MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »

To Understand BLM – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on June 30, 2020

Why is it BLM’s aim to disrupt ordinary families, and not to promote families with fathers?

Why does BLM focus on black women and largely ignore black men?

Why is BLM’s leadership Marxist and trained to be Marxist?

Why is BLM willing to attack images of Jesus and religious places of worship?

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/06/michael-s-rozeff/to-understand-blm/

By

“The Black Lives Matter movement (BLM) casts itself as a spontaneous uprising born of inner city frustration, but is, in fact, the latest and most dangerous face of a web of well-funded communist/socialist organizations that have been agitating against America for decades.”

However, if you do not believe that conclusion and the evidence leading to it, then to understand the true nature of BLM, ask questions like the following and reach your own conclusion.

Why is the BLM aim to defund police, and not to defund the War on Drugs? The latter is what fills the prisons with black lives.

Why is BLM willing to defund police without having a viable alternative system?

Why does BLM aim to tear down the policing of black communities, including that which is directed at violent crimes?

Why does BLM want to release violent criminals from prisons?

Why is BLM so dead set against people who have built up wealth?

Why does BLM want reparations from whites, whoever they may be, when they cannot possibly identify past perpetrators and link them to victims in the present?

Why does BLM blame everything relating to black people on racism, when this case cannot be rationally sustained?

Why does BLM disregard rational argument and replace it with rhetoric, slogans and demands?

Why is it BLM’s aim to disrupt ordinary families, and not to promote families with fathers?

Why does BLM focus on black women and largely ignore black men?

Why is BLM’s leadership Marxist and trained to be Marxist?

Why does BLM paint today’s society as systemically racist when it is not?

Why does BLM promote the fiction that faulty theories of race that used to be prevalent generations ago are at work discriminating against black people today?

Why does BLM attack capitalism, free enterprise and free markets?

Why does BLM violently attack speech that opposes their views?

Why doesn’t BLM dissociate itself from antifa and its violence?

Why doesn’t BLM condemn rioting and looting, especially that which destroys black businesses and communities?

Why is BLM willing to burn down the system?

Why is BLM willing to attack images of Jesus and religious places of worship?

Why is BLM not transparent financially? Why do they conceal their financial statements?

Why does a BLM leader speak of forming a military arm?

Be seeing you

 

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

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : The Media is Lying About the ‘Second Wave’

Posted by M. C. on June 30, 2020

In Texas the “second wave” propaganda has gotten so bad that the leaders of the four major hospitals in Houston took the extraordinary step late last week of holding a joint press conference to clarify that the scare stories of Houston hospitals being overwhelmed with Covid cases are simply untrue.

In fact, there has been much reporting that the “spike” in Texas cases is not due to a resurgence of the virus but to hospital practices of Covid-testing every patient coming in for any procedure at all. If it’s a positive, well that counts as a “Covid hospitalization.” Why would hospitals be so dishonest in their diagnoses? Billions of appropriated Federal dollars are being funneled to facilities based on the number of “Covid cases” they can produce.

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2020/june/29/the-media-is-lying-about-the-second-wave/

Written by Ron Paul

For months, the Washington Post and the rest of the mainstream media kept a morbid Covid-19 “death count” on their front pages and at the top of their news broadcasts. The coronavirus outbreak was all about the number of dead. The narrative was intended to boost governors like Cuomo in New York and Whitmer in Michigan, who turned their states authoritarian under the false notion that destroying people’s jobs, freedom, and lives would somehow keep a virus from doing what viruses always do: spread through a population until eventually losing strength and dying out.

The “death count” was always the headline.

But then all of a sudden early in June the mainstream media did a George Orwell and lectured us that it is all about “cases” and has always been all about “cases.” Death, and especially infection fatality rate, were irrelevant. Why? Because from the peak in April, deaths had decreased by 90 percent and were continuing to crash. That was not terrifying enough so the media pretended this good news did not exist.

With massive increases in testing, the “case” numbers climbed. This is not rocket science: the more people you test the more “cases” you discover.

Unfortunately our mainstream media is only interested in pushing the “party line.” So the good news that millions more have been exposed while the fatality rate continues to decline – meaning the virus is getting weaker – is buried under hysterical false reporting of “new cases.”

Unfortunately many governors, including our own here in Texas, are incapable of resisting the endless lies of the mainstream media. They are putting Americans again through the nightmare of forced business closures, mandated face masks, and restrictions of Constitutional liberties based on false propaganda.

In Texas the “second wave” propaganda has gotten so bad that the leaders of the four major hospitals in Houston took the extraordinary step late last week of holding a joint press conference to clarify that the scare stories of Houston hospitals being overwhelmed with Covid cases are simply untrue. Dr. Marc Boom of Houston Methodist said the reporting on hospital capacity is misleading. He said, “quite frankly, we’re concerned that there is a level of alarm in the community that is unwarranted right now.”

In fact, there has been much reporting that the “spike” in Texas cases is not due to a resurgence of the virus but to hospital practices of Covid-testing every patient coming in for any procedure at all. If it’s a positive, well that counts as a “Covid hospitalization.” Why would hospitals be so dishonest in their diagnoses? Billions of appropriated Federal dollars are being funneled to facilities based on the number of “Covid cases” they can produce. As I’ve always said, if you subsidize something you get more of it. And that’s why we are getting more Covid cases.

Let’s go back to the original measurements used to scare Americans into giving up their Constitutional liberties: the daily death numbers. Even though we know hospitals have falsely attributed countless deaths to “Covid-19” that were deaths WITH instead of FROM the virus, we are seeing actual deaths steadily declining over the past month and a half. Declining deaths are not a great way to push the “second wave” propaganda, so the media and politicians have moved the goal posts and decided that only “cases” are important. It’s another big lie.

Resist propaganda and defend your liberty. That is the only way we’ll get through this.

Copyright © 2020 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute
Be seeing you

 

 

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

Why Are American Forces Still Guarding the Korean Peninsula? – Antiwar.com Original

Posted by M. C. on June 29, 2020

Last week’s 70th anniversary of the Korean War sparked a spate of conferences and commemorations. Many participants expressed wonder at the fact that the alliance had lasted so long. The fact that it has not changed despite the dramatic transformation of the Korean peninsula, region, and world actually is a problem. The seven decade-old pact is obsolete, making the US less safe.

https://original.antiwar.com/doug-bandow/2020/06/28/why-are-american-forces-still-guarding-the-korean-peninsula/

by

Seven decades ago Americans found themselves at war in a country most people couldn’t locate without a map. That included two young army officers, Charles Bonesteel and Dean Rusk, a future Secretary of State.

On August 10, 1945, the Pentagon tasked them with determining a convenient division of the Korea peninsula. Since they knew nothing of Korea, then a Japanese colony, they consulted a National Geographic map and settled on the 38th parallel, or latitude.

World War II was rapidly heading to a close, with Japanese Emperor Hirohito’s surrender announcement just days away. The Soviet Union had entered the war and Red Army units were heading for Korea. There were no American troops nearby, but when Washington proposed that the two governments split the peninsula’s occupation Joseph Stalin surprisingly agreed. He probably thought that would encourage the U.S. to allow the U.S.S.R. to share in the occupation of Japan. He also might have believed the concession would encourage the Truman administration to be more cooperative in Eastern Europe.

Some Koreans blame America for the peninsula’s division. However, the alternative would have been for the entire peninsula to be occupied by the Soviet Union and then turned into the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Without the threat posed by another Korean government, backed by America, the communist state might have evolved differently and perhaps slightly less brutally. However, its rulers never exhibited any liberal instincts. One Korea very likely would have just meant a larger totalitarian horror.

The 38th parallel turned out to be a propitious choice for a border. It cut the peninsula in half but placed the capital and almost two-thirds of the population under American control. The original expectation was that the country would be reunited when considered ready for independence, but the deepening Cold War resulted in development of two separate Korean states. In 1948 both the US and Soviet Union withdrew their troops.

Moscow anointed the young anti-Japanese guerrilla commander Kim Il-sung to run the Soviet zone. Despite being barely 33 when tapped as leader in a society which revered age, he demonstrated a talent for consolidating and wielding power. He also benefited from surplus Soviet military equipment and returning Korean personnel who had fought with the Chinese communists.

The US military returned nationalist exile Syngman Rhee to the South over the objections of the State Department, which had refused to issue him a passport. Alone among those Koreans contending for power he spoke English, which gave him an enormous advantage with the occupying Americans, ignorant of all things Korean, including language. Irascible, authoritarian, difficult, and stubborn, he took control of what became the Republic of Korea. The ROK was freer than the North, but his government did not hesitate to jail, torture, and even kill opponents, especially accused communists.

Both leaders threatened to forcibly reunify the peninsula and border incidents were common. However, Washington, afraid that “its” Korea would start a war, refused to provide heavy weapons. Once both occupation forces withdrew an opportunistic North Korean invasion probably was inevitable. Kim repeatedly lobbied Joseph Stalin for permission to strike. Moscow finally agreed but wanted to remain in the background. The Soviets drew up invasion plans and provided pilots who flew North Korean (and later Chinese) planes but contributed no ground forces. Stalin did not want war with America.

DPRK forces poured across the border the morning of June 25, 1950. The South Korean forces were routed, Seoul was abandoned, and Rhee, along with broken military units and masses of civilians, fled south. Truman decided to intervene militarily. Secretary of State Dean Acheson had treated the ROK as outside of America’s “defense perimeter” and even Gen. Douglas MacArthur judged the Korean peninsula to be of minimal strategic importance. However, Truman feared the global impact, especially the effect on European nations still recovering from World War II and sheltering behind US troops. And allowing destruction of a new nation that Washington helped establish just two years before would have been widely seen as an act of bad faith.

The Truman administration won United Nations backing since the Soviet Union was boycotting the organization to protest its failure to seat the People’s Republic of China. However, the administration did not go to Congress; instead, Truman famously called intervention a “police action.” By failing to follow the Constitution, stage a public debate, and win legislative approval, he ensured that popular support would wane and congressional criticism would rise when troubles arose.

Ill-prepared occupation troops from Japan were rushed into combat, to poor effect. Nevertheless, US forces held on in a close-run battle for Pusan in the peninsula’s southeast. MacArthur then staged a risky but successful landing at Inchon, near Seoul, well behind the North’s lines, and a reverse rout ensued. By late October the allies had captured North Korea’s capital of Pyongyang and some troops had reached the Yalu, bordering China.

MacArthur confidently predicted that allied forces would be home by Christmas, but the PRC had other ideas. Lacking diplomatic relations with America, the Beijing government attempted to send warnings indirectly, through India, for instance, that it would not tolerate allied forces on its border. Alas, Washington was not listening. Around Thanksgiving hundreds of thousands of Chinese “volunteers” hit the divided allied armies. Yet another rout occurred, with Seoul again captured. But the US and allied forces rallied, recapturing the ROK capital. Then the lines stabilized near the 38th parallel, leading to another two years of war. In July 1953 an armistice was signed, but a peace treaty was never signed.

China soon withdrew its forces. America never left. Initially the South would not have survived without US support. The country was ravaged by war and lagged economically behind North Korea. Rhee ruled arbitrarily and undemocratically. In any renewed fight the DPRK could easily draw on support from its two giant neighbors. However, in the 1960s South Korea took off economically, speeding by a largely stagnant North. Democracy finally arrived in the ROK in the late 1980s. After Mao’s death and the Soviet Union’s dissolution Pyongyang lost its military allies, which recognized Seoul diplomatically and began dealing even more with the latter economically.

At this point Washington should have set a timetable for shifting defense responsibility to the ROK and withdrawing US forces from the peninsula. (It would have made equal sense to do the same in Europe after the Soviet Union collapsed and the Warsaw Pact dissolved.)

Foreign and military policy, including alliances, should reflect circumstances. In 1945 Washington was able to bloodlessly secure at least half of Korea from long-term tyranny. In 1950 Washington had become captive to circumstances leading to war which it had helped create. When the war ended deterrence was a better policy than abandoning a weak state to a bloody fate.

All that was over by the early 1990s, however, given the growth in the South’s advantages. Today the ROK possesses roughly 53 times the economic strength and twice the population of the North. South Korea also enjoys a vast lead in technology, industrial resilience, and international support. Seoul’s military is smaller – a matter of choice, not financial necessity, obviously – but better equipped and trained. The gaps in the South’s existing force that result from reliance on the US could be remedied in cooperation with Washington.

South Korean officials often indicate that they would prefer not to spend more on the military. Once while visiting Seoul I was informed that the ROK had health and education needs to meet: so did America, I responded, but no one was willing to fund its defense. The South obviously could outspend and outbuild the North to create whatever military Seoul believed to be necessary. After all, the DPRK has difficulty feeding its own people – a half million or more North Koreans died of starvation in the late 1990s.

The response of the “alliance-forever” caucus in both capitals is that the relationship now goes far beyond just protecting the ROK from North Korean conquest. However, Washington and Seoul could cooperate to advance shared interests without Americans paying for South Koreans’ protection. Security commitments should be a means to an end, not an end, to be preserved forever irrespective of changing circumstances.

There also is lots of talk about how the “mutual” defense treaty and American troop deployment have “dual uses,” being ready to confront other regional contingencies. Again, creating a tripwire against the North is distinct from whatever other missions Washington and Seoul might jointly contemplate. Even if the US was inclined to undertake all manner of dubious interventions elsewhere for no good reason (say, invading Cambodia, Burma, Vietnam, or Indonesia) Washington could station its troops elsewhere, on Guam, for instance, or bring forces from the U.S.-less convenient, but feasible. And the US could negotiate with the South for emergency base access even if America did not underwrite the ROK’s defense.

Of course, what most Washington policymakers mean by this argument is treating South Korea as part of a containment system for the PRC. However, Seoul has consistently sought to avoid turning Beijing into a permanent enemy. South Koreans know that China will always be their neighbor. And the PRC is likely to have a long memory. Joining with the US against China – turning the South into a potential platform for war – would make the ROK a target. Seoul would do so only to defend South Korea from attack. US officials routinely complain that the South is soft in its dealings with the North, reluctant to participate in the THAAD missile defense system, careful in its criticism of Beijing for human rights abuses, and more. A request for co-belligerency would receive an even more hostile response.

Which leaves the nuclear issue. Washington currently claims to extend a nuclear umbrella over the South. That seemed to entail little risk when America was purporting to deter Moscow and Beijing, which had no interest in using nuclear weapons on the peninsula. However, the North’s development of nukes – perhaps 20 or 30 bombs, with the potential to make a similar number from existing nuclear material – transforms the balance. Now America’s commitment to go to war for the South against the North risks incineration of US forces in Korea and nearby, in Guam and Okinawa, for instance.

Worse, Pyongyang’s development ICBMs may and probably will eventually put the American homeland in danger. Members of the Kim dynasty – we are on the third generation – have proved to be risk averse, preferring to enjoy their virgins in this world rather than the next one. So they won’t attack the US without good cause, meaning in response to an existential threat to their rule and nation. But that could result from a conventional conflict. In 1950 Beijing saved the DPRK. That wouldn’t happen in the future. However, if Washington pressed on to defeat North Korea the regime could threaten use of nuclear weapons unless the US retreated to the status quo ante. There is nothing at stake in the peninsula that would warrant taking such a risk.

This possibility is best met by American disengagement from the peninsula. The South should purchase and develop conventional weapons capable of maintaining deterrence. And it should consider creating a countervailing nuclear arsenal. Park Chung-hee began such a program, which he abandoned only under great US pressure. Today a majority of South Koreans say they favor acquisition of nuclear weapons. And some defense intellectuals and political figures favor the idea as well.

Doing so would result in obvious downsides. Nevertheless, knowledge that the ROK could go down this path would encourage China and Russia to put greater pressure on the North to reach a non-nuclear modus vivendi with its neighbors and Washington. Moreover, a South Korean bomb – especially if matched by Japan and perhaps other East Asian states – would constrain potential Chinese adventurism. The US need not give its assent to such a course. All Washington would have to do is get out of the way.

At least the issue should be debated. The usual Washington establishment paladins casually insist that Americans should risk Los Angeles, Seattle, and many more cities, if necessary, to protect Seoul. They should have to publicly defend that policy, rather than simply assume it into being. In fact, enforcing nonproliferation against allies looks more self-evidently wrong than right. Washington’s prime duty is to defend the American people which it represents. It should not put them in great danger to protect others, especially when the others are capable of defending themselves.

Last week’s 70th anniversary of the Korean War sparked a spate of conferences and commemorations. Many participants expressed wonder at the fact that the alliance had lasted so long. The fact that it has not changed despite the dramatic transformation of the Korean peninsula, region, and world actually is a problem. The seven decade-old pact is obsolete, making the US less safe.

Americans and South Koreans still could and should be friends. Washington and Seoul still could and should be partners. But the relationships and responsibilities require drastic change. Now is the time to plan a different future.

Be seeing you

 

 

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

Weird: Out of Nowhere, Something Just Rocked Earth’s Magnetic Field | Watts Up With That?

Posted by M. C. on June 29, 2020

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/06/25/weird-out-of-nowhere-something-just-rocked-earths-magnetic-field/

A GLOBAL MAGNETIC ANOMALY:  On June 23rd, Earth’s quiet magnetic field was unexpectedly disturbed by a wave of magnetism that rippled around much of the globe. There was no solar storm or geomagnetic storm to cause the disturbance. So what was it?

The Sun today, cue ball blank. Image: NASA SDO

Lately, Earth’s magnetic field has been quiet. Very quiet. The sun is in the pits of what may turn out to be the deepest Solar Minimum in a century. Geomagnetic storms just aren’t happening.

“That’s why I was so surprised on June 23rd when my instruments picked up a magnetic anomaly,” reports Stuart Green, who operates a research-grade magnetometer in his backyard in Preston UK. “For more than 30 minutes, the local magnetic field oscillated like a sine wave.”

20200623_PC5 _Wave

This chart recording shows a magnetic wave rippling through Preston UK on June 23, 2020. Credit: Stuart Green.

Green quickly checked solar wind data from NOAA’s DSCOVR satellite. “There was nothing–no uptick in the solar wind speed or other factors that might explain the disturbance,” he says.

He wasn’t the only one who noticed. In the Lofoten islands of Norway, Rob Stammes detected a similar anomaly on his magnetometer. “It was remarkable,” he says.

“Our magnetic field swung back and forth by about 1/3rd of a degree. I also detected ground currents with the same 10 minute period.”

What happened? Space physicists call this phenomenon a “pulsation continuous” or “Pc” for short. Imagine blowing across a piece of paper, making it flutter with your breath. Solar wind can have a similar effect on magnetic fields. Pc waves are essentially flutters propagating down the flanks of Earth’s magnetosphere excited by the breath of the sun. During more active phases of the solar cycle, these flutters are easily lost in the noise of rambunctious geomagnetic activity. But during the extreme quiet of Solar Minimum, such waves can make themselves “heard” like a pin dropping in an silent room.

anomaly3

Magnetic observatories around the world detected the wave on June 23, 2020. Credit: INTERMAGNET

Earth’s magnetic field was so quiet on June 23rd, the ripple was heard all around the world. INTERMAGNET‘s global network of magnetic observatories picked up wave activity at the same time from Hawaii to China to the Arctic Circle. There’s even a hint of it in Antarctica.

Pc waves are classified into 5 types depending on their period. The 10-minute wave on June 23rd falls into category Pc5. Slow Pc5 waves have been linked to a loss of particles from the van Allen radiation belts. Energetic electrons surf these waves down into Earth’s atmosphere, where they dissipate harmlessly.

With Solar Minimum in full swing, there’s never been a better time to study these waves. Keep quiet … and stay tuned for more.

Story from SpaceWeather.com it is well worth visiting this site

Be seeing you

 

 

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

The Farce and Diabolical Agenda of A “Universal Lockdown” – Global Researchh – Centre for Research on Globalization

Posted by M. C. on June 29, 2020

This is leading to a total control of every individuum on the planet. It is sold to the public as the Internet of Things (TIT), meaning self-driving cars, robotized kitchen equipment, artificial intelligence (AI) for the production and delivery of everything. What the sales pitch doesn’t say, is how humans would be marginalized and enslaved.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/covid-19-cruelty-universal-lockdown/5710798

By Peter Koenig

First published on May 1, 2020

First comes the farce, an (almost) universal government lie around the globe about a deadly virus, WHO named COVID-19. The decision for a global lockdown – literally for the collapse of the world economy – was already taken at the WEF conference in Davos, 21 – 24 January 2020. On January 30, WHO declared COVID-19 a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). At that time, there were only 150 known COVID-19 cases outside of China. No reason whatsoever to declare a pandemic. On March 11, Dr. Tedros, DG of WHO converted the PHEIC into a pandemic. This gave the green light for the start if implementing “The Plan”.

The pandemic was needed as a pretext to halt and collapse the world economy and the underlying social fabric.

There is no coincidence. There were a number of preparatory events, all pointing into the direction of aworldwide monumental historic disaster. It started at least 10 years ago – probably considerably earlier – with the infamous 2010 Rockefeller Report, which painted the first phase of a monstrous Plan, called the “Lock Step” scenario. Among the last preparatory moves for the “pandemic” was Event 201, held in NYC on 18 October 2019.

The event was sponsored by the Johns Hopkins Center for Public Health, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) and the World Economic Forum (WEF), the club of the rich and powerful that meets every January in Davos, Switzerland. Participating were a number of pharmaceuticals (vaccine interest groups), as well as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)’s of the US and – of China.

One of the objectives of Event 201 was a computer simulation of a corona virus pandemic. The simulated virus was called SARS-2-nCoV, or later 2019-nCoV. The simulation results were disastrous, killing 65 million people in 18 months and plunging the stock market by more than 30% — causing untold unemployment and bankruptcies. Precisely the scenario of which we are now living the beginning.

The Lock Step scenario foresees a number of ghastly and disturbing events or components of The Plan to be implemented by the so called Agenda ID2020, a Bill Gates creation, fully integrated into the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) – target date for completion – 2030 (also called Agenda 2030, the hidden agenda unknown to most of the UN members), the same target date for completion of the Agenda ID02020.

Here, just the key elements as a precursor to what the world is living now, and what is to come, if we don’t stop it – to demonstrate how this entirely criminal sham has been planned. Parts of the scenario are:

  • A massive vaccination program, probably through compulsory vaccination – Bill Gates’ dream and brainchild is vaccinating 7 billion people.
  • Massive population reduction, a eugenics plan – in part through vaccination and other means (Ref. Bill Gates, “if we are doing a real good job vaccinating, we may reduce the world population by 10% to 15%”. See “Innovating to Zero!”, speech to the TED2010 annual conference, Long Beach, California, February 18, 2010).

Bill Gates has been advocating for years the need for a massive population reduction – and indeed the more than 20 years of the BMGF’s extensive vaccination programs in Africa, India and other places around the world have seen a record of involuntary sterilization of women between 14 and 49 years. See In 2014 and 2015 Kenya carried out a massive tetanus vaccination program, sponsored by WHO and UNICEF.

  • An electronic ID for every person on the planet – in the form of a nano chip, possibly injected along with the mandatory vaccination. This nano-chip could be remotely uploaded with all personal data.
  • Digitized money, no more cash.
  • Universal rolling out of 5G, later to be followed by 6G.

This is leading to a total control of every individuum on the planet. It is sold to the public as the Internet of Things (TIT), meaning self-driving cars, robotized kitchen equipment, artificial intelligence (AI) for the production and delivery of everything. What the sales pitch doesn’t say, is how humans would be marginalized and enslaved. To carry this masterplan forward, high frequency electromagnet waves are needed. Therefore, rolling out of 5G is a must, no matter what the health impact on humans, fauna and flora may be – and no matter how it may influence viral infections, like possibly the current COVID19.

WHO remains silent, although they do admit that no independent official study has been carried out on the dangers of 5G – and electromagnetic fields in general. Does that mean that WHO is coopted by the Big and Powerful into this deadly spiel? – Let it suffice to say that unlike other UN agencies, WHO was created in 1948 by the Rockefeller Foundation (RF) – see The Lancet. It might be also noteworthy that about half of WHOs budget comes from private interest sources, mostly the pharma industry, but also others, like telecom giants.

This is a precursor for understanding how things are being planned. It may help connecting the dots for what is coming.

It may also help us understand what is happening right now, in the first phase of the Lock Step scenario. It portrays in vivid colors the criminal nature of the Dark Deep State.

Never mind the stock market crash – that’s a speculator’s syndrome, rich people’s risks, as the stock market is a western invention to play with capital and capital gains to the detriment of the workers, whose lives depend on working that capital. They are the first ones to go, when Big Money calls for a merger – or a bankruptcy.

Now the almost universal and justified by NOTHING quarantine, total lockdown of every business, small or big – restaurants, construction, tourism, little and big hardware stores, bakeries, air lines, transport – interrupted supply chains – factories, food processing – and it goes on and on.

In the Global North some up to 90% of business transactions are emanating from small and medium size enterprises (SME). Almost all of them are closed now. Two thirds or more of them may never open again. Employees and workers are laid off, or are reduced to part-time work, meaning part-time pay – but still need to sustain their families. Poverty and desperation set in and becomes rampant. No future in sight. Suicide rates will rise – see Greece in the 2008 / 2009 crisis – and up to ten years later – broken families, foreclosures, families expulsed from rental apartments because they can no longer pay their rents. Street begging becomes normal, except there is nobody left to spare a dime.

In Europe at least a third to maybe 50% or more of the work force – depending on the country and structure of the labor force – is expected to be unemployed or will be reduced to part time work. And that’s only the beginning. In the US official unemployment figures are as of this writing in excess of 23 million – and are expected, by predictions of the FED, Goldman Sachs, Bloomberg -to reach between 32% and 40% in the next quarter. Bankruptcies may spin out of control.

The IMF predicts for 2020 a worldwide economic contraction of a mere 3% – and a small growth rate in the latter part of 2021. How utterly ridiculous! – What planet are these people on? Whom are they trying to fool, and why? Perhaps to encourage countries to borrow huge amounts of foreign exchange from these predatory Bretton Woods institutions, IMF and World Bank – to get deeply into debt, thinking with IMF predictions they will be fine? – Further enslavement by deceit?

This is the Global North – which has some kind of social safety nets, whatever flimsy they may be – there is a sliver of hope for relief. Another sliver of hope is built on the premises that mankind will be constantly creating – working ingeniously inventing -moving forward flowing like a river towards new horizons, creating new dynamics, new jobs… yes, that’s what mankind can do – and in our comfort we have forgotten this virtue – an essential virtue for survival – survival of the corona crisis.

The Global South – or developing countries – presents a grimmer story. Under normal circumstances a third to half of the economy is informal, meaning not tight to any norm of formal or legal organization. They are short-term workers, daily, hourly laborers – living from hand-to-mouth, no savings, no safety nets- and in most cases no health coverage. They are left to the whims of the “market”, literally. Now the market collapsed.

There is nothing left. No work, no income, no money to pay for food, rent, medication – and the government orders them, the deprived poverty-stricken, to stay ‘home’ – ‘lockdown’ in quarantine – to protect themselves from a virus, an imposed virus that nobody sees, but the government and the media make sure you are aware – and SCARED – of its dangers, you never know whether true or false.

Confinement at ”home”? – Where is home? Home is gone. No money to pay rent. Keep social distance – don’t get together. Stay apart. The infection could spread. Fear is of the essence.

Take a city like Lima, Peru. Peru’s total population about 30 million. Lima, about eleven million – of which some 3 to 4 million live on the margins or below – in shantytowns, or worse. Daily, or hourly laborers. They live sometimes hours away from their work place. Now, there is no workplace anymore. They have no money to pay for food, transport or rent – landlords put them in streets, expel them from their properties. How can they stay in confinement? How can they take care of themselves by quarantine – lockdown – having no shelter, no food – desperately looking to earn just enough money to survive another day – and perhaps to share with their families? They can’t.

Lockdown-protection (sic-sic) is only for the rich. The poor they starve with kids and families – and quite possibly with the corona disease. They live within the circles of poverty and misery, where there is nothing to spare. Nobody has anything. Not even in solidarity. There simply is nothing. Total deprivation, caused by a total economic standstill – forced upon the world and especially the poor by evil men – and perhaps also evil women.

These 3 to 4 or 5 million people, they all have come at one point or another from the rural provinces, for which the government does nothing, or not enough to keep them there. So, in search of a better life, they abandon their ‘çhacras’ (little plots of land) and move to the Big City – to paradise – where they are relegated to live in more misery than in their provincial meagre settlements. They endure – always with hope. Now this – the man-made corona crisis – has made life even worse, much worse for them. There are none or far from enough government handouts – or they come too late or get lost in corruption.

In solidarity they assemble. They need to get back to their provincial origins, to their çhacras, to their families – where they will get shelter and food, where they again may feel “home” and loved or at least welcome.

A dictatorial military style government prevents them from leaving – for security reasons, of course – they may infect other people, — the farse continues. And nobody says peep. Nobody dares, for fear of being locked away. Police brutality – sticks, tear gas – repression – back to no shelter – no food. Until the central almighty government decides to “organize” repatriation – by buses, but there is not enough capacity, nor organization – chaos emerges – and the lot gets worse – and how much worse can it get? Famine will strike, will make them weaker and weaker, more prone to diseases and to die – not fromCOVID19, but from famine. But as statistics go, MUST go, by orders of the Masters, such deaths will automatically be attributed to the corona pandemic. Naturally. It’s done elsewhere, in the Global North. Why not in the Global South?

Lima is just a case in point – Its representative probably for most of Latin America, except for Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba – where, in the midst of misery, there is still a sense of solidarity uniting the people – where the government stands with the people, yet, where people are more severely suffering, because of western sanctions – they are literally being murdered by western sanctions – foremost the US of A. A genocidal nation.

The New York Times (22 April 2020) reports, ‘Instead of Coronavirus, the Hunger Will Kill Us.’ A Global Food Crisis Looms. The world has never faced a hunger emergency like this, experts say. It could double the number of people facing acute hunger to 265 million by the end of this year.

Also, by the NYT –

“In Kibera, the largest slum in Nairobi, Kenya, residents already live in extreme poverty. Desperate to eat set off a stampede during a recent giveaway of flour and cooking oil, leaving scores injured and two people dead.”

“In India, thousands of workers are lining up twice a day for bread and fried vegetables to keep hunger at bay.”

“And across Colombia, poor households are hanging red clothing and flags from their windows and balconies as a sign that they are hungry.”

This reminds of the infamous Kissinger quote of the 1970s on famine,

“Who controls the food supply controls the people – the quote goes on saying,

“Who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.”

Kissinger, like the Gates, the Rockefellers  are “well meaning”: They have never made a secret of  their desire to reduce the world population in a format that reminds one of eugenics, by “eradicating poverty”, for example through vaccination – starting in Africa.

Gates has recently suggested that he would try out his new corona vaccine in Africa – to which even his buddy, Dr. Tedros, the WHO Director General, protested.

The coronavirus pandemic has brought poverty and famine to millions of people around the world. And there is no end in sight.

To the contrary, it would seem that almost all governments are coopted or tacitly coerced into adhering to the “guidelines”.

It is both diabolical as well as beyond comprehension. Why?  The “global elites” really believe that they are contributing to the future and well-being of humanity. Yet their actions have resulted in abject misery, unemployment and despair.

Without such coercive measures it could hardly be explained why almost all governments of the planet submit to this horrendous social and economic agenda – and lie, lie, abject lie – to their people. The very people they are supposed to protect against unemployment, famine and despair.

Under “normal” circumstances of our globe’s predatory inequality, some 9 million people die annually from hunger and famine-related diseases. This figure may now shoot up exponentially. Maybe into the tens of millions, or more.

Famine and death by famine could be further affected by artificially caused food shortages, or by droughts or floods – resulting from purposefully man-made climate change  – not through the ludicrously touted CO2-caused temperature rise – but by the advanced US Air Force HAARP system (HAARP = High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program).

“During the Vietnam war, cloud-seeding techniques were used, starting in 1967 under Project Popeye, the objective of which was to prolong the monsoon season and block enemy supply routes along the Ho Chi Minh Trail”.  Today the HAARP system has been perfected and weaponized. According to US Air Force document AF 2025 Final Report, weather modification (for military use):

 “offers the war fighter a wide range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary …

‘Weather modification will become a part of domestic and international security and could be done unilaterally… It could have offensive and defensive applications and even be used for deterrence purposes. The ability to generate precipitation, fog and storms on earth or to modify space weather… and the production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of [military] technologies.”

Under the proposed Gates Foundation forced vaccination program – those who refuse vaccination, may, for example, not be able to travel.

The abject misery that is purposefully imposed upon mankind becomes ever more visible. Aside from wiping out people’s and business’ assets, it’s poverty and famine…

There is today no Nuremberg-type Tribunal, honest, ethical and powerful enough to hold the global elites accountable and bring them to justice.

We the people have to take the reign in this ongoing paradigm shift.

We the people, have to get out of this atrocious lockdown.

Not confrontational, but with wisdom and savvy. Letting the enemy’s ferocious forces strengthen our weakness – and make us overcome.

A good General doesn’t like aggression

A good warrior doesn’t know hate

If you want to conquer your enemy, don’t confront him.

Put yourself below him

This is called the power of not-fighting

This is using the ability of men

This is called since ancient times, to be in harmony with heaven,

And it is the greatest power there is (Tao 68)

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a water resources and environmental specialist. He worked for over 30 years with the World Bank and the World Health Organization around the world in the fields of environment and water. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research; ICH; RT; Sputnik; PressTV; The 21st Century; Greanville Post; Defend Democracy Press, TeleSUR; The Saker Blog, the New Eastern Outlook (NEO); and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Featured image: A woman wearing face mask walks in Damascus, Syria, March 24, 2020. | Photo: EFE

The original source of this article is Global Research
Be seeing you

 

 

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

A Disease in the Public Mind, Part II? – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on June 29, 2020

The Southern slaves were used as pawns in a war that was not about freeing them but about destroying the voluntary union of the founders and replacing it with a coerced union more along the lines of the future Soviet Union.  Lincoln and the U.S. Congress declared to the world in 1861 (in Lincoln’s first inaugural address, and the War Aims Resolution of the U.S Congress) that the war had nothing to do with slavery but was being fought to “save the union” (geographically and for tax-collecting purposes).  

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/06/thomas-dilorenzo/a-disease-in-the-public-mind-part-ii/

By

In 2013 historian and novelist Thomas Fleming, the author of more than fifty books including biographies of George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, and histories of the two world wars, made a contribution to American Civil War history with A Disease in the Public Mind: A New Understanding of Why We Fought the Civil War.  A kind of “disease in the public mind” that Fleming speaks of seems to have commenced a second wave that many fear may lead to a second civil war.

Fleming is perplexed that the United States was “the only nation in the world to fight a war to end slavery.”  All other countries (Great Britain, Spain, France, Netherlands, Denmark, the Northern states in the U.S.), ended slavery peacefully in the nineteenth century.  He also does not believe that the average Confederate soldier fought to defend slavery since “a mere 6 percent of the total white population” of the South in 1860 owned slaves and there was no stake in the system for the other 94 percent.

So why was there a war, according to Thomas Fleming?  First, there was an extreme “malevolent envy” of Southerners by the New England “Yankees” who believed they were God’s chosen people entitled to rule over not only America but the world.  Today, such people would be called “neocons.”  Southerners did not agree, obviously.

Second, there were twenty-five or so wealthy and very influential New England abolitionists who had abandoned Christianity, condemned Jesus Christ, and adopted the mentally deranged murderer of innocents, John Brown, a self-described communist, as their “savior,” funding his terroristic bloodbaths. Brown and his comrades murdered entire families in Kansas who did not own slaves, including the murder of Mr. James P. Doyle and his two sons in front of their wife and mother.  Brown said his purpose was “to strike terror into the hearts of proslavery people.”  The rationalization of mass murder such as this is the “disease in the public mind” that Fleming writes about.  It is also the ideology that fueled the Lincoln administration’s waging of total war on the entire civilian population of the South, with Sherman’s troops singing “John Brown’s Body” as they raped, pillaged, and plundered their way through Georgia and South Carolina.

The New England Yankees “were inclined to believe in the moral depravity of anyone who disagreed with them,” a trait that “permeated” New England, says Fleming.  Armed with such thoughts, such New England Yankees as William Lloyd Garrison waged a decades-long crusade of hatred against Southerners, saying they were “ruled by Satan,” calling the region “one great Sodom,” and other outrageous insults reminiscent of the Salem (Massachusetts) witch trials, remarks Fleming.  And some wonder why Southerners no longer wanted to be “united” with the New England Yankees.

Ralph Waldo Emerson “expressed awe and near-worship of John Brown,” Fleming writes.  Henry David Thoreau said “Brown was Jesus” and “the humanest man in the country.”  These leading literary lights of New England were clearly crazy.

There are similarities with today’s would-be revolutionaries who seem hell bent on instigating a second civil war.  The Leftists who have displayed an uncontrollable, violent hatred of President Trump over the past three-and-a-half years have done so because their real hatred is of the people who voted for Trump and put him in office.  They are not condemned as Satanists or sodomists, as with nineteenth-century Southerners, but have instead been branded as “deplorable” racists, sexists, homophobes, etc., etc.  Several years before the defeat of Queen Hillary, Clyde Wilson remarked in a LewRockwell.com article entitled “The Yankee Problem in America” that Hillary Clinton, raised in Illinois and educated in New England, was “a museum-quality specimen of a Yankee.”

These are the people whose dreams of destroying capitalism and replacing it with their own version of Soviet central planning under the guise of a “Green New Deal” have been soundly rejected if not ignored by the deplorables, a key reason for their intense, and often violent hatred.  They feel entitled to rule over the rest of America – if not the world – and many of them appear to be seething with a murderous hatred over not being granted such power.  They have given up on debate and argumentation and are now resorting to pervasive censorship, riots, vandalism, arson, and assaults.  Mass killing cannot be too far off if they are not stopped and soon.  They are essentially a combination of nineteenth-century New England Yankee and early twentieth-century Russian Bolshevik.  One thing these two movements had in common is their willingness to wage total wars of mass murder in pursuit of monopolistic political power.  Indeed, historian Richard Bensel remarked in his book, Yankee Leviathan, that the political monopoly enjoyed by the Republican Party from 1861-1913 was rivaled only by the Soviet Union itself.

Many of the violent, screaming, rioting youths displayed on television and the internet in recent weeks are most likely a part of the Bernie Brigade,” social justice snowflake followers of lifelong communist Bernie Sanders.  Unlike Bernie, however, they have chosen violence, vandalism, arson and criminality as their modus operandi as opposed to working within the system as an elected public official.

The Southern slaves were used as pawns in a war that was not about freeing them but about destroying the voluntary union of the founders and replacing it with a coerced union more along the lines of the future Soviet Union.  Lincoln and the U.S. Congress declared to the world in 1861 (in Lincoln’s first inaugural address, and the War Aims Resolution of the U.S Congress) that the war had nothing to do with slavery but was being fought to “save the union” (geographically and for tax-collecting purposes).   This, too, is similar to today’s events, with what started out as riots supposedly over police brutality against black people turning into  “demands” for an exponentially bigger welfare state, abolition of police and prisons, the abolition of capitalism and in essence the adoption of socialism.  Toppling statues of Christopher Columbus, Ulysses S. Grant, Albert Pike, and even of Lincoln is not a protest against police brutality but part of an effort to destroy the institutions of Western civilization and replace them with communism at long last.  As one of the founders of Black Lives Matter proudly boasted, “We are trained Marxists.”  (“Trained” by Obama-style “community organizers,” no doubt).

In the tradition of John Brown, one Black Lives Matter spokesman named Hawk Newsome appeared on the Fox News Channel and threatened to “burn down the system” if his “demands are not met.”  “Civil rights activist” Shaun King recently echoed the nineteenth-century New England Yankee assault on Christianity when he went on Twitter to invite his followers to vandalize and destroy images of “White Jesus” and “his European wife” in churches throughout America.  Such people may not have a mental disease; they are just plain evil.

One final similarity between the Civil War years and today is that there were people in America who urged the peaceful abolition of slavery, just as all the rest of the world had done in recent years.  Slavery existed in New York City as late as 1853 according to the New York Historical Society.  Lysander Spooner was a renowned abolitionist who wrote a book on The Unconstitutionality of Slavery that was a roadmap of the peaceful abolition of the institution.  He and others like him were ignored, for the Republican party of the day was devoted to creating an American empire that would rival the British, Spanish, and French empires, and were not interested in practical plans for peaceful emancipation.

Recently, Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina mistakenly believed that the rioting communists of Antifa and Black Lives Matter – the shock troops of the Democrat Party — were actually interested in reforming the criminal justice system and would support legislation that he introduced into the U.S. Senate that would address the problem of police brutality.  He was denounced by all the usual suspects and stonewalled by his own (Democrat and some Republican) colleagues in the senate.  These people are about revolution, not making life safer and more prosperous for black people – and everyone else.

Be seeing you

 

 

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

Watch “Talking About Stoicism 77 Man’s Gotta Know His Limitations” on YouTube

Posted by M. C. on June 28, 2020

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

EconomicPolicyJournal.com: Corporate America is Throwing Facebook Under the Bus

Posted by M. C. on June 28, 2020

For example, they are now threatening Target because the retailer calls the police on blacks who shoplift.

https://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2020/06/corporate-america-is-throwing-facebook.html

This is simply astounding, a massive number of major corporations are falling in line and will boycott Facebook in July by not advertising at the social media web site giant for at least the month.

The alleged Facebook “crime” is that it has not censored enough “hate” posts. In other words, Facebook has allowed too much freedom of speech as far as the Mao crowd is concerned.

Corporate America is either in line with the thinking of the Mao crowd or fears them.

More than 150 companies have decided to stop advertising spending on Facebook for the month, including Verizon,  Coca-Cola, Unilever, Honda, Lending Club, Ben and Jerry’s and The North Face.

The full list of boycotters is updated here.

The advance of the radical leftists continues to accelerate.

It is very difficult to judge how much staying-power this anti-capitalist movement has but it has to be taken extremely seriously. They for sure are not playing.

For example, they are now threatening Target because the retailer calls the police on blacks who shoplift.

They are going to advance this destruction across the board as far as they can. There are very skilled puppetmasters behind the curtains.

–RW
Be seeing you

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

5 Things I Learned Debating the Harvard Prof Who Called for a ‘Presumptive Ban’ on Homeschooling | The Libertarian Institute

Posted by M. C. on June 28, 2020

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/5-things-i-learned-debating-the-harvard-prof-who-called-for-a-presumptive-ban-on-homeschooling/

by | Jun 21, 2020

 

It’s not just about homeschooling.

On Monday, I debated the Harvard professor who proposes a “presumptive ban” on homeschooling. Thousands of viewers tuned in to watch the live, online discussion hosted by the Cato Institute. With 1,000 submitted audience questions, the 90-minute webinar only scratched the surface of the issue about who is presumed to know what is best for children: parents or the state. Here is the replay link in case you missed it.

Last week, I outlined much of my argument against Harvard Law School professor Elizabeth Bartholet that I incorporated into our debate, but here are five takeaways from Monday’s discussion:

While this event was framed as a discussion about homeschooling, including whether and how to regulate the practice, it is clear that homeschooling is just a strawman. The real issue focuses on the role of government in people’s lives, and in particular in the lives of families and children. In her 80-page Arizona Law Review article that sparked this controversy, Professor Bartholet makes it clear that she is seeking a reinterpretation of the US Constitution, which she calls “outdated and inadequate,” to move from its existing focus on negative rights, or individuals being free from state intervention, to positive rights where the state takes a much more active role in citizens’ lives.

During Monday’s discussion, Professor Bartholet explained that “some parents can’t be trusted to not abuse and neglect their children,” and that is why “kids are going to be way better off if both parent and state are involved.” She said her argument focuses on “the state having the right to assert the rights of the child to both education and protection.” Finally, Professor Bartholet said that it’s important to “have the state have some say in protecting children and in trying to raise them so that the children have a decent chance at a future and also are likely to participate in some positive, meaningful ways in the larger society.”

It’s true that the state has a role in protecting children from harm, but does it really have a role in “trying to raise them”? And if the state does have a role in raising children to be competent adults, then the fact that two-thirds of US schoolchildren are not reading proficiently, and more than three-quarters are not proficient in civics, should cause us to be skeptical about the state’s ability to ensure competence.

I made the point on Monday that we already have an established government system to protect children from abuse and neglect. The mission of Child Protective Services (CPS) is to investigate suspected child abuse and punish perpetrators. CPS is plagued with problems and must be dramatically reformed, but the key is to improve the current government system meant to protect children rather than singling out homeschoolers for additional regulation and government oversight. This is particularly true when there is no compelling evidence that homeschooling parents are more likely to abuse their children than non-homeschooling parents, and some research to suggest that homeschooling parents are actually less likely to abuse their children.

Additionally, and perhaps most disturbingly, this argument for more state involvement in the lives of homeschoolers ignores the fact that children are routinely abused in government schools by government educators, as well as by school peers. If the government can’t even protect children enrolled in its own heavily regulated and surveilled schools, then how can it possibly argue for the right to regulate and monitor those families who opt out?

Of all the recommendations included in the Harvard professor’s proposed presumptive ban on homeschooling, the one that caused the most uproar among both homeschoolers and libertarians was the call for regular home visits of homeschooling families, with no evidence of wrongdoing.

In my remarks during Monday’s debate, I included a quote from a Hispanic homeschooling mother in Connecticut who was particularly angry and concerned about imposing home visits on homeschooling families. (According to federal data, Hispanics make up about one-quarter of the overall US homeschooling population, mirroring their representation in the general US K-12 school-age population.) She made the important point that minority families are increasingly choosing homeschooling to escape discrimination and an inadequate academic environment in local schools. She also pointed out that, tragically, it is often minorities who are most seriously impacted by these seemingly well-meaning government regulations. Writing to me about Professor Bartholet’s recommendation, she said:

“To state that they want to have surveillance into our homes by having government officials visit, and have parents show proof of their qualified experience to be a parent to their own child is yet another way for local and federal government to do what they have done to native Americans, blacks, the Japanese, Hispanics, etc in the past. Her proposal would once again interfere and hinder a certain population from progressing forward.”

Anyone who cares about liberty and a restrained government should be deeply troubled by the idea of periodic home visits by government agents on law-abiding citizens.

Despite the landmark 1925 US Supreme Court decision that ruled it unconstitutional to ban private schools, there remains lingering support for limiting or abolishing private education and forcing all children to attend government schools. Homeschooling is just one form of private education.

In her law review article, Professor Bartholet recommends “private school reform,” suggesting that private schools may have similar issues to homeschooling but saying that this topic is “beyond the scope” of her article. Still, she concludes her article by stating that “to the degree public schools are seriously deficient, our society should work on improving them, rather than simply allowing some parents to escape.”

The government should work to improve its own schools, where academic deficiencies and abuse are pervasive. But it should have no role in deciding whether or not parents are allowed to escape.

Some advocates of homeschooling regulation suggest that requiring regular standardized testing of homeschoolers would be a reasonable compromise. In her law review article, Professor Bartholet recommends: “Testing of homeschoolers on a regular basis, at least annually, to assess educational progress, with tests selected and administered by public school authorities; permission to continue homeschooling conditioned on adequate performance, with low scores triggering an order to enroll in school.”

During Monday’s debate, I asked the question: By whose standard are we judging homeschoolers’ academic performance? Is it by the standard of the government schools, where so many children are failing to meet the very academic standards the government has created? I pointed out that many parents choose homeschooling because they disapprove of the standards set by government schools. For example, in recent years schools have pushed literacy expectations to younger and younger children, with kindergarteners now being required to read. If they fail to meet this arbitrary standard, many children are labeled with a reading deficiency when it could just be that they are not yet developmentally ready to read.

Indeed, as The New York Times reported in 2015: “Once mainly concentrated among religious families as well as parents who wanted to release their children from the strictures of traditional classrooms, home schooling is now attracting parents who want to escape the testing and curriculums that have come along with the Common Core, new academic standards that have been adopted by more than 40 states.”

A key benefit of homeschooling is avoiding standardization in learning and allowing for a much more individualized education. And it seems to be working. Most of the research on homeschooling families conducted over the past several decades, including a recent literature review by Dr. Lindsey Burke of the Heritage Foundation, finds positive academic outcomes of homeschooling children.

There are very few movements today that bring together such a diverse group of people as homeschooling does. Families of all political persuasions, from all corners of the country, reflecting many different races, ethnicities, classes, cultures, values, and ideologies, and representing a multitude of different learning philosophies and approaches choose homeschooling for the educational freedom and flexibility it provides. Homeschoolers may not agree on much, but preserving the freedom to raise and educate their children as they choose is a unifying priority. In times of division, homeschoolers offer hope and optimism that liberty will prevail.

Reprinted from FEE.

Be seeing you

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

How Marxists Exploit Race | The American Spectator

Posted by M. C. on June 28, 2020

That’s what seems to be going on. Radicals are cynically exploiting a genuine injustice like the George Floyd killing for a larger ideological purpose. So many of the oblivious (and often good-hearted) foot soldiers who join them don’t realize the degree to which they’re being enlisted and exploited.

I was asked last weekend by an apolitical family member: What’s the goal of the protests and riots? It depends on the organizers. Oftentimes it’s to tear down, to take down, to stir chaos and disorder. For instance, calls for defunding the police would do nothing but foment more chaos and disorder.

https://spectator.org/black-lives-matter-marxists-exploit-race-george-floyd-patrisse-cullors/

by
We saw it in the 1930s. And on a larger scale, we’re seeing it now.
Patrisse Cullors, co-founder of Black Lives Matter (YouTube screenshot)

On March 25, 1931, two white women, Victoria Price and Ruby Bates, claimed they had been raped by nine black teenagers along the railroad from Chattanooga to Memphis. In a town called Paint Rock, Alabama, a citizen posse took the law into its hands and “arrested” the boys, transporting them to jail cells in nearby Scottsboro.

As news spread, enraged whites gathered outside the jail, ready to form a lynch job. Local authorities promised quick justice to the seething vigilantes. On cue, five days later an all-white jury indicted the nine boys. A second round of trials commenced in March 1933, during which Ruby Bates recanted her initial testimony. Nonetheless, the jury voted again to convict the boys.

In both cases, the Scottsboro boys and George Floyd, you had crimes against not just race but humanity. Both became episodes for exploitation by revolutionary ideologues with wider purposes and agendas.

The case of the Scottsboro boys was nationally known as a serious miscarriage of justice. The boys literally fought for their lives against a system rigged against them. Decent Americans were outraged. Something needed to be done. People with cooler heads needed to step in to calm the situation.

Unfortunately, the Scottsboro case became further enflamed. It attracted some of the worst elements of the Marxist Left. American communists saw a delicious opportunity to swoop in. They attempted to hijack the case and the cause.

Really, this was no surprise. Communists have long been adept at agitating, instigating, and organizing. They are trained in the art. As skilled propagandists, they conceive and coordinate tight campaigns that work wondrously in enlisting liberals in particular. They are really good at raising lots of hell without a lot of members, at fomenting chaos and discord and getting people in the streets.

In the case of Scottsboro, the goal was not only to attract black Americans to the Communist Party — and liberals, various fellow travelers, and social-justice warriors — but above all to portray the United States as an inherently racist nation where cases like Scottsboro are the systemic norm.

How fruitful was the Scottsboro campaign?

It succeeded in drawing some black Americans into the Communist Party, albeit only some. A December 1954, congressional report examined the effort. Titled “The American Negro in the Communist Party,” the report delineated decades of attempts by the Soviet Comintern and Communist Party USA (CPUSA) to try to recruit African Americans. Crazy as it now sounds, the Comintern and CPUSA actually envisioned a segregated Soviet–American “Negro republic” under Kremlin command in the American South.

This was no mere fleeting fancy. In 1922, the Comintern approved a fat $300,000 subsidy (an enormous sum) to the American Communist Party for purposes of propaganda among black Americans. In 1925, the Comintern selected a small group of 12 black American communists to come to Moscow for training. (The most well-known was Lovett Fort-Whiteman, described by Time magazine as the “Reddest” among them, and who a decade later died in the Soviet Gulag.)

Congress found that communists had failed miserably to attract black Americans. The report found no evidence that Communist Party USA and its Moscow masters had generated a mass swell of black Americans.

And yet, it is not the quantity of recruits that necessarily counts, but the quality. And some of those that the Scottsboro campaign attracted were nothing short of sensational successes with results that would pay off in unimaginable ways down the road. For instance, it was that particular recruitment tool — CPUSA’s cynical Scottsboro campaign — that began drawing into the Communist Party a young journalist and editor in Atlanta named Frank Marshall Davis, who decades later in the 1970s would become a mentor to a Hawaiian adolescent named Barack Obama. Yes, Barack Obama. Davis was first drawn into the Communist Party orbit by a campaign to recruit African Americans via a racial wedge issue.

This history is well documented. I’ve written about it in several books, most notably in my biography of Frank Marshall Davis, titled The Communist, in my book Dupes, and in my book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Communism. The history is totally ignored today. Of course, historical ignorance is killing us. It explains how one week protesters are ripping down statues of Confederate generals and then the next week targeting Ulysses S. Grant, the Union general who defeated the Confederacy. But alas, this is what our schools have done, especially our awful universities.

How does Scottsboro relate to today — namely, the fallout from the George Floyd tragedy?

In both cases, the Scottsboro boys and George Floyd, you had genuine racial injustices, unquestionable abuses, crimes against not just race but humanity. Both Scottsboro and George Floyd deserved condemnation and protest. Only a cretin couldn’t feel for George Floyd after watching that video, just as only a scoundrel couldn’t feel for the Scottsboro boys. And unfortunately, both became episodes for exploitation by revolutionary ideologues with wider purposes and agendas.

“We actually do have an ideological frame,” says Patrisse Cullors of her and Black Lives Matter co-founder Alicia Garza. “Myself and Alicia in particular are trained organizers. We are trained Marxists. We are super-versed on, sort of, ideological theories.”

Cullors and Garza, co-founders of Black Lives Matter, are self-acknowledged trained Marxists. They are trained organizers. That’s their ideological framework. As trained, ideological Marxists, they know how to tap an issue (the more legitimate the better) to rage against the existing social and political order.

“Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things,” wrote Marx and Engels at the close of the Communist Manifesto. “They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.”

That’s what seems to be going on. Radicals are cynically exploiting a genuine injustice like the George Floyd killing for a larger ideological purpose. So many of the oblivious (and often good-hearted) foot soldiers who join them don’t realize the degree to which they’re being enlisted and exploited.

I was asked last weekend by an apolitical family member: What’s the goal of the protests and riots? It depends on the organizers. Oftentimes it’s to tear down, to take down, to stir chaos and disorder. For instance, calls for defunding the police would do nothing but foment more chaos and disorder.

Sure, obviously the vast majority attending rallies aren’t Marxists. Of course. For certain communist ringleaders, however, they will support a revolutionary movement that goes against the existing social and political order of things.

Importantly, Black Lives Matter is hardly the only such organization. Everyone points to Antifa. But Antifa is a new kid on the block. One of the worst exploiters and agitators is Revolutionary Communist Party USA (“Revcom”), which has long had a specialty of racial agitation. It’s seizure of the George Floyd outrage is obvious right now at its website.

Groups like Revcom and Communist Party USA were very active in the summer of 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri, shamelessly tossing gasoline on that fire just as it seemed to be mercifully cooling off. The official Communist Party USA website rallied, “Let us turn grief and anger into action and change.” The grief and anger was over Ferguson (understandably so), but it was channeled to explicitly Marxist action and change.

These are far from isolated examples. This has been going on for a hundred years.

It’s really quite sad. What happened with George Floyd and the Scottsboro boys are outrages, legitimate wrongs that should be used to make legitimate reforms and strive for peace, reconciliation, racial harmony, and a better world. And yet, lurking in the shadows are those looking to seize these matters for revolutionary purposes.

For Black Lives Matter, that’s a wide-ranging panoply of revolutionary change that goes way beyond George Floyd or even black issues. BLM states at its website that it seeks to “disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure.” Its “What We Believe” statement is remarkably cultural and sexual, using words like “trans” four times, “queer” once, “heteronormative” once, and “comrades” twice.

What does this mean for you, or maybe for your child thinking about signing on the dotted line?

Be careful and vigilant in finding groups to express your outrage and a desire for intelligent reform. Don’t rally to the wrong guys. Know who they are. Be smart. If you want to protest the George Floyd killing, there are a thousand ways to do so without supporting Marxist revolutionaries.

Be seeing you

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

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »