zagglutin - Tumblr blog

zagglutin · 4 years ago

Text

[Consumer Credit News] Credit Report Repair News: Digest for May 09, 2021

Credit Report Repair News

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 call (888) 502-1260

Table of Contents

Credit Report Repair News: Digest for May 08, 2021

by Credit Repair News, Sebastian Pulvera on Saturday 08 May 2021 02:00 AM UTC-05

Credit Report Repair News

Table of Contents

Halt Covid Vaccines, Prominent Scientist Tells CDC

The Big Lie Revealed

What To Do

The State of Modern Economics

The Calm Before the Storm: Use it To Gain Strength To Fight the Coming Tyranny

Biden's Offshore Wind Energy Mirage

The Working-Class Revolt Against Labour

Automakers Cave to Biden's Electric Car Baloney, and Ignore Their Own Customers

Stupid AF

The Truth Is Surely Baseless

America: The Mini-Series

No Jab for Me – And Here Are 35 Reasons Why

Halt Covid Vaccines, Prominent Scientist Tells CDC

Friday 07 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

In a public comment to the CDC, molecular biologist and toxicologist Dr. Janci Chunn Lindsay, Ph.D., called to immediately halt Covid vaccine production and distribution. Citing fertility, blood-clotting concerns (coagulopathy), and immune escape, Dr. Lindsay explained to the committee the scientific evidence showing that the coronavirus vaccines are not safe.

On April 23, 2021, the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices held a meeting in Atlanta, Georgia. The focus of this ACIP meeting was blood clotting disorders following Covid vaccines. Dr. Janci Chunn Lindsay spoke to the CDC during the time set aside for public comment.

The censorship on social media in particular and the internet in general is relentless. Here is a slightly edited, annotated censorship-proof transcript of Dr. Janci Chunn Lindsay's 3-minute comment.

You can listen to her testimony on YouTube here (for now, anyway. If this link goes viral, YouTube will likely censor it).

Molecular Biologist and Toxicologist Calls to Halt Covid Vaccine

Hi, my name is Dr. Janci Chunn Lindsay. I hold a doctorate in biochemistry and molecular biology from the University of Texas, and have over 30 years of scientific experience, primarily in toxicology and mechanistic biology.

In the mid-1990s, I aided the development of a temporary human contraceptive vaccine which ended up causing unintended autoimmune ovarian destruction and sterility in animal test models. Despite efforts against this and sequence analyses that did not predict this.

I strongly feel that all the gene therapy vaccines must be halted immediately due to safety concerns on several fronts.

Janci Chunn Lindsay: Covid vaccines could induce cross-reactive antibodies to syncytin, and impair fertility as well as pregnancy outcomes

First, there is a credible reason to believe that the Covid vaccines will cross-react with the syncytin and reproductive proteins in sperm, ova, and placenta, leading to impaired fertility and impaired reproductive and gestational outcomes.

Respected virologist Dr. Bill Gallaher, Ph.D., made excellent arguments as to why you would expect cross reaction. Due to beta sheet conformation similarities between spike proteins and syncytin-1 and syncytin-2.

I have yet to see a single immunological study which disproves this. Despite the fact that it would literally take the manufacturers a single day to do these syncytin studies to ascertain this [once they had serum from vaccinated individuals]. It's been over a year since the assertions were first made that this [the body attacking its own syncytin proteins due to similarity in spike protein structure] could occur.

Pregnancy losses reported to VAERS lead to demand to halt Covid vaccine

We have seen 100 pregnancy losses reported in VAERS as of April 9th. And there have [also] been reports of impaired spermatogenesis and placental findings from both the natural infection, vaccinated, and syncytin knockout animal models that have similar placental pathology, implicating a syncytin-mediated role in these outcomes.

Additionally, we have heard of multiple reports of menses irregularities in those vaccinated. These must be investigated.

We simply cannot put these [vaccines] in our children who are at .002% risk for Covid mortality, if infected, or any more of the child-bearing age population without thoroughly investigating this matter.

[If we do], we could potentially sterilize an entire generation. Speculation that this will not occur and a few anecdotal reports of pregnancies within the trial are not sufficient proof that this is not impacting on a population-wide scale.

Covid vaccine causes blood disorders

Secondly, all of the gene therapies [Covid vaccines] are causing coagulopathy. [Coagulopathy when the body's blood clotting system is impaired.] This is not isolated to one manufacturer. And this is not isolated to one age group.

As we are seeing coagulopathy deaths in healthy young adults with no secondary comorbidities.

There have been 795 reports related to blood clotting disorders as of April 9th in the VAERS reporting system, 338 of these being due to thrombocytopenia.

There are forward and backward mechanistic principles for why this is happening. The natural infection is known to cause coagulopathy due to the spike protein. All gene therapy vaccines direct the body to make the spike protein. Zhang et al in [a scientific paper published in the Journal of Hematology & Oncology] in September 2020 showed that if you infuse spike protein into mice that have humanized ACE-2 receptors on blood platelets that you also get disseminated thrombosis.

Spike protein incubated with human blood in vitro also caused blood clot development which was resistant to fibrinolysis. [Fibrinolysis is the body's process of breaking down blood clots]. The spike protein is causing thrombocytic events, which cannot be resolved through natural means. And all vaccines must be halted in the hope that they can be reformulated to guard against this adverse effect.

Third, there is strong evidence for immune escape—

At this point in her oral testimony, Dr. Janci Chunn Lindsay was interrupted by a man's voice: "Thank you for your comment, your time has expired."

I reached out to Dr. Janci Chunn Lindsay to find out what else she had wanted to share with ACIP, in addition to her concerns over fertility and blood-clotting disorders. She sent me back her third point, which she submitted as written testimony.

Third, there is strong evidence for immune escape, and that inoculation under pandemic pressure with these leaky vaccines is driving the creation of more lethal mutants that are both newly infecting a younger age demographic, and causing more Covid-related deaths across the population than would have occurred without intervention. That is, there is evidence that the vaccines are making the pandemic worse.

It is clear that we are seeing a temporal immune depression immediately following the inoculations [see World Meter Global Covid deaths counts following inoculation dates] and there are immunosuppressive regions on spike proteins, as well as Syn-2, that could be likely causing this, through a T-cell mediated mechanism. If we do not stop this vaccine campaign until these issues can be investigated, we may see a phenomenon such as we see in chickens with Marek's disease.

We have enough evidence now to see a clear correlation with increased Covid deaths and the vaccine campaigns. This is not a coincidence. It is an unfortunate unintended effect of the vaccines. We simply must not turn a blind eye and pretend this is not occurring. We must halt all Covid vaccine administration immediately, before we create a true pandemic that we cannot reign in.

MIT scientist also concerned about blood-clotting, fertility issues

Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., an expert in protein synthesis, believes that Dr. Lindsay's hypothesis is correct. "I absolutely share these concerns," Dr. Seneff, who is a senior research scientist at MIT, wrote to me in a sobering email.

"The potential for blood clotting disorders and the potential for sterilization are only part of the story. There are other potential long-term effects of these vaccines as well, such as autoimmune disease and immune escape, whereby the vaccines administered to immune-compromised people accelerate the mutation rate of the virus so as to render both naturally acquired and vaccine-induced antibodies no longer effective."

Like Dr. Lindsay, Dr. Seneff believes we need to immediately halt Covid vaccine campaigns. "This massive clinical trial on the general population could have devastating and irreversible effects on a huge number of people," Seneff explains.

Despite these fertility and blood disorder concerns, the CDC panel voted last Friday to resume the use of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine. They did, however, suggest an FDA warning label be added. Their argument against halting Covid vaccination? The CDC believes the benefits outweigh the risks.

This originally appeared on JenniferMargulis.net.

The post Halt Covid Vaccines, Prominent Scientist Tells CDC appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Big Lie Revealed

Friday 07 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

Listen to the Podcast

Listening to this audio podcast will forever dash any dreams one may have of the US Military swooping in and rescuing us from the mire of corruption and the Unrestricted Warfare that is strafing us. Douglas Gabriel at AIM4Truth and Michael McKibben at Americans4Innovation drop the bombshell that CENTCOM orchestrated the theft of the 2020 Election.

Moreover, CENTCOM founded Scytl USA, LLC in 2009 and in 2010, they transferred 100% of the ownership to the Spanish corporation, Scytl Election Technologies, S.A. That, alone should be enough to overturn the election. Then, on October 30th, 2020, the Spanish Scytl merged into the British Paragon Group Limited, while claiming they had gone bankrupt, which wasn't really true.

Paragon has 118 subsidiaries. The sheer number of subsidiaries of related companies is head-spinning and this is how they feel that they can lie so brazenly. Dominion feels like it can sue for defamation because the crimes of which it is being accused were actually carried out by related subsidiaries.

For years, the two have been describing a slow-moving global coup d'état by the British Pilgrims Society that's being incrementally achieved by manipulating elections via their digital machines.

They say the roots of this operation were in the founding of OpTech, which made the voting machines used in Venezuela and elsewhere during the Jimmy Carter administration and in Carter's founding of the Senior Executive Service, which Doug has described as a cadre of British assets operating at the core of the US Federal bureaucracy.

Today, every single voting machine in the US ties into their system and after testing their technology and manipulating elections worldwide for several years, they opened up all the stops in 2020.

Mike says, "It's real clear now from looking at the information, is that was a Central Command operation and that it was specifically regarding election-rigging…what it looks like is that SOE Software [which was later acquired by Scytl] was hired by CENTCOM to build what would become the Scytl system and get it ready for Prime Time, which appears to have occurred in 2010."

Doug reminds us that CENTCOM is an attack group."There is no doubt they are the Department of Defense component that's been controlling this all along.

"What we're seeing here is the end of America. If we cannot stop this election for being the most fraudulent in American history – plainly, with 40,000 affadavits, thousands of pictures of people committing fraud. We have videotape of poll workers committing fraud before our very eyes; and if we can't find a judge, then we need to set up our own courts, we need to have Citizen Grand Juries…and bring the verdict down and bring justice to bear, here.

"So I'm hoping that we can still work through the system. I didn't know that we would have this opportunity this late in the game. But if we can, it will be historic and it will be powerful to be part of the Second American Revolution, that we had to fight the Senior Executive Service establishment bureaucratic system; those un-elected members of our Federal Government who basically are controlling everything."

Mike says, "It's all been a set-up of our Department of Defense. That is shocking to me. I was always hoping that there were good guys within our Department of Defense, but now that we see CENTCOM is behind this…"

Reprinted with the author's permission.

The post The Big Lie Revealed appeared first on LewRockwell.

What To Do

Friday 07 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

Writes a lady:

So what can the unvaccinated do to protect themselves from the vaccinated?

Bill responds:

You want to be exposed to the virus so as to develop natural immunity and not have to undergo immunization. Newly mutated strains and the absence of vaccines for these viral mutations demand the human immune system be maximized against this fear-evoking threat.

You will not be able to avoid exposure as the virus is highly virulent, so you must employ measures that address all forms of the virus, including more virulent mutant strains. Face masks, distancing and hand-washing are not fool-proof ways of preventing infection. These measures may temporarily delay onset of symptoms, that is all.

The human body is continually exposed to pathogenic bacteria and viruses and does a good job of warding them off if the immune system is up to par. Your own immune system facilitates universal immunity while vaccines only address one infectious disease pathogen at a time.

Recognize, outside of seniors in nursing homes, the COVID-19 coronavirus only kills one-half of 1% of the adult population. Over 99% of those infected recover on their own. However, there is something more sinister that is causing needless death.

Most of the symptomatic cases of infection and death being reported are not due to the virus but rather caused by anxiety and sleeplessness that cause people to drink more alcohol, coffee and tea, all which block vitamin B1 that controls the autonomic nervous system. A B-1 deficiency (aka beriberi) can mimic all of the symptoms of COVID-19 coronavirus (chronic cough, breathlessness, loss of sense of smell, fever, etc., a problem that modern medicine is oblivious to. Vitamin B1 as benfotiamine is strongly recommended, particularly for coffee, tea and alcohol drinkers. These vitamin-deficiency forms of disease are mis-categorized as COVID-19. Don't take vitamin B1 at same time as alcohol, coffee or tea.

Fortunately, the virus cannot replicate without a high-arginine environment (chocolates and nuts are high in arginine). The antidote is lysine, a counter-balancing amino acid rich in cheese and available as an inexpensive dietary supplement. Lysine can be consumed preventively and taken in higher doses therapeutically if symptoms arise. Maybe 500-1000 mg/day.

But how to develop long-term immunity without reading for lysine tablets? Antibodies only last a short while. For long-term immunity, zinc supplementation would be in order, ~30 mg for adults (not more), and preferably with selenium to release this trace mineral from its binding protein.

Adequately-dosed zinc lozenges which are dissolved in the mouth and taken 5-times throughout the day when symptoms arise, will aid in the production of memory T-cells (cells made in the thymus gland) to produce long-term immunity. Accompaniment by a zinc ionophore like hydroxychloroquine (a drug) or quercetin (a natural dietary supplement naturally found in red onions and red apple peel) is suggested. A zinc lozenge that meets these requirements has been formulated (Z-19) and is available at www.lifespannutrition.com

Vitamin D, the sunshine vitamin, unequivocally activates immune defenses and along with vitamin A normalizes the immune response. This minimizes the so-called cytokine (sigh-toe-keen) storm. A recent report calls for 8000 units of vitamin D/day, which represents around 30-60 minutes of direct mid-day full-body sun exposure. Health authorities made a mistake in their calculations how much vitamin D is needed and only recommend 400-2000 units/day.

If breathlessness does occur, you don't want to run to the hospital if you don't need to. You will then find yourself on the hospital conveyor belt where you are exposed to the very viruses you want to avoid and where antibiotic resistance is high and medical errors abound. It would help every family to have a nebulizer handy. Nebulizers equate with having a respiratory hospital at home. This device produces a fine mist that you breathe and releases viral particles from sticking to the wall of your bronchus and lungs. You can nebulize with hydrogen-peroxide which kills off the virus without harming healthy tissues. Follow directions provided by Dr. Tom Levy in his free ebook RAPID VIRUS RECOVERY. In lieu of a nebulizer, jump in a hot shower and breathe in the mist.

Hope this helps.

The post What To Do appeared first on LewRockwell.

The State of Modern Economics

Friday 07 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

Peter G Klein is Carl Menger Research Fellow of the Mises Institute and W.W. Caruth Chair and Professor of Entrepreneurship at Baylor University's Hankamer School of Business. He is also senior research fellow at Baylor's Baugh Center for Entrepreneurship and Free Enterprise and adjunct professor of strategy and management at the Norwegian School of Economics. His research focuses on the economics of entrepreneurship and business organization, with applications to innovation, regulation, and economic growth. Klein has authored or edited five books and has published over seventy-five academic articles, chapters, and reviews.

JEFF DEIST: Let's start with the general state of the economics profession. What's changed since you were at Berkeley earning your PhD in the early 1990s?

PETER KLEIN: By the time I started my graduate work, the Austrian school was several decades into its comeback, starting in the 1960s and 1970s. But I didn't have any formal instruction either in my undergraduate or my graduate program in Austrian economics. I was a self-taught Austrian who was trained in the normal mainstream neoclassical approach. In many ways the economics profession, in my judgment, has gotten much, much worse since the 1990s. The Austrian school has continued to thrive, although we've remained on the periphery of conversations at universities and in public policy circles.

In the last maybe ten to twenty years, there's been a real shift in mainstream economics—both micro and macro—away from theory and toward what you might call atheoretical inductive empirical work. There are lots of different facets to this movement. Some of it is about statistical inference, but there is also this idea that we shouldn't impose our preconceived notions about relationships or mechanism on the data. We have to let the data speak for themselves. I've written a few pieces about this problem.

One of the recent Nobel laureates, Esther Duflo, wrote a famous article a few years ago called "The Economist as Plumber." Her view was that economists are not tasked with deep thinking. They're not grand theorists, they're not supposed to provide a big-picture perspective on how the world works. They're supposed to solve little minor mundane issues just like a plumber does, to fix plumbing leaks. We've got some little problem in the education system, let's call in an economist to gather the data, pore over the data, and come up with some policy recommendation. But there's no systematic thinking, there's nothing tying all these different little plumbing exercises together. The economist is a public policy problem solver using purely inductive data-driven methods. I think this is a big problem for the economics profession.

JD: I wrote an article recently criticizing economics journalism for its fixation on "the numbers." Economists are presumed to reverse engineer theory from the data. Do you think this mania for data is an attempt by the Paul Krugmans of the world to claim a scientific mantle for themselves?

PK: Yes and no. I think certainly what we're seeing now is part of a longer-term trend that, I don't know, started in the 1930s, 1940s, as economics became transformed into a more quantitative mathematical and statistical kind of profession, you know, favoring those approaches. You had the Econometric Society thriving in the '20s and '30s. You had Paul Samuelson's textbook in the 1940s, this idea that social science, economics in particular, needs to aid the methods of the natural sciences. That has been a long-term trend that we've seen since the middle of the twentieth century. I think what we're seeing now is related to that but is distinct at the same time. There is a political element to it because economic theory, what Austrians would call price theory, a theory of value, price exchange, and so forth, is about studying the workings of the market economy. We also apply those theories to studying socialism and interventionism.

There was an interesting tweet by Krugman a few weeks ago: a friend of mine, Alex Salter, who is a professor at Texas Tech, wrote a piece in the Wall Street Journal in defense of Chicago-style price theory, which is not exactly the same as price theory the way Austrians understand it, but you might call it a close cousin. And he made the point that price theory is good at illustrating tradeoff s and it gives people who want to intervene in the economy a humility about what is possible because we see, as Henry Hazlitt famously emphasized, the secondary effects, the unintended consequences, the limits to what government officials can do. And Krugman said something like, Well, of course these right-wing fanatics, they like price theory because it's right-wing. They don't like the fact that the data, that reality, has a liberal bent. The data shows, the data favors, interventionism. That's why these crazy right-wing kooks don't like a data-driven approach. So I think there's an opportunistic element to this, that you can make the data say lots of different things and you can use the data to justify all kinds of interventions one might choose to pursue, and so the Krugman types are certainly taking advantage of this methodological trend.

JD: This blurring of method between the physical and social sciences is not new, as you point out. But nobody has these grand expectations for sociology or political science as predictive or mathematical disciplines. It seems only to apply to economics.

PK: Maybe economists have themselves to blame for this after tasting the sweet nectar of political influence and political power. The US government doesn't have a council of sociology advisors or a council of anthropology advisors; it has a council of economic advisors. This actually causes some tension, I think, among social scientists. Economists are perceived as having an outsized influence, which is probably true. And I think for many economists it's hard to resist the temptation to say what the powers that be want to hear.

JD: I see a lot of derision toward economics on social media from people of all political stripes. People dismiss the notion of economic laws and seem to view the whole discipline like astrology. Economies can be commanded by legislative fiat. All this stuff about markets is really just intellectual cover for business interests. I'm not sure scientism has helped the image of economics.

PK: You're right. It really has not helped. It has given economists a kind of standing, or it formerly gave them a kind of standing, like scientists in a white lab coat in the 1950s, or even today, look at somebody like Dr. Fauci. The fact that he's Dr. Fauci, he allegedly has the scientific credentials, it gives him a certain kind of authority. Economists have been craving that kind of status and again, compared to some of their fellow academics, they have had it at least to some degree, but you're right, they may be losing it partly because of the democratization of information that the internet has brought about. People can look things up and study things for themselves. They don't have to rely on some talking heads speaking what looks like mumbo jumbo, complicated mathematical equations and formulas.

Remember our old friend Alan Greenspan, who in many ways was ahead of his time in being a completely atheoretical numbers guy. They used to say, "Oh, Greenspan is such a maestro because he has this intuitive familiarity with the data. He buries himself in reams of numbers and he can somehow intuit how to steer the economy from that." It was all nonsense, of course, it was all smoke and mirrors. He and his colleagues were making it up as they went along, but what Hayek called the scientism embedded in this mainstream economic approach lends itself to that kind of misinterpretation. You deal with data, you're quantitative, you must be more rigorous, you must be more scientific, and people hear, they deal you know, merely in words.

JD: Do people really understand the degree of mathiness in economics graduate programs today? Statistics and modeling and high-level math make up the majority of training for most PhD students.

PK: It's pretty intense. Interestingly, I think the elites of the profession recognize things have gone too far in that direction. The famous economist Paul Romer wrote a piece a few years ago complaining about what he called mathiness, so your term was in existence before. He either coined or popularized the term mathiness to complain that a lot of these economists were using math not to reach some kind of conclusion or illustrate some kind of point, but really just to demonstrate their own virtuosity, their own skill with the technique. Having a lot of math in the argument became an end in itself rather than a means to come up with ideas and communicate some ideas. So, I think there's some recognition that economics may have become too mathy.

JD: With all this in mind, give us your meta-analysis: Is economics doing any good? Is it helping us understand the world or moving us closer to truth?

PK: I certainly think our favorite brand of economics does exactly that, but not everyone listens to us. I have to say, I'm somewhat skeptical on this point. Just to tie it back to one of your earlier questions, when I started my graduate work in the late '80s, early '90s, this was during the period following kind of a breakdown of the neo-Keynesian consensus that prevailed from, say, the end of World War II until the 1970s. You know the phrase famously attributed to Richard Nixon, "we're all Keynesians now." All mainstream economists, left, right, center, seem to agree on the basic model, the economy is inherently unstable, you need a wise government using fiscal policy and monetary policy to steer the economy, to avoid the twin pitfalls of inflation on the one hand, unemployment on the other hand.

But what we saw in the 1970s with the rise of so-called stagflation, like simultaneous inflation and high unemployment, which was not supposed to happen according to the conventional Keynesian model, you had a crisis of confidence among the neo-Keynesians. You had Milton Friedman and his Chicago-school monetarists offering an alternative to the Keynesian explanation. You had the so-called rational expectations revolution of the '70s and '80s. So, Jeff, when I was being trained in graduate school, I was told, The naïve undergrad textbook Keynesian model is not really taken seriously anymore. It's outdated. Of course, there are still Keynesians around, but they rely on newer, more sophisticated techniques, their thinking is more nuanced, they recognize that old-school Keynesianism doesn't really apply anymore.

I remember pretty distinctly being stunned. I shouldn't have been stunned, maybe I'm naïve, but during the financial crisis in 2007–08, as I was reading the commentary not only of the talking heads in the media, not only the journalists and Fed officials and executives and so forth, but even elite economists, as they were trying to explain what was going on and what should be done, they sounded exactly like the naïve Keynesians of the 1950s. Look at how people today are talking about the $1.9 trillion stimulus—I've forgotten the cute acronym that Biden calls it—but when you listen to the discussion, it sounds exactly like a discussion that would have taken place seventy-five years ago. Oh, we need to stimulate the economy, we need a strong fiscal stimulus. Gee guys, are we worried that the economy might be overheating? No, no, unemployment is sufficiently high that we can prime the pump, we can have not only monetary expansion but also fiscal expansion, get that unemployment rate down, but we don't have to worry about the economy overheating. It's like the simple Phillips curve tradeoff between inflation and unemployment that I had been told was thrown into the dustbin of intellectual history had returned at full strength. And so I think despite all these decades of increasing sophistication and mathematical modeling and econometrics, at the end of the day, most mainstream economists still have their high school Keynesian model in mind.

JD: Let's go further and discuss the fortunes of the Austrian school. We had the financial crisis of 2007, now we have the covid crisis with all of the attendant economic carnage from lockdowns. Do you think these crises are setbacks or vindication for Austrians? There are pitched conversations about hyperinflation and austerity and stimulus, as you mentioned. Are we making headway with our perspective?

PK: That's a great question. I mean, there's been a huge resurgence of interest in Austrian monetary economics, the Austrian business cycle theory, particularly since the financial crisis, because the Austrians off er a very different take on what could cause something like the housing crisis, the financial crisis, what is the appropriate response, and such. So, among certain interested laypersons, maybe financial professionals who are not academic economists or policymakers, as they're doing their Google searches to try to gain insight into what's going on, they come across a lot of our stuff . Of course, Ron Paul for several years was the only prominent public figure, the only person in politics talking about monetary overexpansion, talking about Austrian business cycle ideas, and so as people try to figure out, Why is this guy talking about the gold standard? What does he mean by the boom-and-bust cycle? You know, that drove a lot of traffic to our site, our resources, it drove a lot of interest in the Austrian school.

I don't think it had much of an effect on mainstream economic thinking, not in economics departments, though I increasingly encounter academics in business schools or in sociology or law or political science who also saw Ron Paul on TV and thought he made a lot of sense and were inspired to study the Austrian school on their own.

At the same time, Jeff , there's a challenge for us. Our theories are not strictly predictive. We don't offer precise quantitative forecasts. We offer a means of interpreting the data that we see in front of us, the data of the past. We can offer informed conjectures, wise judgments about what we expect to happen in the future. Hayek called it pattern prediction, a loose intuitive sense of which way things are likely to go. It's not prediction in the strict quantitative sense, but I think many Austrians and Austrian-inspired commentators were perhaps a little bit too quick to predict that the unprecedented-in-human-history monetary stimulus that we've seen in recent years would inevitably lead to hyperinflation and some horrific crash. Our theories tell us and we believe that this is true, I believe that this is true, that, as the Austrians explained, a monetary-induced expansion is not indefinitely sustainable. You cannot create real wealth by turning on the money press. However, exactly how long can an unsustainable boom go on, at what point do we expect the bust to occur, when will we start to see the effects play themselves out in terms of increases in prices, and so forth, well, I mean, that's a judgment call. That's very difficult for us to say, and a lot of our enemies, the Krugmans of the world, have been kind of beating Austrians over the head by saying, "Oh, you guys have been predicting hyperinflation, but where is the hyperinflation? Obviously your theories are disproven by reality." That's not the correct interpretation, certainly, of how theory and history work together, but I think, in the popular mind, our enemies have gotten a little bit of mileage out of this and so, we need to be cautious in predicting particular outcomes.

JD: People want timing! [laughing]

PK: I hear this attributed to Milton Friedman, but I don't know if he was the first one to say it. When asked to predict the stock market, the response is, "Well, I can give you a number or a date, but not both."

JD: I recently read an interview with James Grant where he discussed how back in 2007 very few people really understood what the effects of quantitative easing and creating new bank reserves would be. It was unprecedented. It's easy now to look back and discount the effect of QE, especially on inflation, but it wasn't so easy then.

PK: Absolutely right. And again, the way Austrians view the relationship between theory and data, or theory and history, is that we use theory to interpret, to make sense of the experiences of the past and then we, putting on our entrepreneur hats, use that, we use our theory and our experience, to try to anticipate likely future scenarios. But that's not the same thing as a quantitative forecast the way that mainstream economists use that language.

JD: Now in 2020 and 2021 the Fed's balance sheet is spiking again. We also have Congress on the fiscal side, as you mentioned, injecting a bunch of money directly into the economy with relief bills. M2 is way up. Combine this with supply chain issues and shortages due to covid, and this feels like a different animal than 2007.

PK: I agree. This is really unprecedented territory in terms of the contraction, the shrinkage, of the real economy. I mean, we can print money, we can write checks, we can give them to workers who are staying at home, but that doesn't get these workers to produce, right? We need to produce goods and services, and to do that, we need people to be out of lockdown, we need people to be able to interact, we need factories and meeting rooms, etc., to be at full capacity. So, you can't paper over a contraction in real output with monetary and fiscal stimulus.

JD: Both Jerome Powell and Janet Yellen, who's now Treasury secretary, have spoken openly about the limits of monetary policy. From their perspective the burden to fix things is all on the fiscal side now, apparently. Do you think they see some tipping point?

PK: I don't know. I almost wonder, this is pure speculation on my part, if they are a little bit sensitive to the noises they hear on their left flank. So you've got the so-called modern monetary theorists, whose arguments, in my mind, are just a slightly exaggerated version of the mainstream ones, so they don't have a fundamentally different model, the MMT crowd (or the model that's used by Yellen or by Powell). But they're taking it up to eleven, as they said in the movie Spinal Tap, and I think that mainstream figures are, they're a little bit worried that their disciples, their followers, will take their ideas and take them literally and push them as far as they can go. They're trying to rein in their spiritual descendants a little bit by saying "There are limits to what both monetary policy and fiscal policy can do."

The MMTers say, and ironically they're not wrong using the conceptual framework that was given to them by their mainstream Keynesian forebears, that well, as long as the economy seems to be producing substantially below its potential, why can't we just put our foot on the accelerator? Why can't we just run the money press as fast as it can go? What are you guys worried about when there are so many idle resources in society? I don't think Yellen and Powell have a really great answer to that. So, it's almost like they're being consumed by their own progeny. There's probably a better metaphor for that, but, you know, they're being eaten by their own children.

JD: Austrians are seen as the anti-Fed voices, while on the other side the MMTers might be seen as the other extreme. What do you think of someone not in either camp, like John Tamny from RealClearMarkets? He thinks Austrians put too much emphasis on central banks, which he says actually have far less impact on the broader economy than imagined.

PK: He is certainly right to point out that the way our economy is structured today, with, for example, the shadow banking sector and a whole bunch of complex financial instruments, the simple relationship between Fed policy and particular outcomes is more nuanced, it's more complicated than it would have been in the past. I take his point that under alternative monetary institutions arrangements, there are other mechanisms at play and that there may be some mechanisms that dampen the impact of traditional fiscal and monetary policy, monetary policy in particular, on outcomes.

JD: Tamny argues that the Fed can't control rates in the long run, but rather the market will. And yet if we go back to the Paul Volcker era, Americans were paying 18 percent mortgage interest rates. So the Fed clearly caused that.

PK: Right. To John Tamny's credit, he's right to keep exaggerations in check. So, sometimes when we're speaking loosely, we might make an off hand remark that sounds like we're making a claim that Jerome Powell just pushes the button, you know, he's got the interest rate button on his desk, he just turns the dial the way he wants and gets an immediate response. It doesn't work that way. Of course, there are market forces of supply and demand at play. How should we say, the Fed is certainly one of many big players, the biggest player of all, and it has an outsized impact on what the market does, even if it doesn't have it under perfect control?

JD: Let's shift gears a bit and talk about your work in entrepreneurship and organizations and firms. You've spent a lot of your career writing about this. Today when we think about big corporations and their role in society, the trend is to talk about stakeholder and equity concepts. What do you make of this?

PK: Yes. I mean, look, some of this is pure politics. I think the emphasis on stakeholder governance and its cousin, corporate social responsibility, is just part of the overall kind of antimarket, antibusiness zeitgeist that is characteristic of our age. Some of the embrace of these concepts by business leaders themselves, I think, is strategic. You know when the Business Roundtable came out with its statement last year about how shareholder primacy is outdated, firms really need to manage in the interest of all of their stakeholders. I think some of that was public relations, some of it was designed to keep regulators at bay. Executives are worried about a whole new set of rules coming down the pike that will change the relationship between managers and shareholders and they want to slow those down a little bit by taking some preemptive action. But, you do have true believers, certainly outside of companies, but in companies as well, who really believe that greed and selfishness, which they associate with the traditional shareholder model, is detrimental to society, detrimental to communities, and even detrimental to firms and needs to be combatted. But I think we need to be very, very cautious and very skeptical about embracing some of these new narratives because there are many flaws that we need to look at.

JD: Conceptually, is this just a new word for externalities? Or is it something more?

PK: Well, yes, it's a specific kind of externality. Obviously, any company that has employees, it provides a variety of different benefits. Let me state that a different way. Any company that has employees is providing some benefit, is giving a share of the value that's created to those employees in the form of wages and salaries and fringe benefits.

Part of the stakeholder concept is the idea that there's this kind of fixed pie of value and business activities are creating some value. Firms can then capture that value and then we need to argue about how we divide up the pie. So, under the traditional model, it is said, shareholders, owners, get the biggest slice of the pie, the workers just get a little tiny piece of the pie left over and maybe suppliers, of course, get paid for supplying inputs to the firm, but maybe they should get a bit of the surplus as well and what about people who live in the community, where the company operates. They benefit from the fact that the company is there, they get to consume its products and services, they get to work at the company, but gosh, shouldn't they also get a share of the extra that is going to the capitalists, to the owners? That's the argument. A lot of interesting ways to parse the argument.

One thing I think is often misunderstood is this idea that most for-profit companies are making these huge profits or huge residuals left after all of the employees and suppliers have been paid and these fat cat business owners are sucking that up. In reality, of course, we know that not only is business income highly variable, there's a high degree of uncertainty. Also, you know, there are just as many losses as there are gains. Most workers, suppliers, community members, partners, are happy to share in the gains. They're not so enthusiastic about sharing in the losses. Obviously if they wanted to do that, they could operate their own companies rather than being salaried employees or paid suppliers on a contractual basis, where they get a guaranteed payout every month. If they want to be residual claimants, they're welcome to do so, but many so-called nonowner stakeholders really wouldn't want to be a core stakeholder if they understood what that entailed.

JD: Austrian subjectivist theory applies equally to the role of entrepreneurs. Should subjectivism force us to radically rethink concepts of value and cost and price and utility?

PK: Look, entrepreneurship is one of those terms that is used in many different senses, in academia and popular discourse, among practitioners, and so I never want to quibble with people who are using that term to mean something other than what Austrian economists were. The technical notion of the entrepreneur in Mises's system is the agency or agent that is active and forward looking and purposeful and who exercises initiative at assembling resources, factors of production, combining them to produce goods and services that can be sold later, hopefully at a profit, but without guarantees. So, entrepreneurs are the ones who organize and carry out production under conditions of uncertainty, and when they're successful, when they have revenues in excess of the outlays that they must spend to get their resources, they have something left over, they earn profits, entrepreneurial profit. If they're unsuccessful, meaning that they're not able to sell goods and services at prices high enough to cover what they previously paid for their inputs, they earn losses.

There's also a temporal aspect to this. That was Böhm-Bawerk's famous critique of the Marxian exploitation theory, that typically, because production takes time, input suppliers who have been workers, they get paid first, before revenues from the sale of goods and services have been realized. The uncertainty is being borne by the capitalist, who advances the funds, and that interest return is built into the business income that the capitalist entrepreneur receives. So to me, an entrepreneur is an owner; an entrepreneur is a decision-maker; an entrepreneur is someone who exercises control over resources, who has responsibility to arrange resources in ways that create value for consumers in the future.

JD: You've studied the work of Ronald Coase, who offered an explanation of why firms arise between the individual and the broader market. You defend the firm as a naturally occurring phenomenon as well, but you don't come at it from the same perspective as Coase. Is that accurate?

PK: Fairly accurate. To me, a business firm is a team, it's a collection of resources and persons who work together to produce stuff that you and I can consume. There's a legal definition of what's inside the firm and what's outside the firm. So if I'm an independent contractor, let's say I'm a skilled electrician or plumber, I have Peter Klein Inc., or maybe I'm an economics professor who earns his income from giving speeches and consulting, I'm Peter Klein Inc., a one-man show. Am I a firm? I think if we want to call me a firm that's fine.

If Peter Klein and Jeff Deist get together and form a partnership, well, we have a legally binding agreement that we will collaborate on some decisions that we make, we'll have joint ownership of some buildings, resources, machines, etc., we agree to split the gains and losses in a certain way, then Peter and Jeff are a firm. General Motors, IBM, Google, Apple, they're also firms in this legal sense, that they have individuals and resources that are contractually related, but all dedicated to the point of producing stuff and selling that stuff in the marketplace. Coase focused on one specific aspect of this.

The interesting question for Coase was, "What would be the nature of the contract between Peter and Jeff ?" So, will Peter Klein be a firm and Jeff Deist be a firm and they have some kind of a contract that in minute detail specializes what Peter has to do and what Jeff has to do and how the returns from a specific venture will be distributed? He would say, "Well then that's two firms," but if Peter and Jeff create a partnership where things are left kind of open ended—the partnership, the agreement that creates the partnership, says we're going to combine forces, we're going to work together, we're going to work as a team, but it doesn't spell out how every transaction will be realized—then Peter and Jeff are together in the same firm. So, Coase's interest is what explains those sorts of boundaries, or to put it another way when does the Mises Institute have its own in-house landscaper and accounting service or when does it choose to outsource the landscaping to a company in Auburn or outsource its accounting to Salesforce or to some kind of cloud provider?

Coase was interested in explaining the boundaries of the firm in terms of what's done in house and what's done outside. I think that's fine, I have no problem with that theory, but it only addresses one aspect of how we organize production in society. It's not really about entrepreneurs. It's not really about uncertainty. It's not really about the issues that were primarily of interest to Mises and the Austrians.

JD: It's important to note how you have created almost a specialty or subfield through your academic work on entrepreneurial judgment. Marxists, Keynesians, and neoclassicals virtually ignore and dismiss the role of the entrepreneur in an economy.

PK: Yes. A lot of my work on entrepreneurship attempts to elaborate on insights that are in Mises's Human Action. Mises says, "In the world outside of the evenly rotating economy, outside of some artificial equilibrium construct where everybody knows everything about the future, we have uncertainty about what will happen." So, I, as an entrepreneur, let's say I want to produce a writing pen, I have a pen here in front of me. I go out and I buy some ink, I buy the metal and plastic that's required to create a pen. I buy some machinery, I employ some workers, I have a business plan, I have some marketing agreements, and so forth. I have to purchase and assemble and organize all of those factors in anticipation of the money I hope to get from selling pens once I have my pens manufactured and sent to the retailer, but I don't know exactly what those revenues are going to be. So, what do I do? Do I just take a blind guess?

To mainstream economists, there are two ways of thinking about how decision-makers handle the uncertain future. Either they have a precise mathematical model: here are all of the things that could happen, and here are the mathematical probabilities of each event. I can calculate expected values and there's an obvious course of action that a rational utility-maximizing, a profit-maximizing, actor would undertake. You can either have that, that's rational behavior, or you can flip a coin, or you could just close your eyes and throw at the dartboard. There's blind guessing on the one hand and there's rational decision-making on the other hand.

As Mises and other important thinkers like Frank Knight pointed out, the decision-makers under uncertainty, they don't have a formal mathematical model of the future that they can employ to come up with precise predictions about what will happen, but nor, according to Knight and Mises, did they rely on blind guessing either. Rather, there's a way of thinking about the future that's kind of in the middle. So, you could call it intuition, you could call it gut instinct, you could call it judgment, which is the term that both Knight and Mises use. There's a great line from Mises: he calls judgment "a specific anticipative understanding of the uncertain future." Specific anticipative understanding—what he means, and of course in German, the word that is rendered into English as understanding is a fancy German word, verstehen, which means a kind of deep knowledge, a deep intuitive understanding of the future. Mises is claiming that's what the successful entrepreneur has. The successful entrepreneur judges the future in a way that's different from the way other people judge the future. It's not a mathematical prediction. It's not blind guessing either. It's a reasoned, sensible intuitive anticipation based on tacit knowledge, based on subjective understanding, based on experience, and can't really be formally articulated necessarily, but it's a facility and capability that successful entrepreneurs possess.

JD: These Austrian insights seem to gain more purchase in business schools and entrepreneurship courses. Do you think this is the way forward? Is teaching entrepreneurship actually the way to overcome the bias against theory?

PK: We're not talking about praxeology here, so I'm just offering my own conjecture that this may, as you say, this may be the path forward or certainly a path forward for Austrian economists. Why? Because most business school academics, and certainly business practitioners, they don't have all these hang-ups about the intellectual origin of this school or that school or the underlying methodological foundations. There's no stigma attached to Austrian economics among entrepreneurship scholars or professional entrepreneurs, the way it is for most academic economists and government economists. There's nothing weird about Austrian thinking, and so I have found a very receptive audience in business schools, among people who specialize in entrepreneurship or human resource management or business strategy. They're very receptive to Austrian ideas. Practitioners tell me that the Austrian notion of entrepreneurship as I described it squares completely with their professional experience, so I think there is a great future for young Austrian economists to apply their trade in the business school, in the entrepreneurship and management space, rather than purely in the economics space.

JD: Let's finish by discussing academia more generally. Undoubtedly a lot of our readers think universities have lost their way. Are academic economists under pressure to turn the discipline into something woke? To apply critical theory perspectives?

PK: Academic economics is no different from any other part of academia in that these external pressures and internal pressures are very strong. I would say it's not as severe in economics as it is in the humanities, of course, but yes, I think among mainstream academic organizations in economics and, for that matter, in management and entrepreneurship, there certainly is more attention to social justice, so-called social justice issues and gender and underrepresented groups, etc. You know, does that mean that academia … how should I say … I've got to put this in a way that won't get me in too much trouble. Does that mean that there are better opportunities for promoting Austrian insights outside of academia? I'm a let-a-thousand-flowers-bloom kind of a guy, and so there are people in our circles, myself and colleagues, who feel comfortable in and have been reasonably successful in developing and promoting our ideas within a university context. There are plenty of people who have been equally or more successful doing so outside of the university, either in the educational organization world, the world of private educational organizations like the Mises Institute, in the consulting and policy world, in the private education world—these are all great paths, they're not mutually exclusive. People like myself operate in several of these environments at the same time. I think they're all prospective paths forward. I would say we Austrians should not put all of our eggs in the university basket. I think we should certainly have a presence there, and I think our master's program is a great example of how we're doing something that is playing by the rules of the formal academic sector, but yeah, we should not hold our breath and expect that formal academia will someday embrace all of our ideas. We need to continue to try, but I think we need to have lots of different channels in play at the same time.

JD: But even beyond universities, surely there is pressure to create what we might call a "new economics"—focused on equity and inclusion and sustainability and all the jingoist meaningless concepts of our day. Surely economics cannot escape this scrutiny. At some point will this chop away at the actual core substance of the profession?

PK: We're seeing that in just about every field of human endeavor. I don't have any special insight into what Austrian economists or other economists might do to try to resist pressures that are taking them away from doing what they do best. It is something to be aware of for sure, and maybe having more of our activity in the private institutions of education gives us a little bit more insurance there.

JD: Well, with all this in mind, one final question: What is your advice for young people who have a deep interest in economics but are unsure about an academic career?

PK: I would refer them to an excellent piece by Joe Salerno on "Economics as a Vocation." I think that one should not pursue a career as a professional economist, whether in academia or outside, just as a job or just to have status or just to have a steady income or whatever. If one has a passion for the study of economics, the development of economics, the teaching of economics, then one should pursue that wholeheartedly, but it can take place in a variety of forms. A lot of the great contributors to Austrian economics have not been people who had the primary job title of economist. Henry Hazlitt made great contributions to economic theory as well as economic education and he was a journalist. There are plenty of business executives who are great contributors to Austrian economics. So, I would urge young people to pursue this as a passion, but not merely as a profession, not merely as a way to rise through the professional ranks.

JD: I suspect those professional ranks will be increasingly tough to navigate. Thanks very much, Dr. Klein.

Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.

The post The State of Modern Economics appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Calm Before the Storm: Use it To Gain Strength To Fight the Coming Tyranny

Friday 07 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

“Nobody's going to save you. No one's going to cut you down, cut the thorns thick around you. No one's going to storm the castle walls nor kiss awake your birth, climb down your hair, nor mount you onto the white steed. There is no one who will feed the yearning. Face it. You will have to do, do it yourself.”

~ Gloria E. Anzaldúa

Life is full of ups and downs, of calm and crashing waves, of silence and pandemonium, of joy and heartache, of living and dying. What smoothes these ever-changing and precarious times comes only from within, as individual inner spirit and the strength it brings is the essence of not only survival, but of life itself. In order to defeat the oppression and corruption that exists in this world, in order to be free, one must always depend on self, and never cower in the presence of evil. There is in this moment a brief time of more calm, but hell is coming, and death is coming with it. Prepare to face this challenge instead of fleeing from it. Prepare to fight back!

At this point in time, reverse propaganda has begun, and it will become more pronounced in the short term. It is being and will be said more often that the cases and death over the fraudulent 'pandemic' are lessening, and permission to move about, albeit with state-supported caution, will be slightly increased, but only temporarily. The 'vaccines' will be credited for 'slowing the spread,' but of course this is only a lie and a smokescreen. This is the calm before the storm. It is my studied opinion that these poisonous injections falsely called vaccines will cause extreme numbers of deaths in the near future. It may be a few months or later this fall, and certainly sustained over longer periods of time, but the death counts due to the very toxic and deadly nature of all of the Covid-19 shots will weaken the immune systems of tens of millions of people or more, and cause irreparable harm. At that point when deaths greatly increase, it will be blamed on yet another strain of this fake 'virus.' When this occurs, new and even more deadly injections will be touted, and the cycle will be never ending.

This is the way of achieving total control over the long term of this population. It is based on fear, so new threats will emerge on a regular basis in order to perpetuate a dependence on government as savior. In fact, there will most certainly be additional threats and multi-faceted attacks on the psyche of the American public. Each step of this process will bring more suffering, more misery, and more carnage. This is the nature of the ruling beast, and if their campaign is successful, the people will become easier to control as time passes.

In addition to these multiple threats, civil unrest, politically promoted and supported violence, looting, rioting, and allowed assaults will become normal, and this will lead to more lockdowns and extreme police state measures being prevalent across the country, especially in the highly concentrated population areas. The more intense this chaos becomes, the heavier the hand of the state will be.

Due to this staged calm, many falsely believe that all will return to what is ludicrously referred to as 'normal,' and that the destruction of the economy and financial system is not one of the agendas sought by the ruling class. This is a gross miscalculation, as in order to complete this takeover of society; the current financial and monetary systems must collapse. Controlling property and people, digitizing all money and monetary transaction, and capturing and controlling all life-sustaining necessities such as food and energy, must be accomplished before any finality of control can be assured. This requires starting over and completely restructuring all aspects of existence. This agenda cannot be accomplished by any marginal reform of this social and economic system, hence the term of the oligarchs, "building back better."

The abhorrent CIA manipulated mainstream media, and the governing class will continually foment extreme division among the masses. This has been easy work to date, as the herd has taken the bait of its masters hook, line, and sinker. The left has been castigated more often by the right for this dividing of society, and it does seem obvious that there is some truth to this as post modern Marxists seem to revel in the destruction of morality, history, and tradition. But of course, this works both ways, and since the left and right where politics are concerned, are one and the same, and their agendas are virtually identical, taking sides is just falling into the division trap from another angle, and therefore a losing proposition. It is a better way to throw off all political ideology in favor of individual responsibility and self-awareness, thus setting the stage for the possibility of real independence for all.

Some may believe that philosophizing about these issues is not constructive and does not give specific solutions for how to defeat these monsters. That thinking is empty and without merit, and is the coward's way out. It is merely an excuse for not taking action. In order to defeat evil, one must fully understand the enemy and how he thinks. In the case of the Covid scam, and the claimed ruler's intent, it is imperative to forget the perceived threat, and concentrate on the end game sought. Total control of the people is the goal, and once this is known by the many, the solution should become obvious.

While I tire of saying the same thing over and over again, and of the repetition, the only viable solution to our problems is unity in disobedience, and a refusal to accept any mandate issued by this criminal cartel called the state. This strategy can destroy the perpetrators of this fraud without ever firing a shot or resorting to extreme violence that can only lead to death, destruction and defeat. As simple as this sounds, it is the most powerful response possible, and requires only that one seek independence by taking personal responsibility for himself, his family, and his own freedom. In order to help others, in order to regain sanity, each of us must first help himself, and shun all efforts to seek the rule of others or participate in collective idiocy. Stand and face adversity as an individual, or be swallowed up in a sea of mob ignorance and totalitarian madness.

"I was not born to be forced. I will breathe after my own fashion. Let us see who is the strongest."

~ Henry David Thoreau, On the Duty of Civil Disobedience

Source links:

The coming financial coup and the Covid fraud

Depopulation by ‘vaccine’

Premeditated mass murder by vaccine

Obedience is weakness

The post The Calm Before the Storm: Use it To Gain Strength To Fight the Coming Tyranny appeared first on LewRockwell.

Biden's Offshore Wind Energy Mirage

Friday 07 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

President Biden recently announced ambitious plans to install huge offshore industrial wind facilities along America's Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and Pacific coasts. His goal is to churn out 30 gigawatts (30,000 megawatts) of wind capacity by 2030, ensuring the U.S. "leads by example" in fighting the "climate crisis."

Granted "30 by 2030" is clever PR. But what are the realities?

The only existing U.S. offshore wind operation features five 6-MW turbines off Rhode Island. Their combined capacity (what they could generate if they worked full-bore, round the clock 24/7) is 30 MW. Mr. Biden is planning 1,000 times more offshore electricity, perhaps split three ways: 10,000 MW for each coast.

While that might sound impressive, it isn't. It means total wind capacity for the entire Atlantic coast, under Biden's plan, would only meet three-fourths of the peak summertime electricity needed to power New York City. Again, this assumes the blades are fully spinning 24/7. In reality, such turbines would be lucky to be operating a top capacity half the time. Even less as storms and salt spray corrode the turbines, year after year.

The reason why is there is often minimal or no wind in the Atlantic – especially on the hottest days. Ditto for the Gulf of Mexico. No wind means no electricity – right when you need it most.

Of course, too little wind isn't the only issue. Other times, there's too much wind – as when a hurricane roars up the coast. That's more likely in the Gulf of Mexico. But the Great Atlantic Hurricane of 1944 had Category 4 winds in Virginia, Category 3 intensity off Cape Hatteras (NC), Long Island and Rhode Island, and Category 2 when it reached Maine. It sank four U.S. Navy and Coast Guard ships.

When storms or hurricanes hit, turbines can be destroyed. Repairing or replacing hundreds of offshore turbines could take years.

If the White House is planning to generate all that power using common 6-MW turbines, our coastlines would need a hefty 5,000 of the 600-foot tall monsters dotting them. The Washington Monument is 655 feet tall.

Going instead with 12-MW turbines, like the 850-foot-tall GE Haliade-X turbines Virginia is planning to install off its coast, America would still need 2,500 of the behemoths – just to complete Phase One of Biden's plan. 30,000 megawatts by 2030. Even if these were all plopped in the Atlantic, it still would not be enough to meet New York State's current electricity needs.

And what about the environment?

How many millions of tons of steel, copper, lithium, cobalt, rare earth elements, concrete, petroleum-based composites (for turbine blades) and other raw materials would be required to manufacture and install the turbines and undersea electrical cables, especially where deep-water turbines are involved?

How many billions of tons of ore would have to be mined, crushed, processed and refined – considering that it takes 125,000 tons of average ore for every 1,000 tons of pure copper metal?

Not only would nearly all of this mining and manufacturing require fossil fuels, but much of it would be done in China, or in other countries by Chinese-owned companies. Haliade-X turbines are also manufactured in China. And much of the mining and processing is done under horrid workplace safety and environmental conditions, often with near-slave and child labor.

This article originally appeared at Real Clear Energy.

The post Biden's Offshore Wind Energy Mirage appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Working-Class Revolt Against Labour

Friday 07 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

So, the working-class revolt against the Labour Party continues. The ballot-box uprising of December 2019 – when millions of voters across the Red Wall switched from Labour to the Tories – is still in full flow. Hartlepool, Labour since it was founded in 1974, has now fallen to the Tories, with a staggering majority of 7,000. Labour councillors in Derby, Dudley, Sunderland and elsewhere have been unceremoniously turfed out of power and replaced with Tories. The results so far are 'shattering', says Labour's Steve Reed.

'Shattering' is the word for it. What is being shattered is politics as we knew it, the alignments that defined political life in this country for generations. The Hartlepool by-election and the English local elections – at least what we know of them so far – confirm that the relentless realignment of British politics will not be halted anytime soon. The mass working-class defection to the Conservative Party; the colonisation of Labour by middle-class graduates; the transformation of Labour from a party of working people into a metropolitan machine more concerned with gender-neutral toilets and taking the knee than with what working-class people want and need – anyone who thought these historic shifts and quakes would be reversed by having sensible, forensic Sir Keir Starmer at the helm of Labour has just received the rudest awakening imaginable.

What Labour centrists must now admit is that their party's travails run far deeper than the Corbyn effect. Another thing that has been shattered is the much gabbed-out idea that once Labour jettisoned Jeremy and the cranky trustafarians and Fisher-Price Marxists who made up his support base, then it would go back back to being a normal party with a shot at power. In truth, while Corbyn's time at the top was undoubtedly disastrous – the anti-Semitism, the swapping of class politics for identity politics, the Britain-bashing – something far more profound is driving the working-class revolt against Labour.

To the fore is the issue of Brexit. These election results look like a continuation of working-class voters' rejection of the Brexit betrayers – most notably Labour – and their lining up behind the party that at least promised to Get Brexit Done: the Tories. It still blows my mind that the political class thought it could try to stitch up the largest democratic vote in UK history and there wouldn't be severe, long-lasting consequences. This extraordinary naivety was on full display in Hartlepool, where arch-Remainer Keir Starmer stood arch-Remainer Paul Williams in a seat in which 70 per cent of people voted for Brexit. Do they think working-class voters are stupid? The answer, as we know, is yes, of course they do.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Working-Class Revolt Against Labour appeared first on LewRockwell.

Automakers Cave to Biden's Electric Car Baloney, and Ignore Their Own Customers

Friday 07 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

When President Joe Biden declared that he wants all cars sold to be "zero-emission" by 2035, carmakers didn't raise a peep of protest. Worse, they are starting to fall in line with promises to go all-electric, even though the vast majority of consumers don't want these cars.

General Motors made a big splash earlier this year when it promised to sell only electric cars by 2035.

"General Motors is joining governments and companies around the globe working to establish a safer, greener and better world," CEO Mary Barra said days after Biden was sworn in. "We encourage others to follow suit."

Honda later announced plans to make only battery-powered cars by 2040. Volvo said it will go all-electric by 2030. Ford said in February that it would invest at least $22 billion worldwide in the next few years to build electric vehicles.

These announcements were all greeted with Hosannas from the left (even though the overall environmental benefits of "zero-emission" cars is far from clear). But there's one thing missing from all this cheering. The consumer.

These companies are throwing billions of dollars into researching and developing a product that consumers overwhelmingly reject.

Despite massive taxpayer rebates to electric car buyers, a multitude of subsidized recharging stations, and the constant talk about how electric automobiles will save the planet, sales of plug-ins accounted for a tiny 2% of all cars sold in the U.S. last year. Domestic sales of Chevy's gas-guzzling Silverado pickups alone last year doubled the combined sales of electric cars from all makers.

We keep being told that what's holding sales back is the lack of charging stations and insufficient taxpayer incentives. But since when have such inconveniences ever held back a product that is wildly popular with consumers? If consumers actually wanted EVs, there'd instantly be charging stations on every corner as companies looked to cash in.

What's really hindering electric car sales is the inconvenience factor. Even when charging stations are nearby, they simply can't go as far as gas-powered cars and require far too long to refuel.

"EVs can travel average barely half the distance of gas-powered vehicles," notes Car and Driver. Driving speeds, weather, and other factors can dramatically shorten the range of EVs. When Car and Driver tested a Tesla Model 3 in cold weather, it found that using the heater can "kill 60 miles of range, a significant chunk of the Model 3's 310-mile EPA rating."

Worse, while it takes minutes to fill up an empty gas tank, it can take hours to fully charge an electric car. Leaving a car plugged into a conventional outlet overnight will give you enough juice to go all of about 30 miles. Even so-called fast-chargers are tedious compared with a simple fill-up at the gas station. (Tesla's "Superchargers" take a little more than an hour to fully charge its cars, Business Insider reports.)

Read the Whole Article

The post Automakers Cave to Biden's Electric Car Baloney, and Ignore Their Own Customers appeared first on LewRockwell.

Stupid AF

Friday 07 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

Let's imagine that someone compiles a list of the most dangerous cities in the world based on murder rates arranged in descending order; the list contains 50 cities, all of them with populations of over 200,000. About a quarter of the way down the list, after the appearance of a number of cities all located in Mexico, Venezuela, and Brazil, a US city pops up, giving it the dubious distinction of being the most dangerous city in the US with a population of over 200,000. Now imagine we hear that the mayor of that city is going to defund the city's police department, and the move is supported by the US Representative in whose district the city lies.

Well, we don't have to imagine it; it's already happened. According to this article, the city is St. Louis; the mayor is Tishaura Jones; and the US Representative is Cori Bush, the same Cori Bush who tweeted that our country is "racist AF". Oh, and here's the actual list of the world's most dangerous cities; St. Louis comes in at number 13. Mayor Jones is cutting 4 million dollars from the police department's budget and eliminating 98 currently vacant officer positions. Congresswoman Bush's take:

Previous administrations spent more per capita on policing than all comparable cities, building a police force that is larger than that of any city comparable to St. Louis.

But even as more and more money has gone into policing the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department continues to be the deadliest police force in the nation, year after year — all while violence in our communities continues to skyrocket.

Bush is confusing correlation with causation; since violence skyrockets as more money goes into policing, putting more money into policing must be what is causing the violence to skyrocket. Ergo, taking money away from policing will reduce the violence!

Let's look at the actual St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department homicide data for 2020 and see if it provides any clues as to why St. Louis is the most murderous city of over 200,000 in the country. There were a total of 262 homicide victims of whom 236 or 90 percent were black. Since most homicides are committed against victims of the same racial classification, this indicates that we would expect the overwhelming majority of the homicide suspects in these cases to be black as well; and that is also confirmed by the available data: Of the 109 known homicide suspects identifiable by race, 100 or 92 percent were black. A comparable percentage probably obtains for the many unsolved homicides whose suspects went unidentified. Now since blacks make up 45 percent of the population of St. Louis while accounting for 92 percent of known homicide suspects, black offenders are committing over twice as many homicides as would be expected. Is the problem too many police, or is the problem too many black people committing murder?

It turns out that St. Louis isn't the only US city on the most dangerous list. Baltimore is number 21; New Orleans is number 41; and Detroit is number 42. Baltimore has a black population of 64 percent; New Orleans has a black population of 60 percent; and Detroit has a black population of 78 percent. Why are these cities on the list? Do they have too many police, or do they have too many black people committing murder?

The post Stupid AF appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Truth Is Surely Baseless

Friday 07 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

MADDOW: … I think we should see this as the Justice Department putting these whack jobs in Arizona, forgive me, on notice, that what they`re doing is something they`re not going to be allowed to do for very much longer.

O`DONNELL: I think 'whack jobs' is now in The New York Times style sheet for describing what`s happening in Arizona.

— MSNBC 5/5/21

What you're seeing now with the DC establishment are desperate moves to keep the suspicious and yet more pissed-off public from understanding the government crime spree of the past five years that started with the Obama gang using the Department of Justice to disable and terminate Donald Trump and the threat he represented to the network of special privilege and money known as the Swamp, which has managed to put a deep-fake president in office as a last resort to protect itself.

The urgent problem: how to squash the Arizona vote audit by branding it as an outlaw action, even though it was ordered under law by the Arizona State Senate. Having failed to stop it so far using the Swamp's Lawfare cadres in the Arizona courts, the DOJ has called in its Civil Rights Division to get'er done, pretending that it will be an offense against people-of-color if auditors seek to know whether write-in votes correspond to actual addresses, and other particulars of election procedure that may have been violated.

Of course, the Arizona business is only one leak in a giant dike of official deceit built-up over the years to keep any truth from deluging the DC lowlands. Other leaks are springing in New Hampshire and Michigan, with a wormhole opening up in Georgia. It will be interesting to see if cable TV news can keep painting the truth as something against the public interest. As many times as they style election fraud "a conspiracy theory" and "baseless," the public relations arm of the Democratic Party still has a hard slog convincing at least 80-million Americans that a detailed review of a contested vote is bad thing.

Meanwhile, other breaches in the dike threaten to flood the low-lying Swamp zone with existential threats. The DOJ, the FBI, and other agencies are so saturated in crime that the only feasible damage control they can do is to haplessly commit more crimes against the common decency of the republic to cover up their old crimes. Hence, the seizure of Rudy Giuliani's phones and computers in a 6 a.m. raid last week, leading to the incriminating disclosure that the FBI secretly accessed Giuliani's iCloud account to spy on his correspondence with Mr. Trump in the fall of 2019 during the first impeachment preliminaries. Are you kidding me? Who gave the order for that? To violate basic attorney-client privilege during a legal proceeding of the highest order? And what was behind the Giuliani raid?

Among other things, the horror show of corruption in Ukraine, starring (but not limited to) Joe and Hunter Biden in their ceaseless quest for grift, but also featuring many of the origins of the RussiaGate hoax and its spin-offs, plus the involvement of State Department personnel such as Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch and deputy George Kent, double-plus the shady activities of George Soros and his Atlantic Council in seditious activity working hand-in-hand with the CIA's "whistleblower" (Eric Ciaramella) to damage Mr. Trump — who was impeached for simply inquiring about what was going on in Ukraine.

Mr. Giuliani had to conduct his own investigation into all that for the obvious reason that the usual US agencies who would ordinarily investigate official misconduct were actually perpetrating it: the DOJ, FBI, CIA, and State Department. And who, at the DOJ now, might be behind the current effort to neutralize Mr. Giuliani? Try Lisa Monaco, the new Deputy Attorney General, formerly one of Barack Obama's chief White House fixers — i.e., an attorney detailed to shutting down investigations and covering the tracks left by questionable operations — and a protégé of former CIA Director John Brennan. Is the weak and pliable AG Merrick Garland fronting for her running the DOJ now? Joe Biden is going to need a whole lot of fixin'. And, is Lisa Monaco actually still reporting to Barack Obama? He can also probably use a fix or two. Who knows what's coming down pike? Just maybe a loaded semi driven by the nearly forgotten John Durham?

MSNBC might have made an unforced error on Wednesday scripting 10 o'clock troll Lawrence O'Donnell to diss former AG William Barr — some jive about Mr. Barr trying to mess with Special Counsel Robert Mueller's efforts back in 2018 to nail Mr. Trump on an obstruction of justice rap. Is this the time to piss-off Mr. Barr? You have to wonder. Is it possible that the FBI concealed its possession of the Hunter Biden laptop from Mr. Barr during those 2019 days of impeachment, when Mr. Trump was attempting to mount a defense for making a phone call to Ukraine? Who might be responsible for hiding that, if it were so? By the way, it was Mr. Barr who, just before resigning in late 2020, made John Durham a Special Counsel, whose work — whatever that might be, maybe nothing at all, maybe something consequential, nobody knows — can't be blocked by Merrick Garland (or Lisa Monaco).

Reprinted with permission from Kunstler.com.

The post The Truth Is Surely Baseless appeared first on LewRockwell.

America: The Mini-Series

Friday 07 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

One of the stranger things about the political system that has evolved since the end of the Cold War is the declining reality of politicians. No, not their declining grasp on reality, which is a real thing. It is the fact that our politicians are less and less like normal human beings and more like sketches of human beings. As the role of politician has become more of a role, performed by someone good at public performance, their back stories have grown smaller and less important.

Go back to the last two Cold War presidents and you see men with long and detailed back stories that were relatable. Reagan was the midwestern guy who went to Hollywood to become a star. He ended up on television as a pitchman but became the head of the actor's union. Poppy Bush came from an old blue blood family. He was in the war and then had a life in politics. He was even the head spy for turn. We knew a lot about these men before they entered the White House.

The first post-Cold War president was a different matter. We know a lot about his time in Arkansas, mostly because of he and his wife's personal corruption, but none of that was known before he hit the national stage. It was only after he was in the White House that his backstory came into focus. How much of it is true and how much of it is missing is something we will never know. Bill Clinton was the first president who started out as mostly an idea, a sketch of a man, rather than a real person.

Bush the Dull was another poorly drawn sketch. His backstory never got much attention at all, other than his wild days. His bio was mostly inherited from his father, other than the hints of his prior drug taking. It is easy to forget, and many would like to forget, but Bush was sold as an updated Reagan. He was the best of the old line Republicans combined with the social conservatism of the new Republicans. Like Clinton, George Bush was fitted to the role, not the other was around.

Obama may go down as the quintessential liberal democratic politician, because he was pretty much an actor hired for the role. Central casting sketched out the ideal liberal democratic Progressive. He was one part black leading man, one part urban sophisticate, one part mysterious foreigner and one part post-racial. This was poured into the mold of the former three letter heroes. Obama was FDR, JFK, MLK and RFK all rolled into one character. He was the first Mary Sue president.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but when Reagan entered the White House, the media was full of people who knew Reagan going back to his youth. Like presidents before him, this was part of the getting to know him process. We had a lot of Clinton chums turn up in the media, usually from jail, but at least they were people who knew the man before he was famous. To this day we have precious few people who have come forward to talk about the young Obama.

The we got Trump. If Obama is the epitome of liberal democratic politics, Trump is the epitome of modern business ethics. He created a brand first then he used that brand to create business opportunities. He is "fake it until you make it" in the flesh. His life was as the brand manager of Donald Trump the brand. In the whirl of self-promotion, a swarm of ever changing characters would work various deals that always relied on someone in the room being the mark.

Read the Whole Article

The post America: The Mini-Series appeared first on LewRockwell.

No Jab for Me – And Here Are 35 Reasons Why

Friday 07 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

"Fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. The CDC's entire vaccination propaganda campaign rests on their claim that side effects from vaccinations are exceedingly rare, but according to the blatantly pro-over-vaccination,

Big Pharma-funded CDC, in 2016 alone, VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) received 59,117 vaccine adverse event reports. Among those reports were 432 vaccine-related deaths, 1,091 permanent vaccine-related disabilities, 4,132 vaccine-related hospitalizations, and10,274 vaccine-related emergency room visits. What if these numbers actually represent less than 1% of the total as this report asserts? You multiply those numbers by 100." – William Christenson

***

"The FDA receives 45% of its annual budget from the pharmaceutical industry.

"The World Health Organization (WHO) gets roughly half its budget from private sources, including Pharma and its allied foundations.

"And the CDC, frankly, is a vaccine company; it owns 56 vaccine patents and buys and distributes $4.6 billion in vaccines annually through the Vaccines for Children program, which is over 40% of its total budget.

"The HHS (US Health and Human Services) partners with vaccine makers to develop, approve, recommend, and pass mandates for new products and then shares profits from vaccine sales.

"HHS employees can personally collect up to $150,000 annually in royalties for products they work on.

"For example, key HHS officials collect money on every sale of Merck's controversial HPV vaccine Gardasil, which also yields tens of millions annually for the agency in patent royalties." — Robert F. Kennedy, Jr

***

Statements in these sites (this and this) are substantiated with facts that will stand in a court of law. Informed Consent requires a flow of information. Click on the hyperlinked sections to direct you to primary sources such as CDC, WHO, FDA documents.

***

Did you know?

1. The FDA did not approve Moderna or Pfizer mRNA gene therapeutics they dubbed "vaccines". It simply authorized them. Fauci confirms. "In the US, the FDA in its ambiguous statement provided a so-called Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, namely "to permit the emergency use of the unapproved product, … for active immunization…" (see here)

see below:

19 doctors warned the world of the dangers. AstraZeneca is being dropped by 24 countries.

Johnson & Johnson, a Viral Vector(1) " injection" that was given Emergency Use Authorization on Feb. 27, 2021, was halted by several states due to the formation of blood clots. The CDC had confirmed. But distribution resumed after a 10 day pause.

The CDC also confirms(2) the Pfizer & Moderna jabs are the deadliest of all "vaccines", also in a bar chart. 5 prominent doctors discuss how the Covid jab is a bioweapon.

2. The clinical trials will be completed in 2023, there are 12 vaccine companies ramping up their marketing, and you are the guinea pig.

3. The FDA & CDC have not revealed to the public over 20 adverse effects, including Death, related to Covid19 injections, which were discussed in an October 2020 meeting. 3,544 deaths from Covid19 injections are reported by the National Vaccine Information Center as at 4/23/2021, and one-third of the deaths occurred within 48 hours.

For clarification purposes in this article, Covid19, given that the virus has not been isolated, is regarded as an influenza variant, given the symptoms exhibited by patients. And, yes, people can die of influenza or the common cold. In fact, lungs of influenza patients can be more damaged than those of Covid patients.

Some will argue that SARS-CoV-2 was developed in a Gain-of-Function lab. That is moot. The primary consideration is whether an experimental injection is warranted for a disease with a 99.9% survival rate.

I am for tried, true and tested (safe) vaccines. I am NOT for experimental gene therapeutics backed by disastrous animal studies, used on humans for the first time in history.

4. The mRNA jab delivers a synthetic, inorganic molecule (medical device) that programs your cells to synthesize pathogens in the form of the spike protein that your immune system will constantly have to fight off for the rest of your life, according to experts such as Molecular Biologist & Immunologist, Professor Dolores Cahill. She explains. Fauci confirms. Dr. Lee Merritt reconfirms.

Others call it Information Therapy that hacks the software of life, according to Moderna's [Mode RNA] chief scientist. You essentially become a GMO. Dr. Sherri Tenpenny mapped eight mechanisms that can result in death by a Covid jab.

5. The mRNA jab does not prevent you from contracting Covid19 or from transmitting it. Dr. Steve Hotze elaborates. Fauci confirms. The CDC graph underscores that reality, proving these injections are ineffective and injection passports are totally useless.

87 million Americans have been subjected to injections as at 4/20/21, of which 7,157 have contracted Covid after beingvaccinated, resulting in 88 deaths. Also, an imperfect "vaccination" can enhance the transmission of highly virulent pathogens, according to this NCGI article. A study on mice concludes that the spike protein from a "vaccination" can cause lung damage.

Did you also know?

6. The CDC inflated the death rate for Covid19 – that was not isolated – by instructing medical practitioners in its March 24, 2020 directive to ascribe the cause of death as Covid19 for all deaths, irrespective if patients were tested positive for Covid19 or if they had other comorbidities, so as to ramp up the fear, and doctors have publicly stated they are being pressured to mark Covid19 on death certificates. Here is a list:

Dr. Dan Erickson

Dr. Scott Jensen

Infectious Disease Director Kris Ehresmann

This missstep by the CDC contravenes Federal Regulations, according to IPAK. Each Federal agency is required to submit a formal change proposal to the Federal Register before enacting their proposed changes. A 60-day public comment and peer-review process ensues before the changes can be made.

The fact is that 60,000 Americans have been dying weekly, consistently, before and after the covid scare – more data – while deaths by influenza and other diseases have plummeted.

7. The CDC later admitted that 94% of deaths had underlying conditions. That means that of the 527,000 deaths attributed to the influenza variant masked as SARS-CoV-2 only 6% were actually caused directly by Covid19, or 31,620. That brings the true case fatality rate to 0.12% out of the 27 million cases.

8. The survival rate for Covid19 is, therefore, roughly 99.9%. When using the state population as the denominator, the death rate is even lower, ranging from 36 to 247 deaths per 100,000. As at March 19, 2021, even with the doctored numbers and faulty tests, the CDC arrived at the following survival rates:

Ages 0-17 99.998%

Ages 18-49 99.95%

Ages 50-64 99.4%

Ages 65+ 91%

9. The CDC lumped pneumonia, influenza, and Covid19 into a new epidemic it called PIC in order to inflate Covid19 deaths.

The CDC stats for week of July 3, 2020 confirm that pneumonia and influenza combine with Covid to inflate the death rate. The Feb. 5, 2021 report does the same. The obfuscation is underscored in the search results page, where only "(P&I)" is mentioned, but PIC graphs appear upon clicking the links. Deaths by influenza have dropped from 61,000 in 2018 to 22,000 in 2020, while medical malpractice is the third leading cause of deaths in the US.

10. Hospitals are paid $13,000 for every Covid19 admission, and $39,000 for every patient that is put on a ventilator, on average. More proof doctors and nurses have orders to place on ventilators patients who tested negative, effectively killing them.

Are you aware that…

11. The PCR tests do not detect SARS-CoV-2 particles, but particles from any number of viruses you might have contracted in the past, and that a lawsuit for crimes against humanity is being launched by a German attorney for this fraud. Even Fauci admits PCR tests don't work. The WHO backs him up.

Important Statements on Impacts of Vaccination by Prominent Scientists, Scholars and Authors

In this CDC document, testing guidelines state that false negatives and positives are possible – page 39. The PCR test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens – page 40.

But most importantly, on page 42, SARS-CoV-2 was never isolated in the first instance: "Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time the test was developed and this study conducted, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA".

Neither the CDC can provide samples of SARS-CoV-2, nor can Stanford and Cornell labs, and in a CNN interview Fauci said he was not getting tested and there is no need to test asymptomatic people. He reiterates that asymptomatic people have never been the driving force of a pandemic. Again, the WHO backs him up.

12. There are class action lawsuits in the works, naming Anthony Fauci as defendant, amongst others. Here's a partial list:

a lawsuit against the CDC was filed for illegally withholding information under FOIA

the WHO has a lawsuit brought against it by German lawyer, Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, for crimes against humanity. Here is an update

nurses are suing a hospital CEO for Fabricated' COVID-19 Tests

California teachers are suing for being pressured to get an experimental vaccine, the press release

the Government of Norway is facing a crimes against humanity lawsuit

the UK Government will be facing a lawsuit for crimes against humanity

Israelis are launching a crimes against humanity lawsuit against their own Government

the Government of British Columbia is being sued by the Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy

the Canadian Government is facing a legal battle from the best Constitutional attorney, Rocco Galati, who wants to seeBill Gates jailed

Florida is suing the Federal Government and the CDC

doctors plead guilty to biotest fraud

Human Rights attorney, Leigh Dundas, is going after California for trying to vaccinate children without parental consent. And just like that she forced Orange County to back down from vaccine passports

a British law firm is fighting against 'No Jab, No Pay, No Job'

Canadian Police Officers are taking the Ontario Government to Court

New Zealand is facing a legal challenge on the admissibility of injections

And we're just getting warmed up. If Israeli citizens have brought their government to the International Criminal Court for Crimes Against Humanity, alleging they are being coerced into taking an inadequately tested, experimental COVID injection by Pfizer, in contravention of the Nuremberg Code, then the citizens of any state (West Virginia comes to mind where young people are bribed with $100 to take the jab) have that same right and obligation.

13. Therapeutics and prophylactics for coronaviruses, like Hydroxychloroquine, have been approved in the WHO, CDC and NIH websites.

But, suddenly in 2020 they were banned. Why? Because, according to FDA rules only when there are no alternative therapeutics, can untested vaccines be cleared for Emergency Use Authorization. In 2020, the Canadian company, Apotex, was giving HCQ away. Even after the American Journal of Medicine approved the use of HCQ for Outpatients, HCQ is nowhere to be found in the US. Now, doctors are pleading that Ivermectin be used as a safe therapeutic.

Doctors in India and the UK speak out. Costa Rica uses HCQ extensively, while Novartis donates it to Mexico. In India doctors are prescribing Ziverdo kits.

14. Front Line Doctors who try to explain the benefits of proven therapeutics are being silenced, and some have had their license suspended. A concise summary by Dr. Simone Gold, who is also an attorney and founder of America's Front Line Doctors, is a must watch.

As well, the British Medical Journal has broken rank and is citing corruption and suppression of science. The World Doctors Alliance joins the resistance. In Australia, the Covid Medical Network represents senior medical professionals doing battle.

15. Fauci and the CDC have flip-flopped on masks, contaminated surfaces, asymptomatic spread, testing, and have only recently acknowledged that herd immunity is achieved when antibodies are spread by those who beat the disease (the 99.9%), but still recommend social distancing, only now from 6 feet to 3 feet, resulting in this lockdown map.

Speaking of herd immunity, the WHO changed its June 7, 2020 definition from:

"Herd immunity is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection" to:

"Herd immunity, also known as 'population immunity', is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached. Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it" in Nov. 13, 2020.

But, it again reversed its position in Dec. 2020, with this inane statement:

"Vaccines train our immune systems to create proteins that fight disease, known as 'antibodies', just as would happen when we are exposed to a disease, but – crucially – vaccines work without making us sick. Vaccinated people are protected from getting the disease in question and passing on the pathogen, breaking any chains of transmission"(4).

And they keep moving the goal posts. Pfizer trials warned men to stay away from pregnant women… but now the CDC is pushing pregnant women to take an experimental biological agent without a second thought.

The CDC has played dumb about the high 37 to 40 cycle thresholds used for COVID PCR testing yielding 85-90% false positives. But, now, it readily accepts the lower threshold of 28 cycles for post-vaccine testing.

… and that

16. Injuries and deaths by mRNA jabs keep rising. VAERS reports 12,619 serious injuries as at 4/23/21. In the first quarter of 2021 there has been a 6000% increase in deaths by injections from the same period a year ago. Graphically, the jab looks more like a stiff upper cut, to quote attorney Rocco Galati. And that's if, according to a Harvard Study, only 1% of vaccine related deaths are being reported.

17. The CDC at one time recommended DDT for in home use, and used the same fear tactics to sell vaccines for H1N1.

18. Documents prove that the media was to be the key player in creating the hype leading up to the promotion of vaccines, that a VACCINATE WITH CONFIDENCE paper by the CDC exists, along with its British equivalent, and that lifting lockdowns – on condition of vaccination – is used as a carrot to get people to accept the jab.

19. Politicians are caught on camera talking about the theater of wearing masks, and the NCBI, a division of the NIH, published a paper on the complete ineffectiveness of masks. Even the CDC warns of the dangers of masks, as do these studies on Mask Induced Exhaustion Syndrome MIES.

20. The CDC owns the patent for the coronavirus that is transmitted to humans; also, a patent for a System & Method to test for Covid19 filed in 2015, corroborated here, and Covid19 test kits were being shipped around the world in 2018.

… or that

21. The Covid19 INJECTION was developed in just a few hours.

22. Vaccine companies cannot be sued for injuries.

23. Bill Gates, who invested $10 Billion into vaccines, boasts of how he injects kids with genetically modified organisms.

24. Bill Gates is on record pushing for vaccine passports. Parenthetically, various domain names for "vaccinepassport" were filed in 2016 by an entity in Milan, Italy, and that there are people who cannot take vaccines because of medical contraindications. A vaccine passport would discriminate against these people as they attempt to go about their lives, in violation of The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Section 12101)..

25. Bill Gates is on record pushing for vaccines to lower the world population by 10% to 15%, and a call has been made for his arrest and trial at the International Criminal Court

Finally, did you know?

26. Covid variant injections are to be marketed without safety trials, Fauci confirmed it, and that antibodies/antigens to SARS-CoV-2 are found in saliva, making the use of masks counterproductive in achieving herd immunity.

27. The CDC, that props itself up with statements like:

"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is the agency Americans trust with their lives. As a global leader in public health, CDC is the nation's premier health promotion, prevention, and preparedness agency. Whether we are protecting the American people from public health threats, researching emerging diseases, or mobilizing public health programs with our domestic and international partners, we rely on our employees to make a real difference in the health and well-being of people here and around the world."

buys and resells injections at a markup, about $4.6 Billion worth every year, and owns over 20 vaccine patents – according to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and is listed on Dun & Bradstreet. Fauci personally owns 1000 patents.

28. The consent forms in hospitals disguise vaccines as "biogenics", and blood brokers have paid up to $1,000 for blood samples of recovered Covid19 people.

29. It's against the Nuremberg code to force vaccinations on a person, and informed consent overrides public policy. Federal law prohibits employers and others from using vaccines under EUA as a condition of employment. A Nevada attorney is ready to do the battle. Each state has its own unique provisions for refusing a vaccine on medical, religious or philosophical grounds.

30. Donald Trump glories in the fact that he pushed Warp Speed and urges his supporters to take the jab, while Biden gloatsthat he ordered 100 million doses. Same dung – different odor

… or that

31. Time, again and again the WHO has discouraged the wearing of masks by healthy individuals, let alone children.

32. Several "simulations" of a pandemic were held in:

May 2018 Clade X by Johns Hopkins University

September 2019. The WHO's Global Preparedness Monitoring Board (in another supposed simulation) included as one of its progress indicators the release of two lethal pathogens by September 2020. See pg 39

2018. Bill Gates' INSTITUTE FOR DISEASE MODELING released a video modeling a pandemic starting at Wuhan, China

October 2019. Bill Gates, sponsored a Global Pandemic Exercise Event 201, video. Fauci, of course, sits in the Leadership Council of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which has contributed over $3.5 million to Fauci's NIH,

33. The Pfizer, Moderna and J&J jabs were developed using fetal cell lines, that is, cells grown in labs originally obtained from aborted fetuses decades ago. The argument used by pro-vaxers is that these are not the original cells, but descendants or duplicates of the originals. The medical term varies depending on the aborted fetus' number and organ . You have a right to decline any vaccine that was developed with or contains fetal cell lines, based on your religious or philosophical beliefs.

34. Lockdowns have had no effect on the death rate. Here's another report. And here we can see how Covid won't breach Michigan's southern border.

35. On March 2020, the British Government discussed tactics it would use to ensure citizens complied with the loss of their rights and freedoms and these have included –

Using media to increase the sense of personal threat

Using media to increase the sense of responsibility to others

Using and promoting social approval for desired behaviors

Using social disapproval for those who do not comply

Here is the document, and the woman the NHS hired to fiddle with the death numbers. Not to be outdone, Trudeau boasts how much he pays the media to sell his propaganda that presciently reported in April, 2021 a 4th wave, while the German Minister of Interior pressured epidemologists to create the fear that would necessitate lockdowns.

So your employer backs you into a corner. Get the jab or quit. What do you do?

Here's what I would do:

1. Demand that the 'jab or quit' proposition be put in writing.

2. Explain that irrespective of whether it's a government or a corporation, any entity that makes experimental vaccinations a condition of employment – or of doing business – engages in the practice of forced vaccinations, which is in violation of the Nuremberg code, especially experimental vaccinations that are still undergoing clinical trials scheduled to end in 2023.

3. I would pull out my card ask the questions in it, leave the card with instructions to relay answers to me in writing

4. I would inform the employer that lawyers are filing crimes against humanity lawsuits, and that I would be consulting an attorney

This is just what I would do. I'm not giving anyone legal advice.

Find attorneys in your state:

America's Front Line Doctors Attorney Intake Form

Justia

Avvo

Reprinted with permission from Global Research.

The post No Jab for Me – And Here Are 35 Reasons Why appeared first on LewRockwell.

from https://youtu.be/GuUaaPaTlyY May 08, 2021 at 09:00PM

#[Consumer Credit News] Credit Report Repair News: Digest for May 09 #2021

0 notes

zagglutin · 4 years ago

Text

[Consumer Credit News] Credit Report Repair News: Digest for May 08, 2021

Credit Report Repair News

Table of Contents

Credit Report Repair News: Digest for May 07, 2021

by Credit Repair News, Sebastian Pulvera on Friday 07 May 2021 02:00 AM UTC-05

Credit Report Repair News

Table of Contents

Re The Lefty Twit Called Zuck

The Very Notion of 'Leadership' Is an Abject Failure of Individual Responsibility

The Warmongers Have Gone Woke

Aldous Huxley Foresaw Our Despots — Fauci, Gates, and Their Vaccine Crusaders

W.H.O. and C.D.C. – The New Nuremberg Trials 2021 [Crimes Against Humanity]

A Covenant With Death

Election Integrity: The Civil Rights Issue of Our Time | Robert Barnes

How Many Americans Have Died After Taking Covid Vaccines?

We're Told the US's Only Option Is To Escalate Aggression Against Russia & China. It's a Lie. Detente Is Possible

Decentralization, Absolutism, and the Papal States

Fauci Defends the Crown, Descends the Evolutionary Ladder

The US Brainwashes the World

Re The Lefty Twit Called Zuck

Thursday 06 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

We have no use for Donald Trump, but even less for the arrogant lefty twit, Mark Zuckerberg, who joined a conspiracy of Silicon Valley Robber Barons on January 6th to ban a then sitting president of the United States from their social media platforms.

Yes, we know they are private companies. So they can do anything they damn will please, including thanking the Donald for the $160 million of ads his campaign bought from Facebook in 2020 by kicking him off the platform.

But this isn't really about free speech narrowly; it's about the malign societal impact of free money from the Fed and the manor in which the vastly overvalued companies in the tech space have enabled the callow wokesters who run them to subordinate profit-maximization to left-wing virtue-signalling.

After all, there is not a snowball's chance in hell that YouTube, Twitter or Facebook were losing customers, revenue and profits owing to the Donald's massive presence in social media. The Trump haters were always free to not follow or unfollow him, or to trash his posts if that's what got their jollies off; and the Trump lovers in their tens of millions actually brought massive incremental traffic to these platforms, and therefore positive ad metrics, revenues and profits.

The abrupt, nearly simultaneous canceling of the Donald's privileges by all three platforms on the afternoon of January 6th, therefore, is surely a trifecta of the dumbest business decisions of all time. And if it weren't for the political correctness of the matter, it would make for a classic Harvard Business School case study (which won't happen) on the corporate harm that results from elevating the extraneous divertissements of corporate executives over the dollars and cents of business advantage.

Of course, the trigger for the Trump ban was not the general loutishness and crude bully-boy behavior of the man, which had gotten worse by the month over the course of his tenure. Rather, it was the instantaneous edict by the MSM that the unruly mob which stumbled into the Capitol Building that day (or was let in by sympathetic Capitol police officers) amounted to a Trump-instigated insurrectionist coup and attempt to thwart the peaceful transfer of power to president-elect Biden.

Oh, puleese! In this day and age where states drip with a lethal high tech monopoly on violent instruments of social control, what kind of "insurrection" has no leaders, no plans, no weapons, no training, no armor and no escape routes from a giant mausoleum of marble and sandstone, where it could have been sequestered, subdued and defenestrated by the US military in a heartbeat?

Indeed, the January 6th insurrection narrative is one of the most egregious propaganda confections of all time – notwithstanding that the undisputed facts of the matter eviscerate it limb-for-limb.

For instance, the statement today of the Facebook Oversight Board extending the Donald's suspension succinctly repeats the key shibboleths, all of which are not remotely true, relevant or warranted.

On January 6, 2021, during the counting of the 2020 electoral votes, a mob forcibly entered the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. This violence threatened the constitutional process. Five people died and many more were injured during the violence.

For crying out loud, let's call a spade a spade. What happened was the consequence not of Donald Trump's oratory on the mall, but of pathetically incompetent police work. Period.

That tens of thousands of agitated pro-Trump demonstrators had come to Washington was plain as day, as was the intelligence indicating that some among the gathered horde were planning to descend on the US Capitol Building were the electoral votes were being counted. The "attack", therefore, was the very opposite of the hoary Pearl Harbor analogy proffered by shameless demagogues like Chuckles Schumer.

Indeed, the "forcible entry" part of the narrative is even more threadbare than the "five deaths" canard, when it has been solidly established that three demonstrators died of natural causes, the stricken police officer succumbed to a medical ailment not an assault and the Trump protester was shot dead at point blank by an unnamed policeman without warning and for no reason.

Still, the forcible entry claim should embarrass anyone who has ever had a visitors pass to the US Capitol. The place is a veritable fortress with a few dozen very small entryways that can be readily sealed off by barricades and a decent supply of tear gas, bear spray and water canons.

If they didn't want a disorderly and emotional crowd entering the building during the electoral vote count pageant, then they could have closed the building to visitors, invited or not, with alacrity.

Obviously, what happened was the opposite – a veritable Gong Show of confusion and random disorder.

From the law enforcement side, barricades were poorly placed, if at all; little attempt was made at crowd control via nonlethal deterrents like tear gas and water canons; the Capitol Hill police, a notoriously unprofessional force riddled with patronage, was not briefed and drilled for the event or given clear rules of engagement – even though it self-evidently promised to be the biggest, most fraught event in many moons at the US Capitol.

And most crucially, the videos make damn clear that many of the Capitol Hill police officers sympathized with the demonstrators and were likely Trump voters. So when the crowds surged toward a number of entryways, the officers simply stood aside and let the demonstrators enter the "people's house" unimpeded.

On the other side, the so-called Trump "insurrectionists" were more like the car-chasing dog which finally caught the car but had no idea what to do next. So they simply meandered randomly about the interior of the Capitol Building, surprised to find themselves in Nancy Pelosi's unlocked office or the Senate Chamber which had earlier been vacated.

That is to say, that didn't come with a plan to "occupy" it, nor did they posses any of the hallmarks of insurrectionists trying to seize and hold power. Not only were they bereft of weapons including guns, swords and jackknives, but they also brought no communications equipment other than standard cells phones, no food and canteen supplies and not even a list of demands.

To be sure, these citizens behaved rudely, disgracefully and irresponsibly once they stumbled into the Capitol and should have been charged with disorderly conduct, trespassing, destruction of public property and fined to the gills.

But, actually, that's just the point. This was not a coherent political force that threatened anything other than the paperweights on Nancy Pelosi's desk. It was actually just a disorganized mob of 5,000 to 10,000 mainly yahoos, yokels and societal riff-raff, who originated on the margins of the political system and streamed into Washington on whims and wild-ass distaste for their societal bettors.

Overwhelmingly, they were not experienced GOP political operatives, elected officials, leading citizens or people of any means at all. They did not come to the nation's capital city the way real power-seekers do – in troop transports or corporate jets. They couldn't have seized and held power if Donald Trump himself had led them into the Situations Room.

In short, January 6th was not remotely the Day of Infamy it has been cracked-up to be. To the contrary, it was merely an accidental moment of rank police incompetence that enabled a few ruffians and a large, naive crowd of surprised pro-Trump demonstrators to have their proverbial 15-minutes of fame, milling around the Capitol Building with no purposive intent other than to vent their anger that the Donald was driven from office by a mere 48,000 votes in three states out of 157 million cast around the nation.

Yet the liberal elites and their progressive-left allies have turned this great big nothing-burger in the annals of actual historical putsches, coups and insurrections into a putative assault on American democracy ranking way above Shay's Rebellion and nearly at the level of the South Carolina militia's firing on Fort Sumter; and they did so largely in the course of a single afternoon during which the mainstream media confected the fiction from the pointless contretemps unfolding inside the Capitol.

Nevertheless, the Oversight Board quoted in full the Donald's 4:21 EST video posted to Facebook and Instagram as one of the two offenses that motivated Zuckerburg to properly cancel the Donald's welcome on the platform.

We quote the video text in full, as well, because we'll be dammed if we can fathom how these words can be construed as an incitement to coup d' etat, or even random violence:

I know your pain. I know you're hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election, and everyone knows it, especially the other side, but you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order. We have to respect our great people in law and order. We don't want anybody hurt. It's a very tough period of time. There's never been a time like this where such a thing happened, where they could take it away from all of us, from me, from you, from our country. This was a fraudulent election, but we can't play into the hands of these people. We have to have peace. So go home. We love you. You're very special. You've seen what happens. You see the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil. I know how you feel. But go home and go home in peace.

Still, exactly 80 minutes later at 5:41 pm Eastern Standard Time, Zuckerburg personally authorized the removal of this post for violating Facebook's "Community Standard on Dangerous Individuals and Organizations".

But even then the Zuck was not done. About 26 minutes later at 6:07 PM the Donald posted a written statement on Facebook that once again urged his followers to go home in peace. Yet it prompted Zuckerburg to strike a second time, ordering the post to be removed eight minutes later and the ban which followed promptly thereafter.

These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love in peace. Remember this day forever!

Sure, the bombast about a "sacred landslide victory" was the Donald's juvenile pettifoggery at its most lame, but the point should be damn obvious. This post was actually his swan song: He told the Capitol Mob and millions of Americans following the news not to challenge the transfer of power, but to go home and hang a commemorative poster on their kitchen wall!

So, yes, Zuckerburg is a callow dilettante and tool of the vicious liberal and media elites which have resorted to endless lies and abuse of governmental powers to eliminate the Trumpian challenge to their rule. That's been the real coup, if there was one at all.

Alas, in American democracy snot-nose punks like Zuckerburg have a right to be as misguided, petty and vindictive as the wish, and we don't begrudge them for exercising it.

Our beef is with the 19 Fed heads who have created such a phantasmagorical financial bubble that lightweight jerks like Mark Zuckerburg have $118 billion of net worth and a $900 billion corporate monster to put behind their sanctimonious left-wing politicking.

Here's the thing. For reasons we have amplified at length elsewhere, Facebook is worth maybe $200 billion, not $900 billion. It's the serendipitous beneficiary of a one-time shift of global advertising dollars to the internet from legacy media, but the underlying truth of the matter is that advertising is a low growth 2-3% per year business that does not merit in the slightest Facebook's current 38X multiple against its $24 billion of operating free cash flow.

As made crystal clear in the chart below, the one-time migration which got started in earnest about 2010 is now nearly over, unless you think that all the legacy media – including TV – are going to disappear entirely from the face of the earth.

We don't, and we also think that once Facebook's revenue growth regresses to the 2-3% ad industry average, its fabled margins will take a hit as well, as it has to spend more and more to fend off digital competition for a quasi-static pool of advertising dollars.

So give it a an 8X free cash flow cap rate and the company's market cap shrinks to $200 billion and Zuckerburg's net worth implodes by upwards of $100 billion.

Distribution of advertising spending worldwide in 2020, by market

That's roughly what honest price discovery on the free market would come up with – absent the Fed's endless inflation of financial asset prices, and the resulting blind worship of "growth" on Wall Street that has turned the tech sector into the most fantastic bubble in recorded history. One more thing. At $200 billion of market cap and fighting hard to keep it, Facebook might have actually thought twice about blowing away its best customer and subordinating the business of business to the whims of the preternaturally rich brats who hang-out in Silicon Valley.

PEAK TRUMP, IMPENDING CRISES, ESSENTIAL INFO & ACTION

Reprinted with permission from David Stockman's Contra Corner.

The post Re The Lefty Twit Called Zuck appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Very Notion of 'Leadership' Is an Abject Failure of Individual Responsibility

Thursday 06 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

"Shame on the misguided, the blinded, the distracted and the divided. Shame. You have allowed deceptive men to corrupt and desensitize your hearts and minds to unethically fuel their greed."

~ Suzy Kassem, Rise Up and Salute the Sun: The Writings of Suzy Kassem

Leadership? What a curious term for any intelligent man to utter. How many times throughout my life have I listened to the masses clamoring for someone to lead them? Actually, the most prevalent attitude amongst the people is a desire to find the best 'leader,' and the epitome of this phenomenon is the ludicrous idea of voting. This process is continuous, and stretches from the heights of the presidency to the choosing of the local dogcatcher. It seems that the quest of men is to not rely on their best judgment or even on their moral beliefs, but to seek out others to follow instead of trusting self. This dilemma has caused much harm, and allowed for the worst among us to control the human narrative.

Considering the living hell that has consumed this country and the world due to the multitude of followers listening to and bowing down to the evil few, most find themselves at the mercy of the powerful. This is certainly not necessary, and in fact is the absolute worst possible position for any society to consider. It is my opinion that the only viable solution that would lead to an escape from this tyranny, and put a stop to the great reset plan of the oligarchs, is mass resistance and non-compliance by large numbers of people. Total disobedience in other words is crucial. Throw out all the so-called 'leaders,' and rely only on self. The response most often received due to this solution comes in the form of a question. "Who will tell me what to do and how to disobey?" Recently, a reader declared: "I'm sure you agree that this requires organization and powerful leadership. We currently have no powerful leadership or plan."

This of course is not true. The 'leadership' has excessive power, is already running the show, and they have the ultimate plan to take total control over all. When the collective seek powerful 'leaders' they are seeking rule. The fallback position of the people tends always to rest on the premise of complete irresponsibility, and confidence in a claimed 'superior' commanding force. Because of this bastardized belief system, the people voluntarily contribute to their own misery and demise, and have been throughout time too weak and apathetic to protect their own existence. Will this attitude ever change, or will the common people simply be relegated to reside in a land of serfdom?

Since the beginning of this country, or more accurately, the beginning of the end of this country, that time when the political class came up with a ruling document called the Constitution, ownership of the people by a governing body has been the prevailing state of existence. Throughout our history, this has become more evident with every passing administration. And what has been the people's only recourse? They have been allowed by their rulers to pick a new pre-selected master (leader) every four years. They always get the 'leader' they so desire and deserve, and to this day, this process of voting, the epitome of absurdity, continues without question. Given this scheme, is it any wonder that a fake virus pandemic has brought this country to its knees?

We live in a country with a one-party political system that masquerades as two. Nothing ever changes; the 'right' people are always in charge, and the heinous and corrupt policies are never altered. The agendas sought by the few controlling 'elite' have been fulfilled over time so that this system based on the total control of all people could go forward. The final goal of total dominance has arrived, and the people still cry out for leadership.

America's mainland has never been attacked, but the 'elite' manipulators at the top of the power pyramid, with help from the selected political class, have waged aggressive war for 94% of our history. Taxation, the theft and raping of the people, has reached heights never imagined, and all money and monetary policy has been designed so that the few control all wealth through a central banking cartel. This could never be more apparent than it is at this very time, as trillions upon trillions of dollars are being created out of thin air to bolster the wealth and power of those that are intent on controlling this entire society.

All this and much more corruption, freedom destruction, torture, mass imprisonment, and murder continue on unabated, while the people go to the polls to guarantee that their masters stay in power. They fight tooth and nail to get their 'chosen' ruler, spewing hate toward one another, never once realizing that this system has been rigged since minute one, and that both sides always win, and the people always lose.

Now, the damage has become extreme, and the plot to take over for good is going forward without much resistance. The madness of this fake pandemic, and the propagandized fear mongering that has consumed this society, is taking on a new form, and will morph into a pre-planned conspiracy meant to complete by force a multitude of policy changes in order to advance many nefarious agendas simultaneously. To help this along, the poisonous injection falsely called a 'vaccine,' will continue to be given to as many Americans as possible, setting the stage for mass death in the future to advance the desired depopulation effect.

As out of control inflation, food shortages, unemployment, and hatred increase, the downfall of America becomes more imminent. There is still time to reverse this insanity, and to take back the country from the psychopathic ruling class that has been allowed free rein to destroy this economic system while brutalizing the people.

Make no mistake about it; looking for leaders can only assure defeat. Each and every person needs to become his own leader, his own ruler, and needs to stand on his own two feet. With progress in that direction, the fake 'leaders' can be eliminated, one by one, and then some semblance of freedom can be restored.

“Anarchism, to me, means not only the denial of authority, not only a new economy, but a revision of the principles of morality. It means the development of the individual as well as the assertion of the individual. It means self-responsibility, and not leader worship.”

~ Voltairine de Cleyre (2012). "Exquisite Rebel: The Essays of Voltairine de Cleyre — Anarchist, Feminist, Genius", p.156, SUNY Press

The post The Very Notion of 'Leadership' Is an Abject Failure of Individual Responsibility appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Warmongers Have Gone Woke

Thursday 06 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

'I am intersectional… I am a cisgender millennial, who has been diagnosed with generalised anxiety disorder… I refuse to internalise misguided patriarchal ideas of what a woman can or should be… I want you to be unapologetically you, whoever you are…'

These are not the words of some blue-haired student or tedious Instagram activist. Rather, they come from a recruitment video for the CIA. The Central Intelligence Agency – infamous for 'enhanced interrogation', drone warfare and trafficking drugs to pay for foreign coups – has officially gone woke.

The recruitment video went viral. It outraged the right for portraying America as weak to its adversaries. And it outraged the left, who accused the CIA of dishonestly 'co-opting' progressive politics.

In truth, the CIA has been woke for some time – and no one should be surprised by its drift in this direction. The 'Humans of CIA' campaign, which highlights the diversity of the agency's staff, has actually been running since 2019. A year before, Gina Haspel, despite her alleged involvement in 'extraordinary rendition', became the first female CIA chief – a move the Trump administration tried to spin as a victory for 'women's empowerment'.

It's not just the CIA, either. The broader defence establishment is now bound up with woke politics. A watershed moment arrived in 2019 when MSNBC could proudly proclaim that the 'military-industrial complex is now run by women'. As well as Haspel at the CIA, Andrea Thompson at the Pentagon was America's lead weapons negotiator and in charge of the nuclear stockpile. The five largest arms contractors – Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics and the defence arm of Boeing – were also run by women. In the same year, Raytheon, the world's largest manufacturer of guided missiles, began its partnership with the Girl Scouts, apparently to 'close the gender gap in STEM'.

Of course, for US militarism to be truly 'intersectional' it has to encompass race and sexuality as well as gender. At the weekend, the US Navy celebrated its first ever all-gay helicopter crew. Dow Chemical, which produced skin-burning napalm for the Vietnam war, has drawn media praise for its gay CEO. 'How Dow Chemical Got Woke', was how Bloomberg reported it. Earlier this year, ex-CIA chief John Brennan made headlines when he declared that he was 'increasingly embarrassed' to be a white man – perhaps not everyone can be 'unapologetically themselves' at Langley, after all.

Why do they bother? Why have the warmongers gone woke? Partly it is a question of image. Of course, just as big companies like to align their corporate missions to Black Lives Matter because it is too gauche to say they are out to make a profit, the CIA and the defence establishment cannot simply say that they are out to dominate other countries or defend US commercial interests.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Warmongers Have Gone Woke appeared first on LewRockwell.

Aldous Huxley Foresaw Our Despots — Fauci, Gates, and Their Vaccine Crusaders

Thursday 06 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

In 1949, sometime after the publication of George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, Aldous Huxley, the author of Brave New World (1931), who was then living in California, wrote to Orwell. Huxley had briefly taught French to Orwell as a student in high school at Eton.

Huxley generally praises Orwell’s novel, which to many seemed very similar to Brave New World in its dystopian view of a possible future. Huxley politely voices his opinion that his own version of what might come to pass would be truer than Orwell’s. Huxley observed that the philosophy of the ruling minority in Nineteen Eighty-Four is sadism, whereas his own version is more likely, that controlling an ignorant and unsuspecting public would be less arduous, less wasteful by other means. Huxley’s masses are seduced by a mind-numbing drug, Orwell’s with sadism and fear.

The most powerful quote In Huxley’s letter to Orwell is this:

Within the next generation I believe that the world’s rulers will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience.

Could Huxley have more prescient? What do we see around us? Masses of people dependent upon drugs, legal and illegal. The majority of advertisements that air on television seem to be for prescription drugs, some of them miraculous but most of them unnecessary. Then comes COVID, a quite possibly weaponized virus from the Fauci-funded-with-taxpayer-dollars lab in Wuhan, China. The powers that be tragically deferred to the malevolent Fauci who had long been hoping for just such an opportunity. Suddenly, there was an opportunity to test the mRNA vaccines that had been in the works for nearly twenty years. They could be authorized as an emergency measure but were still highly experimental. These jabs are not really vaccines at all, but a form of gene therapy. There are potential disastrous consequences down the road. Government experiments on the public are nothing new.

Since there have been no actual, long-term trials, no one who contributed to this massive drug experiment knows what the long-term consequences might be. There have been countless adverse injuries and deaths already for which the government-funded vaccine producers will suffer no liability. With each passing day, new side-effects have begun to appear: blood clots, seizures, heart failure.

As new adverse reactions become known despite the censorship employed by most media outlets, the more the Biden administration is pushing the vaccine, urging private corporations to make it mandatory for all employees. Colleges are making them mandatory for all students returning to campus.

The leftmedia are advocating the “shunning” of the unvaccinated. The self-appointed virtue-signaling Democrats are furious at anyone and everyone who declines the jab. Why? If they are protected, why do they care? That is the question. Same goes for the ridiculous mask requirements. They protect no one but for those in operating rooms with their insides exposed, yet even the vaccinated are supposed to wear them!

Read the Whole Article

The post Aldous Huxley Foresaw Our Despots — Fauci, Gates, and Their Vaccine Crusaders appeared first on LewRockwell.

W.H.O. and C.D.C. – The New Nuremberg Trials 2021 [Crimes Against Humanity]

Thursday 06 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

The New Nuremberg Trials 2021

A team of over 1,000 lawyers and over 10,000 medical experts lead by Dr. Reiner Fullmich have begun legal proceedings over the CDC, WHO, the Davos Group for crimes against humanity. Fullmich and his team present the faulty PCR test and the order for doctors to label any comorbidity death as a Covid death as fraud. The PCR test was never designed to detect pathogens and is 100% faulty at 35 cycles. All the PCR tests issued by the CDC are rated at 37 to 45 cycles. The CDC admits that any test over 28 cycles are not admissible for any positive reliable result. This alone invalidates over 90% of the alleged covid infections tracked by the use of this faulty test.

In addition to the flawed tests and fraudulent death certificates, the "experimental" vaccine itself is in violation of Article 32 of the Geneva Convention. Under Article 32 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV, "mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person" are prohibited. According to Article 147, conducting biological experiments on protected persons is a grave breach of the Convention.

The "experimental" vaccine is in violation of all 10 of the Nuremburg Codes which carry the death penalty for those who seek to violate these International Laws.

The "vaccine" fails to meet the following five requirements to be considered a vaccine and is by definition a medical "experiment" and trial:

Provides immunity to the virus This is a "leaky" gene-therapy that does not provide immunity to Covid and claims to reduce symptoms yet double-vaccinated are now 60% of the patients requiring ER or ICU with covid infections.

Protects recipients from getting the virus This gene-therapy does not provide immunity and double-vaccinated can still catch and spread the virus.

Reduces deaths from the virus infection This gene-therapy does not reduce deaths from the infection. Double-Vaccinated infected with Covid have also died.

Reduces circulation of the virus This gene-therapy still permits the spread of the virus as it offers zero immunity to the virus.

Reduces transmission of the virus This gene-therapy still permits the transmission of the virus as it offers zero immunity to the virus.

The following violations of the Nuremberg Code is as follows

Nuremburg Code #1: Voluntary Consent is Essential

No person should be forced to take a medical experiment without informed consent. Many media, political and non-medical persons are telling people to take the shot, it's safe and offer no information as to the adverse effects or dangers of this gene-therapy. Countries are using lockdowns, duress and threats to force people to take this vaccine or be prohibited to participate in free society under the mandate of a Vaccine Passport or Green Pass. During the Nuremberg trail, even the media was prosecuted and members were put to death for lying to the public amongst many of the doctors and Nazis found guilty of Crimes Against Humanity.

Read the Whole Article

The post W.H.O. and C.D.C. – The New Nuremberg Trials 2021 [Crimes Against Humanity] appeared first on LewRockwell.

A Covenant With Death

Thursday 06 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

"If I wasn’t a devil myself, I’d give

Me up to the Devil this very minute."

– Faust, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

——————————–

Isaiah 28: 14 Wherefore hear the word of the Lord, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.

15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:

——————————–

Ephesians 6: 12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

——————————–

Isaiah 28: 16 Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

17 Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.

18 And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it.

——————————–

Ephesians 6: 13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

Reprinted with permission from Bionic Mosquito.

The post A Covenant With Death appeared first on LewRockwell.

Election Integrity: The Civil Rights Issue of Our Time | Robert Barnes

Thursday 06 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

This is a powerful, must watch presentation concerning the electoral integrity of the 2020 presidential contest by preeminent constitutional and civil rights attorney Robert Barnes. It will dramatically shape and alter your clear understanding of what exactly took place prior to, and on that November election day and in subsequent events.

The post Election Integrity: The Civil Rights Issue of Our Time | Robert Barnes appeared first on LewRockwell.

How Many Americans Have Died After Taking Covid Vaccines?

Thursday 06 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

Fox News commentator, Tucker Carlson, frequently reminds viewers that overall, he thinks vaccines are a good thing — but that doesn't mean he doesn't have questions about COVID vaccines.

In fact, he has a lot of questions. And, he said, he should have the right to ask them.

In the segment below on last night's "Tucker Carlson Tonight," Carlson said the U.S. government's Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) shows 3,362 Americans — or 30 people a day — died from the COVID vaccine between December 2020 and last month.

"More people, according to VAERS, have died after getting the shot in four months during a single vaccination campaign than from all other vaccines combined over more than a decade and a half," said Carlson.

The number of deaths is likely much higher than what VAERS is reporting, Carlson said, citing reports submitted to the Department of Health and Human Services in 2010 that found "fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported by the VAERS system."

Carlson also mentioned in his segment:

Of all of the MENVEO vaccines given to prevent bacterial meningitis, only one person died from the vaccine between 2010 and 2015.

In 1976, 45 million Americans were vaccinated for H1N1. A total of 53 people died from the vaccine. The U.S. government halted the vaccination program because authorities decided it was too risky.

COVID vaccines have contributed to 8,000 hospitalizations in the U.S., according to VAERS.

Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children's Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD's successful mission.

The post How Many Americans Have Died After Taking Covid Vaccines? appeared first on LewRockwell.

We're Told the US's Only Option Is To Escalate Aggression Against Russia & China. It's a Lie. Detente Is Possible

Thursday 06 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

As the US-centralized empire hurtles headlong into increasing aggression with Russia and China, the word "detente" has been curiously absent from mainstream discourse. But that is insane and detente is absolutely an option.

On a recent 60 Minutes interview with Norah O'Donnell which focused on the Biden administration's China policy, US Secretary of State Tony Blinken talked about the United States as a defender of the rules-based international order and about the importance of bringing Beijing into compliance with it.

"Our purpose is not to contain China, to hold it back, to keep it down: it is to uphold this rules-based order that China is posing a challenge to," Blinken said. "Anyone who poses a challenge to that order, we're going to stand up and defend it."

Now, had Blinken been speaking to an actual journalist, he would have been asked in what specific ways defending "the rules-based order" against China would differ from trying to contain China and keep it down. He would have also been asked what business a nation that has killed millions and displaced tens of millions in illegal wars just since the turn of this century while deliberately starving civilians to death with sanctions and blockades, has proclaiming itself the defender of any "rules-based order."

But Blinken was not talking to a journalist. Blinken was talking to Norah O'Donnell.

O'Donnell's interview with Blinken was a perfect illustration of the fact that modern mainstream reporters are only allowed to ask confrontational foreign policy questions of US officials when demanding to know why they aren't being more hawkish and aggressive. Here are some of the questions Blinken was asked during the interview:

"I know you say the goal is not to contain China, but have you ever seen China be so assertive or aggressive militarily?"

"Do you think we're heading toward some sort of military confrontation with China?"

"Let's talk about human rights. Describe what you see is happening in Xinjiang that maybe the rest of the world doesn't."

"If Xinjiang isn't a red line with China, then what is?"

"The Chinese have stolen hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars of trade secrets and intellectual property from the United States. That sounds like the actions of an enemy."

"And so did President Biden tell President Xi to cut it out?"

"China thinks long term, strategically, decades in advance. Is America just caught up on the latest fires here and there, and we're not thinking long term, strategically, and as a result, China will surpass us?"

"What is the administration going to do about Hong Kong?"

"Then why not boycott the 2022 Olympics in Beijing?"

At no point is Blinken ever confronted about the many glaring plot holes in the US government's Xinjiang "genocide" narrative, or the many indications we are seeing that there is an immense propaganda campaign manufacturing that narrative to advance western geostrategic agendas. At no point is Blinken ever asked if China acting "so assertive or aggressive militarily" might have something to do with the fact that the US has been aggressively surrounding it with military forces for years. And at no point is Blinken ever asked by O'Donnell what measures can be taken to move away from this dangerous trajectory in pursuit of detente.

In fact, as the US-centralized empire hurtles headlong into increasingly hostile cold wars with both Russia and China, the word "detente", which means the easing of hostilities between nations, has been curiously absent from mainstream discourse. During the last cold war it was a mainstream point of discussion embraced by prominent Democrats and Republicans alike, but in this dangerous new multifront cold war it's gone missing.

You'll see the word appear occasionally, but almost never with regard to the two powerful nuclear-armed nations, where it matters the most. A recent Guardian article talks of potential detente between Syria and Saudi Arabia, a Reuters piece three weeks ago referred to detente between the US and Iran, and a Wall Street Journal article last month spoke of detente between the US and North Korea, but recent use of that word in widely circulated western news media is hard to find or missing entirely.

It's like the concept doesn't even exist. Like it's not even considered an option. Like people are being kept ignorant that it's an option.

And I see this play out in the online conversations and debates I engage in from day to day: people who defend the reckless cold war escalations by the United States against Moscow and/or Beijing generally speak as though they haven't even considered the possibility that detente could occur. Many don't even know the word exists. They simply assume that the only option on the table is increasingly confrontational cold war escalations, and don't even have a conceptual framework in place for considering any alternative. That's how extensively the possibility of peace with Russia and China has been hidden from their attention.

And one gets the sense that this is entirely by design. The late Stephen Cohen, renowned scholar and expert on US-Russia relations, used the word "detente" constantly until his death last year, but in the preceding years as things began heating up with Russia he'd been finding his analysis less and less welcome on mainstream channels. For the same reason Norah O'Donnell only asked Blinken how he was going to escalate aggressions against China and never how he was going to de-escalate them, the mainstream media are keeping the general public ignorant of the possibility of, and dire necessity for, detente.

We are meant to take it as a given that the only option available is to continue increasing aggressions with these two nuclear powers. This is a lie, and it is insane. Detente absolutely is an option. We do not need to keep risking all life on earth with this psychotic game of nuclear Russian roulette every day just because a few powerful sociopaths have decided the US empire must retain supremacy at all cost.

There is no valid reason why we cannot all get along and spend our energy collaborating toward human thriving. The incredible shrinking Overton window of the mainstream discourse manufacturers not even permitting this as a topic of discussion tells you they are deliberately hiding it from our awareness in the interests of the powerful. It is being hidden because the only alternative to attacking and undermining the interests of China and Russia is for the US empire to relinquish its unipolar domination of the planet and allow other nations to thrive beyond its control.

I am often accused of having sinister loyalties to the Kremlin or to the Communist Party of China–which one depends on the day and what I happen to be writing about at the time. The reality, though, is that I simply do not consent to having my life, the life of everyone I love, and the life of everyone I share this planet with gambled on some idiotic American supremacist value that serves nobody but the powerful. There is no good reason we can't lay down our arms and collaborate with other nations in friendship, and anyone who says otherwise is lying.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

The post We're Told the US's Only Option Is To Escalate Aggression Against Russia & China. It's a Lie. Detente Is Possible appeared first on LewRockwell.

Decentralization, Absolutism, and the Papal States

Thursday 06 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

The Pope Who Would Be King: The Exile of Pius IX and the Emergence of Modern Europe by David Kertzer Random House, 2018 xxx + 474 pages

Historian David Kertzer made a name for himself with his 1997 book The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara. The book covers the until then rarely mentioned case of an Italian Jewish boy who was illicitly baptized by the housekeeper, and then kidnapped in 1858 by Papal State authorities on the grounds that Jews in the Papal States could not be permitted to raise a Christian child.

Because so few books or in-depth articles have been written on the topic in English, Kertzer now enjoys a position as perhaps the preeminent expert on the case. This is no small thing since a number of filmmakers—including Steven Spielberg— have expressed interest in dramatizing the Mortara case on film. The film project—explicitly based on Kertzer's book—was still moving forward as of February of this year.1

There's an important lesson here for historians: if you can find an obscure but compelling historical episode to specialize in, it might pay off in a big way.

Since the success of Mortara book, Kertzer has not strayed far from the subject matter. He has written a number of books over the past twenty years combining the topics of Jews, popes, and the modern Italian state.

With his most recent book, 2018's The Pope Who Would Be King, Kertzer returns to the topic of the late Papal States and of the man who ruled at the time of the Mortara kidnapping: Pope Pius IX, aka "Pio Nono."

As with the Mortara book, Kertzer once again focuses on a topic that is rarely examined at any length in the English language. This time it is the internal politics of the Papal States, and how those politics influenced the regime’s relations with the great powers of Europe.

When it comes to relating the basic facts of the events surrounding the Papal States in the mid-nineteenth century, it is difficult to find much fault with Kertzer's work. As we shall see, however, Kertzer's interpretations of these facts ignore important context, and he falls into the trap of repeating a variety of myths about medieval government and “Enlightenment” regimes.

The Papal States and the War against Liberal Reformers

The setting itself is exciting, and Kertzer focuses most of his narrative on the events around the year 1848, a year of revolutions, upheavals, rebellions, and regime change in Europe. France, Austria, Denmark, and the German Confederation were all caught up in it. The Papal regime most certainly did not escape from this untouched: by early 1849, the pope had fled Rome, and a new democratic and constitutionalist Roman Republic was declared in his absence.

Things hadn't started out that way for Pio Nono. Although viewed as a pope "of the people" in the early days of his rule, Pius quickly soured on the liberal reformers once it became apparent they were going to keep demanding the same reforms enjoyed under the relatively liberal regimes elsewhere in Europe. The middle classes and working classes of the Papal States, for example, were demanding a constitution with some form of representative government, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly. Most of all, these reformers wanted reforms to the legal systems of the Papal States which had long been regarded as inefficient, and overly punitive for small crimes while failing to address serious crime.

On these matters—in part because the legal system was heavily dominated by clergy—Pius resisted. The upper classes of the Papal States—dominated by wealthy cardinals far more conservative than Pius—dug in their heels in opposition to any reform. Pius convinced himself that while liberalism may have worked in other places like England or France, the Italians were incapable of self-government. As Pius explained to a French diplomat in 1849, "the Italian peoples are not suited for representative institutions. They are not yet sufficiently educated … [but] the time will come when they will be capable of having, like others, a regime that offers freedoms."

Many within the Papal States apparently disagreed, and the pope was stripped of his political "temporal" powers in February 1849.2

Kertzer goes on to describe how Pio Nono subsequently set up his court in exile in the Kingdom of Naples, and how he conspired with France, Spain, and Austria to retake his throne in Rome.

It is in recounting this story, complete with colorful descriptions of various cardinals, diplomats, and heads of state, where Kertzer shines. The storytelling is engaging, and the timelines are clear. At the center of it all, of course, is Pio Nono himself, toward whom Kertzer is not unsympathetic. Pius is portrayed in a manner similar to how others have portrayed him over the years: a man more concerned with theological matters than matters of state, and as a figure of personal piety who led an austere lifestyle.

When it came to matters of state, however, Pius often exhibited a spirit of petulance and of one who was in over his head.

Like so many other monarchs and aristocrats of the nineteenth century who found themselves deposed or in the midst of revolution, Pius was shocked to discover that he was not universally loved by his subjects. He viewed demands for political reforms in the Papal States as cases of personal betrayal. He complained that "[n]ever has a Pope or sovereign been more miserable than me," but was, according to Kertzer most pained by the apparent fact that after his exile, "not a single Roman had lifted a finger in defense of his rule."

Pio Nono thus became convinced that he would require the assistance of foreign armies to reinstall him as the worldly king of central Italy. He invited the Austrian army to retake the northern portions of the Papal States, centered on Bologna, the second city of the Papal States. The French, on the other hand, were to retake Rome itself. The Austrians, of course, were happy to expand their influence in northeastern Italy. For the French, the political rationale was twofold. The French expedition would allow conservative French politicians to pander to their Catholic voters. On the other hand, the republican French regime would demand that the pope recognize basic freedoms and allow for constitutional government.

Neither the Austrians nor the French—or, apparently, the pope—had many qualms about shedding Italian blood. The Austrians shelled and besieged Bologna. The French—reluctant to shell or set afire a city filled with many of the most ancient treasures of Christendom—focused their artillery on the Roman walls. Nonetheless, many shells missed, and as many as 1,800 Romans were killed in the siege. This, of course, only served to radicalize many moderate Romans against any return of papal rule, with or without reforms.

The scheme worked. The Austrians reestablished rule in the northern Papal States, and the French put Pius back on his throne. In the end, however, it was the pope who was playing the French, and the pope refused any concessions to the liberals. The French nonetheless continued to occupy Rome—and thus keep the Pope on his throne—out of fear the Austrians would seize Rome in France's stead.

The Papal States and Absolutism in Context

These basic facts are not much in dispute, and Kertzer skillfully compiles them.

Indeed, a review of other works on the Papal States suggests a picture that is hardly flattering for papal rule. The papal states were economically backward and industrialization was far behind other European polities. Thus, poverty was more widespread and rebellion was relatively common.3 The common people were often at the mercy of vindictive local despots. Crime was often rampant. In its final decades, the papal regime was increasingly in debt, largely as a result of an enormous, dysfunctional, and burdensome welfare state.4

Yet these facts also contradict Kertzer's interpretation of the realities of papal rule. Kertzer attempts to portray the rule of the popes as one of unrestrained absolutism with foundations in the Middle Ages. The Papal States, we are to believe, was a unified police state which answered to a single undisputed sovereign and was rooted in a “medieval vision” of “divine rule.”

On this, Kertzer veers badly of course. Not only did the popes never achieve absolute rule within the Papal States, but the Papal States were not the model for absolutism elsewhere in Europe. Nor was the absolutist model a legacy of the Catholic Middle Ages.

A Terrible Model for Aspiring Absolutists

For one, popes did not rule as absolute monarchs within the Papal States. As the name implies, the Papal States were never one unified polity. They were, rather, a patchwork of local "states" controlled by the nobility and other "elites" such as wealthy urban professionals and landed commoners.

On a day-to-day basis, the lack of direct papal control could be seen in the administration of the legal system.5

As noted by historian Steven Hughes, the popes had long attempted to implement their own brand of direct justice but repeatedly failed. For many years, the popes employed a police force known as "sbirri" who would become known for their corruption and disregard for local customs and interests.6 For the local aristocrats and other wealthy elites within the Papal States, however, papal rule was an inconvenience to be flouted. Indeed, in many areas, "the better families" instituted their own brand of law and hired criminal gangs to protect local interests. These gangs or "biricchini" Hughes tells us, "always lived on the fringes of legality."7 Moreover, targets of papal justice within all classes might find refuge and immunity from papal law with local nobles who offered immunity in return for loyalty from locals. Consequently, the papal police were often regarded with contempt from both nobles and ordinary people. Thus, Hughes concludes, “the central regime could count on little support from the upper echelons of society.”8

On top of this was the fact that crime and disorder was a sad reality of life in many areas. Hughes concludes that opposition to papal rule was fueled at least as much of perceived abuses of "absolutist" popes as by a failure to keep law and order. In other words, the papal regime may have been viewed as abusive, but the more damning indictment was likely the fact it was regarded as being of little use in helping secure the lives and property or ordinary people. Given its mounting debt, the Papal States were increasingly prone to failure by the time of Pius IX.9

There is no doubt, however, that the papal regime imagined itself as an absolute monarchy and sought to implement such a regime. "Yet the reality of the Pope's power in no way matched the pretense."10

In spite of the reality, Pius and his supporters did apparently embrace the political fiction that the pope’s rule was both absolute and necessary. On this, Kertzer quotes the conservative Klemens von Metternich: “The Papal States exist … and their existence is both a social and political necessity.” After all, the absolutists agreed, “how could rulers justify their own regimes as divinely ordained if the pope’s heavenly mandate were cast in doubt?”

This may have been effective monarchist propaganda, but it had little foundation in historical experience. After all, the Papal States did not even exist until the eighth century, yet monarchs had somehow come up with ways to justify their regimes up to that time. Kertzer also errs in attempting to connect the absolutist model to the Middle Ages. He plays fast and loose with terms like “divine rule,” and attributes the concept to what he calls a “medieval vision” in which monarchs presumably rule with absolute power.

Yet, the medieval reality was one in which monarchs tended to be far weaker, and states far more decentralized, than was the case under the absolute rulers of Renaissance and modern Europe. In fact, political rule in the Middle Ages was often characterized by hearty opposition to absolute rule, complete with parliaments in a number of budding European states.11 The general rise of powerful regimes unimpeded by legislatures, local nobles, or independent cities is a relatively modern and postmedieval development in Europe. Absolutism is not even especially connected to Catholic monarchs, as was made clear by the rise of Tudor absolutism in England.

Nor did the Church necessarily view nonmonarchical institutions with suspicion. Indeed, as Lord Acton points out in his essay "Political Thoughts on the Church," the papacy—and countless other ecclesiastical institutions—can be found on numerous occasions supporting "the people" in various forms. This was usually done to counter reigning monarchs thought to be injurious to the Church.

Napoleon as Catalyst for a Modernized Papal Regime

Further illustrating this point: the papal regime was greatly augmented in its final decades not by a return to medievalism, but by Napoleon's annexation of he Papal States in 1809. As Hughes notes, it was Napoleon's ultramodern and bureaucratic regime that did the most to reduce the decentralism left behind my medieval institutions. It was the French state that provided "centralization backed up by Napoleon's bayonets," and set the stage for "the destruction of the old patterns of privilege" and allowed the papal regime to attempt a greater consolidation of power.12

By the time of Pio Nono, however, this absolutist transformation had only been incomplete and haphazard. The general public and the aristocracy both remained highly suspicious of papal police and bureaucrats, and the popes, at least outside Rome itself, never achieved absolutist rule.

Although Kertzer provides us with a readable and helpful case study on the nineteenth century Papal States, his larger conclusions about Catholic notions or monarchy or the historical origins of the papal regime’s instability are quite superficial.13 The ideological framework underlying The Pope Who Would Be King ought to be taken with a big grain of salt.

—

1.For an informative discussion on the Mortara case and its implications for modern-day policy, see Francis Beckwith’s plenary lecture from the 2021 Austrian Economics Research Conference: “Taking Rites Seriously: Neither Theocracy nor Liberal Hegemony.”

2.Virtually none of the liberal reformers sought to strip the pope of his “spiritual” powers as bishop of Rome. Rather, the focus was on the pope’s ability to act as the sovereign of a state.

3.Colin Barr, “‘An Italian of the Vatican Type’: The Roman Formation of Cardinal Paul Cullen, Archbishop of Dublin,” Studi irlandesi: A Journal of Irish Studies, no. 6 (2016): 27–47.

4.Donatella Strangio, "Public Debt in the Papal States, Sixteenth to Eighteenth Century,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 13, no. 4 (Spring 2013): 511–37.

5.On the contrary, the older model was one of distinct antiabsolutism. This was true even in the Papal States: “On the eve of the French invasion in 1796, the privileges of Bologna’s nobility remained essentially intact. But the larger point is that throughout the early modern period the absolutist pretensions of the central state and the formal and information authority of the local elites were in constant tension, and this naturally affected the administration of justice and the nature of policing in both the city and the province.” Steven C. Hughes, Crime, Disorder, and the Risorgimento: The Politics of Policing in Bologna (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), p. 11.

6.Stephen Hughes, “Fear and Loathing in Bologna and Rome: The Papal Police in Perspective,” in Theories and Origins of the Modern Police, ed. Clive Emsley (London: Routledge, 2011), p. 155.

7.Ibid., p. 164.

8.Ibid., p. 164.

9.In fact, it was the regime’s pretenses that helped to undermine the papal regime. The Papal States had never been unified economically, politically, or culturally, yet the modern papacy had attempted to force unification through a bureaucratic state. It failed, and Hughes concludes: "[O]verly centralized power placed on an incomplete political and social substructure can lead to instability rather than control…. the papal police should serve as a warning to what can happen if the pretense of power exceeds its capabilities." Hughes, Crime, Disorder, and Risorgimento, p. 5.

10.Hughes, “Fear and Loathing,” p. 163.

11.Examples include the English Parliament, the French Estates General, the Spanish Cortes Generales, and—in the late Middle Ages—the Sejm in Poland. Later, postmedieval monarchs succeeded in eliminating these institutions in many cases.

12.Hughes, “Fear and Loathing,” p. 167.

13.Kertzer’s text also hints at a lack of a general understanding of Catholicism. Although the two are quite separate, he appears to confuse the laws of the Papal States with “the laws of the Church.” Moreover, Kertzer employs some odd language that one would not expect to see from one familiar with Catholicism. For example, Kertzer does not capitalize “Mass”—in reference to the Catholic ritual—although both the AP and Chicago-style guides, and all Catholics, capitalize the word.

The post Decentralization, Absolutism, and the Papal States appeared first on LewRockwell.

Fauci Defends the Crown, Descends the Evolutionary Ladder

Thursday 06 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

Anthony Fauci woke up in the middle of the night.

In the dark room, he saw a man sitting in a chair and reached for his masks on the night table.

"It's all right, Anthony," the man said. "I know you don't wear them apart from public occasions."

"Who the hell are you? How did you get in here?"

"It doesn't matter, Little Anthony. Would you like a banana?"

"What?"

"You're descending the evolutionary ladder. You're turning into an ape. You're losing it."

"Losing what?"

"The knowledge of freedom, of course, Little Anthony. What it is. How it came to be."

Fauci stood up, found his bathrobe, put it on, and sat on the edge of his bed looking at the man in the chair.

Recently, Anthony, you expressed annoyance at people questioning you about liberty. You said liberty was not the issue. The issue was public safety and health.

Well, it is. Safety. Freedom from lockdowns is CONDITIONAL. WE, the professionals, decide…

Are you sure you don't want a banana, Anthony? Maybe a nice peach. They're coming into season. I think I have a bag of peanuts in my car.

Stop that with the fruit. No one can be free until the virus is under control.

Anthony, remember John Adams? "There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty."

That was in the 18th century. We didn't have a PCR test then.

How about a bag of grapes or a melon? Adams also wrote, "…mighty struggles and numberless sacrifices made by our ancestors in defense of freedom." Anthony, you toss aside freedom with a casual shrug—you have no knowledge of the ten thousand years of war fought to achieve even the BEGINNING of liberty—spilled blood, courage…

I'm a scientist.

And that excuses you? Little Anthony, little ape, there is a line that can't be crossed. You can't take away people's Constitutional freedom FOR ANY REASON. You can't take it away because of floods, earthquakes, volcanos, war, disease, terror attacks.

We did. We did take it away. We imprisoned millions in their homes.

Yes. And you have great confidence as you swing from branch to branch in the trees. But freedom and liberty are on the move again.

I know which side I'm betting on.

You've always been on the side of power for its own sake, Little Anthony. Hubris. It delivers blowback.

I don't think so. America is a nation of cowards and fools. They're more than willing to surrender what's left of their so-called liberty.

The ghosts are gathering, Anthony. They're coming back. The souls who fought for what you want to take away. "Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated." —Consent of the governed. The people give it, and they can remove it.

Nonsense. We're locked into a system.

You would believe that, because you're so shortsighted. You believe you can call Liberty counterfeit money and take it out of circulation. The Jesuits at Regis High School and Holy Cross College taught you well. Strategy, advantage, deception. You traded your soul for underground skills. And now you're gradually slipping back into the monarchy of apes.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Of course you do. Your old teachers would be disappointed in you, Anthony. You've been contradicting yourself in public—about masks, the test, the vaccine. The Jesuits taught you Aristotle. You've been violating his logic.

I'm the preferred authority. That's the overriding factor.

Among the other apes. But among humans, rebellion arrives.

This is always the gamble, isn't it? I'm shoving in all my chips on slavery.

As I said, Anthony, we spirits are coming back. We don't like what we're seeing. We can still disturb the sleepers.

I doubt it.

I woke you from your dream of ape glory.

By the way, have you been tested?

I'm immune. To you.

Even if you have no symptoms and are completely healthy, you could be a COVID-19 case.

Remember, Little Anthony, when you said asymptomatic people never ever drive an epidemic through transmission of a virus?

Well, it turns out I misspoke then.

You mean you let the cat out of the bag. Remember when you said masks are useless? And then you said everyone should wear one, then two, then three, and now one again? Remember when you said the PCR test, when performed at high sensitivity, turns out meaningless results—but neglected to mention that all laboratories do in fact perform the test at high sensitivity? Remember when you said the vaccine was the light at the end of the tunnel? And now you're saying people have to wear masks after they're vaccinated, and they have avoid large gatherings?

The people don't understand these issues. They just accept what I tell them to accept.

You're doing evil things, Anthony. And like all major criminals, you redefine freedom in the process. You make it into a protection racket.

Well that's what it is. What else do people want?

You're living proof that devolution of the species is possible. The land crawlers go back into the sea. The many-celled organism retreats into a single cell. The human opts for apehood.

I want to go back to sleep now. I have to give a speech in the morning.

I could take you on a tour of your past crimes, Anthony. It would be a long trip. But I'll just let those crimes nag at you. Not because you feel guilt. You know your devious actions were necessary to maintain the structure you're standing on. And the structure, although it looks firm, is unbalanced. The architecture is all wrong. That's what keeps you up at night.

Nothing is perfect. Every position carries risks. Only the daring succeed.

You're an ape with homilies.

The virus has many strains and mutations.

There is no virus, Anthony. You know it. I know it. There is a STORY about a virus. Your ape masters have appointed you salesman of the story. You're a cheap hustler selling a used car.

I'm the director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Presidential coronavirus advisor.

Funny thing, Anthony. I called over there, to NIAID and the White House, and they said they'd never heard of you. I asked several people.

Don't be ridiculous.

I'm serious. One person said, after a search, that a research lab connected to NIAID has a monkey in a cage in a lab. They call him "Fauci," but no one seems to know why.

WHAT??

—For the second time that night, Fauci woke up in bed. He suppressed a howl and grabbed his phone and pressed a name.

A sleepy voice answered. "Who the f—k is this?"

"Hillary, it's me, Tony. Tell me I'm the head of NIAID. I'm Biden's coronavirus advisor. Please."

"Jesus, Tony, having that dream again? Yes, you're all that. You're a big shot. We all love you blah-blah. You're good-looking, sexy, a goddamn matinee idol. Now f—k off and go back to sleep before I have Bill put you in the psych ward at Walter Reed."

"Bill wouldn't do that to me."

"Not my husband, you idiot. Bill Gates."

"Shit, don't tell BILL. Please."

"You're our boy. Now go back to sleep."

CLICK.

Reprinted with permission from Jon Rappoport's blog.

The post Fauci Defends the Crown, Descends the Evolutionary Ladder appeared first on LewRockwell.

The US Brainwashes the World

Thursday 06 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

The American Establishment uses the presstitute lie machine to control the narrative for most of the world by broadcasting disinformation in 59 languages. Countries and their news services rely on "news" from the US to comprehend world events. Most of the world has little alternative to American news sources except for the BBC which is part of the US presstitute network. In effect, the US has been effective in brainwashing the world.

Just as the US controls the international payments system, the US controls world opinion. Despite the facts that the felon George Floyd died from a fatal overdose of the dangerous opioid fentanyl, which is 100 times more potent than morphine, the world believes police officer Chauvin killed Floyd by holding his knee on Floyd's neck when in fact the police videos show that Chauvin's knee is on Floyd's shoulder blade, an approved holding technique. The jury was afraid to go against the opinion created by the presstitutes and convicted Chauvin despite the powerful evidence of his innocence. The powerlessness of facts in America today has sealed our fate.

The world believes this falsehood of Floyd's death, because the presstitute US media repeatedly showed a video conflicted by "camera perspective bias" that from its perspective makes it look as if Chauvin's knee is on Floyd's neck.

Wherever you look in the world you see that US presstitute lies—fake news—have succeeded in controlling world understanding.

This is true even in alternative media and even in English language Russian media. May 2 was the tenth anniversary of the alleged killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan by US SEALS. This story, for which no one has ever seen any evidence, has become historical fact. For example, Sputnik News accepts the entirety of the false 9/11 Osama bin Laden saga, an orchestrated account for which no one has ever seen a shred of evidence.

Writing for Sputnik, Oleg Burunov accepts the fantasy story that mastermind Osama bin Laden brought down three World Trade Center skyscrapers with two airplanes and also wrecked a section of the Pentagon. Somehow a handful of young Saudi Arabians outwitted all 17 US intelligence agencies, airport security four times on the same morning, and the entire intelligence services of NATO members and Israel. And Sputnik News believes this fantasy.

Not only this, but Oleg Burunov believes that last Sunday (May 2) is the 10th anniversary of Obama having bin Laden assassinated in Pakistan and dumped overboard off a US aircraft carrier in the Indian Ocean.

This is the official narrative, and Sputnik, Burunov, and Sputnik's editors treat it as established fact.

As I have reported so many times, Osama bin Laden died of kidney failure and other documented illnesses in late 2001, a decade prior to his second death in Pakistan. His funeral notices were everywhere, Egypt and even Fox news.

As for bin Laden's second death a decade later, Pakistani national TV revealed that President Obama's claim to have killed Osama bin Laden long after his actual death is a hoax. I posted the interview with witnesses on the scene which completely destroyed the Obama regine's lie that was broadcast to the world. Here is the Pakistani TV interview.

Here is my interview with Julian Charles of themindrenewed.com, Osama bin Laden–The Man Who Died Twice.

As George Orwell said, who controls the present controls the past. Who controls the past controls the future. The US monopoly on news means the US controls explanations for the entire world with the exception of China, Iran, and North Korea. How wise Russia is to the US media is unclear. Russian English language news services have been forced to register as foreign agents (no other foreign news services have had this requirement except the Iranians), and are perhaps worried that they will be closed down if they depart too often from the official narratives. Locating those news services in the US where they can be intimidated was a mistake.

Apparently the Russians believed that free speech existed in the US.

Ever since Putin announced those years ago that the uni-polar world was no longer, Washington has been demonizing Russia. For reasons difficult to understand the Kremlin has tolerated Russia's demonization and that of the Russian president. By seeming to acquiesce in its own demonization, the Kremlin has contributed to the success of American propaganda.

Perhaps the problem is that Russia cannot comprehend the disrespect for truth that the US media and government symbolize.

The post The US Brainwashes the World appeared first on LewRockwell.

from https://youtu.be/GuUaaPaTlyY May 07, 2021 at 09:00PM

#[Consumer Credit News] Credit Report Repair News: Digest for May 08 #2021

0 notes

zagglutin · 4 years ago

Text

[Consumer Credit News] Credit Report Repair News: Digest for May 07, 2021

Credit Report Repair News

Table of Contents

Credit Report Repair News: Digest for May 06, 2021

by Credit Repair News, Sebastian Pulvera on Thursday 06 May 2021 02:00 AM UTC-05

Credit Report Repair News

Table of Contents

The World's Master Diabolitician Calls the Shots on the Extermination of Human Populations

How the British Sold Globalism to America

More Government Spying and Lying

To Promote Equality, California Proposes a Ban on Advanced Math Classes

Explaining Minnesota's Radical Political Nature

Child Sacrifice

Barbarians Rampage Through Europe's Cemetery

Reality Check

India's 'Covid Outbreak' & the Need for Scientific Integrity – Not Sensationalism

Vaccine Passports Are Just a Way for the Regime To Expand Its Power

Biden vs. Biden on 'Is America a Racist Country?'

The Extreme Polarization in US Politics… and the Impact of Localism in Smaller Countries

The World's Master Diabolitician Calls the Shots on the Extermination of Human Populations

Wednesday 05 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

Jacques Attali

Una Piccolo Pandemia Permettera Di Instaurare Il Governo Mondiale

"A Small Pandemic Will Allow The Establishment Of A World Government"

Few people know the name of the world's master diabolitician who has called the shots over the past 40 years for the globalist/socialist agenda that is now unfolding.

The revelation that in 1981 a French economist, socialist and political advisor, Jacques Attali, said that the burden of providing for the burgeoning population retirees in western nations would force an economic crisis that would bring on the planned extermination of older people via a "pandemic targeting certain people… a virus affecting the old or the fat… the weak will succumb to it, and the fearful and stupid will believe in it and seek treatment," is now encircling the globe electronically via social networks.

This is what Attali envisaged decades ago

Attali denounces his quotable text as "totally invented," that he advocated euthanasia for people over 60-65 years of age, saying his statement was made up from "truncated sentences" cherry picked from comments he made during an interview and later published in the book by the title L'Avenir de la Vie (the Future of Life) by Michel Salomon.

Regardless of Attali's denials over what he stated in 1981, in 2009 he is quoted to have suggested a pandemic be used to control human populations that also included global taxation and a global police force.

Practice makes perfect

Fast forward to 2017 when the U.S. participated in a covert SPARS pandemic exercise, a scenario that has been scripted word-for-word into the current COVID-19 pandemic. Government began pandemic drills Attali foretold, that coincided with realities the Medicare and Social Security Trust Funds would run out of money by the end of the decade.

Are world leaders following the beat of this man's drum? If so, the Devil is using the master diabolitician of our time.

Attali's entire 1981 statement is presented below.

At Reddit.com

Attali: "The future will be about finding a way to reduce the population. We start with the old, because as soon as they exceed 60-65 years, people live longer than they produce and that costs society dearly. Then the weak, then the useless that do not help society because there will always be more of them, and above all, ultimately, the stupid. Euthanasia targeting these groups; Euthanasia will have to be an essential tool in our future societies, in all cases. Of course, we will not be able to execute people or build camps. We get rid of them by making them believe that it is for their own good.

Overpopulation, and mostly useless (sic), is something that is too costly economically. Socially, too, it is much better when the human machine comes to an abrupt standstill than when it gradually deteriorates. Neither will we be able to test millions upon millions of people for their intelligence, you bet that!

We will find or cause something a pandemic targeting certain people, a real economic crisis or not, a virus affecting the old or the fat, it doesn’t matter, the weak will succumb to it, the fearful and stupid will believe in it and seek treatment.

We will have made sure that treatment is in place, treatment that will be the solution. The selection of idiots then takes care of itself: You go to the slaughter by yourself. ” [The future of life – Jacques Attali, 1981] Interviews with Michel Salomon, Les Visages de l'avenir collection, éditions Seghers. “…

More denials

Attali denies he advocated mass euthanasia 40 years ago, but he spelled out a diabolical idea in some detail to exterminate retirees because of their economic burden on society and later advocated such a future calamity in that same year, 1981. Attali did advocate extermination of human populations of old people.

To this day, at age 77, Attali continues to make dire predictions about the future of the world.

Attali is more than a commentator and a political advisor. He was also a founder and President of the European Bank of Reconstruction & Development and advisor to the Socialist Party.

Advisor to the Bilderbergers

More foreboding is that Attali attended the annual Bilderberger meeting where the wealthiest families in the world are backgrounded about world events and attempt to shape the future to ensure their elite financial status is not threatened. The Bilderbergers may have followed his lead instead of forging their own.

Attali said a lot more in 1981

Attali also said a lot more in 1981. He relegated humans to the status of machines that would need "prostheses" to live longer, but also "to end life," suggestive of a surgically implanted "kill switch." Or maybe a vaccine instilled "kill switch" in the form of an RNA vaccine?

In Attali's mind, suicide is the freedom to choose to die on time, but it is also Attali's only "choice."

A verbatim French/English translation of Attali's chilling statements to Michel Salomon in 1981 include the following:

Salomon. – Is it possible and desirable to live 120 years?

Attali. – Medically, I don't know. I've always been told that it was possible. Is it desirable? I would answer in several stages. First of all, I believe that in the logic of the industrial system in which we find ourselves, the extension of life expectancy is no longer an objective desired by the logic of power. Because as long as it was a question of extending life expectancy in order to reach the maximum profitability threshold of the human machine, in terms of work, it was perfect.

But as soon as you go beyond 60/65, people live longer than they produce and they cost society dearly.

Hence, I believe that in the very logic of industrial society, the objective will no longer be to extend life expectancy, but to ensure that within a given life span, people live as well as possible, but in such a way that health expenditures will be as low as possible in terms of costs for the community.

A new criterion of life expectancy then appears: that of the value of a health care system, which is not a function of the increase in life expectancy but of the number of years without illness and particularly without hospitalization. Indeed, from the point of view of society, it is much better for the human machine to come to an abrupt halt than for it to deteriorate gradually.

This is perfectly clear if we remember that two thirds of health expenditure is concentrated on the last words of life. Similarly, cynicism aside, health expenditure would not reach a third of the current level (175 billion francs in 1979) if people all died suddenly in car accidents. Thus, we must recognize that the logic no longer lies in increasing life expectancy but in increasing the duration of life without illness.

However, I think that increasing life expectancy remains a fantasy that corresponds to two objectives: the first is that of the men of power. The increasingly totalitarian and directive societies in which we find ourselves tend to be led by "old" men, to become gerontocracies.

The second reason is the possibility for capitalist society to make old age economically profitable simply by making old people solvent. It is currently a "market", but it is not solvent….(guarantee them an income)

I am objectively opposed to extending life because it is an illusion, a false problem.

As a socialist, I am objectively opposed to extending life because it is an illusion, a false problem. I believe that posing this type of problem allows us to avoid more essential questions such as the liberation of time actually lived in the present life. What is the point of living to 100 years if we gain 20 years of dictatorship?…

Euthanasia will be one of the essential instruments of our future societies in all cases. In a socialist logic, to begin with, the problem is as follows: socialist logic is freedom and fundamental freedom is suicide; consequently, the right to direct or indirect suicide is an absolute value in this type of society.

In a capitalist society, killing machines, prostheses that will make it possible to eliminate life when it is too unbearable or economically too costly, will come into being and will be common practice. I therefore believe that euthanasia, whether it is a value of freedom or a commodity, will be one of the rules of future society.

The Attali pandemic arrives in 2020

In 2020 the pandemic Attali predicted arrived. It was precisely as conceived. According to an authoritative report published in the Annals of Internal Medicine (Vol. 174, Jan. 2021) its fatalities were 99.75% comprised of institutionalized (nursing home) senior adults and only 0.25% (quarter of one-percent) of COVID-19-related adult deaths occurred among non-institutionalized adults.

The coronavirus pandemic almost exclusively targeted oldsters confined to nursing homes, the precise group that costs government so much money.

Vaccine deaths go unreported

The vaccines are a death trap also. Dr. Peter McCullough reports there have been 3544 vaccine-related deaths along with 12,619 serious injuries from Dec. 14 to April 23 in the current ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Just 25 to 50 deaths would normally result in a vaccine being pulled off the market, even an experimental RNA vaccine. Yet the Centers for Disease Control remains hushed. The complicit news media also remains silent.

Where Attali's sinister ideas emanate from

In 2006 the pastor for the Evangelic Federation of France, G. Georgel, wrote at L'Express:

"I do not know if M. Attali reads it (the Bible), but his scenario strangely marries the prophetic announcements of the Apocalypse concerning the future of the world and the final period of history (see The Express of October 26). The Bible speaks of a hyper-empire, made up of 10 dominant nations, led by a dictator whom she nicknames “the Beast” (Revelation, chapter XIII, verses 1 to 3). It places the epicenter of world events in Jerusalem, as Jacques Attali does.

The apostle Paul even specifies that this dictator will have the audacity to go and sit in the Temple (undoubtedly rebuilt) pretending to be God (2 Thessalonians, chapter II, verse 4).

The Bible also speaks of an economic system where nanotechnology will play a central role. All men will wear a digital mark (the famous 666) on them and will not be able to buy or sell anything without it (Revelation, chapter XIII, verse 17). Only one thing that is debatable: Mr. Attali places these events on the horizon 2050; however, it is possible that the acceleration of events pushes them to occur earlier.

If L’Express comments on yesterday’s news, the Bible announces tomorrow’s …"

Population decline, not overpopulation

To the contrary, the recently published book EMPTY PLANET documents global population decline, particularly in Western Europe, North America, Italy and Japan, but also India and elsewhere.

The book postulates worldwide urbanization results in women having two babies and then halting reproduction without government intervention.

The simple fact is– in 1900 the average woman in the U.S. had 3.85 children. Today the average is 1.9 children. No society has ever recovered its population once its birthrate reached 2.1 children per couple or lower.

In the quintessential argument over whether the planet is half-empty/half-full, the overpopulation mantra is paused by these startling recent headlines:

"Everyone knows that the world is overpopulated, or soon will be. But what if everyone is wrong." — Steven Mosher, Population Research Institute, Feb. 8, 2019

"We've worried about overpopulation for centuries. And we've always been wrong." — Vox20, 2019

"The biggest problem the world will face is population collapse." — Elon Musk, Jack Ma, Aug. 30, 2019

The globalists are living in the past. But just how to stop their pre-practiced onslaught?

The Longevity Dividend

In regard to overpopulation and the financial inability to care for the old; the failure to embrace preventive/nutritional medicine has brought western civilizations to a financial cliff — Medicare & Social Security Trust Funds are empty (only IOUs in the form of US Treasury Notes remain).

The Attali plan had to be rushed into operation before 2050 by the unanticipated rise in adult life expectancy and the insolvency of Medicare and Social Security.

One politician attempted to usher in competition into the medical marketplace which would have forwarded the insolvency of these old age programs to 2050. But the medical industrial complex would have none of it.

The Longevity Dividend

The Longevity Dividend as proposed by University of Illinois professor S. Jay Olshansky, that adding 7 more years of healthy life would spare Medicare from insolvency, was first proposed in 2006 (The Scientist March 2006) but has largely been ignored.

World fearful of an anti-aging pill more than vaccines

It's ironic that Attali's admission that all these deaths among septuagenarians and octogenarians are not because of a mutant coronavirus but rather a crisis in government financially meeting its social contracts with its citizens. It is also ironic that an anti-aging pill is feared far more than sinister vaccines.

In 2004 the world wasn't ready for an anti-aging pill, despite MIT and Harvard University researchers unveiling a simple and affordable technology in the form of a red wine molecule (resveratrol) to activate a master survival gene called Sirtuin1 that is also triggered by a limited calorie diet.

A connection was made between the French Paradox, that the wine-drinking French exhibited a far lower rate of coronary artery mortality (90 per 100,000) than north Americans (240 per 100,000 at the time).

Wine, but not beer or alcohol spirits, reduced mortality. It was later reported that molecules called polyphenols in red wine were attributed to its health properties, raising the prospect for an anti-aging pill without the alcohol.

Then a survey of wine-drinking physicians revealed modest consumption of wine (3-5 glasses), providing 180-300 milligrams of polyphenols, would result wine drinkers living longer than teetotalers! Such widespread consumption would come at the risk of producing millions of inebriates. The red wine pill sans alcohol was the safer road.

The promise of a red wine pill that would molecularly tickle the same genes as a calorie restricted diet without having to deprive oneself of food, became a reality, at least in the animal lab. Researchers mused that "If you have your wine, you can eat your cake too!"

Despite the positive science and the fact 70+% of Americans take dietary supplements, only a few thousand Americans include a resveratrol pill in their daily health regimens.

Public fearful of an anti-aging pill

An anti-aging pill was not to be. A 2014 survey found 87% of Americans were fearful of living too long, of running out of retirement money and being feebleminded, over-drugged, and confined to a wheelchair, drooling at the mouth and diapered due to loss of bladder control, that they shunned any idea of an anti-aging pill. The public didn't hear that increased healthspan accompanied prolonged lifespan.

Were proven longevity technologies quashed?

Scientific advancements substantiate that bona fide anti-aging pills are at hand.

Conclusive long-term controlled human studies are beyond practicality as they would take decades to conduct at a cost of billions of dollars. But genetic markers of aging can be used since laboratory mice have a similar arrangement of genes as humans.

The unequivocal methodology would be a calorie restricted diet, shown to double the lifespan and healthspan of all life forms beginning in the 1930s with the work of Clive McCay at Cornell University. However, a prolonged limited calorie diet, equivalent to eating one meal a day, would be impractical.

Limited calorie diets are only appropriate after childhood growth, for full-grown males and after child-bearing years for females; and not for older 70+year old adults. The molecular approach to longevity is the most achievable.

The over-mineralization theory of aging

After years of investigation, this author realized that wine and limited calorie diets reduced the accumulation of minerals – namely calcium, iron and copper. Oversimplified, humans rust and calcify with advancing age.

This became known as the Overmineralization Theory of Aging, which to this day has not be debunked.

Therefore, it is possible via mineral control for humans to age chronologically (calendar-wise) but not age biologically. An indefinitely long human lifespan is theoretically possible via control of mineral intake or removal/chelation (key-lay-shun) of minerals, the latter being what red wine pills do.

Why does the naked mole rat live so long, cancer free?

The long-living naked (hairless) mole rat, lives ten times longer than other rodents and serves as a lesson in longevity. This animal is cancer free and doesn't even show external signs of physical aging. It is only the female naked mole rats that exhibit long-lasting youthfulness because they continually menstruate and produce litters, thus donating minerals to their offspring and never becoming over-mineralized.

The two most validated anti-aging technologies are dismissed

The two most notable interventional advancements in life extension have been almost completely ignored by the medical profession.

#1. University-based researchers conducted a 12-week study of laboratory mice after they have been weaned from their mothers. The mice were placed on (a) a limited calorie diet; (b) resveratrol; (c) a matrix of resveratrol, quercetin and IP6 rice bran (Longevinex®). Life-long calorie restriction activates 831 longevity genes. The results of the 12-week study were as follows:

The resveratrol-based nutraceutical matrix (Longevinex®) produced the most profound epigenetic effect ever reported in 12 just weeks, an effect that took a lifetime in lab animals fed a limited calorie diet. Genetically this is the closest modern medicine has come to bona fide anti-aging pill.

That same nutraceutical was later reported to restore functional vision to patients with a sight-robbing eye malady among octogenarians for whom all other treatments had been exhausted. It worked in humans, not just lab rats.

#2: Laboratory mice produce vitamin C internally and live ~2 years (23.8 months). Mice that have their "vitamin C gene" experimentally deactivated live only ~8.5 months, while the provision of supplemental oral vitamin C to the same blood levels as natural vitamin C-secreting animals restores a full and healthy lifespan (23.0 months). Think of humans living almost three times longer (80 X 2.7 = 216 years).

Due to a universal gene mutation, humans do not internally secrete vitamin C as most animals do. If animal data can be extrapolated from animals to humans, due to that gene mutation, humans only live a third as long as originally intended. Continual consumption of vitamin C would theoretically produce the same result in humans as it did lab animals.

The discovery

The discovery of a molecule in olives that monumentally switches the Vitamin C Gene back on is a new and novel development, one which biochemist Irwin Stone in the 1960s-70s could only dream of when he wrote about the prospect of this genetic mutation being fully corrected.

Both urine and blood testing confirm a novel dietary supplement (Formula216) invariably doubles the blood levels of vitamin C in humans. This presumptively holds the promise of a 3-fold increase in the human lifespan. That idea has to have the population-control globalists worried.

Following this discovery, in 2016 the federal government enacted a law that any dietary supplement that made claims it prolonged human life would be outlawed and considered a felony subject to imprisonment. Better that Americans line up to be processed at the Soylent Green factory than live as long as the Biblical patriarchs.

But all the time the above longevity experiments were being conducted the globalists were plotting and practicing for a day of infamy.

Globalist politicians attempt to brain wash the people

Efforts were taken to keep Americans from getting any idea an anti-aging pill is in the offing.

Presidential appointee and medical ethicist, Leon Kass, advocated senior Americans die on time so as to not interfere with what God intended. Another diabolitician advises "life is not worth living after age 75."

Now the globalist agenda is unfolding into perpetual genetic coronavirus mutations and endless re-inoculation to immunize against newly mutated viral strains.

What has resulted is the vaccinated (super-spreaders) are transferring COVID-19 to the unvaccinated. Antithetically, some physicians are calling for the vaccinated to be quarantined!

Can the masses of humanity push back before they are slaughtered at the coronavirus altar?

War!

To add to the suspense, in 2014 Jacques Attali also said WW3 will start in the Ukraine. Military conflicts in the Ukraine region now portend such a development. Observers now fear such a world war.

Summary

Is Jacques Attali the mastermind of globalist strategies or is he just a mouthpiece for the real ring leaders? Either way, he's been calling the shots like Babe Ruth called his own home run. And the pandemic has never been about a mutated cold virus, but about overpopulation and the insolvency of Medicare and Social Security all along.

Deliver me, O Lord, from the evil man. – Psalm 140:1

As it says in the Book of Jeremiah, chapter 5:

"An astonishing and horrible thing Has been committed in the land: The prophets (news reporters) prophesy falsely, And the priests (elected representatives) rule by their own power (not the people); And My people love to have it so! But what will you do in the end?

The post The World's Master Diabolitician Calls the Shots on the Extermination of Human Populations appeared first on LewRockwell.

How the British Sold Globalism to America

Wednesday 05 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

ON APRIL 13, 1919, a detachment of fifty British soldiers opened fire on protesters in Amritsar, India, killing hundreds.

The soldiers were Indians, in British uniforms.

Their commander was an Englishman.

When Colonel Reginald Dyer gave the order, fifty Indians fired on their own countrymen, without hesitation, and kept on firing for ten minutes.

That’s called soft power.

The British Empire was built on it.

Soft power is the ability to seduce and coopt others into doing your bidding.

Some would call it mind control.

Through the use of soft power, a small country like England can dominate larger, more populous ones.

Even the mighty USA still yields to British influence in ways most Americans don't understand.

For more than a hundred years, we Americans have been pushed relentlessly down the road toward globalism, contrary to our own interests and against our natural inclination.

The push for globalism comes mainly from British front groups masquerading as American think tanks. Preeminent among them is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Origin of the CFR

The CFR grew out of the British Round Table Movement.

In my last article, "How the British Invented Globalism," I explained how British leaders began formulating plans for global government during the 19th century.

With funding from the Rhodes Trust, a secretive group called the Round Table was formed in 1909. It planted chapters in English-speaking countries, including the USA, to propagandize for a worldwide federation of English-speaking peoples united in a single superstate.

The Round Table's long-term goal — as Cecil Rhodes made clear in his 1877 will — was to achieve world peace through British hegemony.

In the process, Rhodes also sought (and I quote) the "ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire."

The Dominions

It turned out that Britain’s English-speaking colonies wanted no part of Rhodes’s federation. They wanted independence.

So the Round Tablers proposed a compromise. They offered "Dominion" status or partial independence instead.

Canada was to be the model. It had gained Dominion status in 1867. This meant Canada governed itself internally, while Britain ran its foreign policy. Canadians remained subjects of the Crown.

The British now offered the same deal to other English-speaking colonies.

War with Germany was expected, so the Round Tablers had to work quickly.

Britain needed to mollify the Dominions with self-rule, so they'd agree to provide troops in the coming war.

Australia became a Dominion in 1901; New Zealand in 1907; and South Africa in 1910.

Courting the United States

The United States presented a special challenge. We had been independent since 1776. Moreover, our relations with Britain had been stormy, marred by a bloody Revolution, the War of 1812, border disputes with Canada, and British meddling in our Civil War.

Beginning in the 1890s, the British waged a public relations blitz called "The Great Rapprochement," promoting Anglo-American unity.

Scottish-born steel magnate Andrew Carnegie called openly for a "British-American Union" in 1893. He advocated America's return to the British Empire.

British journalist W.T. Stead argued in 1901 for an "English-speaking United States of the World."

A "Canadian" Solution for America

From the British standpoint, the Great Rapprochement was a flop.

When Britain declared war on Germany in 1914, troops poured in from every corner of the Empire. But not from America. The US sent troops only in April 1917, after 2 1/2 years of hard British lobbying.

To the British, the delay was intolerable. It proved that Americans could not be trusted to make important decisions.

The Round Table sought a "Canadian" solution — manipulating the U.S. into a Dominion-like arrangement, with Britain controlling our foreign policy.

It had to be done quietly, through back channels.

During the 1919 Paris peace talks, Round Table operatives worked with hand-picked U.S. Anglophiles (many of them Round Table members), to devise formal mechanisms for coordinating U.S. and British foreign policy.

The Mechanism of Control

On May 30, 1919, the Anglo-American Institute of International Affairs (AAIIA) was formed, with branches in New York and London.

For the first time, a formal structure now existed for harmonizing U.S. and U.K. policy at the highest level.

However, the timing was bad. Anti-British feeling was rising in America. Many blamed England for dragging us into war. At the same time, English globalists were denouncing Americans as shirkers for failing to support the League of Nations.

With Anglo-American unity in temporary disrepute, the Round Tablers decided to separate the New York and London branches in 1920, for appearances’ sake.

Upon separation, the London branch was renamed the British Institute of International Affairs (BIIA). In 1926, the BIIA received a royal charter, becoming the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA), commonly known as Chatham House.

Meanwhile, the New York branch became the Council on Foreign Relations in 1921.

After separating from Chatham House, the CFR continued working closely with its British counterpart, under a strict code of secrecy called "Chatham House rules."

The CFR Agenda

The CFR states on its website that it "takes no institutional positions on matters of policy." But that is untrue.

"The imprint of internationalism" is apparent on all CFR publications, notes British political scientist Inderjeet Parmar in his 2004 book Think Tanks and Power in Foreign Policy. Also apparent in CFR writings is a marked hostility to what the Council calls "isolationism."

Parmar concludes that the CFR pushes two agendas:

1. Anglo-American unity 2. Globalism

These are the same goals set forth in Rhodes's will, which called for a global Anglo-American union so powerful it would "hereafter render wars impossible…"

"The Mother Ship"

Shielded by "Chatham House rules," the CFR has long operated in the shadows, its very existence unknown to most Americans.

Nonetheless, rumors of its power have leaked out through the years.

"Few prominent institutions in American society have been as consistently pilloried as the Council on Foreign Relations," wrote historian Robert J. McMahon in 1985. "To conspiracy theorists on the right as well as to radical critics on the left the New York-based organization has often conjured up fears of a tiny elite malevolently pulling the strings of American foreign policy."

In fact, the CFR's effective control over U.S. foreign policy is no conspiracy theory, but rather a well-known fact among Beltway insiders, who have nicknamed the CFR "the real State Department."

In 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted taking direction from the CFR, referring to its New York headquarters as "the mother ship."

Speaking at the Council’s newly-opened Washington office, Clinton said, "I have often been to, I guess, the mother ship in New York City, but it's good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department. We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won't have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future."

The CFR v. Trump

Candidate Trump did not share Hillary's enthusiasm for British "advice."

On the contrary, Trump's policies expressly opposed British positions on climate change, open borders, rigged trade deals, and endless wars. Trump's "America First" policy epitomized what the CFR calls "isolationism."

It was all too much for the British and their U.S. collaborators.

The anti-Trump "Resistance" was born.

On June 16, 2015, Trump announced he was running for president.

In late 2015, British eavesdropping agency GCHQ reportedly discovered "interactions" between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence.

GCHQ passed on this "material" to then-CIA chief John Brennan in the summer of 2016.

An April 13, 2017 headline in the British newspaper The Guardian proudly announced, "British Spies Were First to Spot Trump Team's Links with Russia."

The article explained, "US and UK intelligence sources acknowledge that GCHQ played an early, prominent role in kickstarting the FBI's Trump-Russia investigation… One source called the British eavesdropping agency the 'principal whistleblower'."

Thus British intelligence set the stage for the phony impeachment even before Trump was elected.

Calls for Military Mutiny

Only 10 days after Trump took office in 2017, Foreign Policy magazine called for a "military coup" against the new president.

The January 20, 2017 article bore the headline, "3 Ways to Get Rid of President Trump Before 2020." In it, law professor Rosa Brooks called for Trump's impeachment or for his removal under the 25th Amendment.

As a last resort, said Brooks, a method might be tried "that until recently I would have said was unthinkable in the United States of America: a military coup…"

Foreign Policy is owned by the Graham family, whose matriarch Katharine Graham helped topple Nixon when she was publisher of the Washington Post.

The Grahams are consummate Washington insiders. They would not have called for a "military coup" without a green light from "the mother ship."

Destabilizing America

Proof of CFR complicity came in November, 2017, when Foreign Affairs magazine echoed Foreign Policy, urging "senior military leaders" to "resist orders" by Trump, and to consider removing him under the 25th Amendment.

Foreign Affairs is the official journal of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Throughout Trump's presidency, Foreign Affairs repeatedly accused him of mental instability, urging "military leaders" and "cabinet officers" to stand ready to oust him.

Coming from the "mother ship," these incitements bore an unusual weight of authority. They fanned the flames of Washington rhetoric to white-hot levels, rattling the nation and establishing insurrection and coup d'etat as the "new normal" in U.S. politics.

Given the CFR's undeniable British pedigree, the overheated rhetoric from Foreign Affairs magazine raises questions about British motivations.

Plainly Whitehall saw Trump as an existential threat. But why? Why were Trump's quibbles over trade policy deemed so menacing to British interests as to justify military mutiny?

Neutralizing the American Threat

I believe the answer can be found in the original writings of the Rhodes group.

In his 1901 book The Americanization of the World, British journalist W.T. Stead — Rhodes's close collaborator — argued that England had only two choices. She must merge with America or be replaced by her.

The choice was clear. Merging with the U.S. might save Britain's place in the world. But any attempt to compete with the U.S. would only end in defeat.

By the 1890s, British leaders already knew that policing their Empire had become too costly. Granting self-rule to the Dominions saved some money, by making the Dominions responsible for their own defense. But military spending was still too high.

In 1906, British banker Lord Avebury complained that the U.S. was getting rich at Britain's expense. While the US profited from the Pax Britannica, Britain spent 60 percent more than America on its military, to keep the world safe for business.

Today — thanks to the CFR — the situation is reversed in Britain's favor.

Now America polices the world, while British investors get rich from the Pax Americana. British military spending is now a fraction of ours.

Given these facts, it becomes easier to understand why the British don't want Trump upsetting the apple cart.

The New Imperialists

British elites were not content with transferring the cost of empire to America. They also wanted to retain control of imperial policy, thus having their cake and eating it too. With the help of the CFR, they have come very close to attaining this goal.

The "New Imperialist" movement in Britain seeks to rebuild the UK's global influence, on the back of the US military. British historian Andrew Roberts announced this new movement in a January 8, 2005 article in the Daily Mail.

The headline neatly sums up their philosophy: "Recolonise Africa."

Arguing that, "Africa has never known better times than during British rule," Roberts bluntly called for "recolonisation." He claimed that leading British statesmen "privately" supported this policy, but "could never be seen publicly to approve it…"

Roberts boasted that most African dictatorships would collapse at the "mere arrival on the horizon of an aircraft carrier from an English-speaking country…"

He did not say which "English-speaking country" would be expected to provide aircraft carriers for such adventures, but I'll give you three guesses.

America's Unfinished Revolution

More than a hundred years have passed since W.T. Stead warned that Britain must merge with America or be replaced by her. Little has changed.

British elites still face the same choice. They cannot accept an American-led world, so they must find ways to control us.

For our part, we need not accept their control.

The challenge of our generation is to break the spell of British soft power.

Let us complete the work of our unfinished revolution.

The New Imperialists Push CANZUK

Sixteen years after announcing the "New Imperialism," Andrew Roberts and his fellow imperialists continue pushing for Cecil Rhodes's dream of an English-speaking union.

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed dated August 8, 2020, Roberts promoted the so-called CANZUK Treaty, which seeks to unite Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Britain in a global superstate, “able to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the U.S.” against “an increasingly revanchist China.”

As always, Roberts is making plans for us.

As usual, his plans involve getting us into wars.

British Elites Will Never Understand Us

In his 2006 book A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900, Roberts breezily suggests that America might be better off under a monarchy.

A monarchical government would have spared us the trauma of Watergate, he argues. A monarch would have stepped in and fired Nixon, just as Queen Elizabeth II fired Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in 1975.

No need for any democratic process.

Roberts fails to consider how such royal intervention would have gone over with the “silent majority” who voted for Nixon and supported him.

MAGA v. MABA

The bottom line is, Trump sought to Make America Great Again (MAGA) by restoring our independence and self-sufficiency.

The CFR seeks to Make America British Again (MABA).

It's that simple.

If the Trump years taught us anything, it is that MAGA and MABA don't mix

The instant we get a president who stands up for American sovereignty, the British go loco, pushing our country to the brink of civil war.

It's clear we cannot be "great" and "British" at the same time.

We must choose one or the other.

The post How the British Sold Globalism to America appeared first on LewRockwell.

More Government Spying and Lying

Wednesday 05 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

Shop all books by Judge Napolitano

Twice last week, the federal government's unconstitutional spying on ordinary Americans was exposed. One of these revelations was made by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., who wrote that the FBI is still using warrantless spying in criminal cases, notwithstanding the Constitution and federal laws. The other revelation was a surprise even to those of us who monitor these things — the United States Postal Service acknowledged that it has been spying on Americans.

Here is the backstory.

The modern American security state — the parts of the federal government that spy on Americans and do not change on account of elections — received an enormous shot in the arm in 1978 when Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. That naively misguided and profoundly unconstitutional law was sold to Congress as a way to control the security state's spying in the aftermath of Watergate. Watergate had revealed that President Richard M. Nixon used the FBI and the CIA to spy on real and imagined domestic political adversaries.

FISA set up a secret court that authorized domestic spying by issuing warrants not based on probable cause of crime, as the Constitution requires, but on probable cause of communicating with foreign agents. Never mind that communications about noncriminal matters are protected speech; the FISA court issued tens of thousands of these warrants.

As the security state's appetite for spying grew more voracious, its agents and lawyers persuaded the FISA court to lower the bar for issuing a surveillance warrant from communicating with a foreign agent to communicating with a foreign person, and to expand the scope of those warrants to include Americans who have communicated with other Americans who have communicated with foreign people. Under this procedure, if I call my cousins in Florence and then you call me, all of your calls could be surveilled.

Jealous of the ease with which America's spies can obtain warrants from the FISA court, the FBI persuaded its friends on Capitol Hill to enact legislation that gives the FBI a peek at data the security state gathers — if it meets certain standards — to see if any of it pertains to criminal matters. Each one of these FBI peeks at raw intelligence data is known as a "share."

All of this was done in utter disregard of the Fourth Amendment requirements that no search warrants shall be issued without showing under oath probable cause of crime and that all warrants shall specifically describe the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized.

If an FBI agent sees evidence of a nonnational security crime on one of the shares, the agent will try to use it in a criminal prosecution, even though he acquired it in violation of the Fourth Amendment. If federal prosecutors want to introduce evidence from the share at trial, they need to find another source for it, as no judge will admit raw intelligence data obtained without a warrant in a criminal case.

After 9/11, President George W. Bush ordered the National Security Agency — the 60,000-person strong branch of the military that quarterbacks domestic spying — to capture every keystroke on every computer and the contents of every phone call in America. All presidents since Bush — even President Donald Trump, who was personally victimized by this spying — have continued the practice of universal, suspicionless, warrantless spying.

The NSA sharing data with the FBI is deeply troubling because it violates both the Fourth Amendment and federal law. The intentional use of FISA to obtain data about an American for nonnational security-related criminal activity is itself a criminal act as it constitutes a planned and direct violation of the Fourth Amendment by electronic means — otherwise known as hacking.

Last week, the chief judge of the FISA court revealed that for 2019 the FBI reported just one instance of sharing, even though Department of Justice auditors found 91 instances. And that number is far lower than the true number of shares since — inexplicably –- the DOJ counts all shares performed by one agent as one share, even though the agent may have accessed the data of more than one American.

In August 2019, one FBI agent accessed the raw intelligence data of 16,000 Americans in order to find criminal evidence about seven of them. The FBI reported that as one share.

Also last week, the USPS revealed that its postal inspectors have been monitoring social media at random, looking for troublemakers. Since social media is publicly posted, you and I can read it at will. But the Fourth Amendment requires that the government have "articulable suspicion" about the person whose social media is being surveilled before it begins its surveillance — even surveillance of publicly available materials. This is to prevent fishing expeditions.

What articulable suspicions did the Postal Service have before its police began their surveillance? What conceivable threat to the postal mails is manifested in texts and emails (other than that the latter are infinitely faster and profoundly more efficient)? None and none.

All this shows just how corrupted America's security state has become under presidents of both parties. From counting 16,000 as if it were one, to hacking the texts and emails of people without articulable suspicion or probable cause, to orchestrating end runs around the Fourth Amendment, to lying to federal judges about all this — we see the tactics of the East German Stasi and Soviet KGB have been reborn on this side of the Atlantic.

Of what value is the constitutional guarantee of privacy if those we have hired to protect it are themselves undermining it?

Reprinted with the author's permission.

The post More Government Spying and Lying appeared first on LewRockwell.

To Promote Equality, California Proposes a Ban on Advanced Math Classes

Wednesday 05 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

In the name of equality, the California Department of Education seeks to dumb down the brightest kids.

Dumbing Down of America Takes Another Leap Forward

A friend of mine emailed an article the likes of which always prompts me to say “really?”

Please consider the Reason article In the Name of Equity, California Will Discourage Students Who Are Gifted at Math.

Culturally Responsive Framework

I like to verify things myself and you can do so as well by reading the California Department of Education Mathematics Framework.

In its framework, the Department of Education seeks “Culturally responsive mathematics education.”

Introduction Highlights

Active efforts in mathematics teaching are required in order to counter the cultural forces that have led to and continue to perpetuate current inequities. Mathematics pathways must open mathematics to all students, eliminating option-limiting tracking. [i.e. no advance classes].

implementation of this framework and the standards, teachers must be mindful of other considerations that are a high priority for California's education system including the Environmental Principles and Concepts (EP&Cs) which allow students to examine issues of environmental and social justice.

Teaching for Equity Highlights

The evolution of mathematics in educational settings has resulted in dramatic inequities for students of color, girls, and students from low income homes.

Teachers are encouraged to align instruction with the outcomes of the California ELD Standards, which state that linguistically and culturally diverse English learners receive instruction that values their home cultures.

Need to Broaden Perceptions of Mathematics

I did not go through all the chapters. Reason uncovered these gems.

The inequity of mathematics tracking in California can be undone through a coordinated approach in grades 6–12.

Middle-school students are best served in heterogeneous classes.

The push to calculus in grade twelve is itself misguided.

To encourage truly equitable and engaging mathematics classrooms we need to broaden perceptions of mathematics beyond methods and answers so that students come to view mathematics as a connected, multi-dimensional subject that is about sense making and reasoning, to which they can contribute and belong.

Sabotage the Best

Reason concludes, and I agree “If California adopts this framework, which is currently under public review, the state will end up sabotaging its brightest students. The government should let kids opt out of math if it’s not for them. Don’t let the false idea that there’s no such thing as a gifted student herald the end of advanced math entirely.”

Instead, and in the name of “equity”, the proposed framework aims to keep everyone learning at the same dumbed down level for as long as possible.

The intention is clear. The California Board of Education intends to sabotage the best and brightest, hoping to make everyone equal.

The public does not support these polices. Indeed, it is precisely this kind of talk that nearly got Trump reelected.

Biden should speak out against such nonsense, but he won’t. He is beholden to Teachers’ Unions and Boards of Education.

Care to complain? If so the California Department of Education posted these ways.

Phone Number and Address

Phone: 916-319-0598

Instructional Quality Commission 1430 N Street, Room 3207 Sacramento, CA 95814 Fax: 916-319-0172

Social and Mathematical Justice Q&A

Q: Who is the arbiter of environmental, mathematic, and social justice? A: The California board of Education. They intend to cram it down your child’s throat and dumb down gifted kids no matter what their parents believe or how vigorous the objections.

If you wish to protest these absurd policies, phone or write the board of education as posted above.

Better yet, get the hell out of California.

Reprinted with the author's permission.

The post To Promote Equality, California Proposes a Ban on Advanced Math Classes appeared first on LewRockwell.

Explaining Minnesota's Radical Political Nature

Wednesday 05 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

As recent events have caused the eyes of the nation and the world to focus on Minnesota, a question I've wondered about has resurfaced: Why is Minnesota so politically radical?

That Minnesota's politics are radical is seen in a simple survey of the state's prominent politicians. Both of Minnesota's two U.S. Senators, Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith, are decidedly left-of-center Democrats. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz can be seen on TV inciting Black Lives Matter (BLM) crowds and rioters in situations that would seem to call for restoring civil peace.

Keith Ellison, the state's Attorney General, is an enthusiastic backer of Antifa and a convert to a black nationalist form of Islam. Ellison was an outspoken fan of Mark Bray's The Anti-Fascist Handbook. With its call for revolutionary violence, Minnesota's chief law enforcement official has glowingly displayed Bray's book as his preferred reading material.

And let's not forget Ilhan Omar, the radical leftist Congresswoman from Minneapolis, who expresses support for Islamicists. Omar personifies what the French call "islamo-gauchistes," political figures who blend Western cultural radicalism with effusive sympathy for Muslim Fundamentalists.

One may be tempted to attribute this political radicalism to the black population in Minnesota, which votes heavily for the left and which is quite visible in and around the Twin Cities. But since there were only 382,612 black residents in the Gopher State in 2018 out of a total population of 5.61 million, this variable doesn't explain the situation fully. By comparison, neighboring Wisconsin had very similar numbers, with 389,652 blacks out of a total state population of 5.81 million in the same year. We might also note that since blacks have a much younger median age than whites, they may be less likely to belong to Minnesota's voting population.

Most of the state's radicalism, then, is a white phenomenon, and the explanation for this carries us back into Minnesota's political and cultural history, where Northern European Protestants have long perpetuated this radical tradition. The Scandinavian and (to a lesser extent) German populations that settled in this region were heavily influenced by European socialism. The creation of a social welfare state in Sweden in the 1920s, which aimed at reconstructing social relationships as well as redistributing income, made a favorable impression on Minnesotans.

Norway also influenced the state, with 1960s Minnesota Governor Karl F. Rolvaag, who was of Norwegian descent, touring that country after World War II to learn about its socialist state and economy.

Read the Whole Article

The post Explaining Minnesota's Radical Political Nature appeared first on LewRockwell.

Child Sacrifice

Wednesday 05 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

Sacrifice, a religious rite in which an object is offered to a divinity in order to establish, maintain, or restore a right relationship of a human being to the sacred order.

While the original use of the term was in the context of a religious act, the word is used more broadly today.

The term has acquired a popular and frequently secular use to describe some sort of renunciation or giving up of something valuable in order that something more valuable might be obtained.

In a secular context, it really isn't much different than what was meant in the historic, religious context. Why would we sacrifice to the gods? Ultimately with the hope to gain something in the future (a good crop, victory over enemies, eternal life in heaven) better than we otherwise would have received (a hailstorm, defeat at the hands of enemies, eternity in hell). It always was, and remains today, giving up something of value in the hopes of attaining something more valuable in the future.

Desperation blinds me

And through these bloodstained eyes I see the light

A better life is worth this sacrifice

– The X Aspect, Dream Theater

Sacrifice is not an exchange of a good for a good; that is a trade. It is the exchange of a good for a hope, or a certainty for a possibility; one gives something up and may, or may not, receive that which he hopes for in return. We sacrifice today in order to have the possibility to achieve, in some manner or another, a better life tomorrow. But no guarantee.

——————————————–

Genesis 22: 1 Now it came about after these things, that God tested Abraham, and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am." 2 He said, "Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you."

"God endorses child sacrifice!" How many times are Christians beat over the head with this passage? "What does it say about the followers of such a God?" "What kind of God is that?" I will come back to these questions.

——————————————–

Lesley Stahl: We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Madelaine Albright: I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it.

The children were sacrificed for the hope that a better future would result. Secondary, for the purposes of this post, is for whom or in what manner we might find this better future. But child sacrifice it was – for the benefit of someone's future.

As an aside, Albright has since written that she shouldn't have put it that way, instead she should have pointed out that "Saddam Hussein could have prevented any child from suffering simply by meeting his obligations." So, it was Saddam's fault.

She would continue: "Nothing matters more than the lives of innocent people."

Except for those we sacrifice.

——————————————–

Depending on the source, it is estimated that something more than 40 million abortions are performed each year; one estimate is as high as 70 million. To what are these children sacrificed other than for a life better than the mother (and, potentially, the father) perceived it otherwise would have been had the child been born.

It is a hope, of course; there is no guarantee. A sacrifice.

——————————————–

Critical theory (also capitalized as Critical Theory) is an approach to social philosophy that focuses on reflective assessment and critique of society and culture in order to reveal and challenge power structures.

Hey, I am all for challenging today's power structures, with one key difference – I offer some thoughts on what might replace these current power structures, or hierarchies. Critical theorists critique society and culture, and offer as a replacement to current hierarchies…nothing.

[Jürgen] Habermas also replaces the expressive totality of a fully democratic society with the ideal of "undamaged intersubjectivity" and of universal solidarity established through "communication free from domination."

"Free from domination" means no hierarchy; no hierarchy means no value system – nothing is or can be valued as more or better than any other thing.

Its most successful form has been through critical race theory, but almost equally successful regarding deconstruction of sex and gender norms. These ideas are consuming society, but have been most damaging to the young – certainly in university, but even as young as elementary school.

But it isn't just the administrators, professors, elementary school principals, etc., that are sacrificing these children. What of the parents who send their children off to be lobotomized and weaponized like this? Why are they so willing to sacrifice their own flesh and blood?

For the young, their minds aren't fully formed when they are being poisoned by this vile theory. The minds of millions of children are being sacrificed each year to ideas that will cause them a lifetime worth of damage, all for the benefit of what…or whom, exactly?

——————————————–

Americans owe over $1.71 trillion in student loan debt, spread out among about 44.7 million borrowers.

This sacrifice is easy to explain: children's' future standard of living is being sacrificed for the benefit of current adult standard of living. Go to any college town, and what will you see? Dozens of new buildings, hundreds of new administrators, sprawling new sports complexes. Adults, both employed by the college and as contractors to it, are making billions of dollars per year on the backs of the future earning power of these student.

While the quality of education is no better than it was a few decades ago (much worse, actually; see the item immediately above), costs have skyrocketed due to easily obtained credit via student loans. Thus, many young adults who have no business in university mortgage their entire future for a useless degree:

The unemployment rate for young college graduates exceeds that of the general population, and about 41 percent of recent college graduates — and 33.8 percent of all college graduates — are underemployed in that they are working in jobs that don’t require a college degree, according to new data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Sacrificed, for the benefit of administrators, contractors, public officials of all sorts.

——————————————–

Autism prevalence has increased 178% since 2000. This according to the CDC. The CDC data goes back to the birth year 2000, when the rate was 1:150. There is estimated data back to 1970, when the rate was 1:10,000. Today, per the CDC data, it is 1:54.

The increase in prevalence rate cannot be explained by better diagnosis alone. Some have suggested that autism is just being better diagnosed today versus years ago and that many cases of intellectual disability are now being coded as autism. This would also assume that the experts diagnosing autism before did not know what they were doing. This is NOT TRUE. Autism is the only disorder dramatically on the rise while mental retardation or intellectual disability, Down syndrome and cystic fibrosis remain relatively the same.

So, it's probably not just because no one noticed the symptoms prior to…oh…last year.

Autism receives approximately 5% of the government research funding of many less prevalent childhood diseases

Either those responsible for the medical condition of these children don't want to learn the reasons behind this dramatic increase, in which case they should be both fired and put on trial, or they do know the reasons, but just don't want us to know, in which case they should be both fired and put on trial.

But I bet they are making sure that these autistic children are following the science and wearing masks. One thing is for certain: far fewer than 1:54 children have been a victim of covid.

What are these children being sacrificed for?

Conclusion

At the beginning of this post, I cited a description of sacrifice as "giving up of something valuable in order that something more valuable might be obtained."

Ayn Rand used the term differently: "'Sacrifice' is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue." Historically, religiously or otherwise, the term sacrifice never meant this. Rand's definition suggests a trade – like I will give you a 911 GT2 RS if you give me your 2002 Ford Escort with 400,000 miles on it. That would be something like what Rand is describing. But that is really more like a gift, not a sacrifice.

Jesus offered this kind of "sacrifice," the kind described by Rand – the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lessor value. He gave His life for the salvation of those who didn't deserve it. Like giving that Porsche to someone who has a 20-year-old Escort.

It was the sacrifice to end all sacrifices; or the gift that cannot be surpassed.

It is farcical to listen to critics of Christianity speak of God endorsing child sacrifice, when considering in how many ways adults are sacrificing their children today. The story of Abraham and Isaac is a story of God ending child sacrifice, not beginning it or endorsing it.

Mark 10: 13 And they were bringing children to Him so that He might touch them; but the disciples rebuked them. 14 But when Jesus saw this, He was indignant and said to them, "Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

Reprinted with permission from Bionic Mosquito.

The post Child Sacrifice appeared first on LewRockwell.

Barbarians Rampage Through Europe's Cemetery

Wednesday 05 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

Around the world, very few people are capable of wrapping their heads around the European reaction to the migrant crisis. On the side of the migrants, we have avid displays of barbarism, fanaticism and aggression; on the side of the Europeans, we have abject fear of appearing… intolerant. In an out-of-control situation where we would expect people to organize, protest, put up road blocks and vote en masse for nationalist parties, we are instead subjected to the ridiculous spectacle of meek, effeminate Europeans dressed up in unisex outfits chalking "No to terrorism!" on sidewalks. Most people around the world see in this an orchidaceous display of anthropological nullity. "Is Europe dead?" they wonder aloud.

Lest you think that this impression is politically incorrect or undiplomatic or somehow marginal rather than mainstream, Russia’s FM Sergei Lavrov, a senior Russian statesman and a diplomat's diplomat, is on the record saying that the European Union is "committing suicide" by letting in the invading hordes from the Middle East and North Africa.

Here we have a flood of people coming in, the majority of them young adult males shirking military service back home, and relatively few of them are qualified to seek asylum. Most of them are unqualified to do any sort of work within the EU due to lack of literacy, education or work ethic. Many of them would not be trainable in any case, coming as they are from populations bred for physical stamina and disease tolerance rather than intelligence.

Quite a few are Islamic radicals who see themselves as actual colonizers; many more have no qualms about robbing Europeans and raping European women. A few thousand are actual terrorists being sent in to await orders. For most of them, crashing into the EU and freeloading there is part of an excellent adventure—far more exciting than herding cattle or growing millet in their native villages.

European NGOs equip them with inflatable lifeboats and life vests and set them adrift off the coast of Libya or in the Adriatic. European NGO ships then scoop them up and deliver them to ports in Italy, Greece or Spain. And then they get to freeload, for months on end, while more NGO types help them with the paperwork and clog up the courts with lawsuits they file on their behalf.

I am sure that some Europeans might think me unkind for presenting such an unflattering summary of the situation. But there is a much higher standard by which to measure it than mere kindness: is it truthful? Truth is often cruel and painful, and yet without truth—with which to understand the true consequences of our actions—we are all but lambs to the slaughter.

Refusal to face the truth by hiding behind a hypocritical, threadbare veil of "kindness" is mere cowardice. Indeed, cowardice is often on display in Europe, hiding behind another threadbare veil—of "security." When ISIS bombed the airport in Brussels, the Belgian king Philippe and his royal spouse were swiftly evacuated. During medieval times such cowardly behavior would have cost the monarch his crown, possibly along with his head. But now it is fine for a cowardly nation to have a cowardly king.

It is quite difficult to understand the rationale behind such enforced cowardice. Why are the European elites so insistent on ramming "tolerance" down the throats of their citizens and replacing them with imported barbarians? What happened to the spirit of bloodthirsty empires that had bled the entire planet dry for centuries, accumulating countless treasure?

What I believe happened is that the Europeans became too comfortable. Yes, they did experience some hardship during the two world wars, but it was nothing compared to what many other nations went through, Russia and China especially. When life is a struggle, experience is vivid, simple joys are profoundly felt, intelligent choices are critical to survival and acts of heroism are both necessary and valued. When life is comfortable, people become satiated and hard to satisfy, tastes become decadent and effete, questions of safety are pushed off on specialists and spontaneous acts individual heroism and bravery come to be treated as symptoms of social maladaptation.

Given enough safety and comfort, they become ends in themselves and the standards by which all things are measured. Those less safe and less comfortable are perceived as less successful and fashionable, and become less popular, in a game of endless oneupmanship. In turn, those yet to be seduced by safety and comfort, and willing to battle for principles higher than mere tolerance and kindness, become incomprehensible; after all, what else is there but safety and comfort? But this is only a setup for the next leg down, because safety and comfort cannot function as absolutes.

Safety cannot be guaranteed in all places and at all times: accidents do happen. You might get punched in the face by a belligerent drunk, get molested by a horny migrant, die in a terrorist attack because Allahu akbar or, more likely, break your neck by falling off your bicycle. Since you are no longer responsible for providing for your own safety—it is now the work of paid professionals—you can't blame yourself. You can, of course, blame the paid professionals, but they are, you know, doing their best… Your only choice is to claim that you are a victim. Victimhood becomes a prized commodity and a badge of honor. Extreme attention and care lavished on all varieties of victims, who are encouraged to organize and to bargain collectively, helps assure the rest that their total security is very important. You can be a victim, but you can't be a victim of your own stupidity.

Speaking of stupidity, the realization that you are stupid is not comfortable, yet everyone—even the stupid—must remain comfortable at all times. Given that exactly half the people are of below-average intelligence, this is rather tricky to arrange. Claiming that half the population are victims of stupidity doesn't exactly solve the problem: such an overabundance of victims hollows out the promise of universal comfort. Nor is the problem addressed by imposing a system of universal meritocracy based on individual rights: the intelligent will do better than the unintelligent, causing the latter considerable discomfort.

The solution is to step back from the principle of meritocracy. Instead of guaranteeing individual equal rights and opportunities based on ability and performance we strive for equality of outcome: everybody gets a participation prize and a bit of money just by being obedient and polite, with the size of the prize and the sum of money carefully calibrated based on one's level of victimhood. This is now sometimes referred to by the strangely repurposed word "equity." Since it is hard to organize the distribution of "equity" on an individual level, people are formed into a myriad of groups and each group gets weighted against the rest. If you are a disabled black lesbian, you get to check off three victimhood boxes at once and be handed the same prize as an able-bodied white heterosexual male. This is now strangely referred to as "social" justice—as if there were ever any other kind.

This new type of person, which arose first in Europe and then spread all over the West and beyond, does seem like a degenerate form of humanity: bereft of great passion and lofty goals, lacking any clear ethnic or social allegiance or preference, fixated on comfort and safety and deficient in both masculinity and femininity: a sort of civilizational eunuch imprisoned in a four-star LGBTQ concentration camp. These may seem like major negatives, but on the plus side this type of person is mostly harmless. Half a billion people now inhabit, without posing much of a danger to each other, a smallish peninsula jutting out of Western Eurasia that until recently has been the scene of endless armed conflict. They do not destroy material or cultural artifacts but seek to accumulate them, investing in comforts and in consumption. That, most people will agree, is progress.

The last major challenge to this way of being was presented by the integration of Eastern Europe, where national passions still run high. But that problem was easily solved by finding a scapegoat—Serbia—which was cursed for its lack of multiculturalism and tolerance and bombed into submission. This scared everyone else in Eastern Europe into inaction, for the time being. But now mass migration has presented a problem on an entirely different scale, causing Poland, Hungary and now even Italy to rise up in rebellion against the alien onslaught.

The newcomers predominantly come from cultures that are the opposite of tolerant and kind. They are mainly characterized by cruelty, passion, clannishness and religious and political fanaticism. They want to live right here and right now, take pleasure in the beastlier side of human nature, and they see Europe as a treasure chest to be looted. Their cultures hearken back to an earlier era of European history, when huge crowds gathered in city squares to watch people being drawn and quartered or burned alive.

The Europeans conquered their own medieval nature, but then reimported it. The new, emasculated Western European Man is unable to push back against it; nor can their governments, whose leaders are forced to abide by the same cultural codes of tolerance, political correctness and compulsory kindness. But the Eastern European Man, only temporarily frightened into acting tolerant and emasculated, will not stand for any of this for much longer. His medieval nature is still quite close to the surface, while their Western neighbors have placed theirs in museums and various other tourist traps. This is already apparent: there was a recent EU summit on immigration; the East Europeans didn't even bother showing up.

Looking at the situation from even farther east, from European Russia and the rest of the Eurasian landmass, there is a distinct sense of sadness in watching Europe die. A large chunk of human history is about to get trampled and despoiled. Having spent the last several decades resurrecting Eastern Christendom after the damage caused to it by the Bolshevik barbarians, they watch with dismay as the relics and ruins of Western Christendom are becoming submerged by a new barbarian wave. Western Europe's inhabitants may no longer amount to much, but they are still valuable as museum attendants and tour guides.

That Europe is turning itself into a museum was apparent to Dostoevsky 150 years ago, when he wrote this (speaking through the character of Versilov):

"To a Russian Europe is just as precious as Russia; every stone in it is charming and dear. Europe is as much our Fatherland as Russia… Oh, how precious are to us Russians these old foreign stones, these miracles of an old, godly world, these shards of holy miracles; they are more precious to us than to the Europeans themselves!"

And then again, this time speaking as Ivan Karamazov, with even greater passion:

"…I want to travel to Europe, and so I will. Of course, I know that I will just be visiting to a cemetery. But so what? The corpses that lay in them are precious; every headstone tells the story of a great life, of passionate belief in heroism, in one's own truth, one's own struggle. I know already that I will fall to the ground and kiss these stones, and cry over them—even though convinced with all my heart that all of this has turned into a cemetery long ago, and is nothing more."

[Inspired by E. Kholmogorov]

Reprinted with permission from Dmitry Orlov.

The post Barbarians Rampage Through Europe's Cemetery appeared first on LewRockwell.

Reality Check

Wednesday 05 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

Back in May 2013, it dawned on me that, crazy as it sounded in those more innocent times, the Establishment was gearing up to make transgenderism into the next big thing. Lately, my Spidey sense for zeitgeist trends has started tingling again, telling me that my old jokes about how the "equity" that the Diversity-Inclusion-Equity racket wants is your home equity aren't funny anymore.

For example, the mainstream media is ramping up the antiquarianist articles about how ancient inequities in real estate practices mean that in 2021 it's your fault that black neighborhoods have low property values and, therefore, you must pay. Redlining, which was abolished 53 years ago in 1968, is the usual suspect, but the latest fad is to emphasize racial covenants in home deeds, which the Supreme Court ruled unenforceable in 1948.

That was 73 years ago, but who's counting?

For example, the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal splashed a long article on May 1 entitled:

Why Black Homeownership Lags Badly in Minneapolis

Restrictive property covenants once helped keep people of color out of neighborhoods around America. The effects have compounded.

The WSJ propounds:

A trove of new research suggests that one factor is a tool of discrimination from 100 years ago: racially restrictive covenants that were attached to thousands of Minneapolis homes in the early 20th century, prohibiting sales to many minorities.

As I pointed out a few weeks ago, it's human nature to imagine you deserve to be rich because, knowing what you know today, your great-grandparents should have bought the magic dirt that was cheap then and is valuable now (even though you or your more immediate ancestors probably would have frittered it away in the intervening decades before it turned into pay dirt).

It's particularly likely that blacks, who on average spend more on conspicuous consumption relative to their incomes than other races, would have blown through potentially valuable property inheritances before they fully matured.

Moreover, there is the Heisenbergian factor: If a lot of blacks had moved into the neighborhood, it wouldn't have gone up in value as much. The fundamental reason that homes don't appreciate as fast in blacker neighborhoods is not their tragic dirt, but because blacks tend to be lousier neighbors. Fortunately, there is an obvious win-win solution: If blacks want to make more money off home ownership, they should work harder at being better neighbors.

Unfortunately, nobody is supposed to mention any such bracing realities to African-Americans. It is widely assumed that blacks can't handle the truth. Instead, everybody is supposed to reassure them of how oppressed they are.

Not surprisingly, black behavior, as measured by objective standards such as their murder rate relative to other races, hasn't much improved, and indeed blacks' already horrific murder rate worsened sharply as soon as the racial reckoning was declared last year.

In any case, the WSJ article about Minneapolis is self-evidently absurd. Why? Because there were almost no blacks living in Minneapolis during the covenant era. The Wikipedia article "Demographics of Minneapolis" notes:

From the 19th century until about 1950, Minneapolis hovered around 99.0% white.

The further we get into the future from the civil rights era of the 1960s, the more we are lectured about the increasingly distant past. How come?

One reason is because, the fewer who can remember them, the easier it is to mislead contemporary Americans about the Bad Old Days. For example, with Minneapolis constantly in the news for its black riots, it's getting harder to recall that Minneapolis was once perhaps the most orderly big-league city. In 1973, Time magazine ran a cover story on the "Good Life in Minnesota" about how it was "the state that works."

Read the Whole Article

The post Reality Check appeared first on LewRockwell.

India's 'Covid Outbreak' & the Need for Scientific Integrity – Not Sensationalism

Wednesday 05 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

Western media outlets are currently paying a great deal of attention to India and the apparent impact of COVID-19. The narrative is that the coronavirus is ripping through the country – people are dying, cases are spiralling out of control and hospitals are unable to cope.

There does indeed seem to be a major problem in parts of the country. However, we need to differentiate between the effects of COVID-19 and the impacts of other factors. We must also be very wary of sensationalist media reporting which misrepresents the situation.

For instance, in late April, the New York Post ran a story about the COVID 'surge' in India with the headline saying, "footage shows people dead in the streets". Next to it was an image of a woman lying dead. But the image was actually of a woman lying on the floor from a May 2020 story about a gas leak in Andhra Pradesh.

To try to shed some light on the situation and move beyond panic and media sensationalism, I recently spoke with Yohan Tengra, a political analyst and healthcare specialist based in Mumbai.

Tengra has carried out a good deal of research into COVID-19 and the global response to it. He is the co-author of a new report: 'How the Unscientific Interpretation of RT-PCR & Rapid Antigen Test Results is Causing Misleading Spikes in Cases & Deaths'.

For India, he says:

We will never know statistically if the infections have really increased. To be certain, we would need data of symptomatic people who have tested positive with either a virus culture test or PCR that uses 24 cycles or less, ideally under 20."

He adds that India is experiencing mainly asymptomatic cases:

For example, in Mumbai, they declared two days back that of total cases in the city, 85 per cent were asymptomatic. In Bangalore, over 95 per cent of cases were asymptomatic!"

In his report, Tengra offers scientific evidence that strongly indicates asymptomatic transmission is not significant. He asserts that as these cases comprise most of India's case numbers, we should be questioning the data as well as the PCR tests and the cycles being used to detect the virus instead of accepting the figures at face value.

As in many countries across the globe, Tengra says people in India have been made to fear the virus endlessly. Moreover, they are generally under the impression that they need to intervene early in order to pass through the infection successfully.

He notes:

The medical system itself works to boost the number of positive cases. Even with a negative PCR test, they are using CAT scans and diagnosing people with COVID. These scans are not specific to SARS-CoV-2 at all. I personally know of people who have been asked to be hospitalised by their doctors just based on a positive test (doctors can get a cut of the total bill made when they refer a patient to a hospital). This also happened to a Bollywood celebrity, who was asked to be admitted by his doctors with no symptoms and just a positive PCR."

Faulty PCR testing and misdiagnosis, says Tengra, combined with people who want to intervene early with the mildest symptoms, have been filling up the beds, preventing access to those who really need them.

Addressing the much-publicised shortage of oxygen, Tengra implies this too is a result of inept policies, with exports of oxygen having increased in recent times, resulting in inadequate back-up supplies when faced with a surge in demand.

According to Tengra, the case fatality rate for COVID-19 in India was over three per cent last year but has now dropped to below 1.5 per cent. The infection fatality rate is even lower, with serosurvey results showing them to be between 0.05 per cent to 0.1 per cent.

The directors of the All India Institute of Medical Science and the India Council of Medical Research have both come out and said that there is not much difference between the first and second wave and that there are many more asymptomatic cases this time than in the so-called 'first wave'.

Tengra argues that the principle is the same for all infectious agents: they infect people, most can fight it off without even developing symptoms, some develop mild symptoms, a smaller number develop serious symptoms and an even smaller number die.

Although lives can be saved with the right prevention plus treatment strategies, Tengra notes that most of the doctors in India are using ineffective and unsafe drugs. As a result, he claims that mortality rates could increase due to inappropriate treatments.

As has occurred in many other countries, Tengra notes the way that death certificate guidelines are structured in India makes it easy for someone to be labelled as a COVID death just based on a positive PCR test or general symptoms. It is therefore often difficult to say who has died from the virus and who has been misdiagnosed.

Read the Whole Article

The post India's 'Covid Outbreak' & the Need for Scientific Integrity – Not Sensationalism appeared first on LewRockwell.

Vaccine Passports Are Just a Way for the Regime To Expand Its Power

Wednesday 05 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

Earlier this month, the conservative magazine known as The Spectator published an article with the absurd title "The Libertarian Case for Vaccine Passports." The online version now bears the title "Vaccine Passports Are a Ticket to Freedom," but the physical print version is perhaps more descriptive of what the author is trying to do.

The author, a former Conservative politician named Matthew Parris, apparently believes that the forever lockdowns are an inescapable feature of reality, and that the only way around them is for the regime to enact a vaccine passport scheme. For Parris, covid lockdowns are just a force of nature, like gravity. Now, if only we could find a way to get around these nature-imposed lockdowns!

By now the flaw in Parris's logic should be clear. There is nothing natural or inescapable about lockdowns. They are an invention of the state. They are so unnatural, in fact, that they require the use of the state's police powers to enforce them. They require policemen, handcuffs, courts, prisons, and fines to ensure they are followed. Those who ignore this supposed "force of nature"—and these scofflaws are many—must be punished.

All of this escapes Parris's notice, however.

For example, his article begins this way:

In principle I'm in favour of vaccination passports, and don't understand how—again in principle—anyone could be against the theory….

In other words, Parris's position—in his mind, at least—is so correct and so commonsensical that he can't even comprehend how someone would disagree with him.

This, of course, is always a highly suspect way to begin an article. Any intellectually serious political commentator, if he tries a bit, can at least imagine why others might disagree with him. After decades in government, however, Parris is so enamored of the idea that the regime ought to control your every move that any another option is apparently beyond the pale of rational thinking.

Parris goes on:

To me it seems not just sensible and fair but obvious that access to jobs or spaces where there is an enhanced risk of viral transmission might be restricted to people who could demonstrate a high degree of immunity.

There is absolutely nothing libertarian about delaying the lifting of lockdown for everybody, just because it wouldn't be safe for somebody.

Again, note the core assumption: the regime must tell you where you are allowed to go and what you are allowed to do. It is those dastardly libertarians who are the ones “delaying the lifting of lockdowns.” For Parris, politicians have been working hard to find a way that society can be set free. These noble policymakers discovered vaccine passports. At long last, people can be allowed to leave their homes. But those libertarians now stand in the way!

Unlike those libertarians, Parris assures us he is in favor of people leaving their homes and visiting each other in public gathering places. It's just that his hands were tied before. There were no options available to him other than keeping you locked up. Now, dear taxpayer, won't you let Parris and his friends set you free? They want you to be free. It's just that there's nothing they can do until you embrace vaccine passports!

If you're noticing that Parris sounds a bit like an abusive husband, you wouldn't be far off. Just as an abuser tells his wife, "See what you made me do!" after he punches her in the face for burning the toast, we see a similar attitude from the vaccine passport crowd: "You see what you're making me do? I want to let you out of your house, but you refuse to submit to our oh-so-libertarian passport system!"

Yet Parris is not alone in this sort of thinking. Many others continue to advocate for vaccine passports as some sort of profreedom scheme. Passports are being framed as an "easing of restrictions."

But, as epidemiologist Martin Kulldorff and Stanford physician Jay Bhattacharya pointed out this month in the Wall Street Journal, there is nothing in the passport scheme that is geared toward lessening regime control of our daily lives. On the contrary, it is all about extending and increasing regime power. Kulldorff and Bhattacharya write:

The idea is simple: Once you've received your shots, you get a document or phone app, which you flash to gain entry to previously locked-down venues—restaurants, theaters, sports arenas, offices, schools.

It sounds like a way of easing coercive lockdown restrictions, but it's the opposite. To see why, consider dining. Restaurants in most parts of the U.S. have already reopened, at limited capacity in some places. A vaccine passport would prohibit entry by potential customers who haven't received their shots….

Planes and trains, which have continued to operate throughout the pandemic, would suddenly be off-limits to the unvaccinated….

The vaccine passport should therefore be understood not as an easing of restrictions but as a coercive scheme to encourage vaccination….

Naturally, the regime claims this is all "required" by "science," but

[t]he idea that everybody needs to be vaccinated is as scientifically baseless as the idea that nobody does. Covid vaccines are essential for older, high-risk people and their caretakers and advisable for many others. But those who've been infected are already immune. The young are at low risk, and children—for whom no vaccine has been approved anyway—are at far less risk of death than from the flu. If authorities mandate vaccination of those who don't need it, the public will start questioning vaccines in general.

"Science" mandates nothing as a matter of public policy. Rather, it is policymakers—backed by the violent power of the state—who impose mandates. These are policy choices, not forces of nature. Moreover, as Kulldorff and Bhattacharya note, these aren't even prudent policy choices, and are based on questionable conclusions wrought from scientific data. The authors continue:

Most of those endorsing the idea belong to the laptop class—privileged professionals who worked safely and comfortably at home during the epidemic. Millions of Americans did essential jobs at their usual workplaces and became immune the hard way. Now they would be forced to risk adverse reactions from a vaccine they don't need. Passports would entice young, low-risk professionals, in the West and the developing world, to get the vaccine before older, higher-risk but less affluent members of society. Many unnecessary deaths would result.

But we know how the regime will justify mandatory vaccine policies to themselves should some be injured by adverse reactions. “We had no choice!” the politicians will insist. “Science forced our hand!” This is a convenient way for politicians to weasel out of responsibility for forcing much of the population—much of it a low-risk population—into submitting to certain state-mandated medical procedures. But lest we take too cynical a view, it’s entirely possible these people are true believers. Like Parris, the policymakers forcing these policies on citizens and taxpayers might not be able to comprehend any other course of action. This level of moral certitude is a certain privilege of the ruling class, and it certainly has nothing to do with “science.”

The post Vaccine Passports Are Just a Way for the Regime To Expand Its Power appeared first on LewRockwell.

Biden vs. Biden on 'Is America a Racist Country?'

Wednesday 05 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

Shop all books by Pat Buchanan

“Hear me clearly: America is not a racist country.”

So declared Sen. Tim Scott, a Black Republican, in his televised rebuttal to Joe Biden’s address to Congress.

Asked the next day what he thought of Scott’s statement, Biden said he agrees. “No, I don’t think the American people are racist.”

Vice President Kamala Harris also agreed with Scott, “No, I don’t think America is a racist country.”

What makes these rejections of the charge of racism against America significant is that Biden and Harris both seemed to say the opposite after Derek Chauvin was convicted.

Biden had called George Floyd’s death “a murder (that) ripped the blinders off for the whole world to see the systemic racism… that is a stain on our nation’s soul.”

Harris had said much the same: “America has a long history of systemic racism. Black Americans — and Black men, in particular — have been treated throughout the course of our history as less than human.”

But which is the predominant view of Biden and Harris about the moral character of the country they were elected to lead?

Is it a vicious slander, as Scott implied, to call America a “racist country”? Or is America’s soul, as Biden and Harris said, so stained by “systemic racism” that this country has treated Black Americans “as less than human” for the 400 years of her existence.

Has America been a curse for the 40 million Black people whose numbers have multiplied 10-fold since the abolition of slavery in 1865, and whose freedoms and material prosperity have grown accordingly?

Or has America been a blessing to Black people?

This is not just a gotcha question.

For the clashing commentaries of Biden and Harris reflect an ideological divide within their own coalition over a most basic issue: Is America a good country?

We have been on this terrain before.

Between LBJ’s landslide in 1964 and the breaking of his presidency in 1968, the Democratic Party had split into three factions, all at war with one another.

There was the Lyndon Johnson-Hubert Humphrey establishment that controlled the presidency and the party machinery. There was the Robert Kennedy-Gene McCarthy-George McGovern anti-establishment and anti-war left.

And there was the populist-right George Wallace bloc, containing millions of flag-waving blue-collar Democrats in northern industrial states and Southern Dixiecrats who detested the leftist radicals on cultural and patriotic grounds.

That Democratic Party disintegrated in the convention hall and the streets of Chicago in August of 1968, opening the door to the GOP era of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.

Today’s Democratic Party encompasses three similar blocs.

There is the Biden liberal establishment that controls the media, the academy, the Congress, the administration. There is the Bernie Sanders-Elizabeth Warren-AOC progressive-socialist wing. And there is, today, a new militant and radical third force.

Included in its ranks are Black Lives Matter, antifa and protesters who burn Old Glory, tear down statues, monuments and memorials, assault cops, smash and loot stores and riot at will.

This is the “Abolish Ice!” and “Defund the Police!” faction of the party that detests the old America and favors open borders to alter it forever. This anarchic element is rendered moral sanction by journalists and politicians who share its malignant view of American history.

The Biden-Harris statements on the conviction of Chauvin were tailored to pander to this crowd.

Yet, in his address to Congress, Biden also made a statement that sounded like a Biden plagiarism of Trumpian nationalism:

“All the investments in the American Jobs Plan will be guided by one principle: ‘Buy American.’ American tax dollars are going to be used to buy American products made in America that create American jobs.”

Biden is scrambling to keep one foot in every camp in his coalition by appearing to agree, at times, with them all.

The problem: While one part of his party believes America is a good and great country deserving of loyalty and love, another believes America is racist in its soul — a land whose character is defined, as it has ever been, by white supremacy, white privilege and white rule of people of color.

This leftist rage, however, is partly rooted in urban myth.

Consider. Last year, in D.C., our nation’s capital, there were 200 homicides and 980 people shot, mostly Blacks.

How many were the victims of rogue cops or Proud Boys?

Can you lead a country about whose history you profess shame?

And how long will Americans follow leaders who appear to agree with those who hate what America was and, yes, what America is?

In 2020, Trump united the Democrats. But with Trump gone, Biden must do the uniting of his disparate party himself.

And his need to behave, at times, like a believer in the racial indictment of the America he grew up in is probably not something Joe Biden can credibly and indefinitely pull off.

The post Biden vs. Biden on 'Is America a Racist Country?' appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Extreme Polarization in US Politics… and the Impact of Localism in Smaller Countries

Wednesday 05 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

International Man: Every four years, the US engages in an increasingly contentious process of electing its politicians. Republicans and Democrats both engage in mudslinging—each side taking cheap shots at the other.

Is this the nature of all politics and elections now?

Jeff Thomas: Well, that aspect of election campaigns is nothing new. In the US, perhaps the nastiest election was the 1800 election, between President John Adams and contender Thomas Jefferson, who ultimately won. The Democratic Republicans under Jefferson attacked the Federalists under Adams for creating a central government that usurped states' rights, for imposing excessive taxes, and for passing the Alien and Sedition Acts, repressing the expression of anti-government opinion.

So, the issues themselves are very similar to those in play today, but back then, the mudslinging was a fair bit worse than today. And, like today, the media were just as involved as the political parties.

But it's important to remember that the US is not the only country out there. It's only one of about 200 countries, and elections in those countries not only vary widely but are forever evolving. Some countries, like the US, are headed downward politically, whilst others are on an upward trend.

International Man: Are there better examples?

Jeff Thomas: Examples of countries where the system isn't becoming more tribal?

Yes, there are quite a few. I remember watching the 2009 presidential debates in Uruguay, where I live part of each year. Luis Lacalle of the National Party would answer a question as to how he would handle a specific issue and, when his opponent, José Mujica of the Broad Front Party, would respond, he would do so respectfully, stating that he agreed with Lacalle and that his own approach would differ only in minor details. A very gentlemanly election by comparison.

But then, this might be misunderstood by people in the US. It doesn't mean that the candidates are necessarily more civilised than their American counterparts. What it means is that the Uruguayan people expect gentlemanly behaviour.

In every country, politicians seek to mirror the national mood. Since they're trying to capture the vote, they don't behave naturally but as a reflection of the national mood. In Cuba, in 1959, the people were thoroughly fed up with the Batista regime, so Fidel Castro shaking his fist and pontificating for hours in the Plaza de la Revolución was a welcomed sight. On the other hand, the US in 1952 was fed up with warfare, and the quiet confidence of Dwight Eisenhower was what people wanted to see, so that's what was delivered. Political hopefuls try to project the mood that the public is seeking.

What we're witnessing in the US today is a country that's entered the first stage of what will be a prolonged crisis – one that will result in the upheaval of the economy, political structure, social behaviour, and even the morals of America. From here on in, we can expect ever-expanding degradation in each of those four areas, and politicians will reflect that. These are actors, after all.

International Man: The polarization between the Left and Right has continued to get worse—and this divide has entered into almost every aspect of life.

Is this as a result of the sheer size of the US and the differences between the States?

Jeff Thomas: The size of the US is definitely a factor, but the existence of the divide is media-created. In good times, states and political parties will try to get along, but in a crisis, they will not. When you see them at each other's throats, you know that the crisis is underway. And the media can be counted on to capitalise on it and add gasoline to the fire. It won't end well.

International Man: How does localism in smaller countries impact the political process?

Jeff Thomas: It's much harder to pull off this sort of divide in a small country. And the smaller, the better. The more the political leaders are a part of the community, the more difficult it is for them to fool the public, even if the public is both unimaginative and ill-informed. If you know the candidate personally, you're far less likely to be taken in. And, since he probably frequents the same bar as you do, he's not likely to try to develop into a parasitical overlord whilst in office. He's going to remain more grounded, because he has no choice.

International Man: You mentioned the situation in Uruguay, but you also live much of the year in the Cayman Islands, where the population is small – about 60,000. How do elections compare to the US?

Jeff Thomas: It's very different. Coincidentally, we've just completed our elections, which occur every four years. We have only a three-month election season, which is sometimes passionate, but not at all violent. At the polling station, all the staff is both helpful and friendly. By law, there are two policemen at every station, but they too are friendly. The process is efficient – about five minutes – and voters socialise peacefully outside afterward, regardless of whether they've chosen opposing candidates.

This time around, like the US, we had a change in government, but unlike the US, the electorate was confident in the legitimacy of the process and accepted the outcome, even if their candidates were unsuccessful.

But again, our overall election mood is buoyant because the country is stable – more like the US in 1952 than Cuba in 1959.

International Man: Do the media impact the election?

Jeff Thomas: Not a great deal. They mostly report events rather than try to indoctrinate people. The people of Cayman are not very tolerant of an aggressive media any more than they're tolerant of aggressive politicians. For information, we rely more on what's called the "marl road" – person-to-person communication – for voter-consciousness. Also, we know our political hopefuls on a first-name basis. We know their families and personal history, so we can ignore the campaign rhetoric and focus on who they really are. We generally end up with a mix of very good, capable people and some ambitious types, plus a few essentially useless people who are essentially deadwood whilst in office.

International Man: Big donors, special interest groups, and lobbyists have a lot of say in the election of American politicians. How does that impact the overall political structure?

Jeff Thomas: In a small jurisdiction, you still get "big donors." But the dollar numbers are smaller, and the public tends to learn more readily that the donations have occurred, so it's difficult to get carried away with buying politicians. The electorate finds out soon enough.

International Man: Is there another way?

Jeff Thomas: Well, you can pass laws that prohibit various means of contributions to campaigns, but those who seek to buy influence will simply find a work-around. Even in a small system, there will be those who buy politicians, but as it tends to get found out, they can be voted out again.

International Man: Do you experience the victimization of one party by another?

Jeff Thomas: No, historically, our candidates were mostly independents, with occasional teams that would last for two or three terms then dissolve. For the last twenty years, we've had actual parties, but the electorate found that the parliamentarians that they elected would then hide behind the obligation to vote along party lines. People could no longer go to a candidate and expect him to "represent" his constituency.

In this recent election, the last of the parties was defeated, and we've returned to the independent concept, in which a parliamentarian has to respond to his constituency, or out he goes.

In a large country, a government made up of independents might not work, but in a small country, in which you can have direct input to your candidates, it makes for actual democracy rather than the pretense of democracy.

Governments should be controlled by the people, not the other way round. The greater your power to ride herd on your government, the greater your ability to retain your liberty.

Reprinted with permission from International Man.

The post The Extreme Polarization in US Politics… and the Impact of Localism in Smaller Countries appeared first on LewRockwell.

from https://youtu.be/GuUaaPaTlyY May 06, 2021 at 09:00PM

#[Consumer Credit News] Credit Report Repair News: Digest for May 07 #2021

0 notes

zagglutin · 4 years ago

Text

[Consumer Credit News] Credit Report Repair News: Digest for May 06, 2021

Credit Report Repair News

Table of Contents

Credit Report Repair News: Digest for May 05, 2021

by Credit Repair News, Sebastian Pulvera on Wednesday 05 May 2021 02:00 AM UTC-05

Credit Report Repair News

Table of Contents

The Faith of Entrepreneurs

The Extreme and Deadly Risks We Face Are Many, and of Our Own Making

Uniformity Makes Us into Animals and Machines

Systemic Irresponsibility Explained

The Feminization of Western Men

Open Letter From Retired Military: A Plot Against the Republic?

'At First Quietly, Then Much Less Quietly'

Leaving Team Blue for Team Red

Returning to Form?

From Mind Control to Viruses: How the Government Keeps Experimenting on Its Citizens

Doctor Refuses To Accept Vaccinated Patients. He Will Not Let Those Who Made a Bad Decision…

The Criminalization of Dissent

The Faith of Entrepreneurs

Tuesday 04 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

Ludwig von Mises didn't like references to the “miracle” of the marketplace or the “magic” of production or other terms that suggest that economic systems depend on some force that is beyond human comprehension. In his view, we are better off coming to a rational understanding of why markets are responsible for astounding levels of productivity that can support exponential increases in population and ever higher living standards.

There was no German miracle after World War II, he used to say; the glorious recovery was a result of economic logic working itself out through market forces. Once we understand the relationship between property rights, market prices, the time structure of production, and the division of labor, the mystery evaporates and we observe the science of human action making great things happen.

He is right that understanding economics does not require faith, but there are actions undertaken by market actors themselves that require faith (and Mises would not disagree with this)—immense faith, faith that moves mountains and raises up civilizations. If we accept the interesting description of faith by St. Paul (“evidence of things unseen”) we can understand entrepreneurship and capitalist investment as acts of faith.

Everyone who is in business understands this. It requires a thousand daily acts of seeing the unseen future to be in business. The reality of the marketplace is that the consuming public can shut you down tomorrow. All they need to do is to fail to show up and buy.

This is true for the smallest business to the largest. There is no certainty in any business. Nothing is a sure thing. Every business in a market economy is only a short step from bankruptcy. No business possesses the power to make people buy what they do not want. All success is potentially fleeting.

Success does yield a profit, but that provides no comfort. Every bit of profit you take for yourself comes out of what might otherwise be an investment in the development of the business. But neither is this investment a sure thing. Today's smash hit could be tomorrow's flop. What you perceive to be a solid investment could turn out to be a short-term craze. What you see, based on past sales, as having a potential mass appeal could actually be a market segment that was quickly saturated.

Emperors can rest on their laurels but capitalists never can.

Sales history provides nothing but a look backwards. The future is never seen with clarity but only through a glass, darkly. Past performance is not only not a guarantee of future success; it is no more or less than a data set of history that can tell us nothing about the future. If the future turns out to look like the past, the probabilities still do not change, any more than the probability of the next coin toss landed on heads increases because it happened previously five times in a row.

Despite the utter absence of a road map, the entrepreneur-investor must act as if some future is mapped out. He or she must still hire employees and pay them long before the products of their labor come to market, and even longer before those marketable products are sold and turn a profit. The equipment must be purchased, upgraded, serviced, and replaced, which means that the entrepreneur must think about today's costs and tomorrow's and the next day's saecula saeculorum.

Especially now, the costs can be mind boggling. A retailer must consider an amazing array of options concerning suppliers and web services. There must be some means of alerting the world to your existence, and despite a century of attempts to employ scientific methods for finding out what makes the consumer tick, advertising remains high art, not positive science. But it also an art with high expense. Are you throwing money down a rathole or really getting the message out? There is no way to know in advance.

The heck of it too is that there are no testable causes of success because there is no way to perfectly control for all important factors. Sometimes not even the most successful business is clued into what it is, precisely, that makes its products sell more as compared with its competitors. Is it price, quality, status, geography, promotion, psychological associations people make with the product, or what?

Back into the 1980s, for example, Coca Cola decided to change its formula and advertise it as New Coke. The result was a catastrophe as consumers fled, even though the taste tests said that people liked the new better than the old.

If the historical data are so difficult to interpret, think how much more difficult it is to discern probable outcomes in the future. You can hire accountants, marketing agencies, financial wizards, and designers. They are technicians, but there are no such things as reliable experts in overcoming uncertainty. An analogy might be a man in a pitch-black room who hires people to help him put one foot in front of the other. His steps can be steady and sure but neither him nor his helpers can know for sure what is in front of him.

“What distinguishes the successful entrepreneur and promoter from other people,” writes Mises, “is precisely the fact that he does not let himself be guided by what was and is, but arranges his affairs on the ground of his opinion about the future. He sees the past and the present as other people do; but he judges the future in a different way.”

It is for this reason that an entrepreneurial habit of mind cannot be implanted through training or education. It is something possessed and cultivated by an individual. There are no entrepreneurial committees, much less entrepreneurial planning boards.

The inability of governments to engage in the entrepreneurial act of faith is one of many reasons why socialism cannot work. Even if a bureaucrat can look at history and claim that his agency could have made a car, dry wall, or a microchip, that same person is at a loss to figure out how innovations in the future can take place. His only guide is technology: he can speculate about what might work better than what is presently available. But that is not the economic issue: the real issue concerns what is the best means given all the alternative uses of resources to satisfy the most urgent wants of consumers in light of an infinity of possible wants.

This is impossible for governments to do.

There are thousands of reasons why entrepreneurship should never take place but only one good one for why it does: these individuals have superior speculative judgment and are willing to take the leap of faith that is required to test their speculation against the facts of an uncertain future. And yet it is this leap of faith that drives forward our standards of living and improves life for millions and billions of people. We are surrounded by faith. Growing economies are infused with it.

Mises forgive me: this is a miracle.

The post The Faith of Entrepreneurs appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Extreme and Deadly Risks We Face Are Many, and of Our Own Making

Tuesday 04 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

~ Hannah Arendt (1951) "The Origins of Totalitarianism"

It is never enough to place all blame on the ruling class, regardless of the evil present, unless one is innocent, enlightened, and powerless to protect and stand up for self and truth. So long as the common man bows to power because he assumes that it may be of some good use, he has acquiesced his soul for an unsustainable and baseless self-interested goal. This attitude is not one of morality and proper purpose, but one of egocentrism, indifference, and greed. It is easy to lay blame at the feet of politicians, until one realizes that tyrants could never survive and prosper without the consent of the governed. Accepting this legitimate reality can be the impetus for achieving a free existence.

All that is going on today; the lockdowns, mask wearing, cold and heartless distancing from family, friends, and society, self-imprisonment, deadly injections, surveillance, censorship, economic destruction, and massive restrictions of life-sustaining activities, have all been willingly accepted. Does this mean that the people themselves are at fault for the horrible circumstances that currently threaten them? It certainly does, but not in the sense that the masses planned and wished for such a travesty, but in the manner that all of this carnage was voluntarily allowed to happen, even in the face of extreme hardship and suffering. It was brought about by fear, and fear can be a very convincing tool in the quiver of tyrants when they seek to trick the herd into accepting oppressive and authoritative rule in order to gain what is falsely termed as 'safety.' This is the result of mass propaganda meant to weaken the resolve of the many by fooling them into submission, while the power brokers simply stay in the shadows awaiting the voluntary surrender of their subjects.

Given this state of affairs, and understanding the implications of these truths should strengthen the determination and courage of the general population because it is obvious that without the consent of the people, none of this could continue to threaten our very existence. The American people in other words, hold all the real power to escape this tyranny, and simply have to unite to throw off the 'claimed' rulers. The idea of defeating this manmade travesty is really that simple, but the desire to implement this winning strategy is still lacking among the public at large. The importance of fighting back, and reclaiming freedom is imperative if any liberty is to be salvaged. Educating as many as is possible about the power they hold is necessary in order to start a fire in the bellies of all those that have the most to lose. Those are you and me, and everyone you know. All Americans are at great risk.

We are in the midst of an aggressive attack on humanity itself. Each of us at some point must accept the fact that without mass resistance, we will all be slaves. This stark realization is inevitable, and all that is required in order to stop this global reset is disobedience and non-compliance by large numbers.

Without that resistance, the possible, or more likely probable, terror that we will experience will be widespread and all encompassing. The next planned and telegraphed major attack against the people, the next "9/11' type event if you will, in all probability, "will be a massive cyber attack meant to implode the entire financial system, and allow for a government censoring and takeover of the internet. This plot was designed in the near past, and has been openly simulated and the full strategy released just a few months ago." In addition, this event will be used to bring about a national digital system, so that monetary policy can be controlled at a national and then global level. Of course, this will mean a vast increase in surveillance and censorship, so that the mainstream narrative can be continually pushed without any offsetting truth or scrutiny.

As I wrote recently: "A total digital system is desired by Klaus Schwab and World Economic Forum (WEF), along with the central banking cartel and its government and corporate partners, and the way forward with this scheme can only take place when the current economic system is destroyed. In other words, a new financial system has already been designed, and is ready to be implemented after an economic collapse. Technocratic control is sought, and we are already far into the plot to implement a takeover of the entire financial system. The new and dictatorial internet "Patriot Act" is already drafted, and will be introduced almost immediately following this staged cyber attack that is sure to come."

And this is only one part of this plot to globalize and reset our current system. The immunity passport agenda will continue in earnest, and several tactics could be used to instill much more fear in this society, including targeted releases of bio-weapon technology, more lethal effects of injections, and intentional killing in order to continue to gain compliance. The deadly 'vaccine' agenda will also continue, and while many are properly rejecting this poison today, how many will line up when deaths begin to stack up due to the already large number of citizens that have taken this gene-altering, and deadly concoction that can be intentionally designed to destroy the natural human immune system?

In the interim, more anti-gun legislation, higher taxation, and massive inflation will consume this society, causing more unemployment, more bankruptcies, business closings, and poverty. All this will be used to decimate this already crippled economy and the weakened population will become even more dependent on government. All in all, much more hell is coming, so unity among all of us is imperative if survival and freedom are desired.

America is no longer a home to free individuals, and has become the poster child for almost absolute tyranny. The individual needs to once again reign supreme, and stand in total defiance against this nation state that seeks only to capture and control the bodies and minds of the people in order to gain dominance over all.

“Every miserable fool who has nothing at all of which he can be proud, adopts as a last resource pride in the nation to which he belongs; he is ready and happy to defend all its faults and follies tooth and nail, thus reimbursing himself for his own inferiority.”

~ Arthur Schopenhauer (2007). "Parerga and Paralipomena: A Collection of Philosophical Essays", p.60, Cosimo, Inc.

Source links:

The engineered ‘Covid-19 Crisis” is a fraud

What Is Coming

A planned cyber attack to affect a global financial meltdown is coming

The WEF's simulation of the planned cyber pandemic

Judges new internet censorship

New World Next Week

The post The Extreme and Deadly Risks We Face Are Many, and of Our Own Making appeared first on LewRockwell.

Uniformity Makes Us into Animals and Machines

Tuesday 04 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

According to management, he is the lone remaining holdout at work. I'm not sure how much I trust his management. That reader writes sarcastically:

Dear Allan,

We are now part of a small minority.

I am thinking of just getting the vaccine. Apparently the other five individuals have already buckled. Maybe I will get lucky and it will kill me.

Excuse my sarcasm.

Sarcastic Thomas

Thomas comments "I am part of a small minority." I don't like Thomas's suggestion, because it misrepresents hopeful theory as fact.

It's not his hopeful theory either.

Never represent the hopeful theory of a propagandist as fact. In so doing, you will be representing a lie as fact, and will yourself then be a liar.

The talking voices of the mainstream want you and I to believe that we are part of a small group of people. The true minority is the group leading society down the path of corona communism. Only by using the many establishment mouthpieces deceitfully can such a small ultra-minority of deluded people get anyone to believe their destructive nonsense.

They think that if you tell a lie enough, it becomes reality. It doesn't. It just becomes an oft repeated lie.

Some Of These People Are So Desperate

There is danger in putting your trust in people so desperate. If I turn on the broadcast news for even ten seconds, the desperation is apparent. Never in my life has it been like this. There have been, reliably, throughout my life, a few minutes of desperation in most news programs, but now literally ten seconds of airtime cannot pass without that desperation coming out. It's a very different level of desperation and deceit, almost totally devoid of anything resembling unvarnished fact.

Humans Naturally Abhor Desperation…Unless…

As humans, we avoid desperate people. They lack the ease and confidence to deserve our company. That's a natural and wonderful thing. If a desperate guy approaches you on the street today, you are going to react differently than if a calm and collected person did the same. You won't want to have anything to do with the desperate guy. Unless…. And it's a big unless…he can convince you "We're all in this together."

If he can convince you that his crisis is also your crisis, then suddenly his desperation becomes an asset to you and you may even do as he says.

Something Fallen Totalitarian Regimes Share In Common

Nearly every totalitarian regime in the days before it toppled looked as mighty as ever to the people living within its walls. Someone will always step forward posthumously and say they knew the end was near. They probably didn't. Seldom does a member of a subjected populous realize how unstable and weak a regime is. If they did, others would, and the regime would cease to be. It is belief in the ability of a regime to govern that is so effective in hoisting up regimes. Many more things than lack of faith can topple a regime though.

They Are So Disconnected & Desperate, Details They Prefer You Gloss Over

Turn on the TV and the desperation is so present. The brainwashing. The narrative. The near inability to tell the truth. It's everywhere on television: desperate people saying desperate things.

You may write me, dear reader, saying "I can't believe how stupid people are. How are they able to say these things with a straight face?" and the existence of such lies in the media may depress you.

That is not the case for me.

The more outlandish it all becomes, the more certain I am of the end. The more clear their desperation is, the more obvious the flimsiness of the regime is. They'd like you to believe the opposite, that you are in it together with the members of the regime's politburo, that you are all just watching out for each other like a couple of friendly neighbors exchanging pleasantries.

Lots Of People Are Waiting For Permission To Act Honestly

You may see such news and write me dear reader saying "I can't believe how stupid people are being. How are they able to believe these stories on the news?" Like you, they are all looking around and mostly nodding to keep up appearances. They are just waiting for the permission to act out, for the social cue to speak honestly, rather than politely or obediently or subserviently. But if everyone is waiting for permission from someone else, then the social cue never comes.

I wish your notes to me, dear reader, were the only notes I received that told me a story of right-minded people waiting for others to act out before they deem themselves comfortable enough to act out as well. They aren't. I hear it often.

You must do the right thing at every moment in life regardless of how unpopular it is, regardless of the consequences. That is the duty of a person of values. Seldom do any of us really encounter a situation where we can't see the difference between right and wrong. You know the difference in this situation, and if you aren't boldly forging ahead and doing what is right, you are then doing what is wrong. You must never be one of the people waiting for permission.

Lots Of People Believe The Narrative That Their Numbers Are Small

I wish you were the only person writing me to tell me that they were part of a small minority. You aren't the only person writing that. So many people write me that self-defeating narrative that I wonder how small such a group could possibly be that it sends me so many emails.

It seems to be a powerful thought that has made its way into the heads of so many. They seem to have been convinced that they are all alone.

You aren't.

This Activity Will End Your Misinformed Loneliness Promptly

If you shake the hand of every person you see without a mask, you stop to talk for a few minutes, you get their phone number from them by saying "How do I keep in touch with you?" you follow up a few hours later by inviting them to sit down with you at the local park to talk next Saturday at 2 pm, and you do that every Saturday for the next 3 months, then within 3 months you will have a group of people who can upend the local school board, upend the local county board, and who might even be able to upend your local congressman.

Social media isn't inherently social. Our tendencies when we use it are about as anti-social as it gets. Use your phone and your social media and your knowledge of what's right to get people like you outside together face-to-face regularly.

There are groups like PeoplesRights.org that will help facilitate this further, or AmericasFrontlineDoctors.org Citizen Corps or MakeAmericaFreeAgain, though I have found PeoplesRights.org to be the most advanced of these group, far ahead of its peers in offering infrastructure and opportunities for socializing.

Socializing with likeminded folks ultimately leads to activism. Tools like these websites are useful, but you don't need these tools. You really only need your diligence to meet people, get their phone number, and a regular weekly meeting in a park.

Do this and within three months you will never be able to say to me "I'm in a small minority." Friend, we have no idea what anyone is thinking or doing unless we ask them and even then we may not know, at least not until they trust us. I don't let the intermediaries such as pollsters, pundits, or politicians tell me what others are thinking. I don't let social media gurus or marketers trying to sell me something or pitch me on an agenda tell me what others are thinking. I let individuals tell me what they are thinking, and if I'm a decent enough person, I may even be rewarded with hearing the truth.

A Lot Of People Don't Tell Others What They Are Thinking

A lot of people don't tell others the truth. A lot of people don't tell others what they are thinking.

Pollsters have known this for some time. They call it "the shy Tory" effect. If a person holds an opinion deemed by the media mouthpieces as unpopular, they are less likely to tell that opinion to the complete stranger pollster who probes them about their deepest, darkest secrets. There's hardly anything controversial about that: the more the psychopathic leftist media machine vilifies anyone who disagrees with them, the less likely their psychopathic leftist pollster brethren will be to get truthful statements from the vilified.

Dear reader, you say you are in a small minority. I'd beg to differ.

My Anecdotal Evidence Is What I Have & Is More Useful To Me Than Anything In The Media

The anecdotal evidence at my disposal, hard won and honest anecdotal evidence, is what I have to work with. That's imperfect, but it's pretty good, and definitely more trustworthy than practically anything I'll find in the rest of the media.

By extrapolation, somewhere between 50 million and 330 million Americans do not believe the Covid narrative. I don't know exactly how big or how small that number is. I know that it's a pretty big number though.

Though I have not travelled much during Covid, judging from my past twenty years of tirelessly traveling the world, hardly anyone on Main Street Russia, Main Street Zambia, Main Street Nicaragua, or virtually anywhere else around the world, believe the narrative of the American media.

By extrapolation, I estimate that somewhere between 2 billion and 8 billion people breathing at this moment agree with you that 1.) they either don't care enough about this silly narrative to even follow it in the news or 2.) they don't believe the official story.

You'd think I'd have learned my lesson by now, but it's a constant joyful surprise to me how common it is for me to realize that a rural second world or third world farmer has far more common sense and worldliness than a well-connected, well-diplomaed, promising junior executive in New York City. The same is true for any Western technocrat.

Please stop letting the lie be spoken in front of you that only a small number of people don't believe the narrative.

Whether or not that number constitutes a majority is unclear to me.

A Note About The Definition Of Majority

Majority is often defined as "50% plus one." If any government data around Covid is to be believed (it's not), then some 30% of the population has fallen for this ruse and been vaccinated.

These statisticians and bureaucrats are cut from the same cloth as the people who didn't like how poorly inflation data made their masters look, so they stopped reporting inflation data.

These are the same people who didn't like how badly unemployment data made their masters look, so they changed the definition of "unemployed," with each President for years whittling down the definition further.

These are the same people who didn't like the Covid data, so they redefined what it means to die of Covid. Dying "with" Covid rather than dying "from" Covid barely covers that.

The data is so erroneous in so many more ways, so erroneous as to be worthless. I'm talking forty years of the scammiest deceitful behavior by allegedly revered public servants. Many readers of these pages can easily, from memory, add a dozen more government lies to this list.

To such people, it goes without saying that the data from the state is not to be believed.

But even then, taking all that into consideration, not even the government with their unverifiable, cooked, unfounded, invented Covid "vaccination" numbers claim a majority of people have been vaccinated.

DON'T TELL ME YOU ARE IN THE MINORITY WHEN EVEN THE DINGBAT PRETENDER IN CHIEF, DEMENTIA-ADLED INTERLOPER SAYS YOU ARE IN THE MAJORITY.

About 30% of Americans have been vaccinated they claim, a number I believe to be much smaller. Even if the number is right, that means 70% of Americans have not been vaccinated.

I'll say that again. AT LEAST 70% OF AMERICANS HAVE NOT BEEN VACCINATED. YOU ARE IN THE MAJORITY, SO STOP CONVINCING YOURSELF OTHERWISE.

You deserve more than to lie to yourself. Feed your spirit with the truth that you may prosper.

With that firmly established, I'd like to take it a bit further. I wish you wouldn't even trouble yourself with such a concept as majority or minority. Majority does not equal morality. Might does not make right. It is not our duty for our time on this earth to be popular or to be mighty. The duty is to do what's right. If popularity or might follow, then so be it. Don't be distracted from doing what's right.

Caring About Being In The Majority Or Minority Is A Distraction

"Majority" is a problematic term for he who believes in freedom. It's a concept that the Bolsheviks happily adopted, a tool of the thug, a concept that uses democracy (a system in which mere elections are decided by the majority) and perverts the concept to deem all opinion as valid or invalid based on whether a majority agrees or not.

This is a far departure from the idea of deciding a silly election for the glorified version of dogcatcher based on who gets more votes. It barely matters who gets more votes as long as government is tiny. You could just as well cast lots or flip coins.

Government isn't tiny though. That's the problem, just the problem the Bolsheviks want. Every expansion of government power plays into their hands: the class of people who want to isolate control into the hands of a few.

Bolsheviks have long used the false morality of democracy to cast their immoral ideas in a positive light, at times even going so far as to force everyone to vote in totally rigged, sham elections with predetermined outcomes setup to create the air of legitimacy rather than the stink of illegitimacy that hangs like a cadaverous and putrescine stench over the White House.

The Washington D.C. Bolsheviks did it wrong. The people are supposed to be overjoyed by a properly stolen election, not emboldened. It is looking increasingly likely that it doesn't end well for them. Democracy is a powerful tool of the totalitarian if used right.

Bolshevik, by the way, is a Russian word that means "he who is in the majority." When I use the word Bolshevik, I sometimes use it loosely to mean "every government thug who has ever tried to use morality to justify his immorality." You may call them technocrats. You may call them communitarians or communists or many others names.

These people need one thing. They need their power to be solidified by grouping humanity into predictable and controllable boxes. Disinterested in even speaking this false legitimacy of popularity and majority-rule, I prefer to keep my evaluations of Bolshevik policy in the moral and philosophical realm.

Man is made in the likeness of God and possesses inalienable rights not to be denied him, a truth that does not need exposure to the litmus of popularity to be any more or less true.

To fit man into a box is to dehumanize him, commoditize him, make him less God-like, a power the technocrat wishes to claim for himself. But the reality is that no one is capable of dehumanizing you but you.

Grouping Humanity Into Predictable & Controllable Boxes

Dear reader, uniformity makes us into animals and machines.

Of course some demonic spirit wants you to take that vaccine.

And of course a bunch of misled people did exactly that.

But you have read Genesis 1:27 and you know that uniformity is not what is intended of you: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

You have read the work of Ludwig von Mises and you know that your humanity comes down to your choice. How meaningful your agency and actions are. Christians call this free will, but such a term does not have to be used.

You have read the work of other greats, and you know that your spontaneity, your individuality, your uniqueness, your choice is a masterful thing.

Don't be a fool and throw away what makes you special, just because someone else was foolish enough to do the same.

Don't let your Godlike nature be shoved in a box because you feel pressured to be like others. Instead, live a life of that makes it impossible for others to look upon you and not recognize their own Godlike nature, that makes it impossible for people to look upon you and to not want better of themselves.

Some have not had the gifts you've had in the world. Some have not had the advantages.

More is expected of you.

The Variable Is In People Like You

Twisted people have existed in every era. Sheepish people have existed in every era. These are the constants of all human life. The variable is in people like you. Will the moral backbone of society lead? Will the moral backbone of society stay asleep?

There is no one in charge. It is up to you. In your community, in your circle of friends, you are the one called to lead.

Your decision to lead or to not lead will determine the direction of those around, and that decision will reverberate far beyond that.

It would be nice if it was up to someone else. But it's all up to you.

America does not need Trump — a generally good and mighty man who was re-elected by a majority of the electorate on November 3, 2020 — America needs Jesus. This is true for believers and non-believers alike. And anyone who knows what he is doing is wrong and still does it, needs Jesus most of all, the believer and non-believer alike, the moral example of a man who will stand up even if no one around him gives him permission to stand. We need those examples.

That example is needed of you, to be the moral man who stands up even if no one around you gives permission for you to stand.

It all comes down to you, dear reader. Will you lead or will you back down? Your community needs you to choose well, to choose wisely, to put your own comfort second, and to put your values first.

What do you believe in? A moment like this, a moment of clarity, is a gift that focuses the mind and lets you commit to being either a person of values or to being a person of preference.

I do not care about leading the sheep. I care about waking the lions. Community by community, family by family, circle by circle we win if you will just be moved to stand up and speak honestly about what you believe, to identify your boundaries, communicate your boundaries, and defend your boundaries.

To do otherwise is the most ignoble lie. And dear reader, dear friend, to do otherwise makes you nothing but a liar.

And, Sir, I know you are better than that.

Tell the truth. Do it now. Do it every chance you get. Both you and those around you will be most richly rewarded in life if you can do just that.

The ripples you will have through the world will be so great as to be immeasurable if you can just do that.

Tell the truth. Do it now. Do it every chance you get.

And don't lie by wearing a face mask. If you don't know how to do that, resources exist to help you do that. I wrote the book "Face Masks in One Lesson," not to make money but to help people never again wear a mask. My LRC writing offers the same. My RealStevo.com https://realstevo.com/ writing provides video options when you sign up for the email list. But most of all it comes down to you and the standard you set for yourself. Will you be that upright, moral man or will you be something else?

Let's be the people who make all of this right again. It may not be easy, but it's guaranteed to be glorious.

The post Uniformity Makes Us into Animals and Machines appeared first on LewRockwell.

Systemic Irresponsibility Explained

Tuesday 04 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

On average, black Americans are affected by poverty and criminality to a much greater degree than white Americans, and this has been attributed to a bugaboo called systemic racism. Slavery, Jim Crow, and redlining have all been named as the usual suspects whose ongoing effects are part and parcel of this systemic racism; occasionally thrown into the mix is the fact that the original "G.I. Bill" passed after the Second World War failed to benefit black Americans as it did white Americans at the time. So systemic racism is the reason for black poverty, it is claimed, and poverty is a breeding ground for criminality.

Now while it is certainly true that the ongoing effects of the practices enumerated above can contribute to racial disparities between white Americans and black Americans, do those ongoing effects last forever, or are they attenuated over time? In other words, is the level of black poverty today the direct result of ongoing effects of racist practices from the past, or are there other factors that might have greater explanatory power? I would like to suggest here that certain behaviors—engaged in to a much greater degree by black Americans than white Americans—generate the higher poverty and criminality levels found among black Americans. The particular behavior I want to explore here is unprotected sex leading to pregnancy and childbirth among underage girls, "underage girls" here defined as those under the age of 18.

The source materials consulted are the "Births: Final Data" issues of the National Vital Statistics Reports (NVSR). Cumulative data from 1980 through 2001 are found in vol. 51, no. 2, p. 32, with successive issues providing data on up through 2019 at this writing. The data charts for each year provide age range and race information on childbirths along with the rate per thousand of population for each classification. Since there was no single category dedicated to underage girls, I made do with a couple of given age range categories, one for girls from 10 to 14 years of age and another for girls from 15 to 17 years of age. I did a side-by-side comparison of black and white rates from 1980 through 2019.

Here's what I found: The black rates were consistently much, much, higher than the white rates, such that dividing the black rate by the white rate yielded the magnitude of order by which the black rate exceeded the white rate. The greatest disparity was in the 10 to 14 years of age group in 2002, when the black rate was a whopping 9.5 times the white rate. The lowest disparity in that age group occurred in 2012, 2017, 2018, and 2019, when in those four years the black rate was 4 times the white rate. The greatest disparity in the 15 to 17 years of age group was also in 2002, when the black rate was 3.09 times the white rate. The lowest disparity in that age group was in 2001, when the black rate was 2.08 times the white rate. Now at this point, some may tentatively attribute this disparity to to a disparity in access to abortions by black Americans; but that is not the case. According to the Guttmacher Institute report from 2017 providing abortion rate data from 1990 through 2013 for females 15 to 19 years of age, the black rate ranged from 2.48 to 3.81 times the white rate (Table 1.7, pp. 32 – 34).

A question that must be asked is why weren't these underage girls taught that letting some stupid boy get into their pants and get them into trouble is one of the worst mistakes a girl can make? And why weren't the black males who impregnated them ever taught that they shouldn't go around engaging in unprotected sex, especially males of legal age with underage girls? It would appear that in some black American households virtues such as discipline, self-control, deferred gratification, and the concept that actions have consequences are simply not being cultivated as much as they should be. Underage girls getting pregnant and having babies is just one of the symptoms of that lack of cultivation of those virtues.

The link between poverty and underage girls having babies ought to be self-evident: When people who have no business having babies go ahead and have those babies, and have them in impoverished inner-city environments where unemployment is high, they are literally creating even more people who won't be able to find work, thereby perpetuating the poverty. In addition, the time, effort, and money that could have been invested elsewhere for the betterment of the household now have to be redirected into raising an unplanned child. Moreover, the same lack of cultivation of the aforementioned virtues responsible for fostering underage childbirths is also responsible for fostering criminality: The 20-year-old thug who pulls a gun and shoots someone for "disrespecting" him is is cut from the very same fabric as the 20-year-old ghetto lothario who impregnates an eighth-grader. The takeaway here is that people can create poverty and criminality by their own irresponsible behavior; and when this irresponsible behavior is culturally transmitted on a large scale decade after decade, it amounts to systemic irresponsibility.

This systemic irresponsibility must be taken into consideration when the issues of white privilege and reparations come up. If a group that emphasizes discipline, self-control, deferred gratification, and the concept that actions have consequences is materially better off than a group that doesn't emphasize those elements to the same degree, is the first group better off because they are the beneficiaries of some kind of undeserved privilege, or are they better off because they are conducting themselves in a more responsible fashion? For example, are Asian-Americans on the whole better off than white Americans because they benefit from some kind of undeserved "Asian privilege," or are they better off on the whole because they emphasize responsible behavior to an even greater degree than white Americans?

One of the justifications adduced for reparations is that present-day black poverty is supposedly the lingering result of racist practices in the past. Caving in to the demand for reparations would be affirming that falsehood. Although some of the recipients of reparation payments would spend or invest the money wisely, many would go out and blow their money, after which it would be noticed that black poverty levels were still way above the white levels. The argument would then be made that the continuing poverty is the result of not enough reparations having been paid out the first time around, so that even more reparations would be demanded. The truth, of course, would be that the continuing high levels of black poverty are due to continuing systemic irresponsibility in certain black communities.

Postscript: Just before giving the draft of this article its pre-submission proofreading, I came across a Los Angeles Times piece by Jenny Jarvie, an excerpt from which is reproduced below:

Black neighborhoods have felt the toll most acutely. Roughly 17% of the city’s 188,000 residents are Black, but since 2019 they have accounted for 63% of the homicide victims and 65% of the known suspects.

The violence is widely viewed as a legacy of systemic racism — including the segregation of Jim Crow and redlining — that is reflected today in a Black poverty rate of 42%. That is significantly higher than in many other Southern cities.

The stats are out of Knoxville. If we were to compare the rate at which black underage girls have babies with the rate at which white underage girls have babies in that city, what would we find? So is black poverty in Knoxville the result of systemic racism, or is it the result of systemic irresponsibility?

The post Systemic Irresponsibility Explained appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Feminization of Western Men

Tuesday 04 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

In a remarkable interview published on Russia Insider in March 2019, RT's Anissa Naouai interviewed Danish journalist Iben Thranholm about the disappearance of Western manhood: Dear European Men: You Are Pathetic Pussies. This is a Danish woman's conclusion.

Thranholm says that Western men have been feminized and Western women defeminized. She says feminists have destroyed men, who are now raised to be women. Consequently, there is no one to protect white women from the sexually aggressive immigrant-invaders brought into all European countries by the anti-white European Union, an enemy of national sovereignty that wants the destruction of European ethnic nationalities. The EU is heavily supported by Washington and American money.

Thranholm's conclusion resonated with me. For a number of years I have noticed that unless I am among older men I often only hear males with women's voices, speaking like girls, the same intonation and the same words, "like," "really." I hear males who sound like Valley Girls. When you look at them you don't see male strength, and neither does Camille Paglia who says androgyny is historically a sign of cultural collapse. When I hear idiots in Washington and European capitals issuing threats to Russia, I wonder where they are going to find any men capable of fighting a Russian army.

Iben Thranholm says Western men have been deprived of strength and confidence by feminism. All over Europe, white women of European ethnicity, French, German, Danish, Swedish are raped openly in public by the privileged people of color welcomed in by scum like Merkel, the corrupt French governments, the bought-and-paid-for Italians, the dumbshit British, and the white men just look away and walk on by. Not only has feminism deprived men of any sense of obligation to their women, they are scared to death of being arrested for offending a person of color by interfering with his rape of a white woman. Indeed, in Scandanavia women are not only afraid to leave their homes, they are afraid to report their rape, because the police might charge them with a hate crime for claiming rape by a protected person of color. In Sweden the protection of Swedish women is so nonexistent that it is becoming a right for a person of color to rape a Swedish woman. The treasonous governments, treasonous against their ethnic populations, will not confront the mistake they made by overwhelming their nations with immigrant-invaders whom they refuse to hold accountable. Therefore, they blame the raped white women. And the Swedes are such sheep that they reelect governments that favor immigrant invaders over ethnic Swedes. Who can imagine a Swedish army confronting a Russian army? It would be a five minute war.

The same for all of Europe. The immigrant-invaders have shown that they can walk through European authority like a wet paper bag. There is nothing there but self-doubt and self-hate. Europe exists only as a geographical location. To understand Europe and the collapsing US, read Jean Raspail's The Camp of the Saints.

How ironic it is. NATO has an army, in name if not in fact, to protect against Russia, which presents no threat. Yet nothing can be done to protect the women of Europe from immigrant-invaders welcomed in by the excrement that comprises European governments. Does anyone less represent German ethnicity than Merkel? Does anyone less represent French ethnicity than Macron? Where in European politics is there any sign of concern for European ethnicities?

Iben Thranholm says that by destroying manhood, the feminists have unbalanced society and left themselves at peril. There are no longer any men.

Here is the interview. Everyone, especially feminists, will do very well to listen. The RT interviewer leaves something to be desired, but Iben Thranholm gets her point across.

The post The Feminization of Western Men appeared first on LewRockwell.

Open Letter From Retired Military: A Plot Against the Republic?

Tuesday 04 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

In three years, France has gone through two major crises that have not been answered: the questioning of globalization by the Gilets jaunes and the disintegration of the State by the police unions. Neither of them has received a substantial response. If the observations of these whistleblowers are shared by all, it becomes impossible to share them publicly. Democracy does not die from the absence of contradictory debates but, worse, from the erection of taboos.

The Yellow Vests against globalization

In 2018, France was shaken by a vast popular movement, the “Yellow Vests”. Starting as a protest against the increase in gasoline prices, it very quickly appeared as a protest against the sociological effects of trade globalization: disappearance of the Western middle classes, relegation to under-equipped countryside [1].

Two weeks after the beginning of the demonstrations, unidentified groups infiltrated the movement to sabotage it from within. Thus, while for 15 days all the demonstrators proudly waved the French flag and sang the Marseillaise -something not seen in popular demonstrations for fifty years-, hooded thugs dressed in black vandalized the Arc de Triomphe and especially the sculpture of the Marseillaise. The trial that followed showed that this group of unidentified provocateurs had no connection with the Gilets jaunes who were the only ones arrested.

In the absence of a leader able to condemn this intrusion, the Yellow Vests movement slowly weakened for a year. Its questions did not disappear, however.

In the past, politicians created “Theodule Commissions” to drown out the problems they did not want to see. President Macron invented a “Great National Debate” for the same purpose, in the age of continuous information media. Everyone spoke, but no one received a relevant answer, neither from the Executive nor from the Assembly.

The police against the disintegration of the nation

A second alert has just taken place. This time the problem is the absence of the 3rd Right of Humans and Citizens of 1789 – not to be confused with the “Rights of Man” in the Anglo-Saxon sense -: security. That is to say, the capacity of citizens to exercise their imprescriptible rights of freedom and property. Indeed, we do not observe a general increase in delinquency, but an increasingly strong geographical disparity. If the citizens of the VIIth district of Paris do not feel threatened, those of the XVth district of Marseilles can permanently fear to be attacked by delinquents. At the same time, the police who should be defending them have changed their function. They are reluctant to enter certain neighborhoods where they are attacked more and more often. Many police officers reasonably fear for their lives: a dozen of them die on duty every year. As a result, some of them are slowly becoming agents of repression of the political opposition. Thus, in many cases, police officers have used disproportionate force against the Yellow Vests and, now, against opponents of health policy. Although these cases are not so numerous across the country, they attest that this is not an accidental, but a deliberate direction, supported at the top of the state.

For the time being, police officers remain attached to a republican training, that is to say, at the service of all and not only of the political authorities. Their unions are multiplying alerts in this sense and denounce the conditions of recruitment of their young colleagues. Indeed, people with psychiatric backgrounds and petty criminals are admitted to police schools today.

The presidential election of 2022

This second movement, after the Yellow Vests, comes at a time when the country is preparing for a new electoral campaign: in May 2022, it will have to designate the President of the Republic. Already, two thirds of voters do not want President Emmanuel Macron to run again.

Given the failures of Nicolas Sarkozy and François Hollande, both at the end of their first and only mandate, Emmanuel Macron can only hope to obtain a second mandate by responding to popular expectations. The one expressed by the Yellow Vests against globalization and the one expressed by the police unions against the retreat of the Republic, i.e. of the General Interest. Not having any intention to subscribe to it, President Macron can also try an electoral maneuver: artificially multiply the candidacies and discredit the candidates likely to win the first round, with the exception of one that he will have chosen, so that he will be facing him in the second round. to organize a second round against Marine Le Pen, whom he will have demonized, and to force the majority of his opponents to vote for him rather than for her in the name of a “Republican front” against fascism.

This strategy worked in 2002 for Jacques Chirac (82%) against Jean-Marie Le Pen (17%). Today it is risky, as Marine Le Pen does not have the image of a fascist like her father, but of a republican. The Élysée is therefore looking for opportunities to turn her into a repulsor.

The appeal of the former military

It so happens that some former military personnel have written an “Open letter to our leaders” in which they underline the current disintegration of institutions and denounce in advance a possible recourse to the army, which they consider inevitable, to resolve the question of security. This appeal was published on their website, Place d'armes, on April 13, 2021. The right-wing weekly, Valeurs actuelles, reprinted it, not in its columns, but on its website, on April 21. Marine Le Pen, who said she had long shared the diagnosis of these former soldiers, then invited them to vote for her in May.

The Élysée deemed this a good opportunity and sent its ministers, one by one, to the media to denounce a “quarteron of retired generals” who, according to them, are calling on their fellow soldiers to perpetrate a military coup. All of them pretended to date their call to April 21, not April 13, so that they saw it as a factious attempt fifty years to the day after the Algiers generals' putsch against Algerian independence. Finally, they denounced Marine Le Pen's fascination with “the sound of boots”.

Aware that he could hope to do better than Emmanuel Macron in the first round of 2022, the leader of France insoumise, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, took the matter to the public prosecutor to have the “factious generals” convicted. Indeed, Jean-Luc Mélenchon had come in third place in the first round of the last presidential election (19% of the vote, against 21% to Le Pen and 24% to Macron).

The place of the military in the public debate

We invite our readers to read the text of this Open Letter [2] and see for themselves that it is much ado about nothing.

A “state of emergency” is the term used to describe the possibility for the government to call in the army to maintain order. However, the military are not trained to do this and their intervention risks causing human losses that only the police and gendarmes are trained to deal with. In 2005, in 2015 and again in 2017, governments have decreed this. Even today, nearly 10,000 military personnel may be required as part of “Operation Sentinel” to protect citizens from terrorist risks. The same is true in Belgium and the United Kingdom.

In addition, article 36 of the 1958 Constitution provides for the possibility, as a last resort, of transferring police and law enforcement powers from the Ministry of the Interior to the army. This is the “state of siege”. It has never been implemented under the Fifth Republic, even during the coup d'état of the generals in 1961.

The Government and France insoumise point out that the Open Letter of the former military never mentions that they are within the constitutional framework and thus insinuates their putschist will. This is a very bad trial of intent. Nothing, absolutely nothing, allows one to accuse these former soldiers of factional intentions.

All this hullabaloo has only served to draw attention to this text. More than 10,000 former military personnel have signed it, including some thirty generals. The question it poses is now evaluated by all and the inaction of the governments -all parties included- is glaring.

Sanctions against whistleblowers

The Minister of Defense announced that she would sanction the signatories. The opprobrium intended for Marine Le Pen now affects the people she was addressing.

Only 18 out of 10,000 are still active. They are in danger of being struck off for failure to comply with the duty of confidentiality. Retirees, on the other hand, enjoy full freedom of expression. They can only be reprimanded for sounding the alarm, but it would be surprising, to say the least, if these 10,000 men were collectively sanctioned for their legitimate civic expression.

The military, whether active or retired, are no longer subjects, but citizens like any others. Following the Algiers putsch, President Charles De Gaulle initiated a profound reform of the armed forces. The soldiers who had refused to obey the putschist generals were indeed punishable for failure to obey orders. General De Gaulle, who had himself refused to obey his superior, Marshal Philippe Pétain, in 1940 and had created Free France, had introduced the distinction between what is “legal” and what is “legitimate”. The Defense Code was therefore modified. It does not allow soldiers to choose sides, but obliges them to refuse illegitimate or dishonorable orders and to arrest their superiors if they engage in such acts. There is therefore no plot against the Republic. No factious conduct.

The signatories of the Open Letter rightly asked to “speak as equals” with their chief of staff who insulted them. Every soldier, active or retired, has such a right as a citizen. This right is the corollary of their obligation to Obey and Serve.

By calling the signatories of this Open Letter “factious”, the Minister of Justice, Eric Dupond-Moretti, has exposed himself to criminal prosecution. The former lawyer was not arguing in a courtroom. He is therefore responsible for his words.

Taboo

The fact that some of the 10,000 signatories are members or close to Marine Le Pen's party, the Rassemblement National, itself a product of the historic party of former collaborators of the Nazis and the Algiers putschists, the Front National, does not authorize her to be condemned, nor does it authorize them to be collectively condemned. In the Republic, there is no hereditary or collective guilt. All are French citizens by right. Not only have none of them been struck with national indignity, but many have served their country with glory.

In their diagnosis, the former soldiers were not content to denounce the Woke rhetoric that inhibits the use of the public monopoly of violence, nor the ideology of political Islam. They also expressed their dismay at the anti-republican use of law enforcement against the Yellow Vests by the authorities. The disproportionate reaction of the State to their Open Letter shows that they have hit the nail on the head.

We are witnessing an inversion of values that makes men judged by the media -and perhaps tomorrow by their military corps- not for what they have done, nor even for what they think, but because they pose a diagnosis to which all subscribe and that few dare to state aloud.

The political discourse has progressively moved away from the realities. It is now entering a murky zone where, as in certain Polynesian societies, what is not mastered becomes taboo. Not only has the “circle of reason” been trying for thirty years to forbid contradictory opinions, but now it is trying to forbid the discussion of certain subjects.

When the first three rights of man and citizen are lost – freedom, property and security – the fourth one intervenes: “resistance to oppression” (article 2).

—

[1] "How the West eats its children", by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete Kimberley, Voltaire Network, 4 December 2018.

[2] « Lettre ouverte d'anciens militaires à nos gouvernants », Réseau Voltaire, 13 avril 2021.

The post Open Letter From Retired Military: A Plot Against the Republic? appeared first on LewRockwell.

'At First Quietly, Then Much Less Quietly'

Tuesday 04 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

The Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI), a branch of the U.S. Department of Defense, was launched in 1971 as the Defense Race Relations Institute (it changed to DEOMI in 1979). But whatever the name, the mandate's always been the same: pollute the armed forces with propaganda about how America is racist, sexist, "homophobic," and an all-around evil place filled with Klansmen and Himmlers.

DEOMI employs a trickle-down methodology, indoctrinating base commanders who then pass along the propagandizing to their rank-and-file service members.

In the late 1990s I was asked by a friend of mine, a major in the U.S. Army, to serve as a researcher on a DEOMI booklet about Holocaust revisionism. I took the job because I hoped my presence would help ensure that the publication didn't falsely label my fellow revisionists as "deniers" (to an extent, I was successful). But also, I really wanted to get a look at DEOMI from the inside, an opportunity few civilians ever secure. And thanks to that familiarity, after Obama became president and DEOMI started to go into indoctrinational hyperdrive, I was able to ferret out some of its wilder schemes.

In 2011, DEOMI launched what it called "Power and Privilege," an online training seminar that base commanders and their subordinates were required to take. "Power and Privilege" was an unashamed attack on straight white Christian males. There wasn't even a small attempt to couch the hateful message in softer language. The course proselytized what today everyone knows as critical race theory. But back in 2011, that poison had yet to envelope the entire culture.

Some examples of what the course taught:

You're "privileged" and thus an oppressor if you believe in "the idea that people fall into two distinct and complementary categories—male and female."

Christian state holidays are "discriminatory" against non-Christians (this lesson included a graphic of a store window with a sign in it reading "Closed on Christmas Day" and the caption "PRIVILEGED!").

You're a racist if you believe, regarding violent crime, that "people of color attack white people too." No, whites always attack POCs, never the converse.

As for the Great Recession, anyone who claims that "white people had it just as bad as anyone else" is a Nazi.

Speaking of Nazis, the course taught that "Hitler's death camps claimed the lives of over 65 million people." That's the entire WWII death toll, now completely attributed to "Hitler's death camps."

Also, you're a "white privileged racist" if you say "Political correctness rules the universities."

At the end of each section, commanders and subordinates had to take a quiz to prove that they'd absorbed and could regurgitate the talking points; they could not move on until they properly answered each question. For example, at the end of the "rationalizations" section, course-takers were shown a quote from a white commander in which he states that he has no racism problems in his unit. This was followed by a multiple-choice list of "rationalizations": Which one does that commander's statement exemplify?

The correct answer was "denial."

Once the course was completed, the graduates were given a certificate stating that they were now trained in Power and Privilege ideology and fully qualified to return to base to pass along what they'd learned.

Read the Whole Article

The post 'At First Quietly, Then Much Less Quietly' appeared first on LewRockwell.

Leaving Team Blue for Team Red

Tuesday 04 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

Another Democratic politician has left the Democratic Party and joined the Republican Party. Although this doesn't happen often, it seems to happen more often than a Republican politician leaving the Republican Party and joining the Democratic Party.

John Lee, the mayor of North Las Vegas since 2013, was last elected to office as a Democrat in 2017. On April 6th of this year, he tweeted:

Card-carrying socialists have completely hijacked the Democratic Party here in Nevada. Today on @foxandfriends I announced my decision to switch to the Republican Party – the party of freedom, opportunity, and hope. Join me!

Lee said in an interview earlier this month with "Fox & Friends":

In the Democratic Party of Nevada, they had an election recently for leadership, and four of the five people were card-carrying members of the Socialist Party.

It's not the party that I grew up with 25 years ago in this environment, and it's not the party I can stand with anymore.

The Nevada Republican Party tweeted in support of Lee: "Excited to have Mayor Lee join our party! He shares our values in protecting life, defending the 2nd Amendment, and fighting for working families."

The Nevada Democratic Party didn't seem too upset that Lee jumped ship. Judith Whitmer, party chair, "said that Lee hasn't been aligned with her party, citing his A+ rating with the National Rifle Association, his votes for Donald Trump, and his pro-life position."

On his website, which includes a link to join the Republican Party, Mayor Lee says:

Nevada needs a switch. Switch to PEOPLE over ESTABLISHMENT. Switch to RIGHTS over RHETORIC. The switch is on! It's time to turn off the Democratic Socialists and turn on the light of liberty.

In a "Dear Friends" letter on his website, Mayor Lee says about the Democratic Party:

Like President Ronald Reagan and President Donald Trump, I've seen firsthand how the Democrat Party has changed—radically, and not for the better. They've embraced a socialist, extremist agenda that is not the party of JFK, or of my parents. Their ideas hurt working-class families, restrict freedom and extinguish opportunity for millions of Americans—particularly working-class minorities who deserve the chance to give their families a better life.

Here in Nevada, we've seen the full takeover of the Democratic Party by admitted socialists. Their goal is clear—ending the America we know and love, and replacing it with a culture of socialist conformity that erases freedom, opportunity and liberty from the American canvas.

There used to be a place in the Democratic Party for conservative voices like mine. Today, that's no longer the case. Their party demands a senseless devotion to cancel culture, socialism, and anti-American values I simply do not share.

Mayor Lee defines his "stance" as:

DEFENDING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

Activist media and bureaucrats have taken our country so far away from our founding principles. I will work for those very principles our nation was founded on—smaller government, lower taxes, free speech, protect unborn life, protect the right to bear arms, and embrace the spirit of liberty that made America so great in the first place.

BATTLING THE SOCIALIST INSURGENCY

Today's Democratic Party has been taken over by card-carrying socialists. It must be defeated. The very soul of our nation is at stake.

PUTTING NEVADANS FIRST

We The People—that's who our nation was founded by and for. For too long a corrupt political establishment has corroded our liberties and built a system to empower and enrich insiders and elites. This establishment has been exposed and We The People are poised to take back control.

Although I applaud Mayor Lee's stance, and am glad that he has left the Democratic Party, I don't think he realizes that the Republican Party is simply the Red Socialist Party and the Democratic party is simply the Blue Socialist Party. He has merely left Team Blue for Team Red.

Republicans believe in socialized education. Long gone are the days when they called for the elimination of the federal Department of Education. Republicans believe that the government should force some Americans to pay for the education of other Americans and their children.

Republicans believe in socialized medicine. Medicaid and Medicare are nothing less than socialized medicine. Yet, in their platform, the Republicans state: "We intend to save Medicare by modernizing it, empowering its participants, and putting it on a secure financial footing. We will preserve the promise of Medicaid as well by making that program, designed for 1965 medicine, a vehicle for good health in an entirely new era." Republicans believe that the government should force some Americans to pay for the health care and health insurance of other Americans.

Republicans believe in socialized charity. They have no philosophical objection to the 80 means-tested welfare programs that provide cash, food, housing subsidies, utility subsidies, and social services to poor, disabled, and lower-income Americans. And neither do they object to the programs that aren't means-tested. As long as the welfare state is efficient, has low rates of waste, fraud, and abuse, and doesn't increase in cost too much every year, then they support it.

Republicans believe in socialized services. For years, they continually funded Amtrak, Planned Parenthood, art and culture, and federal job training. Republicans are the ones who created the TSA to provide security services to airlines. The only objection that Republicans have to President Biden's $2.3 trillion infrastructure plan is its cost. They are perfectly fine with their own $568 billion infrastructure proposal.

Republicans believe in Social Security. This is the granddaddy of all socialist programs. Yet, in their platform, Republicans state that all options "should be considered to preserve Social Security."

Mayor Lee, what were you thinking when you changed from Team Blue to Team Red? If you object to the socialism of the Democratic Party, then you should join the Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party, some other non-socialist third party, or simply become an Independent. All you have done is change the color of your shirt.

What matters, of course, is not that you carry the label of Republican, Libertarian, Constitutionalist, or Independent, but what whether you stand for the Constitution, federalism, individual liberty, property rights, limited government, free enterprise, and the free market—things that the Republican Party claims to stand for, but doesn't.

Although he was elected governor of South Carolina in 1946 and U.S. senator from South Carolina in 1954 and 1960 as a Democrat, Strom Thurmond left the Democratic Party in 1964 because it was "leading the evolution of our nation to a socialistic dictatorship." How much more true is that sentiment today.

Every decent American still in the Democratic Party should leave it and let the party be left to the feminists, the environmentalists, the Green New Dealers, the teachers' unions, the social justice warriors, the pro-abortionists, the welfare statists, the LGBTQ+ community, and the assorted victim groups that the party uses to get votes.

The post Leaving Team Blue for Team Red appeared first on LewRockwell.

Returning to Form?

Tuesday 04 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

I refer to a couple of earlier posts where I have commented on the return of Jordan Peterson (here and here). In the first, he noted that he had a good amount of his bravery beaten out of him, which is certainly understandable. Both he and his conversation partner, Douglas Murray, were far more timid than either had been on previous occasions; this came in the aftermath of the US election, events at the capitol, etc. In the second, Peterson offers that we must put our faith in man – this contrary to his previous messages that we look to something higher, above man.

Peterson has recently released a conversation with Paul Rossi of Grace Church High School. I have not listened to many of his conversations since these first two (although the one with Jonathan Pageau was quite worthwhile).

Returning to the current video…Rossi recently wrote an essay, published by Bari Weiss: I Refuse to Stand By While My Students Are Indoctrinated. (The backstory to these events can be found here.)

Before the discussion begins, there is an "advertisement" (I don't know what else to call it) from an organization called FAIR: Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (beginning here). It includes comments and endorsements from people like Coleman Hughes, Steven Pinker, John McWhorter, Bari Weiss, and Glenn Loury. If you are familiar at all with any of these names, you will understand something of this organization – these individuals have spoken out against the destructive turn that the conversation of race has taken in the United States (beyond this, I know nothing about the organization).

If you are not familiar with Rossi's essay, it is worth reading. In the essay, he raises concerns about how his students – and all students at his school – are being indoctrinated into race hatred and resentment (I have no better terms for this). Hatred toward one's self, if one is white; resentment toward everyone by everyone, regardless of skin color or nationality. Needless to say, he has been chastised by his school.

The discussion between Peterson and Rossi is over two hours. Much of the first half is Peterson asking Rossi for the background story – how he came to such a point, the road he travelled, etc. Further, Peterson acts as a psychologist would: why do you think you believed such and such, what was going on inside you when this or that happened?

The second part gets more into the particulars. Included in this part is a recorded conversation between Rossi and George Davison, the headmaster of the school. The introduction to this recording by Peterson and Rossi, as well as the recorded portion played, are worth listening to – even if you don't listen to any of the rest of the discussion. It begins here; it will take only about four minutes or so of your time.

Conclusion

Peterson, at least I this conversation, is returning to form. It is a good thing if this continues, as he has had a way of moving the conversation regarding both the destructive intolerance of society and the value of the Christian narrative as well as about anyone in the last five years.

Yes, he has his shortcomings and faults. He, like all of us, is only human.

Reprinted with permission from Bionic Mosquito.

The post Returning to Form? appeared first on LewRockwell.

From Mind Control to Viruses: How the Government Keeps Experimenting on Its Citizens

Tuesday 04 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

"They were monsters with human faces, in crisp uniforms, marching in lockstep, so banal you don't recognize them for what they are until it's too late." — Ransom Riggs, Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children

The U.S. government, in its pursuit of so-called monsters, has itself become a monster.

This is not a new development, nor is it a revelation.

This is a government that has in recent decades unleashed untold horrors upon the world—including its own citizenry—in the name of global conquest, the acquisition of greater wealth, scientific experimentation, and technological advances, all packaged in the guise of the greater good.

Mind you, there is no greater good when the government is involved. There is only greater greed for money and power.

Unfortunately, the public has become so easily distracted by the political spectacle out of Washington, DC, that they are altogether oblivious to the grisly experiments, barbaric behavior and inhumane conditions that have become synonymous with the U.S. government.

These horrors have been meted out against humans and animals alike. For all intents and purposes, "we the people" have become lab rats in the government's secret experiments.

Fifty years from now, we may well find out the whole sordid truth behind this COVID-19 pandemic. However, this isn't intended to be a debate over whether COVID-19 is a legitimate health crisis or a manufactured threat. It is merely to acknowledge that such crises can—and are—manipulated by governments in order to expand their powers.

As we have learned, it is entirely possible for something to be both a genuine menace to the nation's health and security and a menace to freedom.

This is a road the United States has been traveling for many years now. Indeed, grisly experiments, barbaric behavior and inhumane conditions have become synonymous with the U.S. government, which has meted out untold horrors against humans and animals alike.

For instance, did you know that the U.S. government has been buying hundreds of dogs and cats from "Asian meat markets" as part of a gruesome experiment into food-borne illnesses? The cannibalistic experiments involve killing cats and dogs purchased from Colombia, Brazil, Vietnam, China and Ethiopia, and then feeding the dead remains to laboratory kittens, bred in government laboratories for the express purpose of being infected with a disease and then killed.

It gets more gruesome.

The Department of Veterans Affairs has been removing parts of dogs' brains to see how it affects their breathing; applying electrodes to dogs' spinal cords (before and after severing them) to see how it impacts their cough reflexes; and implanting pacemakers in dogs' hearts and then inducing them to have heart attacks (before draining their blood). All of the laboratory dogs are killed during the course of these experiments.

It's not just animals that are being treated like lab rats by government agencies.

"We the people" have also become the police state's guinea pigs: to be caged, branded, experimented upon without our knowledge or consent, and then conveniently discarded and left to suffer from the after-effects.

Back in 2017, FEMA "inadvertently" exposed nearly 10,000 firefighters, paramedics and other responders to a deadly form of ricin during simulated bioterrorism response sessions. In 2015, it was discovered that an Army lab had been "mistakenly" shipping deadly anthrax to labs and defense contractors for a decade.

While these particular incidents have been dismissed as "accidents," you don't have to dig very deep or go very back in the nation's history to uncover numerous cases in which the government deliberately conducted secret experiments on an unsuspecting populace—citizens and noncitizens alike—making healthy people sick by spraying them with chemicals, injecting them with infectious diseases and exposing them to airborne toxins.

At the time, the government reasoned that it was legitimate to experiment on people who did not have full rights in society such as prisoners, mental patients, and poor blacks.

In Alabama, for example, 600 black men with syphilis were allowed to suffer without proper medical treatment in order to study the natural progression of untreated syphilis. In California, older prisoners had testicles from livestock and from recently executed convicts implanted in them to test their virility. In Connecticut, mental patients were injected with hepatitis.

In Maryland, sleeping prisoners had a pandemic flu virus sprayed up their noses. In Georgia, two dozen "volunteering" prison inmates had gonorrhea bacteria pumped directly into their urinary tracts through the penis. In Michigan, male patients at an insane asylum were exposed to the flu after first being injected with an experimental flu vaccine. In Minnesota, 11 public service employee "volunteers" were injected with malaria, then starved for five days.

As the Associated Press reports, "The late 1940s and 1950s saw huge growth in the U.S. pharmaceutical and health care industries, accompanied by a boom in prisoner experiments funded by both the government and corporations. By the 1960s, at least half the states allowed prisoners to be used as medical guinea pigs … because they were cheaper than chimpanzees."

Moreover, "Some of these studies, mostly from the 1940s to the ’60s, apparently were never covered by news media. Others were reported at the time, but the focus was on the promise of enduring new cures, while glossing over how test subjects were treated."

Media blackouts, propaganda, spin. Sound familiar?

How many government incursions into our freedoms have been blacked out, buried under "entertainment" news headlines, or spun in such a way as to suggest that anyone voicing a word of caution is paranoid or conspiratorial?

Unfortunately, these incidents are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the atrocities the government has inflicted on an unsuspecting populace in the name of secret experimentation.

For instance, there was the U.S. military's secret race-based testing of mustard gas on more than 60,000 enlisted men. As NPR reports, "All of the World War II experiments with mustard gas were done in secret and weren’t recorded on the subjects’ official military records. Most do not have proof of what they went through. They received no follow-up health care or monitoring of any kind. And they were sworn to secrecy about the tests under threat of dishonorable discharge and military prison time, leaving some unable to receive adequate medical treatment for their injuries, because they couldn’t tell doctors what happened to them."

And then there was the CIA's MKULTRA program in which hundreds of unsuspecting American civilians and military personnel were dosed with LSD, some having the hallucinogenic drug slipped into their drinks at the beach, in city bars, at restaurants. As Time reports, "before the documentation and other facts of the program were made public, those who talked of it were frequently dismissed as being psychotic."

Now one might argue that this is all ancient history and that the government today is different from the government of yesteryear, but has the U.S. government really changed?

Has the government become any more humane, any more respectful of the rights of the citizenry? Has it become any more transparent or willing to abide by the rule of law? Has it become any more truthful about its activities? Has it become any more cognizant of its appointed role as a guardian of our rights?

Or has the government simply hunkered down and hidden its nefarious acts and dastardly experiments under layers of secrecy, legalism and obfuscations? Has it not become wilier, more slippery, more difficult to pin down?

Having mastered the Orwellian art of Doublespeak and followed the Huxleyan blueprint for distraction and diversion, are we not dealing with a government that is simply craftier and more conniving that it used to be?

Consider this: after revelations about the government's experiments spanning the 20th century spawned outrage, the government began looking for human guinea pigs in other countries, where "clinical trials could be done more cheaply and with fewer rules."

In Guatemala, prisoners and patients at a mental hospital were infected with syphilis, "apparently to test whether penicillin could prevent some sexually transmitted disease." In Uganda, U.S.-funded doctors "failed to give the AIDS drug AZT to all the HIV-infected pregnant women in a study… even though it would have protected their newborns." Meanwhile, in Nigeria, children with meningitis were used to test an antibiotic named Trovan. Eleven children died and many others were left disabled.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Case in point: back in 2016, it was announced that scientists working for the Department of Homeland Security would begin releasing various gases and particles on crowded subway platforms as part of an experiment aimed at testing bioterror airflow in New York subways.

The government insisted that the gases released into the subways by the DHS were nontoxic and did not pose a health risk. It's in our best interests, they said, to understand how quickly a chemical or biological terrorist attack might spread. And look how cool the technology is—said the government cheerleaders—that scientists can use something called DNATrax to track the movement of microscopic substances in air and food. (Imagine the kinds of surveillance that could be carried out by the government using trackable airborne microscopic substances you breathe in or ingest.)

Mind you, this is the same government that in 1949 sprayed bacteria into the Pentagon's air handling system, then the world's largest office building. In 1950, special ops forces sprayed bacteria from Navy ships off the coast of Norfolk and San Francisco, in the latter case exposing all of the city's 800,000 residents.

In 1953, government operatives staged "mock" anthrax attacks on St. Louis, Minneapolis, and Winnipeg using generators placed on top of cars. Local governments were reportedly told that "'invisible smokescreen[s]' were being deployed to mask the city on enemy radar." Later experiments covered territories as wide-ranging as Ohio to Texas and Michigan to Kansas.

In 1965, the government's experiments in bioterror took aim at Washington's National Airport, followed by a 1966 experiment in which army scientists exposed a million subway NYC passengers to airborne bacteria that causes food poisoning.

And this is the same government that has taken every bit of technology sold to us as being in our best interests—GPS devices, surveillance, nonlethal weapons, etc.—and used it against us, to track, control and trap us.

So, no, I don't think the government's ethics have changed much over the years. It's just taken its nefarious programs undercover.

The question remains: why is the government doing this? The answer is always the same: money, power and total domination.

It's the same answer no matter which totalitarian regime is in power.

The mindset driving these programs has, appropriately, been likened to that of Nazi doctors experimenting on Jews. As the Holocaust Museum recounts, Nazi physicians "conducted painful and often deadly experiments on thousands of concentration camp prisoners without their consent."

The Nazi's unethical experiments ran the gamut from freezing experiments using prisoners to find an effective treatment for hypothermia, tests to determine the maximum altitude for parachuting out of a plane, injecting prisoners with malaria, typhus, tuberculosis, typhoid fever, yellow fever, and infectious hepatitis, exposing prisoners to phosgene and mustard gas, and mass sterilization experiments.

The horrors being meted out against the American people can be traced back, in a direct line, to the horrors meted out in Nazi laboratories. In fact, following the second World War, the U.S. government recruited many of Hitler's employees, adopted his protocols, embraced his mindset about law and order and experimentation, and implemented his tactics in incremental steps.

Sounds far-fetched, you say? Read on. It's all documented.

As historian Robert Gellately recounts, the Nazi police state was initially so admired for its efficiency and order by the world powers of the day that J. Edgar Hoover, then-head of the FBI, actually sent one of his right-hand men, Edmund Patrick Coffey, to Berlin in January 1938 at the invitation of Germany's secret police, the Gestapo.

The FBI was so impressed with the Nazi regime that, according to the New York Times, in the decades after World War II, the FBI, along with other government agencies, aggressively recruited at least a thousand Nazis, including some of Hitler's highest henchmen.

All told, thousands of Nazi collaborators—including the head of a Nazi concentration camp, among others—were given secret visas and brought to America by way of Project Paperclip. Subsequently, they were hired on as spies, informants and scientific advisers, and then camouflaged to ensure that their true identities and ties to Hitler's holocaust machine would remain unknown. All the while, thousands of Jewish refugees were refused entry visas to the U.S. on the grounds that it could threaten national security.

Adding further insult to injury, American taxpayers have been paying to keep these ex-Nazis on the U.S. government's payroll ever since. And in true Gestapo fashion, anyone who has dared to blow the whistle on the FBI's illicit Nazi ties has found himself spied upon, intimidated, harassed and labeled a threat to national security.

As if the government's covert, taxpayer-funded employment of Nazis after World War II wasn't bad enough, U.S. government agencies—the FBI, CIA and the military—have since fully embraced many of the Nazi's well-honed policing tactics, and have used them repeatedly against American citizens.

It's certainly easy to denounce the full-frontal horrors carried out by the scientific and medical community within a despotic regime such as Nazi Germany, but what do you do when it's your own government that claims to be a champion of human rights all the while allowing its agents to engage in the foulest, bases and most despicable acts of torture, abuse and experimentation?

When all is said and done, this is not a government that has our best interests at heart.

This is not a government that values us.

Perhaps the answer lies in The Third Man, Carol Reed's influential 1949 film starring Joseph Cotten and Orson Welles. In the film, set in a post-WW II Vienna, rogue war profiteer Harry Lime has come to view human carnage with a callous indifference, unconcerned that the diluted penicillin he's been trafficking underground has resulted in the tortured deaths of young children.

Challenged by his old friend Holly Martins to consider the consequences of his actions, Lime responds, "In these days, old man, nobody thinks in terms of human beings. Governments don't, so why should we?"

"Have you ever seen any of your victims?" asks Martins.

"Victims?" responds Limes, as he looks down from the top of a Ferris wheel onto a populace reduced to mere dots on the ground. "Look down there. Tell me. Would you really feel any pity if one of those dots stopped moving forever? If I offered you twenty thousand pounds for every dot that stopped, would you really, old man, tell me to keep my money, or would you calculate how many dots you could afford to spare? Free of income tax, old man. Free of income tax — the only way you can save money nowadays."

This is how the U.S. government sees us, too, when it looks down upon us from its lofty perch.

To the powers-that-be, the rest of us are insignificant specks, faceless dots on the ground.

To the architects of the American police state, we are not worthy or vested with inherent rights. This is how the government can justify treating us like economic units to be bought and sold and traded, or caged rats to be experimented upon and discarded when we've outgrown our usefulness.

To those who call the shots in the halls of government, "we the people" are merely the means to an end.

"We the people"—who think, who reason, who take a stand, who resist, who demand to be treated with dignity and care, who believe in freedom and justice for all—have become obsolete, undervalued citizens of a totalitarian state that, in the words of Rod Serling, "has patterned itself after every dictator who has ever planted the ripping imprint of a boot on the pages of history since the beginning of time. It has refinements, technological advances, and a more sophisticated approach to the destruction of human freedom."

In this sense, we are all Romney Wordsworth, the condemned man in Serling's Twilight Zone episode "The Obsolete Man."

"The Obsolete Man" speaks to the dangers of a government that views people as expendable once they have outgrown their usefulness to the State. Yet—and here's the kicker—this is where the government through its monstrous inhumanity also becomes obsolete. As Serling noted in his original script for "The Obsolete Man," "Any state, any entity, any ideology which fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of Man…that state is obsolete."

How do you defeat a monster?

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, you start by recognizing the monster for what it is.

The post From Mind Control to Viruses: How the Government Keeps Experimenting on Its Citizens appeared first on LewRockwell.

Doctor Refuses To Accept Vaccinated Patients. He Will Not Let Those Who Made a Bad Decision…

Tuesday 04 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

Comments open on BitChute

The post Doctor Refuses To Accept Vaccinated Patients. He Will Not Let Those Who Made a Bad Decision… appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Criminalization of Dissent

Tuesday 04 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

“Governments and their corporate media mouthpieces are telling us that ‘objection to their authority’ will no longer be tolerated, nor will dissent from their official narratives”

One of the hallmarks of totalitarian systems is the criminalization of dissent. Not just the stigmatization of dissent or the demonization of dissent, but the formal criminalization of dissent, and any other type of opposition to the official ideology of the totalitarian system. Global capitalism has been inching its way toward this step for quite some time, and now, apparently, it is ready to take it.

Germany has been leading the way. For over a year, anyone questioning or protesting the "Covid emergency measures" or the official Covid-19 narrative has been demonized by the government and the media, and, sadly, but not completely unexpectedly, the majority of the German public. And now such dissent is officially "extremism."

Yes, that's right, in "New Normal" Germany, if you dissent from the official state ideology, you are now officially a dangerous "extremist." The German Intelligence agency (the "BfV") has even invented a new category of "extremists" in order to allow themselves to legally monitor anyone suspected of being "anti-democratic and/or delegitimizing the state in a way that endangers security," like … you know, non-violently protesting, or speaking out against, or criticizing, or satirizing, the so-called "New Normal."

Naturally, I'm a little worried, as I have engaged in most of these "extremist" activities. My thoughtcrimes are just sitting there on the Internet waiting to be scrutinized by the BfV. They're probably Google-translating this column right now, compiling a list of all the people reading it, and their Facebook friends and Twitter followers, and professional associates, and family members, and anyone any of the aforementioned people have potentially met with, or casually mentioned, who might have engaged in similar thoughtcrimes.

You probably think I'm joking, don't you? I'm not joking. Not even slightly. The Federal Office for Protection of the Constitution ("Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz") is actively monitoring anyone questioning or challenging the official "New Normal" ideology … the "Covid Deniers," the "conspiracy theorists," the "anti-vaxxers," the dreaded "Querdenkers" (i.e., people who "think outside the box"), and anyone else they feel like monitoring who has refused to join the Covidian Cult. We're now official enemies of the state, no different than any other "terrorists" … or, OK, technically, a little different.

As The New York Times reported last week (German Intelligence Puts Coronavirus Deniers Under Surveillance), "the danger from coronavirus deniers and conspiracy theorists does not fit the mold posed by the usual politically driven groups, including those on the far left and right, or by Islamic extremists." Still, according to the German Interior Ministry, we diabolical "Covid deniers," "conspiracy theorists," and "anti-vaxxers" have "targeted the state itself, its leaders, businesses, the press, and globalism," and have "attacked police officers" and "defied civil authorities."

Moreover, back in August of 2020, in a dress rehearsal for the "Storming of the Capitol," "Covid-denying" insurrectionists "scaled the steps of Parliament" (i.e., the Reichstag). Naturally, The Times neglects to mention that this so-called "Storming of the Reichstag" was performed by a small sub-group of protesters to whom the German authorities had granted a permit to assemble (apart from the main demonstration, which was massive and completely peaceful) on the steps of the Reichstag, which the German police had, for some reason, left totally unguarded. In light of the background of the person the German authorities issued this "Steps-of-the-Reichstag" protest permit to — a known former-NPD functionary, in other words, a neo-Nazi — well, the whole thing seemed a bit questionable to me … but what do I know? I'm just a "conspiracy theorist."

According to Al Jazeera, the German Interior Ministry explained that these querdenking "extremists encourage supporters to ignore official orders and challenge the state monopoly on the use of force." Seriously, can you imagine anything more dangerous? Mindlessly following orders and complying with the state's monopoly on the use of force are the very cornerstones of modern democracy … or some sort of political system, anyway.

But, see, there I go, again "being anti-democratic" and "delegitimizing the state," not to mention "relativizing the Holocaust" (also a criminal offense in Germany) by comparing one totalitarian system to another, as I have done repeatedly on social media, and in a column I published in November of 2020, when the parliament passed the "Infection Protection Act," which bears no comparison whatsoever to the "Enabling Act of 1933."

This isn't just a German story, of course. As I reported in a column in February, The "New Normal" War on Domestic Terror is a global war, and it's just getting started. According to a Department of Homeland Security "National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin" (and the "liberal" corporate-media propaganda machine), "democracy" remains under imminent threat from these "ideologically-motivated violent extremists with objections to the exercise of governmental authority" and other such "grievances fueled by false narratives" including "anger over Covid-19 restrictions."

These Covid-denying "violent extremists" have apparently joined forces with the "white-supremacist, Russia-backed, Trump-loving "Putin-Nazis" that terrorized "democracy" for the past four years, and almost overthrew the US government by sauntering around inside the US Capitol Building without permission, scuffling with police, attacking furniture, and generally acting rude and unruly. No, they didn't actually kill anyone, as the corporate media all reported they did, but trespassing in a government building and putting your feet up on politicians' desks is pretty much exactly the same as "terrorism."

Or whatever. It's not like the truth actually matters, not when you are whipping up mass hysteria over imaginary "Russian assets," "white-supremacist militias," "Covid-denying extremists," "anti-vax terrrorists," and "apocalyptic plagues." When you're rolling out a new official ideology — a pathologized-totalitarian ideology — and criminalizing all dissent, the point is not to appear to be factual. The point is just to terrorize the shit out of people.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Criminalization of Dissent appeared first on LewRockwell.

from https://youtu.be/GuUaaPaTlyY May 05, 2021 at 09:00PM

#[Consumer Credit News] Credit Report Repair News: Digest for May 06 #2021

0 notes

zagglutin · 4 years ago

Text

[Consumer Credit News] Credit Report Repair News: Digest for May 04, 2021

Credit Report Repair News

Table of Contents

Credit Report Repair News: Digest for May 03, 2021

by Credit Repair News, Sebastian Pulvera on Monday 03 May 2021 02:00 AM UTC-05

Credit Report Repair News

Table of Contents

The Missing Piece Of The Covid-19 Death Puzzle: Co-Infection

Who's Lysenko-ing Now?

Cradle-to-Grave Stimmy: How We Got Here

Cancel Culture Comes Home: Walter Duranty and the New York Times

A Lesson from History: Transgender Mania is a Sign of Cultural Collapse Camille Paglia

Police Shootings vs. Medically Caused Death; How the News Shapes Public Perception And Controls Minds

Can Colleges and Employers Legally Require You To Get Vaccinated?

Anti-War Group Releases Activist Guide To End Militarized Policing in US

What Do Confederate Monuments and German Composer Richard Strauss Have in Common?

Gold Is Laughing at Powell

Unsportsmanlike Conduct

Food as Medicine — The Answer to Mounting Health Crises

The Missing Piece Of The Covid-19 Death Puzzle: Co-Infection

Sunday 02 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

Funny thing we realized on the way to the funeral parlor to bury our friends and loved ones who were vaccinated against COVID-19 coronavirus, that the vaccine didn't work.

COVID-19 vaccines, like flu shots, don't work as well for new strains of the virus. For that, you will need perpetual immunization, say vaccine makers.

Faulty test

Oh, there are people dying, 7700 every day in the US. But was their passing solely attributed to COVID-19? Since the COVID-19 fatality numbers are exaggerated by a PCR nasal swab test that results in 97% false positives (all of the COVID-19 PCR tests during the past 14 months have been found to be invalid), there is no way to confirm deaths were caused by COVID-19 or COVID-19 was a bystander, the difference between dying OF COVID-19 or dying WITH COVID-19! Deaths are being drummed up to create fear and false demand for vaccines.

The vaccinated are the super-spreaders

Also, in case you hadn't heard, "a resurgence in both hospitalizations and deaths will be 'dominated by those that have received two doses of the vaccine," says the respected Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group.

"At least 60 percent of all new COVID-19 cases are occurring in people who were already vaccinated." So far, hundreds who have been vaccinated got sick again and some have died. This is being reported in different locations.

We have a vaccine that reduces severity of symptoms but not the ratio of hospitalizations and deaths among infected subjects!

The so-called "super-spreaders" are the asymptomatic RNA-vaccinated (Pfizer/ Moderna) individuals that shed the virus.

In an anticipated misdirection, the unvaccinated will then be mistakenly blamed for the spread of the virus and a predicted witch hunt will ensue for the anti-vaxxers, a development foreseen in my March 26, 2021 posting.

How can the death data be accurate?

But how could a mutated common cold virus kill off humans like flies? Well, at no time were any human populations dying like flies. As stated in prior reports, the percentage of people dying of COVID-19 who reside outside of nursing homes is but one-quarter of one-percent.

Vaccination, which is said to be 95% effective, but that is not 95 out of 100 in hard numbers.

On an accumulated basis as of May 1, 2021 in the U.S., 31,889,171 laboratory- confirmed infections (9.7% of the population) with 568,836 questionable deaths (0.0017% or 1.7 per thousand). But even these numbers are fallacious.

If the PCR nasal swab test were properly performed, then 97% COVID-19 infections as a cause of death cannot be confirmed.

Only 6% of deaths were without co-morbid conditions (diabetes, heart disease, etc.), meaning maybe only 34,130 COVID-19 deaths solely attributed to COVID-19 instead of 568,836 – for a true fatality risk 0.0001 or 1 in 10,000.

That means 10,000 must be vaccinated to spare 1 life. While the serious side effect rate for the vaccines is very small, it exceeds the number who will potentially benefit from vaccination. Your chance of benefiting from vaccination is nil. And vaccination will not prevent infections or deaths if your immune system is not intact, or if the strain of the virus does not match the vaccine.

Furthermore, according to the CDC, excess deaths were only reported among non-COVID-19 fatalities. Yes, something other than COVID-19.

That is explained by the lockdown syndrome where anxiety-laden Americans are drinking so much alcohol, and spending sleepless nights, drinking coffee and tea to stay awake in the day, not realizing these practices block vitamin B1 that controls the autonomic nervous system. Vitamin B1 deficiency may mimic the symptoms of COVID-19, for which a vaccine would be worthless.

Americans are forced to give up their livelihoods over contrived deaths.

The infection mortality rate

How are face masks, social distancing and hand washing, going to meaningfully reduce your risk of dying from COVID-19 when only 1 in 10,000 are at risk?

Humans are continually exposed to pathogens. Exposure to pathogenic bacteria and viruses cannot be completely blocked by face masks, distancing or hand washing. It is the status of your immune system that determines whether you become ill, not the wearing of masks, washing of hands or distancing from others.

Once infected, if your immune system is healthy, you will develop antibodies and T-cells naturally and be protected from every strain of coronavirus.

With close to 40% of deaths occurring among aged individuals in nursing homes and 85% of reported deaths occurring among patients who are 65 years of age or older, the risk of dying for most of the U.S. adult population from COVID-19 is remote.

The major lesson is that advanced age and concomitant weak immunity are the major risk factors for fatal lung infection, not failure to wear masks or unwashed hands.

To ensure your immune system is operational, the consumption of supplemental zinc, vitamins A, C, D, and selenium (halts viral mutations), being essential nutrients, should be standard for self-care. Your immune system is a "universal vaccine." There is no viral strain that the immune system cannot quell. Your immune system is far superior to vaccines. So, what is to fear about infection if you develop natural immunity?

Face masks and social distancing reduced flu deaths? Really?

Let's also not overlook the scientific sleight of hand going on. Health authorities are disingenuously asking the public to believe that flu deaths vanished in this initial year of COVID-19, giving credit for their onerous measures to stop the spread of the virus, as if all the face masks and social distancing can selectively block the flu but not a coronavirus (??). How do it know? That is a preposterous idea. Major public health agencies cannot be relied upon for life-saving information.

Flu deaths over-reported for years

Health authorities continually harp that this COVID-19 pandemic could be as deadly as the flu. But there never were all those flu deaths that the Centers for Disease Control reports. The American Lung Association reported flu-related deaths as low as 257 (2001), 274 (2010) and 727 (2002) while the CDC continues to report an average of 36,000 flu deaths per year in a contrived seasonal epidemic to drum up flu vaccination. How can Americans have any trust in COVID-19 vaccines when they are touted by public health agencies that proffer fake data like this?

Why is anyone even thinking of getting vaccinated?

With all of the falsehoods, contrived threats of infection and death, false-positive tests, over-stated effectiveness of vaccines, mutant strains for which there is no immunization, and a remote chance of ever benefiting from immunization, as well as unproven experimental vaccines, it is a wonder why, at the end of April, 2021, close to a third of the US population is fully vaccinated.

Americans are voluntarily walking the plank. But Americans say they didn't have a choice, their employer required it or they can't travel without a vaccination certificate.

Isn't it difficult to believe that the United States, the most developed country and with the most advanced healthcare system in the world, with fortified foods, public hygiene, modern medicines and plentiful doctoring, and only 4% of the world's population, as of July 2021 is responsible for approximately 26% of its COVID-19 cases and 24% of its COVID-19-deaths?

If it is so critical for the world to get vaccinated, why are there more than 130 countries that haven't administered a single vaccine? Vaccines are mostly being distributed in advanced countries where vaccine makers can make money.

Other pathogens involved

It is an over-simplification to believe a mutated common- cold virus, that had obviously undergone "gain of function" alterations, has singularly become a "natural born killer." That is the failure to educate the public that other pathogens, namely bacteria and fungi, are involved in mortal-stage infectious lung diseases. This is called co-infection. This is the missing piece of the COVID-19 puzzle, which vaccination will not prevent.

The Spanish flu was really the Spanish TB

You would likely be surprised to learn that deaths from a flu virus (H1N1) was not the sole cause of the 1918 Spanish flu that was reported to have killed millions worldwide.

Demographer Andrew Noymer at University of California Berkeley found a huge die off of people who had tuberculosis, a mycobacterial infection, in 1919, the year after the Spanish flu.

In one study researchers found TB was associated with influenza death, but there were no influenza deaths among non-TB-infected subjects!

Secondary bacterial infections

Secondary bacterial infections are reported as the most common causes of death in the flu pandemic of 1918, the bacterium Streptococcus pneumonia in particular. Secondary bacterial infections were also reported in the 2009 Swine flu pandemic.

The fact is, most hospitalized COVID-19 patients acquire a secondary bacterial infection.

Secondary infections significantly decrease survival of COVID-19 patients, particularly those in the ICU.

In Wuhan China a secondary infection was reported in 50% of non-survivors and only 1% of survivors. In another study those patients with severe COVID-19 were 2.9 to 18.2 times more likely to have coinfections with bacteria or fungi.

It is possible that some patients die from bacterial coinfection rather than the COVID-19 virus itself. In the 2009 H1N1 flu pandemic among an estimated 300,000 deaths, 30-55% of deaths were from bacterial pneumonia. But you don't read about pneumonia deaths in the current pandemic, likely miscategorized as COVID-19 deaths and subsequently reported in the news media.

In another study, 35% of patients with critical disease were found to have secondary bacterial infection compared with only 4% with moderate and 9% with severe disease.

The most common pathogen that causes pneumonia in the hospital is fungi. In one study of COVID-19 patients 80% had fungi in their lungs.

Natural remedies that address bacteria viruses and fungi

At this point it is important to recognize there are not enough antibiotics or even vaccines to go around if a true pandemic is in play. This means self-care is important.

Most everyone says they have experienced COVID-like symptoms in the past year or so and 99.7% got well on their own. It is important in self-care to address bacterial and fungal infections as well as viruses.

In a study done at Cornell University over a decade ago it was found that four herbal remedies (garlic, oregano, allspice, and cloves) killed all forms of bacteria. All of these herbals overcome antibiotic resistance.

The primary active ingredient in fresh-crushed garlic, allicin, has been shown to have anti-viral, anti-fungal, and anti-bacterial properties. While most garlic pills do not yield allicin due to stomach acid degradation of the enzyme that produces allicin, an alkalinized garlic capsule negates acidity to yield as much allicin as a fresh-crushed clove of garlic. Garlic also does not induce antibiotic resistance.

Oil of oregano contains carvacrol, a strong antifungal and antibacterial agent. Carvacrol is not subject to anti-bacterial resistance.

The red wine molecule resveratrol is known to have unusual anti-fungal, anti-bacterial and anti-viral action. "Resveratrol demonstrates the action of antimicrobials against a remarkable bacterial diversity, viruses, and fungi."

Dr. Thomas Levy advocates for the use of fine nebulized droplets of hydrogen peroxide which selectively kills all bacteria, viruses and fungi without harming healthy cells. Nebulizers are available online or from local medical suppliers. Read Dr. Levy's book RAPID VIRUS RECOVERY, a free online ebook.

COVID-19 vaccines only target a single strain of coronavirus. Coinfection dramatically increases mortality. Make sure your regimen of home remedies addresses bacteria, viruses and fungi.

The post The Missing Piece Of The Covid-19 Death Puzzle: Co-Infection appeared first on LewRockwell.

Who's Lysenko-ing Now?

Sunday 02 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

Trofim Lysenko was a government-sponsored agronomist and biologist favored by Stalin and the CCCP. By favored, I mean put in charge, given power to define the terms and settle the science, and by government edict, was not to be criticized by man or beast.

You know, like Tony Fauci.

In the Lysenko era, from 1927 through Stalin's death in 1953, Soviet academia, media, and party publicly rejected the ideas of Darwin's natural selection and Mendelian genetics in favor of the early 1800's ideas of Lamarck, who believed characteristics acquired during an organism's life could be passed on genetically to the next generation. It wasn't until 1962 that the Soviet state formally repudiated Lysenko's theories.

You see, Lysenko's ideas were uniquely suited to the politics of the day in the USSR under Stalin. Not only could people be made into the perfect Soviet man or woman, but plants and animals could be good socialists as well, not competing but cooperating towards achieving political goals. From this article, we find:

Official support only spurred Lysenko's theories or "Soviet Darwinism" to ever more absurd heights.

By 1939, he was so widely supported that after an extended struggle with geneticist Nikolai Vavilov, who debunked Lysenko's work, Lysenko came into control of almost all of the Soviet food research.

In 1948, his ideas were made universal law at a party conference in a speech edited by Stalin himself. By then, Lysenko was given to making outstandingly weird assertions like wheat could be induced to produce rye or that inorganic substances could be combined to create life.

We chuckle, because we were not in the Soviet Union between 1928 and 1962, struggling to understand why centralization and communism wasn't delivering the food we needed. We laugh, because we weren't one of the 10 million Ukrainians and others starved to death in the Holodomor. We smile and nod because we were not Nikolai Vavilov, who disagreed with Lysenko's illogical and increasingly crazed theories. Vavilov "was subsequently arrested and imprisoned before dying of starvation in 1943. Any further scientist who dared to question Lysenkoism risked being discredited, imprisoned, or even killed."

In the US, let it not be said that our leading media outlets, like The Nation, have forgotten Lysenko and his state-promoted and state-mandated pseudo-science, with its denial of any and all contrary evidence, political sponsorship for political agendas, and intolerance for the scientific method of inquiry.

They have not forgotten. But they never understood it either. The Nation bravely attacks "the state" and its Orange Leader, opining in July 2020, "By the time this is all over, several hundred thousand Americans will lie in their graves, felled by a man-made epidemic. Man-made not in the sense of a super-virus created by a mad scientist in a lab but manufactured: perpetuated by policy choices, decisions made by politicians to ignore the best scientific advice offered to them, or to turn to their own Lysenkos, who tell them what they want to hear, no matter the consequences. This week, the White House decided it was time to go after Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, a leading HIV/AIDS researcher, and a figure who has advised six presidents during outbreaks of infectious diseases, including Ebola, SARS, and H1N1 influenza. His crime? Speaking out more bluntly about the risk of Covid-19 in the United States, the failures of our policies thus far, and what new restrictions will likely need to be put in place to address the outbreaks now raging in dozens of states across the country."

A mere 9 months later, one wonders whether the breathless and outraged defense of Fauci was significant at the time because it was a public attack on Trump, or whether the author was secretly working for the Babylon Bee.

Tony Fauci not only was NOT fired by Trump but rather given massive power to shape the policy, science, and messaging, he was also kept on by the current elderly hostage of the Oval Office. Fauci, like Lysenko, has gone from ignoring proven science and history in dealing with contagion and coronaviruses, to being described as "an unhinged lunatic,"with good reason. One article counts 19 examples of backtracked, idiotic or fantastical pronouncements in the past year. And the hits just keep on coming.

Like Lysenko, Fauci has profited in his decades of state support, personally and financially, without ever being held to account for scientific dereliction, and the damning outcomes of his advice and actions. When Obama outlawed "gain of function" viral studies on bat coronaviruses, Fauci used millions of taxpayer funding to move his pet research to Wuhan Level IV lab, to continue that gain of function research on bat coronaviruses. To challenge Fauci — in any way – has meant deplatforming, silencing, and threats by the state – whether these challenges take the form of scientific critique, alternative treatments, questions about the nature and effectiveness of messenger RNA injections, the meaning of the word "experimental" and "vaccine," the role billionaire misanthrope enablers who haven't taken a biology class in 50 years, memes, comedic routines, jokes, ridicule or even innocent questioning of his hypocrisy, appearance and diktats. All is forbidden.

It is becoming more evident each day that the wizard wannabes channeling Oscar Diggs have discovered, nurtured, marketed, and granted great power to their modern day Trofim Lysenko.

Lysenko's public "science" facilitated and justified the Soviet state's most pure 20th Century obsession, which was at once and always the obliteration of individual and free human thought and agency, along with the more casual and absolutely literal obliteration of actual individuals and communities and demographics.

Tony Fauci's role in our great national tragedy – of lockdowns, destruction of personal and community economies, deadly assaults on health, education, family, mobility and social commerce – continues to facilitate and justify the US state's most pure 21st century obsession, at once and always the obliteration of individual and free human thought and agency, along with the more casual and absolutely literal obliteration of individuals and communities and demographics.

The fundamental wrongness and mundane intellectuality of Lysenko was a perfect match for a state seeking total control 100 years ago. Lysenko died a forgotten old man, an embarrassing reminder of the kind of stupidity and avarice that makes mountains of the dead, and shatters reason. What will the future hold for Tony Fauci?

The post Who's Lysenko-ing Now? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Cradle-to-Grave Stimmy: How We Got Here

Sunday 02 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

You would think that knuckleheads like Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell would finally wake up. Last night the biggest spender since LBJ and FDR combined laid-out Part 3 of a $6 trillion in 100 days spending spree – which comes on top of the Donald's $4 trillion fiscal bacchanalia last year. Yet the bond vigilantes barely wiggled their small toe.

Indeed, at 1.65%, the 10-year UST is still buried deep below the running inflation rate, which rate itself is on the verge of liftoff.

Still, today's negative 50 basis point real yield on the benchmark UST is only the culmination of a 30-year campaign by the Greenspan Fed and his heirs and assigns to destroy honest price discovery in the bond pits on the misbegotten theory that cheap debt fosters growth, prosperity and wealth.

No, what it actually does, among countless other ills, is unshackle the politicians to bury future generations in unspeakable debts.

Thus, if the real spread on the 10-year (purple area) was even +200 basis points, as it was at the turn of the century, the 10-year UST would now be yielding 4.25%. At that level, even Easy Janet (Yellen) would not have blessed Sleepy Joe's $6 trillion spend-a-thon and centrists like Senator Manchin would have been a lot more than merely "uneasy" upon its presentation to the Congress.

33-Year Destruction of Honest Bond Prices by the Fed: 10-Year UST Yield Minus Inflation

So we actually do understand what the Biden Administration is doing. With what amounts to free money on offer, the Progressive/Left has spotted a once in a lifetime opportunity to saddle the American public with the kind of Cradle-to-Grave Stimmy that they have always dreamed about.

Until recent times, of course, they were invariably stopped cold by the bond vigilantes, which is to say, honest yields in the UST trading pits. But now the bond vigilantes have been lobotomized many times over and the denizens of the once-and-former party of the old time fiscal religion are waking up this morning to wonder what hit them.

After all, how do you compete with free maternity leave, free child care, free preschool, free elementary and secondary education, free community college, nearly free university, virtually free ObamaCare, free elderly care and, to boot, after $3,600 per child tax credits, essentially no income taxes at all for upwards of 75% of adult Dem voters?

That is, the Dems are going with universal free stuff for all while the going is good. The rather despicable Svengali who ran the Obama White House and then ran Chicago into the ground from the mayor's office, Rahm Emanuel, made that clear as a bell when he explained the Dems' true political calculation this week to the Washington Post:

"Once everyone's in, all the parents want in. Then it's not a poor person's program or a poverty program. It's an education program. . . . That to me, that is essential. It changes the center of gravity once it's for everybody."

So now Sean Hannity and his Foxified Republicans are belatedly waking up, emitting a cloud of purple rhetoric about the impending fall of America to socialism.

But we have a news flash: Financial socialism has been underway for several decades now because on Wall Street all the boys and girls get a trophy, while risk and loss have been essentially vaporized by the central bankers.

So the Dems are making bold to extend those blessings to the unwashed masses and have drafted the central bank as their fiscal handmaid. After all, do you think that JayPo thinks he has a snowball's chance in the hot place of being reappointed when his term ends next year if he doesn't keep on monetizing $120 billion of Uncle Sam's prodigious emissions each and every months, at least?

In its morning editorial, the Wall Street Journal got that part right:

We'd call the price tag breathtaking, but by now what's another $2 trillion? Add $2 trillion or so each for the Covid and green energy ("infrastructure") bills, and that's $6 trillion of new spending in 100 days. That doesn't include the regular federal budget of more than $4 trillion a year. No worries, mate, the Federal Reserve will monetize the debt.

So the question recurs. Where was the GOP when the props were being pulled out from under fiscal rectitude by the Fed per the chart above?

Alas, to a man and woman – except for Ron and Rand Paul and a handful of others – they have been AWOL for the better part of three decades on the single most important requisite of capitalist prosperity: Namely, sound money and honest free market price discovery in the money and capital markets.

Indeed, three of the four worst Fed Chairman in its history – Greenspan, Bernanke, and Powell – were appointed by Republican presidents, while the Republican members of the House and Senate financial services committees regularly tripped over each other genuflecting to these prosperity-wreckers during their periodic appearances on Capitol Hill.

It was not always this way. Your editor, the late Congressman Jack Kemp, Senator Paul Laxalt, and some others actually got a gold standard plank in the 1980 GOP platform. And during the brutal inflation purge necessarily conducted by the great Paul Volcker thereafter, most Republicans stood their ground for sound money and relieved themselves of whatever dalliance with Keynesian economics they had been infected with during the Nixon era.

Unfortunately, the easy money Texas pol who got the US Treasury brief during the Gipper's second term, Jim Baker, effected the most destructive financial decision of modern times.

Paul Volcker was by no means ready to leave his post when his second 4-year term expired in 1987, nor should he have. But Baker, who didn't much believe in sound money, forced him to retire per an alleged understanding at the time of his 1983 reappointment.

By 1987, however, Volcker had proven himself to be the greatest Fed chairman in its history and more suited than any one else to complete the task of restoring a semblance of sound money after the inflationary disaster of the 1970's.

Unfortunately, the uncured Reagan deficits were starting to catch-up. That is to say, the US economy was booming after Morning in America incepted in late 1983 and the bond vigilantes were soon having their way in the bond pits.

As it happened, the 10-year yield had fallen from 16% to a low of 7.1% in February 1987 in response to Volcker's conquest of inflation. But owing to still $200 billion deficits as far as the eye could see, that's all she wrote.

In a classic "crowding out" sequence, rising private demand for capital came crashing up against Uncle Sam's ample elbows, causing rates to head swiftly skyward. During the next nine months the benchmark yield rose by more than 300 basis points – until the newly installed Greenspan essentially cried Uncle in the aftermath of Black Monday on October 19th and turned on the printing presses, full speed ahead.

Little did the world yet know, but then and there the death dirge of the bond vigilantes incepted and the GOP's amnesia about sound money and fiscal rectitude began its long ascent.

You can blame this pivotal inflection point on Baker because the Gipper was a sound money, gold standard man at heart. Reagan would have likely reappointed Volcker on his own motion, but his diary from March 16, 1987 makes clear why that didn't happen:

Then Jim Baker – re the Aug. end of the term for Volcker as Chrmn. for the Fed. Reserve Board. We are going to see if Alan Greenspan will take the job if Paul will step down gracefully.

The fact is, Baker didn't want rising rates and a crowding-out driven recession in front of the 1988 election because his Texas friend and mentor, George Bush the Elder, was next in line. So he had convinced Reagan that Volcker had to go and that Alan Greenspan was just as sound on money matters and a Republican to boot.

In fact, back in the day (the 1950s and 1960s) Greenspan had been a gold standard believer and even a sometimes member of Ayn Rand's coterie. But after going to Washington as Ford's CEA chairman in 1974, his true colors materialized.

That is, he proved to be less a man of conviction than one of conviviality. He desperately wanted to be accepted by the powers that be in Washington, and at length to be lionized by them.

In any event, he stopped the bond vigilantes cold in the fall of 1987 and thereafter kept the bond pits flush with whatever fiat credit was needed to keep interest rates in check and a generational financial boom gathering stream.

Last Act of the Bond Vigilantes, Eruption of 10-Year Yield in 1987

To be sure, during the 1990s and thru the end of Greenspan's term in January 2006 the rise of new technology and the internet did give a boost to economic performance. Still, there is no doubt that financialization was Greenspan's signature legacy.

During his tenure, main street households experienced a 165% gain in wage and salary income, even as their financial assets soared by 280%. As a consequence, the 5.7X ratio of financial assets to earned income in 1987, which had prevailed in that zone during the decades of postwar prosperity, soared to 8.4X by the time Greenspan left the Fed in Q1 2006.

Ratio of Household Financial Assets To Wage and Salary Income, 1987-2006

Here's the thing. All that fantastic inflation of financial assets got intermediated by Wall Street one way or another. As a result, the center of lobbying power on the GOP side of Washington subtly but steadily shifted over time.

That is, when the big Reagan budget cut and tax cut packages were passed by a Democratic Congress in 1981, it was due to the fire power of the main street lobbies from back home. These included local bankers, home-builders, car dealers, real estate agents, life insurance agents, drug store operators, lumberyards, small manufacturers, wildcat oil drillers, main street merchants and doctors, lawyers etc.

They all hated big deficits, high interest rates, intrusive Washington bureaucracy and Big Government generally. And it was, in fact, the main street business lobby and relatively honest money that kept Leviathan in check.

As Greenspan took his bows 25 year later, however, the center of lobbying power had shifted to Wall Street and the financial industry, even as Greenspan's decades of Keynesian central banking and easy money had sent the bond vigilantes into permanent hibernation.

Needless to say, the financial industry knows whereupon its bread is buttered, and has functioned as the Fed's potent advocate and shield in the political wars of Washington.

At length, therefore, the GOP members of the House and Senate finance and banking committees were bought and paid for by the new financial industry lobbying power. Soon, nary an ill-word was spoken about the Fed from the Republican side of the aisle, even as it destroyed honest price discovery in the bond pits and gutted the bond vigilantes that had kept the old main street lobbies vigilant and the GOP wedded to its old time fiscal religion.

Alas, last night they found out to their shock and dismay that the rogue central bank they manned, fostered and coddled for three decades has now paved the way for a genuine social democratic, free-stuff-for-all moment in American political history.

Of course, what remains of the Trumpified GOP actually believes that the real problem in America is that the Donald's idiotic wall on the Mexican border remains unfinished and scheduled for effective demolition.

Soon they will find out, however, that it is not Hispanic immigrants looking for work in America that voted them out of office. It was the 12 unelected money-pumpers on the all-powerful FOMC – an American monetary politburo – that allowed their political enemies to finance social democracy by monetizing the mountains of debt that have been and will be issued to finance it.

This AM some right-wing pundits posted this warning about the import of Sleepy Joe's spend-a-thon. Except, other than some symbolic tax nicking of the 1% that may yet happen, the slogan would better read, "monetizing our way to prosperity".

That's really how we got here.

PEAK TRUMP, IMPENDING CRISES, ESSENTIAL INFO & ACTION

Reprinted with permission from David Stockman's Contra Corner.

The post Cradle-to-Grave Stimmy: How We Got Here appeared first on LewRockwell.

Cancel Culture Comes Home: Walter Duranty and the New York Times

Sunday 02 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

Last summer, when cinemas were open in France, I saw the film Mr; Jones and wrote about it for LRC. As I wrote then, the film dramatizes "the voyage of Welsh journalist Gareth Jones (played by the English actor James Norton) to the Soviet Union in 1933 where he became an eye witness of the forced famine in Ukraine now called the Holodomor, (the word is from the Ukranian meaning murder by hunger). The Holodomor, which consisted of the slow tourtured murder of millions of Ukranian peasants by Stalin's Communist Party, is barely known by the general public, especially compared to the Holocaust perpertrated by Hitler's Nazis."

Also in that article I wrote about Walter Duranty, the New York Times reporter in Moscow at the time. "The response from that era's mainstream media, the foreign correspondents stationed in Russia, was akin to the cancel culture of today. Taking the lead was the Pulitzer Prize winning correspondent for the New York Times (isn't it always the Old Gray Lady?) Walter Duranty, known as Stalin's apologist. From the book on Duranty by S.J. Taylor the events are known. A Soviet press officer told the correspondents that their credentials would be denied unless they repudiated Jones. They even made a party out of the meeting to come up with the phrases to call Jones a liar in all but name. Duranty's response to Jones included perhaps the most cynical excuse for power ever uttered. "But–to put it brutally–you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, and the Bolshevik leaders are just as indifferent to the casualties that may be involved in their drive toward socialism an any General during the World War who ordered a costly attack in order to show his superiors that he and his division possessed the proper soldierly spirit." While admitting that there had been "food shortages" there was no "death from starvation" but only "widespread mortality from diseases due to malnutrition." Jones responded in the Times (printed about a month later after the furor had died down, but much more from that newspaper than we could expect today) that he would stick to the facts that he had found on the ground, interviewing peasants themselves, not learned second hand through government sources. Jones even felt pity for these compromised journalists who had to be "masters of euphemism and understatement.""

I was recently contacted by the Duranty Revocation Subcommittee of the U.S. Committee for Holodomor-Genocide Awareness to alert me of their new national campaign to demand the revocation of the 1932 Pulitzer Prize awarded to Walter Duranty.

The Ukranian Weekly explains that the Duranty revocation campaign has the following goals: First, to build a network of journalists and educators, empowering them to continue writing articles, editorials, and promoting the great travesty of mistruths and lies perpetrated by Walter Duranty. Second, to request that the Ukrainian American community, especially students, use social media to promote an awareness campaign to help with media pitching, design work and writing. Third, announce a social media contest to develop and post Duranty memes with the hashtag #RevokeDurantyPulitzer. Fourth, spur a worldwide petition on change.org for the revocation of Duranty's Pulitzer Prize.

The Committee maintains an information packed website to learn more about the Holodomor. One historical item posted is a State Department memo from 1931 filed from Berlin, where Duranty had stopped in during his vacation. It is the smoking gun for his complicity, but also critically important to note is the complicity of the New York Times itself. The memo states, "In conclusion, Duranty pointed out that, 'in agreement with the NEW YORK TIMES and the Soviet authorities,' his official dispatches always reflect the official opinion of the Soviet régime and not his own."

I support the efforts of the Committee to expose the pedalling of false news 80-90 years ago. It is sweet irony to see cancel culture applied to the New York Times where more than ever they are still a key propagator of various flavors of propaganda.

The post Cancel Culture Comes Home: Walter Duranty and the New York Times appeared first on LewRockwell.

A Lesson from History: Transgender Mania is a Sign of Cultural Collapse Camille Paglia

Sunday 02 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

Comments open on YouTube

The post A Lesson from History: Transgender Mania is a Sign of Cultural Collapse Camille Paglia appeared first on LewRockwell.

Police Shootings vs. Medically Caused Death; How the News Shapes Public Perception And Controls Minds

Sunday 02 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

Well, Mr. Wilson, I want to thank you for appearing before this committee today. It's been many years since you served as the CEO of one of the largest news networks in the world.

Many years since I was ousted, yes.

We're not here to discuss that today.

No.

We want your point of view on news media in general. How they shape public perception.

Mr. Chairman, let me start with this. Every year in the US, people commit about 1.2 million violent crimes. That would be murder, rape, aggravated assault, and robbery.

That many?

Yes. Have you ever seen a full-length news documentary revealing, step by step, the recovery of a victim of one of those crimes?

Why, no. I haven't.

If such a documentary were produced, it would show the surgeries to repair the wounds, the hospital stay, the period of rehabilitation in another facility, the arrival at home, the anguish of friends and family, the economic hardship, the attempt at psychological recovery, and so on—over a long period of time.

I've never seen anything like that on television.

I'll tell you why, Mr. Chairman. Viewers watching it would finally understand, up close, the effects of violent crime. And therefore, they would hold the perpetrators, the criminals, more accountable and responsible. And THAT would bring about a change in our culture. News media don't want that change to occur.

Why not?

Because news media are devoted to enlisting public sympathy for the criminal. That's their agenda. It's a destructive agenda.

That's a very serious charge, Mr. Wilson.

Yes, sir, it is. But it's just the beginning of what I have to say here today. Let me continue. According to available statistics, the police in America shoot and kill about 1200 people a year. A few of those shootings cause major upheavals in society. Protests and riots. Every year, in America, the medical system kills 225,000 people. There is no upheaval. The news media don't cover this fact in any way at all.

Are you sure about that medical statistic, Mr. Wilson?

It's a conservative estimate, Mr. Chairman. I'll offer one citation out of several. Author, Dr. Barbara Starfield, a revered public health expert at Johns Hopkins. July 26, 2000, the Journal of the American Medical Association. Her review was titled, "Is US Health really the Best in the World?" She stated: 106,000 deaths result from the administration of FDA-approved medicines. 119,000 deaths come as a result of mistreatment and errors in hospitals.

That's astounding, Mr. Wilson.

Yes, it is. Yet, no coverage from the news media. The police shoot and kill 1200 Americans a year. The medical system kills 225,000 Americans a year. So imagine would happen if the media covered the medical deaths in the same way they cover four or five police shootings that lead to protests and riots.

And you're saying the news media intentionally ignore the medically caused deaths?

Yes. Of course.

Well, television news is supported to a great degree by pharmaceutical advertisers.

Correct. And those advertisers would remove their money if medically caused death suddenly became a leading story, night after night, on the evening news. But there is more to the story.

Which is?

The medical system is a cornerstone, a pillar, a foundation of society. People pay homage to it. In order to maintain the kind of society we have now, people must believe in the foundation. Otherwise…a collapse would occur.

You're really saying the news media are propping up—

Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman. Take that figure—the medical system causes 225,000 deaths in America every year. That would be 2.25 MILLION deaths per decade. And we're not even talking about the millions of other people who are maimed by the medical system and manage to survive.

I'm trying to picture what you're—

Let me go even further, Mr. Chairman. Suppose one news network devoted a week of coverage to ONE PERSON killed by the medical system. Up close. The period of suffering, the death, the effect on family, the incredible emotional distress and pain and turmoil, the financial burden, and so on. And then, at the end of the week, the news anchor stated: THIS HAPPENS TO 225,000 PEOPLE IN AMERICA EVERY YEAR. 2.25 MILLION PEOPLE EVERY DECADE.

There would be a national uproar.

And, I suggest, Mr. Chairman, this is the only way the US medical system can be reformed and rebuilt from the top. But it will never happen. The news media will not permit it. Therefore, the medical system has to be rebuilt from lower levels—ultimately, by the people themselves.

So how are news media shaping the public perception of the medical system?

I hope that's a rhetorical question, Mr. Chairman. The public is led to believe we have a system with only RARE adverse effects. This belief is created and cultured by news media. They are complicit in the crime.

Reprinted with permission from Jon Rappoport's blog.

The post Police Shootings vs. Medically Caused Death; How the News Shapes Public Perception And Controls Minds appeared first on LewRockwell.

Can Colleges and Employers Legally Require You To Get Vaccinated?

Sunday 02 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

A slew of colleges and universities are embracing COVID vaccine mandates, telling students if they want to attend classes on campus, they'll need to be vaccinated.

Meanwhile, a look at job postings across the country reveals many employers are requiring job candidates to get vaccinated, or promise to get vaccinated within 30 days of hire.

Whether you're a job hunter or a college student, you may soon face the prospect that your future plans could hinge on your willingness to get the COVID vaccine. But can colleges and employers legally require it? The answer is … complicated.

Colleges and universities are moving to mandate

More than 100 colleges across the country will require students to receive COVID vaccines in order to attend in-person classes in the fall, though most will allow medical and religious exemptions.

The list of colleges that will require the vaccine includes Stanford, Rutgers, University of Notre Dame, Duke University, Georgetown University, Johns Hopkins and Yale. Other colleges and universities have said they will require athletes or those who live on campus to get a shot, according to The New York Times.

Many schools, including Boston College, Morehouse College in Georgia, University of California and the California State University systems and George Washington University have similar requirements for employees before they will be allowed to return to in-person teaching.

Colorado's major public universities announced Wednesday they will require students, faculty and staff to get COVID vaccinations before beginning the fall semester. The mandate means more than 170,000 students — most of the state's college students — will be required to be vaccinated, according to enrollment data from the Colorado Department of Higher Education.

Although private colleges make up the bulk of schools with vaccine mandates, some public universities have also moved to require COVID vaccination. Students and employees of the University System of Maryland will be required to get vaccinated, said Chancellor Jay A. Perman, who is most concerned about the UK virus variant, which he described in his announcement last week as "more contagious."

"That's what we're preparing for," Perman said, "more infectious, more harmful variants that we think could be circulating on our campuses come fall."

Rutgers University announced in March it would require all students be vaccinated in order to enroll for the 2021 fall semester. The announcement prompted Children's Health Defense (CHD) Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to remind university officials that federal law prohibits mandating products approved under the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Emergency Use Authorization (EUA).

In a letter to Rutgers President Jonathan Holloway, Kennedy, who also serves as chief legal counsel for CHD, wrote:

"Federal law 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) requires that the person to whom an EUA vaccine is administered be advised, 'of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.'

"This right of refusal stems from the fact that EUA products are, by definition, experimental and forced participation in a medical experiment could result in injury. Under the Nuremberg Code, no one may be coerced to participate in a medical experiment. Consent of the individual is 'absolutely essential.'"

According to I. Glenn Cohen, expert on medical ethics and professor at Harvard Law School, there is no federal guidance for colleges and universities mandating COVID vaccination, but there is a well-established practice of universities mandating students receive specific vaccines as a condition of attendance, with exemptions difficult to obtain.

Cohen pointed to a recent case where the California trial court upheld an influenza vaccine mandate by the University of California, a public university, and drew the analogy to K-12 public school mandates. Public universities are on even surer footing with COVID vaccination requirements because there's a greater public health risk with COVID, Cohen wrote on the Harvard Law Review Blog.

Private colleges are not required to grant religious exemptions under federal law, though some states have the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs), which may be interpreted to require public colleges and universities to provide religious exemptions, Cohen said.

However, both public and private colleges and universities are subject to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and/or its sister statute the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 that require accommodations for students with disabilities, which potentially includes those with medical contraindications to vaccines.

There are also arguments surrounding bodily autonomy and the fact that all COVID vaccines currently approved for EUA in the U.S. are experimental vaccines.

Cohen, like Kennedy, pointed to federal law, which requires notifying recipients "of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product …"

What about employers?

A recent survey gathered data from more than 1,800 in-house lawyers, human resources professionals and C-suite executives to analyze plans, strategies and concerns related to COVID vaccination among their workforces.

Results showed fewer than 0.5% of companies currently mandate COVID vaccination for all employees, 6% plan to mandate it for all workers once vaccines are readily available and/or fully approved by the FDA and 3% said they plan to mandate vaccination only for certain workers, such as those in customer-facing roles.

Of those surveyed, 43% said they were unsure and still weighing the possibility of mandating vaccination, while 12% said they planned to bar unvaccinated employees from certain activities, such as travel or interaction with colleagues or customers.

Colleen Connell, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, said government and businesses have the power to impose vaccination requirements to protect public health if justified by data, and the right to refuse vaccines on religious grounds is not absolute.

If people claiming religious exemptions are preventing society from reaching herd immunity, then the "government has a right to insist on vaccinations," Connell said.

Private employers also have that right as long as they permit religious and public health exemptions and they don't implement a vaccination program in an arbitrary or discriminatory way — though "hospitals have long required their employees to get annual flu shots," Connell added.

According to Bloomberg Law, employers generally have legal authority to require their employees get vaccinations, so long as they adhere to federal laws requiring religious and medical accommodations in the workplace. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reaffirmed that authority in December, specific to COVID.

However, as The Defender reported in January, attorneys Mary Holland, CHD president, and Greg Glaser argued states and employers under federal law can't mandate EUA COVID vaccines.

Holland and Glaser wrote:

"If a vaccine has been issued EUA by the FDA, it is not fully licensed and must be voluntary. A private party, such as an employer, school or hospital cannot circumvent the EUA law, which prohibits mandates. Indeed, the EUA law preventing mandates is so explicit that there is only one precedent case regarding an attempt to mandate an EUA vaccine."

On April 1, Pfizer and BioNTech offered an updated look at the efficacy of their COVID vaccine. The new efficacy data, plus a safety analysis comprising data from more than 12,000 people who were fully immunized for at least six months, allow Pfizer to file a drug application with the FDA to turn the shot's EUA into a full approval, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said in a statement.

"They know they're on very shaky legal ground with mandates while vaccines are EUA," said Holland. "However, these vaccines will likely be licensed, approved and federally recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices in the near future. Yet even then there will be serious legal questions about the validity of licensure and whether these vaccines reach the high threshold for a mandate via Jacobson v. Massachusetts –– the 1905 landmark precedent legalizing vaccine mandates."

Currently, all 50 states are considering legislation to prevent employers from mandating vaccinations and to protect current and prospective employees who refuse vaccination from discrimination and retaliation.

"I would predict that there will be measures passed in at least a few states that either restrict employers or restrict the concept of a vaccine passport or other proof of vaccination," said Lowell Pearson, an attorney at Husch Blackwell LLP in Jefferson City, Missouri. Pearson said governors likely don't have authority to restrict employer mandates via executive orders.

Lawmakers in Missouri are considering HB 838 — which would bar public employers from requiring their workers get vaccinated or imposing vaccine requirements for entry to public spaces.

State legislatures in Ohio, Oklahoma and Tennessee are considering bills that go further than the Missouri measure, proposing a ban on vaccine mandates by any entity, including private-sector employers. Idaho has proposed legislation prohibiting COVID vaccine mandates by any company contracting with the state government.

Only the Wisconsin legislature has sent a bill to the governor this year proposing to ban workplace vaccine mandates, and Democratic Gov. Tony Evers vetoed it.

The post Can Colleges and Employers Legally Require You To Get Vaccinated? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Anti-War Group Releases Activist Guide To End Militarized Policing in US

Sunday 02 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

In an effort to curtail police militarism, anti-war group Win Without War on Thursday released an activist guide titled Stop Militarizing Our Communities: 5 Things You Need to Know About the 1033 Program.

The activist guide was authored by Tanaya Sardesai, a student at Pomona College and a former intern at Win Without War, and centers on the Department of Defense's 1033 program, which is responsible for supplying military weaponry to domestic law enforcement.

"Foreign policy and domestic policy are intertwined," said Sardesai. "Violence committed against communities of color abroad fuels violence against communities of color at home. We must end state violence and knee-jerk militarism, wherever it occurs. Ending the 1033 program is a small but necessary step toward that."

The 1033 program, also referred to as the Law Enforcement Support Office Program, is characterized by Win Without War as a byproduct of colossal U.S. Pentagon budget and a hyper-militarized foreign policy that perpetuates ongoing conflicts around the world.

"Militarism abroad and militarism at home are inseparable," explained the group in a statement. "One of the key ways our endless wars have blown back to exacerbate violence and undermine human security in the United States is through the DoD's 1033 program."

The guide elucidates the correlation between U.S. foreign policy and police militarization and concludes both systems are designed to sustain weapon manufacturers profits, the prison system, and the defense industry—at the expense of the working class and marginalized communities.

According to the guide, the 1033 program provides free military-grade weapons to local police officers and incentivizes their use by contractually requiring the weapons be used within a year or returned to the federal government. There is little oversight required under 1033 contracts and equipment often goes missing or is used improperly without accountability.

Police officers do not receive mandatory federal training under the program, leaving local agencies to train weapon recipients with little guidance.

"This further reinforces the 'us vs. them' mentality that is responsible for such devastation around the world," explains the guide. "A lack of instruction exacerbates these issues by imbuing officers with the confidence to use deadly weapons without training."

Read the Whole Article

The post Anti-War Group Releases Activist Guide To End Militarized Policing in US appeared first on LewRockwell.

What Do Confederate Monuments and German Composer Richard Strauss Have in Common?

Sunday 02 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

Readers of these occasional pieces will know that in addition to political issues, I also sometimes take a look at cultural questions, especially the role that film, music, and the arts play determining the direction of our civilization. The arts are both the natural product and the creative work of our culture, a kind of essential gloss which more than most anything else expresses our values, our innermost beliefs, and, yes if within the Christian tradition, our devotion and thanks to our Creator. Thus, mankind from the earliest times has demonstrated its innermost convictions and understanding of who it is in the scheme of things and its place in that creation by artistic activity.

But the arts are more than just an emanation, more than a creative outflowing which expresses what a culture means or represents. Just as the great cathedrals of the High Middle Ages in architecture and Gregorian chant in music illustrated the religious—as well as artistic—sensibility of that society, the environment created by such works of art redounded also to strengthen and support the beliefs and understanding of those in that society.

Years ago, when I was in grad school in Spain, I recall engaging in a long-running discussion with another grad student, from England, over the role that cultural environment—our cultural ambiance and what we hold dear in it—plays in buoying up and offering real sustenance to a population. A culture—a society—in which its symbols and public iconography offer a reflection of what that society holds dear and believes can also strengthen and confirm the weakest of its members.

The late philosopher Frederick Wilhelmsen used the term "anneal," in that a cultural environment bursting with symbols and reminders of its innermost beliefs acts similarly on a personal level to strengthen how friends with like views buttress each other: I am confirmed in my perspective by the fact that the friends surrounding me, who may be more precise and more adept in expression, give me encouragement, affirm me, and, in effect, make it easier for me to express myself without feeling isolated or perhaps doubting my own veracity.

In the older rural regions of France and Spain, dotted with ancient roadside crosses and small rural chapels and churches—or, in the landscape of the American South with its once very visible public display of the iconography and symbolism of monuments to its heroes and heroic epic, its Second War of Independence, 1861-1865—such public honor and significance indicated what that society held dear and important, but also reminded us, as the late Mel Bradford once wrote, "who we are" as a people and, indeed, as a civilization.

The unforgivable sin against Creation made by every Puritan reformer or iconoclast, whether a Cromwellian devil intent on uprooting the rich heritage of English culture in music and architecture, or a Communist commissar presiding over the despoliation of an ancient Russian Orthodox chapel, comes down essentially to the same thing: the destructive and anti-natural tendency that suppresses and separates man from His Creator and the creative inspiration implanted within man that enables him to both render honor to the Creator as well as express that divinely-granted gift through the arts.

The arts—music, painting, architecture, film, and other areas of human creativity—present publicly the essential symbols of civilization, what it esteems and holds dear, they give it a certain continuity, add to and enrich its traditions, while, as I have said, strengthening us and the weaker among us in our beliefs and understanding of ourselves.

It has been a major accomplishment of the progressivist social justice warriors—the "woke" demonic revolutionaries—to understand that to defeat and undo the hated West, our Western and Christian civilization, the most effective means was through education and the arts, through corrupting our cultural environment and our system of learning (and its transmission to our progeny). Not so much through head-on attacks politically, which as Marxist theoretician Antonio Gramsci admitted a century ago had been largely ineffective, but via a "long march" through our educational and cultural institutions, the artefacts of our culture, would victory come.

This is why, in effect, the supposed "opposition" of the establishment conservative movement—"Con Inc."—and Republican Party to the progressivist revolution has not only been ineffective, but at times positively nugatory and disastrous to the defense of Western culture. You can't win a battle…a war…by half-measures, by splitting hairs, by attempting to placate the ravenous Beast of Revolution by sacrificing, even tepidly, some principles which form part of the whole of that culture in hopes that other principles (and maybe your financial assets!) will somehow survive the assaults.

Thus the utter foolishness and insanity of "Con Inc." in eagerly giving up and joining the maddened herd demanding the eradication of memorials and symbols of Southern heritage, those monuments to our great-grandfathers and great-grandmothers, to their courage, their suffering, and their resilience. That attempt we now see every night on Fox News or spouted from the mouths of a Senator Tim Scott or Senator Lindsey Graham.

In the words of the late Archbishop Fulton Sheen, "If you do not live what you believe, you will end up believing what you live." If we do not oppose the Revolution and the destruction of our culture root-and-branch to its face, we eventually become like the isolated and deserted Aleksandr Kerensky in the Winter Palace in late 1918 who, after disauthorizing and disarming real opposition to the Bolsheviks, hoping to somehow placate them, ended up with nothing and no one to halt their victorious take-over of power in Russia.

The modern progressivist Left understands this all too well; it is a truth that too many of our self-declared modern defenders of Western culture have either forgotten, or due to their fear of the Left, refuse to understand. It is why St. Pius X reminded us in 1910 that "…the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists."

Our battle, and it is a battle to the death, must encompass not just our faith but our art, music, literature, our entire culture, what we surround ourselves with, what we teach our children and expose them to, what we pass on, and, if possible, add to. And it is precisely why we must appreciate and praise those giants of our civilization who have preceded us and made our culture richer and more agreeable by their creativity.

***************

I pass on an essay I originally wrote back in late 2019; recently, I very slightly updated it, and it was published by The Unz Review. I offer it today, as a contribution to that battle.

Richard Strauss and the Survival of Western Culture

BOYD D. CATHEY • APRIL 26, 2021

For a number of years I've greatly admired and enjoyed the music of the German composer Richard Strauss (1864-1949). In his early years prior to the First World War, he was considered forward-looking, even musically avant-garde. Indeed, the aged defender of the German classical tradition—and another favorite—Max Bruch (d. 1920), found Strauss' compositions too advanced and straying from that tradition.

Yet Strauss was formed in the richly productive culture of southern Germany, Bavaria and the old Austro-Hungarian Empire, and, even if he experimented with harmony and vocal lines in his operas Salome (1905) and Elektra (1909), he never really departed from that early musical formation and an inspiration that he drew from his love of his native Bavaria and of imperial Vienna and the brilliant society that accompanied and informed it.[1] Son of noted musician and horn player in the Bavarian Court Opera Franz Strauss, from an early age, Richard received a thorough and complete musical education, demonstrating extraordinary talent in composition when only in his teens. By the late 1880s and 1890s, his symphonic tone poems, including Don Juan (1888), Death and Transfiguration (1889), and Also Sprach Zarathustra (1896) had established his fame throughout Europe and the United States. But it was later, in opera, that his eventual and permanent renown and preeminence would be secured.

In many ways as I listen to Strauss, I hear a great champion of Western culture, standing athwart the onrushing decline of Western music and art during the first half of the twentieth century.

Recently, I went back to listen in detail to several of Strauss's vocal works. Re-hearing them, I reflected on their significance and resonance as our society sinks deeper into cultural decay.

Undoubtedly, Strauss' most famous operatic work is Der Rosenkavalier (Dresden, 1911)—The Cavalier of the Rose. With a superb libretto by the great German dramatist and essayist, Hugo von Hofmannsthal, who shared Strauss' conservative convictions,[2]

Der Rosenkavalier is a gloriously sentimental story of love and nobility, set in Vienna in the mid-18th century. Like some of Mozart's stage works, it is essentially a comedy of manners, but one that pays deep and wistful honor to a bygone era and to a cultivated society that seemed to be disappearing even as Strauss was composing it. Indeed, through its comedic action runs, as well, a continuing, not so concealed sense of regret, a sense of loss of those customs, those standards and beliefs, those artistic traditions which made society worth fighting for.

The famous Act II waltz-sequence, with buffoonish character Baron Ochs dancing about, is justly famous. But even more so is the scintillating and wistful final scene, a trio, in which the Marschallin gives up her young lover Octavian to her rival Sophie, with both resignation and a special dignity that characterized the age.

The famous color film from the early 1960s with the legendary Elisabeth Schwarzkopf remains a remarkable work of art in itself.

"Im Abendrot," with Elisabeth Schwarzkopf; Georg Szell conducting the London Symphony

As in Die Frau ohne Schatten, the "Four Last Songs," and in his operas Der Rosenkavalier and Arabella set in the glory days of Habsburg Vienna, Strauss evoked marvelously a past time of civility, high culture, and grace—a time in which the Christian faith annealed the culture, ironically reminding us in our barren age of just what we have thrown away and lost. And in so doing he joined the battle for our civilization and our future, a battle that continues and encompasses our cultural institutions and traditions, our art, our architecture, our film, our music, and so much more—integral elements that help shape and form us, and without which our lives are made barren and susceptible to disintegration and dissipation.

Too many times our contemporary society does not know how to compare and contrast the real achievements of our historic Western Christian civilization with the present cultural detritus that surrounds and threatens to inundate us.

Recall the great writer Hilaire Belloc's statement about our civilization now surviving off the fumes of a once-great culture. Is this not where we are in 2021? Our challenge today is to preserve what is being lost, not only our precious faith under such severe assault, but the incomparable historic culture that it produced and in which it flourished. That task is multi-faceted and must encompass those noble and sublime accomplishments that form our true artistic legacy. Strauss, despite his wistful celebration of a golden past, never lost hope for the future. Nor can we.

Notes

[1] There is a superb, two-hour BBC documentary, "Richard Strauss Remembered" (1984), narrated by Sir John Gielgud, with numerous rare photographs and historical film clips of Strauss, his performances and events in his life. Although never released formally on DVD, the private Encore label issued it, and it has been available through the Berkshire Record Outlet.

[2] Dr. Paul Gottfried has written perceptively on Hugo von Hofmannstahl and his traditionalist and aristocratic vision of Europe, a vision reflected in his dramas and other literary works:

"After the First World War, this literary giant [Hofmannstahl] devoted the remainder of his short life to reviving a popular interest in medieval Austrian culture. His most famous contribution to this effort is the German version of Everyman (Jedermann), which he brought to the stage at Salzburg and which became an annual production there. Despite his outspokenness as an Austrian patriot, Hoffmannsthal called for a "new European ego" in an address in Berne in 1916. The problem of cultural and social dissolution that the War had unleashed seemed to the distinguished author to have affected the entire continent; and in the interwar period, Hoffmannsthal contributed to Karl Anton von Rohan's "Europäischer Revue," a leading advocacy publication for European unity, a process that the editor Rohan, an Austrian nobleman, hoped to see take place according to traditionalist and presumably pro-Habsburg principles. In a speech in Munich in January 1927, Hofmannsthal famously called for a "conservative revolution" aimed at bringing back a true European identity. This speech was specifically critical of the Germans for "their productive anarchy as a people." Hoffmannsthal contrasted the sentimental outpouring to which his German cousins were prone to a "binding principle of form," which he thought necessary for the restoration of a Europe of nations. Unlike T.S. Eliot, Hofmannsthal wrote as a close friend of royalty as well as someone who was an aesthetic and cultural reactionary." [Paul Gottfried, "Puritans or Habsburgs," The Unz Review, May 8, 2007.]

(Republished from New English Review by permission of author or representative)

The post What Do Confederate Monuments and German Composer Richard Strauss Have in Common? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Gold Is Laughing at Powell

Sunday 02 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

Recently, my colleague, Egon von Greyerz, and I had some unabashed yet blunt fun calling out the staggering levels of open hypocrisy and policy desperation unleashed by former Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan.

Poor Alan was an easy target of what I described as the "patient zero" of the reckless interest rate suppression and unbridled monetary expansion policies of the Fed which have always led to equally reckless boom and bust cycles in markets and economies.

But let us be fair to comical Fed Chairmen like Greenspan, as he is not alone in making a mockery of his post at the Eccles Building.

With the exception of Paul Volker and William Martin, the sad truth is that nearly every person who has sat in that lead Chair of a private bank masquerading as a "Federal" reserve has made the bank, and themselves, a public embarrassment.

As the legendary private investor Jim Rogers recently observed on Kitco news, almost all central bankers effectively lie and obfuscate facts as part of their job description (and job preservation) at the Fed.

A Central Banker's Job Description

For the most part, over-hyped Fed Chairs know how to run up debt levels and create lots of money to appear "accommodative" to markets in the short term and then blame "animal spirits" on the disasters which always follow longer term.

In fact, if I had to come up with the most honest and historically-confirmed job description for a Fed Chairman, I would post the following job-post on LinkedIn:

"Seeking D.C.-based expert fluent in double-speak, comfortable with unsustainable debt expansion and handy with a money printer. Ivy League credentials a plus."

The Latest Nonsense from Powell

As for double-speak, Mr. Powell is now seeking to outshine ol' Mr. Greenspan's art of spin with stunning elan.

At a recent economics club in Washington, Powell was both shameless and brilliant in his ability to spew fantasy with the skill of a circus promotor yet maintain the straight face of a circuit judge.

Specifically, Powell tried to downplay the U.S. debt elephant in the room by admitting to its horrific size yet promising a miracle policy shift sometime down the road…

That is, he was unable to deny what he described as the "unsustainable path" of current U.S. debt levels growing "meaningfully faster than economic growth," but was quick to comfort anyone gullible enough to believe him that for now "there is no question of our ability to service our debt for the foreseeable future."

Ahhhh. Such calming words, such confidence, such market-placating guidance.

A Brief Translation of Fed-Speak

But now, let's translate Powell's Fed-speak into real-speak and get a deeper look into the mind of a first-rate spin-seller.

When Powell says "there is no question of our ability to service our debt for the foreseeable future," he is actually telling a kind of partial truth.

Congratulations Jerome.

Yes, so long as the Fed decides to print trillions more fiat dollars and artificially cap yields and interest rates, the Fed can indeed "service" it's nearly $30T in public debt for the "foreseeable future," as the cost of that debt is forced to the basement of history.

But what Powell forgets to say, quite cleverly, is that the "foreseeable future" of which he is telegraphing is nothing more than a future of equally foreseeable and grotesquely expanded, and hence, debased U.S. dollars, which is needed to monetize that truly unsustainable debt.

Needless to say, such money printing is great news for gold…

But Powell's ability to spin fantasy gets even more pronounced with his next great lie masquerading as policy comfort.

Specifically, and to wit, Powell then says, in the same breath, that "at some point in the distant future, when the economy is in better shape," the Fed will then be in a better position "to deal with the debt issue then."

Ahhhh. That's just wonderful, no? At some point in the "distant future" the Fed will magically "deal" with our debt issue.

Hmmm.

Did Powell Take a Math Course? Read a History Book?

But here's the problem with Powell's kindergarten logic and truth-challenged phraseology: That "distant future" of "economic growth" is mathematically and historically impossible.

Impossible.

Why?

Because once a nation crosses the Rubicon of 100% debt to GDP, and once a nation's currency has lost greater than 98% of its inherent value due to fiat money expansion (as is the case today), economic growth has never, not once in the entire history of the financial world, ever occurred.

Stated more simply, that "distant future" of "economic growth" in which the Fed "deals" with our debt problem is an open lie, no different than Bernanke's 2009 promise that QE1 was "temporary" and would end by 2010.

If Powell would like, I am happy to send him (or Monsieurs Greenspan and Bernanke) a few high-school text books on basic math, or maybe one or two essays on market history to help him (them) regain both a conscience and facts.

Jerome, my weblink is found below.

Don't Forget the Endless Larry Summers

Ah, but let us not just poke fun at central bankers' struggles with history and math. Our increasingly sordid world of so-called "financial Leadership" hardly ends at Constitution Ave.

My former Harvard President and one-time Treasury Secretary, Larry Summers, for example, is no less of a master at promoting his image while ignoring his mistakes.

Mr. Summers, the god-father of deregulating the otherwise toxic, uber-levered and price-fixing OTC derivatives market, deserves an honorable mention.

Under his watch in 1998, that derivatives market went from $95T to $670T despite open warnings from Brooksley Borne at the CFTC. Meanwhile, Summers was openly insulting her while slapping backs with bankers and promising the world not to worry about their master plan to expand this once-safe futures exchange.

But less than a decade after telling Congress that he and his banker friends were more than capable of managing OTC derivatives risk, that same market, as well as the S&P (and the Harvard endowment) tanked by greater than 50% in a matter of weeks in 2008.

Today, the same Mr. Summers who helped crash the markets in 2008 is suddenly working on re-branding himself, warning the world, correctly, about the inflation to come.

In fact, he specifically observed that the U.S. has "embarked on one of the least responsible macro-economic policies that the US has had in the last 40 years."

Well Larry, maybe the current inflationary direction of the U.S. is the worst thing seen in the last 40 years, but rest assured of this: Your de-regulation of the openly toxic derivatives market comes in at a close second for some of the worst policies I've seen in the last 40 years…

Read the Whole Article

The post Gold Is Laughing at Powell appeared first on LewRockwell.

Unsportsmanlike Conduct

Sunday 02 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

NEW YORK—What follows has been covered ad nauseam, but I wonder why people were surprised at the planned football breakaway Super League. Professional sports in Europe now follow the American way, which means money comes before tradition, hometown loyalty, and lastly the fans, the schmucks who live and die for their teams. The bottom line in American sports is what it's all about, and European football has a lot to learn from the closed shop that has made American sports zillions and zillions. I'll be brief.

American football, baseball, and basketball teams are privately owned, and no matter how badly they perform, they cannot be relegated to a minor league, à la in Europe. The owners of pro teams vote and decide the rules—or changes to those rules—accept or reject who can join the exclusive circle, and vote to ban for whatever reason any interloper trying to crash the exclusive club. The specter of promotion or relegation does not exist in American sports, and it is viewed as a particular European perversion unwelcome to the billionaires' club that owns professional sports. Not a bad deal for a certain few.

So it was only a matter of time that a closed-shop deal would perform a come-hither dangle in front of such pure and noble sportsmen as Stan Kroenke, John Henry, and the ghastly Glazers. When I was a boy, professional players such as my hero—and later on friend—Mickey Mantle were bought at a very young age by a major-league team like the New York Yankees, and remained Yankee property for life. It was, in a way, indentured service. Then a player named Vida Blue sued baseball and a new deal was signed giving the opportunity to professional ballplayers to become free agents after a certain amount of time. You know the rest. Players discovered agents, agents discovered lawyers, and suddenly owners discovered judges ready to throw the book at monopolistic practices, unless. So the owners opened up their pocketbooks wide, but managed to keep the closed shop firmly shut.

Sports in America come under entertainment and are subservient to television scheduling, while sponsors make the laws. Profit is what pro sports—like everything else in the country—are all about. The New York Mets are a baseball team that began rather late, back in the early '60s, and the new franchise was financed by a group that actually invented baseball in the 19th century, the Doubleday family. I was stepping out with a girl whose grandmother, Mrs. Payson, was the principal owner. The Mets were fun and lost more games than any team in history before they became the miracle Mets in 1969 that won the whole kit and caboodle. Before her granddaughter and I broke up, Mrs. Payson explained to me why professional teams like baseball had thrived: They were exempted from antitrust laws by Washington, D.C., at the very start of the 20th century, and owners of professional teams were ready to get down and dirty in order to keep their closed-shop privileges. Payson was a grand old lady and is no longer with us, and she sold her shares to two real estate sharks whose moneyman was someone named Bernie Madoff.

Read the Whole Article

The post Unsportsmanlike Conduct appeared first on LewRockwell.

Food as Medicine — The Answer to Mounting Health Crises

Sunday 02 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05

Dr. Robert Lustig, a pediatric endocrinologist and Professor Emeritus at the University of California, San Francisco, has written a number of excellent books about health. His latest, "Metabolical: The Lure and the Lies of Processed Food, Nutrition, and Modern Medicine" goes deep into the details of how changes in our food supply have damaged our metabolic health. (The created term "metabolical" is actually a portmanteau of the words "metabolic" and "diabolical.")

"I wrote it because nothing else has worked," Lustig says. "Part of the problem is this is such a complicated issue. There are too many stakeholders and you have to find a method for making everyone happy. Until you do, you can’t solve it.

There is a way to actually solve this, [but] every stakeholder, whether it be the patient, the doctor, the food company, the insurance industry, the medical profession, Wall Street and Congress … has to understand the same thing. They all have to be working off the same set of facts. You see what happens when you don’t work off the same set of facts.

So, my job was to put all of this in one volume so that everyone had access to the same information, and then we can go from there. I lay out in the book what the argument for fixing the entire food system is, and how everyone can benefit from it, even the food industry."

The Two Primary Keys

In summary, it boils down to two primary key issues or problems. The first is that the medical establishment doesn’t want you to know that drugs were never intended or designed to treat the foundational cause of chronic disease. They merely treat the symptoms.

"In the book, I make it very clear that modern medicine has two factions, two paradigms," Lustig says. "One is treatment of acute disease, and for the most part, they’ve gotten it reasonably right. I was part of that system for 40 years and was comfortable within it.

But for chronic disease, Type 2 diabetes, hypertension, lipid problems, cardiovascular disease, cancer, dementia, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, polycystic ovarian disease — all of which are chronic metabolic diseases, all of which are mitochondrial diseases — we don’t have anything. We have symptomatic relief only.

So, we have LDL lowering agents — and if LDL were the problem, that would be fine — except LDL is NOT the problem. LDL is a symptom of the problem. It is a manifestation of the metabolic dysfunction. Same thing with hyperglycemia.

Same thing with hypertension. Same thing with osteoporosis. Same thing with autoimmune disease. All of these, we have symptomatic treatments. We don't cure or reverse the disease; we just treat the symptoms. And so the disease gets worse.

The way I describe it in the book is, it’s like giving an aspirin to a patient with a brain tumor because they have a headache. It might work today, but it’s not going to solve the problem. And that’s what modern medicine is throwing at people with chronic disease, and it is, of course, breaking the bank."

The other problem is that the food industry doesn’t want you to know that virtually all foods are intrinsically good for you until they're processed, and processed foods make up a majority of the foods people eat.

Food is medicine, but processed food is poison, and there’s no medicine that can undo the damage of processed food. ~ Dr. Robert Lustig

As noted by Lustig:

"The point I make in the book is that just because they call it processed food, doesn’t make it food. Calling it a processed food suggests that it is a subset of food. Michael Pollan [calls it] palatable food-like substances. The fact of the matter is, processed food is poison. Food is medicine, but processed food is poison, and there’s no medicine that can undo the damage of processed food."

Indeed, once you understand the molecular pathways, when you understand the transcription factors and the actual mechanisms of action of various diseases, and the various drugs used to treat them, you can easily see that they do not treat the underlying problem. And that's why people don't get well.

"What I’m trying to do in this book is to separate food from processed food and explaining that processed food is the problem, and we will not solve the health care crisis or the environmental crisis until we solve processed food," Lustig says.

The History of Medicine

In his book, Lustig does an excellent job of presenting the history of our food and medical systems, and the various pressures that led us down the path to where we are today. For example, a significant part of why medical doctors are so clueless about health today is because Big Pharma was placed in charge of their education. The drug industry, in turn, was a distinct profit-making scheme from its inception.

In 1910, Abraham Flexner, an educator, wrote the Flexner Report, which turned out to be a turning point in terms of creating evidence-based modern medicine, while simultaneously eliminating many health-related factors, including nutrition and preventive medicine. His brother, Simon Flexner, a pathologist and pharmacist, was the first president of Rockefeller University.

One of the reasons the Flexner Report eliminated certain aspects of medicine was because John D. Rockefeller, president of Standard Oil, was also in the pharmaceutical business. He was trying to sell coal tar, a byproduct of oil refining, as a treatment for a range of ailments.

So, Rockefeller was seeking new profit avenues. "He basically said we have to get drugs and especially coal tar into the hands of physicians who can prescribe it," Lustig says. The only way to do that was by overhauling the medical system and shifting the focus to pharmaceuticals.

"So that was the start of Big Pharma. That’s not the story they want to tell, but that is in fact the case," Lustig says. "Same thing with dentistry. Weston Price, perhaps the most famous of all dentists, knew this back in the 1920s and ’30s and actually said that sugar was the primary driver of chronic oral disease, whether it be periodontitis or dental caries.

Everything was going in that direction until 1945 with the advent of fluoride, and then promptly everything Weston Price had developed up to that point got deep-sixed. In fact, the dentists even said that if we got rid of dental caries, how are we going to make money? So, his work was basically forgotten.

The same thing in dietetics. It turns out that Lenna Cooper, co-founder of the American Dietetic Association, back in 1917, was the apprentice of John Harvey Kellogg. She didn’t even have a dietary degree … Kellogg was very much against meat. He was a Seventh-Day Adventist, and it turned out that the American Dietetic Association adopted the entire Seventh-Day Adventist religious paradigm.

To this day, we still see it in terms of vegan diets. So, people talk about vegan diets being appropriate for health, and they can be, but they are not by any means exclusive. They also talk about it being important for environmental health to try to reduce the methane from the cows.

It turns out the cows didn’t spew methane until we started giving them antibiotics, because we killed off the good bacteria in their guts and now they have quadruple the amount of methane compared to what they did in 1968 before the animal antibiotic craze got started. So, it’s not the cows, it’s what we do to the cows. All food is inherently good. It’s what we do to the food that’s not, and that’s what I show in the book."

The adulteration of our food can actually be traced back to around 1850. In Great Britain, the industrial revolution was a turning point where two things happened at the same time.

One, people in sweatshops worked long days and didn’t have time to cook proper meals, so they ended up eating processed biscuits laden with sugar, which had become available from other British colonies like Barbados. This undernourished them in terms of antioxidants, fatty acids and other important nutrients. The second big dietary change was canning, which exposed people to lead poisoning as the cans were made of lead.

Why You Shouldn't Focus on Food Labels

By now, you've probably trained yourself diligently to read food labels. The problem is that the label will not tell you what's been done to the food. "This is one of the reasons why nobody’s getting better because there’s nothing to learn from the label that will actually help you," Lustig says. According to Lustig, a food is healthy if it satisfies two criteria:

It protects your liver

It feeds your gut

A food that does neither is poison, and any food that does only one or the other, but not both, is somewhere in the middle. Real food, because it has fiber, protects your liver and nourishes your gut. Processed food is fiberless, and the reason for this is because fiber decreases shelf life. By removing the fiber from the food, it prevents it from going rancid, but it also makes it inherently unhealthy.

Essentially, "in an attempt to try to increase availability, decrease wastage, we turned our entire food supply on its head in order to create commodities rather than make food available," Lustig says.

Then, in the 1970s, Richard Nixon told the U.S. agriculture secretary, Earl Butts, to come up with a plan to decrease food prices, as fluctuating food prices were causing political unrest. The result was the start of monoculture and chemical-driven farming.

"Now, we have nitrogen runoff destroying our environment and antibiotics in the feed in order to keep the animals alive, but basically killing off their own bacteria and ours, and also creating chronic disease and destroying the environment as well.

It’s basically built into our Western food system. And we’re not going to solve health care, we’re not going to solve chronic disease, we’re not going to solve the economics [or] the environmental problems until we recognize what the problem is," Lustig says.

Refinement Makes Everything Worse

While Lustig argues that the refinement of carbohydrates is the primary culprit that makes processed food so bad for your health, I believe processed fats may be an even bigger contributor.

Omega-6 linoleic acid (LA), in particular, is a pernicious metabolic poison. In 1850, the LA in the average diet was about 2% of total calories. Today, it's between 20% and 30%. While we do need some omega-6, since your body does not make it, the point is we need nowhere near the amount we're now getting.

"I agree that omega-6s are a problem," Lustig says. "No. 1, they’re proinflammatory by themselves and No. 2, they have enough unsaturated double bonds so that if you heat them high enough, you flip them and end up making trans fats. That’s the problem of all of these polyunsaturated fats. They’re not meant to be heated beyond their smoking point, and we do."

In addition to those issues, polyunsaturated fats such as LA are highly susceptible to oxidation, and as the fat oxidizes, it breaks down into harmful sub-components such as advanced lipid oxidation end products (ALES) and oxidized LA metabolites (OXLAMS). These ALES and OXLAMS also cause damage.

One type of advanced lipid oxidation end product (ALE) is 4HNE, a mutagen known to cause DNA damage. Studies have shown there's a definite correlation between elevated levels of 4HNE and heart failure. LA breaks down into 4HNE even faster when the oil is heated, which is why cardiologists recommend avoiding fried foods. LA intake and the subsequent ALES and OXLAMS produced also play a significant role in cancer.

HNE and other ALES are extraordinarily harmful even in exceedingly small quantities. While excess sugar is certainly bad for your health and should typically be limited to 25 grams per day or less, I believe LA is far more damaging overall. As explained by Lustig:

"We have a metabolic burden of reactive oxygen species (ROS) that are doing damage if you can’t quench them. That’s why we have antioxidants in our body — glutathione, vitamin E — [they're] basically the sink for those reactive oxygen species. The fact of the matter is our mitochondria are making ROS every single minute of every single day.

It is a normal byproduct of metabolism. The point is we’re supposed to be able to quench them. You can only quench them if you get the antioxidants into you.

The problem is as soon as you’ve taken the germ out of the grain kernel, you’ve basically reduced your antioxidant consumption by tenfold. So, we are antioxidant deficient because of food processing, which then leaves us vulnerable to the ravages of ROS from multiple sources including our own mitochondria."

Real Food Is the Answer

The key, then, is to eat whole food, which is naturally rich in fiber and low in sugar. On a side note, free radicals are not all bad. They're also biological signaling molecules, and if you indiscriminately suppress them, which is the danger you run into when using very high amounts of antioxidant supplements, it can backfire.

The best way is to get your antioxidants from your food, and real food not only provides antioxidants, but also doesn't create excessive ROS, so you get help from both ends, as it were. As for the type of diet you choose, any diet can work, provided it's right for your metabolism. The only diet that does not work for anyone is a processed food diet.

Solutions, Solutions

Now that you know the root problems, what solutions does Lustig suggest? For starters, education alone is not enough, he says. We need education plus implementation. And that requires a different societal response.

"The way I describe it is that there’s personal intervention, which for the lack of a better word we can call rehab, and societal intervention, which for lack of a better word we can call laws. Rehab and laws for everything that is a hedonic substance — you need both."

The first step of personal intervention is figuring out if you're sick. "And don’t ask your doctor because they don’t know how to figure it out," Lustig says. In Chapter 9 of his book, he lists clues that can help you self-diagnose.

In terms of addressing your health problems, your primary "treatment" will be to make, possibly significant, changes to how you shop and eat. As a general, easy-to-follow rule, if it has a label, don't buy it. Real food does not have ingredient labels. Lustig's book also includes guidance on how to read food labels in cases where you might not have an option.

"We also need societal intervention. The problem is the food industry doesn’t want any societal intervention because this is their gravy train. So, the question is, how do you do this?

Normally we would do it through legislation, but the food industry has completely co-opted the entire legislative branch; 338 out of 535 congressmen take money from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), and agriculture is their fourth [largest] contributor after petroleum, tobacco and pharma."

Barring legislative success, we're left with litigation. Already, there are a number of lawsuits in the works, several of which Lustig is a part of. Ultimately, we must restructure the entire food system so that all stakeholders benefit. "And we have to demonstrate to them how they can benefit," Lustig says.

Subsidies Are the Biggest Hindrance to Change

Can the food industry make money selling real food? Lustig believes the answer is yes, and in his book, he details how real food makes both financial and ecological sense. The key is to remove subsidies, which currently grease the wheels of the processed food industry.

"The subsidies are the single biggest blockade," Lustig says. "They’re the single biggest obstacle to being able to fix the food supply because that’s what’s making processed food cheap. The Giannini Foundation at UC Berkeley did a back of envelope calculation several years ago.

What would the price of food look like if we got rid of all food subsidies? It turns out that the price of food would not change. People say it would go up. No, it wouldn’t. It would not change except for two items. Two items would go up: Sugar and corn [used for high-fructose corn syrup]. So, basically, that would reduce consumption of the primary toxin in our diet that’s causing the most trouble …

The food industry … can make more money doing the right thing provided we get rid of the subsidies or make the subsidies for real food so that they can make money selling the right thing. This requires government. There’s no way around it. That’s why this book is complete. It’s laid out for all the stakeholders, including government, as to what has to happen and why.

I wrote this book for everyone to understand the same principles all at once, so that we can actually have an argument and a debate and hopefully come to the table about the facts, because until we do that, there will be no solving this problem. If everyone comes to the table, honestly, and admits to what the issue is, what the problem is, we can, in fact, solve it."

To learn more, be sure to pick up a copy of Lustig's book, "Metabolical: The Lure and the Lies of Processed Food, Nutrition, and Modern Medicine." You can also find a wealth of information on his website, RobertLustig.com, including media appearances, audio recordings, video lectures, books, articles and upcoming events where you can hear him speak.

The post Food as Medicine — The Answer to Mounting Health Crises appeared first on LewRockwell.

from https://youtu.be/GuUaaPaTlyY May 03, 2021 at 09:00PM

#[Consumer Credit News] Credit Report Repair News: Digest for May 04 #2021

0 notes

zagglutin · 4 years ago

Text

[Consumer Credit News] Credit Report Repair News: Digest for May 02, 2021

Credit Report Repair News

Table of Contents

[Feedrabbit] Please verify your email [email protected]

by Credit Repair News, Sebastian Pulvera on Sunday 02 May 2021 12:25 AM UTC-05

Hey, we want to verify that you are indeed '[email protected]'. Verifying this address will let you receive subscriptions from Feedrabbit. If you wish to continue, please follow the link below: https://feedrabbit.com/settings/emails/5442/confirm/eb457d9c65082cac1a48da53f1d78e6cab97f09a If you're not [email protected] or didn't request verification, you can ignore this email. The Feedrabbit Team https://feedrabbit.com/

from https://youtu.be/GuUaaPaTlyY May 01, 2021 at 09:00PM

#[Consumer Credit News] Credit Report Repair News: Digest for May 02 #2021

0 notes

zagglutin · 4 years ago

Text

Westerville, Ohio Credit Repair | (888) 502-1260

youtube

Westerville, Ohio Free Credit Repair Counseling call (888) 502-1260 remove bankruptcy, free consumer report, fix bad credit, https://unitedstatesrepaircredit.wordpress.com/altamonte-springs-florida-credit-repair-888-502-1260/ check your annual Equifax, TransUnion, Experian credit report. https://youtu.be/gTKqrnu8F6o Call Westerville, Ohio credit repair (888) 502-1260 to see how we really actually work. Why is it so common to hear that bad credit can’t be repaired? What does the law say about repairing your credit? What is the truth about credit repair companies? Can they really do what they say they can do? How do you go about completely repairing your credit and getting new credit lines, mortgages, etc.? Can you add good credit to your credit report by having another person add you as an authorized user to one of their credit cards?

Credit is a way of life in Westerville, Ohio. Without good credit, you have to take your seat in the second-class section of our economy. But, if your credit is in shambles, you may not be willing to wait for seven years while your credit report repairs itself.

Is there anything you can do to speed your credit repair? Many authorities, such as the news media, will tell you there is nothing you can do to repair your credit. Newspapers, magazines, and TV news journals all seem to be unanimous in discouraging you from making any effort to repair your credit before the seven year limit. Call Westerville, Ohio Credit Repair today and start getting the credit you deserve!

http://www.tunesbaby.com/yt/?x=gTKqrnu8F6o

youtube

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLIxHTCCpac0JP9bMocX6MoshSDnaKFEgz

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQ59wI92d9LCN90RLiHMR7A/about

https://www.facebook.com/Credit-Repair-Soledad-CA-call-1-888-630-5917-250280521776638/

https://unitedstatescounselingcredit.wordpress.com/winter-garden-florida-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/

youtube

https://youtu.be/nhpR2VlFbPM

from https://youtu.be/UuC5mCL9HC8 March 20, 2021 at 11:17PM

#Westerville #Ohio Credit Repair | (888) 502-1260

0 notes

zagglutin · 4 years ago

Text

Oakland, California Credit Repair | (888) 502-1260

youtube

Oakland, California Free Credit Repair Counseling call (888) 502-1260 remove bankruptcy, free consumer report, fix bad credit, https://unitedstatesrepaircredit.wordpress.com/mckinney-texas-credit-repair-888-502-1260/ check your annual Equifax, TransUnion, Experian credit report. https://youtu.be/9cft6IPytfk Call Oakland, California credit repair (888) 502-1260 to see how we really actually work. Why is it so common to hear that bad credit can’t be repaired? What does the law say about repairing your credit? What is the truth about credit repair companies? Can they really do what they say they can do? How do you go about completely repairing your credit and getting new credit lines, mortgages, etc.? Can you add good credit to your credit report by having another person add you as an authorized user to one of their credit cards?

Credit is a way of life in Oakland, California. Without good credit, you have to take your seat in the second-class section of our economy. But, if your credit is in shambles, you may not be willing to wait for seven years while your credit report repairs itself.

Is there anything you can do to speed your credit repair? Many authorities, such as the news media, will tell you there is nothing you can do to repair your credit. Newspapers, magazines, and TV news journals all seem to be unanimous in discouraging you from making any effort to repair your credit before the seven year limit. Call Oakland, California Credit Repair today and start getting the credit you deserve!

http://beonrepeat.com/watch?v=9cft6IPytfk

youtube

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLIxHTCCpac0KisXfDUq0lXoETm_XGKjpA

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTT5v97obyavXq3JuzAWheg/about

https://www.facebook.com/Credit-Repair-Sun-Valley-CA-call-1-888-630-5917-107464839459357/

https://unitedstatescounselingcredit.wordpress.com/grand-island-nebraska-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/

youtube

https://youtu.be/Uu9yU5j8-Vc

from https://youtu.be/UuC5mCL9HC8 March 20, 2021 at 06:37PM

#Oakland #California Credit Repair | (888) 502-1260

0 notes

zagglutin · 4 years ago

Text

Bethlehem, Pennsylvania Credit Repair | (888) 502-1260

youtube

Bethlehem, Pennsylvania Free Credit Repair Counseling call (888) 502-1260 remove bankruptcy, free consumer report, fix bad credit, https://unitedstatesrepaircredit.wordpress.com/wausau-wisconsin-credit-repair-888-502-1260/ check your annual Equifax, TransUnion, Experian credit report. https://youtu.be/00-_lChaEzo Call Bethlehem, Pennsylvania credit repair (888) 502-1260 to see how we really actually work. Why is it so common to hear that bad credit can’t be repaired? What does the law say about repairing your credit? What is the truth about credit repair companies? Can they really do what they say they can do? How do you go about completely repairing your credit and getting new credit lines, mortgages, etc.? Can you add good credit to your credit report by having another person add you as an authorized user to one of their credit cards?

Credit is a way of life in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Without good credit, you have to take your seat in the second-class section of our economy. But, if your credit is in shambles, you may not be willing to wait for seven years while your credit report repairs itself.

Is there anything you can do to speed your credit repair? Many authorities, such as the news media, will tell you there is nothing you can do to repair your credit. Newspapers, magazines, and TV news journals all seem to be unanimous in discouraging you from making any effort to repair your credit before the seven year limit. Call Bethlehem, Pennsylvania Credit Repair today and start getting the credit you deserve!

http://beonrepeat.com/watch?v=00-_lChaEzo

youtube

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLgdjO1n1Q_-ggkokLhmdHWFH6RGe026UC

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNgbERdR8k4OH3rmtpRKiJg/about

https://www.facebook.com/Consumer-Credit-Counseling-New-Jersey-call-800-254-4100-154454931684881/

https://unitedstatescounselingcredit.wordpress.com/augusta-georgia-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/

youtube

https://youtu.be/Zh6fAwsYoH8

from https://youtu.be/UuC5mCL9HC8 March 20, 2021 at 11:21AM

#Bethlehem #Pennsylvania Credit Repair | (888) 502-1260

0 notes

zagglutin · 4 years ago

Text

Lincoln Park, Michigan Credit Repair | (888) 502-1260

youtube

Lincoln Park, Michigan Free Credit Repair Counseling call (888) 502-1260 remove bankruptcy, free consumer report, fix bad credit, https://unitedstatesrepaircredit.wordpress.com/deerfield-beach-florida-credit-repair-888-502-1260/ check your annual Equifax, TransUnion, Experian credit report. https://youtu.be/efulMmxlIQk Call Lincoln Park, Michigan credit repair (888) 502-1260 to see how we really actually work. Why is it so common to hear that bad credit can’t be repaired? What does the law say about repairing your credit? What is the truth about credit repair companies? Can they really do what they say they can do? How do you go about completely repairing your credit and getting new credit lines, mortgages, etc.? Can you add good credit to your credit report by having another person add you as an authorized user to one of their credit cards?

Credit is a way of life in Lincoln Park, Michigan. Without good credit, you have to take your seat in the second-class section of our economy. But, if your credit is in shambles, you may not be willing to wait for seven years while your credit report repairs itself.

Is there anything you can do to speed your credit repair? Many authorities, such as the news media, will tell you there is nothing you can do to repair your credit. Newspapers, magazines, and TV news journals all seem to be unanimous in discouraging you from making any effort to repair your credit before the seven year limit. Call Lincoln Park, Michigan Credit Repair today and start getting the credit you deserve!

http://youtuberepeater.com/watch?v=efulMmxlIQk

youtube

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZln6PprOLD1ohUgAH0cZOQ0IOxDjF0_P

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCz_ML7-6dfKSmq8uhAs6LJQ/about

https://www.facebook.com/Credit-Repair-GainesvilleFL-call-1-888-502-1260-214018325330680/

https://unitedstatescounselingcredit.wordpress.com/rockville-maryland-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/

youtube

https://youtu.be/q9iJEF_HBvs

from https://youtu.be/UuC5mCL9HC8 March 20, 2021 at 06:33AM

#Lincoln Park #Michigan Credit Repair | (888) 502-1260

0 notes

zagglutin · 4 years ago

Text

Thousand Oaks, California Credit Repair | (888) 502-1260

youtube

Thousand Oaks, California Free Credit Repair Counseling call (888) 502-1260 remove bankruptcy, free consumer report, fix bad credit, https://unitedstatesrepaircredit.wordpress.com/huntington-park-california-credit-repair-888-502-1260/ check your annual Equifax, TransUnion, Experian credit report. https://youtu.be/B8X-MqGkB5o Call Thousand Oaks, California credit repair (888) 502-1260 to see how we really actually work. Why is it so common to hear that bad credit can’t be repaired? What does the law say about repairing your credit? What is the truth about credit repair companies? Can they really do what they say they can do? How do you go about completely repairing your credit and getting new credit lines, mortgages, etc.? Can you add good credit to your credit report by having another person add you as an authorized user to one of their credit cards?

Credit is a way of life in Thousand Oaks, California. Without good credit, you have to take your seat in the second-class section of our economy. But, if your credit is in shambles, you may not be willing to wait for seven years while your credit report repairs itself.

Is there anything you can do to speed your credit repair? Many authorities, such as the news media, will tell you there is nothing you can do to repair your credit. Newspapers, magazines, and TV news journals all seem to be unanimous in discouraging you from making any effort to repair your credit before the seven year limit. Call Thousand Oaks, California Credit Repair today and start getting the credit you deserve!

https://endlessvideo.com/watch?v=B8X-MqGkB5o

youtube

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0Iom7SKi5Ly9Xqmxp3W3NPeMi7FHqul2

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCW6vV2iwidJN4cRBkhLIp8g/about

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Consumer-Credit-Counseling-Santa-Maria-CA-1-800-254-4100/150535678370099

https://unitedstatescounselingcredit.wordpress.com/lees-summit-missouri-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/

youtube

https://youtu.be/tcTggqgnFrE

from https://youtu.be/UuC5mCL9HC8 March 20, 2021 at 01:47AM

#Thousand Oaks #California Credit Repair | (888) 502-1260

0 notes

zagglutin · 4 years ago

Text

Rancho Cordova, California Credit Repair | (888) 502-1260

youtube

Rancho Cordova, California Free Credit Repair Counseling call (888) 502-1260 remove bankruptcy, free consumer report, fix bad credit, https://unitedstatesrepaircredit.wordpress.com/buffalo-new-york-credit-repair-888-502-1260/ check your annual Equifax, TransUnion, Experian credit report. https://youtu.be/FQpf7JqF8oc Call Rancho Cordova, California credit repair (888) 502-1260 to see how we really actually work. Why is it so common to hear that bad credit can’t be repaired? What does the law say about repairing your credit? What is the truth about credit repair companies? Can they really do what they say they can do? How do you go about completely repairing your credit and getting new credit lines, mortgages, etc.? Can you add good credit to your credit report by having another person add you as an authorized user to one of their credit cards?

Credit is a way of life in Rancho Cordova, California. Without good credit, you have to take your seat in the second-class section of our economy. But, if your credit is in shambles, you may not be willing to wait for seven years while your credit report repairs itself.

Is there anything you can do to speed your credit repair? Many authorities, such as the news media, will tell you there is nothing you can do to repair your credit. Newspapers, magazines, and TV news journals all seem to be unanimous in discouraging you from making any effort to repair your credit before the seven year limit. Call Rancho Cordova, California Credit Repair today and start getting the credit you deserve!

http://www.tunesbaby.com/yt/?x=FQpf7JqF8oc

youtube

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-B7IfFWtv9KxkFZd4e6azGMLRHeEDjOf

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWbH3f8VwOv7g05F4Hwcq3Q/about

https://www.facebook.com/Credit-Repair-Myra-TX-call-1-888-630-5917-502939769759252/

https://unitedstatescounselingcredit.wordpress.com/sunnyvale-california-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/

youtube

https://youtu.be/OreZbSlCHIU

from https://youtu.be/UuC5mCL9HC8 March 19, 2021 at 11:23PM

#Rancho Cordova #California Credit Repair | (888) 502-1260

0 notes

zagglutin · 4 years ago

Text

Downtown New York City New York Credit Repair | (888) 502-1260

youtube

Downtown New York City New York Free Credit Repair Counseling call (888) 502-1260 remove bankruptcy, free consumer report, fix bad credit, https://unitedstatesrepaircredit.wordpress.com/san-bruno-california-credit-repair-888-502-1260/ check your annual Equifax, TransUnion, Experian credit report. https://youtu.be/4_6wxGAjOsQ Call Downtown New York City New York credit repair (888) 502-1260 to see how we really actually work. Why is it so common to hear that bad credit can’t be repaired? What does the law say about repairing your credit? What is the truth about credit repair companies? Can they really do what they say they can do? How do you go about completely repairing your credit and getting new credit lines, mortgages, etc.? Can you add good credit to your credit report by having another person add you as an authorized user to one of their credit cards?

Credit is a way of life in Downtown New York City New York. Without good credit, you have to take your seat in the second-class section of our economy. But, if your credit is in shambles, you may not be willing to wait for seven years while your credit report repairs itself.

Is there anything you can do to speed your credit repair? Many authorities, such as the news media, will tell you there is nothing you can do to repair your credit. Newspapers, magazines, and TV news journals all seem to be unanimous in discouraging you from making any effort to repair your credit before the seven year limit. Call Downtown New York City New York Credit Repair today and start getting the credit you deserve!

http://www.tunesbaby.com/yt/?x=4_6wxGAjOsQ

youtube

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxAI83eFMLb4o6Z0Rt2_FAt0Rgn1WLlL1

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVdxH721B2g5Ist6mA8nIkQ/about

https://www.facebook.com/Credit-Repair-Fall-River-MA-call-1-888-502-1260-274098709290980/

https://unitedstatescounselingcredit.wordpress.com/corpus-christi-texas-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/

youtube

https://youtu.be/xR0scIsgpKo

from https://youtu.be/UuC5mCL9HC8 March 19, 2021 at 09:00PM

#Downtown New York City New York Credit Repair | (888) 502-1260

0 notes

zagglutin · 4 years ago

Text

Germantown, Tennessee Credit Repair | (888) 502-1260

youtube

Germantown, Tennessee Free Credit Repair Counseling call (888) 502-1260 remove bankruptcy, free consumer report, fix bad credit, https://unitedstatesrepaircredit.wordpress.com/downtown-long-beach-california-credit-repair-888-502-1260/ check your annual Equifax, TransUnion, Experian credit report. https://youtu.be/dIuaYEy1pPk Call Germantown, Tennessee credit repair (888) 502-1260 to see how we really actually work. Why is it so common to hear that bad credit can’t be repaired? What does the law say about repairing your credit? What is the truth about credit repair companies? Can they really do what they say they can do? How do you go about completely repairing your credit and getting new credit lines, mortgages, etc.? Can you add good credit to your credit report by having another person add you as an authorized user to one of their credit cards?

Credit is a way of life in Germantown, Tennessee. Without good credit, you have to take your seat in the second-class section of our economy. But, if your credit is in shambles, you may not be willing to wait for seven years while your credit report repairs itself.

Is there anything you can do to speed your credit repair? Many authorities, such as the news media, will tell you there is nothing you can do to repair your credit. Newspapers, magazines, and TV news journals all seem to be unanimous in discouraging you from making any effort to repair your credit before the seven year limit. Call Germantown, Tennessee Credit Repair today and start getting the credit you deserve!

http://beonrepeat.com/watch?v=dIuaYEy1pPk

youtube

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLoTwJWyT7kfVhpQ1drmgDAHLhQWQhIVA3

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgOTgE9ah0jCfVa9JDNHi1A/about

https://www.facebook.com/Credit-Repair-Cleveland-OH-call-1-888-502-1260-128498467253568/

https://unitedstatescounselingcredit.wordpress.com/pensacola-florida-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/

youtube

https://youtu.be/QZovObfYXVI

from https://youtu.be/UuC5mCL9HC8 March 19, 2021 at 06:42PM

#Germantown #Tennessee Credit Repair | (888) 502-1260

0 notes

zagglutin · 4 years ago

Text

[Consumer Credit News] Estados Unidos (EE.UU.) Asesoramiento de crédito al consumidor | (833) 477-0690: Digest for March 20, 2021

Estados Unidos (EE.UU.) Asesoramiento de crédito al consumidor | (833) 477-0690

Estados Unidos Asesoramiento gratuito de crédito al consumidor. Reparación de crédito, consolidación de deudas llama Ya (833) 477-0690. Los servicios de asesoramiento crediticio al consumidor brindan recursos para ayudarlo a resolver sus problemas de dinero y tarjetas de crédito.

Table of Contents

Dallas, Texas Asesoramiento de credito al consumidor | (833) 477-0690

Richmond, California Asesoramiento de credito al consumidor | (833) 477-0690

Perth Amboy, New Jersey Asesoramiento de credito al consumidor | (833) 477-0690

Lafayette, Louisiana Asesoramiento de credito al consumidor | (833) 477-0690

New Brunswick, New Jersey Asesoramiento de credito al consumidor | (833) 477-0690

Dallas, Texas Asesoramiento de credito al consumidor | (833) 477-0690

by Estados Unidos (EE.UU.) Asesoramiento de crédito al consumidor, Daniel Guzman on Thursday 18 March 2021 12:58 AM UTC-05 | Tags: asesoramiento-de-cr-dito-dallas dallas texas texas-asesoramiento-de-cr-dito

Dallas, Texas Asesoramiento gratuito de crédito al consumidor. Reparación de crédito, consolidación de deudas llama Ya (833) 477-0690. https://asesoramientodecredito.wordpress.com/bullhead-city-arizona-asesoramiento-de-credito-al-consumidor-833-477-0690/ Los servicios de asesoramiento crediticio al consumidor brindan recursos para ayudarlo a resolver sus problemas de dinero. Dallas, Texas Servicio gratuito de asesoramiento crediticio para el consumidor llame al (833) 477-0690, prevención de ejecuciones hipotecarias, consolidación de préstamos estudiantiles, soluciones de embargo de salario y recuperación de vehículos, plan de gestión de deudas, asesoramiento en quiebra y certificado previo a la presentación de solicitudes, modificación de préstamo hipotecario y Pago de la deuda. Asesoramiento crediticio gratuito Dallas, Texas Habla con un asesor profesional. Nuestros asesores lo asistirán con amabilidad para: ayuda para pagar tarjetas de crédito como negociar una deuda de tarjeta de crédito eliminar deudas de tarjetas de crédito deudas de tarjetas de crédito en estados unidos Se puede obtener asesoramiento por teléfono, en cuyo caso no se requiere cita previa (833) 477-0690. Cómo elegir una organización de asesoramiento crediticio Dallas, Texas Las organizaciones de asesoramiento crediticio de buena reputación lo aconsejan sobre cómo administrar su dinero y manejar sus deudas, lo ayudan a desarrollar un presupuesto, y usualmente le ofrecen materiales y talleres educativos gratuitos. Sus consejeros están certificados y capacitados en temas de crédito para consumidores, administración de dinero y deudas, y elaboración de presupuestos. Los consejeros hablan con usted sobre su situación financiera integral y lo ayudan a desarrollar un plan personalizado para resolver sus problemas de dinero. Por lo general, una sesión inicial de asesoramiento de crédito dura aproximadamente una hora y pueden ofrecerle algunas otras sesiones de seguimiento. Una organización de asesoría de crédito Dallas, Texas que se precie debería enviarle gratuitamente información sobre sí misma y sobre los servicios que provee sin pedirle previamente ningún detalle sobre su situación. Cuando una compañía no actúa de esta manera, considere este dato como una luz roja de alerta y pida asistencia en otro lugar. Una vez que desarrolle una lista de posibles organizaciones de asesoría de crédito, verifique su reputación ante la oficina de su Fiscal General estatal, agencia local de protección del consumidor y la oficina de Better Business Bureau. Ellos pueden informarle si otros consumidores han presentado quejas sobre esas organizaciones. (Pero incluso cuando no registren ninguna queja contra esas organizaciones, no hay ninguna garantía de que sean legítimas.) El Programa de la Sindicatura de los Dallas, Texas, Estados Unidos posee una lista de organizaciones de asesoramiento crediticio aprobadas por el gobierno para proveer asesoramiento pre-bancarrota. Una vez que tenga todos los antecedentes, es hora de entrevistar a los "candidatos" finales. https://canadacreditcounseling.wordpress.com/mings-bight-nl-newfoundland-labrador-canada-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://endlessvideo.com/watch?v=1PrECNg5kJ8 https://unitedstatesrepaircredit.wordpress.com/summerville-south-carolina-credit-repair-888-502-1260/ https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLIxHTCCpac0LLUZwokli1-tJZFJin2r6W https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7XAG3RBNQdRU38zmJEVSgQ/about

https://canadacreditcounseling.wordpress.com/alhambra-alberta-canada-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://newjerseycounselingconsumer.wordpress.com/beach-haven-heights-new-jersey-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://canadacreditcounseling.wordpress.com/buck-creek-ab-alberta-canada-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://youtu.be/yqEgN1CaanU https://newjerseycounselingconsumer.wordpress.com/mile-hollow-new-jersey-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://canadacreditcounseling.wordpress.com/cumberland-british-columbia-canada-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://canadacreditcounseling.wordpress.com/fraserwood-mb-manitoba-canada-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://canadacreditcounseling.wordpress.com/kashechewan-ontario-canada-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://unitedstatescounselingcredit.wordpress.com/burbank-california-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://canadacreditcounseling.wordpress.com/rapide-danseur-quebec-canada-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://canadacreditcounseling.wordpress.com/split-lake-manitoba-canada-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://unitedstatesrepaircredit.wordpress.com/belleville-illinois-credit-repair-888-502-1260/ https://youtu.be/1PrECNg5kJ8 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjHyMv_i-nHfOujYlKSyhPSZ_qwnSNTT4 https://youtu.be/pzDZ0ed-Gj8 https://endlessvideo.com/watch?v=pzDZ0ed-Gj8 https://www.facebook.com/Credit-Repair-Buffalo-NY-call-1-888-502-1260-234679286586605

Tags:

asesoramiento-de-cr-dito-dallas

dallas

texas

texas-asesoramiento-de-cr-dito

Richmond, California Asesoramiento de credito al consumidor | (833) 477-0690

by Estados Unidos (EE.UU.) Asesoramiento de crédito al consumidor, Daniel Guzman on Thursday 18 March 2021 10:54 AM UTC-05 | Tags: asesoramiento-de-cr-dito-richmond california california-asesoramiento-de-cr-dito richmond

Richmond, California Asesoramiento gratuito de crédito al consumidor. Reparación de crédito, consolidación de deudas llama Ya (833) 477-0690. https://asesoramientodecredito.wordpress.com/idaho-asesoramiento-de-credito-al-consumidor-833-477-0690/ Los servicios de asesoramiento crediticio al consumidor brindan recursos para ayudarlo a resolver sus problemas de dinero. Richmond, California Servicio gratuito de asesoramiento crediticio para el consumidor llame al (833) 477-0690, prevención de ejecuciones hipotecarias, consolidación de préstamos estudiantiles, soluciones de embargo de salario y recuperación de vehículos, plan de gestión de deudas, asesoramiento en quiebra y certificado previo a la presentación de solicitudes, modificación de préstamo hipotecario y Pago de la deuda. Asesoramiento crediticio gratuito Richmond, California Habla con un asesor profesional. Nuestros asesores lo asistirán con amabilidad para: ayuda para pagar tarjetas de crédito como negociar una deuda de tarjeta de crédito eliminar deudas de tarjetas de crédito deudas de tarjetas de crédito en estados unidos Se puede obtener asesoramiento por teléfono, en cuyo caso no se requiere cita previa (833) 477-0690. Cómo elegir una organización de asesoramiento crediticio Richmond, California Las organizaciones de asesoramiento crediticio de buena reputación lo aconsejan sobre cómo administrar su dinero y manejar sus deudas, lo ayudan a desarrollar un presupuesto, y usualmente le ofrecen materiales y talleres educativos gratuitos. Sus consejeros están certificados y capacitados en temas de crédito para consumidores, administración de dinero y deudas, y elaboración de presupuestos. Los consejeros hablan con usted sobre su situación financiera integral y lo ayudan a desarrollar un plan personalizado para resolver sus problemas de dinero. Por lo general, una sesión inicial de asesoramiento de crédito dura aproximadamente una hora y pueden ofrecerle algunas otras sesiones de seguimiento. Una organización de asesoría de crédito Richmond, California que se precie debería enviarle gratuitamente información sobre sí misma y sobre los servicios que provee sin pedirle previamente ningún detalle sobre su situación. Cuando una compañía no actúa de esta manera, considere este dato como una luz roja de alerta y pida asistencia en otro lugar. Una vez que desarrolle una lista de posibles organizaciones de asesoría de crédito, verifique su reputación ante la oficina de su Fiscal General estatal, agencia local de protección del consumidor y la oficina de Better Business Bureau. Ellos pueden informarle si otros consumidores han presentado quejas sobre esas organizaciones. (Pero incluso cuando no registren ninguna queja contra esas organizaciones, no hay ninguna garantía de que sean legítimas.) El Programa de la Sindicatura de los Richmond, California, Estados Unidos posee una lista de organizaciones de asesoramiento crediticio aprobadas por el gobierno para proveer asesoramiento pre-bancarrota. Una vez que tenga todos los antecedentes, es hora de entrevistar a los "candidatos" finales. https://canadacreditcounseling.wordpress.com/north-langford-british-columbia-canada-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ http://www.infinitelooper.com/?v=aDMXrxUYzOU https://unitedstatesrepaircredit.wordpress.com/lawrence-indiana-credit-repair-888-502-1260/ https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLqABg6Imn31JILV6ycCShIYJ0ZM0Sl7mV https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBMJy06kv1eTboW_T7LPHiw/about

https://canadacreditcounseling.wordpress.com/barrie-on-ontario-canada-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://newjerseycounselingconsumer.wordpress.com/downstown-new-jersey-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://canadacreditcounseling.wordpress.com/cathcart-ontario-canada-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://youtu.be/u2sEeFZCvHA https://newjerseycounselingconsumer.wordpress.com/raines-corner-new-jersey-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://canadacreditcounseling.wordpress.com/dundalk-ontario-canada-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://canadacreditcounseling.wordpress.com/greenfield-ns-nova-scotia-canada-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://canadacreditcounseling.wordpress.com/lashburn-saskatchewan-canada-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://unitedstatescounselingcredit.wordpress.com/idaho-falls-idaho-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://canadacreditcounseling.wordpress.com/sainte-claire-quebec-canada-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://canadacreditcounseling.wordpress.com/tottenham-ontario-canada-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://unitedstatesrepaircredit.wordpress.com/green-bay-wisconsin-credit-repair-888-502-1260/ https://youtu.be/aDMXrxUYzOU https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjHyMv_i-nHfOujYlKSyhPSZ_qwnSNTT4 https://youtu.be/pzDZ0ed-Gj8 http://www.infinitelooper.com/?v=pzDZ0ed-Gj8 https://www.facebook.com/pages/category/Local-Service/Credit-Repair-Jackson-TN-call-1-888-502-1260-259569050754205/

Tags:

asesoramiento-de-cr-dito-richmond

california

california-asesoramiento-de-cr-dito

richmond

Perth Amboy, New Jersey Asesoramiento de credito al consumidor | (833) 477-0690

by Estados Unidos (EE.UU.) Asesoramiento de crédito al consumidor, Daniel Guzman on Thursday 18 March 2021 04:55 PM UTC-05 | Tags: asesoramiento-de-cr-dito-perth-amboy new-jersey new-jersey-asesoramiento-de-cr-dito perth-amboy

Perth Amboy, New Jersey Asesoramiento gratuito de crédito al consumidor. Reparación de crédito, consolidación de deudas llama Ya (833) 477-0690. https://asesoramientodecredito.wordpress.com/state-college-pennsylvania-asesoramiento-de-credito-al-consumidor-833-477-0690/ Los servicios de asesoramiento crediticio al consumidor brindan recursos para ayudarlo a resolver sus problemas de dinero. Perth Amboy, New Jersey Servicio gratuito de asesoramiento crediticio para el consumidor llame al (833) 477-0690, prevención de ejecuciones hipotecarias, consolidación de préstamos estudiantiles, soluciones de embargo de salario y recuperación de vehículos, plan de gestión de deudas, asesoramiento en quiebra y certificado previo a la presentación de solicitudes, modificación de préstamo hipotecario y Pago de la deuda. Asesoramiento crediticio gratuito Perth Amboy, New Jersey Habla con un asesor profesional. Nuestros asesores lo asistirán con amabilidad para: ayuda para pagar tarjetas de crédito como negociar una deuda de tarjeta de crédito eliminar deudas de tarjetas de crédito deudas de tarjetas de crédito en estados unidos Se puede obtener asesoramiento por teléfono, en cuyo caso no se requiere cita previa (833) 477-0690. Cómo elegir una organización de asesoramiento crediticio Perth Amboy, New Jersey Las organizaciones de asesoramiento crediticio de buena reputación lo aconsejan sobre cómo administrar su dinero y manejar sus deudas, lo ayudan a desarrollar un presupuesto, y usualmente le ofrecen materiales y talleres educativos gratuitos. Sus consejeros están certificados y capacitados en temas de crédito para consumidores, administración de dinero y deudas, y elaboración de presupuestos. Los consejeros hablan con usted sobre su situación financiera integral y lo ayudan a desarrollar un plan personalizado para resolver sus problemas de dinero. Por lo general, una sesión inicial de asesoramiento de crédito dura aproximadamente una hora y pueden ofrecerle algunas otras sesiones de seguimiento. Una organización de asesoría de crédito Perth Amboy, New Jersey que se precie debería enviarle gratuitamente información sobre sí misma y sobre los servicios que provee sin pedirle previamente ningún detalle sobre su situación. Cuando una compañía no actúa de esta manera, considere este dato como una luz roja de alerta y pida asistencia en otro lugar. Una vez que desarrolle una lista de posibles organizaciones de asesoría de crédito, verifique su reputación ante la oficina de su Fiscal General estatal, agencia local de protección del consumidor y la oficina de Better Business Bureau. Ellos pueden informarle si otros consumidores han presentado quejas sobre esas organizaciones. (Pero incluso cuando no registren ninguna queja contra esas organizaciones, no hay ninguna garantía de que sean legítimas.) El Programa de la Sindicatura de los Perth Amboy, New Jersey, Estados Unidos posee una lista de organizaciones de asesoramiento crediticio aprobadas por el gobierno para proveer asesoramiento pre-bancarrota. Una vez que tenga todos los antecedentes, es hora de entrevistar a los "candidatos" finales. https://canadacreditcounseling.wordpress.com/pinewood-ontario-canada-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ http://listenonrepeat.com/watch/?v=fHAoT_crGfI https://unitedstatesrepaircredit.wordpress.com/carpentersville-illinois-credit-repair-888-502-1260/ https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-B7IfFWtv9K_Xp14v53IQB0d_2w_uGCV https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrBUAbpX9TMtFQRL8pYFvEQ/about

https://canadacreditcounseling.wordpress.com/bolton-ouest-qc-quebec-canada-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://newjerseycounselingconsumer.wordpress.com/juliustown-new-jersey-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://canadacreditcounseling.wordpress.com/collins-bay-ontario-canada-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://youtu.be/p3UbQkjVPJc https://newjerseycounselingconsumer.wordpress.com/warner-village-new-jersey-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://canadacreditcounseling.wordpress.com/fabreville-qc-quebec-canada-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://canadacreditcounseling.wordpress.com/howard-brook-nb-new-brunswick-canada-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://canadacreditcounseling.wordpress.com/maplewood-nb-new-brunswick-canada-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://unitedstatescounselingcredit.wordpress.com/staten-island-new-york-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://canadacreditcounseling.wordpress.com/shannon-quebec-canada-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://canadacreditcounseling.wordpress.com/west-toronto-swansea-ontario-canada-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://unitedstatesrepaircredit.wordpress.com/san-marcos-texas-credit-repair-888-502-1260/ https://youtu.be/fHAoT_crGfI https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjHyMv_i-nHfOujYlKSyhPSZ_qwnSNTT4 https://youtu.be/pzDZ0ed-Gj8 http://listenonrepeat.com/watch/?v=pzDZ0ed-Gj8 https://www.facebook.com/Credit-Repair-Mauriceville-TX-call-1-888-630-5917-134327050096142/

Tags:

asesoramiento-de-cr-dito-perth-amboy

new-jersey

new-jersey-asesoramiento-de-cr-dito

perth-amboy

Lafayette, Louisiana Asesoramiento de credito al consumidor | (833) 477-0690

by Estados Unidos (EE.UU.) Asesoramiento de crédito al consumidor, Daniel Guzman on Thursday 18 March 2021 09:39 PM UTC-05 | Tags: asesoramiento-de-cr-dito-lafayette lafayette louisiana louisiana-asesoramiento-de-cr-dito

Lafayette, Louisiana Asesoramiento gratuito de crédito al consumidor. Reparación de crédito, consolidación de deudas llama Ya (833) 477-0690. https://asesoramientodecredito.wordpress.com/downtown-virginia-beach-virginia-asesoramiento-de-credito-al-consumidor-833-477-0690/ Los servicios de asesoramiento crediticio al consumidor brindan recursos para ayudarlo a resolver sus problemas de dinero. Lafayette, Louisiana Servicio gratuito de asesoramiento crediticio para el consumidor llame al (833) 477-0690, prevención de ejecuciones hipotecarias, consolidación de préstamos estudiantiles, soluciones de embargo de salario y recuperación de vehículos, plan de gestión de deudas, asesoramiento en quiebra y certificado previo a la presentación de solicitudes, modificación de préstamo hipotecario y Pago de la deuda. Asesoramiento crediticio gratuito Lafayette, Louisiana Habla con un asesor profesional. Nuestros asesores lo asistirán con amabilidad para: ayuda para pagar tarjetas de crédito como negociar una deuda de tarjeta de crédito eliminar deudas de tarjetas de crédito deudas de tarjetas de crédito en estados unidos Se puede obtener asesoramiento por teléfono, en cuyo caso no se requiere cita previa (833) 477-0690. Cómo elegir una organización de asesoramiento crediticio Lafayette, Louisiana Las organizaciones de asesoramiento crediticio de buena reputación lo aconsejan sobre cómo administrar su dinero y manejar sus deudas, lo ayudan a desarrollar un presupuesto, y usualmente le ofrecen materiales y talleres educativos gratuitos. Sus consejeros están certificados y capacitados en temas de crédito para consumidores, administración de dinero y deudas, y elaboración de presupuestos. Los consejeros hablan con usted sobre su situación financiera integral y lo ayudan a desarrollar un plan personalizado para resolver sus problemas de dinero. Por lo general, una sesión inicial de asesoramiento de crédito dura aproximadamente una hora y pueden ofrecerle algunas otras sesiones de seguimiento. Una organización de asesoría de crédito Lafayette, Louisiana que se precie debería enviarle gratuitamente información sobre sí misma y sobre los servicios que provee sin pedirle previamente ningún detalle sobre su situación. Cuando una compañía no actúa de esta manera, considere este dato como una luz roja de alerta y pida asistencia en otro lugar. Una vez que desarrolle una lista de posibles organizaciones de asesoría de crédito, verifique su reputación ante la oficina de su Fiscal General estatal, agencia local de protección del consumidor y la oficina de Better Business Bureau. Ellos pueden informarle si otros consumidores han presentado quejas sobre esas organizaciones. (Pero incluso cuando no registren ninguna queja contra esas organizaciones, no hay ninguna garantía de que sean legítimas.) El Programa de la Sindicatura de los Lafayette, Louisiana, Estados Unidos posee una lista de organizaciones de asesoramiento crediticio aprobadas por el gobierno para proveer asesoramiento pre-bancarrota. Una vez que tenga todos los antecedentes, es hora de entrevistar a los "candidatos" finales. https://canadacreditcounseling.wordpress.com/neustadt-ontario-canada-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ http://wwa.you2repeat.com/watch/?v=6ZA6VpEenyg https://unitedstatesrepaircredit.wordpress.com/norwich-connecticut-credit-repair-888-502-1260/ https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-B7IfFWtv9LrLeYjor2QcZlROzLf2skj https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZubalx45SLq8TAoGo9QFKA/about

https://canadacreditcounseling.wordpress.com/atwater-saskatchewan-canada-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://newjerseycounselingconsumer.wordpress.com/chews-new-jersey-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://canadacreditcounseling.wordpress.com/cap-chat-est-qc-quebec-canada-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://youtu.be/w1U28aYhORk https://newjerseycounselingconsumer.wordpress.com/paramus-new-jersey-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://canadacreditcounseling.wordpress.com/dixville-qc-quebec-canada-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://canadacreditcounseling.wordpress.com/gold-bridge-bc-british-columbia-canada-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://canadacreditcounseling.wordpress.com/lac-la-hache-bc-british-columbia-canada-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://unitedstatescounselingcredit.wordpress.com/downtown-washington-dc-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://canadacreditcounseling.wordpress.com/rumsey-alberta-canada-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://canadacreditcounseling.wordpress.com/sutton-quebec-canada-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://unitedstatesrepaircredit.wordpress.com/downtown-lincoln-nebraska-credit-repair-888-502-1260/ https://youtu.be/6ZA6VpEenyg https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjHyMv_i-nHfOujYlKSyhPSZ_qwnSNTT4 https://youtu.be/pzDZ0ed-Gj8 http://wwa.you2repeat.com/watch/?v=pzDZ0ed-Gj8 https://www.facebook.com/Credit-Repair-Oregon-House-CA-call-1-888-630-5917-572990689412258/about/

Tags:

asesoramiento-de-cr-dito-lafayette

lafayette

louisiana

louisiana-asesoramiento-de-cr-dito

New Brunswick, New Jersey Asesoramiento de credito al consumidor | (833) 477-0690

by Estados Unidos (EE.UU.) Asesoramiento de crédito al consumidor, Daniel Guzman on Thursday 18 March 2021 11:52 PM UTC-05 | Tags: asesoramiento-de-cr-dito-new-brunswick new-brunswick new-jersey new-jersey-asesoramiento-de-cr-dito

New Brunswick, New Jersey Asesoramiento gratuito de crédito al consumidor. Reparación de crédito, consolidación de deudas llama Ya (833) 477-0690. https://asesoramientodecredito.wordpress.com/schaumburg-illinois-asesoramiento-de-credito-al-consumidor-833-477-0690/ Los servicios de asesoramiento crediticio al consumidor brindan recursos para ayudarlo a resolver sus problemas de dinero. New Brunswick, New Jersey Servicio gratuito de asesoramiento crediticio para el consumidor llame al (833) 477-0690, prevención de ejecuciones hipotecarias, consolidación de préstamos estudiantiles, soluciones de embargo de salario y recuperación de vehículos, plan de gestión de deudas, asesoramiento en quiebra y certificado previo a la presentación de solicitudes, modificación de préstamo hipotecario y Pago de la deuda. Asesoramiento crediticio gratuito New Brunswick, New Jersey Habla con un asesor profesional. Nuestros asesores lo asistirán con amabilidad para: ayuda para pagar tarjetas de crédito como negociar una deuda de tarjeta de crédito eliminar deudas de tarjetas de crédito deudas de tarjetas de crédito en estados unidos Se puede obtener asesoramiento por teléfono, en cuyo caso no se requiere cita previa (833) 477-0690. Cómo elegir una organización de asesoramiento crediticio New Brunswick, New Jersey Las organizaciones de asesoramiento crediticio de buena reputación lo aconsejan sobre cómo administrar su dinero y manejar sus deudas, lo ayudan a desarrollar un presupuesto, y usualmente le ofrecen materiales y talleres educativos gratuitos. Sus consejeros están certificados y capacitados en temas de crédito para consumidores, administración de dinero y deudas, y elaboración de presupuestos. Los consejeros hablan con usted sobre su situación financiera integral y lo ayudan a desarrollar un plan personalizado para resolver sus problemas de dinero. Por lo general, una sesión inicial de asesoramiento de crédito dura aproximadamente una hora y pueden ofrecerle algunas otras sesiones de seguimiento. Una organización de asesoría de crédito New Brunswick, New Jersey que se precie debería enviarle gratuitamente información sobre sí misma y sobre los servicios que provee sin pedirle previamente ningún detalle sobre su situación. Cuando una compañía no actúa de esta manera, considere este dato como una luz roja de alerta y pida asistencia en otro lugar. Una vez que desarrolle una lista de posibles organizaciones de asesoría de crédito, verifique su reputación ante la oficina de su Fiscal General estatal, agencia local de protección del consumidor y la oficina de Better Business Bureau. Ellos pueden informarle si otros consumidores han presentado quejas sobre esas organizaciones. (Pero incluso cuando no registren ninguna queja contra esas organizaciones, no hay ninguna garantía de que sean legítimas.) El Programa de la Sindicatura de los New Brunswick, New Jersey, Estados Unidos posee una lista de organizaciones de asesoramiento crediticio aprobadas por el gobierno para proveer asesoramiento pre-bancarrota. Una vez que tenga todos los antecedentes, es hora de entrevistar a los "candidatos" finales. https://canadacreditcounseling.wordpress.com/pickerel-ontario-canada-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ http://wwa.you2repeat.com/watch/?v=eWT5MlasWNU https://unitedstatesrepaircredit.wordpress.com/clearwater-florida-credit-repair-888-502-1260/ https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-B7IfFWtv9I8cyw4Jb0B4_Bwo5qUM2Fl https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgOTgE9ah0jCfVa9JDNHi1A/about

https://canadacreditcounseling.wordpress.com/bluffton-alberta-canada-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://newjerseycounselingconsumer.wordpress.com/hutchinson-new-jersey-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://canadacreditcounseling.wordpress.com/colborne-on-ontario-canada-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://youtu.be/pmgv0n8iHvk https://newjerseycounselingconsumer.wordpress.com/van-syckles-new-jersey-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://canadacreditcounseling.wordpress.com/etobicoke-richview-gardens-ontario-canada-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://canadacreditcounseling.wordpress.com/holyrood-nl-newfoundland-labrador-canada-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://canadacreditcounseling.wordpress.com/manicouagan-quebec-canada-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://unitedstatescounselingcredit.wordpress.com/schenectady-new-york-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://canadacreditcounseling.wordpress.com/seddons-corner-manitoba-canada-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://canadacreditcounseling.wordpress.com/west-mount-pleasant-british-columbia-canada-consumer-credit-counseling-service-800-254-4100/ https://unitedstatesrepaircredit.wordpress.com/rockwall-texas-credit-repair-888-502-1260/ https://youtu.be/eWT5MlasWNU https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjHyMv_i-nHfOujYlKSyhPSZ_qwnSNTT4 https://youtu.be/pzDZ0ed-Gj8 http://wwa.you2repeat.com/watch/?v=pzDZ0ed-Gj8 https://www.facebook.com/Credit-Repair-Kinderhook-NY-call-1-888-630-5917-121639608034253/

Tags:

asesoramiento-de-cr-dito-new-brunswick

new-brunswick

new-jersey

new-jersey-asesoramiento-de-cr-dito

from https://youtu.be/GuUaaPaTlyY March 19, 2021 at 07:00PM

#[Consumer Credit News] Estados Unidos (EE.UU.) Asesoramiento de crédito al consumidor | (833) 477-06

0 notes