MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Mises’s Theory of Socialist Destructionism: The American Reality | Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Posted by M. C. on July 24, 2021

Q & A at the end is good.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

What’s Dumber Than CRT? CNN – Taki’s Magazine

Posted by M. C. on July 24, 2021

Elle: “No.” [Bored] “And why should they? It’s an academic theory taught mostly at the grad student level. But what they think it means is teaching white kids that all white people are bad and racist. And so, of course they’re afraid of that.”

They’re afraid!!! Wait — remind me: Who’s banning books, again? Who’s flipping out about “microaggressions”? Who’s demanding that Big Tech censor people? Who’s demanding “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces” from speech they don’t like?

Parents aren’t “afraid”; they’re incensed. They’re paying the salaries of people who spend all day telling their kids that America is racist. (Elle didn’t give that explanation. Perhaps it frightens her.)

https://www.takimag.com/article/whats-dumber-than-crt-cnn/print

Ann Coulter

As we discussed last week, “critical race theory” is a subtle philosophical construct where the answer to everything is: THAT’S RACIST! Teachers hawking this glop are being defended by their journalist allies, who sneer that CRT critics are too stupid to understand the nuances of the theory.

The Aristotelian ideal of this sneer was Elle Reeve’s “special report” for CNN — pre-taped to eliminate any danger of Elle being contradicted by someone smarter, such as a 10-year-old.

CNN’s Brianna Keilar introduced the segment by asking her: “Do these vocal opponents of critical race theory actually understand fully what it is?”

(That’s what’s known as a “rhetorical question,” kids!)

Elle: “No.” [Bored] “And why should they? It’s an academic theory taught mostly at the grad student level. But what they think it means is teaching white kids that all white people are bad and racist. And so, of course they’re afraid of that.”

They’re afraid!!! Wait — remind me: Who’s banning books, again? Who’s flipping out about “microaggressions”? Who’s demanding that Big Tech censor people? Who’s demanding “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces” from speech they don’t like?

Parents aren’t “afraid”; they’re incensed. They’re paying the salaries of people who spend all day telling their kids that America is racist. (Elle didn’t give that explanation. Perhaps it frightens her.)

The “vocal opponents” of CRT who “don’t actually understand fully what it is” seem to be mostly billionaire investment bankers — at least judging by the articles in the Daily Mail. Elle’s conclusion: A “theory” that consists of going around shouting “RACISM!” is too complex for those guys to understand.

The format of Elle’s pre-taped report consisted of her interviewing opponents of CRT … then nailing them with her brilliant comebacks! Except even with CNN doing the editing, the CRT opponents sounded perfectly reasonable, while Elle’s comebacks kept revealing her yawning stupidity.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Antifa/FBI Coalition – American Thinker

Posted by M. C. on July 24, 2021

The New York Times has reported there have been twenty terrorist plots against the U.S.  Three of those plots were real; the other 17 were created — and then stopped — by the FBI.  

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/07/the_antifafbi_coalition.html

By John Dietrich

Over two dozen people were killed during the Antifa and BLM protests in 2020.  It is routinely reported that “five people died as a result” of the Jan. 6 disturbance.  This is a totally accurate statement, however, it is still misleading.  Only one of the deceased died as a result of violence.  She was actually murdered by a government official. Relating these deaths allows the media to routinely describe Jan. 6 as a “deadly insurrection” as opposed to the “mostly peaceful” protests by Antifa and BLM.  Prior to Jan. 6, Trump supporters had held dozens of mass rallies without burning cities or murdering people.  This was a major embarrassment for the Deep State.  Media coverage of the Jan. 6 event has been largely successful in minimizing that embarrassment.  This was a major Deep State coup and the planning and execution of this “insurrection” reveal a disturbing relationship between the government and radical groups. The FBI did not only fail to adequately prevent the disturbance, they appear to have actively facilitated it. The FBI and radical leftists are branches of the Deep State.

FBI agents “taking a knee” in homage to BLM

Large group of FBI agents (25) take a knee with protestors near the national archive. pic.twitter.com/Trl9ARY9cs — Jim Manico (@manicode) June 4, 2020

The FBI has a history of instigating terrorist plots that they thwart with great fanfare. This is not a conspiracy theory. 

The New York Times has reported there have been twenty terrorist plots against the U.S.  Three of those plots were real; the other 17 were created — and then stopped — by the FBI.  

The Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping case is based on evidence provided by two FBI informants and two undercover agents according to the FBI’s affidavit.  As many as twelve informants were used in this case.  Enrique Tarrio, leader of the Proud Boys, was at one time an FBI informant.  Several sizable right-wing organizations were involved in the Jan. 6 disturbance.  The FBI had infiltrated every one of them and therefore knew exactly what they had planned.  

The DC Metropolitan Police also had at least one undercover employee embedded within the pro-Trump crowd.  This is not speculation.  It is based on court records.  

It is preposterous to contend that the FBI did not have operatives in this disturbance as Christopher Wray contends.   Journalist Glenn Greenwald commented, “What would be shocking and strange is not if the FBI had embedded informants and other infiltrators in the groups planning the January 6 Capitol riot.  What would be shocking and strange—bizarre and inexplicable—is if the FBI did not have those groups under tight control.”

The FBI and the Capitol Police knew in advance that the demonstration would turn violent. 

The New York Times reported: 

The Capitol Police had clearer advance warnings about the Jan. 6 attack than were previously known, including the potential for violence in which “Congress itself is the target.” But officers were instructed by their leaders not to use their most aggressive tactics to hold off the mob, according to a scathing new report by the agency’s internal investigator.

 Yet the head of the FBI’s Washington Field Office, Steven D’Antuono, told reporters that the agency did not have any intelligence suggesting the Trump rally would not be peaceful.  

During Senate testimony, Senator Amy Klobuchar suggested that the FBI had not infiltrated these groups.  She asked Christopher Wray, “There must be moments where you think if we would have known, if we could have infiltrated this group or found out what they were doing, and that — you have those moments?”  Wray did not correct her.  The knowledge that there would be violence was based partially on a document acquired by the Norfolk FBI.  It asserted, “Be ready to fight. Congress needs to hear glass breaking, doors being kicked in, and blood from their BLM and Pantifa slave soldiers being spilled. Get violent. Stop calling this a march, or rally, or a protest. Go there ready for war. We get our President or we die. NOTHING else will achieve this goal.”  

The FBI does not reveal the source of this document.  Was it really the work of a Trump supporter?  Still, the violence could have been prevented.  

According to Kash Patel, Chief of Staff to Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller, “We had offered the Capitol Police, and Mayor Bowser of Washington, D.C., thousands of National Guardsmen and women, two days before Jan. 6. And they turned us down.”

Defenders of left-wing radical groups stress the fact that they are “decentralized.”  Wikipedia‘s description of Antifa mentions its “decentralized” nature numerous times.  Yet, the left is capable of acting in unison, as if under the command of a single director.  Mike Podhorzer, senior adviser to the president of the AFL-CIO, is mentioned in a Time magazine article giving a reason why left-wing groups were not visible on Jan. 6. He credits the activists for their restraint: “They had spent so much time getting ready to hit the streets on Wednesday. But they did it.  Wednesday through Friday, there was not a single Antifa vs. Proud Boys incident like everyone was expecting. And when that didn’t materialize, I don’t think the Trump campaign had a backup plan.”  Podhorzer continued, “To preserve safety and ensure they couldn’t be blamed for any mayhem, the activist left was ‘strenuously discouraging counter activity.’” All these “independent” groups decided in unison to stay home that day.  Or did they?

Antifa activist John Sullivan’s brother James claims that there were 265 disguised Antifa members at the disturbance.  The FBI will investigate this just as they are investigating child sex crimes.  (Unfortunately, David Harris, who was in charge of investigating crimes against children, was arrested for numerous child sex crimes.)

Part of the reason for the feds not releasing the government videos is that there are literally tens of thousands of researchers who plan on viewing the tapes. They may reveal FBI informants taking part in the violence.  The left has an extensive network of training facilities for agents provocateurs.  

Scott Foval, former National Field Director at Americans United for Change claimed, “We have to have people prepared to go wherever these events are, which means we have to have a central kind of agitator training.”  He continued, “I’m saying we have mentally ill people that we pay to do sh—, make no mistake.”  Robert Creamer, founder of Democracy Advocates and husband of Rep. Janice D. Schakowsky, stated, “Wherever Trump and Pence are going to be, we have events, we have a whole team across the country that does that.”

According to Rep. James Comer, the Republican leader of the U.S. House Oversight Committee, protestors are kept in deplorable conditions.  Yet, John Sullivan, who is recorded on tape saying “Let’s burn this shit down” was released without bail and placed on house arrest.  Many of the “unindicted co-conspirators” appear to have been more violent than those placed in solitary confinement.  This is possibly why the Department of Justice refuses to release to the public over 14,000 hours of video taken at the Capitol during the “insurrection.”  Selected clips are presented in court as evidence against Jan. 6 defendants.  Capitol Police argue that making all the tapes available to defense attorneys —let alone to the American public—could provoke future violence.

John Dietrich is a freelance writer and the author of The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy (Algora Publishing).  He has a Master of Arts Degree in International Relations from St. Mary’s University.  He is retired from the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Department of Homeland Security.  He is featured on the BBC’s program “Things We Forgot to Remember:” Morgenthau Plan and Post-War Germany.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Another Handschu Scam?? – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on July 24, 2021

So now we come to Gretchen Whitmer. Apparently there were 18 folks involved in the alleged plot. How many do you suppose were government agents or “informants?” Twelve. Guess which ones were in charge – – –

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/07/l-reichard-white/another-handschu-scam/

By L. Reichard White

What’s a “Handschu Scam” and what, if anything, does it have to do with the alleged terrorist plot to kidnap Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer, the latest fiasco in the U.S. “Justice” Department’s Julian Assange farce, and the January 6, 2021 D.C. riot, mega-hyped into an “insurrection” to satisfy the gullible?

When government agents infiltrate lawful political organizations, they’re under pressure to come back with information. And what government hearings have revealed time and time again is that they come back initially with no information, with information about lawful activities and then they’re under pressure to generate some business. And they try to entrap people and foment illegal activity. …and the people behind the plot to blow up anything [in the Handschu case] were all government agents. –ACLU’s Donna Lieberman

So how far will that “pressure to generate some business” make them go? Here’s a clue – – –

A 22-year-old Bangladeshi man has been sentenced to 30 years in prison for attempting to blow up the Federal Reserve Bank in New York City with a fake bomb as part of an elaborate FBI sting. Quazi Nafis pleaded guilty to terrorism charges in February. His case drew claims of government entrapment after the FBI supplied the inert explosives, the van used to carry them, the detonator and even the storage facility where an agent helped Nafis assemble the fake bomb. Man Sentenced to 30 Years for Bid to Attack Federal Reserve with Fake Bomb

As revealed in the Handschu case mentioned by Ms. Lieberman, this government entrapment scam is one of the U.S. law-and-order-industry‘s dirty little secrets.

See the rest here

L. Reichard White [send him mail] taught physics, designed and built a house, ran for Nevada State Senate, served two terms on the Libertarian National Committee, managed a theater company, etc. For the next few decades, he supported his writing habit by beating casinos at their own games. His hobby, though, is explaining things he wishes someone had explained to him. You can find a few of his other explanations listed here.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

This Biden Proposal Could Make the US a ‘Digital Dictatorship’ – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on July 24, 2021

Far from “ending cancer” in the way most Americans might envision it, the proposed agency would merge “national security” with “health security” in such a way as to use both physical and mental health “warning signs” to prevent outbreaks of disease or violence before they occur. Such a system is a recipe for a technocratic “pre-crime” organization with the potential to criminalize both mental and physical illness as well as “wrongthink.”

SAFE HOME would suck up masses of private data from “Apple Watches, Fitbits, Amazon Echo, and Google Home” and other consumer electronic devices, as well as information from health care providers to determine if an individual might be likely to commit a crime. The data would be analyzed by artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms “for early diagnosis of neuropsychiatric violence.”

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/07/no_author/this-biden-proposal-could-make-us-a-digital-dictatorship/

A “new” proposal by the Biden administration to create a health-focused federal agency modeled after DARPA is not what it appears to be. Promoted as a way to “end cancer,” this resuscitated “health DARPA” conceals a dangerous agenda.

[April 28, 2020], President Biden was widely praised in mainstream and health-care–focused media for his call to create a “new biomedical research agency” modeled after the U.S. military’s “high-risk, high-reward” Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA. As touted by the president, the agency would seek to develop “innovative” and “breakthrough” treatments for cancer, Alzheimer’s disease and diabetes, with a call to “end cancer as we know it.”

Far from “ending cancer” in the way most Americans might envision it, the proposed agency would merge “national security” with “health security” in such a way as to use both physical and mental health “warning signs” to prevent outbreaks of disease or violence before they occur. Such a system is a recipe for a technocratic “pre-crime” organization with the potential to criminalize both mental and physical illness as well as “wrongthink.”

The Biden administration has asked Congress for $6.5 billion to fund the agency, which would be largely guided by Biden’s recently confirmed top science adviser, Eric Lander.

Lander, formerly the head of the Silicon Valley-dominated Broad Institute, has been controversial for his ties to eugenicist and child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and his relatively recent praise for James Watson, an overtly racist eugenicist. Despite that, Lander is set to be confirmed by the Senate and Congress and is reportedly significantly enthusiastic about the proposed new “health DARPA.”

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Watch “Why Do Governments Lie About Inflation?” on YouTube

Posted by M. C. on July 23, 2021

Inflation & shortages are created by Federal Reserve counterfeiting and government interventions in the economy. Every other excuse is just that, an excuse that is meant to distract you from the sources of these ills.

https://youtu.be/EGSrVV2lbXo

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Watch “Why Do Governments Lie About Inflation?” on YouTube

Posted by M. C. on July 23, 2021

Inflation & shortages are created by Federal Reserve counterfeiting and government interventions in the economy. Every other excuse is just that, an excuse that is meant to distract you from the sources of these ills.

Great summary at 17:00.

https://youtu.be/EGSrVV2lbXo

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Talking About Stoicism 132 Expecting Bad People to Not be Bad

Posted by M. C. on July 23, 2021

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Facebook Announces Sweeping New Speech Restrictions

Posted by M. C. on July 23, 2021

Anti-discrimination comes to mean enforced silence on behalf of protected groups, no matter how central the issue in question is to the nation’s political and social future.

https://www.city-journal.org/facebook-announces-sweeping-new-speech-restrictions?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Organic_Social

Arthur Milikh

The battle over permissible speech in American society was helpfully, and predictably, elaborated by Facebook last week in an update to its “hate speech” rules. The social media giant’s changes are a signal of the new limits being placed on political expression and the freedom of the mind. Other major American institutions are almost sure to follow its lead.

Until recently, most online platforms largely defined “hate speech” as speech that could lead to imminent physical harm. But Facebook now demands that its users “not post” speech critical of “concepts, institutions, ideas, practices, or beliefs associated with protected characteristics, which are likely to contribute to imminent physical harm, intimidation or discrimination against the people associated with that protected characteristic.”

“Protected characteristics,” according to Facebook, include “race, ethnicity, national origin, disability, religious affiliation, caste, sexual orientation, sex, gender identity and serious disease.” On its face, this sounds neutral and universally applicable. Yet anyone following the matter knows that it is inconceivable, for instance, that Facebook would ban critiques of “cisgenderism,” a concept whose purpose is to attack heterosexuality and the legitimacy of the generative family. It is similarly unimaginable that protected groups would be blocked from criticizing American constitutionalism as a construct of “whiteness.” Oppressor groups, after all, do not possess “protected characteristics.”

Discrimination once meant denying housing, access to public accommodations, or employment to people based on immutable characteristics. This, of course, was corrected by civil rights laws. But discrimination now means speech that protected groups find insulting. In other words, the last place where discrimination exists is in the minds of oppressor groups.

This new view of discrimination conflicts with the basic requirements of political liberty. It means, for instance, that speech defending the traditional family harms the self-respect of LGBTQ people; that arguments in favor of secure borders harm the self-respect of illegal immigrants; and that analyses of the different rates of criminality among demographic groups harm the self-respect of some groups, while also lowering their stature in the eyes of the oppressor group. Anti-discrimination comes to mean enforced silence on behalf of protected groups, no matter how central the issue in question is to the nation’s political and social future.

Serious political deliberation in a nation devoted to constitutional self-government is circumscribed or even prohibited under such restrictions. Big Tech platforms are undeniably the major, if not the essential, forum for political debate today. Pew Research reports that 36 percent of Americans receive news from Facebook. YouTube, whose “hate speech” rules are similar to Facebook’s, accounts for 75 percent of the world’s video viewing.

Forbidding the discussion of “concepts, institutions, ideas, practices, or beliefs associated with protected characteristics” also hobbles the use of speech as a tool for discovering the truth about basic matters. Leading “hate speech” restriction advocates already demand the banning of factual claims, should they harm the self-respect of protected groups. Facebook’s guidelines could preclude the critical discussion of dogmas claiming that all oppressor-group members are unconsciously biased, or that only racism accounts for disparities among groups.

By this logic, the speech of protected groups becomes sacred, insofar as it cannot be subjected to rational inquiry, critique, or even calls for clarification. Liberal democracies separate church and state, but protected groups now form a new priestly class, not only with power over social life and death, but with the capacity to make unfalsifiable declarations.

Facebook’s reasons for these changes are murky. At their most hopeful, Facebook executives once seemed to believe that by connecting the entire world, their platform would help erase the causes of strife and war—like loyalties to nations and gods—without which, they hoped, human beings could live in harmony. “If people are asking the question, is the direction for humanity to come together more or not? I think that answer is clearly yes,” Mark Zuckerberg enthused several years ago.

More cynically, however, prohibiting “hate speech” coheres with Facebook’s business model: users with heightened, enraged tempers do not yield authentic user data that reflects their sellable tastes and preferences. As Facebook knows, “people use their voice and connect more freely when they don’t feel attacked on the basis of who they are.” So, too, is the Left’s pressure apparatus—which now includes the federal government—more effective at compelling corporate decision-makers to listen.

Facebook is one of the referees of our public square, a privilege that grants it the power to determine the thoughts, ideas, concepts, and even political direction of the nation. This immense power must not be permitted to warp the ability of citizens to exchange their thoughts freely and fearlessly.

Arthur Milikh is the executive director the Claremont Institute’s Center for the American Way of Life.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Retraction serves as the new academic censorship-Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity

Posted by M. C. on July 23, 2021

We all joked on the day that a German study raising concerns about CO2 levels in children wearing masks was published in JAMA that the editors must have had the day off. Well, to our surprise, it did take 16 days for them to retract it, which means they really had trouble finding anything wrong with it.

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2021/july/22/retraction-serves-as-the-new-academic-censorship/

Written by Daniel Horowitz Thursday July 22, 2021
undefined

It’s become a living parody. Every time there is a study or World Health Organization guidance that raises concerns or counters the narrative of COVID fascism, it is retracted and changed the minute it is cited by panic skeptics. We all joked on the day that a German study raising concerns about CO2 levels in children wearing masks was published in JAMA that the editors must have had the day off. Well, to our surprise, it did take 16 days for them to retract it, which means they really had trouble finding anything wrong with it.

The results of the German study could not be allowed to stand because rather than just attack the efficacy of masks, it raised questions about serious side effects. In a randomized controlled trial of 45 children wearing masks, the researchers found that CO2 levels increased to levels deemed unacceptable by the German Federal Environmental Office by a factor of 6 after just three minutes.

On July 16, the two editors of JAMA issued a retraction with a one-paragraph explanation. “Following publication, numerous scientific issues were raised regarding the study methodology, including concerns about the applicability of the device used for assessment of carbon dioxide levels in this study setting, and whether the measurements obtained accurately represented carbon dioxide content in inhaled air, as well as issues related to the validity of the study conclusions,” wrote editors Dimitri Christakis and Phil B. Fontanarosa.

They never divulge who raised those issues or extrapolated on the details of their concerns. They claim that in their response to the criticism, “the authors did not provide sufficiently convincing evidence to resolve these issues, as determined by editorial evaluation and additional scientific review.

Are we really to believe such vague concerns in an era when any criticism of masks and spike protein vaccines being censored? Notice they never offer any specific concerns about the study’s conclusion, which is pretty intuitive. As I cited in my write-up of this study three weeks ago, numerous other studies of health care workers wearing masks long before COVID-19 showed similar results. Yet, one can always find ways to quibble with methodology in a way that doesn’t refute the results.

But on whom should the burden of proof be? It’s not like anyone else is conducting a study using the “proper” methodology. Why is it that the other side can force our children into doing novel and dangerous things, such as experimental shots and covering their breathing orifices without their “experts” having to prove conclusively that these practices are safe? Hasn’t that always been the standard in science and medicine?

As Harald Walach, the lead author of the German study, said in response to the retraction, “The measurements, we contend, are valid and were conducted by individuals with high content expertise. … If someone doubts our results, the way to go is not to claim they are wrong without proof, but to produce better and different results.”

Fair use excerpt. Read the rest here.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »