WASHINGTON, D.C.—Beloved health expert Dr. Fauci has made his way into the spotlight again—this time with new recommendations for keeping safe during a nuclear strike should Putin do the unthinkable.
“Should we face a catastrophic nuclear war scenario, it’s important to stay protected from all the nuclear fallout,” said Fauci in his trademark Fauci voice. “To keep all the nuclear fallout out of your nose and mouth, you should probably wear at least three masks. Maybe even four masks. The science isn’t clear right now. But I would say at least three masks. Maybe four or five though, just to be safe. Actually, maybe six. And another one over your eyes too.”
Fauci went on to explain that proper social distancing will also be essential, as it will prevent your nuclear fallout from jumping to another person. “Ideally, everyone should probably have their own personal fallout shelter just to maintain proper distancing,” he said.
Fauci assured everyone that if they follow the science by listening to his every command, “they will be ok. Probably. But also maybe probably not.”
In unrelated news, the NIH has approved $12 million in funding for experiments on irradiated mutant creatures.
When even New York City abandons its vaccine passport system (it’s gone as of March 7), it’s over.
At least in the non-California United States, anyway.
There is plenty still to talk about on the COVID front, of course, and we have to make sure not only that existing restrictions are lifted but also that they can never return again.
At the same time:
It’s growing clearer that it’s time for me to return to a more diverse array of topics, along the lines of what I covered in these emails before March 2020.
I have an extremely diverse subscriber base. Some people agree with everything I say. Some are here for COVID only. Some came for COVID but stayed for the whole libertarian package.
Regardless of whether any of those describe you, I think we can all say we learned (or had reinforced) certain key things from all this, among them:
(1) There is something seriously wrong with the American establishment.
(2) The American establishment does not have your best interests at heart.
(3) There is something seriously wrong with the American medical establishment.
(4) A large percentage of the general public is prepared to go along with whatever the establishment demands of them, without the slightest hint of curiosity about whether it makes sense or not.
(5) Dissident voices may not always be right, but they’re right a lot, and they are demonized by fashionable opinion.
(6) Central direction by an elite of alleged experts who cannot be questioned is a bad way to organize society.
(7) We should never believe these people again, if we ever did. Everything they say must be scrutinized. They do not deserve the benefit of the doubt.
(8) We may disagree among ourselves, but I respect every single one of you who stuck with me along this journey, and regardless of what differences we may have from here on out I will listen to you with respect because you were right on the issue of our age — indeed of many ages.
Now, having said all that, I present to you the most recent episode of the Tom Woods Show, called “Russia, Ukraine, and NATO.”
I know that this audience is mature enough to listen to it without responding in the kind of bumper-sticker slogans I would see on cable news or in the New York Times.
It’s the most important episode of the year, for sure, and perhaps of many years.
It’s two grownups talking. Nothing juvenile here, no calling people “Putin lovers” or whatever else the pathetic children who form American opinion spend their time uttering.
The dismantling of the Canadian trucker convoy protest by Trudeau and his henchmen has exposed the agenda of the Western elite. What we are witnessing in Canada is emblematic of the sociopolitical and economic condition of the US and the West more generally. The abrogation of natural and legal rights, the “legal” prohibition of dissent, the cancellation of small, independent producers (to the benefit of monopolies), the increasing penetration of state and corporate surveillance, the implicitly approved hacking of the names and addresses of dissenters and their supporters, the exposure of dissidents by the press and social media, the confiscation of the property of those who hold “unacceptable views”—these are not only facts in Canada; they are the near future, if not the present, in the US and beyond. Together, these represent the Chinese state model writ large and rolled out across the world, a model engineered, unwittingly or not, by Western elites in the first place.
Now that the mask is off, the naked and effete face of tyranny has been exposed. It is a tyranny of leftist authoritarian patsies—a tyranny of the state, of course, but also of leftist foot soldiers among the so-called intelligentsia and activist base. The latter groups are comprised of those whose values “the clique in power” supposedly represents—the “diversity, equity, and inclusion” crowd with their crowd-sourced opinions. They have been trained by their overlords to view divergence from the orthodoxy of race-baiting and identity politicking über alles as manifest evil. Ironically, along with the powers that be, they deem dissent the equivalent of fascism while statespersons and their servants display their fascistic attitudes and actions at every opportunity. Their disdain for the unwashed is matched only by (and is predicated upon) their own insecurity, given that the basis of their upward socio-occupational adjustment is a special identity status or an unwavering fealty to the agenda. Holding the correct opinions has been lent a moral status denied truckers and the rest of the hoi polloi.
The ironies continue to multiply. Justin Trudeau and his fellow statespersons have likened the protesters to the followers of totalitarian regimes of the past, even while enacting totalitarian measures in the present. “Honk honk” is, don’t you know, “an acronym for ‘Heil Hitler,’” not a trucker’s signal to clear the way for precious cargo and for those who carry it or a symbol of protest against enforced immobility. Such “reversive blockades” and inversions of reality are the sure symptoms of totalitarianism.1
Even socialists parrot the establishment view of the truckers and their protest, a real working-class movement if there ever was one, but not the right kind, as far as they are concerned, because not based on the right creed. “Freedom” is not only not a worthy object—it is the cry of the “far-right,” white supremacist neo-Nazi. “Freedom from necessity” is what the socialists and their comrades extol, as if all economic activity were not predicated on fundamental lack. And necessity is exactly what the truckers represent, a necessity that those the truckers and other workers cater to must deny without reservation.
Freedom has been deemed a nonessential commodity. The US Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms have been effectively cancelled, revealed as nonbinding palimpsests to be overwritten by the “Emergencies Act” and other state-of-emergency decrees. These “sacred” documents indeed have the status of religious scriptures in a secular state—held by some to be true but inapplicable outside of privately held belief. The principle that the rights these documents acknowledge do not proceed from governments but preexist them has been dismissed with derision. The ruling elite have granted to themselves the prerogative to nullify them on command.
Conspicuously missing from the recent rhetoric and dictates of unfreedom is any mention of concern about the spread of covid. In case any doubt remained, one knows unequivocally now that one was never locked down for one’s “own good,” but rather from a predetermined desideratum to restrain, forbid, and extract obedience from the willing or unwilling subject. Those who saw covid-19 as a pretext for the administration of coercion have been vindicated, whether the lackeys say otherwise or not. Yes, covid-19 can be a serious disease, but the mitigation of disease was never the ultimate object of the covid regime. And those who believed that the rationale for the supposed mitigation measures was earnest must now admit that “the state of exception” will be permanent, as the Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben suggested almost twenty years ago.
Many nevertheless continue to exercise a modicum of self-determination, so long as they are granted the necessary leeway. But with the incessant pull of the establishment overlords and their bureaucratic executors, the noose continually tightens around most necks (despite the apparent remission of covid’s latest variant)—if only psychologically for now. In any case, at every step, one is admonished to consider what is allowed and what is forbidden, whether in terms of economic and political expression, mobility, or even one’s innermost thoughts.2 The existential crisis of freedom is acute, as the state and corporate responses to the truckers’ protest have made eminently clear.
1. Andrew M. Łobaczewski, Political Ponerology: The Science of Evil, Psychopathy, and the Origins of Totalitarianism, ed. Harrison Koehli, rev. ed. (Otto, NC: Red Pill Press, forthcoming), pp. 148–49. “Emphatically insisting upon something which is the opposite of the truth blocks the average person’s mind from perceiving the truth.”
2. See the third change to the Canadian criminal code proposed in Bill C-36, An Act to Amend the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act and to Make Related Amendments to Another Act (Hate Propaganda, Hate Crimes and Hate Speech), 2d sess., 43d Parliament, 2021, https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-2/bill/C-36/first-reading. “The Act is amended by adding the following after section 810.011: Fear of hate propaganda offence or hate crime,” which suggests that a person may provide information to a judge if he or she entertains a “[f]ear of hate propaganda offence or hate crime” yet to be committed by someone else.
The Russian background discussion is very interesting. The AEI analyst, historian seems to have forgotten the 2014 US state department sponsored overthrow of the pro Russian Ukrainian government. Recall the famous Victoria Nuland “F*** the EU” phone call where she discusses who will lead the new government. No mention of Neo-nazi riddled replacement government. There is little in the anti-Putin tirade that doesn’t apply to US foreign policy since WWII. Notably the Middle East and South East Asia.
The US doesn’t lie!!!
Any association with the AEI should peak your warparty/warmonger situational awareness.
AEI/Raytheon/McDonnell Douglas want to get those US made weapons to Ukraine ASAP! But the question is why is it the US’ responsibility? Surprise, the defense budget is way too low.
Did I mention follow the money?
This episode was recorded on February 27, 2022. Dr. Frederick W. Kagan is a former professor of history with a PhD in Russian and Soviet military history from Yale. He is also a celebrated author and the director of the American Enterprise Institute’s Critical Threats Project. In this episode, I discuss the nature of the conflict that has taken the world by storm over the last 5 days—Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine and the ongoing resistance of its citizens. Dr. Kagan is a wealth of information on military history, geopolitics, Putin’s relationship with the USSR (which his father helped defend) and Ukrainian sovereignty, and other aspects of what’s most certainly a moment in human history that won’t be forgotten soon.
US President Joe Biden seems to think things are “hunky dory” for the American people, according to Sky News host Rita Panahi.
“The US is experiencing a 40-year high inflation rate. People are struggling to afford groceries or to fill their car with gas,” Ms Panahi said.
“Crime is soaring across the US and the country has completely lost control of its southern border with more than 200,000 illegal immigrants crossing a month.
“But sure, the American people have never had it better, they’re just ungrateful or suffering from a unique variety of long COVID.
“The man is either unhinged, hopelessly confused or just lying. At this point there are no other options.”
We call this exception agency delegation. Agents undertake actions on our behalf. In this case, someone else steals, and perhaps we benefit from it. But because we didn’t directly undertake the action, we can pretend we’re not culpable. It can even mean that if someone else initiates violence, and I cheer it, I’m still a good person because I didn’t actually commit the act.
Theft and violence always reduce happiness, harmony, and prosperity. Always.
That’s a principle. Whenever we can repeatedly observe a cause and effect relationship in nature and state it as a testable formula, we have a principle. It’s like gravity. You can threaten to drop a bowling ball from the 20th story of a building, and before you do it, we can not only predict that it will fall to the ground but also tell you how fast the ball will fall.
Theft and violence always reduce happiness, harmony, and prosperity. Always.
How do we know?
Everyone is always pursuing happiness. Our actions are designed to make us happier.
Some actions are for immediate gratification, such as enjoying an ice cream cone, and some acts are for long-term gains, like going to college. Happier now or happier later, either way, we’re pursuing happiness.
Pursuing happiness sometimes involves competing values. Life can be hard. Sometimes we choose a harder thing, something we don’t really want to do because we prize something else even more. We might even make sacrifices, perhaps caring for a family member who doesn’t appreciate it, because we’d be even less happy if we didn’t live by our values. Indeed, sometimes we only have bad options, yet we choose the one we believe will deliver the most relative happiness.
No matter what happens, we want to maximize our happiness. It’s a fundamental drive.
Everyone is pursuing happiness
The statement, “everyone is always pursuing happiness,” is an axiom. An axiom is a self-evident fact. It doesn’t require a fancy defense. Is there anything you just read that isn’t self-evident?
There are two other axioms of human nature that we can add to the fact that everyone has a fundamental drive to be happy. The experience of…
Physical harm always decreases a person’s happiness.
Theft or property damage always decreases the owner’s happiness.
In other words, a mugging comes as a surprise. No one would walk (with normal obliviousness) down the path where the assault and battery were to occur, if they knew in advance it was coming. So those are obvious statements. Indeed, they are both axioms.
But if we want a better world, where you, me, and others around us can experience well-being and even flourish, it should provoke a question…
Theft and violence always reduce happiness. Always.
Well, not just happiness. Let’s be more precise. People tend to think of happiness as an emotion. Call it joy or a sense of flourishing. But it takes two other primary forms.
We want the resources necessary to provide for our needs and our wants. We call that prosperity, and we each get to define it for ourselves. Human wants vary tremendously. We may want more possessions, to provide for our family, to have the ability to share or give gifts, to pursue hobbies and avocations, or something else.
On top of that, vandalism, mugging, rape, and murder are disturbances of the peace. We call these acts crime, and the persons experiencing these acts, victims. Victims want to be free of crime. We all want to live our lives in harmony.
Put that all together, and now we have the complete picture, and we can derive a principle.
Theft and violence always reduce happiness, harmony, and prosperity. Always.
The common goal of all these movements and agendas is to capture all of the resources of the world — the ownership of them — for a small global cabal that has the know-how to program the computer systems that will ultimately dictate the lives of everyone.
When they talk about “wealth redistribution,” what they’re really referring to is the redistribution of resources from us to them. The goal is for you to own nothing. Everything you need, from the shirt on your back to a roof over your head, you’ll have to rent from the globalist owners.
February 21, 2022, the Canadian Parliament approved Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s motion to invoke the Emergencies Act, with 185 votes for and 151 against, in response to the peaceful trucker protest against vaccine mandates.1 While Trudeau in a February 14, 2022, press conference (above) promised the Act would be limited in time, geographical location and scope, he’s already reneging on that promise.
Financial Surveillance Powers Will Be Permanently Expanded
The act was invoked to allow the government to physically disperse the trucker convoy without actually listening to their complaint, and to punish anyone who has supported the protest.
Under the act, banks are empowered to seize the personal bank accounts of anyone suspected of participating in the protest, or supporting it with as little as a $25 donation. Disturbingly, the surveillance powers over financial transactions granted by the act are actually intended to become permanent. As reported by National Review:2
“In a February 14 news conference, Canadian finance minister Chrystia Freeland said that the government was using the Emergencies Act to broaden ‘the scope of Canada’s anti-money-laundering and terrorist financing rules so that they cover crowdfunding platforms and the payment service providers they use.’
That broadened power requires all forms of digital transactions, including cryptocurrencies, to be reported to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Center of Canada. (I.e., ‘Fintrac’).
‘As of today, all crowdfunding platforms and the payment service providers they use must register with Fintrac, and they must report large and suspicious transactions to Fintrac,’ Freeland said.
She justified the move as a way to ‘mitigate the risk’ of ‘illicit funds’ and ‘increase the quality and quantity of intelligence received by Fintrac and make more information available to support investigations by law enforcement’ …
Freeland said the trucker convoy, which had assembled to protest coronavirus restrictions, had ‘highlighted the fact’ that digital assets and funding mechanisms ‘weren’t captured’ by the Canadian government’s pre-existing surveillance powers.
As a result, she said, ‘the government will also bring forward legislation to provide these authorities to FinTrac on a permanent basis.’”
As noted by the National Review, we can already tell what the Canadian government will do with those expanded surveillance powers. We’re seeing their intentions in action. By invoking the Act, Trudeau has given himself the unilateral power to destroy the lives of Canadians who happen to disagree with him, regardless of the issue at hand. When he announced his invocation of the order, he promised the Canadian people that his expanded authorities would ‘be time-limited, geographically targeted, as well as reasonable and proportionate to the threats they are meant to address.’ Not a single part of that sentence has proved to be true. ~ National Review
Without court order or due process, the government can now freeze bank accounts, cancel insurance policies and revoke drivers’ licenses, and the victims have no recourse or remedy.
“All this, of course, flies in the face of Trudeau’s promise that the Emergencies Act powers would be temporary,” National Review notes, adding:3
“When he announced his invocation of the order, he promised the Canadian people that his expanded authorities would ‘be time-limited, geographically targeted, as well as reasonable and proportionate to the threats they are meant to address.’ Not a single part of that sentence has proved to be true.”
Government Wants to Decide How You Spend Your Money
What’s happening in Canada should be a sobering wakeup call for the whole world. They’re showing us exactly what’s in store for all of us. Governments will basically control dissent through financial tyranny and blackmail.
The next step in that direction is the implementation of programmable digital currencies, worldwide. As reported by The Telegraph in June 2021, the Bank of England has already started moving on a programmable central bank digital currency (CBDC), and there’s no doubt that this is the plan of all central banks worldwide.4
Executive board member of the European Central Bank, Fabio Panetta, mentioned it in his December 10, 2021, lecture on the future of digital money in Rome, Italy.5
What’s meant by a “programmable” currency? As explained by The Telegraph,6 “Digital cash could be programmed to ensure it is only spent on essentials, or goods which an employer or government deems to be sensible.” In other words, the issuer of the money would have complete control over how you, the recipient, spend it.
“Tom Mutton, a director at the Bank of England, said during a conference … that programming could become a key feature of any future central bank digital currency …” The Telegraph reported.7
“He said … what happens if one of the participants in a transaction puts a restriction on [future use of the money]? There could be some socially beneficial outcomes from that, preventing activity which is seen to be socially harmful in some way. But at the same time it could be a restriction on people’s freedoms.’”
… the treaty is a part of a much larger program by which we arm all these nations against Russia… A joint military program has already been made… It thus becomes an offensive and defensive military alliance against Russia. I believe our foreign policy should be aimed primarily at security and peace, and I believe such an alliance is more likely to produce war than peace.
Feb 28 – When the Bush Administration announced in 2008 that Ukraine and Georgia would be eligible for NATO membership, I knew it was a terrible idea. Nearly two decades after the end of both the Warsaw Pact and the Cold War, expanding NATO made no sense. NATO itself made no sense.
Explaining my “no” vote on a bill to endorse the expansion, I said at the time:
NATO is an organization whose purpose ended with the end of its Warsaw Pact adversary… This current round of NATO expansion is a political reward to governments in Georgia and Ukraine that came to power as a result of US-supported revolutions, the so-called Orange Revolution and Rose Revolution.
Providing US military guarantees to Ukraine and Georgia can only further strain our military. This NATO expansion may well involve the US military in conflicts unrelated to our national interest…
Unfortunately, as we have seen this past week, my fears have come true. One does not need to approve of Russia’s military actions to analyze its stated motivation: NATO membership for Ukraine was a red line it was not willing to see crossed. As we find ourselves at risk of a terrible escalation, we should remind ourselves that it didn’t have to happen this way. There was no advantage to the United States to expand and threaten to expand NATO to Russia’s doorstep. There is no way to argue that we are any safer for it.
NATO itself was a huge mistake.
When in 1949 the US Senate initially voted on the NATO treaty, Sen. Robert Taft – known as “Mr. Republican” – gave an excellent speech on why he voted against creating NATO.
Explaining his “no” vote, Taft said:
… the treaty is a part of a much larger program by which we arm all these nations against Russia… A joint military program has already been made… It thus becomes an offensive and defensive military alliance against Russia. I believe our foreign policy should be aimed primarily at security and peace, and I believe such an alliance is more likely to produce war than peace.
Taft continued:
If we undertake to arm all the nations around Russia…and Russia sees itself ringed about gradually by so-called defensive arms from Norway and Denmark to Turkey and Greece, it may form a different opinion. It may decide that the arming of western Europe, regardless of its present purpose, looks to an attack upon Russia. Its view may be unreasonable, and I think it is. But from the Russian standpoint it may not seem unreasonable. They may well decide that if war is the certain result, that war might better occur now rather than after the arming of Europe is completed…
How right he was.
NATO went off the rails long before 2008, however. The North Atlantic Treaty was signed on April 4, 1949 and by the start of the Korean War just over a year later, NATO was very much involved in the military operation of the war in Asia, not Europe!
NATO’s purpose was stated to “guarantee the safety and freedom of its members by political and military means.” It is a job not well done!
I believe as strongly today as I did back in my 2008 House Floor speech that, “NATO should be disbanded, not expanded.” In the meantime, expansion should be off the table. The risks do not outweigh the benefits!
So, as we wait for the widespread adoption of an alternative to government-controlled money, whether in crypto or elsewhere, those who believe in freedom should consider making the reintroduction of large-denomination bills a political priority. The level of oppression currently on display in Canada makes clear that we must do everything possible to prevent the same from coming here.
The Canadian government is now freezing the bank accounts and personal assets of those who donated to support the Freedom Convoy, which is an organized political protest of the vaccine mandates. The deputy prime minister announced that they will retain these so-called emergency powers permanently going forward and will also seek to implement additional measures to further restrict the ability of political protestors to raise funds or otherwise use the banking system.
This highlights the need to eliminate the state’s control over money, at least in societies that wish to remain free. As articulated in a fascinating Twitter thread, constitutional rights become utterly meaningless if there are no practical means to exercise them. Free speech rights and the right to assemble are of little use to those who have no ability to access their money. Organizing an assembly requires being able to afford the costs associated with travel. Exercising free speech rights, at least if one wishes to do so effectively, requires at least some funds to ensure that the message reaches a large audience.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau understands this fact, which is why his administration has chosen to freeze the bank accounts of those directly involved in the protest, as well as those who merely donated to help support the protest efforts. When a similarly power-hungry tyrant seeks to do the same here in the United States, the Constitution will be utterly powerless to stop them. Good luck mounting an effective protest to an unjust and tyrannical government without having access to money or the banking system.
It is therefore necessary that Americans start taking the necessary measures to help ensure such tyranny cannot come here. While the ultimate solution will require finding a path to free-market money, the Canadian experience makes clear that simply waiting for that to happen is too risky.
In the meantime, more must be done to bring the government’s war on cash to an immediate end. A future president and Congress can accomplish this by requiring the US Treasury to start printing $500 and $1,000 bills immediately, to make up for the loss in purchasing power that has occurred since the Treasury formally discontinued those higher-denomination bills back in 1969. There should also be a requirement that new higher-denomination bills be introduced when needed to offset the effects of inflation. In other words, when the cumulative effects of inflation inevitably produce another 50 percent decline in the value of US currency, the Treasury should also be required to automatically introduce a $2,000 bill into circulation, for example. This is necessary to ensure that Americans’ fundamental right to access cash is not eroded by the silent, but incredibly pernicious, effects of inflation. And while the practical value of this reform is admittedly modest, its main value lies in what it accomplishes in terms of reframing the debate regarding the nature of money and the state.
In other words, it is much easier for a government to implement the totalitarian measures currently on display in Canada when the populace already concedes that the state has the right to monitor banking transactions and views unmonitored transactions as synonymous with illicit activity. Merely protecting the right to access physical cash is thus an inherent repudiation of this view and instead signals a recognition that Americans are entitled to money and banking, especially to those forms of money that are hard for the government to control. And successfully shifting the Overton window in that way would greatly increase the likelihood of enacting more substantive reforms, like repealing the Patriot Act and other bank-monitoring laws.
So, as we wait for the widespread adoption of an alternative to government-controlled money, whether in crypto or elsewhere, those who believe in freedom should consider making the reintroduction of large-denomination bills a political priority. The level of oppression currently on display in Canada makes clear that we must do everything possible to prevent the same from coming here.
MCViewPoint 