by Credit Repair News, Sebastian Pulvera on Wednesday 12 May 2021 02:00 AM UTC-05 | United States Credit Report Repair News. Top Stories to help consumers fix bad credit, gain higher credit score, remove bankruptcy, free annual Equifax, TransUnion, Experian credit report. Free Credit Repair Counseling | (888) 502-1260 | | | Tuesday 11 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05 Every four years, as the November presidential election draws near, I have the same daydream: that I don’t know or care who the president of the United States is. More importantly, I don’t need to know or care. I don’t have to vote or even pay attention to debates. I can ignore all campaign commercials. There are no high stakes for my family or my country. My liberty and property are so secure that, frankly, it doesn’t matter who wins. I don’t even need to know his name. In my daydream, the president is mostly a figurehead and a symbol, almost invisible to myself and my community. He has no public wealth at his disposal. He administers no regulatory departments. He cannot tax us, send our children into foreign wars, pass out welfare to the rich or the poor, appoint judges to take away our rights of self government, control a central bank that inflates the money supply and brings on the business cycle, or change the laws willy-nilly according to the special interests he likes or seeks to punish. The President’s Job His job is simply to oversee a tiny government with virtually no power except to arbitrate disputes among the states, which are the primary governmental units. He is head of state, though never head of government. His position, in fact, is one of constant subordination to the office holders around him and the thousands of statesmen on the state and local level. He adheres to a strict rule of law and is always aware that anytime he transgresses by trying to expand his power, he will be impeached as a criminal. But impeachment is not likely, because the mere threat reminds him of his place. This president is also a man of outstanding character, well respected by the natural elites in society, a person whose integrity is trusted by all who know him, who represents the best of what an American is. The president can be a wealthy heir, a successful businessmen, a highly educated intellectual, or a prominent farmer. Regardless, his powers are minimal. He has a tiny staff, which is mostly consumed with ceremonial matters like signing proclamations and scheduling meetings with visiting heads of state. The presidency is not a position to be avidly sought but almost granted as honorary and temporary. To make sure that is the case, the person chosen as vice president is the president’s chief political adversary. The vice president therefore serves as a constant reminder that the president is eminently replaceable. In this way, the vice presidential office is very powerful, not with regard to the people, but in keeping the executive in check. But as for people like me who have concerns besides politics, it matters little who the president is. He doesn’t affect my life one way or the other. Neither does anyone under his control. His authority is mainly social, and derived from how much the natural elites in society respect him. This authority is lost as easily as it is gained, so it is unlikely to be abused. This man is elected indirectly, with the electors chosen as the states direct, with only one proviso: no elector may be a federal official. In the states that choose their electors by majority vote, not every citizen or resident can participate. The people who do vote, a small percentage of the population, are those who have the best interests of society at heart. They are those who own property, who head households, and have been educated. These voters choose a man whose job it is to think only of the security, stability, and liberty of his country. The Invisible Government For those who do not vote and do not care about politics, their liberty is secure. They have no access to special rights, yet their rights to person, property, and self government are never in doubt. For that reason and for all practical purposes, they can forget about the president and, for that matter, the rest of the federal government. It might as well not exist. People do not pay direct taxes to it. It doesn’t tell them how to conduct their lives. It doesn’t send them to foreign wars, regulate their schools, pay for their retirement, much less employ them to spy on their fellow citizens. The government is almost invisible. The political controversies that involve me tend to be at the level of the city, town, or state. This is true for all issues, including taxes, education, crime, welfare, and even immigration. The only exception is the general defense of the nation, although the standing military is very small with large state-based militias in case of need. The president is commander-in-chief of the federal armed forces, but this is a minor position absent a congressional declaration of war. It requires no more than insuring the impenetrability of the borders by foreign attackers, a relatively easy task considering our geography and the ocean that separates us from the incessant feuding of the old world. In my daydream, there are two types of representatives in Washington: members of the House of Representatives, a huge body of statesmen that grows larger as the population does, and a Senate elected by state legislatures. The House works to keep the federal Senate in check, and the Senate works to keep the executive in check. Legislative power over the public is nearly nonexistent. Congressmen have little incentive to increase that power, because they themselves are real citizens. My House member lives within a square mile of my house. He is my neighbor and my friend. I do not know my federal senator, and do not need to, because he is responsible to the state legislators I do know. Thus, in my daydream, there is virtually nothing at stake in this coming presidential election. No matter which way it goes, I retain my liberty and my property. Extreme Decentralization The politics of this country is extremely decentralized, but the community is united by an economy that is perfectly free and a system of trading that allows people to voluntarily associate, innovate, save, and work based on mutual benefit. The economy is not controlled, hindered, or even influenced by any central command. People are allowed to keep what they earn. The money they use to trade is solid, stable, and backed by gold. Capitalists can start and close businesses at will. Workers are free to take any job they want at any wage or any age. Businesses have only two goals: to serve the consumer and make a profit. There are no labor controls, mandated benefits, payroll taxes, or other regulations. For this reason, everyone specializes in what he does best, and the peaceful exchanges of voluntary enterprise cause ever-widening waves of prosperity throughout the country. What shape the economy takes—whether agricultural, industrial, or high-tech—is of no concern to the federal government. Trade is allowed to take place naturally and freely, and everyone understands that it should be managed by property holders, not office holders. The federal government couldn’t impose internal taxes if it wanted to, much less taxes on income, and trade with foreign nations is rivalrous and free. If by chance this system of liberty begins to break down, my own political community—the state in which I live—has an option: to separate from the federal government, form a new government, and join other states in this effort. The law of the land is widely understood as allowing secession. That was part of the guarantee required to make the federation possible to begin with. And from time to time, states threaten to secede, just as a way of showing the federal government who’s boss. This system reinforces the fact that the president is not the president of the American people, much less their commander in chief, but merely the president of the United States. He serves only with their permission and only as the largely symbolic head of this voluntary union of prior political communities. This president could never make light of the rights of the states, much less violate them in practice, because he would be betraying his oath of office and risk being tossed out on his ear. In this society without central management, a vast network of private associations serves as the dominant social authority. Religious communities wield vast influence over public and private life, as do civic groups and community leaders of all sorts. They create a huge patchwork of associations and a true diversity in which every individual and group finds a place. This combination of political decentralization, economic liberty, free trade, and self government creates, day by day, the most prosperous, diverse, peaceful, and just society the world has ever known. No Utopia Is this a utopia? Actually, it is nothing more than the result of my initial premise: that the president of the United States is so restricted that it is not even important that I know who he is. This means a free society that is not managed by anyone but its members in their capacities as citizens, parents, workers, and entrepreneurs. As you may have already assumed, my daydream is was what our system was designed to be in every detail. It was created by the U.S. Constitution, or, at least, the system that the vast majority of Americans believed they were getting with the U.S. Constitution. It was the world’s great free republic, however unrecognizable it is today. This was the country where people were to govern themselves and to plan their own economy, not have it planned by Washington, D.C. The president never concerned himself with the welfare of the American people because the federal government had no say over it. That was left to the people’s political communities of choice. Before the Constitution was ratified, there were some doubters called the anti-federalists. They were unhappy with any move away from the extreme decentralism of the Articles of Confederation. To placate their fears, and to ensure that the federal government was held in check, the framers further restricted its powers with the Bill of Rights. This list was not designed to restrict the rights of the states. It did not even apply to them. It confined to the ultimate extent what the central government could do to individuals and to their communities. As Tocqueville observed about America even as late as the 1830s, “in some countries a power exists which, though it is in a degree foreign to the social body, directs it, and forces it to pursue a certain track. In others the ruling force is divided, being partly within and partly without the ranks of the people. But nothing of the kind is to be seen in the United States; there society governs itself for itself” and “scarcely an individual is to be met with who would venture to conceive or, still less, to express the idea” of any other system. As for the presidency itself, Tocqueville wrote that, “the power of that office is temporary, limited, and subordinate” and “no candidate has as yet been able to arouse the dangerous enthusiasms or the passionate sympathies of the people in his favor, for the simple reason that when he is at the head of the government, he has but little power, little wealth, and little glory to share among his friends; and his influence in the state is too small for the success or the ruin of a faction to depend upon his elevation to power.” That America would never have tolerated such an atrocity as the Americans With Disabilities Act. Here is a law that governs the way every local public building in America must be structured. It holds a veto power over every employment decision in the country. It mandates that people take no account of other people’s abilities in daily economic affairs. All of this is arbitrarily enforced by an army of permanent bureaucrats working with lawyers who get rich quick if they know how to manipulate the system. The ADA is merely one example among tens of thousands that would have been considered appalling, and, indeed, unimaginable, by the framers. It’s not because they didn’t like handicapped people or thought that people should be discriminated for or against. It is because they held to a philosophy of government and public life that excluded even the possibility of such a law. That philosophy was called liberalism. Liberalism In the 18th and 19th centuries, the term liberalism generally meant a philosophy of public life that affirmed the following principle: societies and all their component parts need no central management and control because societies generally manage themselves through the voluntary interaction of its members to their mutual benefit. Today we cannot call this philosophy liberalism because the term has been appropriated by the democratic totalitarians. In an attempt to recover this philosophy for our own time, we give it a new name, classical liberalism. Classical liberalism means a society in which my daydream is a reality. We don’t need to know the president’s name. The outcome of elections is largely irrelevant, because society is ruled by laws and not men. We don’t fear the government because it takes nothing from us, gives nothing to us, and leaves us alone to shape our own lives, communities, and futures. This vision of government and public life has been destroyed in our century and in almost every country in the world. In our case, the president of the U.S. is not only extremely powerful, especially given all the executive agencies he controls; he is probably the most powerful man on earth—excepting, of course, the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. There is a public myth in this country that the office of the presidency sanctifies the man. For all the browbeating that Richard Nixon took as president, and the humiliation of his resignation, the testimonials and tribute at his funeral spoke of a man who had ascended to godlike status, like some Roman emperor. Even with all of Clinton’s troubles, I have no doubt that he would be treated the same way. This sanctification process applies even to cabinet appointees: Ron Brown, a corrupt fixer, ascended to godhood status despite the fact that his legal troubles were on their way to sweeping him to jail. Anti-government? Of course my comments might be denounced as anti-government. We are told on a daily basis that people who are anti-government are a public menace. But as Jefferson wrote in the Kentucky Resolutions, free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence. “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard about confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution.” Or as Madison said in the Federalist, “All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree.” We can add that any government that employs three million people, most of them armed to the teeth, ought to be distrusted to an enormous degree. This is an attitude cultivated by the classical liberal mind, which puts a premium on the liberty of individuals and communities to control their own lives. We could multiply the “anti-government” statements by the framers without end. For they spelled out their theory of public affairs, that of classical liberalism, because in the mid and late 18th century, it had come under fire by a new brand of absolutism, and Rousseau was its prophet. In his view, a democratic government embodied the general will of the people, this will was always right, and therefore government should have absolute, centralized power over a militarized and unified egalitarian nation-state. This has been Rousseau’s century. And with the help of the statist doctrines of Marx and Keynes, it has also been the bloodiest in human history. Their views of government are the very opposite of the classical liberal. They allege that society cannot run itself; instead the general will, the interests of the proletariat, or the economic plans of the people need to be organized and embodied in the nation and its head. This is a view of government that the framers rightly saw as despotic, and tried to prevent from taking root here. Of course, they were not entirely successful. Two centuries of war, economic crisis, wrong-headed constitutional amendments, executive usurpation, congressional surrender, and judicial imperialism gave rise to a form of government that is the opposite of the framers’ design, and the opposite of classical liberalism. The ability of the federal government, with the president as its head, to tax, regulate, control, and completely dominate national life is practically without limit today. The Unliberal Present When the constitution was written, Washington, D.C., was a marshy cow pasture with a couple of buildings, and American society was the freest in the world. Today, the D.C. metropolitan area is the richest on the face of the earth because it is host to the biggest government in the world. The U.S. government has more people, resources, and powers at its disposal than any other. It regulates more and in finer detail than any government on the planet. Its military empire is the largest and the most far-flung in the history of the world. Its annual tax take dwarfs the total output of, for example, the old Soviet Union. As for the federal system, it is more a slogan than a reality. From time to time, we hear about returning power to the states or banning unfunded mandates. Bob Dole says he carries a copy of the tenth amendment in his pocket. But don’t take this rhetoric too seriously. The states are virtual adjuncts of national power, by virtue of the mandates they are under, the bribes they accept, and the programs they run. The individual, the family, and the community—the essential units of society in the pre-statist era—have been reduced to federal serfs, having only the freedoms the government allows them to have, but otherwise required to act as part of an overall national collectivist order. No major national political figure proposes to change that. Public Dissatisfaction The reality, however, is that people are not satisfied with this arrangement. During the Cold War, the public was persuaded to hand over a surprising amount of their freedoms for the sake of the larger mission of rolling back communism. Before that, it was the Second World War, then the Depression, then the First World War. For only the second time in this century, we live in absence of any crisis the government can use to suppress the rights the framers intended to guarantee. As a result, public opinion now overwhelmingly favors reductions in government power. Practically every politician in this country who wins an election has promised to do something about it. That goes for both major parties. This year, both Clinton and Dole will run on platforms that promise, in one way or another, to reduce the size and scope of federal power. If we think back to November 1994, we heard some of the most radical anti-Washington rhetoric from politicians since 1776. Unlike the media, I found this to be a wonderful thing. The results, however, were less than impressive. Taxes and spending are higher since the Republicans took over. The foreign aid budget is up. The regulatory state is more invasive than ever. The centerpieces of the Republican legislative agenda—including the farm bill, the adoption bill, and the medical bill—expand, not shrink, government power. There are many reasons for this, not the least of which is the duplicity of the Congressional leadership and the talents of their allies in the conservative press, who give them an ideological cover. Yet the freshmen themselves, whom the media describe as ideological firebrands, deserve some of the blame, for they lacked a consistent philosophical logic to oppose the monster they encountered. Consider for example the issue of the balanced budget. Every politician claims to want one. The freshmen promised to vote for one. But they were immediately snookered by the political class. When they wanted to cut taxes, the elites pounced on them and said that this would increase the deficit. Immediately, they were confronted with a problem: how to reconcile their fiscal conservatism with their desire for lower taxes? This confusion results from intellectual error. The priority is to shrink government. That means taxes should be cut anywhere and everywhere. And well-schooled classical liberals know that governments can use the trick of balanced budgets to keep themselves large and growing. Higher taxes do not typically lessen the deficit, and even if they did, that is no way for men of honor to proceed. The federal budget is not a household’s writ large. It is a giant redistribution racket. This fact raises a central insight of the classical liberal intellectual tradition. Government has no power and no resources that it doesn’t first take from the people. Unlike private enterprise, it cannot produce anything. Whatever it has, it must extract from private enterprise. Although this was understood well in the 18th century, and most of the 19th as well, it has been largely forgotten in our century of socialism and statism, of Nazism, Communism, New Dealism, welfarism, and total war. Lessons Learned In the 21st Century, what lessons have we learned from the 20th? The most important refutation of socialism came from Ludwig von Mises in 1922. His treatise called Socialism converted good people away from bad doctrines, and was never refuted by any of the thousands of Marxists and statists who tackled it. For this book, he is now hailed as a prophet even by lifelong social democrats who spent years attacking and smearing him. Much less well known is another treatise which appeared three years later. This was his great book Liberalism. Once having attacked all-out statism, he found it necessary to spell out the alternative. It was the first full-scale revival of the classical liberal program in many decades, this time from the leading political economist on the continent. In his introduction, Mises noted that the 18th and 19th century version of liberalism had made a mistake. It had attempted to speak not only to the material world, but also to spiritual matters. Typically, the liberals had positioned themselves against the church, which had the unfortunate effect of influencing the church against the free market and free trade. To try to avoid this polarizing effect, Mises makes clear that liberalism “is a doctrine directed entirely towards the conduct of men in this world. It has nothing else in view than the advancement of their outward, material welfare and does not concern itself with their inner, spiritual and metaphysical needs.” Of course men’s lives concern more than eating and drinking and gaining material advancement. That is why liberalism does not pretend to be a full-blown theory of life. For that reason, it cannot be reproached by theologians and conservatives for being a purely secular ideology. It is secular only in the sense that it deals with matters appropriate to the political world, and no more. There is nothing in the liberalism of Mises to which any religious person should object, provided that he agrees that the material advancement of society is not morally objectionable. Another change Mises made in traditional liberal doctrine was to link it directly with the capitalist economic order. Too often the older liberalism offered a magnificent defense of free speech and the free press, but neglected the all-important economic dimension. Mises’s direct linkage of liberalism and capitalism also helped divorce the liberal position from the fraudulent form that was emerging in Europe and America. This phony liberalism claimed that there was some way to favor both civil liberties and socialism, as the ACLU said then and now. But as Mises argued, liberty is all of a piece. If the government is big and powerful enough to stamp out the freedom to trade, to inflate the money, or to fund massive public works, it is no large step to also controlling speech and press, and to engaging in military adventures abroad. Property Thus Mises’s most famous line from his book, the one that both alarmed and inspired intellectuals the world over: “The program of liberalism,” if “condensed into a single word, would have to read: property.” By property, Mises meant not only its private ownership at all levels of society, but also its control by those same owners. With that one demand, that property and its control be kept in private hands, we can see how the state must necessarily be radically limited. If the government can only work with resources it takes from others, and if all resources are owned and controlled by private parties, the government is restricted. If private property is secure, we can count on all other aspects of society to be free and prosperous. Society cannot manages itself unless its members own and control property; or, conversely, if property is in the hands of the state, it will manage society with the catastrophic results we know so well. If property rights are strictly guarded, the state cannot take advantage of social crisis to seize power, as it has during wars, depressions, and natural disasters. The limits on government apply regardless. There are no exceptions. Thus a classical liberal society would not have built the TVA, it would not bail out Texas farmers in a drought, it would not send men on space missions, and it would not have taxed Americans six trillion dollars and poured it into a failed war on poverty. Freedom The second pillar of the liberal society, Mises says, is freedom. This means that people are not slaves of each other or of the government, but are self owners who are at liberty to pursue their interests so long as they do not violate the property rights of others. Most importantly, all workers are free to work in the profession of their choice, establishing free contracts with employers or becoming employers themselves. Combining liberty and property, people are able to exercise the all-important right of exclusion. I can keep you off my property. You can keep me off yours. You do not have to trade with me. I do not have to trade with you. This right of exclusion, along with the right to trade generally, is a key to social peace. If we cannot choose the form and manner of our associations, we are not free in any authentic sense. The breakdown of the freedom of association, especially in the form of anti-discrimination law, is a main reason why social acrimony has so increased in our time. Although hardly ever questioned, anti-discrimination law cannot be reconciled with the classical liberal view of society. No association that is forced can ever be good for the parties involved or society at large. Any discussion of this subject invariably raises the issue of equality. And here we find yet another improvement that Mises made over earlier models of liberalism. They were too much in love with the idea of equality, not only as a legal construct, but also in hoping and working for a society without classes, which is nonsensical. As Mises said, “all human power would be insufficient to make men really equal. Men are and will always remain unequal.” He argued that people cannot be given equal wealth or even equal opportunity to become wealthy. The best society can do for its members is to establish rules that apply across the board. These rules do not exempt anyone, including the rulers in government. The very rich will always be with us, thank goodness, and so will the very poor. These concepts are bound up with particular societies and settings, of course, but from the standpoint of policy, they are best ignored. It is the job of charity, not government, to care for the poor, and to protect them from being drafted into demagogic political campaigns that threaten essential liberties. Government in a liberal society does not protect individuals from themselves, strive for a particular distribution of wealth, promote any particular region or technology or group, or delineate the distinction between peaceful vices and virtues. The central government does not manage society or economy in any respect. Peace The third pillar of classical liberalism is peace. This means that there can be no love of war, and, when it occurs, it cannot be seen as heroic, but only as tragic for everyone. Yet we continue to hear how war is good for the economy, even though it always and everywhere misdirects resources and destroys them. Even the victor, Mises pointed out, loses. For “war,” said Randolph Bourne, “is the health of the state.” So is empire. Americans opposed an alien Soviet presence in our hemisphere. Yet we never consider how people in Japan, to take just one example, may feel about large numbers of American troops in their country. By far the largest cause of crime in Okinawa and the rest of Japan is American troops. But do our troops and planes and ships and nuclear weapons “defend” Japan? From whom? No, we continue to occupy the country 51 years after the end of World War II for purposes of control. If you want to discover the real character of a man, forget about what he says about himself, and look at his dealings with other people. The same is true of a government. We can forget its claims; simply look at how it treats others. The classical liberal state is one that protects the rights of its citizens to trade with foreign peoples. It does not pine for foreign conflicts of any kind. It does not, for example, demand that foreign countries buy the products of influential U.S. manufacturers, as Kodak is demanding, backed by U.S. military power, that Japan buy its film. Neither does the truly liberal society send government aid to foreign countries, bribe or arrest or kill their rulers, tell other governments what kind of country they should have, or get involved in global schemes to impose welfare rights on the world. Yet these are all actions the U.S. has undertaken as normal policy since the 1930s. Our rulers seem to think that they must be bribing someone, bombing someone, or both. Otherwise we risk falling into the dreaded “isolationism.” Jonathan Kwitney illustrated American foreign policy this way: he asks us to imagine that every few months we take a walk down the block, knocking on every door. At one house, we announce to our neighbor, “I like you, I approve of you, here’s $1,000.” At the next house, we do the same thing. But at the third house, we say, “I don’t like you, I don’t approve of you.” Then we reach under our coat, pull out a sawed-off 12 gauge shotgun, and blow him and his family away. So we go, down the block, every few months, handing out money to some people, death to others, and making our decisions based on the interests we have at the moment, with no clear rules. My guess is that we would not be very popular. Think about that the next time you see some “anti-American” rally on television. These people might be receiving our foreign aid, but they might also think they could be the next Iraq, Haiti, Somalia, or Panama. For a classical liberal foreign policy is no foreign policy at all, except, as George Washington said, of commerce with all and belligerence toward none. Restoration These three elements—property, freedom, and peace—are the basis of the liberal program. They are the core of a philosophy that can restore our lost prosperity and social stability. Yet I have only begun to scratch the surface of the liberal program. There is more to be said about monetary policy, about trade treaties, about social insurance schemes, and so much else. Yet if our political class could understand this core of freedom, property, and peace, we would be much better off, and I would feel more confident that the next class of freshmen we send to Washington would keep their eye on the prize, which is not redistribution or special rights, but liberty. “Liberalism,” Mises wrote, “seeks to give men only one thing, the peaceful, undisturbed development of material well-being for all, in order thereby to shield them from the external causes of pain and suffering as far as it lies within the power of social institutions to do so at all. To diminish suffering, to increase happiness: that is its aim.” Would classical liberalism work in our time? Think about the contentious issues in society today. Every one involves some area of life that is wrapped up in some form of government intervention. Today’s conflicts revolve around the desire to grab hold of someone else’s property using the political apparatus of compulsion that is the state. Would our society be more peaceful and prosperous if it followed the liberal program? The question answers itself. Now back to my daydream. I don’t know or care about presidential politics because they don’t matter either way. My liberty and property are so secure that, frankly, it doesn’t matter who wins. But to arrive at this goal, none of us can eschew the political or intellectual battles of our time. Even once the classical liberal vision has been restored in this country, as I believe it can and will be, we cannot afford to rest. Goethe’s Prometheus cries: Do you fancy that I should hate life,
Should flee to the wilderness,
Because not all my budding dreams have blossomed? And Faust answers with his “last word of wisdom”: No man deserves his freedom or his life
Who does not daily win them anew. [Originally published August 2007.] The post An American Classical Liberalism appeared first on LewRockwell.  | Tuesday 11 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05 One potential positive from the whole Covid-19 debacle is that we have learned an incredible amount about the society in which we live. This will be crucial if we manage to stave off a descent into a nightmare future of techno-fascist slavery. We will have a new understanding of what our world has become and what we would like it to be in the decades and centuries to come. And "we" means we. While the majority have, apparently, learnt nothing at all from what has happened, they will eventually catch up. There is no way that knowledge gained by a wide-awake 15% or 20% of the population will not end up being shared by almost everyone. Once the truth is out, it tends to stay out. As H.R. Haldeman so wisely put it, "you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube". Here are Ten Things We Have Learned During the Covid Coup. * 1. Our political system is hopelessly corrupt. Virtually all politicians are hopelessly corrupt. No political party can be trusted. They all can be, and have been, bought. * 2. Democracy is a sham. It has been a sham for a very long time. There will never be any real democracy when money and power amount to the same thing. * 3. The system will stop at nothing to hold on to its power and, if possible, increase its levels of control and exploitation. It has no scruples. No lie is too outrageous, no hypocrisy too nauseating, no human sacrifice too great. * 4. So-called radical movements are usually nothing of the sort. From whatever direction they claim to attack the system, they are just pretending to do so, and serve to channel discontent in directions which are harmless to the power clique and even useful to its agendas. * 5. Any "dissident" voice you have ever heard of through corporate media is probably a fake. The system does not hand out free publicity to its actual enemies. Read the Whole Article The post 10 Things We Have Learned During the Covid Coup appeared first on LewRockwell.  | Tuesday 11 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05 Is Babbittry alive and well in twenty-first-century America? George F. Babbitt is novelist Sinclair Lewis’s protagonist in the novel of the same name. Babbitt is a real estate man, which is to say a salesman, but the newfangled 1920s term is “Realtor .” Incurious, smug, self-satisfied, and utterly predictable, Babbitt is well pleased with his life in fictional Zenith. As a strident booster of his hometown, he urges displays of “Zip for Zenith” among his delegation to the convention of real estate boards. Like all glad-handers, Babbitt is neither particularly concerned with life’s mysteries or how he came to enjoy his own comfortable place in the world. Things which benefit him are good; things which threaten the unexamined ease of his career, family, town, and, above all, social status are bad. Babbitt is thus an avatar of know-nothingness, and “Babbittry” is a descriptive term similar to H.L Mencken’s “booboisie.” Both denote uncultured and material impulses, the kind of ugly provincialism we all imagine ourselves above. Murray Rothbard in The Betrayal of the American Right devotes a worthwhile chapter to “The Tory Anarchism of Mencken and Nock.” Here Rothbard discusses the origins of Old Right thinking in the early twentieth century, with Baltimore journalist and social critic Mencken as a leading light. Mencken is revisionist, having opposed US entry into the Great War. He is also a strong critic of 1920s culture, the do-gooderism of Prohibition, and the general leftover stench of Woodrow Wilson’s zeal for state planning. Given this, Mencken sees Babbitt as a literary triumph, capturing the amalgamated essence of many American businessmen of the era: I know of no American novel that more accurately presents the real America. As an old professor of Babbittry, I welcome him as an almost perfect specimen. Every American city swarms with his brothers. He is America incarnate, exuberant and exquisite.
Mencken was no leftist, and was certainly a scathing skeptic of government in all forms. Lewis was a dyed-in-the-wool socialist who dabbled in commune life. But both identified in George Babbitt a dangerous underbelly beneath the superficial bonhomie. In the credulous Babbitt, Mencken saw the seeds of censorship and attacks on civil liberties. Lewis saw an archetype of protofascism in the guise of civic chauvinism. The analogies to American society today, one hundred years after Lewis published Babbitt, are readily apparent. Surely today’s Left would cast Trumpists as modern Babbitts, purposefully ignorant rubes who clamor against the rapid changes of a new progressive era. But this is inaccurate precisely because the polarity of smugness and self-certainty have shifted so rapidly toward the woke monoculture. Babbitts certainly exist across politics and across red and blue America. But the open hatred and contempt afforded to Deplorables, Fox News viewers, Karens of all stripes, covid deniers, antimaskers, antivaxxers, and other assorted lepers in America today go far beyond even Sinclair Lewis’s scathing social criticism. And if we define provincialism as the inability to imagine or sympathize with a life and world view much unlike one’s own, then blue America is anything but cosmopolitan. Make America Great Again grates on progressive ears as jingoism, but what are Sí se puede and Build Back Better if not pure Babbittry? Lewis is at least somewhat sympathetic to his main character. Babbitt shows humanity when he falls in with a fast set and pursues an unrequited love affair with a young party girl. He even defends his new Bohemian friends against the raised eyebrows down at the athletic club. Deep down, rebellion against his many responsibilities and financial obligations and encroaching middle age stirs something in him. Carrying on in late-night speakeasies, Babbitt is for a brief moment the conservative who has been to jail. Lewis does not exactly redeem him; Babbitt in the end chooses to stay with his dutiful wife and unexciting job. But at least he ventures outside his comfortable bubble, to catch a glimpse of (presumably) a more beautiful and aspirational life. Lewis didn’t hate Babbitt in the way many seem to hate Trump America. Babbittry is here to stay. As the political world grows in importance, civil society necessarily and inexorably shrinks. But civil society is where the results are. Yes, our superficial, nonintellectual, and media-drenched culture produces plenty of incurious Babbitts. But there they remain, localized and anodyne. The political world, by contrast, gives us Mencken’s charlatans, mountebanks, and bunco artists: people who create no value but live quite comfortably off those who do. People without skin in game, who are rewarded time and again for the grossest misdeeds and failures. Politics weaponizes the Babbitts, turning them into monsters—otherwise harmless men and women who become true believers in their own mythology. If politics mattered less, the Joe Bidens and George W. Bushes of the world might have chosen to sell real estate like George Babbitt. We should have been so lucky. Babbittry is a feature of mass democracy, not a bug. Unthinking acceptance is at the heart of what politicians sell, by necessity, in a country of 330 million people. If democracy is sacred, bunkum is sacred. The people selling us democracy believe in it the same way George F. Babbitt believes in a new listing from the Babbitt-Thompson Realty Company: in the most hollow and self-serving way imaginable. Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute. The post Babbitt Is Back appeared first on LewRockwell.  | Tuesday 11 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05 Kathleen Stock is known as a feminist activist with a commitment to maintaining the biological, sex-based notion of what it is to be a woman. She has endured 'cancel' campaigns by students at her university and nationally, but has remained steadfast in her belief that biological sex matters and that one does not become a woman by identifying as one. Her book Material Girls is a punchy, polemical read that examines the following four principles of gender politics and trans activism: everyone has an inner gender identity; our gender identity might not match our biological sex; gender identity is what makes you a man, a woman or another gender; and, perhaps most crucially, the existence of trans people means that everyone is morally obliged to acknowledge and legally protect gender identity instead of biological sex. She considers the origins of these ideas and why they have such traction today. She also looks at the problems that arise when activists dictate a change in language-use to others who do not share their assumptions. In the spirit of full disclosure, I should say I admire Kathleen Stock enormously. As a postgraduate student in her department of philosophy at the University of Sussex, I have seen the malign allegations against her and felt the oppressive effect of an environment in which intellectual disagreement is reduced to personal insult. Whatever you think of Stock's arguments, you have to concede it takes guts to endure the opposition she faces. And her department deserves credit for supporting her. After all, academics today are not known for sticking to their guns when criticised by students. That Stock is a philosopher means she is ideally placed to take on those now insisting we change the language we employ in relation to men and women. This is because philosophers, particularly in the analytic tradition, take language and its relationship to concepts seriously. They do so not because they want to be annoyingly nit-picky, but because words, and their precise relationship to meaning and concepts, matter. Language is at the heart of far more than how we communicate with others – it shapes our thoughts and, through this, our consciousness. It is no exaggeration to say that our language shapes how and what we think, and even who we are as individuals. This, after all, is why trans activists are so determined to change language. They claim that for as long as we think in the binary terms of man (as exclusively male) and woman (as exclusively female), we are 'othering' those who identify as trans – those, that is, who are set apart as being a bit queer (in the sense my mother used it, which is to say 'peculiar'). Read the Whole Article The post Material Girls: Why Biological Sex Matters appeared first on LewRockwell.  | Tuesday 11 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05 "The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth." 1984, George Orwell Under the guise of safety (read: control) and fueled by a narrative that COVID-19 is a pandemic devastating the world, the U.S. government has issued a veritable witch hunt against online health professionals and natural ancient remedies like silver, vitamin C, magnesium, and mineral salts (MMS). Headed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Operation Quack Hack is cyberstalking and softly terrorizing hundreds of doctors and health professionals who actually care about bolstering people's health. And yes, "Operation Quack Hack" is the actual name the FDA has given this operation. They laugh. We pay. While the groundwork for this pharmaceutical and governmental overreach started long ago with the advent of Rockefeller medicine, the "Rona Regime" gets carte blanche. It is remarkable to consider that even the CDC data illustrates this virus is less fatal than the flu, with a 99.7% recovery rate. Quack Hack in full effect When I reached out to the FDA via email, Press Officer Jeremy Kahn confirmed that "Operation Quack Hack" was launched in March 2020 in response to "scammers on the internet selling products that fraudulently claim to mitigate, prevent, treat, diagnose or cure COVID-19 in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act." I was unable to locate a press release announcing this particular Covid-related "effort." Kahn also educated me as to how the FDA came up with the name "Quack Hack." "People who peddle false cures, medical charlatans, are commonly referred to a 'quacks.' Here, 'hack' was meant to refer to using various approaches to disrupt the activities of those who are selling false cures on the internet." Um, Excuse me? I wondered. Professionals in the health space know NOT to use the "C" word, which in this case is "Cure." Most providers openly declare their products will not cure COVID-19, but now the FDA frowns upon words like "treat" or "prevent" used in the same sentence as "coronavirus." Such a transgression is enough to trigger warning letters. As a result of what can be described as arguable attacks, some who have been targeted have suffered strokes, had their homes raided, their sons arrested, and woken up to find their company website disabled at the server level, a business of twenty-plus years gone in a flash (more horrid details later). Quack Hack is headed by the Center for Drug Evaluation (CDER), a division of the FDA that regulates over-the-counter and prescription drugs, including biological therapeutics and generic drugs. CDER reportedly "performs an essential public health task by making sure that safe and effective drugs are available to improve the health of people in the United States." CDER employs around 1,300 employees in "review teams" that evaluate and approve new drugs. Additionally, CDER features a "safety team" with 72 employees to determine whether new drugs are unsafe or present risks not disclosed in the product's labeling. CDER was run by Dr. Janet Woodcock before she went on this May to lead the "therapeutic" initiative at Operation Warp Speed. The FDA's overall budget for approving, labeling, and monitoring drugs is roughly $290 million per year. Of that, the CDER's safety team monitors the effects of more than 3,000 prescription drugs on 200 million people with a budget of about $15 million a year. CDER, currently run by Acting Director Dr. Patrizia Cavazzoni, oversees more than just medicines. For example, they consider fluoride toothpaste, antiperspirants, dandruff shampoos, and sunscreens as "drugs." Who knew? And when did they start deeming nutrients like vitamin C as "drugs"? Meanwhile, a kitchen sink of agencies collaborates on catching "quacks," including the Cybercrime Investigations Unit and the Office of Regulatory Affairs Health Fraud Team within the FDA's Office of Regulatory Affairs, as well as the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Some participants apparently have not been strict enough. According to Democrat Sen. Chuck Schumer, the FTC, for instance, needs to take the gloves off and "crackdown." "Right now, what is the FTC doing to these quacks, to these fake scammers who are trying to take advantage of people in a desperate situation? Nothing," Schumer said. "A slap on the wrist. They send them a so-called warning letter that has no consequence. You can take this warning letter and rip it up and put it in the garbage." It's a common tactic: Have some public figure go "tsk, tsk" to justify the agency's Gestapo measures. Read the Whole Article The post FDA: 'Operation Quack Hack': Medical Mafia vs. Medical Health Freedom Fighters appeared first on LewRockwell.  | Tuesday 11 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05 In 1976 Jean Raspail described the future fate of France in The Camp of the Saints. France is disintegrating precisely as Raspail described. The French military is being punished by the traitorous French government for giving truthful and patriotic warnings, but in Europe today national patriotism is regarded as fascism. In place of an ethnic nationality, European governments have constructed towers of Babel which lack any common basis for culture and law. All over Europe mosques are being constructed for active worshippers firmly attached to their culture while Christian churches stand empty and abandoned. When a people lose their religion, they themselves are lost. The Great Replacement is underway. Western civilization has been murdered by its own intellectuals. The same is underway in the Disunited States. The Democrats are sending hords of immigrant-invaders into Red States in order to water down the American population of Red States. The demise of white people is their future. See here. The post French Military Warns Again of the Disintergration of France appeared first on LewRockwell.  | Tuesday 11 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05 President Biden has announced that America's forever war in Afghanistan is finally coming to an end. He says that U.S. forces will exit the country by next September 11. That's a good thing. And it is long overdue. But there is one big problem with Biden's timetable: It violates an agreement that the U.S. government entered into with the Taliban to exit the country by May 1 of this year. Under that agreement, the Taliban agreed not to attack U.S. troops prior to their scheduled departure on May 1. With Biden's decision to deliberately violate the agreement by unilaterally extending the withdrawal to September 11, he is knowingly placing the lives of the 3,500 American servicemen still in Afghanistan at risk. In fact, the Taliban has implied as much. According to the Washington Post, a Taliban spokesman declared back in April, "If the agreement is breached and foreign forces fail to exit the country on the specified date, problems will certainly be compounded and those whom failed to comply with the agreement will be held liable." What's the point of extending the departure? Is an extension to September so important that it's worth risking the lives of American servicemen still in Afghanistan? If some soldiers are killed or maimed because Biden cavalierly decided to violate the agreement, will their sacrifice have been worth it? What about the lives of innocent Afghan civilians caught in a crossfire or in a bomb explosion designed to kill U.S. troops? Take a look at this article in USA Today. It's by a quadruple amputee who lost his arms and legs in Afghanistan. He says it's time to leave. He says, "I don't need any soldier to honor me by doing the same thing." But that's exactly what Biden is risking by intentionally, knowingly, and deliberately violating an agreement that the U.S. government willingly entered into. Moreover, as Elliot Ackerman, a former Marine and intelligence officer who served five tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, pointed out in an article in the New York Times, [R]emoving the 3,500 American troops from Afghanistan is, in military terms, what's called a "fighting withdrawal," in which an army leaves the field while still in contact with the enemy. Of all the maneuvers an army can perform (advance, flank, defend, etc.), it is widely accepted that a fighting withdrawal is the most complex and difficult because you are neither attacking nor defending, and so are exceedingly vulnerable. Unlike the withdrawal from Iraq, in which U.S. troops could drive through the desert into Kuwait as they did in 2011, and unlike the Soviet withdrawal in 1989, in which they could drive across a then-shared border, U.S. troops are currently marooned in Afghanistan, reliant on three principal U.S.-controlled airstrips (Bagram, Jalalabad, Kandahar), making their journey home all the more perilous. If the Taliban decide to attack U.S. troops from now until September, Biden will have their blood on his hands. He should never have breached the agreement that U.S. officials willingly entered into with their enemy. Reprinted with permission from The Future of Freedom Foundation. The post Will Biden Have Blood on His Hands in Afghanistan? appeared first on LewRockwell.  | Tuesday 11 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05 Citation: Classen JB. COVID-19 RNA Based Vaccines and the Risk of Prion Disease; Microbiol Infect Dis. 2021; 5(1): 1-3. ISSN 2639-9858 ABSTRACT Development of new vaccine technology has been plagued with problems in the past. The current RNA based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were approved in the US using an emergency order without extensive long term safety testing. In this paper the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine was evaluated for the potential to induce prion-based disease in vaccine recipients. The RNA sequence of the vaccine as well as the spike protein target interaction were analyzed for the potential to convert intracellular RNA binding proteins TAR DNA binding protein (TDP-43) and Fused in Sarcoma (FUS) into their pathologic prion conformations. The results indicate that the vaccine RNA has specific sequences that may induce TDP-43 and FUS to fold into their pathologic prion confirmations. In the current analysis a total of sixteen UG tandem repeats (ΨGΨG) were identified and additional UG (ΨG) rich sequences were identified. Two GGΨA sequences were found. Potential G Quadruplex sequences are possibly present but a more sophisticated computer program is needed to verify these. Furthermore, the spike protein, created by the translation of the vaccine RNA, binds angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), a zinc containing enzyme. This interaction has the potential to increase intracellular zinc. Zinc ions have been shown to cause the transformation of TDP-43 to its pathologic prion configuration. The folding of TDP-43 and FUS into their pathologic prion confirmations is known to cause ALS, front temporal lobar degeneration, Alzheimer's disease and other neurological degenerative diseases. The enclosed finding as well as additional potential risks leads the author to believe that regulatory approval of the RNA based vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 was premature and that the vaccine may cause much more harm than benefit. "The Pfizer vaccine could be a bioweapon and even more dangerous than the original infection." Introduction Vaccines have been found to cause a host of chronic, late-developing adverse events. Some adverse events like type 1 diabetes may not occur until 3-4 years after a vaccine is administered [1]. In the example of type 1 diabetes the frequency of cases of adverse events may surpass the frequency of cases of severe infectious disease that the vaccine was designed to prevent. Given that type 1 diabetes is only one of many immune mediated diseases potentially caused by vaccines, chronic late occurring adverse events are a serious public health issue. The advent of new vaccine technology creates new potential mechanisms of vaccine adverse events. For example, the first killed polio vaccine actually caused polio in recipients because the up scaled manufacturing process did not effectively kill the polio virus before it was injected into patients. RNA based vaccines offers special risks of inducing specific adverse events. One such potential adverse event is prion-based diseases caused by activation of intrinsic proteins to form prions. A wealth of knowledge has been published on a class of RNA binding proteins shown to participating in causing a number of neurological diseases including Alzheimer's disease and ALS (Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis). TDP-43 and FUS are among the best studied of these proteins [2]. The Pfizer RNA based COVID-19 vaccine was approved by the US FDA under an emergency use authorization without long term safety data. Because of concerns about the safety of this vaccine a study was performed to determine if the vaccine could potentially induce prion-based disease. <<SNIP>> Results Analysis of the Pfizer vaccine against COVID-19 identified two potential risk factors for inducing prion disease is humans. The RNA sequence in the vaccine [3] contains sequences believed to induce TDP-43 and FUS to aggregate in their prion-based conformation leading to the development of common neurodegerative diseases. In particular, it has been shown that RNA sequences GGUA [4], UG rich sequences [5], UG tandem repeats [6], and G Quadruplex sequences [7], have increased affinity to bind TDP-43 and or FUS and may cause TDP-43 or FUS to take their pathologic configurations in the cytoplasm. In the current analysis a total of sixteen UG tandem repeats (ΨGΨG) were identified and additional UG (ΨG) rich sequences were identified. Two GGΨA sequences were found. G Quadruplex sequences are possibly present but sophisticated computer programs are needed to verify these. The spike protein encoded by the vaccine binds angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), an enzyme which contains zinc molecules [8]. The binding of spike protein to ACE2 has the potential to release the zinc molecule, an ion that causes TDP-43 to assume its pathologic prion transformation [9]. Discussion There is an old saying in medicine that "the cure may be worse than the disease." The phrase can be applied to vaccines. In the current paper the concern is raised that the RNA based COVID vaccines have the potential to cause more disease than the epidemic of COVID-19. This paper focuses on a novel potential adverse event mechanism causing prion disease which could be even more common and debilitating than the viral infection the vaccine is designed to prevent. While this paper focuses on one potential adverse event there are multiple other potential fatal adverse events as discussed below. Over the last two decades there has been a concern among certain scientists that prions could be used as bioweapons. More recently there has been a concern that ubiquitous intracellular molecules could be activated to cause prion disease including Alzheimer's disease, ALS and other neurodegenerative diseases. This concern originates due to potential for misuse of research data on the mechanisms by which certain RNA binding proteins like TDP-43, FUS and others can be activated to form disease causing prions. The fact that this research, which could be used for bioweapons development, is funded by private organizations including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and Ellison Medical Foundation [2] without national/international oversight is also a concern. In the past, for example, there were prohibitions for publishing information pertaining to construction of nuclear bombs. Published data has shown that there are several different factors that can contribute to the conversion of certain RNA binding proteins including TDP-43, FUS and related molecules to their pathologic states. These RNA binding proteins have many functions and are found in both the nucleus and the cytoplasm. These binding proteins have amino acid regions, binding motifs that bind specific RNA sequences. Binding to certain RNA sequences when the proteins are in the cytoplasm is believed to causes the molecules to fold in certain ways leading to pathologic aggregation and prion formation in the cytoplasm [2]. The current analysis indicates Pfizer’s RNA based COVID-19 vaccine contains many of these RNA sequences that have been shown to have high affinity for TDP-43 or FUS and have the potential to induce chronic degenerative neurological diseases. Zinc binding to the RNA recognition motif of TDP-43 is another mechanism leading to formation of amyloid like aggregations [9]. The viral spike protein, coded by the vaccine RNA sequence, binds ACE2, an enzyme containing zinc molecules [8]. This interaction has the potential to increase intracellular zinc levels leading to prion disease. The initial binding could be between spike proteins on the surface of the cell transfected by the vaccine and ACE2 on the surface of an adjacent cell. The resulting complex may become internalized. Alternatively, the interaction could initially take place in the cytoplasm of a cell that makes ACE2 and has been transfected with the vaccine RNA coding for the spike protein. The interaction is quite concerning given the belief that the virus causing COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, is a bioweapon [10,11] and it is possible that the viral spike protein may have been designed to cause prion disease. Another related concern is that the Pfizer vaccine uses a unique RNA nucleoside 1-methyl-3′-pseudouridylyl (Ψ). According to FDA briefing documents, this nucleoside was chosen to reduce activation of the innate immune system [12]. RNA molecules containing this nucleoside will undoubtedly have altered binding [13]. Unfortunately, the effect on TDP-43, FUS and other RNA binding proteins is not published. The use of this nucleoside in a vaccine can potentially enhance the binding affinity of RNA sequences capable of causing TDP-43 and FUS to assume toxic configurations. There are many other potential adverse events that can be induced by the novel RNA based vaccines against COVID-19. The vaccine places a novel molecule, spike protein, in/on the surface of host cells. This spike protein is a potential receptor for another possibly novel infectious agent. If those who argue that the COVID-19 is actually a bioweapon are correct, then a second potentially more dangerous virus may be released that binds spike protein found on the host cells of vaccine recipients. Data is not publicly available to provide information on how long the vaccine RNA is translated in the vaccine recipient and how long after translation the spike protein will be present in the recipient's cells. Such studies pertaining to in vivo expression will be complex and challenging. Genetic diversity protects species from mass casualties caused by infectious agents. One individual may be killed by a virus while another may have no ill effects from the same virus. By placing the identical receptor, the spike protein, on cells of everyone in a population, the genetic diversity for at least one potential receptor disappears. Everyone in the population now becomes potentially susceptible to binding with the same infectious agent. Autoimmunity and the opposing condition, metabolic syndrome, are well known adverse events caused by vaccines [14]. COVID-19 infections are associated with the induction of autoantibodies and autoimmune disease [15,16] making it more than plausible a vaccine could do the same. One author has found amino acid sequences coded by the spike protein to be identical to sequences in human proteins including proteins found in the CNS [17]. Autoimmunity can also be induced by epitope spreading when a foreign antigen, like the spike protein, is presented by an antigen presenting cell that also has self-molecules attached to its MHC molecules. Finally, others working in the field have published additional support that COVID-19 vaccines could potentially induce prion disease. Authors [18] found prion related sequences in the COVID-19 spike protein which were not found in related coronaviruses. Others [19] have reported a case of prion disease, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, initially occurring in a man with COVID-19. Many have raised the warning that the current epidemic of COVID-19 is actually the result of a bioweapons attack released in part by individuals in the United States government [10,11]. Such a theory is not far-fetched given that the 2001 anthrax attack in the US originated at Fort Detrick, a US army bioweapon facility. Because the FBI's anthrax investigation was closed against the advice of the lead FBI agent in the case, there are likely conspirators still working in the US government. In such a scenario the primary focus of stopping a bioweapons attack must be to apprehend the conspirators or the attacks will never cease. Approving a vaccine, utilizing novel RNA technology without extensive testing is extremely dangerous. The Pfizer vaccine could be a bioweapon and even more dangerous than the original infection. References at: https://scivisionpub.com/pdfs/covid19-rna-based-vaccines-and-the-risk-of-prion-disease-1503.pdf The post Warning: Pfizer's Experimental, 'Emergency Use-Authorized' mRNA Vaccine Carries Serious Risk of Prion-Associated Spongiform Encephalopathy/Dementia appeared first on LewRockwell.  | Tuesday 11 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05 "COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated." Feel free to take THAT to a doctor. This quote appears in an October 2020 study, published in the International Journal of Clinical Practice. The title of the study: "Informed consent disclosure to vaccine trial subjects of risk of COVID-19 vaccines worsening clinical disease." The two authors are Timothy Cardozo and Ronald Veazy. Cardozo's affiliation is listed as "Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA." Veazy's affiliation is "Division of Comparative Pathology, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Tulane University School of Medicine, Tulane National Primate Research Center, Covington, LA, USA." The study declares that volunteers in COVID vaccine clinical trials and people who receive the vaccine after clinical trials—meaning now—should be informed there is a risk of "more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated." So that's what I'm doing. Have you heard of anyone about to receive the vaccine being INFORMED that they're at risk—that they're liable to become more seriously ill than if they refused the shot? Of course not. Politicians, news people, and other idiots simply take the word "vaccine" and push it like a street dealer pushes heroin. Consent given by the patient, after being truly informed, is a bedrock medical responsibility. The claim that a declared crisis overrides a person's need to understand what is being done to him is a criminal claim. Looking at how the COVID vaccination campaign is being conducted, anyone can see informed consent is being violated to its core. Manufactured hysteria is not an acceptable substitute for moral duty. Modern-day fascists believe that "ten thousand bloviating Faucis" declaring the vaccine is absolutely safe and effective is actual science. Months ago, I wrote a piece that fits nicely with this article. Based on a New York Times op ed by Peter Doshi and Eric Topol—the clinical trials of the COVID vaccine conducted by Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Moderna were designed to prove nothing more than: The vaccine could prevent a cough, or chills and fever (diagnosed as COVID-19). That's right. Now follow this. The vaccine makers were waiting for the SARS-CoV-2 virus to descend on some volunteers during the clinical trials. But since the volunteers were healthy, how long would it take for "serious cases of COVID"—pneumonia—to show up? Three years? Ten years? Never? The vaccine makers certainly weren't going to wait. No, they were going to stop the clinical trial when 150 of the 30,000 volunteers were diagnosed with "mild COVID"—a cough, or chills and fever. Then they were going to see how many people who actually got the vaccine vs. how many people who got a saltwater placebo shot received a COVID-19 diagnosis. THAT was the essence of the clinical trial. Of course, all three vaccine makers claimed that far more people in the placebo group were diagnosed with COVID—thus "proving" the vaccine was effective. Effective at preventing "a mild case of COVID"—a cough, or chills and fever—both of which cure themselves naturally, without the need for a vaccine. There's your vaccine science. A show for buffoons. So now, as vaccine-caused deaths escalate daily, this destructive genetic shot is being given to people all over the world. There is no authentic informed consent that spells out the incredible danger. And the vaccine was never meant to prevent more than a cold or mild flu. Yet you're supposed to develop a suicidal impulse, take the shot, and earn your vaccine passport or virtue-signaling immunity bracelet or microchip so you can enlist in the Brave New World. Reprinted with permission from Jon Rappoport's blog. The post Covid Vaccine Can Worsen Disease; Mainstream Study; Not on the Evening News appeared first on LewRockwell.  | Tuesday 11 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05 Contrary to a widespread idea, President Biden does not intend to guarantee “equality in Law” of all Americans without distinction of race. On the contrary, he intends to be the champion of “racial equity”, that is to say a form of equality between, not individuals, but what he considers as distinct racial groups. In this article, Thierry Meyssan will use the term “racism” in its literal sense and not in the common sense of “discriminatory behavior”. He will show that by announcing their intention to extend “racial equity” to the whole world, President Biden and the Democratic Party are threatening world peace. In a federal state, somewhere in the world, the Department of Education decided to teach in primary and secondary schools that humanity is divided into distinct races. Although these races are distinct, it is possible to mate them and give birth to children. However, these children will be sterile, like the mules of a donkey and a mare. This is why federal government statistics include whites, blacks, etc., but no mixed-race children. Since there is an implicit hierarchy between these distinct races and, unfortunately, half-breeds are not sterile, they are automatically counted as belonging to the inferior race. The superior race must be preserved from all defilement. This federal state was the Nazi Reich, but it is also the United States of Joe Biden and his Secretary of Education, Miguel Cardona. We are witnessing the return of the “scientific racism” that caused the Second World War and its 70 million deaths. No one seems to be aware of the danger, however, and many people think that the U.S. Democrats are examples of openness to others. Let us remember that the racism of the 1930s had all the trappings of science. It was researched in many scientific institutes and taught in universities in both the United States and Western Europe. To preserve the master race, many “modern” states had banned interracial marriages before World War I. 
Commemorative medal designed by Karl Goetz (then ranked on the left). On the obverse, a caricature of a black French soldier with the motto “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité”, on the reverse, a German woman bound and raped under a French helmet. This openly racist piece was distributed by a few right-wing organizations and by almost all Western left-wing organizations. Racism is neither of the right nor of the left In the collective imagination, racism would only develop in right-wing nationalist circles. This is absolutely false. For example, at the end of the First World War, France occupied the Ruhr coal region militarily. Among the troops were Africans from Senegal and Madagascar for two years. Soon a protest movement developed in Germany, the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada to denounce the ignominy of the French who placed 20,000 blacks to dominate the German whites and rape their women. This racist movement was led by the main anti-racist figure of the beginning of the century, E. D. Morel [1], and gathered all the international feminist organizations in large demonstrations [2]. In France itself, socialists joined this racist movement, including Karl Marx's grandson, Jean Longuet, a journalist at L'Humanité and future leader of the SFIO (Socialist Party). It must be admitted that, in troubled times like the interwar period or the one we are living today, people follow their impulses whatever their ideas. They are often in complete contradiction with themselves and do not realize it. The slavery and racist past of the American Democrats In the United States, slavery and racism were mostly defended by the Democrats against the Republicans.  The Democratic Party platforms of 1840, 1844, 1848, 1852 and 1856 asserted that abolitionism diminished the happiness of the people and endangered the stability and permanence of the Union.
The 1856 program declared that the member states of the Union may or may not practice domestic slavery and write it into their constitutions.
The 1860 program describes the efforts of abolitionist states that refused to arrest runaway slaves as subversive and revolutionary.
The 14th Amendment granting full citizenship to freed slaves was passed in 1868 by 94% of Republican Party legislators and 0% of Democratic Party
The 15th Amendment, which granted the right to vote to freed slaves, was adopted in 1870 by 100% of the members of the Republican Party and 0% of the members of the Democratic Party
In 1902, the Democratic Party passed a law in Virginia removing the right to vote from over 90% of African Americans.
President Woodrow Wilson instituted racial segregation of federal employees and mandated a photo on every job application.
The 1924 Democratic National Convention at Madison Square Garden in New York City was called the “Klan-Bake” because of the influence of the Ku Klux Klan in the party.
Things did not really change until 1964, when, just after the Kennedys' efforts, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act into law. This was a painful turnaround, as Democratic lawmakers managed to block the legislation for 75 days. 
The “1619 Project” is an operation of the New York Times Magazine. It aims to rewrite American history. The “1619 Project The Biden administration claims to be anti-racist and no one doubts its good faith. But it is so in the manner of the Democratic Party of the years 1840-1961. That is, in practice, not at all. Quite the contrary. Its educational decisions are designed to promote the ideology of the « 1619 Project ». According to this ideology, the United States was not founded by the War of Independence against the British Crown, but more than two centuries earlier, in 1619, with the idea of enslaving black people. The “1619 Project” was marked by a series of supplements and then dedicated articles in the New York Times since 2019. In doing so, this daily newspaper has moved from trying to report the truth to becoming a propaganda tool for Puritan ideology. According to the NY Times, Native Americans were slavers like the Europeans. However, the Spaniards freed the Amerindian slaves who fled their masters on the condition that they converted to the true faith, Catholicism. In the end, the European colonies in the Americas only really developed after the arrival of black slaves from Angola on the territory of the current USA, in 1619. The War of Independence was not against the unjust taxes of the British Crown, but to preserve the slave system. This is why the United States is systemically racist. It is the duty of every white man to realize the undue privilege he enjoys and to redress the crimes of white patriarchy. This theory does not rise from history [3]. It mixes slavery and racism (for example, Native Americans enslaved their enemies, but they were not racist). It ignores white slaves (among the first slaves in North America were Englishmen who were convicted by the courts). It despises the emancipation of the colonists from England. Finally, it was not the United States, but the Portuguese who brought slavery to the colonists and traded it. Moreover, this theory is American-centric and ignores the slavery of blacks and their systematic castration by the Arabs for a thousand years. This theory is religious. It takes up the myth of original sin, which it transforms, and for which it makes every white man responsible. Like the iconoclasts, the Puritans or the Wahhabites, its supporters destroy the impure representations of those who have sinned, starting with the Southern generals. Each lie begets a new one. Indeed, the Southerners were not defending slavery (which they abolished before the end of the Civil War), but the right of each Confederate state to have its own customs. The supporters of the “1619 Project” acted exactly like what they intended to fight: men were no longer guilty for what they did, but at birth, by heredity. Joe Biden's institutionalization of racism When the Biden administration's Secretary of Education, Miguel Cardona, decided to promote the “1619 Project” in elementary and secondary schools, there was a nationwide protest. The most interesting reaction was in Oklahoma. The local Congress passed a bill, which was immediately signed into law by Governor Kevin Stitt. The latter is a Cherokee Indian and a Jacksonian like Donald Trump [4]. This law, HB 1775 (download the text at the bottom of this page), prohibits anyone from teaching the following eight racist propositions: 1. one race or gender is inherently superior to another race or gender.
2. an individual, because of his or her race or gender, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, consciously or unconsciously.
3. a person should be discriminated against or treated adversely solely or in part because of his or her race or gender,
4. members of one race or gender cannot and should not attempt to treat others without regard to their race or gender.
5. the moral character of an individual is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex.
6. an individual, because of his or her race or gender, bears responsibility for the past actions of other members of the same race or gender.
7. any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anxiety, or any other form of psychological distress because of their race or gender.
8. meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist or have been created by members of a particular race to oppress members of another race.
The legislation banning the teaching of all or parts of these eight propositions in Oklahoma schools was passed by 100% of Republican lawmakers and 0% of Democratic lawmakers. We must measure the consequences of the “1619 Project” ideology that the Democratic Party and the Biden Administration intend not only to apply in the United States, but to spread throughout the world. It can only lead to massive violence. Text of HB 1775 of May 7, 2021 in Oklahoma
(PDF – 56 kb) — [1] E.D. Morel denounced the cruel treatment of the Congolese by the Belgian king, Leopol II. [2] "Black Horror on the Rhine": Idealism, Pacifism, and Racism in Feminism and the Left in the Aftermath of the First World War, Peter Campbell, Histoire sociale/Social history, Volume 47, Number 94, Juin/June 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/his.2014.0034. [3] The New York Times' 1619 Project: A racialist falsification of American and world history, Niles Niemuth & Tom Mackaman & David North, World Socialist Web Site (2020). 1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project, Peter W. Wood, Encounter Books (2020). [4] Democratic historiography holds President Jackson responsible for the genocide of the Cherokee Indians on the “Trail of Tears. Obviously this is not how Cherokke Kevin Stitt thinks. The post Joe Biden Reinvents Racism appeared first on LewRockwell.  | Tuesday 11 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05 GM – and Tesla – just publicly admitted that they can't sell electric cars. Or rather, they need your help – via Uncle. To pay people $7,500 each to "buy" their electric cars. To be paid by those who pay the taxes which will make up for the taxes not collected from the people who "buy" electric cars. This is the wealth transfer scheme styled "electric car tax credits." They have been around for years – and may be coming back – because electric cars have pull rather than range. Great sums of money were expended to extract great sums of money – via the tax code, which was adjusted to give preferential treatment to the purchasers of electric cars by making electric cars seem more affordable than they are, in fact. In order to create the fiction of a "market" for electric cars, where none – or very little – actually existed. If that were not the case, then why the need to pay people to "buy" them? In every other case of such massive discounting – an industry term – the need to apply such discounts is taken as evidence of the car being discounted being a flop. Get rid of them by whatever means necessary – as by giving them away – and then build no more. The Aztek being a for-instance. Imagine being paid to buy one. Of course, the difference with EVs is that instead of GM paying you to buy an Aztek, the government is making someone else pay for your electric Aztek. Or rather, your neighbor's electric Aztek. No one would abide such a thing, much less laud such a thing. How come almost no one is questioning this thing? That question is hardly ever raised – much less answered. Probably because of the answer. Electric cars are the Azteks of our time, but worse. And unlike the Aztek, which was merely ugly – electric cars are evil. A kind of cancer that is not only metastasizing but being encouraged to metastasize. They don't go far – and they cost far more than most people are willing to pay for them – and accordingly, most won't pay for them, if the cost isn't reduced somehow. As by making someone else pay for part of the cost of them – the evil part. Or at least part of the evil part. Since electric cars are very costly – even with the subsidy – it is generally wealthy people who buy electric cars, as an indulgence – by definition, since they aren't economical. And to signal their virtue. Read the Whole Article The post Tesla – and GM – Finally Admit It appeared first on LewRockwell.  | Tuesday 11 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05 In Forbes Magazine, we read: Children and teenagers might soon be the next focus of the U.S. Covid-19 pandemic. That means they will be the focus of injections for a disease that poses little risk. There is no hiding the fact that COVID vaccines are killing people, with over 10,000 deaths now reported into European and American vaccine reporting systems. No doubt they are not deadly for the great majority, BUT they will be lethal enough and damaging enough to make this the scandal of the century. We must focus on the reality that in the five months of COVID vaccines, more people have dropped dead from COVID vaccines than from over 15 years of reported deaths from all other vaccines put together. By the last week of April, cases among children and teens accounted for more than 22% of new cases in the U.S, and there was a 4% increase in the total number of cases in kids. Almost 4 million kids have been diagnosed with Covid-19 since the beginning of the pandemic. They were diagnosed with a test that does not test for COVID-19 specifically. According to the FDA and CDC: Positive results are indicative of active infection with SARS-CoV-2 but do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of the disease. Children Do Not Need COVID Vaccines No one should trust the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to diagnose AIDS patients or be used to test for the COVID-19, so Forbes and the FDA, who has just now approved the shots for kids aged 12-15, are fully bent on killing some of them. One has to listen to the above video. Listen to Dr. Fauci hang himself with his desire to vaccinate infants as young as two months. Survival rates for children Ages 0-17 are 99.998% Forbes writes, "Luckily, vaccines for kids are arriving soon. The companies hope to get the vaccines authorized for kids aged 2-11 by September. Moderna is just behind, having started its phase 2 / 3 clinical trial in children less than 12 years old in March." The local corporate media in Draper, Utah, is reporting that a 17-year-old student from Corner Canyon High School ended up in the ICU with blood clots in his brain just after receiving an experimental COVID injection. Of course, with all the deaths reported into the federal and European vaccine reporting systems, they continue to state there is no link between the injuries and the injections. Yet one-third of fatalities reported to the CDC after COVID vaccines occurred within 48 hours of vaccination. I did not entitle my vaccine book from 18 years ago, The Terror of Pediatric Medicine for nothing. Pfizer's testing in adolescents "met our rigorous standards," FDA vaccine chief Dr. Peter Marks said. "Having a vaccine authorized for a younger population is a critical step in continuing to lessen the immense public health burden caused by the COVID-19 pandemic." However, these are not FDA-approved vaccines. They are experimental with emergency authorization only. Should these vaccines, with unknown long-term side effects, be targeted to an age group that so far appears to be mostly spared from the severe impacts of the disease? Sure, because there is a vaccine surplus because more than half of Americans are resisting the shot, the government and pharmaceutical companies want to dump them into the bloodstreams of the young. COVID vaccines are failing to do everything but make certain people and companies rich. Masks are a colossal failure, same with lockdowns and everything else public health officials and hysterical politicians want us to do. That is the good news. The bad news is that all the above is killing people and enslaving the human race to a mindset championed by Bill and Belinda Gates, Dr. Fauci, who we cannot find the courage to say anything good about, the World Health Organization and all the mainstream newspapers and giant social media companies. Don't forget that the wealthiest people on the planet own the mainstream media and social media companies. Do you believe they are looking after our best interests? Reprinted with permission from Dr.Sircus.com. The post They Are Going After the Children appeared first on LewRockwell.  |  |
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.