Can this execrable ignorance be anything but the result of long term, conscious policy? Of course not.
Harvard now tells us that water fluoridation does next to nothing to prevent dental caries–those have been reduced by affluence, and the following access to dental care, better hygiene, and greater awareness of the importance of caring for the teeth–and seems to make us dumber: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/
In a meta-analysis, researchers from Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and China Medical University in Shenyang for the first time combined 27 studies and found strong indications that fluoride may adversely affect cognitive development in children.
Is this paranoia? Well, it IS Harvard, and we are not talking about the economics department, or any of their lunatics in the Humanities. This is the word of THE MAN. This is the center of the mainstream.
And I was watching a video about how sugar alters consciousness on Victor Zammit’s weekly report, and it occurred to me that the government has been underwriting in the form of corn subsidies the very addition of high fructose corn syrup to our food that he claims alters and clouds our minds. Why do these subsidies, so damaging to the public health, continue? I mean this over and above the question as to why taxpayers are being used to give money to people who are otherwise engaged in for profit businesses? If they need the subsidies to survive, then they are not producing something valuable at a price people are willing to pay. Failure is the price of success in “Capitalism” (I never allow myself to call leftists Liberals, but I will grant Marx his use of the term Capitalism from time to time. Like “Descendants of the refugees from the war of 1948”, being more precise is cumbersome). You cannot have the latter without the possibility of the former, in a free system.
And did Truman and Eisenhower allow China to “go red” Clearly. Could we have reinvaded North Korea and then China–when it was lucky to put shoes on the feet of its soldiers, and a gun in every other hand–and prevented countless millions of deaths? Clearly. That would have been a humane policy–even if we had used nukes, and killed hundreds of thousands or even millions–as could have been foreseen then (as indeed Churchill foresaw in 1918 in calling for massive support for the Whites), and as is obvious now. We could have avoided the famines in China, the famines in North Korea, the Vietnam War (in all likelihood), the Cultural Revolution, the Khmer Rouge, and countless billions of ordinary lives lived in misery and poverty under the hands of oppressive tyrants.
This is common sense. This is common decency. It is precisely the refusal of the Left to accept the outcomes of its policies, of its refusal to learn, and to apply the concept of universal human rights honestly and sincerely to all, which forces it into positions of truculency, anger, obfuscation, propagandizing, sloppiness, laziness, and ubiquitous fear of discovery. It forces the cultivation of all the qualities that all civilized societies the world over have considered odious.
By and large, the John Birchers were right. If they saw a Communist conspiracy under every tree, we know now they were largely right. The Soviets spent 4 rubles undermining values and attacking cultural institutions for every dollar they spent on the KGB and all its frolics. They told us this, just as the North Vietnamese tell us that the support of people like Jane Fonda–who they name by name–was critical to them hanging on in the face of massive and humiliating battlefield losses, and ultimately winning only as a result of our craven and disgusting retreat after having achieved tactical victory at the cost of 56,000 or so American lives.