another conversation and moment.

To post a thing and then walk away from it. Time moves on and we move on. That’s how it should be.

My analogy is not perfect however and I have learned perhaps to my cost (though the cost may have been worth paying) that even if I keep nothing of my past expressions others may unearth them to use out of context and with malice.

I will keep arranging pebbles on the beach and urging others to do the same. This is freedom. Expressing a thing in the moment and then moving on, beyond the expression, beyond our own judgement, beyond the judgement of others.

Hari Om. It’s done.

I’m finally updating this blog but for now just referencing an essay about vaccination I finished writing earlier today.

I do not doubt the reality of the Covid-19 virus and I do not doubt the severity of the disease in many patients. What I question is some of the information that we have been given about the disease and the way that the virus is being handled. I suggest that there might be large amounts of misinformation being disseminated by govenrment and that there is considerable mishandling of the crisis by government.

For example it has not been proven that asymptomatic transmission is real. As this is the basis of masks and lockdowns, transmissibility is of the first importance. Here is Dr Maria Van Kerkhove of the WHO in June, few months ago:

There appears to be clear evidence supporting Dr Van Kerkhove’s contention that if it occurs asymptomatic transmission is rare: https://www.aier.org/article/asymptomatic-spread-revisited/

We read in the AIER article that:

..there was the predictably pro-lockdown mainstream media which decried her [Van Kerkhove’s] heresy. The cry was so loud that the WHO immediately started walking back the claim, mostly with hints and suggestions that didn’t say untrue things but did not repudiate the initial claim either: “There is much to be answered on this. There is much that is unknown. It’s clear that both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals are part of the transmission cycle. The question is what is the relative contribution of each group to the overall number of cases.”

Dr Van Kerkhove apparently does not continue to pursue the line that Covid-19 is not or is only rarely transmitted by the asymptomatic. In the next video I see of her, she is talking about vaccinating Santa Claus.

Then there is this video where she talks about mutations in viruses generally, mutations in the Covid-19 virus generally and then specifically about the new variant in the UK. She says that this new variant does not behave any differently from the the older virus.

This is apparently the line that the UK government was taking until the last few days. On 15th December Van Kerkove is reported as saying

“So far we don’t have any evidence that this variant behaves differently. But we will continue to evaluate and inform you of any changes.”

Dr Gillian Richardson, the co-chair of the Covid-19 vaccine programme board in Wales, said

“At the moment, this variation is not thought to affect the behaviour of the virus at all and it is not thought to affect the effectiveness of the vaccine. Obviously, we will be looking very closely at that to make absolutely sure.”

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/coronavirus-vaccine-mutation-wales-infection-19459242

Within ten days the situation has changed. We are told that the new variant makes the coronavirus more contagious and the UK government puts London and a large part of South East England under strict ‘Tier 4″ lockdown.

In the fourth video I see of Van Kerkhove she is talking about social distancing, masking and vaccines. What is missing is any reference to the lack of evidence regarding asymptomatic transmission or discussion about the mechanism of transmission.