MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

The True Story of the 1918 ‘So-Called Viral Influenza’ Pandemic – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on July 20, 2020

“According to a 2008 National Institute of Health paper, bacterial pneumonia was the killer in a minimum of 92.7% of the 1918-19 Pandemic autopsies reviewed.”

“Clean water, sanitation, flushing toilets, refrigerated foods and healthy diets have done and still do far more to protect humanity from infectious diseases than any vaccine program.”

“In 1918, the vaccine industry experimented on soldiers…with disastrous results…

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/07/gary-g-kohls/the-true-story-of-the-1918-so-called-viral-influenza-pandemic/By

By

The 1918-19 bacterial vaccine experiment may have killed 50-100 million people

For over a century, various entities that are involved in the propaganda machinery that has been tasked by the powers-that-be to advance American patriotism and corporate profiteering have covered-up the truth about what actually started the epidemic of  what became known as the “Spanish Flu”, successfully obscuring what was actually a shameful experiment perpetrated by the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research – the uber-wealthy entity that started the American Medical Association and the School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University.

For over a century, Americans have been led to believe that what was the true epicenter of the pandemic – US Army military bases – was actually the result of a Rockefeller Instutute vaccine experiment gone awry. The culprit vaccine, nicely documented by author Kevin Barry was perpetrated upon hapless military recruits at a variety of bases in the US. Spain had nothing to do with the epidemic, except for actually allowing its journalists to write about it.

The experimental vaccine was devised when the only vaccine that had ever shown any promise in preventing disease was the smallpox vaccine (which, when evaluated in retrospect, didn’t actually deserve credit for the disappearance of smallpox, since only a small minority of world citizens every actually received the vaccine.)

The crude experimental vaccine was intended to theoretically prevent bacterial (not viral) meningitis in soldiers, which had been a problem in past wars. Barry nicely documents the story that has been left out of the history books, ignored by the Mainstream Media, deleted from the Pentagon archives, and misrepresented by the pharmaceutical and medical industries, the NIH, the CDC, the NIAID and every corporation that seeks to profit from vaccinating as many infants, children and adults that they can. And that includes, of course, the widely discredited Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation that has spent hundreds of billions of dollars funding, founding and subsidizing corporations and other entities that promote universal vaccinations for whatever is proclaimed Big Pharma to be “vaccine-preventable disorders”)

A previous 4261 word Duty to Warn column can be accessed at various websites, including here.

Below are excerpts from the article that was written by author Kevin Barry, whose website is called First Freedoms. Read the rest of this entry »

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

The Global Reset – Unplugged. “The Deep State” – Global ResearchGlobal Research – Centre for Research on Globalization

Posted by M. C. on July 20, 2020

The WEF-masters are confronted with a real dilemma. Their plan depends very much on the dollar supremacy which would continue to allow dishing out sanctions and confiscating assets from those countries opposing US rule; a dollar-hegemony which would allow imposing the components of The Great Reset scheme, as described above.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/global-reset-unplugged/5716178

By Peter Koenig

Imagine, you are living in a world that you are told is a democracy – and you may even believe it – but in fact your life and fate is in the hands of a few ultra-rich, ultra-powerful and ultra-inhuman oligarchs. They may be called Deep State, or simply the Beast, or anything else obscure or untraceable – it doesn’t matter. They are less than the 0.0001%.

For lack of a better expression, let’s call them for now “obscure individuals”. 

These obscure individuals who pretend running our world have never been elected. We don’t need to name them. You will figure out who they are, and why they are famous, and some of them totally invisible. They have created structures, or organisms without any legal format. They are fully out of international legality. They are a forefront for the Beast. Maybe there are several competing Beasts. But they have the same objective: A New or One World Order (NWO, or OWO).

These obscure individuals are running, for example, The World Economic Forum (WEF – representing Big Industry, Big Finance and Big Fame), the Group of 7 – G7, the Group of 20 – G20 (the leaders of the economically” strongest” nations). There are also some lesser entities, called the Bilderberg Society, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Chatham House and more.

The members of all of them are overlapping. Even this expanded forefront combined represents less than 0.001%. They all have superimposed themselves over sovereign national elected and constitutional governments, and over THE multinational world body, the United Nations, the UN.

In fact, they have coopted the UN to do their bidding. UN Director Generals, as well as the DGs of the multiple UN-suborganizations, are chosen  mostly by the US, with the consenting nod of their European vassals – according to the candidate’s political and psychological profile. If his or her ‘performance’ as head of the UN or head of one of the UN suborganizations fails, his or her days are counted. Coopted or created by the Beast(s) are also, the European Union, the Bretton Woods Organizations, World Bank and IMF, as well as the World Trade Organization (WTO) – and – make no mistake – the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. It has no teeth. Just to make sure the law is always on the side of the lawless.

In addition to the key international financial institutions, WB and IMF, there are the so-called regional development banks and similar financial institutions, keeping the countries of their respective regions in check.

In the end its financial or debt-economy that controls everything. Western neoliberal banditry has created a system, where political disobedience can be punished by economic oppression or outright theft of national assets in international territories. The system’s common denominator is the (still) omnipresent US-dollar.

“Unelected Individuals”

The supremacy of these obscure unelected individuals becomes ever more exposed. We, the People consider it “normal” that they call the shots, not what we call – or once were proud of calling, our sovereign nations and sovereignly elected governments. They have become a herd of obedient sheep. The Beast has gradually and quietly taken over. We haven’t noticed. It’s the salami tactic: You cut off slice by tiny slice and when the salami is gone, you realize that you have nothing left, that your freedom, your civil and human rights are gone. By then it’s too late. Case in point is the US Patriot Act. It was prepared way before 9/11. Once 9/11 “happened”, the Patriot Legislation was whizzed through Congress in no time – for the people’s future protection – people called for it for fear – and – bingo, the Patriot Act took about 90% of the American population’s freedom and civil rights away. For good.

We have become enslaved to the Beast. The Beast calls the shots on boom or bust of our economies, on who should be shackled by debt, when and where a pandemic should break out, and on the conditions of surviving the pandemic, for example, social confinement. And to top it all off – the instruments the Beast uses, very cleverly, are a tiny-tiny invisible enemy, called a virus, and a huge but also invisible monster, called FEAR. That keeps us off the street, off reunions with our friends, and off our social entertainment, theatre, sports, or a picnic in the park.

Soon the Beast will decide who will live and who will die, literally – if we let it. This may be not far away. Another wave of pandemic and people may beg, yell and scream for a vaccine, for their death knell, and for the super bonanza of Big Pharma – and towards the objectives of the eugenicists blatantly roaming the world – see this. There is still time to collectively say NO. Collectively and solidarily.

Take the latest case of blatant imposture. Conveniently, after the first wave of Covid-19 had passed, at least in the Global North, where the major world decisions are made, in early June 2020, the unelected WEF Chairman, Klaus Schwab, announced “The Great Reset”. Taking advantage of the economic collapse – the crisis shock, as in “The Shock Doctrine” – Mr. Schwab, one of the Beast’s frontrunners, announces openly what the WEF will discuss and decide for the world-to-come in their next Davos Forum in January 2021. For more details see this.

Will, We, The People, accept the agenda of the unelected WEF? Read the rest of this entry »

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

RAY McGOVERN: Powell & Iraq—The Uses and Abuses of National Intelligence Estimates – Consortiumnews

Posted by M. C. on July 20, 2020

https://consortiumnews.com/2020/07/18/ray-mcgovern-powell-iraq-the-uses-and-abuses-of-national-intelligence-estimates/

By Ray McGovern

The New York Times Magazine on Friday posted “Colin Powell Still Wants Answers,” a long article by Robert Draper to appear in Sunday’s edition. The article is based on Draper’s upcoming book, To Start a War: How the Bush Administration Took America Into Iraq.

Google Books calls it “the definitive, revelatory reckoning with arguably the most consequential decision in the history of American foreign policy.” I can hardly wait.

Meanwhile, Draper’s article focuses on then Secretary of State Powell and his UN speech of Feb. 5, 2003 and the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) upon which it is largely based. A lot of the detail will be new to most readers, not very much new to Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, which had been established a month before. VIPS watched the speech, dissected it, and sent their verdict to President George W. Bush before close of business that same afternoon

We gave Powell a charitable grade of “C”, faulting him for, inter alia, not providing needed context and perspective. We should have flunked him outright.

Draper describes how, despite CIA’s strong effort to please, the “case” the agency made for war on Iraq, using such evidence as there was on weapons of mass destruction, was deemed not alarmist enough for Vice President Dick Cheney and other administration hawks.

Specifically, the hawks were dissatisfied with the evidence-light, but-alarmist (term of art used was “leaning forward”) Pentagon and White House briefings by CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin in late Dec. 2002 on WMD in Iraq. The hawks started to look elsewhere, since not all senior officials (including Powell) appeared to be “with the program.”

Draper reports that Powell ordered Carl Ford, director of the widely respected State Department Intelligence Unit (INR), to review the bidding regarding biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. Ford’s analysts strongly disputed many of the key assertions from the usual suspects — particularly those coming from non-intelligence, war-friendly bureaucrats enlisted to support the war-lust proclivities of Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Powell’s chief of staff, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, was also spending an inordinate amount of time batting away unsourced and dubious-sourced assertions from Cheney-ites, so Powell finally told Wilkerson to start drafting from scratch.

Here’s where it gets interesting; here is where a little history and inside-baseball intelligence experience comes in handy. Draper quotes Powell: “It was George Tenet who came to the rescue.”

CIA Director Tenet suggested basing a new draft on the National Intelligence Estimate of Oct. 1, 2002, “Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction.” That had immense appeal to Tenet and others who had been co-opted into “leaning forward” to facilitate a Bush/Cheney war on Iraq. Indeed, one can assume it had appeal to most of those involved in Powell’s speech preparation, given that the Security Council briefing was but a handful of days away.

I have been referring to that NIE, advisedly, as The Whore of Babylon, wrong on every major accusation about WMD in Iraq. I speak from experience at the CIA as a former chair of National Intelligence Estimates. This one was prepared not to determine the truth, but rather to “justify” a preemptive war on Iraq, where there was nothing to preempt.

To their credit, State/INR analysts had expressed formal dissent from some of its main conclusions back in September 2002.

No, it is not possible that Powell could have been unaware of that. And it is not difficult to explain why Powell chose to spurn his own intelligence analysts, despite their relatively solid reputation. I will resist the temptation to guess at Powell’s motivation, even though I have had some considerable experience with him. Back in the day, we used to spend a few minutes comparing notes before my one-on-one morning briefings of his boss, Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger, with The President’s Daily Brief.

I am not surprised, though, as Draper quotes Powell explaining his decision to stay in place as secretary of state and to do what he was told: “I knew I didn’t have any choice. He’s the President.” Draper adds that, “although Powell would not admit it, Bush’s request that he be the one to make the case against Hussein to the U.N. was enormously flattering. Cheney took a more direct approach: ‘The Vice President said to me: “You’re the most popular man in America. Do something with that popularity.””

The All-Purpose NIE on Iraqi WMD

Draper describes INR’s Director Ford as “heartsick” watching Powell on TV before the UN Security Council. Ford’s chagrin was widely shared among serious intelligence analysts — as well as by us alumni watching the prostitution of what had been our tell-it-like-it-is intelligence analysis profession. But there the National Intelligence Estimate was for plucking — an intelligence community-endorsed consensus already “on the books” — and with drafting time running out.

Admittedly, this would be a far cry from starting “from scratch.” Rather, it became a case of “garbage in, garbage out.” Draper names the intelligence garbagemen: CIA Director Tenet, his deputy McLaughlin, the chair of the NIE Robert Walpole, for example. They were out and out guilty of fixing the NIE in the first place and then its derivative that Powell briefed in open session to Security Council. No, these were not innocent mistakes. The intelligence was fraudulent from the get-go.

I am not making this up. Read the rest of this entry »

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

PETER HITCHENS: Face masks turn us into voiceless submissives | Daily Mail Online

Posted by M. C. on July 20, 2020

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8537489/PETER-HITCHENS-Face-masks-turn-voiceless-submissives.html

By Peter Hitchens for The Mail on Sunday

In the name of Covid, the State has already thrust itself into every corner of our existence.

It has come between husbands and wives at the ends of their lives. It has forbidden the old to embrace their grandchildren.

It has denied us funerals and weddings, locked the churches, silenced the ancient monastic music of cathedral choirs and prevented the free worship of God for the first time in 800 years, and banned us (unless we are Left-wing) from holding or attending public meetings.

It has ordered us to stay at home, scolded or fined us for sunbathing, going on country rambles or even entering our front gardens.

The Government began its wild, disproportionate shutdown of the country by spreading fear of a devastating plague that would destroy the NHS and kill untold thousands. Now, as many people find that Covid-19 is, in fact, nothing of the kind, new ways have to be found to keep up the alarm levels. Commuters are pictured above on the London Underground

The Government began its wild, disproportionate shutdown of the country by spreading fear of a devastating plague that would destroy the NHS and kill untold thousands. Now, as many people find that Covid-19 is, in fact, nothing of the kind, new ways have to be found to keep up the alarm levels. Commuters are pictured above on the London Underground

It has forced millions of us to stop working, sabotaged the educations – at school and university – of untold numbers of young people and has become our boss and paymaster in the biggest state takeover of life and work ever attempted by non-Communists.

Soon we will discover that it has also wrecked an already wobbly economy and separated untold numbers of us from jobs and businesses we thought were safe. Soon, too, it will also separate us from our savings, through punishing tax and savage inflation, to pay for the disaster it has caused.

Now it presumes to tell us what to wear. And what it wants us to wear is a soggy cloth muzzle, a face-nappy that turns its wearer from a normal human into a mumbling, mouthless submissive.

And this, it seems, is popular. Is there nothing the modern British people will not put up with? Britain’s muzzle consumption is now so high that six months from now there will be reports of dolphins and whales floundering about in an ocean made sticky by millions of gallons of hand-sanitiser, as they choke on congealed clumps of used muzzles. These items are set to become the new plastic bags.

Why is this frenzy taking place?

Here is a clue. On July 12, Deborah Cohen, the medical correspondent of BBC2’s Newsnight, revealed an astonishing thing. The World Health Organisation (WHO) had reversed its advice on face masks, from ‘don’t wear them’ to ‘do wear them’.

But the key fact was that it had not done so because of scientific information – the evidence had not backed the wearing of face coverings – but because of political lobbying.

She revealed on Twitter that: ‘We had been told by various sources [that the] WHO committee reviewing the evidence had not backed masks but they recommended them due to political lobbying.’ She said the BBC had then put this to the WHO, which did not deny it.

In March, the WHO had said: ‘There is currently no evidence that wearing a mask (whether medical or other types) by healthy persons in the wider community setting, including universal community masking, can protect them from infection with respiratory viruses, including Covid-19.’

The American TV news channel CNN reported on March 31 that Mike Ryan, executive director of the WHO health emergencies programme, had said at a briefing in Geneva: ‘There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit.

‘In fact, there’s some evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly.’

A few weeks ago, the WHO changed its advice to say it ‘advises that governments should encourage the general public to wear masks where there is widespread transmission and physical distancing is difficult, such as on public transport, in shops or in other confined or crowded environments.’

Earlier that same month, England’s chief medical officer, Chris Whitty, had said that wearing face masks would do little to combat the outbreak.

While noting that if someone was infected, they might reduce the danger of spreading the disease by covering their faces, Prof Whitty said wearing a face mask had almost no effect on reducing the risk of contracting the illness.

He stated: ‘In terms of wearing a mask, our advice is clear: that wearing a mask if you don’t have an infection reduces the risk almost not at all. So we do not advise that.’

People are seen walking down London's Oxford Street. There is plenty of research showing that the case for muzzles is poor, especially a survey done for the dental profession four years ago, which quietly vanished from the internet after mask opponents began to cite it

 

People are seen walking down London’s Oxford Street. There is plenty of research showing that the case for muzzles is poor, especially a survey done for the dental profession four years ago, which quietly vanished from the internet after mask opponents began to cite it

Also in March, the Advertising Standards Authority banned two firms’ advertisements for masks, saying that the adverts were ‘misleading, irresponsible and likely to cause fear without justifiable reason’.

At about the same time, Dr Jenny Harries, a Deputy Chief Medical Officer, warned that people could be putting themselves more at risk from contracting Covid by wearing muzzles. She said masks could ‘actually trap the virus’, and cause the person wearing it to breathe it in. She explained: ‘For the average member of the public walking down a street, it is not a good idea.’

On April 3, the other Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Professor Jonathan Van-Tam, said he did not believe healthy people wearing them would reduce the spread of the disease in the UK.

The British Government has also zig-zagged. Read the rest of this entry »

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

The Greatest Political Strategist in History – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on July 20, 2020

With this laborious introduction out of the way, let’s begin.  The political strategist of whom I am speaking is Antonio Gramsci.  Malachi Martin summarizes the importance of Gramsci, in his book The Keys of this Blood:

…the political formula Gramsci devised has done much more than classical Leninism – and certainly more than Stalinism – to spread Marxism throughout the capitalist West.

What is that formula?  Gary North explains: Noting that Western society was deeply religious, Gramsci believed that…

…the only way to achieve a proletarian revolution would be to break the faith of the masses of Western voters in Christianity and the moral system derived from Christianity.

Religion and culture were at the base of the pyramid, the foundation.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/07/daniel-ajamian/the-greatest-political-strategist-in-history/

By

The year 2020 is not passing quietly.  We are witnessing events unthinkable even a few months ago: keep your anti-social distance, wear a mask when entering a bank, follow the arrows on the floor of the supermarket, all sporting events cancelled, homeschooling – even for university students – is approved by all corners of government and society.  Most relevant to this discussion: pot shops, liquor stores, and abortion clinics are essential, churches during Holy Week are not.

Add to this the protests – more specifically the riots.  Police told by government officials to stand down.  Those who intend to defend their lives and their property are the ones judged – by the media, and potentially by government prosecutors and courts.  Oh yes: protesting and rioting wards off viruses – no need for masks.

What, of all of this, is directly relevant to you?  Why did I feel it appropriate to change the topic of this lecture in the last days?  We are living through massive cultural changes.  While culture always evolves, in the last several decades the changes have been revolutionary – and I use that term purposefully.  These changes are aimed right at you and those who sat in your place over the last decades.  The purpose is to create soldiers for the revolution.

What I hear of college, and it also is true in business and government, are stories of various cultural indoctrinations – made ever-more intense given the pretext for these recent riots.  Politically correct speech to include even compelled speech, cancel culture, self-flagellation, a fight for the gold medal in the oppression olympics.  If you disagree with any of this, you are a fascist.  To further cement this indoctrination, a requirement to take classes that tear down Western Civilization – even saying those two words in anything other than a scornful tone could be costly.

There is a purpose behind this, a strategy.  Events that we have been living through recently are not spontaneous or random.  This is not accidental.  These events are the result of a political strategy designed to strip us of our liberty.  It is an insidious strategy.  It is also very effective.

Whether knowingly or not, those carrying out this strategy are using the playbook of the most successful Marxist thinker in history.  Given the damage this strategy has done to the freedoms of the West, I consider him to be the greatest political strategist in history.

And this is what I would like to discuss.  Before beginning, I must give you fair warning on two points: First, much of this Marxist playbook sounds an awful lot like the wishes of simplistic libertarians – libertarianism for children, as a good friend once labeled this.  I will come back to this point more than once.

Second, there will be a lot of discussion of western tradition and culture in this lecture.  Inherently this will include Christianity.  But if you want to understand the enemy’s playbook, then this cannot be avoided.

Now, I know many libertarians push back hard on this topic: Christianity is unnecessary for liberty, in fact it is an enemy to liberty.  I will only ask that you keep in mind: the most successful Marxist thinker in history believed that Christianity is the enemy of communism; it’s what stood in the way of communism’s advance in the West.  For now, I ask that you stay open to the possibility that he was right – because, when I look around me today, he sure appears to have been right.

With this laborious introduction out of the way, let’s begin.  The political strategist of whom I am speaking is Antonio Gramsci.  Malachi Martin summarizes the importance of Gramsci, in his book The Keys of this Blood:

…the political formula Gramsci devised has done much more than classical Leninism – and certainly more than Stalinism – to spread Marxism throughout the capitalist West.

What is that formula?  Gary North explains: Noting that Western society was deeply religious, Gramsci believed that…

…the only way to achieve a proletarian revolution would be to break the faith of the masses of Western voters in Christianity and the moral system derived from Christianity.

Religion and culture were at the base of the pyramid, the foundation.  It was the culture, and not the economic condition of the working class, that was the key to bringing communism to the West.  To be fair to Gramsci, he didn’t start this ball rolling; the West was doing a fine job of damaging its cultural tradition.

One can point to elements of medieval Catholicism, the Reformation and Renaissance, the Enlightenment (as I have previously discussed), and postmillennial pietist Protestants (as Murray Rothbard so clearly demonstrated), as all contributing to this destruction long before Gramsci hit the scene.  But without these cracks in the armor, Gramsci would never have been successful.

What is our current condition relative to Gramsci’s objectives?  I could speak to the destruction of the family, the loss of all meaningful intermediating governance institutions, the absurdity of a good portion of what passes for university studies today, especially in liberal arts and humanities – all of which are symptoms of the crumbling of the ultimate target at which Gramsci aimed.  We have, this year, been given indisputable evidence as to the success of his political strategy, in the response by Christian leaders to the coronavirus.  Just as one example, from Kentucky:

When I asked [Bishop John Stowe of the Catholic Diocese of Lexington] what he would say to a pastor planning Easter worship, he was blunt: “I would say it’s irresponsible,” he said. “It’s jeopardizing people’s lives.”

I know we live in a fact-free world, but was it ever wise to believe that we were facing the Black Death?  In pre-modern plagues, did Christian leaders act this way?  The simple answer to both questions is no, yet we have churches closed during Holy Week.  I cannot think of a better symbolic representation of the destruction of Christianity in the West.  Such is the success of Antonio Gramsci.

Who is Antonio Gramsci?  He was an Italian Marxist (more accurately, an Italian communist), writing on political theory, sociology and linguistics.  His work focused on the role that culture and tradition plays in preventing communism from spreading through the West.

Gramsci was born in 1891 and died in 1937, the middle of seven children.  Hunchbacked, either due to a malformed spine from birth or a childhood accident, it is not clear.  One of the stories has him falling from the arms of a servant down a steep flight of stairs.  Though his family gave him up for dead, his aunt anointed his feet with oil from a lamp dedicated to the Madonna.  Ironic.

Continuously sickly, until the age of fourteen a coffin for him was kept at the ready in his bedroom.  His father was thrown in prison for political cause and his mother, somehow, kept the family alive.

Prior to leaving Sardinia for Turin and university, he was a nationalist – Sardinia for the Sardinians.  Upon arriving in Turin, he came upon the automotive factories of Fiat.  It was here that he found the class struggle: workers and bosses.

World War One made this clear: half a million Italian peasants died, while the profits of industrialists rose.  He left university and began writing.  He founded a newspaper: L’Ordine Nuovo, The New Order, with its first issue delivered on May Day 1919.  He was a founder and leader of the Communist Party of Italy, and a member of Parliament.

With Parliamentary immunity suspended by Mussolini, he was sent to prison.  Several years later, a prisoner exchange was proposed by the Vatican: send Gramsci to Moscow in exchange for a group of priests imprisoned in the Soviet Union.  Mussolini put a stop to these negotiations in early 1933.

It was during his time in prison when he wrote his famous Prison Notebooks, describing the contents as “Everything that Concerns People.”  It comprised over 2,800 handwritten pages.  Twenty-one of the notebooks bear the stamp of prison authorities.  Given the risk of censorship, he used bland terms in place of traditional Marxist terminology.

Though completed by 1935, these were only published in the years 1948 – 1951, and not in English until the 1970s.  By 1957, nearly 400,000 copies had been sold.

Suffering from various heart, respiratory and digestive diseases, he was eventually transferred to a prison hospital facility.  On April 25, 1937 – the same day that he received news that he would be released – he suffered a cerebral hemorrhage and died two days later.

Through his notebooks, he introduced several ideas in Marxist theory, critical theory, and educational theory.  Most important was the idea of Cultural Hegemony, which was the unifying idea of Gramsci’s work from 1917 until he died.

Cultural Hegemony: Why hadn’t the Marxist Revolution swept the West by the early twentieth century?  Gramsci suggested that capitalists did not maintain control simply coercively – as Marx would describe it – but also ideologically.  The values of the bourgeoisie were the common values of all.  These values helped to maintain the status quo, and limited any possibility of revolution. Read the rest of this entry »

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

Pennsylvania Is In The Zone

Posted by M. C. on July 19, 2020

Not green, yet not yellow

serling

You Have Just Entered The BILE Zone

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »

Watch “GOLD: Barbarous Relic or Friend of Liberty? Confiscation Coming?” on YouTube

Posted by M. C. on July 18, 2020

22:00 is a good place to start if you are time conscience.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Keep Government Out of Developing a COVID-19 Vaccine

Posted by M. C. on July 18, 2020

Historically, government funding to promote scientific advancement has fared poorly. In his book The Economic Laws of Scientific Research, author Terence Kealey finds that scientific advancement and economic growth are more prominent in countries with less public funding for science. Kealey also finds that public funding for science tends to crowd out private investment, which is spent more carefully because it is tied to profitability.

Kealey’s findings indicate President Trump’s “blank check” for public officials and private producers to develop a vaccine is problematic to say the least. Indeed, one STAT article is already detailing conflicts-of-interest and other ethical issues with picking which drug developers and vaccines to include.

Conflict of interest spelled M O D E R N A.

https://blog.independent.org/2020/05/27/keep-government-out-of-developing-a-covid-19-vaccine/

In late March, California became the first state to issue mandatory “shelter in place” orders. By mid-April, nearly 94 percent of the U.S. population was under order to stay at home.

Nearly three months later, millions are still desperate to get back to their lives. Protest rallies held to “reopen the economy” have emerged across the country, even when gathering can result in criminal charges.

Several states have allowed their stay-at-home orders to expire. Other states are lifting their orders more gradually. However, as a recent Fox News article notes, several states are not willing to lift their pandemic-related restrictions until a COVID-19 vaccine is developed.

As New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy stated, citizens in his state should “expect to continue with this [stay-at-home orders] for the foreseeable future . . . until either a proven vaccine is in our midst or proven therapeutics are widely available.” Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker issued a similar statement.

“Here’s the truth. And I don’t like it any more than you do,” Gov. Pritzker said. “Until we have a vaccine, or effective treatment, or enough widespread immunity that new cases fail to materialize, the option of returning to normalcy doesn’t exist.”

Influential healthcare professionals are also holding out hope for a vaccine. Former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb believes, “Life’s never going to be perfectly normal until we get to a vaccine.”

He may be right.

A serious shortcoming of the “stay home, save lives” approach is that less of the population becomes exposed to the virus, which increases the risk of a second wave of COVID-19 outbreaks when isolation ends. Consequently, the pandemic either continues through a series of deadly waves until herd immunity is developed or scientists develop a vaccine.

But developing a COVID-19 vaccine is a considerable challenge. Medical professionals still struggle to understand the novel coronavirus. Developing vaccines for viruses that harm the upper respiratory tract is especially difficult. Scientists have yet to develop a vaccine for any of the viruses in the coronavirus family. Even with a scientific breakthrough, estimates of when a vaccine might become available range from two to ten years.

Hoping to meet the challenge, President Trump recently announced that he hopes to have a COVID-19 vaccine available by January. His plan, named Operation Warp Speed, is to create a public-private partnership between federal regulatory agencies, the Department of Defense, and selected drug producers to develop “the people’s vaccine.”

Is the partnership up for the task? Not likely.

Historically, government funding to promote scientific advancement has fared poorly. In his book The Economic Laws of Scientific Research, author Terence Kealey finds that scientific advancement and economic growth are more prominent in countries with less public funding for science. Kealey also finds that public funding for science tends to crowd out private investment, which is spent more carefully because it is tied to profitability.

Kealey’s findings indicate President Trump’s “blank check” for public officials and private producers to develop a vaccine is problematic to say the least. Indeed, one STAT article is already detailing conflicts-of-interest and other ethical issues with picking which drug developers and vaccines to include.

We should also note that private efforts were making progress toward developing a vaccine well before Operation Warp Speed began. Johnson and Johnson began working on a vaccine in January. Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine received fast-track status by the Food and Drug Administration, allowing it to pass through the agency’s approval process more quickly.

Instead of developing public-private partnerships to bring a vaccine to the market, we should be looking to cut regulations that impede the progress private drug providers have already made. Deregulation has brought much needed medical goods to patients quickly both in the United States and abroad.

In 2012, the U.S. generic drug market faced a backlog of about 2,800 drug applications. That same year, Congress passed the Food and Administration Safety and Innovation Act. The act eliminated redundant components of the generic drug approval process and allowed drug producers to receive an expedited review by paying a fee. By 2018, the backlog was under 100 applications.

In 2015, South Korea experienced an unexpected outbreak of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). After the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (South Korea’s version of the FDA) was unable to provide enough testing in a timely manner, the South Korean government implemented a significantly faster approval process for emergency test-kit approval.

Their efforts were successful. Seegene, one of the first South Korean private drug producers to develop a COVID-19 test-kit, received approval in ten days and was able to conduct over 230,000 tests.

Developing a vaccine to curb the COVID-19 pandemic is a daunting enough task. To give scientists and healthcare researchers the best chance of success, get government out of the way.

Raymond J. March is a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute and Assistant Professor of Agribusiness and Applied Economics at North Dakota State University.
Be seeing you

 

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

Coronavirus Corruption: Bad Incentives and Politics as Usual

Posted by M. C. on July 18, 2020

The CARES Act also provides additional funding for COVID-19 patients who are placed on a ventilator. As physician Dr. Scott Jensen notes, hospitals can receive an additional $39,000 for ventilator care. Despite strong evidence that ventilators are unlikely to help COVID-19 patients, hospitals continued to ask for more ventilators.

Misinformation and perverse incentives, even when done with the best of intentions, have created a strong sense of distrust for government officials and widespread confusion about how to address the pandemic moving forward. But such undesirable outcomes are a predictable consequence of expanding state control during a crisis, albeit a difficult pill to swallow.

https://blog.independent.org/2020/05/28/coronavirus-corruption-bad-incentives-and-politics-as-usual/

Rebeckah Jones worked for the Florida Department of Health’s Geographic Information team. One of her greatest responsibilities was to develop and maintain the Florida Covid-19 Data and Surveillance Dashboard. The dashboard provides Floridians with timely information on the number of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and fatalities at the state and county level.

Despite receiving considerable praise for her work on the dashboard, Jones was recently removed from the project and fired from her position. Shocked and frustrated, Jones lamented, “I worked on it alone, sixteen hours a day for two months, most of which I was never paid for, and now that this has happened I’ll probably never get paid for.”

Why was she fired? Jones believes it was because she refused to “manually change data to drum up support for the plan to reopen.” She’s not alone. Other collaborators on the dashboard reacted with “shock and dismay, suggesting it could be evidence that the Gov. Ron DeSantis’ government was censoring information.”

The governor’s office has denied the allegations. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis went further and called into question Jones’ qualifications as a scientist, claiming “she didn’t listen to the people who were her superiors,” among other reasons for her dismissal.

Jones’ story is alarming. Unfortunately, there are many others like it.

State officials in Georgia recently announced they included positive antibody tests in calculating the total number of active COVID-19 cases. As an article in the Atlantic Journal Constitution notes, including antibody tests inflated the total number of COVID-19 cases by nearly 14 percent.

Outraged, Dr. Harry J. Heiman, a clinical associate professor at the Georgia State University School of Public Health, said, “Either they [the Georgia Department of Health] don’t know what they’re doing, or (the data is) being manipulated in ways it shouldn’t…. Either way it is very concerning.”

In late April, the Centers for Disease Control indicated that seven states were not accurately reporting COVID-19 deaths, often failing to account for excess deaths and publishing misleadingly low estimates. More recently, six other states have been accused of manipulating their data to mislead the public.

These and other reports of misleading COVID-19 data released by state agencies highlight two serious flaws with centralizing public health. First, when these agencies make mistakes, they are often longer-lived and more harmful.

Second, when governments oversee scientific activities, they often distort scientists’ incentives. In his book The Organization of Inquiry, economist Gordon Tullock reminded us that the way scientific research is conducted and reported depends on who funds it. The COVID-19 pandemic has been no exception.

The federal CARES Act provides hospitals with additional funds to treat COVID-19 patients on Medicare. As a predictable consequence, physicians have reported feeling pressured to list COVID-19 on patients’ death certificates.

The CARES Act also provides additional funding for COVID-19 patients who are placed on a ventilator. As physician Dr. Scott Jensen notes, hospitals can receive an additional $39,000 for ventilator care. Despite strong evidence that ventilators are unlikely to help COVID-19 patients, hospitals continued to ask for more ventilators.

Misinformation and perverse incentives, even when done with the best of intentions, have created a strong sense of distrust for government officials and widespread confusion about how to address the pandemic moving forward. But such undesirable outcomes are a predictable consequence of expanding state control during a crisis, albeit a difficult pill to swallow.

Raymond J. March is a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute and Assistant Professor of Agribusiness and Applied Economics at North Dakota State University.
Posts by Raymond J. March | Full Biography and Publications

 

Be seeing you

 

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

Walter Berns and the Cult of “Patriotic” Sacrifice | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on July 18, 2020

Berns thinks he can solve a fundamental problem of modern America, and
wait till you hear what that problem is. People in America aren’t
willing to sacrifice their lives to the state. They are too much devoted
to their own selfish interests. To overcome this dire state of affairs,
we need to establish a “civil religion” in the guise of patriotism.

Think public service programs. Emphasis on “Program”.

https://mises.org/wire/walter-berns-and-cult-patriotic-sacrifice?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=b4fc4d239a-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_07_17_06_30&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-b4fc4d239a-228343965

In his great new book The Problem with Lincoln, Tom DiLorenzo brought back an old memory. As Tom points out, Walter Berns, who taught political science at Cornell and then worked for the American Enterprise Institute, was one of the main figures urging us to worship Honest Abe. He quarreled with the main Lincoln idolater, Harry Jaffa, but I’m not going to go into what they fought about. Rather, I’d like to focus on an argument in Berns’s book Making Patriots (2006), to which Tom refers.

Berns thinks he can solve a fundamental problem of modern America, and wait till you hear what that problem is. People in America aren’t willing to sacrifice their lives to the state. They are too much devoted to their own selfish interests. To overcome this dire state of affairs, we need to establish a “civil religion” in the guise of patriotism.

Berns acknowledges that America was founded on individual rights, but he thinks there is a difficulty with overemphasis on Lockean rights to life, liberty, and property. No doubt, these have their proper place, and it is not a small one. But “patriotism means love of country and implies a readiness to sacrifice for it, to fight for it, perhaps even to give one’s life for it. But, aside from the legendary Spartans, why should anyone be willing to do this?…why should self-interested men believe it in their interest to give their lives for the idea or promise of their country?”

Things were different in the ancient world. In classical Athens, no conflicting loyalties stood between the citizen and his city: “Athenians were enjoined to be lovers of Athens because they were Athens—in a way, by loving their city, they loved themselves—and because, by gaining an empire, Athens provided them with the means by which they gained fame and glory.”

By no means does Berns seek to restore the ancient city. Quite the contrary, he recognizes that the “institutions of both Athens and Sparta were ordered with a view to war, and, precisely for this reason, neither Athens nor Sparta could, or can, provide a model for America.” Since the rise of Christianity, allegiance no longer can be undivided. The soul of the religious believer does not belong exclusively to the political community, and the great mistake of the French Revolution was its futile attempt to uproot the church and restore the ancient ways. The founders of the American Republic avoided this trap. So far, so good.

But Berns now asks an odd question. If Christianity cannot be eliminated, how can as much as possible of the unity of the ancient city be restored? His answer—and it is not a bad one given his premise—is that religion must be rigidly confined to the private sphere. In that way, the state may proceed toward its great tasks, unhindered by the scruples of believers. Though believers may practice their faith unmolested, they must realize that private conscience must always bow before the law.

Our author makes entirely clear that, on this matter, he is a thoroughgoing Hobbesian:

with the free exercise of one’s religion comes the requirement to obey the law regardless of one’s religious beliefs….Whether a law is just or unjust is a judgment that belongs to no “private man,” however pious or learned, or, as we say today, sincere he may be. This means that we are first of all citizens, and only secondarily Christians, Jews, Muslims, or any other religious persuasion.

Thus, if your religion forbids you to fight, Berns would grant you no right to avoid military service. It may be a prudent policy for the government to make room for conscientious objectors, so long as they number but few. But their status is a privilege, and Berns does not hide his dismay with the Supreme Court for making “the exception the rule for anyone willing to invoke it.” No wonder Murray Rothbard said that Berns is an enemy of freedom.

So much for religion—or, rather, so much for religion that extends beyond devotion to the state. What is to replace it as an object of popular devotion? We cannot, of course, rely on so egotistic a notion as natural rights; instead, we need a national poet around whose work the emotions of the people can concentrate.

Fortunately, one is at hand: Abraham Lincoln. “As…Shakespeare was, or is, to the English (and Robert Burns to the Scots, Gabriele D’Annunzio to the Italians, and Homer to the Greeks) so Lincoln is to us; he is our spokesman, our poet.” Lincoln gives Berns exactly what he wants. His winged words, especially the Gettysburg Address and his second inaugural address, remind all Americans “that freedom is more than being left alone, that there is a price to be paid for it.” The great bloodletting that took place during Lincoln’s crusade was an essential means to bond all Americans together in love.

Berns’s argument rests on a false premise. Why should we think that a free people needs to be bonded together to defend their hearths and home from attack? Wars are rarely justified, but in the case of a genuine invasion, people don’t need a civil religion to defend themselves. Certainly we don’t need a religion that worships Lincoln.

 

Author:

Contact David Gordon

David Gordon is Senior Fellow at the Mises Institute, and editor of The Mises Review.

Be seeing you

 

 

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