MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Freedom Eliminates The Evils of Socialism & Fascism

Posted by M. C. on March 26, 2021

Socialism & Fascism are two sides of the same totalitarian coin, with the latter ideology being an offshoot of the former. While Socialism preaches the State being the sole owner of the means of production, Fascism preaches a partnership of State (Power) and Corporations (Money). Socialism leads to rapid ruin, while Fascism leads to a longer and drawn out ruin. The destination is the same regardless of the speed in getting there. Freedom and free markets are the only escape from this totalitarian vice.

Be seeing you

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

DEFUSE

Posted by M. C. on March 26, 2021

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

New Normal

Posted by M. C. on March 26, 2021

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

The U.S. Intelligence Community, Flouting Laws, is Increasingly Involving Itself in Domestic Politics

Posted by M. C. on March 26, 2021

See this at Substack Reader

Glenn Greenwald
Then-Vice President Joseph Biden (L) with former Central Intelligence Agency Director Leon Panetta (R) at CIA headquarters in McLean, Virginia. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

A report declassified last Wednesday by the Department of Homeland Security is raising serious concerns about the possibly illegal involvement by the intelligence community in U.S. domestic political affairs.

Entitled “Domestic Violent Extremism Poses Heightened Threat in 2021,” the March 1 Report from the Director of National Intelligence states that it was prepared “in consultation with the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security—and was drafted by the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and Department of Homeland Security (DHS), with contributions from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA).”

Subscribe now

Its primary point is this: “The IC [intelligence community] assesses that domestic violent extremists (DVEs) who are motivated by a range of ideologies and galvanized by recent political and societal events in the United States pose an elevated threat to the Homeland in 2021.” While asserting that “the most lethal” of these threats is posed by “racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists (RMVEs) and militia violent extremists (MVEs),” it makes clear that its target encompasses a wide range of groups from the left (Antifa, animal rights and environmental activists, pro-choice extremists and anarchists: “those who oppose capitalism and all forms of globalization”) to the right (sovereign citizen movements, anti-abortion activists and those deemed motivated by racial or ethnic hatreds).

The U.S. security state apparatus regards the agenda of “domestic violent extremists” as “derived from anti-government or anti-authority sentiment,” which includes “opposition to perceived economic, racial or social hierarchies.” In sum, to the Department of Homeland Security, an “extremist” is anyone who opposes the current prevailing ruling class and system for distributing power. Anyone they believe is prepared to use violence, intimidation or coercion in pursuit of these causes then becomes a “domestic violent extremist,” subject to a vast array of surveillance, monitoring and other forms of legal restrictions:

Department of Homeland Security report, Mar.1, 2021

It goes without saying that violence of any kind — including that which is politically motivated — is a serious crime under U.S. law, and it is the proper role of the U.S. Government to investigate and prevent it. But there are real and important legal and institutional limits on the authority of the intelligence community to involve itself in domestic law enforcement, or other forms of domestic political activity, that seem threatened here, if not outright violated.

In particular, the Report’s acknowledgement that it was compiled by institutions including “the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), with contributions from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)” has alarmed numerous members of the House Intelligence Committee. On Thursday, all ten minority members of that Committee wrote a previously unreported letter to Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines “to raise serious concerns about the production of this document by the Intelligence Community (IC) and to seek clarification of the facts related to its production.”

Among the issues raised was that the DHS Report was not subject to the standard rigors of an intelligence community finding, yet continually makes sweeping claims that it prefixes with the authoritative phrase “the IC assesses.” The Committee members found this “to be misleading,” adding: we “urge you to clarify which elements in the IC concurred with this judgement and the intelligence basis, if any, for that concurrence.” In other words, Haines claims that these dubious assertions about various threats faced by Americans are the findings of the intelligence community when that is not true: just like the originally false claim widely spread by the media that “all seventeen intelligence agencies” endorsed the 2016 election findings about Russian interference when, in fact, it was only a few which had done so. Haines’ claims have support only from a few agencies as well.

But the more substantive danger is the role played by the CIA and other intelligence agencies in the domestic politics of the U.S., all in the name of fighting “domestic terrorism” (similar dangers were previously created by the Bush and Obama administrations in the name of fighting “international terrorism”). As the committee members’ letter details:

The Intelligence Committee members, citing the fact that the intelligence community is “subject to longstanding prohibitions against domestic activities,” then demanded answers to a series of questions based on this substantive concern:

Involvement of the intelligence community in the domestic activities of U.S. citizens is one of the most dangerous breaches of civil liberties and democratic order the U.S. Government can perpetrate. It was after World War II when the CIA, the NSA and other security state agencies that wield immense and unlimited powers in the dark were created in the name of fighting the Cold War. Legal and institutional prohibitions on wielding that massive machinery against the American public were central to the always-dubious claim that this security behemoth that operates completely in the dark was compatible with democracy. As the ACLU noted, “in its 1947 charter, the CIA was prohibited from spying against Americans, in part because President Truman was afraid that the agency would engage in political abuse.”

Share

Since then, Truman’s fear has been realized over and over. Some of the worst post-WW2 civil liberties abuses have been the result of breaches by the CIA and other agencies of this prohibition. As the ACLU documents, the CIA in the 1960s was caught infiltrating and manipulating numerous domestic political activist groups. Under the auspices of the War on Terror, entire new bureaucracies (such as the Department of Homeland Security) and new legal regimes (such as the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments Act) were designed to erode these long-standing limitations by dramatically increasing surveillance powers aimed at U.S. citizens. And by design, the infiltration of these security state agencies in U.S. domestic politics has dramatically escalated.

As the first War on Terror was escalating, The Washington Post — under the headline “CIA Is Expanding Domestic Operations” — reported in October, 2002, that “The Central Intelligence Agency is expanding its domestic presence, placing agents with nearly all of the FBI’s 56 terrorism task forces in U.S. cities.” The Post added that in the name of that War on Terror:

FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III recently described the new arrangement as his answer to MI5, Britain’s internal security service. Unlike the CIA, MI5 is empowered to collect intelligence within Britain and to act to disrupt domestic threats to British national security. “It goes some distance to accomplishing what the MI5 does,” Mueller told a House-Senate intelligence panel last week in describing the new CIA role in the FBI task forces.

In the years following, two NSA whistleblowers — William Binney and Edward Snowden — both cited their horror over the turning of the surveillance machinery against American citizens as the reason for their decision to denounce their agency. One of the aspects that most disturbed me about the Russiagate conspiracy theory from the start was that it was created and disseminated by the CIA and related agencies with the intent, first, to alter the outcome of the 2016 election, and then to undermine the elected president with whom they were at war. Shortly before Trump’s inauguration, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) went on The Rachel Maddow Show to warn — or more accurately: threaten — Trump that the CIA would destroy his presidency if he continued to criticize or otherwise oppose them:https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/505WGUrCp10?rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0

It is encouraging to see Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee starting to express serious concerns over the dangers of intelligence community involvement in domestic politics. That is underscored by their approving citation to the mild mid-1970s reforms of the intelligence community ushered in by the Senate’s Church Committee, once primarily a liberal cause. Indeed, many of the same House Republicans who wrote this important letter to the DNI have in the past supported laws that allow greater involvement of the CIA, NSA and other agencies in activities on U.S. soil — including the Patriot Act.

The head of the Church Committee, Sen. Frank Church (D-ID), made clear in his iconic quote on Meet the Press in 1975 that those reforms were primarily motivated by fears that the U.S. Government would one day turn its vast intelligence powers onto the American people, rendering core civil liberties an illusion:

In the need to develop a capacity to know what potential enemies are doing, the United States government has perfected a technological capability that enables us to monitor the messages that go through the air. (…) We must know, at the same time, that capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left: such is the capability to monitor everything—telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide.

(That quote from Sen. Church was the first one that appeared in my 2014 book on the NSA reporting I did with Edward Snowden, and the title of that book, No Place to Hide, was a nod toward Church’s chilling warning, now come true).

As I have been repeatedly noting over the last two months, the Biden administration, along with leading Democrats such as Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), have been stating explicitly that one of their top priorities is the adoption of new laws designed to import the Bush/Cheney/Obama War on Terror onto U.S. soil for domestic purposes. As recently as February 14, The Washington Post — under the headline: “The agency founded because of 9/11 is shifting to face the threat of domestic terrorism” —noted that Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, is now demanding that homeland security resources be re-directed toward domestic extremists, and “lawmakers of both parties spoke favorably of new legislation to specifically address domestic terrorism.”

Nobody from the Biden administration or Congressional members demanding enactment of Schiff’s proposed new “domestic terrorism” law can identify any activities that are not now criminal that they believe ought to be. Unless it is to permit intelligence agencies to start policing constitutionally protected speech and associational activities among U.S. citizens, why are any new laws needed? Unless it is to empower them to escalate their already-aggressive use of War on Terror tactics against U.S. citizens, what do they want security state agencies to be able to do on U.S. soil that they cannot now do?

But just as the fear of international terrorism was constantly inflated to place such questions off limits when it came to the War on Terror, and just as critics of the excesses of the first War on Terror were constantly accused of downplaying the threat of Islamic extremism if not harboring outright sympathy for it, the same tactics are being used now. Anyone raising civil liberties concerns about what is being done in the name of combating “domestic extremism” is vilified as ignoring and even supporting such domestic extremism.

No matter: there are few dangers more acute than the weaponization of these security state instruments against U.S. citizens for political ends. The DNI should provide full, complete and truthful answers to the important questions posed by these Intelligence Committee members, and should do so promptly. The evidence of growing incursions by the intelligence community in U.S. domestic politics is already strong and ample, and further incursions would be both dangerous and illegal.

Be seeing you

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

How China Waged A Covert War On The US Using Covid-19

Posted by M. C. on March 26, 2021

China, with the help of the praise of the World Health Organization, helped set the global precedent for authoritarian lockdowns in Wuhan. Then the country basically carried on as normal while the rest of the world damaged their economies.

China emerged stronger, and the West weakened, which was likely the entire plan in the first place.

This is not even discussing the possibility that China created or spread the virus, but rather how China took advantage of the situation to position itself to become the global dominant superpower.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

Has There Ever in US History Been a More Pitiful Cabinet?

Posted by M. C. on March 26, 2021

The question of the day is, why have any Republicans voted to confirm any of Biden’s Cabinet appointees?  Every one of them has been chosen not for his expertise in any sphere of influence, but for his radicalism; the farther left these people are, the better in Biden’s (?) view.  Xavier Beccara probably belongs in prison.

Merrick Garland, A.G., could not admit that crossing the border illegally is in fact illegal.  He actually said the Antifa terrorists who tried to burn down a federal courthouse in Portland were not terrorists because they did it at night!

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/03/has_there_ever_in_us_history_been_a_more_pitiful_cabinet.html

By Patricia McCarthy

Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski have once again betrayed the American people and voted to confirm one of the most insidious persons ever nominated to a Cabinet position, “Rachel” Levine.  He will now be the assistant secretary of health.  Levine was as toxic as N.Y. Gov. Cuomo when it came to rendering Pennsylvania nursing homes super-spreaders of COVID, but he put his own mother in a hotel.  He knew what he was doing as surely as Cuomo did.

There is much to condemn this appointment, but most serious is Levine’s promotion of medication and surgery for pre-pubescent children with gender dysphoria.  Sane people realize that this is perhaps the most despicable form of child abuse that has currently won favor among trans activists.  Surely, both Murkowski and Collins know full well that the vast majority of the American people do not support such extremist views, but they apparently wanted to appear to be sufficiently “woke.”

We are all beginning to realize, too late, that being woke is a form of mass hysteria meant to undermine every essential tenet of Judeo-Christian values.  Being “woke” means adopting the new rules of the cancel culture, remaking America according to the whims of BLM and Antifa.  BLM is a Marxist, anti-American, anti–nuclear family organization that is specifically pro-transgender.  So Collins and Murkowski have revealed their inner anti-Americanism, a blatant betrayal of their constituents. 

The question of the day is, why have any Republicans voted to confirm any of Biden’s Cabinet appointees?  Every one of them has been chosen not for his expertise in any sphere of influence, but for his radicalism; the farther left these people are, the better in Biden’s (?) view.  Xavier Beccara probably belongs in prison.

Merrick Garland, A.G., could not admit that crossing the border illegally is in fact illegal.  He actually said the Antifa terrorists who tried to burn down a federal courthouse in Portland were not terrorists because they did it at night!

Secretary of state Blinken made an utter fool of himself, and thus the U.S., at his meeting with the CCP representatives in Alaska.

And then there is the hapless Alejandro Mayorkas, the new secretary of DHS.  He is our very own Baghdad Bob.  “No crisis at the border,” he keeps saying.  The man is so unqualified for the job to which he’s been appointed that it would be laughable if it were not so deadly serious.

Lloyd Austin as secretary of defense!  His job is apparently to purge the military of any and all Christians and conservatives.  He has vowed to protect us from all those Trump-supporters he and the Democrats have decided are domestic terrorists.  He’s already sent troops to Syria and stopped those who were set to return from Afghanistan from coming home.

Chances are we will be at war somewhere soon.  We can feel the Democrats itching for it.

And then there is little Pete Buttigieg as transportation secretary.  This guy could not run the city of South Bend, Indiana as mayor, and Biden has put him in charge of one of the most crucial agencies.  This will not end well.

There are many more equally deficient nominees.  Most have been confirmed with the help of enough effete and cowardly Republicans who fear bad press more than they fear the destruction of this nation.  They cannot imagine the contempt conservative Americans feel for them, each and every one who has voted to confirm these pathetic, wholly unqualified nominees to such high-level jobs.

The most terrifying appointment of all is Kamala Harris, put on the ticket as V.P.  Now she of the inappropriate cackle that rivals Hillary’s grating laugh is to be in charge of the border crisis!  Just a week ago, when asked about it, she replied, “I haven’t been briefed on that.”  She is as clueless as she seems, as incompetent as she appears.

Biden created the border mess and likely did it on purpose.  The left likes nothing as much as it loves chaos.  Those poor migrants are just tools in their kit; they care nothing about the fact that they are providing the cartels with a $14M profit a day in human-trafficking.  It’s almost as though the cartels own Joe Biden as completely as China does.

This administration has done more damage in two months than any previous administration did in two years or two terms.  We are no longer to be energy independent.  There are no borders, so we are no longer a sovereign nation.  Biden has put tens of thousands of people out of work — the pipeline, the wall, the 80 million acres of federal land he has declared no longer available for oil or gas exploration.  He is dispersing COVID-infected migrants into the interior of the country, most likely to create a resurgence of the virus so he can impose a nationwide lockdown again.

The more dependent citizens are on the government, the more power over us all they can grasp — which is all to the good for the global reset they envision.  As Dennis Prager often says, the bigger the government, the smaller the person.

These executive orders are a gift of billions and billions of dollars to Russia.  As Peter Navarro commented, Russia is just a gas station with nukes.  Thanks to Biden, the Russians will soon be much richer.  So will China as they twirl old Joe and his pathetic Cabinet around their fingers.

Unless more Republicans decide to fight for what is right — the constitutional principles devised by the Founders — the United States will not last.  As for Collins and Murkowski?  A pox on both their houses.  They could not even stand tall for the children likely to be destroyed by the likes of Rachel Levine and his monstrous theories. 

If you would like to comment on this or any other American Thinker article or post, we invite you to visit the American Thinker Forum at MeWe. There, you can converse with other American Thinker readers and comment freely (subject to MeWe’s terms of use). The Forum will be fully populated and ready for comments by midday (Eastern time) each day.

Be seeing you

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

Contagious Presidential Ambition? Meghan Markle Hires Ex-Hillary Aides, Bonding With Ex-First Lady – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on March 26, 2021

If you have never prayed, now would be a good time to start.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/03/no_author/contagious-presidential-ambition-meghan-markle-hires-ex-hillary-aides-bonding-with-ex-first-lady/

by Ekaterina Blinova

Meghan Markle and Prince Harry have hired Genevieve Roth, a former Hillary Clinton campaign adviser and the founder of social impact agency Invisible Hand to help with their Archewell Foundation. The royal couple’s decision has added to the swirling rumours about a potential 2024 election bid by the Duchess.

Alaska-born Genevieve Roth previously served as the director of Creative Engagement for the 2016 Clinton presidential campaign and is also known for assisting then-President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle launch the “Let Girls Learn” initiative. The strategist was quoted as saying that she has “a lifelong commitment to gender equity”, and claiming that “all white people are rife with internalised racism”.

It’s Not Enough to Surround Oneself With Political Industry Insiders

It is hardly surprising that “the American Royals” hired an ex-Hillary campaign staffer, says GOP political consultant Anthony Angelini, stressing that he does not see it as an association with Hillary as much as simply an association with the “establishment”.

“The US has an underground class of political consultants who only seem to fail up”, he says. “The guiding doctrine seems to be that a failed campaign is the fault of the candidate, while a successful campaign is the glory of the consultant. Not to mention, Hillary had the entirety of the establishment left working on her campaign; if you wanted to run for president as a Democrat, it would be almost impossible to hire anyone good that didn’t also work for Hillary”.

It appears Markle believes that if she surrounds herself with enough political industry insiders, it will make her one, Angelini notes, highlighting that “that is not really how it works”.

Judging from her latest interview with Oprah Winfrey, the American-born Duchess of Sussex’s potential election platform will be based on race, gender, and identity politics, the GOP consultant suggests: “Those are the only topics she knows about enough to comment on intelligently”, he remarks.

Although the interview was a great platform for Markle, “the American media cycle is so fast-paced that every day that goes by her interview fades further and further from the collective American consciousness“, according to Angelini.

“We are so far out from 2024 that by the time she announces, the Oprah interview will be a distant memory”, he presumes. “She is best served by leveraging it to gain more insider political connections in the short term, then building up more media appearances later on that will be more effective”.

Democratic presidential candidate former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton waves to supporters as her husband former President Bill Clinton, second from right, Chelsea Clinton, second from left, and her husband Marc Mezvinsky, join on stage Saturday, June 13, 2015, on Roosevelt Island in New York

© AP Photo / Frank Franklin IIDemocratic presidential candidate former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton waves to supporters as her husband former President Bill Clinton, second from right, Chelsea Clinton, second from left, and her husband Marc Mezvinsky, join on stage Saturday, June 13, 2015, on Roosevelt Island in New York

Meghan Markle and Team Clinton

This is not the first time the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have hired a former Hillary Clinton employee. On 14 March 2019, the palace announced the appointment of Sara Latham as the head of the couple’s communications team. At that time, Meghan Markle and Prince Harry split royal households from Kate Middleton and Prince William and created a separate office.

Sara Latham acted as a senior adviser for Clinton’s 2016 campaign from August 2015 until the November 2016 election, wrote People magazine, adding that she joined the Sussexes from public relations company Freuds, “where she oversaw global corporate accounts with a particular emphasis on executive thought leadership and purpose-led campaigns”. Having dual US/UK citizenship Latham also served as special adviser to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media, Sport, and Olympics ahead of the 2012 games in London. She was one of 15 staff members who lost their jobs after “Megxit”.

The connection between the Duchess of Sussex and Hillary Clinton does not end there. Markle has long been known as an outspoken supporter of the former first lady and secretary of state. According to People magazine, Meghan was only 11 years old when she wrote a letter to the politician asking for help “when she found a TV advertisement to be sexist”. She also wrote to Linda Ellerbee, Gloria Allred, and the company behind the ad. Meghan received responses from all three women and the company changed the wording in its commercial.

We’ve got #RoyalWedding fever this #FactFriday. At the age of 11, soon to be Royal – Meghan Markle took offense to a gender-specific soap advertisement. She wrote a letter standing up for equality, not just to @ProcterGamble, but to First Lady @HillaryClinton as well. pic.twitter.com/tLmksSW685 — The Global Goals (@TheGlobalGoals) May 18, 2018

​Later, being a celeb, Markle supported World Vision’s Clean Water Campaign in Rwanda in 2016. With partners Procter & Gamble and many others, World Vision carried out the noble initiative through the Clinton Global Initiative Commitment to Action.

On 14 November 2019, the Daily Mail reported that two days earlier Hillary Clinton had unexpectedly showed up at Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s British residence, Frogmore Cottage. Earlier, Clinton told the BBC that she felt “like a mother” and wanted to hug Meghan amid growing media criticism and “racist” abuse against the duchess.

“I feel as a mother I just want to put my arms around her. Oh my God, I want to hug her. I want to tell her to hang in there, don’t let those bad guys get you down”, Hillary Clinton said of Meghan Markle and the abuse she’s faced in the British media https://t.co/r53lBbAuuL — The Daily Beast (@thedailybeast) November 13, 2019

​The Daily Mail quoted an anonymous source as saying that “both women have a lot of admiration for each other and it was a very sweet, warm meeting”. Page Six suggested that the reported visit was allegedly arranged by Sara Latham.

Commenting on the Oprah interview, Hillary Clinton told The Washington Post Live event on 8 March 2021 that she found it “so heart-rending to watch” and bemoaned the “cruelty” of the “British tabloids” going after Meghan.

“Well, you know, this young woman was not about to keep her head down. You know, this is 2021 and she wanted to live her life, she wanted to be fully engaged and she had every right to hope for that”, the former Democratic presidential hopeful said.

Be seeing you

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

Kool-Aid Time – Doug Casey’s International Man

Posted by M. C. on March 26, 2021

Of course, this makes no sense whatever. Most schools are not even open in California, due to the strength of the Teachers’ Union’s demands, but if and when schools do open, they will do so with a new paradigm: that all those attending the school can be named and shamed, should their COVID passes not be up to scratch.

https://internationalman.com/articles/kool-aid-time/

Recently, the Los Angeles school district introduced a Microsoft-developed COVID tracking app, to allow students to collect data relative to their own COVID testing and that of their fellow students.

In addition to the social implication of students judging each other based upon test results, all data will be reported to health authorities, should they wish to take action.

The app will generate a QR code for each student and staff member, so that each can be regularly monitored.

Superintendent Austin Beutner commented that the code is “Sort of like the golden ticket in ‘Willy Wonka.’ Everyone with this pass can easily get into a school building.”

Of course, this makes no sense whatever. Most schools are not even open in California, due to the strength of the Teachers’ Union’s demands, but if and when schools do open, they will do so with a new paradigm: that all those attending the school can be named and shamed, should their COVID passes not be up to scratch.

A mere decade ago, such an autocratic development would have been big news. The very idea of a school district’s interference in the personal lives of students would have stood out dramatically.

But the ’20s decade is no ordinary one. 2020 itself was the year of The Great Upset, in which all that seemed safe and predictable was tossed into the air. Police stood by as rioters created destruction in cities across the US. A national election was turned by both parties into an utter shambles. And an overactive media convinced entire nations of people that a seasonal virus was a pandemic for which every citizen must take an injection, in spite of the admission that the vaccine will not cure the virus nor even stop the transmission of it.

And yet, should people refuse to take the vaccine, they may be deprived of the right to travel, go to work, or even congregate with others. Their punishment may be imprisonment within their own homes, should they refuse to get the unnecessary jab.

2021 will be even more chaotic, but the theme of the chaos will differ from that of 2020.

The groundwork of confusion and uncertainty is now well in place and the next phase has begun – that of the removal of reality from the consciousness of the populace.

This will be the period in which logic is tossed out on a wholesale basis.

As observed above, dramatic restrictions will be placed on schoolchildren as to whether or not they may attend, even though schools may remain closed.

Non-citizens will be encouraged to cross the border into the US in their thousands, yet actual US citizens in Florida will be limited as to whether they are allowed to travel north, into Georgia, as punishment for having largely beaten the virus with minimal restrictions on personal movement.

Full-blown riots in cities across the nation will be tolerated, but the equivalent of a frat party break-in at the Capitol Building will be treated as a terrorist attack.

Children’s books will be banned due to racist content that clearly does not exist.

Children will be taught to respect over one hundred genders, even though the instructors themselves have difficulty making any sense of them all.

We’ve already reached the point that any school-age child could accurately say, like the White Queen in Alice in Wonderland, “Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”

What we shall experience in 2021 will be a rolling-out of logic that’s not just skewed but turned on its head.

One Mister Orwell warned of this concept in his excellent books, Animal Farm and 1984.

In the former, the leadership morphed from a state in which the motto was “All animals are equal,” into a tyrannical one in which the motto became, “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.”

In the latter book, the Ministry of Truth had three slogans: “War Is Peace,” “Freedom Is Slavery,” and “Ignorance Is Strength.”

Additionally, the Ministry created doublethink – the ability to hold two completely contradictory beliefs at the same time, yet to believe that both are true.

“Truth” was malleable. It was whatever was convenient for the Powers that Be to dictate at any given time.

And we are seeing that begin to play out larger in today’s world.

“Conspiracy theory” has now come to mean any explanation that does not entirely agree with the official narrative.

“The science” has become a catch phrase that, when attached to any narrative, with or without supporting evidence, is intended to give the narrative a seal of approval as fact.

We are in the early stages of the elimination of Truth as a basis of belief. To many, this Orwellian development may seem unprecedented, but in fact, it’s been used many times in the past. Vladimir Lenin, Chairman Mao, Idi Amin and many other despots made use of it. Adolf Hitler, with the help of Joseph Goebbels, made it an art form.

Yet we need not look to political leaders to see evidence of the elimination of Truth. It’s been around in one form or another for as long as mankind has existed.

Although there have been prophets throughout history who have sought to expand the general awareness of truth, most of them have been co-opted over the millennia to create organised religions, which accomplish the exact opposite of Truth. Once religion becomes an institution, it’s the institution itself that becomes sacrosanct. Strict rules are created, with accompanying punishments either in this world or the hereafter.

It may be suggested that the elimination of Truth that we’re being expected to accept at present is of no real consequence, that it’s just a trend that will fizzle out at some point and the world will return to normal.

But when entire governments, along with their henchmen in the media, make the elimination of Truth a major campaign, for its own sake, we should take caution.

As to how far this can go once we give in and play along, we can look to Guyana in 1978, where hundreds of people, by complying blindly with their leader, accepted an ongoing cancellation of logic until they willingly drank the Kool-Aid that would kill them.

These were otherwise normal people, who had made the one mistake of continuing to go along each time they were told yet another “Truth” that was impossible.

As easy as it is to go along with political correctness, the dumbing down of our children and the general acceptance of “science” that’s clearly not science, it’s risky indeed.

And those who promote the elimination of Truth should be looked upon as a very real danger.

Editor’s Note: It’s clear there are some ominous social, political, cultural, and economic trends playing out right now.

We don’t want anyone to be blindsided by the government’s wrongheaded reaction to this crisis. As you know, government bureaucrats never let a crisis go to waste.

It’s their modus operandi.

That’s precisely why legendary speculator Doug Casey and his team just released this free report about what you can do to prepare. Click here to download it now.

Be seeing you

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

Doug Casey on Some Encounters with US Deep State Sociopaths

Posted by M. C. on March 26, 2021

They were one deviation above prostitutes, conmen, spies, and thieves—they’re professional liars. Actors pretend to be somebody they’re not. Professional deceivers. Not until very recently were actors idealized. You have to respect their skills, of course. And some actors are decent people just doing a job, entertaining; I’m all for them.

https://internationalman.com/articles/doug-casey-on-some-encounters-with-us-deep-state-sociopaths/

International Man: Government attracts sociopathic types who are interested in wielding power over others. These are the kinds of people who rise to the top of the Deep State, the permanently entrenched bureaucracy.

You’ve met your fair share of swamp creatures. Tell us about the time you met former Vice President Dick Cheney.

Doug Casey: It was at the New Orleans Investment Conference, the year Dick Cheney was running for president. A friend of mine who took a dislike to Cheney invited me to join him at a special meeting that had been organized for Republican fat cats—potential donors to Cheney’s campaign.

Cheney was pressing the flesh and holding forth. I joined the group, and Cheney comes up to me, as he did to everybody. He says, “Dick Cheney, it’s nice to meet you,” and sticks his hand out. I looked at him and said, “Dick, I’m not going to shake hands with you. I despise you and everything you stand for.”

I thought that delivering a verbal gut blow in public might shatter his criminal persona. But he’s a skilled politician and has been around the block many times.

His comeback was, “Well, why do you say that?” That gave me 60 seconds to detail exactly why I thought he was a horrible human being. He tried not to show it, but it threw him off balance and destroyed any possibility of raising money from the assembled fat cats. I think it’s important that self-important public figures be treated appropriately, as they deserve.

About a week later, I was at another conference in San Francisco. Cheney was also there; he was attending all of the hard money/conservative conferences. He figured that attendees—wealthy, conservative Republicans—were likely donors to his campaign.

Anyway, my friend Mark Skousen ran into Cheney at the Hyatt’s business center.

Mark went up to Cheney, and to break the ice said, “Mr. Cheney, it’s nice to meet you. I understand that you met my friend Doug Casey last week in New Orleans.” I don’t think Mark was trying to wave a red flag in front of an angry bull—just being naive.

Cheney wouldn’t shake hands and refused to talk to him.

That was interesting because I would have thought that Cheney would have just disregarded me as another heckler. Apparently, my having ruined his day in New Orleans put him on a slow burn. Perhaps it ruined his week.

The next year, when I was still a trustee at Washington College, Stephen Balch, the founder of the newly formed National Association of Scholars and Trustees, invited me to join the organization. Lynn Cheney, Dick’s wife—a thoroughly distasteful pear-shaped harpy—was also at the meeting. She was being recruited as an influential bigwig. We took an immediate and visceral dislike to each other. I was subsequently disinvited to join, which came as no great surprise.

International Man: Another notable Deep State figure is former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich. You’ve met him several times and have even debated him on a conference stage.

Tell us about your experiences with Newt Gingrich.

Doug Casey: I met Newt also at the New Orleans conference. Although I lived in Washington DC for many years, I never associated with Deep State types. But, as I said, they often show up at financial conferences, where conservative rich people can be tapped for donations.

I had a private lunch with Newt. It was pleasant enough, although, like most conversations with politicians, completely meaningless. Newt seemed incapable of originating any thought that wasn’t a programmed talking point. Pols are experts at dodging questions—they like to limit the conversation to inoffensive subjects like the weather and the state of the roads.

I was unsuccessful in getting him to talk about any serious philosophical or historical issues. But I was able to turn the conversation to the events of 9/11—because this was only two months after they occurred.

I asked him: “What do you think about what happened to Building 7.” And, he said, “Building 7? What do you mean?”

I explained to him that it was a 47-story office building, which wasn’t hit by a plane, but nonetheless collapsed in its own footprint—as did Buildings 1 and 2—later on the same day. He looked at me and said, “What are you talking about? I’ve never heard about that. Is that right?”

I was flummoxed that somebody in his position didn’t even know that a third major building in the WTC had gone down on 9/11. The event has never been adequately explained, and nobody cares, even though its collapse confounds the laws of engineering and physics.

It was obvious to me that he sincerely knew nothing about it. Of course, Building 7 was never talked about in the news. That giant omission is inexplicable and brings up all kinds of questions about what really happened that day and who was really at fault.

I don’t think Newt had been exposed to it because these people live in a silo, where they only talk to their handlers, sycophants, and other Deep Staters in similar positions.

Newt, a leader of the Republican Party, really didn’t know anything beyond his talking points. He had no observations worth remembering about history or economics either—the two things that he was supposed to know more about than most. No doubt he’ll deny the encounter if asked about it. My parting words to him were, “Be sure to check out Building 7.” He may or may not have asked anybody else about it since he would risk being labeled a conspiracy theorist. Here is a man who passes as an intellectual in the brain-dead Republican party but who has about zero intellectual curiosity.

International Man: Many people don’t know this, but you were a classmate of Bill Clinton at Georgetown University. Can you tell us about any of your encounters with the former president?

Doug Casey: I’ve had three encounters with Bill Clinton over the years, but only two worth mentioning. I’ll dispense with stories about him worshipping at the altar of a porcelain god after a night of debauchery—so did most everybody in the class. Or that it’s said he wasn’t much of a ladies’ man in those days. I guess that came later, with political success.

Anyway, in our freshman year, Bill knocked on my dorm room door and introduced himself, saying that he was running for class president. Even then, I had no interest in politics—certainly not something as trivial as a student council president.

It was a brief conversation, and my response was something like, “Okay, nice to meet you, but student government really isn’t my bag …. ”

The next time I saw Bill was at our 25th class reunion. It was very nice of him to throw a party for our class at the White House. It was a black-tie event—a big deal because he was the president.

When the time came, I walked up to him and said, “Hey, Bill, how you doing? Nice to see you.” That’s what you say to a classmate. He looked at me very forthrightly and said, “Hey, Doug, how are you? Nice to see ya.”

I was taken aback by his apparent sincerity. Maybe he remembered me from one of the big TV shows that I’d been on and put two and two together. Maybe he has an eidetic memory. Or, maybe he just saw my name tag without tipping that fact.

One thing is certain about Bill Clinton: He’s as charming a man as you could ever hope to meet. When he’s talking to you, you feel like you’re the only person in the room and that you’re certainly the most important person in the room. My classmates who knew him well all tipped him as a likely president.

The third time was at our 50th class reunion, which was much smaller and obviously wasn’t at the White House. He was, understandably, still the center of attention. He was very affable, and a lot of guys circled around him.

One thing I remember clearly from our 25th reunion, even though the alcohol was flowing freely, was Hillary’s presence. She kept to herself, but what stuck out to me and the guys that I was talking to was that she was surrounded by four or five young, very good-looking girls. They were like a mini-Praetorian Guard. They reminded me of young velociraptors, the stars of Jurassic Park, pert and alert, their eyes darting everywhere, observing everything around her, making sure she wasn’t molested.

The cute velociraptors brought to mind a joke…. But maybe certain rumors are true…. Do you know the joke about why Chelsea Clinton is so ugly? The answer is Janet Reno was her father. That was a long time ago, of course, and some of our readers may not get it.

International Man: The American people have always been enamored with celebrities. In the past, it was movie stars and singers, but in recent years, Deep State politicians have become the new celebrities in the American public’s eyes.

What are your thoughts about that? And what does it say about society and the future?

Doug Casey: It speaks very poorly of the American people.

I think the first president who was something of a real celebrity was Teddy Roosevelt. He was, in fact, an interesting man, not just a media-manufactured personality. Adventurer, author, athlete, and Renaissance man in many ways, he would have been a boon companion to simply hang around with. But he was a horrible president. A “progressive” who encouraged every type of government activism, a “trustbuster,” and general busybody sticking the government’s nose everywhere into the country’s business. And worst of all, he was a warmonger, basically having made his bones on San Juan Hill in Cuba.

Teddy Roosevelt was the first celebrity president, starting the cult of personality in US politics.

FDR made himself into a celebrity with his great style and his fireside chats, pandering to the common man with his own money while greatly worsening and lengthening the Great Depression.

JFK was the next celebrity president. He was young, good-looking, well-spoken, and had a very pretty wife.

And, of course, Ronald Reagan, a well-intentioned actor.

As time has gone on, we’ve moved more and more toward celebrity presidents—people who build a cult of the personality around themselves. Something Stalin, Mao, Hitler did very successfully. And Third World despots all try to do.

I’ve got a feeling Hollywood will become increasingly important in politics. The public has always enjoyed watching actors, but throughout history—from ancient times—they were on the bottom rung of society. People of quality and stature didn’t want to be personally associated with them, no matter how famous they were.

Why might that be?

They were one deviation above prostitutes, conmen, spies, and thieves—they’re professional liars. Actors pretend to be somebody they’re not. Professional deceivers. Not until very recently were actors idealized. You have to respect their skills, of course. And some actors are decent people just doing a job, entertaining; I’m all for them.

But, that said, they’re generally poor role models or moral examples because the nature of acting is to project a false image. Being a skilled liar is rewarded. There’s a reason Hollywood is famous for depravity and dissipation.

There are now many actors who have mentioned their political ambitions. Not least of them are Meghan Markle and Ben Affleck.

Nowadays, fame, name recognition, and being good-looking are much more important to the public than ideas or character. It’s a very bad trend.

Editor’s Note: Sociopaths are drawn to the government. They seek power and control over others through coercion, taxation and more.

Unfortunately, there’s little any individual can practically do to change the course of these trends in motion.

The best you can and should do is to stay informed so that you can protect yourself in the best way possible.

That’s precisely why bestselling author Doug Casey and his colleagues just released an urgent new PDF report that explains what could come next and what you can do about it. Click here to download it now.

Be seeing you

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

If Deficits Don’t Matter, Why Bother with Taxes? | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on March 26, 2021

Kelton’s answer? Taxes would still be needed, because they make us poor. And because they can punish people she doesn’t like.

Specifically, Kelton likes that taxes “remove dollars from our hands, so we can’t spend them,” leaving more purchasing power for the government. So taxes make the people poor, and that’s a selling point to her, presumably because she thinks governments are really good at lifting people out of poverty. Anybody who’s spent time in America’s inner cities, where government money is pretty much the only money, might disagree.

https://mises.org/wire/if-deficits-dont-matter-why-bother-taxes

Peter St. Onge

On March 18, Joe Wiesenthal of Bloomberg Markets had MMT economist Stephanie Kelton on the show. If you’re not familiar with modern monetary theory, they think governments should print more money because deficits aren’t a big deal. At one point in the show, Wiesenthal asked, “If we don’t need to worry about deficits, why do we have taxes?” Kelton’s response was illuminating.

Now, the traditional excuse for taxes is, paraphrasing Oliver Wendell Holmes, that they are the “price of civilization.” Skeptics point out that, historically, societies with very low taxes were often far more civilized—think the Dutch Golden Age, Islamic Golden Age, Victorian England, the pejoratively named “Gilded Age” in American history—that thirty-year golden age when almost everything useful was invented. And, yet, throughout that period, federal receipts were one-fifth what they are today.

Why so much civilization? Because much of what governments do today was done by charities or businesses competing for customer dollars instead of seizing their budget in taxes. When doctors, firefighters, and schools have to satisfy customers, things get quite civilized.

Still, even if we accept a “night-watchman state” argument for, say, national defense or salaries for Supreme Court justices, it gets tricky if government can simply print up the fresh money to pay for all that civilization.

Kelton’s answer? Taxes would still be needed, because they make us poor. And because they can punish people she doesn’t like.

Specifically, Kelton likes that taxes “remove dollars from our hands, so we can’t spend them,” leaving more purchasing power for the government. So taxes make the people poor, and that’s a selling point to her, presumably because she thinks governments are really good at lifting people out of poverty. Anybody who’s spent time in America’s inner cities, where government money is pretty much the only money, might disagree.

Ah, but it’s not just about spending our money more wisely than we ever could, Kelton adds two secondary reasons she loves taxes: to punish particular people by redistributing their money, and to punish people for doing things she doesn’t like. Such as failing to buy energy-efficient appliances (no, really). In other words, social engineering with carrots for your friends, sticks for your not-so-friends.

Aside from the morality of preying on our neighbors, demanding they pay an ever-growing “fair share” that invariably exceeds what, say, a journalist or professor pays, using taxes for redistribution and punishing—“nudging,” in the fashionable parlance—carries enormous collateral damage. Because redistribution arranges society into hostile factions either trying to violently dispossess one another or defending against that dispossession. Moreover, redistribution isn’t simply innocently shuffling the chips; it is wholesale destruction. A paper coauthored by Christina Romer, former chair of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors, found that each dollar in government spending leads to between $2 and $3 in lost economic activity. A separate study by Harvard economist Martin Feldstein came to similar deadweight estimates that “may exceed $2 per $1 of revenue.” In other words, in order to move a dollar, you have to destroy at least two to three dollars.

There is a similar mix of moral and practical costs to using predatory taxes for social engineering. It also breaks the social compact to live and let live, rendering our every decision subject to public vote, from what we eat, to where we vacation, to what kind of bag we use to carry our groceries. There is nothing outside the realm of the nudgers, no detail too small.

Moreover, by mass imposition of what are effectively judicial fines for noncrimes, such taxes can achieve a level of control that would never be constitutional if written as law. For example, today in the United States, 90 percent of students attend public schools, despite the terrible quality of education. Why do they stay? Because each voter must pay for public schools whether or not they use them, but would have to shoulder $11,200 per child per year for opting out of the public system, while continuing to pay that $12,600 per year in taxes for the “free” public system. Especially for the working class, this penalty becomes prohibitive for all but the most committed.

Pair these facts—no detail too small for the social engineers and their ability to achieve near-universal obedience via fines and subsidies—and we risk a totalitarian “permissioned” society where we are free on paper, but using that freedom comes with ruinous fines.

If, indeed, the only remaining justification for taxes in an inflationary regime is to redistribute and punish—to erode social harmony in a fiscal war of all against all while impoverishing society and enabling a creeping totalitarianism—then it is much closer to the mark that modern taxes have become not the price of civilization, but the predator of civilization. Author:

Peter St. Onge

Peter St. Onge blogs on economics at Profits of Chaos.

Be seeing you

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