MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

How the U.S. Government Gave $200 Million to the Protectors of Pedophile Priests

Posted by M. C. on July 22, 2020

But it gets worse. The Saint Luke Institute, which is the Catholic treatment center for priests accused of sexual abuse received upwards of a million dollars. This “institute” is essentially a holding station for child raping priests, many of whom are put right back out into churches and abuse again.

Taxpayer dollars are literally funding child raping priests and it is shameful.

It should be noted that not all Catholic institutions sought to suckle from the taxpayer teat. According to the AP, the Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy based in Stamford, Connecticut, told AP that even though its parishes experienced a decline in donations, none of the organizations in its five-state territory submitted applications.

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/how-the-u-s-government-gave-200-million-to-the-protectors-of-pedophile-priests/

by

Over the past week, a conspiracy theory about Wayfair selling children in cabinets took the internet by storm. Sadly, without giving it much thought, people took this unfounded claim and ran with it—distracting from actual, provable conspiracies. Selling expensive cabinets and shower curtains online does not mean one is trafficking children. What’s more, with the dark web available, who in their right mind would openly sell children—to the public—on the internet in storage cabinets. There is definitely something fishy going on with the $10,000 shower curtains—but it probably has more to do with a money laundering scheme, an internet joke by someone inside Wayfair, or something else besides openly selling children online. In the meantime, as Wayfair filled the digital airwaves, your taxpayer dollars went to bailing out churches, dozens of which covered up real and provable child sex abuse for decades, and barely anyone noticed.

Despite being tax exempt—meaning they are not required to pay the same taxes other businesses must—the Catholic church has received more than $1.4 billion in taxpayer-backed coronavirus aid. According to a scathing report out of the Associated Press, the total payout could be as high as $3.5 billion, making this tax exempt organization one of the largest recipients in the country of the taxpayer-funded pandemic bail out.

Adding to the already corrupt nature of a tax-exempt organization received billions in taxpayer funds is the fact that according to the analysis of federal data, hundreds of millions of dollars are “going to dioceses that have paid huge settlements or sought bankruptcy protection because of clergy sexual abuse cover-ups.”

Because they do not pay taxes, institutions of faith are not usually eligible for programs such as these. However, the Catholic Church’s lobbying efforts were unprecedented, according to the report. They lobbied for an exemption to federal rules and amassed what could amount to nearly 4 billion dollars.

Typically, because the church has over 500 employees, they are disqualified from applying for this SBA bailout. However, as small businesses failed to receive minuscule loans for tens of thousands of dollars to keep their doors open, one of the richest organizations in the world persuaded this administration to grant them a waiver for the 500 employee cap.

“The government grants special dispensation, and that creates a kind of structural favoritism,” said Micah Schwartzman, a University of Virginia law professor specializing in constitutional issues and religion who has studied the Paycheck Protection Program. “And that favoritism was worth billions of dollars.”

The report found that extremely rich dioceses, who have recently built churches that cost $70 million, received funds. Others, like the diocese covering Wheeling-Charleston, West Virginia—where an investigation found that then-Bishop Michael Bransfield embezzled funds and made sexual advances toward young priests—received millions.

But that’s not the worst of it. Dozens of dioceses who have paid out hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements for decades of child rape—some going into bankruptcy over it—received over $200 million in taxpayer funds.

According to the AP:

As the church again reckoned with its longtime crisis, abuse reports tripled during the year ending June 2019 to a total of nearly 4,500 nationally. Meanwhile, dioceses and religious orders shelled out $282 million that year — up from $106 million just five years earlier. Most of that went to settlements, in addition to legal fees and support for offending clergy.

Loan recipients included about 40 dioceses that have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in the past few years paying victims through compensation funds or bankruptcy proceedings. AP’s review found that these dioceseswere approved for about $200 million, though the value is likely much higher.

But it gets worse. The Saint Luke Institute, which is the Catholic treatment center for priests accused of sexual abuse received upwards of a million dollars. This “institute” is essentially a holding station for child raping priests, many of whom are put right back out into churches and abuse again.

Taxpayer dollars are literally funding child raping priests and it is shameful.

The child sex abuse scandal in the Catholic church erupted in 2018 in Pennsylvania and quickly reverberated throughout the world. Some of those dioceses in Pennsylvania and other states are on the receiving end of these taxpayer funds—despite a damning grand jury report that revealed widespread child sex abuse that had been covered up by the church’s top brass.

Many have been wondering how it was allowed to go on for so long without anyone getting charged or arrested. It appears that we have the answer—the separation of church and state is a farce and the state has no problem stealing money from the citizens and doling it out to organizations who protected child rapists for decades.

This should come as no surprise given the fact that police were also complicit in the cover-up.

“Priests were raping little boys and girls, and the men of God who were responsible for them not only did nothing; they hid it all,” according to the report of the Pennsylvania grand jury. And police went along with it.

During a grand jury report into the child sex abuse by priests in Pennsylvania in 2018, the state Attorney General, Josh Shapiro provided insight into how priests were allowed to go on for decades preying on children. He singled out the two groups responsible for covering up the crimes of the church.

One of the groups named by the AG was the Catholic Church hierarchy like the archbishops and cardinals who reacted to allegations of child rape by simply transferring the priest to a new church or failing to act at all. The other group Shapiro named was law enforcement, who he says acted in tandem with the abusive priests to keep their horrific habits from ever reaching the public eye.

“The abuse scarred every diocese,” he said. “The cover-up was sophisticated. The church protected the institution at all costs.”

It should be noted that not all Catholic institutions sought to suckle from the taxpayer teat. According to the AP, the Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy based in Stamford, Connecticut, told AP that even though its parishes experienced a decline in donations, none of the organizations in its five-state territory submitted applications.

Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Agorist is also the Editor-at-Large at the Free Thought Project. Follow @MattAgorist on Twitter, Steemit, and now on Minds This article was originally featured at The Free Thought Project

Be seeing you

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

Want Less Police Brutality? Write Less Laws

Posted by M. C. on July 22, 2020

The people who support eliminating police violence also regularly support the passage of new mandates, redistribution schemes, and regulatory impositions. Without police, how do they think all these new laws and rules will be enforced?

By advocating for more laws, rules, and taxes, these people are effectively advocating for an increase in police violence. Abolishing the entity called “police” won’t solve the issue, since the state will inevitably have to form a new entity that does all the same things and has all the same powers.

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/want-less-police-brutality-write-less-laws/

by

One of the most perplexing displays of cognitive dissonance this year is the strong support for a large state can be found within the various protest movements that are targeting the issue of law enforcement misconduct. Logically, groups opposing police misconduct should also be strong supporters of the libertarian ideology. However, this does not appear to be the case. This movement, oddly enough, has quite a bit of overlap with support for gun control, the welfare state, and more regulation. The central organization, Black Lives Matter, is a fully Marxist entity.

Socialism, Marxism, communism, and other ideologies revolve around the strong or total domination of the state in everyday life. The state, as defined by Murray Rothbard in Anatomy of the State, is an “organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area.” The way the state maintains authority within its jurisdiction is with the application of laws.

The Nature of a Law

A law is defined as “a rule of conduct or action prescribed…or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority.” It is a set of rules that either obligate or forbid action with a penalty for failure to comply. While it may sound good to have a set of rules that individuals must adhere to and penalties to incentivize compliance, the nature of those penalties is where we run into issues.

While laws may have formally designated penalties for noncompliance, those penalties can be best viewed as a minimum sentence. The maximum penalty for failure to comply with any given law is execution of the perpetrator. While this sounds like hyperbole, it’s important to understand why this is the case and how law enforcement must resort to this.

Take a case of counterfeit money. The sentencing guidelines for counterfeiting money are a sixteen-month minimum and in some states a fine with a maximum prison sentence of twenty years. However, what if the accused refuses to show up in court? The court could then find the perpetrator guilty in absentia and apply the sentence and fine. Should the person refuse to part with their resources or report to prison, the court would then order an enforcement agent to collect the accused. This is also what could happen should the accused refuse to show up for court itself. And should the accused resist this arrest? This is where grievous bodily harm up to and including death can occur.

If you think this is hyperbole, this is exactly the situation that led to the death of George Floyd; a twenty-dollar counterfeit bill and refusal to be taken into law enforcement custody.

The reason state agents resort to killing an accused for refusal to comply is that, despite the verbal claims to the contrary by the state itself, there is no other way to ensure compliance with laws. If the general public knows that the worst the state will ever do is send easily ignored bills in the mail for fines, then laws would never be followed and the state would collapse. Because the state is an institution of violence, all laws must be backed with violence. The state may be careful to conceal this reality, but the ultimate refusal of compliance is always a summary execution.

More Laws Means More Violence

Police brutality, in a sense, is just a matter of numbers. As the number of interactions with an enforcement agent increase, the number of instances of violent interactions will also increase. If the odds of death from a single interaction remain the same, or even decline, this can be overwhelmed if the legal system expects greater instances of interaction with the general public through the application of more laws.

This can be demonstrated by the increasing number of death by legal intervention within the baseline white ethnicity in the United States in the aftermath of the war on drugs, particularly after the 1984 Sentencing Reform Act. Per a Harvard study, the rate of killings via legal intervention of whites in 1985, the year after the US government decided to get tough on crime, stood at 0.28 per 100,000. By 2005 this number had risen to 0.37 per 100,000, an increase of 32 percent.

The reason I used whites as the baseline is due to the high volatility in the black legal intervention deaths. The underlying increase in the white death rate could indicate that the improvement in the black victimization rate should be even steeper than is reported now, but the overall impact is difficult to identify with other factors overwhelming the effects.

Further evidence that more law means more violence can be found in strong statist regimes. Enforcement killings in regimes like Venezuela are significantly worse and large-scale executions have been used to ensure legal compliance in societies like Maoist China and the Soviet Union. A society that believes it can solve all of its problems with the imposition of law will inevitably find itself engaging in large-scale killings to enforce it. The more aggressive the attempt at transforming society through legal imposition, the more aggressive the killing will be.

Don’t Just Defund the Police, End State Law

This is where the cognitive dissonance with the defund police movements comes into play. The people who support eliminating police violence also regularly support the passage of new mandates, redistribution schemes, and regulatory impositions. Without police, how do they think all these new laws and rules will be enforced? If taxation were a voluntary affair, few individuals would turn a substantial portion of their annual earnings over to the state for redistribution. If gun control were a suggestion, few people would make any effort to submit to the FFL (Federal Firearms License) sales regulations.

By advocating for more laws, rules, and taxes, these people are effectively advocating for an increase in police violence. Abolishing the entity called “police” won’t solve the issue, since the state will inevitably have to form a new entity that does all the same things and has all the same powers. Outlets like Vox can advocate for the creation of mobile response units and community mediators all they want; these entities are, from the viewpoint of the state, toothless without any means to initiate violence to ensure compliance with rules. Community mediators will either find themselves armed or calling on some newly created entity that looks and acts a lot like current police but is called something different to deal with a belligerent individual who refuses to follow the mandate. As anyone with a glove box filled with unpaid parking tickets can tell you, it’s easy to ignore a piece of paper with a fine on it. The state is going to inevitably need an armed, violent agency to handle noncompliant individuals.

The only way to ensure an end to police brutality is not concocting new entities with different names or, worse, focusing on the ethnic element of it, as all that does is try and argue that police violence is fine so long as it’s dished out equally along ethnic lines. The only way is to abolish the state. Without a state, there is no state law. Without state law, there isn’t a need for enforcement by an entity that operates with the language of violence. Without violent enforcement, there isn’t anyone getting killed for noncompliance.

Private structures have little incentive to kill noncompliant actors, and they are able to create stronger enforcement structures than state actors can. Social ostracizing, ejection from business groups, or a ban from a shop would have an equally strong impact compared to the threat of violence. Further, private security agencies that quickly utilize violence would find themselves undesired by customers and lose favor, especially if these agencies create the impression that they are against a particular group of potential customers.

As nice as it would be to believe that police can exist solely as a protection service, this isn’t the case. There’s a reason they’re called law enforcement and not protective services. The U.S. Supreme Court has already definitively told us that our police agencies have no obligation to protect anyone. Their only priority is enforcing the laws, and as those laws expand, the chances we’ll find ourselves interacting unfavorably with an enforcer will increase.

Be seeing you

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

6 Reasons Franklin D. Roosevelt was the WORST

Posted by M. C. on July 22, 2020

Joe left a few out.

Goading the Japanese into declaring war, leaving the Pacific fleet unprepared and refused to fight his “Uncle Joe” for Eastern Europe, particularly Poland.

England entered WWII to save Poland and Churchill and FDR ended up letting Stalin take it. It defeats the point.

https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/5-reasons-franklin-d-roosevelt-was-the-worst/

By Joe Jarvis – July 22, 2020

 

Can you believe that there are at least three statues of Franklin D. Roosevelt in Washington DC? There is one in South Dakota too, another in Virginia, and even more in London.

It appears all these places are overrun by racists and fascist sympathizers. How can people celebrate a man who:

1. Literally Rounded Up 120,000 Japanese Americans, and put them in Concentration Camps.

Executive order 9066 authorized the arrest and detention, without charges, or American citizens of Japanese ancestry. Franklin D. Roosevelt signed it into law on February 19, 1942.

Two reports which Roosevelt commissioned in the years prior to their internment found that Japanese Americans posed little to no risk to the government. But FDR ignored the reports’ recommendations.

70,000 of those arrested and detained, sometimes for years, were American citizens. And a simple executive order–no due process– allowed them to be arrested for no reason other than their race and nationality.

How is FDR not widely accepted as the biggest American racist of the last century?

2. FDR Outlawed Private Ownership of Gold.

With Executive Order 6102, signed on April 5, 1933, everyone living in America was given 25 days to turn in their gold. Their property–gold coins and bullion–was confiscated. It became a criminal offense for any American to own or trade gold anywhere in the world– except for some exceptions like jewelry and collector’s coins.

The government paid about $20 per ounce for the gold they forced citizens to sell them. Shortly after, the government set the price of gold to $35 per ounce.

They could do that, because at that point, a dollar was still backed by a set amount of gold. Increasing the dollar value of gold, allowed them to print more money. That is even easier today, unhindered by a gold standard.

The law wasn’t repealed until 1974. Only then was private ownership of gold once again fully legal in the US.

3. FDR was Pen Pals With Mussolini, Whom he Admired.

Benito Mussolini was the fascist Dictator of Italy in league with Adolf Hitler during World War II.

The book, Three New Deals, shows how similar the movements of the 1930’s were in America, Italy, and Germany.

It also recounts how Roosevelt said:

‘I don’t mind telling you in confidence,’ FDR remarked to a White House correspondent, ‘that I am keeping in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman,’

And Mussolini reviewed FDR’s book Looking Forward.

“Reminiscent of Fascism is the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices.… Without question, the mood accompanying this sea change resembles that of Fascism.”

Mussolini and FDR were two peas in a pod.

4. The Roosevelt Administration was Infested with Soviet-Russian Spies.

Diana West describes in her book, American Betrayal, just how well the Soviet Union infiltrated the White House. Top officials close to the President were supportive of the Soviet Regime. Some were almost certainly actual Soviet spies.

In one sketchy encounter, soldiers were told to stand down when they witnessed American secrets being smuggled out of America on a plane bound for Russia, guarded by Soviet soldiers. This may be how the Soviet Union was able to make nuclear weapons.

Many other policies were directly influenced by socialist sympathizers and possibly outright spies in the government appointed by FDR. For instance, Soviet troops were given American supplies during World War II through the “Lend-Lease” program, while American troops went without.

5. FDR Hated the Press and Suppressed Free Speech.

Reason Magazine describes FDR’s War Against the Press:

Roosevelt warned in 1938 that “our newspapers cannot be edited in the interests of the general public, from the counting room. And I wish we could have a national symposium on that question, particularly in relation to the freedom of the press. How many bogies are conjured up by invoking that greatly overworked phrase?”

He’s basically saying he wishes he could shut down “fake news”.

Roosevelt also started the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) and limited licenses for radio broadcasting to six months. That way the government could revoke a license, and silence critics of FDR.

It did not take long for broadcasters to get the message. NBC, for example, announced that it was limiting broadcasts “contrary to the policies of the United States government.” CBS Vice President Henry A. Bellows said that “no broadcast would be permitted over the Columbia Broadcasting System that in any way was critical of any policy of the Administration.” He elaborated “that the Columbia system was at the disposal of President Roosevelt and his administration and they would permit no broadcast that did not have his approval.” Local station owners and network executives alike took it for granted, as Editor and Publisher observed, that each station had “to dance to Government tunes because it is under Government license.”

FDR’s government illegally intercepted telegraphs and used the ill-begotten information to subpoena journalists, chilling any dissent, and drying up the flow of information to reporters. A law was even proposed to give prison sentences to anyone who knowingly published fake news.

6. The Roosevelt administration seized and destroyed crops while Americans starved

The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, reauthorized in 1938, was allegedly to help struggling farmers. The point was to raise the prices of crops, to keep farmers from going broke and abandoning their farms.

Of course if farmers were abandoning their farms because prices were too low to make a living, that would have naturally decreased supply…

Instead, power-hungry leaders like FDR just had to intervene. And the consequences were disastrous.

Remember this was during the Great Depression, which meant already struggling families had to pay more for food.

Then when not enough crops were grown in the US, America had to import crops, making the country more dependent and less self sufficient.

There are plenty more reasons to despise Franklin D. Roosevelt. But if we are putting in requests to destroy racist, fascist statues, FDR should top the list.

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

Characters in fiction aren’t allowed to be flawed anymore | The Daily Bell

Posted by M. C. on July 22, 2020

It’s a moving target anyway. Meet all their demands today, and tomorrow comes with a new list of ever more asinine criteria for how their idea of a utopian society should be created.

And anyway, I bet you have noticed, as I have, that the real live people I interact with on a daily basis are worlds away from what the cabal and corporate media attempt to convince us is “mainstream.”

https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/characters-in-fiction-arent-allowed-to-be-flawed-anymore/

By Joe Jarvis –

A screenwriter has apologized for a “racist” scene in a short film she made in 2013.

In it, three teenage characters put ash on their faces as part of an alleged Mayan ritual. At one point the teen boy asks, “is this racist?”

The scene had nothing to do with “black-face” except for the jest from the fictional teen character. (“Black-face” is when someone colors their face to do a stereotypical imitation of a black person, like the governor of Virginia.)

So now we are two steps removed from any actual racism. Because A) it wasn’t blackface, and B) it was fiction!

Writers aren’t allowed to create teen characters who might do something weird, offensive, or even make crude jokes?

Writers take note– if you write any fictional characters with flaws, those flaws will now be attributed to real life you.

In addition to politics and economics, I also write fiction.

In a serial I wrote called The Gulf, one of the characters sexually assaults another character.

Will I now be dragged in front of the #MeToo mob to answer for my character’s crimes?

Or perhaps it is only the like-able characters we root for who can’t have any flaws.

So no complex struggles with right or wrong. We’ll give the good guys white hats, and the bad guys black hats. 100% pure good, and total evil.

This is actually the same thing the Social Justice Warriors are demanding from real life humans right now. Any transgression, no matter how small, no matter the context, no matter how much time has passed, must be punished by the current draconian standards of mob justice.

These people are Puritans, just like the ones who hanged the “witches” at Salem. Instead of worshipping god, they worship a fluid and evolving dogma based around special victim groups, with new crimes worthy of the gallows everyday.

But here’s the thing: humans without flaws are really boring, whether we are talking about real life or fiction.

And one more thing these humorless puritans miss– humor is what unites people.

People who get along tend to laugh at the same jokes, and find the same things funny.

It is impossible to feel comfortable around someone if you constantly have to watch what you say, or censor yourself. If what you are saying is truly not offensive, this is even worse. And it leads to self-segregation– why stay around people who don’t let you be yourself, who get angry at nothing, who try to control what you say or even the way you think?

Here’s how to deal with the Puritans, the SJWs, the Bolsheviks– ignore them. Feel free to entirely wall yourself off from their world. That’s allowed.

Or engage and troll if that is something you find fun. Keep making jokes, sharing memes, and laughing at them.

But never play by their rules.

It’s a moving target anyway. Meet all their demands today, and tomorrow comes with a new list of ever more asinine criteria for how their idea of a utopian society should be created.

And anyway, I bet you have noticed, as I have, that the real live people I interact with on a daily basis are worlds away from what the cabal and corporate media attempt to convince us is “mainstream.”

Honestly, paying attention to the news these days is as much fiction as my story The Gulf. The difference is, at least my fiction is set in a better future.

And it’s an entirely possible future– choosing our own government, for example, on a floating “Seastead” if we’d like, where we can always exit and join a society with a better fit.

And they still have problems– corrupt executives, cult societies, and prison islands.

After all, the quest for utopia has always ended in dystopia. I’ll take an honest, flawed, live and let live society any day, over the self righteous Puritans out for mob-rule social justice.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »

The US Military Is Using Online Gaming to Recruit Teens

Posted by M. C. on July 22, 2020

“As we think about how automation and media are changing the way we fight wars, it’s concerning to think that children are being given the impression that the military is like a video game,” Hendrix said. “Whether it’s drones or killer robots, the last thing we need is less humanity in war.”

https://outline.com/uFCVCT

Jordan Uhl

“Have a nice time getting banned, my dude,” Army recruiter and gamer Joshua “Strotnium” David told me right before he booted me from the US Army’s Twitch channel. I had just reminded viewers of the United States’ history of atrocities around the globe, and helpfully provided a link to the Wikipedia page for US war crimes.

Was I undiplomatic? Sure. But if the military is going to use one of the world’s most popular platforms to recruit kids, then it shouldn’t be able to do so without some pushback. Right now, with the support of Twitch, gamers with the US military are spending hours with children as young as 13, trying to convince them to enlist.

The Army, Navy, and Air Force all stream on Twitch using dedicated e-sports teams. These teams are comprised of skilled gamers who compete in tournaments for cash prizes. While members of military e-sports teams offer the regular gaming skill set, they’re also on-screen talent and recruiters. Instead of approaching a recruiter behind a table in a school cafeteria, kids can hang out with one who is playing their favorite video games and replying to their chat messages for hours on end.

Twitch, a livestreaming platform owned by Amazon, boasted more than 5 billion hours watched from April through June. (For comparison, Netflix claims that during quarantine people have been viewing around 6 billion hours of its shows and movies a month.) A typical military stream looks something like this: A recruiter, usually a man in his 30s, sits comfortably in his gamer chair inside a dimly lit room illuminated by a monitor and colorful LED lights inside his computer tower. An American flag hangs on the wall behind his right shoulder, an oversized stuffed animal to his left. He’s playing Call of Duty or Valorant. He’s friendly, and talks about how much he loves being in the Army. Despite being older than most of his young viewers, he speaks like them. “It do be like that sometimes. We do have some great comms,” said a recruiter in one recent session.

The practices employed on Twitch by military e-sports teams are part of a system by which recruiters target children in unstable and/or disadvantaged situations. Recruiters take advantage of the poor seeking steady income, the vulnerable longing for stability, and the undocumented living in fear because of their citizenship status. Now, at a time when all those factors are magnified by a pandemic that has left half the country out of work and over 30 percent unable to afford their housing payments, conditions are ripe for recruiters to prey on the vulnerable.

“I see you guys are upgrading from recruiting out of low income schools, nice,” Twitch user xCanyon916 said in a Navy stream on Tuesday while the recruiter was fielding questions about life in the military and chatters expressing desire to join the Navy e-sports team. The recruiter warned xCanyon916 that if they said something again about the Navy’s recruiting practices, they’d be banned. Read the rest of this entry »

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

bionic mosquito: Plain Thinking

Posted by M. C. on July 22, 2020

Men are fallen, and will remain fallen. That is a right view of the human lot. All fall short of whatever standard of “good” a man of integrity can offer. The rioters demand that we purge all sin from man – taking on a wrong view of the human lot.

Jesus demonstrated love. Yes, He washed Peter’s feet; he also called him Satan. This was love.

https://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2020/07/plain-thinking.html

Plain Thinking

…a little plain thinking would teach them how harsh and fanciful are the mass of their own ethics…

Heretics, Gilbert K. Chesterton (eBook)

Harsh and fanciful. A nice description of the “ethics” we are having shoved down our throats. Nothing of love, nothing of understanding the human condition, nothing or man’s right – true rights of life and property.

…how very civilized and very complicated must be the brain of the Tolstoyan who really believes it to be evil to love one’s country and wicked to strike a blow.

To love one’s country. An interesting phrase. To understand the phrase, one must understand what is meant by “love” and what is meant by “country.”

Love. Love is doing; it is action. Also, we all know 1 Corinthians 13, read at many weddings. It offers the feel-good part of love. Just one verse, to not make too long a cite:

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.

The entire tone is like this. It is really…lovely. Aspirational. An ideal at which to aim. But love is so much more:

Proverbs 3: 11 My son, do not despise the Lord’s discipline, and do not resent his rebuke, 12 because the Lord disciplines those he loves, as a father the son he delights in.

Hebrews 12 cites these verses from Proverbs, then continues:

7 Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as his children. For what children are not disciplined by their father? 8 If you are not disciplined—and everyone undergoes discipline—then you are not legitimate, not true sons and daughters at all.

If you are not disciplined, you are not loved. Love entails disciplining, rebuking. Love holds to account. To love one’s country is not “my country, right or wrong.” There is no disciplining here, no rebuke.

What of country?

A country is a political state, nation, or controlled territory. It is often referred to as the land of an individual’s birth, residence, or citizenship.

A country may be an independent sovereign state or part of a larger state….

The word originates from the French:

mid-13c., “(one’s) native land;” c. 1300, “any geographic area,” sometimes with implications of political organization, from Old French contree, cuntrede “region, district, country,”

While today it is generally assumed to be synonymous with a political entity (a state), this has not always been true – and is not even true today. Examples today include:

The Kingdom of the Netherlands includes four separate countries: Netherlands, Aruba, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten.

The United Kingdom includes England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. The Crown Dependencies, which are not part of the UK itself, are also sometimes referred to as countries.

The Kingdom of Denmark includes three separate countries: Denmark, Faroe Islands, and Greenland.

There are others. “Country” holds a much more cultural and regional connotation than it does a political connotation. Country does not mean government; it does not mean state. I may love my country and feel animosity toward the institutions that have formal governance responsibility over it. Sounds about right.

Putting all of this together, to love one’s country involves acting with goodwill (including holding to account) toward those with whom you share cultural characteristics and regional ties. In this case, one can understand the evil in those who do not love country.

Returning to Chesterton:

A man approaches, wearing sandals and simple raiment, a raw tomato held firmly in his right hand, and says, “The affections of family and country alike are hindrances to the fuller development of human love;” but the plain thinker will only answer him, with a wonder not untinged with admiration, “What a great deal of trouble you must have taken in order to feel like that.”

Chesterton then contrasts the high living from the plain thinking that is the result of thinking like this:

High living will reject the tomato. Plain thinking will equally decisively reject the idea of the invariable sinfulness of war.

I had much trouble with this until I worked through a proper meaning of loving one’s country. In defense of one’s country, war is not invariably sinful. In defense of one’s state? Virtually always; at least given the historic examples we have where “defense” really meant “offense.”

High living will convince us that nothing is more materialistic than to despise a pleasure as purely material. And plain thinking will convince us that nothing is more materialistic than to reserve our horror chiefly for material wounds.

Material wounds in defense of one’s country are minor horrors for those who love their country. Losing that which one loves is a much greater horror.

Conclusion

In this matter, then, as in all the other matters treated in this book, our main conclusion is that it is a fundamental point of view, a philosophy or religion which is needed, and not any change in habit or social routine.

We live in a story, a narrative: “a fundamental point of view, a philosophy or religion.” This is what makes a country, and it is this which one can love: embrace, discipline, rebuke, defend to the point of war.

The things we need most for immediate practical purposes are all abstractions. We need a right view of the human lot, a right view of the human society….

Men are fallen, and will remain fallen. That is a right view of the human lot. All fall short of whatever standard of “good” a man of integrity can offer. The rioters demand that we purge all sin from man – taking on a wrong view of the human lot.

Jesus demonstrated love. Yes, He washed Peter’s feet; he also called him Satan. This was love.

Epilogue

Chesterton concludes this chapter with a thought quite appropriate for today:

Men take thought and ponder rationalistically, touching remote things—things that only theoretically matter, such as the transit of Venus. But only at their peril can men rationalize about so practical a matter as health.

We are pondering too much about our health right now. It is perilous.

Posted by bionic mosquito

Be seeing you

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

Dispatches from the War: Dershowitz con, Florida covid hustle « Jon Rappoport’s Blog

Posted by M. C. on July 22, 2020

The Gates and Fauci position, whether they admit to you or not.

This piece is about Alan Dershowitz, who famously said:

“Let me put it very clearly: you have no constitutional right to
endanger the public and spread the disease, even if you disagree. You
have no right not to be vaccinated…And if you refuse to be vaccinated,
the state has the power to literally take you to a doctor’s office and
plunge a needle into your arm.”

If that were true, every declared State of Emergency would be equal.

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/07/21/dispatches-from-the-war-dershowitz-florida-hustle/

by Jon Rappoport

ONE: ALAN DERSHOWITZ

This is about what the State is permitted to do to citizens under a State of Emergency. For example, the Lockdown Emergency which has driven the national economy over a cliff. The economic ruination Trump refuses to face up to; refuses to talk directly to the American people about; refuses to address with a specific plan for recovery. If a president has any vital function at all, it is to lead in a time of crisis. As in: THIS IS WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE COUNTRY RIGHT NOW, AND THIS IS WHAT I’M GOING TO DO ABOUT IT. Striding down a hallway wearing a black mask for a photo op doesn’t cut it. Standing with corporate hot shots who are ready to go into production of breathing ventilators isn’t a recovery plan. Empowering the military to give COVID vaccinations isn’t a recovery plan. But I digress. This piece is about Alan Dershowitz, who famously said:

“Let me put it very clearly: you have no constitutional right to endanger the public and spread the disease, even if you disagree. You have no right not to be vaccinated…And if you refuse to be vaccinated, the state has the power to literally take you to a doctor’s office and plunge a needle into your arm.”

If that were true, every declared State of Emergency would be equal.

A president could say, “My favorite pagan goddess from Spokane came to me in a dream last night and told me to order every citizen to cut off a pinky finger to avert the danger of infection…”

Nothing in the Constitution forbids a court from judging a particular State of Emergency on its merits. In fact, the Constitution would demand such judgement. Otherwise, the entire basis of limited federal government would be undermined.

And once you open THAT door and argue a State of Emergency on the merits, evidence about vaccines can be presented. Are vaccines truly safe and effective? Are severe adverse effects rare or widespread?

What are the unvarnished facts?

Dershowitz blithely assumes he understands vaccination. He doesn’t. He’s clueless. He simply thinks vaccinations are a standard public safety measure, on the level of hand-washing.

Would he argue that orders to wear masks during a declared State of Emergency are constitutionally impossible to challenge? If non-government experts assert masks are useless?

The “merits of the case,” Mr. Dershowitz. That is the key.

Suppose a government task force reports that 1 out of every 1.5 Americans is developing cancer during his/her life? And then, a moronic president declares a national State of Emergency and orders universal prophylactic chemotherapy for all citizens?

That would be mandatory? That would be constitutionally ironclad?

No court could consider that order on its merits? No one could stand before a judge and argue that the devastating treatment is toxic in the extreme, or that the so-called War on Cancer has been a failure?

If the COVID-19 vaccine turns out to be based on new DNA technology, meaning every vaccine recipient’s genetic makeup would be permanently altered, a legal objection would be ruled out of bounds, because the vaccine is coming on board during a State of Emergency? Really?

To use a highly technical legal term, insisting a State of Emergency overrules the protection of life and the meaning of liberty is bullshit.

The blood and sacrifice of centuries, which led to the writing and ratification of the Constitution, were not made so lawyers or judges could undermine its entire spirit by defending States of Emergency, as if they came from higher and wiser heads protecting the Public Good.

In this case, a mandated vaccine would be a protection RACKET, launched by a remorseless pharmaceutical mafia.

Case closed, Mr. Dershowitz. Meaning the door is wide open to debate the facts and the principles and the truth.

You followed up your famous statement by remarking that you and your family could refuse a COVID vaccine through an act of civil disobedience; but then you would have to accept the penalty.

I wonder how you’d react if that penalty meant your family would be sent to a moldy room in a fleabag hotel in a dangerous neighborhood, to serve out your period of isolation; after which officials would approach you again to take the vaccine.

I think you might reformulate your constitutional opinion about States of Emergency. You might suddenly see a new legal option. You might decide that freedom and liberty are incontrovertible.

You might decide that arguing from past case precedents, when those cases distort the Constitution, is an academic exercise unworthy of an honest lawyer’s time and energy.

You might decide that whatever personal bias actually motivated you to issue your famous statement in the first place was irrelevant.

When trouble visits your own door, when your public pronouncements come around to bite you, you might find a reason to change your tune.

What is legally obvious on the mountain top is not always obvious in the foothills.

In the foothills, people are eating fruit of the poisonous tree, long ago planted in the middle of the Constitution. If you were down there, you would be put on that diet. I think you would then miraculously spot a new legal angle on States of Emergency.

TWO: FLORIDA HUSTLE

Breitbart, July 14: “A FOX 35 investigation released on Monday discovered an inflation of coronavirus cases by the Florida Department of Health. The Sunshine State’s health authorities misreported the number of persons testing positive for coronavirus in its aggregation and publication of test results from laboratories.”

“Twenty-two labs reported 100-percent positivity rates. Two labs reported 91.18-percent positivity rates.”

So…it was a massive coincidence that all 22 labs happened to make the same mistake at the same time.

—On the level of, say, two dozen planes landing five runways to the left of their designated lanes at two dozen different airports on the same day.

Sure.

Toss a coin. Heads, all the tests kits were rigged to read positive for COVID. Tails, all the labs lied.

In either event, the fake COVID monster is fed. It needs case numbers. Desperately. In order to present a false picture of danger.

Thus, justifying the lockdowns, the masks, the distancing, the economic destruction.

Dear Florida Health Department—you’ve done it. I thought real estate cons were the state’s most valuable product. But now I don’t know. You might have jumped to the top of the charts. Read the rest of this entry »

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

Is History Just a Broken Record? Repeating…Repeating…Repeating – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on July 22, 2020

This was followed by the opportunists. They pounced on the economy like hyenas on a stray calf.

They are exploiters. Like OSHA’s Marthe Kent. Marthe once said, (para 13),

“I like having a very direct and very powerful impact on
worker safety and health. If you put out a reg, it matters. I think
that’s really where the thrill comes from. And it is a thrill; it’s a
high… I love it; I absolutely love it. I was born to regulate. I don’t
know why, but that’s very true. So as long asI’m regulating, I’m
happy.”

The Marthes of the world, ensconced in their state houses, county
seats and city councils, saw their chance for happiness. They ignored
the constitutions and laws they swore to uphold and proceeded to take
over the lives of their subjects.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/07/no_author/758625-2/

By Rod Peet, Jr.

“If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must Man be of learning from experience.” [George Bernard Shaw]

Current events were unexpected. But they show precisely how incapable man is of learning from history. With modern technology we have the greatest access ever to the facts and lessons of history. Yet in 2020 we are headed down what has become a well-trod path to perdition.

Today we are witnessing the wanton destruction of our civilization, our humanity, and the takeover by power hungry despots. We have seen this movie before.

211 AD: In ancient Rome the memory of the emperor Geta was dropped down whatever they had for a memory hole by first murdering him then obliterating his image in an act of damnatio memoriae.

1789: The French Revolution saw the tearing down of religious icons and the pillaging of Notre Dame.

2001: In Afghanistan the Taliban destroyed Buddhist temples.

2020: In their irrational rage and ignorance Black Lives Matter and their ilk are tearing down statues of men who fought to end slavery. Chicago threatens to bulldoze churches because the state does not want competition from God.

Have we learned anything from history? It doesn’t look like it.

Here’s a hypothetical encyclopedia entry:

 “In March 2020 the corona virus struck the U.S.

Over the next six months, following the directives of still concealed deep state operatives, many governors and mayors shut down the American economy. The U.S. experienced the most rapid and radical social transformation in its history. Money, markets, and private property were disrupted. Schools, hospitals, shops, offices, and churches were closed. Nothing was published unless the social media, in collusion with the mainstream media, allowed it; no one could travel without permission; and everyone was ordered to wear a mask. The poorest people, mostly felons, drug addicts and illegal aliens were favored at everyone else’s expense. A handful of party leaders controlled everything in the country, but they remained hiding behind their security fences and armed guards and explained few of their decisions. Instead, they urged everyone to “flatten the curve”. “Shelter in place”. “Be afraid”. In November 2020 Donald Trump lost his bid for reelection in retribution for the deliberately trashed economy. Soon after a new constitution had renamed the country “Black MotherLand” and replaced the Star-Spangled Banner with the Black National Anthem. An addle-brained Joe Biden became Commander in Chief, and more than a year passed before observers were able to identify the Clintons as the power behind the president.

But that hypothetical is not so hypothetical after all. It’s just history repeating itself. Mark Twain supposedly said history does not repeat itself but it does rhyme. If that’s true then today’s rhyme is certainly not suitable for the nursery.

Here’s an actual entry from Britannica.com.

“In April 1975 the Lon Nol government collapsed. …

“Over the next six months, following the directives of a still-concealed Communist Party of Kampuchea, Cambodia experienced the most rapid and radical social transformation in its history. Money, markets, and private property were abolished. Schools, hospitals, shops, offices, and monasteries were closed. Nothing was published; no one could travel without permission; and everyone was ordered to wear peasant work clothes. As in Mao Zedong’s China, the poorest peasants were favored at everyone else’s expense. A handful of party leaders controlled everything in the country, but they remained in hiding and explained few of their decisions. Instead, they urged everyone to “build and defend” the country. In April 1976 Sihanouk resigned as head of state, soon after a new constitution had renamed the country Democratic Kampuchea. A soft-spoken and unknown figure named Pol Pot became prime minister, and more than a year passed before observers outside the country were able to identify him as Saloth Sar.”

What we are seeing today is but a variation on a theme: Communist usurpation and the erasing of history. We are being told we all must make sacrifices for the common good. As usual those demanding the sacrifices are exempt.

After taking over in Cambodia the Khmer Rouge proceeded to starve and slaughter millions.

And so it begins here.

People with covid 19 are forced into nursing homes resulting in the unnecessary deaths of thousands of elderly. Patients put on ventilators hastening their demise. Businesses are destroyed. We are told to comply with harmful edicts or we will not work. If we don’t work we wont eat. What work will we do? Whatever we are allowed to do.

There are estimates of up to 150,000 “deaths of despair” caused by forced unemployment. People with cancer and heart disease are not being treated resulting in more untimely deaths. Food shortages are becoming apparent due to breaks in the food supply chain. Seasonal workers that are vital to the food supply are prevented from moving around further impacting production.

Government is being urged to “do something”.  So it does. It demands masks, distancing, DNA vaccinations, tracking. In effect it is saying, “You must not look human. You must not act human. You must not be human. And we know where you are”. Of course the government solutions cause more problems. Which results in more calls for government action. Could there be a plan here?

This time it began with a virus out of China (they tell us). A virus whose trajectory appeared to be similar to that of any virus. At first the “experts” told us that it was going to be like the flu. No special precautions required. Just the usual “stay home if you are sick”, “wash your hands”, “cover your mouth when you cough”.

Then the lies and distortions began. Faulty models from a fellow named Ferguson with a track record of failed predictions estimated there would be 2.2 million deaths in the U.S.

New lies were built on old lies. Any shred of good news was suppressed or used as an excuse for more dire predictions.

This was followed by the opportunists. They pounced on the economy like hyenas on a stray calf.

They are exploiters. Like OSHA’s Marthe Kent. Marthe once said, (para 13),

“I like having a very direct and very powerful impact on worker safety and health.  If you put out a reg, it matters.  I think that’s really where the thrill comes from.  And it is a thrill; it’s a high… I love it; I absolutely love it.  I was born to regulate.  I don’t know why, but that’s very true.  So as long asI’m regulating, I’m happy.”

The Marthes of the world, ensconced in their state houses, county seats and city councils, saw their chance for happiness. They ignored the constitutions and laws they swore to uphold and proceeded to take over the lives of their subjects.

Where will it end?

That depends on which version of this movie you are watching. None of them have a happy ending. You cannot escape by leaving the theater. You are an actor in the movie.

The good news is that the mayhem is self-limiting. Socialism is not possible without capitalism first creating, then sustaining, the wealth that the collectivists are out to seize.  Without the host the parasites cannot survive. These parasites are not far sighted enough to realize what will happen after they have killed their host.

The bad news is…we are the host. And so far, with too few exceptions, we have been a gracious host.

The time for graciousness is over. The people we invited into our homes to help run things have proven to be not only incompetent but positively destructive. They are stealing the silver, defacing the decorations and defecating in the driveway.

Now that the Janus-faced politicians have shown us their true visage you would think the sheeple would come to their senses. This November they have a chance to show that they have. They can throw the tyrants out and keep the few honorable leaders that exist. But will they?

If not our goose is cooked. The only hope is that a new life will someday emerge, phoenix-like, from the remnant.

The U.S. economy has been a goose laying golden eggs for hundreds of years. Now it appears to be slowly turning on a spit. What kind of sauce would you like on yours?

It may be your last meal as a free human being.

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

BlueLeaks Shows Worry About Masks and Facial Recognition

Posted by M. C. on July 21, 2020

There is one disease the masks protect US against…government.

https://theintercept.com/2020/07/16/face-masks-facial-recognition-dhs-blueleaks/

While doctors and politicians still struggle to convince Americans to take the barest of precautions against Covid-19 by wearing a mask, the Department of Homeland Security has an opposite concern, according to an “intelligence note” found among the BlueLeaks trove of law enforcement documents: Masks are breaking police facial recognition.

The rapid global spread and persistent threat of the coronavirus has presented an obvious roadblock to facial recognition’s similar global expansion. Suddenly everyone is covering their faces. Even in ideal conditions, facial recognition technologies often struggle with accuracy and have a particularly dismal track record when it comes to identifying faces that aren’t white or male. Some municipalities, startled by the civil liberties implications of inaccurate and opaque software in the hands of unaccountable and overly aggressive police, have begun banning facial recognition software outright. But the global pandemic may have inadvertently provided a privacy fix of its own — or for police, a brand new crisis.

A Homeland Security intelligence note dated May 22 expresses this law enforcement anxiety, as public health wisdom clashes with the prerogatives of local and federal police who increasingly rely on artificial intelligence tools. The bulletin, drafted by the DHS Intelligence Enterprise Counterterrorism Mission Center in conjunction with a variety of other agencies, including Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, “examines the potential impacts that widespread use of protective masks could have on security operations that incorporate face recognition systems — such as video cameras, image processing hardware and software, and image recognition algorithms — to monitor public spaces during the ongoing Covid-19 public health emergency and in the months after the pandemic subsides.”…

Be seeing you

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

About Those Spooky Federal Cops in Portland | Mises Institute

Posted by M. C. on July 21, 2020

Constitutionally, there are only three federal crimes: treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. No standing federal police agencies or apparatus are required to enforce these; in fact the latter appears to be the express policy of our central bank. There should not be federal agents, overt or covert, in Portland.

https://mises.org/power-market/about-those-spooky-federal-cops-portland

Jeff Deist

Dear Portlandia progressives: a federal government big enough to take care of you is a federal government big enough to “take care of  you.”

Scary unidentifiable police, federal black sites, and procedureless snatching of individuals from the streets are the wholly predictable and natural consequences of the very policies you advocated for decades. Why do you imagine a big government with lots of power will restrict itself to the cozy “social issues” and economic takings you support? Government can seize the means of production, but not seize you? You wanted everything run from DC, and you got what you wanted. Plus you certainly would be every bit as outraged if federal agents concerned about the undermining of America surreptitiously snatched up a few “white supremacists,” right?

Progressives of all parties have cheered the relentless centralization of state matters—and rejection of the Tenth Amendment—for nearly 150 years. The shaky and infirm Incorporation Doctrine federalized the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court federalized social and economic issues, and the the alphabet soup of federal agencies created by progressive administrations federalized the regulatory state. Foreign policy was ripped away from Congress and commandeered by bureaucratic Deep State actors at the DOD, CIA, NSA, and the State Department. Thousands of new federal crimes were created by statute. These statutes in turn created a vast federal police state, one heavily influenced and provisioned by the residual weaponry and machinery of our overseas wars.

So now you wonder why the Feds are sent in to quell an uprising in Portland?

Who wanted to make the world safe for democracy? Remember Woodrow Wilson, suddenly a bad guy because of racism? At least Truman had the honesty to admit regrets about creating the CIA. Who wanted federal control over the retrograde Southern states? Who dismissed the Ninth and Tenth Amendments as relics? Who derided states’ rights and nullification as legal cover for bigotry? And for the millionth time, “states’ rights” does not mean states have “rights” relative to their citizens; it refers to their retained powers in a federal system—so enough with the dishonest smears.

Who shrugged at Waco and Guantanamo Bay, for that matter? Or when Obama signed the NDAA?

At this writing, federal agents operating in the City of Roses appear to be from the Department of Homeland Security (sic). Here is what Ron Paul, a true man of peace yet despised by progressives, had to say back in 2002, shortly after the DHS was created with overwhelming support in Congress:

The Homeland Security department, like all federal agencies, will increase in size exponentially over the coming decades. Its budget, number of employees, and the scope of its mission will EXPAND. Congress has no idea what it will have created twenty or fifty years hence, when less popular presidents have the full power of a domestic spying agency at their disposal. The frightening details of the Homeland Security bill, which authorizes an unprecedented level of warrantless spying on American citizens, are still emerging. Those who still care about the Bill of Rights, particularly the 4th amendment, have every reason to be alarmed. But the process by which Congress created the bill is every bit as reprehensible as its contents. Of course the Homeland Security bill did receive some opposition from the President’s critics. Yet did they attack the legislation because it threatens to debase the 4th amendment and create an Orwellian surveillance society? Did they attack it because it will chill political dissent or expand the drug war? No, they attacked it on the grounds that it failed to secure enough high-paying federal union jobs, thus angering one of Washington’s most powerful special interest groups. Ultimately, however, even the most prominent critics voted for the bill.

Similarly, Dr. Paul was scorned and attacked by progressives of all parties in the early 2000s for labeling the Bush/Ashcroft/Yoo junta as a “police state.” He was dismissed for opposing TSA at the airport, for opposing FISA warrants, for his Fourth Amendment absolutism, and especially for warning how American forays in the Middle East would come home in a multitude of ways.

Constitutionally, there are only three federal crimes: treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. No standing federal police agencies or apparatus are required to enforce these; in fact the latter appears to be the express policy of our central bank. There should not be federal agents, overt or covert, in Portland. The riots taking place there are criminal matters for local authorities and local authorities alone. If residents and local politicians prefer to give the mob freedom to run amok over both public (taxpayer) and private property, while also threatening the physical safety of ordinary citizens, Uncle Sam has nothing to say about it. But the same people who demanded endless growth in the federal police and regulatory state ought to be more circumspect today. A cynic might call them hypocrites.

 

Be seeing you

 

 

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