Skip to main content

Anti-vaxxers are the enemy

Critical thinking about the nature of authority might induce us to wonder why those stories are invisible, or spun as dry policy questions for readers of the business pages, while so much bandwidth is occupied with making fun of a few vaccine loons. It might cause us to notice that treating people who feel genuine uncertainty about mainstream medicine as if they were low-achieving children only makes the problem worse, and that it’s absurd to assert that questioning the Catholic Church or the National Football League is good, but questioning the name-brand institutions of the scientific world is bad. (Andrew O'Hehir "Anti-vaxxers are not the enemy")

Questioning the Catholic Church and the National Football League is done by society's more progressive people. They want to see a reduction in self-flaggelant philosophies and activities.

Questioning science is generally done by society's more regressive. Ongoing societal advancement -- which to them is a bad thing, since to them people who live healthily and enjoyable are being sinful ... i.e. are ignoring "God": their demanding, needy, love-starved parents -- means to them that more children need to be punished and hurt. 

They displace their own "badness" onto children -- so well representing their own "guilty" growing, striving selves -- and encourage their death through disease, economic deprivation and war.  This way, spurned, angry "parents in the sky" are felt to be somewhat ameliorated. 

Questioning name-brand institutions of the scientific world, done by those who can be trusted, is of course being done by progressives who also question the Catholic Church and the National Football League. The more hippieish of them realize that institutions, degrees, professionals admonishing themselves within a "guild," is still about keeping the phantasm Chaos at bay ... it's better than magic, alchemy and a projection-full world, but it's not that evolved/projection-dilluted ... we can let these "authorities" go too. 

- - - -

 It has extended life and cured disease and improved agriculture, and it has brought us eugenics and the Tuskegee experiments and Hiroshima and Zyklon-B and a whole host of amazing pesticides and herbicides and preservatives and plastics that have permeated every square millimeter of the planet’s surface and the bodies of all its creatures, and whose long-term effects are not known but don’t look that great. (Andrew O'Hehir "Anti-vaxxers are not the enemy")

The book Zuckerberg picked for discussion in his book club is Steven Pinker's "The Better Angels of Our Nature." The book is a reminder that the number of people who have died owing to murder/slaughter has been decreasing over time -- just previously our most progressive citizens rejoiced in them, but it is nevertheless true that primitive societies, our earliest historical origins, were a nightmare of slaughter, even compared to American Civil War/WW1 levels. 

We let go magical thinking and went science in the first place because, owing to gradually improving childrearing, more children were growing up less demon-haunted: the landscape was less one where scary demons were all over the place, in every place/everything, and they could view things a bit more denatured. This meant more societal growth ... and our childrearing has not reached the level where this is something we can completely allow for ourselves. 

Societies use such things as science initially to grow and better provide and then start feeling guilty for it, hopelessly abandoned. They begin to shuck their growth, grow provincial and turn against the progressive elements in their society, and bond into some kind of regressive group -- they could become suddenly more nationalistic, for example. They then project all their negative attributes into some "other" and prepare to slaughter them -- eugenics, Hiroshima. When enough people have died, people feel the skies are cleared again and such things as science progress, much less spared accompanying evil. 

There are a good number of people alive whose childhoods were good enough that they would use science completely benevolently -- they are entirely divorced in emotional/psychic makeup from those who'd suddenly see some absolutely valid need to evaporate an enemy and cleanse ourselves of our "weakest." Earth wins when they're the majority. 


Popular posts from this blog

Superimposing another "fourth-wall" Deadpool

I'd like to superimpose the fourth-wall breaking Deadpool that I'd like to have seen in the movie. In my version, he'd break out of the action at some point to discuss with us the following:
1) He'd point out that all the trouble the movie goes to to ensure that the lead actress is never seen completely naked—no nipples shown—in this R-rated movie was done so that later when we suddenly see enough strippers' completely bared breasts that we feel that someone was making up for lost time, we feel that a special, strenuous effort has been made to keep her from a certain fate—one the R-rating would even seemed to have called for, necessitated, even, to properly feed the audience expecting something extra for the movie being more dependent on their ticket purchases. That is, protecting the lead actress was done to legitimize thinking of those left casually unprotected as different kinds of women—not as worthy, not as human.   

2) When Wade/Deadpool and Vanessa are excha…

"The Zookeeper's Wife" as historical romance

A Polish zoologist and his wife maintain a zoo which is utopia, realized. The people who work there are blissfully satisfied and happy. The caged animals aren't distraught but rather, very satisfied. These animals have been very well attended to, and have developed so healthily for it that they almost seem proud to display what is distinctively excellent about them for viewers to enjoy. But there is a shadow coming--Nazis! The Nazis literally blow apart much of this happy configuration. Many of the animals die. But the zookeeper's wife is a prize any Nazi officer would covet, and the Nazi's chief zoologist is interested in claiming her for his own. So if there can be some pretence that would allow for her and her husband to keep their zoo in piece rather than be destroyed for war supplies, he's willing to concede it.

The zookeeper and his wife want to try and use their zoo to house as many Jews as they can. They approach the stately quarters of Hitler's zoologist …

Full conversation about "Bringing Up Baby" at the NewYorker Movie Facebook Club

Richard Brody shared a link.Moderator · November 20 at 3:38pm I'm obsessed with Bringing Up Baby, which is on TCM at 6 PM (ET). It's the first film by Howard Hawks that I ever saw, and it opened up several universes to me, cinematic and otherwise. Here's the story. I was seventeen or eighteen; I had never heard of Hawks until I read Godard's enthusiastic mention of him in one of the early critical pieces in "Godard on Godard"—he called Hawks "the greatest American artist," and this piqued my curiosity. So, the next time I was in town (I… I was out of town at college for the most part), I went to see the first Hawks film playing in a revival house, which turned out to be "Bringing Up Baby." I certainly laughed a lot (and, at a few bits, uncontrollably), but that's not all there was to it. I had never read Freud, but I had heard of Freud, and when I saw "Bringing Up Baby," its realm of symbolism made instant sense; it was obviou…