Who can trust any of the stats that the government comes up with these days? For instance, how many of the millions employed directly by the State, and millions more indirectly as contractors, are doing something truly productive, something that’s actually needed and wanted?
Many of them are just pointlessly digging ditches during the day and filling those ditches up at night.
International Man: Recently, the Biden administration tried to change the traditional definition of a recession which is “two consecutive quarters of decline in a country’s GDP.”
The new definition of a recession is more vague and is “a significant decline in economic activity that is spread across the economy and lasts more than a few months.”
What’s your take on this?
Doug Casey: Odd. It sounds like the definition of a depression, not a recession that I’ve used for years.
Words shape thoughts, and thoughts shape beliefs. That was a major theme in Orwell’s book 1984. The government consistently changed the meaning of words, labeling some as “bad think” or “thought crime.” 1984 is the ultimate evolution of cancel culture, PC, wokeism, and the like.
It’s critical that words be defined and used precisely. If definitions are nebulous and can be changed at will, it becomes hard to communicate. The closer we come to redefining “blue” as “red,” or “war” as “peace,” or “recession” as “prosperity,” the closer we come to literally not knowing what we’re talking about.
Politicos don’t like the word “recession.” You may recall when Alfred Kahn, Jimmy Carter’s chief economic advisor, joked he’d rename a recession a “banana” because the word wouldn’t scare people so much. During the last depression, Roosevelt said that “All we have to fear is fear itself.” But that was totally untrue. What the country really had to fear was his destructive policies.
As for the definition of a recession, their previous “two-quarters of decline in GDP” was arbitrary—but at least it allowed everyone who juggled economic numbers to use a meaningful shorthand. Though frankly, who can even be sure what the GDP even is with trillions of new fiat dollars injected into the economy? And the value of the currency fluctuating wildly against everything?
Even by the government’s own inaccurate figures, the currency is losing value at nearly 10% per year. It’s hard for even an honest observer to put his finger on what a recession is when a currency is dropping radically by an indeterminate amount.
Who can trust any of the stats that the government comes up with these days? For instance, how many of the millions employed directly by the State, and millions more indirectly as contractors, are doing something truly productive, something that’s actually needed and wanted?
Many of them are just pointlessly digging ditches during the day and filling those ditches up at night.
The same people who lecture us day and night about how we shouldn’t “impose our morality” on other people think absolutely nothing of demonizing half of America and imposing their ideas on other people’s children.
So humility is the virtue that is lacking; and the problem is not with virtue, but with the virtuous.
When I recently wrote about being disagreeable I did not identify the aspect of the conversations that made me uncomfortable. The issue crystallized in a later conversation with an old friend of our family. He was lecturing us on the sins of cutting our grass and the virtue of having no grass at all. In fact, most of his conversation (and the other old friend I mentioned in the previous article) revolved around how they were living virtuous lives. This is not in an older sense of the term. At the end of the last century there was an evident loss of virtue. Specifically, we can identify the losses of chastity for lust, kindness for envy, and humility for pride (see this on Humility). But there is a new sense of virtue based on saving the planet or protecting society from infectious disease (unless it involves sex). Tom Woods put it well in his newsletter.
Whether it’s Black Lives Matter, or teaching gender theory to children, or the usefulness or otherwise of the COVID restrictions, or a wide variety of other subjects, people on one side of the divide have exerted a moral imperialism over the other, refusing even to acknowledge that there can be another side on issues like these, and have instead tried to drive their opponents from polite society through intense social pressure and the outright suppression of dissident voices.
The same people who lecture us day and night about how we shouldn’t “impose our morality” on other people think absolutely nothing of demonizing half of America and imposing their ideas on other people’s children.
Peter Hitchens noted the same virtue signaling behavior in his Monday conversation with Mike Graham (August 22, 2022). So it is not only me feeling the oppressive modern morality.
In conversations with these friends the underlying assumptions of virtue were implicitly critical of virtually all of my choices on how to live. In the conversation about cutting the grass I mentioned above I finally isolated the issue of virtue. This friend is very thoughtful but his assumptions about virtue had never occurred to him. I told him, “You believe climate change is occurring due to human activity, thus there are behaviors that you find virtuous. But I don’t believe what you believe. I believe in the Truth of Christianity and you don’t. Yet I don’t tell you how often I go to church or tithe.” He happens to be gay. I said to him “In all of the years I have known you have I ever mentioned anything about gays?” He responded that he discusses these things because everybody suffers from climate change. I answered, “You believe everybody suffers but I don’t. And I believe that everybody suffers when we don’t follow the teachings of the church. And the spread of monkeypox by gay men having origies could ultimately be dangerous for everybody.” I mentioned he is a very thoughtful guy. The next morning he told me that he now understood my point of view and would be more careful with his assumptions. This small meeting of minds, even though we still disagree, made me feel better after so many disagreeable conversations.
I believe in the old virtues, virtues that have stood the test of time. But I wonder if I lived in the society where those old virtues were the implicit assumptions would I be the one talking about how virtuous I was. Jesus pointed out the problem of the virtuous in his parable in Luke 18:10-14 (New International Version):
10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’ 13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’ 14 “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”
So humility is the virtue that is lacking; and the problem is not with virtue, but with the virtuous.
In the last two-and-a-half years, tragically, we have witnessed a global assault on the Nuremberg Code, according to Children’s Health Defense President Mary Holland. We can restore this foundation of medical ethics … but only if we come together.
Editor’s Note: Following are remarks delivered by Mary Holland, Children’s Health Defense president and general counsel, on Aug. 20 in Nuremberg, Germany, at an event hosted by Action Alliance, a group of German activists, to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the Nuremberg Code.
Thank you to all who have made this event possible — it is a great honor to be here.
The Nuremberg Code is an international monument to humanity. It is a critical guidepost, not unlike the 10 Commandments in the New Testament or similar guidance in other religions.
In essence, the code says: “Do this, and you will stay on the right path; stray from this, and bad things will happen.”
The last two-and-a-half years have certainly proven the wisdom of this document.
I am especially honored to be here because the authors of the Nuremberg Code were doctors and lawyers from the United States who sought to prevent future horrors. And they built on medical and legal ethics established here in Germany before the Nazi regime.
I deeply wish that U.S., British, Russian and German government representatives were here to stand with us, as well as representatives of the global mainstream media.
It is a sad commentary that they are absent.
But I rejoice that The People’s representatives from all over the world are here — because it is “We the People” who will restore our rights, our laws and our morality and lead us out of these troubled times.
For more than 75 years, the Nuremberg Code has been a beacon of light — all medical and legal norms have been based on it since 1947.
The Nuremberg Code is the foundation for modern medical ethics.
The code has been incorporated into U.S. federal and state law, and U.S. courts have recognized the Nuremberg Code as a universal, international legal standard — like the norms prohibiting slavery and piracy.
The Nuremberg Code exists and is enforceable even if a country or institution or individual denies its validity.
The consent of the individual is absolutely essential in all medical experimentation. There are no exceptions.
Tragically, in the last two-and-a-half years, we have witnessed a global assault on the Nuremberg Code.
Governments, medical establishments, universities and the media have violated the very first principle and every other principle of the code’s 10 points.
They have coerced people into being human guinea pigs.
In the wake of the massive raid at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home, politicians and pundits are hectoring Americans to blindly trust the FBI.
“The men and women of the FBI,” Attorney General Merrick Garland proclaimed, “are dedicated, patriotic public servants.” But the FBI would be more credible if it didn’t claim a right to secretly wield almost unlimited power.
Most Americans (53%) view the FBI as “Joe Biden‘s personal Gestapo,” a recent Rasmussen poll found. FBI actions 30 years ago at Ruby Ridge help explain the G-men’s fall from grace.
Randy Weaver and his family lived in an isolated cabin in the northern Idaho mountains. Undercover federal agents targeted him and entrapped him into selling a sawed-off shotgun. The feds sought to pressure Weaver to become an informant, but he refused.
After Weaver was sent the wrong court date and (understandably) failed to show up, the feds used any and all means to take him down. On Aug. 21, 1992, six US Marshals outfitted in full camouflage and toting automatic weapons trespassed onto Weaver’s property. Marshals circled close to the Weaver cabin and threw rocks to provoke the Weavers’ dogs.
Weaver’s son, Sammy, 14, and Kevin Harris, a 25-year-old family friend living in the cabin, ran to see what the dogs were barking at. Marshals killed one of the dogs, and Sammy fired in their direction. As Sammy was leaving the scene, a marshal shot him in the back and killed him. Harris responded by fatally shooting a marshal who had fired seven shots.
A survey has shown that now in light of the recent events, seven out of ten citizens prefer the continuation of said power plants. Almost ironically, even most Green Party voters are in favor, according to the survey.
It has been said the propping up of the Ukraine war is to defeat Nord Stream 2. Germany has to suffer loss of heat in winter just as the US has to suffer inflated food prices in the name of US empire building.
“We are the makers of our own fate,” said Christian Lindner (FDP, Free Democratic Party), German federal minister of finance, in a TV interview not too long ago. This statement was made in the context of being asked if Vladimir Putin had had a hold over Germany, considering its rather dire energy situation, now, but especially going into winter.
Torn between a decade-long reliance on cheap Russian gas on the one side and a sudden desperation to be energy independent in the face of the Ukraine war, Germany is now in the uncomfortable position to have neither. To use the words of Robert Habeck (Green Party), federal minister for economic affairs and climate action, “every kilowatt-hour counts.” Germany has waited too long to side—the time is up.
According to the Federal Network Agency, 55 percent of Germany’s imported gas derives from Russia, mainly via the gas pipeline Nord Stream 1. Of late, Germany has seen a decline in received gas, which, according to Russian sources, was the consequence of “technical problems.” It doesn’t take a lot of doubt to see how the current geopolitical circumstances might have played a role in this too. Now, Germany receives roughly 40 percent of previous levels of gas imports via Nord Stream 1, drastically decreasing its reserves. For over a week in July, this was even down to zero.
But how did Germany get itself into such a morally and strategically dubious situation?
Nord Stream 1 was questionable to begin with, let alone its sequel: Nord Stream 2. The ten-billion-euro project received widespread criticism from various sides during the years of its construction. After its completion last September, Chancellor Olaf Scholz abandoned the project in February this year as a reaction to the war in Ukraine.
Germany gave the green light to build Nord Stream 2 in 2015, four years after it began pumping gas via Nord Stream 1 in 2011, which is also the same year Germany made another pivotal decision regarding its future energy supply: exiting nuclear energy for good.
Back then, this issue had been long campaigned for by the Green Party, received support from other parties including the FDP with then general secretary Christian Lindner and was finally put into legislation by Angela Merkel and the CDU (Christian Democratic Union). Until the end of this year, the last three standing nuclear power plants in Germany are scheduled to be put out of service.
A 1920–30s radio host, Bob Shuler, had exposed the Julian Petroleum Corporation’s defrauding of investors, and subsequently accused the district attorney and city prosecutor of negligence. Shuler also exposed the Los Angeles mayor’s ties to organized crime. The payment for Shuler’s deeds was the loss of his station. He became the first casualty of “public interest.”
A hundred years of the public interest standard has been applied to radio and television, with the explicit goal of protecting free speech. The very opposite was the case, as John Samples and Paul Matzko have clearly shown.
A 1920–30s radio host, Bob Shuler, had exposed the Julian Petroleum Corporation’s defrauding of investors, and subsequently accused the district attorney and city prosecutor of negligence. Shuler also exposed the Los Angeles mayor’s ties to organized crime. The payment for Shuler’s deeds was the loss of his station. He became the first casualty of “public interest.”
The public interest standard was enforced by the Federal Radio Commission (later the Federal Communications Commission). The FRC/FCC used legislation and intimidation to steer public discourses toward the interests of the current administration.
The New Deal–era FCC used its control of limited government licenses to cull anti–National Recovery Administration advertisements. The Yankee Network was one such example. The FCC also targeted their least regulated foe (newspapers) by limiting them to the weaker AM frequencies.
Subjective auditing also became a common tool:
During the election of 1964, the Democratic National Committee used Fairness Doctrine complaints to intimidate radio stations into dropping broadcasters who supported Republican presidential nominee Barry Goldwater and to secure free airtime for the Lyndon Johnson campaign, some 1,700 free broadcasts in the final weeks before the election. (Samples, Matzko)
Where Kennedy had targeted independent radio stations, Nixon rendered broadcast television inept and imposed ownership limits on newspapers.
The public interest standard appealed to “security” and “knowledge,” not unlike the control we see online today.
The Unspoken Public Interest of Today
Modern information control appears to stem from the “private sector”; and indeed, when the right-leaning expose censorship, the left-leaning respond: “They are private companies!” If only.
The Left’s seizure of social media and search engines led to preferential treatment of leftist news; discriminatory content moderation; user targeting and false psychology pages to politically indoctrinate; and unprecedented network control during the 2020 election. Reminiscent of the old standard, the Left cites justifications of “hate” and “extremism” that donotshowup in objective analysis.
This new standard under the banner of leftism has government origins as well.
In an obscure process, the state tampered with the digital markets by (1) slandering competitors of the chosen platforms and created a market for information control by (2) promising large sums of money to developers and willing “researchers.”
Simply put, the state takes money from us, gives it to useful actors, and slanders the competition for not having those state-funded services. Their effort remained undetected due to the funding of charitable groups which are embedded into the search functions and other features of the platforms. These are not “organizations” but services; albeit manipulative services.
The petition link is here. This is the beginning of the petition
We are demanding our colleagues and fellow leaders in public health to reconsider and replace Dr. Wen with someone whose work is consistent with anti-racist, anti-eugenicist public health practices and community health
Happy Monday! This weekend, I was on on stage at a private event with Robert Kennedy Jr. Jill and I met with our good friend Bobby, met some grand people at the tabletop discussion and are now home. I am working on the book this week, but the tyranny of the urgent keeps getting in the way.
Today, I am sharing some of the news stories and essays that have had me thinking hard this past week.
The big news – just out!
Well that is… FAUCI IS OUT – come December! (Merry Christmas?). One year after my infamous prediction on the Laura Ingram show regarding Omicron. Which, given Fauci’s likely accrued vaca time – probably means he is all but out the door now.
I am announcing today that I will be stepping down from the positions of Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and Chief of the NIAID Laboratory of Immunoregulation, as well as the position of Chief Medical Advisor to President Joe Biden. I will be leaving these positions in December of this year to pursue the next chapter of my career.
The Washington Examiner published this op-ed this morning. The gist of the story is along the lines of what I was writing last week:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky admitted this week that her agency made “some pretty dramatic public mistakes” handling the coronavirus, promising to “pivot” the organization so that it can better provide information to ordinary people.
But communication was never the CDC’s real problem. That was its arrogant and politicized leadership, which was unable to tell the truth. That is why no one trusts the CDC anymore or cares much for its guidance, whatever it happens to be. The cure begins with Walensky’s resignation.
One of the more interesting bits of news over the last week is that Public Health leadership and associated community are turning on one of their own leaders. Dr. Leana Wen (CNN health policy analyst) actually has the nerve to suggest that COVID-19 is here to stay. That it is time to open up schools, end mask and vaccine mandates. For those that don’t know, Dr. Wen is also the former public health commissioner of Baltimore and past president of Planned Parenthood.
For the sin of recognizing reality and advocating a return to normalcy, there is an online petition to have Dr. Wen taken off the speaker list at this year’s American Public Health Association (APHA) meeting.
The petition link is here. This is the beginning of the petition
We are demanding our colleagues and fellow leaders in public health to reconsider and replace Dr. Wen with someone whose work is consistent with anti-racist, anti-eugenicist public health practices and community health
Whoa! Stop and think about this. A liberal public health spokesperson, known for her pragmatic style but who had previously advocated for rather extreme lockdown/vaccination measures and policies, is being outed as “unscientific, nonsensical, unsafe, ableist, fatphobic, and unethical” – and they basically also call her “racist” – holding “eugenicist public health” practice beliefs!
Oh, just so we are clear, the petition also implies that the Supreme Court Roe V. Wade is also her fault. The petitions goes on to state that many employees under her at planned parenthood were unhappy with her management style and didn’t like that she wouldn’t politicize abortion. You can’t make this stuff up.
Yep- I had to read that portion of the petition again. The petitioners blame Dr. Wen for the Supreme Court ruling on abortion. Reading from the petition:
Is all this anger in the petition because Dr. Wen is now advocating for a fairly moderate points of view on how to handle public health and policy for COVID-19 going forward?
Or is this really about finding a scapegoat for the Roe V. Wade decision? Did these petitioners actually call Dr. Wen the nonsensical one? Pot calling kettle black!
There are currently 620 signatories. Many are from prominent positions in academia and government. The names are all listed at the end of the petition. Personally, I had an interesting time reading the names and job titles. I suggest y’ll taking a look and see who might be in your region – these are our public health officials folks. Making decisions on how to handle COVID-19, Monkeypox and the next new pandemic.
Of course, this all fits into Mass Formation model of crowd formation -where eventually the puritans turn on each other. As no one can be “pure enough” to meet the standards imposed by the group.
Speaking of Mass Formation – I was searching on the term yesterday to write the above and discovered that Google has played with the algorithms for the term again. Most of the articles identified by a Google search were written during January, 2022 , and have been placed above any real analysis of Dr. Desmet’s work or research/news articles written after that time (when the corporate press were reacting to my Joe Rogan interview). Articles defending the term and body of academic work are not listed. The Epoch Times has written many articles on Mass Formation and those also do not pull up in a generic google search on “mass formation”. In fact, Dr. Desmet’s new academic book on the subject isn’t even in the search results. Just articles defaming me and delegitimizing the 100s of legitimate news articles and research tomes on the subject
Of course, there are also the over 100 million views of the Joe Rogan interview. But this episode also does not come up in any search for “mass formation.”
One might say: censorship at its finest.
The thing is, Google always has the last laugh because they can skew the results over time – and there isn’t a darn thing you and I can do about it! They re-write history in real time by controlling what information you are allowed to read.
What is seldom asked, is what is in this deal for those Americans who suffer to pay for our interventionist foreign policy. Do they really think a working American in Ohio or Pennsylvania is better off or safer because we are supposedly protecting Ukraine’s borders? I think most Americans would wonder why they aren’t bothering to protect our own borders.
There is a way out. It’s called “non-interventionism.” The war in Ukraine was caused by the US regime change in 2014 and the neocon insistence that Ukraine join NATO.
Aug. 22 – There is a video clip making the rounds showing President Biden speaking at a recent NATO summit about the seven billion dollars the US government had – at that time – provided to Ukraine. Attached to that is another clip showing the horrific state of several US major cities, including in Pennsylvania, California, and Ohio. The video of American cities is shocking: endless landscapes of filth, trash, homelessness, open fires on the street, drug-addicted zombies. It doesn’t look like the America most of us remember.
Watching Biden bragging about sending billions of dollars to corrupt leaders overseas with American cities looking like bombed-out Iraq or Libya is US foreign policy in a nutshell. The Washington elites tell the rest of America that they must “promote democracy” in some far-off land. Anyone who objects is considered in league with the appointed enemy of the day. Once it was Saddam, then Assad and Gaddafi. Now it’s Putin. The game is the same, only the names are changed.
What is seldom asked, is what is in this deal for those Americans who suffer to pay for our interventionist foreign policy. Do they really think a working American in Ohio or Pennsylvania is better off or safer because we are supposedly protecting Ukraine’s borders? I think most Americans would wonder why they aren’t bothering to protect our own borders.
A reported 200,000 illegals crossed the border into the US in July alone. You can believe they are learning quickly about the free money provided by the US government to illegals. They’ll probably get a voting card as well.
Last Friday the Pentagon announced that yet another $775 million would be sent to Ukraine. As Antiwar.com reported, it was the eighteenth weapons package to Ukraine in six months. Has there ever been a more idiotic US intervention in history?
Supporters of this proxy war may celebrate more aid to Ukraine, but the reality is that it is in no way aid to Ukraine. That’s not how the system works. It is money created out of thin air by the Fed and appropriated by Congress to be spent propping up the politically-connected military-industrial complex. It is a big check written by middle America to rich people who run Raytheon and Lockheed Martin. Americans watch their budget being stretched to the limit while the Beltway fat-cats loosen their belts to continue enjoying the gravy train.
Bloomberg reported earlier this summer that inflation is costing the average American household more than $5,200 this year. Inflation is a tax on middle class and poor Americans. The wealthy – like those who run Raytheon and Lockheed Martin – always get the new money first, before prices go up. The rest of us watch as the dollar buys less and less.
As Washington salivates over fighting Russia in Ukraine, the rest of America feels like we’re becoming Zimbabwe. How long until it takes a trillion dollars for a loaf of bread? Will there be a run on wheelbarrows?
There is a way out. It’s called “non-interventionism.” The war in Ukraine was caused by the US regime change in 2014 and the neocon insistence that Ukraine join NATO. The State Department and CIA thought it was a great victory to overthrow the elected government, but meanwhile the rest of us get the bill. No NATO and not one more penny for Ukraine!
By Vincent Cignarella, Bloomberg markets live commentator and reporter
Is the US at full employment and we just don’t know it yet?
The ratio of full-time workers to part-time workers is at a near 20-year high. It may be turning, and a drop in the ratio may spell peak inflation as companies adjust to cut costs. That’d mean a better environment for stocks and bonds going forward.
If the ratio falls, it likely means companies are either looking to replace higher paid full-time workers with less expensive part-time employees or they are seeing declining sales. Either way, it is a sign of rising costs and an attempt to lower them or a slowing economy.
Both scenarios could prompt a Fed pivot. A slowing economy and peaking inflation are the signs the Fed needs to see in order to pause rate hikes.
MCViewPoint 
