The verdict in the Sussman case may seem like just another example of Hillary Clinton “getting away with it.” And it is. But there is far more to be concerned about in the case. Also today: Supremes smack down Texas social media law and UK Guardian slams Russia sanctions as counterproductive.
The best we can say about American elites is that they are deeply unimpressive people, and don’t know what they’re doing.
Another, rather more terrifying theory, is that they know perfectly well what they’re doing.
(This is an honorable disagreement among us.)
Whichever side you come down on, though, we agree that these are not people to rely on, or people who are going to improve your life.
The lockdown/mask/mandate regime should have made that clear enough, but the problem goes well beyond that.
Federal Reserve officials are another excellent example.
During the second George W. Bush term there were some excellent video compilations made showing just how in the dark then-Fed chairman Ben Bernanke was about every last trend that was about to blow up in Americans’ faces.
My favorite bit of Federal Reserve history involves former chairman Alan Greenspan explaining to Lesley Stahl how he managed to avoid answering questions before Congress. “I would engage in some form of syntax destruction, which sounded as though I were answering the question, but in fact had not.”
Stahl played for him a clip from a congressional hearing in which he had obviously been engaged in this practice. “Very profound,” he jokingly said to her after watching the clip. “Very profound,” she laughed in reply. “Impenetrably profound.”
Ha, ha, Lesley. Isn’t it just so funny the way our elites pull the wool over our eyes? What a knee slapper!
So-called progressives, meanwhile, who posture as protectors of the little guy, are curiously silent about the Fed, whose policies intensify inequality, reward influential people and institutions for their reckless behavior, and set the economy on a boom-bust cycle that can ruin people.
Just yesterday, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen admitted that she’d been wrong about inflation, the precise thing that as a former chair of the Federal Reserve she would be expected to understand and anticipate.
“I was wrong then about the path that inflation would take,” she said. “As I mentioned, there have been unanticipated and large shocks to the economy…that I, at the time, didn’t fully understand.”
This problem was not caused by “unanticipated and large shocks to the economy.” If you’ve seen the money supply charts, you know that.
And we covered it on the Tom Woods Show with Gene Epstein, formerly of Barron’s:
So remember, coming up very soon is the world premiere of the Money 2022 docuseries — which features normal people, rather than the lizard creatures who rule us.
You can watch the whole series for free if you register in advance. After that, they start charging for it.
What we are supposed to do in the current circumstances is a darn good question, and this series seeks to answer it.
The company making it is full of friends of mine, and has featured me in their documentaries as well. They have to deal with Big Tech censorship, so they rely on friends like me to spread the word about their important work.
The Pandemic Treaty will also give the WHO the authority to issue dictates within the private spheres of individuals and to exercise control over their social and public lives, the institutions of their society, and their governments, all in the name of public health. In doing so, it will suppress civil liberties, economic freedom, positive freedom (freedom to), and negative freedom (freedom from).
Even as much of the world continues to move past the covid-19 pandemic, the World Health Organization (WHO) is already looking ahead and preparing for the emergence of “other pandemics and other major health emergencies.” To ensure that the world is adequately prepared for future pandemics, “the World Health Assembly” held a special session, on December 1, 2021, entitled The World Together.
The World Health Assembly is “the decision-making body of WHO” and “is attended by delegations from all WHO Member States and focuses on a specific health agenda prepared by the Executive Board.” In this special session, which was actually only “the second-ever since WHO’s founding in 1948,” participants agreed to “draft and negotiate a convention, agreement or other international instrument under the Constitution of the World Health Organization to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.” This would come to be known as the Pandemic Treaty, which was the main focus of discussions at the Seventy-Fifth World Health Assembly, which was held in Geneva during May 22–28, 2022.
According to Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the first director-general of the WHO and who is not actually a medical doctor, this treaty represents an “opportunity to strengthen the global health architecture to protect and promote the well-being of all people.” If passed, the Pandemic Treaty will allow the WHO to make radical changes to the healthcare systems of its member countries starting in 2024.
In particular, this agreement will grant the WHO the power to declare a pandemic, based on its own vaguely defined criteria, in any of its 194 member countries at any point in the future. It will also permit the WHO to unilaterally determine what measures will be imposed in response to these future declared pandemics, including lockdown policies, mandatory masking, social distancing, and coercing the population into undergoing medical treatments and vaccinations.
For example, as Jens Martens and Karolin Seitz explain in Philanthropic Power and Development: Who Shapes the Agenda?,“ the Gates Foundation and earlier the Rockefeller Foundation, have been shaping global health policies not only through their direct grant-making but also through the provision of matching funds, the support of selected research programmes, the creation of global health partnerships with Foundation’s staff in their decision-making bodies, and by direct advocacy at the highest political level.” In fact, back in 2006, The Guardianreported that “the Gates foundation is now the second largest donor to the World Health Organisation after the US, as well as one of the world’s largest single investors in biotechnology for farming and pharmaceuticals.” Unfortunately, when philanthropists and their foundations advance their own interests, they do so at the expense of the common interests of society. There is no reason to believe that this dynamic will be any different in the case of the Pandemic Treaty.
The Pandemic Treaty has the potential to be extremely detrimental to the future of humanity, because it will allow the WHO’s most powerful contributors to shape universal pandemic measures instead of recognizing the importance of developing specific policies and approaches based on the social, economic, and physical realities and needs of each individual country.
“Collectivism holds that the individual has no rights, that his life and work belong to the group (to “society,” to the tribe, the state, the nation) and that the group may sacrifice him at its own whim to its own interests. The only way to implement a doctrine of that kind is by means of brute force – and statism has always been the political corollary of collectivism.”
5. Nobody in the system or in the political hierarchy has any interest in the deep overhaul required to actually restore these systems’ reliability, efficiency and ability to fix problems.
Who’s going to fix what’s broken? No one. When the systems we rely on–the postal service, the vehicle registration system, the tax payment system–no longer function reliably or effectively, where does that take us as a society?
When nobody cares that systems have broken down and there is no will or interest in fixing essential systems, there is no happy ending.
Who fixes systems when they break down? The answer appears to be: nobody. Here are three everyday examples from my own life, breakdowns which may be random and rare but which the odds suggest are systemic. Let’s assume I’m not an unlucky one in a million but just another recipient of systemic breakdown.
1. U.S. Mail forwarding six month late. Millions of Americans move every year, and the US Postal Service, like other large-scale systems serving the public, has a system that automates change of address forms online. My previous experience is that mail forwarding might be a week or two late but it’s been reliable.
In 2021–not so much. We left a car in storage in California in the Covid lockdown and family obligations made it necessary to deal with it at a later date. It’s old and not worth much, and since we’d filed a Planned Non-Operation registration with the DMV, the registration fee was $23 a year.
If I’d anticipated USPS mail forwarding to completely break down, I would have signed up online for CA-DMV email notices, but I assumed mail forwarding was functional. Alas, we received our 2021 auto registration notices sent in May 2021 in late November–long after the renewal deadline in early June. The mail wasn’t a week or two late, it was six months late. That’s a breakdown.
That’s when the breakdown of California DMV’s system revealed itself rather ingloriously.
2. Your non-operational car in storage must be insured and pass a smog certification test. I’ve noticed many local government agencies are no longer satisfied to simply charge a late fee for tardy payment–their responses are designed to punish the tardy public far beyond the “sin” of missing a deadline for payment/filing a form.
The California DMV strips away the option to register a car as non-operational once you’re 90 days late in registering the vehicle. This doesn’t mean your non-operational car magically becomes operational and can be driven to a smog certification station. It just means you have entered DMV No-Exit Purgatory: your car can’t be smog certified, therefore it can’t be registered, and so it drops completely out of the DMV online system.
Not only is the car non-operational, we weren’t there to deal with it. California has tens of millions of residents (around 39 million) and millions of registered vehicles. 675,000 people moved out of California in 2021 and some percentage probably left cars in storage, what with the 2020 Covid travel restrictions and other issues.
I find it difficult to believe I am the only individual who missed the deadline to register my non-operational vehicle as non-operational, but the DMV has no system response other than demanding a $214 late fee (heh) and that you register the vehicle as operational.
Trying to get the DMV to acknowledge a DMV change of address form is an epic in itself. Submit a paper form or an online form, neither one can be relied on.
Sending correspondence to the DMV asking for help in fixing this problem is like sending letters to the dead-letter dumpster. Some DMV staffer decided to get my case off their desk by arbitrarily declaring the car had been “registered in another state.” This led to the absurdity of the DMV demanding a document from the Hawaii DMV proving the car which I’d repeated stated was non-operational in California storage hadn’t been transported to Hawaii. In other words, it became my job to fix the absurd errors of DMV staff.
When the public has to go through endless hoops to fix problems created solely by the public agency itself, this is a Kafkaesque breakdown in “public service.”
I finally located an online DMV portal which accelerated the 7-month back-and-forth-going-nowhere to a week of endless emails and submittals of documents. (Could the DMV have pointed me to this portal in the previous 7 months? One would think so, but the answer is “apparently not.”)
After 7+ months of completely needless churn– a waste of my time and the time of DMV staffers–the DMV decided to issue us a non-operational registration for the non-operational car.
What difference does it make to the DMV if the non-operational car in storage is registered 91 days late, or 209 days late? As long as the outrageous late fee is paid, what benefit to the public interest is served by creating a no-exit Purgatory where the owner can neither register the non-operational car as non-operational or get the car running and get the smog certification? None. The DMV just wasted its own staff on a completely useless 7+-month travesty of a mockery of a sham of “public service.”
A Ukrainian government official frequently cited as a source by western news media for her allegations of atrocities committed by Russian troops has been fired by the Ukrainian parliament, in part because of the unevidenced nature of those claims.
A Ukrainian official has been relieved of her duties over her handling of reports detailing sexual assault allegations made against Russians in Ukraine.
On Tuesday, the Ukrainian parliament, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, removed Lyudmila Denisova, the parliament’s commissioner for human rights, from her post, according to Ukrainska Pravda. No new appointment has been made to fill the role.
The move to dismiss Denisova came after outrage about the wording used in public reports about alleged sexual assaults committed by Russians, as well as the alleged dissemination in those reports of unverified information. Despite accusations from Ukraine, the Kremlin has repeatedly denied that Russian soldiers have committed war crimes or sexual assaults during the invasion.
As it happens, Newsweek is one of the many western outlets who have uncritically cited Denisova’s unevidenced claims in their reporting of events in Ukraine. She was the “Ukraine official” in Newsweek’s incendiary April headline “Russians Raped 11-Year-Old Boy, Forced Mom to Watch: Ukraine Official,” an article whose entire first half featured unevidenced claims by Denisova.
Denisova’s name featured just the other day in my own critique of the western media’s blind-faith regurgitation of Ukrainian government assertions when multiple western media outlets parroted her unevidenced claims about two Russians raping a one year-old baby to death.
Business Insider, The Daily Beast, The Daily Mail, The Sun, Metro, The Daily Mirror and Yahoo News all published reports on the same story, and the one and only source for all of them was a post made by Denisova on a Ukrainian government website which contained no evidence and concluded with a call for more weapons and sanctions against Russia from the western world.
This is not just brazen journalistic malpractice, this is actual atrocity propaganda. This latest development shows that even the Ukrainian government is more skeptical of Ukrainian government claims than the western mainstream press.
_____________________
My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on Facebook, Twitter, Soundcloud or YouTube, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fi, Patreon or Paypal. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. All works co-authored with my American husband Tim Foley.
But absent that waiver, the government cannot infringe upon rights without engaging in monstrous theft. And government theft has consequences. Whether it calls its theft “taxation” or “regulation,” one can understand Nietzsche’s aphorism that the government exists by lying and stealing.
When the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche proclaimed that God was dead, he didn’t mean it literally, as that would have been impossible. He meant that God’s creatures have so failed to acknowledge Him and relate to Him, it is as if He decided to end His own existence.
Stated differently, Nietzsche recognized that Christianity had ceased to be influential in contemporary life. Though properly rejected as a madman, he reminded the world that the loss of virtue can only be sustained from the bottom up, not from the top down.
He meant that, for all the power the financial and governmental elites have, none of their valueless impulses would prevail were they not accepted by the majority or a determined minority.
He made these observations in 1886, during a time of relative peace but little freedom in Europe. His sentiments are just as valid in America today, where there is neither peace nor freedom.
People usually get the government they fear, whether it be Hitler’s willing executioners, Putin’s willing dupes or America’s willing subserviates.
Thus, when cultural and financial elites craft a government based on nihilism — a belief in nothing but power — when everything the government says is a lie, when everything the government has it has stolen, when the one thing the government does well is engage in violence, the result is a culture of death.
America today epitomizes a culture of death.
At home, America is at war with itself. The government permits the slaughter of babies in the womb and fails to prevent the slaughter of babies in a government classroom.
And America is at war abroad. The federal government has just sent cash and military hardware worth $56 billion to its vassal state, Ukraine. That amount rivals the annual military budget of Russia and is greater than the annual budget of the entire Ukraine government.
What’s going on?
What’s going on is the American rejection of the core Judeo-Christian value of the intrinsic worth of every person, and the tragic failure of American government at all levels to take rights seriously.
Because the government glorifies violence — constant wars, an annual defense budget larger than the next dozen countries combined including Russia and China, the adulation of the military, the encouragement and financing of abortions, and the use of the death penalty — it undermines the value of human life and sets a tone whereby because the government kills with impunity, violence becomes a personal tool.
Is it any wonder that deranged people pick up where the government has left off? For a person filled with hate and incapable of reason living in a society that rejects the intrinsic worth of every human life, is it very much of a leap from killing babies in the womb to killing strangers in a supermarket or a classroom?
Thomas Jefferson argued that the only moral purpose of government is to protect individual rights.
What is a right? A right is an indefeasible claim against the whole world that originates in our humanity. Thus the right to live, to worship or not to worship, to think as you wish, to say what you think, to publish what you say, to associate or not to associate, to acquire property voluntarily, to defend your life and property, to travel and to be left alone are rights that are inherent in our nature. Rights are above the law. Like the color of our eyes, they are immune from the lawmaking power.
The government, which is an artificial entity based on a monopoly of force in a geographic area, may not morally interfere with our rights unless we waive them. A house burglar waives his rights when he violates the property rights of the owner or legal occupant of the house.
But absent that waiver, the government cannot infringe upon rights without engaging in monstrous theft. And government theft has consequences. Whether it calls its theft “taxation” or “regulation,” one can understand Nietzsche’s aphorism that the government exists by lying and stealing.
The cost of providing sufficient backup or storage to run a stable electric grid from wind or solar power could multiply the cost of generating electricity by a factor of five or more, given the problem of intermittency. Intermittency is an inherent problem of wind and solar power.
In a press conference last week following his meeting with Prime Minister Fumio Kishida in Japan, President Biden praised the escalating price of gasoline as a positive step toward realizing the Democratic Party’s dream of enacting the Green New Deal.
“[When] it comes to the gas prices, we’re going through an incredible transition that is taking place that, God willing, when it is over, we will be stronger and less reliant on fossil fuels when this is over,” Biden said. Biden followed these comments by giving lip service to the millions of Americans forced to spend an increasing percentage of their disposable income on putting gasoline in their vehicles.
According to a study recently by economist Dr. Edward Yardeni, American families are now paying what amounts to $5,000 per year to put gasoline in their automobiles, a painful increase from just $2,800 a year ago.
In late May, the average gallon of gasoline in the U.S. hit a record high of $4.59, about 51 percent more than a year ago. By contrast, the price of a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline on January 20, 2021, the day President Biden took the oath of office, was $2.38/gallon.
Californians are now paying $6.00 for a gallon of gas, a level the rest of the United States may soon experience. “With expectations of strong driving demand in the summer months, the U.S. retail price could surge another 37 percent by August, to a national average of $6.20/gallon,” predicts Natasha Kaneva, the head of commodities research at JP Morgan.
On May 27, 2022, the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) reported that the price of Brent crude oil (the world standard) had risen to $119.81/barrel. By comparison, the cost of Brent crude oil averaged $41.96/barrel in 2020, the last year of the Trump administration.
Natural gas prices in the United States have nearly tripled in the last year amid increasing supply fears. In late May, natural gas prices in the U.S. surpassed the $9.00 per million BTU (British Thermal Units), the highest price since the 2008 recession. “There’s almost no ceiling for natural gas,” Kent Bayazitoglu explained. “You can reduce your driving a lot easier than you can reduce your natural gas consumption.
At the end of May, more than a million households in New York City metropolitan area were 60 days in arrears on their energy bills, with an average of $1,427.71 in debt and shut-offs increasing. Middle-class Americans are experiencing the brunt of the current inflation spike. “For the middle class, a larger share of their budget goes toward gasoline,” explained Peter Mueser, a chancellor’s professor at the University of Missouri who studies labor economics.
“It’s time for Americans to get back to work and fill our great downtowns,” President Biden said in his 2021 State of the Union speech. But with the cost of gasoline rapidly edging toward $6.00/gallon, many Americans are questioning whether driving to work is worth the increased marginal impact rising gasoline costs have on their relatively fixed disposable income.
It would have been nice to know Musk’s rationale. There must be some perceived benefit to Tesla. What is it and how would other companies would benefit from said rationale.
As some companies try and delicately walk the line between returning to the office and offering “work from home” benefits to their employees in a post-Covid world, Elon Musk has taken a stance without quite as much nuance.
“Anyone who wishes to do remote work must be in the office for a minimum (and I mean *minimum*) of 40 hours per week or depart Tesla,” Musk wrote in a company email that was leaked this week.
“Remote work is no longer acceptable,” was the name of the email. In it, Musk put his employees to a choice: return to your desks and offices or start finding work elsewhere. The email was reported on by Fortune.
“This is less than [what] we ask of factory workers,” Musk added, possibly in a nod to the company’s Shanhai factory, which had Chinese staff building cars during 12 hour shifts and sleeping on factory floors due to Covid lockdowns.
“If there are particularly exceptional contributors for whom this is impossible, I will review and approve those exceptions directly,” Musk wrote. “Moreover, the ‘office’ must be a main Tesla office, not a remote branch office unrelated to the job duties…”
Musk got some pushback for his comments (what else is new?) on Twitter this week, with some users arguing that Tesla could wind up losing too many of its staff as a result of the forced requirement.
Online, Musk confirmed the authenticity of the email and “made it crystal clear he had zero tolerance for those demanding the right to retain privileges,” Fortune reported.
“They should pretend to work somewhere else,” Musk wrote.