MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »

Delingpole : Michael Moore Is Now the Green New Deal’s Worst Enemy

Posted by M. C. on April 23, 2020

Michael Moore see red about green.

Green energy is so bad even Moore has to admit it.

“How can men destroy what’s left of nature to enrich themselves?” Gibbs asks of the crony-capitalist renewables industry which has made a fortune for rent-seekers like Al Gore. He answers: “That’s why they’re billionaires and you’re not.”

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/04/23/delingpole-michael-moore-is-now-the-green-new-deals-worst-enemy/

Left-wing documentary filmmaker Michael Moore is promoting a new documentary he executive produced about the environment — Planet of the Humans — and many of his usual supporters are going nuts.

What can the veteran left-wing activist possibly have done to earn such disapproval?

Simple. Moore has backed the most powerful, brutally honest and important documentary of his career. It’s also by far his bravest because it not only confronts the modern left’s greatest shibboleth — “clean” energy — but it does indeed offer a great deal of succour to Moore’s avowed enemy President Donald Trump.

It might even help Trump clinch the next presidential election for it undermines the entire basis of the Green New Deal being pushed in one form or another by his opponents. Renewable energy, the documentary makes abundantly clear, is not the solution to the problem — but an even bigger problem than the one it is supposedly solving.

The documentary was directed by Jeff Gibbs, who, like Moore, is very much a man of the left. Gibbs was a producer and composer on Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine. In his youth, he was the kind of committed, long-haired eco activist who sabotages diggers by putting sugar in their gas tanks.

And it’s this left-wing, activist background of Gibbs and Moore which makes the movie’s message so much more compelling.

Renewable energy, it tells us, is not clean energy but dirty energy because it does tremendous damage to the environment. The people who make money out of it are the worst kind of crony-capitalists. Anyone who claims to believe otherwise is either an idiotic dupe or a wicked liar.

Though I’ve written about this myself in countless Breitbart columns, I’m a conservative writer largely preaching to the choir. Coming from two ardent leftists, on the other hand, and aimed at least in part at a leftist audience, the message of Planet of the Humans is dynamite.

“I’m in a strange position,” the soft-spoken Gibbs tells us at the beginning of the movie. “I’m against our addiction to fossil fuels and have long been a fan of green energy. But everywhere I encountered green energy, it wasn’t what it seemed.”

And so we watch the scales begin to fall from Gibbs’s eyes.

We visit a zoo — powered, according to a local news story, by “renewable” elephant dung — which turns out on inspection not even to produce enough elephant dung power to heat the elephant barn.

We visit a “solar powered” music festival where we discover that behind the scenes it is largely powered by diesel generators.

We visit an ethanol plant — whose wood has to be harvested using fossil-fuel powered equipment and depends for its operational effectiveness on coal.

We visit a lovely old wood beloved by hikers and nature lovers in rural Vermont being trashed to build a wind farm.

We see 500-year old yuccas in the Mojave desert being torn up and shredded by diggers to make way for a “clean” energy solar plant.

“It was enough to make my head explode,” Gibbs confesses at one point. “Green energy is not going to save us.”

No indeed. But it’s going to make a few ugly and cynical crony capitalists very, very rich.

Gibbs follows the money trail and discovers — quelle surprise! — that the people and organizations most assiduously stoking the war on fossil fuels and most aggressively promoting “renewables” as an alternative are invariably the ones who stand to benefit most financially.

Among the Hall of Shame: Canadian activist Bill McKibben; Al Gore; Van Jones; Robert F Kennedy Jr; Jeremy Grantham; Michael Bloomberg; Richard Branson.

These are revealed to have an unhealthily cozy relationship with green NGOs like the Sierra Club and The Nature Conservancy, which mouth the usual environmental pieties while yet quietly promoting energy which is every bit as environmentally destructive as fossil fuels.

The worst of these, the documentary suggests, are biofuels and biomass. We visit one biomass plant on the shores of Lake Superior — awarded a $11.5 million government grant because it qualifies as “renewable” energy — which encourages its green wood chips to burn with the help of tire fragments and creosote (causing the snow to turn black).

Time and again — because Gibbs hangs out among his own kind: liberal-leaning environmental activists; lefty academics; etc — we witness the shock in these people’s eyes. They consider themselves to be green; they want desperately to save the planet; yet here are these monstrosities being erected across the U.S. in the name of the environment which wipe out native forests, pollute the air, and ravage the landscape with wind towers and solar panels which are left to rot once their useful life (less than 20 years, often) is over.

This is maybe the most important thing of all about this very important movie: it will drive a wedge into the heart of the green movement and force its adherents to take sides.

Will they choose to go with the evidence: which clearly shows that renewable energy is damaging to the landscape and to wildlife and does NOT reduce the use of fossil fuels (which must be kept as back up for when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine)?

Or will they continue to promote the fake news narrative that renewables are an eco-friendly alternative to fossil fuels?

Renewable energy may well be the biggest scam in the gross, corrupt and, mendacious history of crony capitalism. It’s a scam so far-reaching that even the U.S. Navy has been persuaded to power its fleet in part with renewables.

It’s a scam so brazen that an environmental fund — Green Century Funds — promoted by Bill McKibben’s 350.org turns out on examination to have less than 1 percent of its holdings in the solar and wind industry; the other 99 percent comprises oil and gas infrastructure (including tar sands); biofuels; logging companies, and banks.

It’s a scam so hypocritical that last year’s Earth Day festival was sponsored by companies including car manufacturer Toyota and Caterpillar.

“How can men destroy what’s left of nature to enrich themselves?” Gibbs asks of the crony-capitalist renewables industry which has made a fortune for rent-seekers like Al Gore. He answers: “That’s why they’re billionaires and you’re not.”

Though I can’t say I share many of Michael Moore’s and Jeff Gibbs’s political assumptions — certainly not the Malthusian belief underpinning the movie that overpopulation is killing our planet — I’m full of gratitude and admiration that they should have made this bold, brave documentary.

What has always motivated me above all in my climate scepticism is my utter horror at what is being done to the planet in the name of saving it. Renewable energy is – and always has been – a monstrous, dirty, ugly scam, orchestrated by a cynical few at the expense of the many. It’s a horror against which we should all unite, left and right.

Now if only Michael Moore would stand up on a stage and say that, maybe at President Trump’s next campaign rally…

Be seeing you

 

See how the cast of 'Leave It to Beaver' changed over the ...

Green New Dealer

 

 

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

Essentials of Panarchism

Posted by M. C. on April 23, 2020

Time to re-visit Panarchism.

Panarchy is a condition of human relations in which each person is at liberty to choose his own social and political governance without being coerced. Panarchy means that persons may enter into and exit from social and political relations freely. It means that government exists only with the consent and by the consent of the governed.

Panarchism has new conceptions of what a people who are governed, a government, and consent mean. These give rise to a new conception of the nonterritorial State and revised ideas about sovereignty and authority. By viewing government as nonterritorial, panarchism reorients the movement for liberty away from destroying the governments that others may prefer and toward obtaining the governments that each of us may prefer.

https://www.panarchy.org/rozeff/panarchism.html

Michael S. Rozeff

Note

Those who, in the name of civilization and the protection of personal liberties, refuse categorically an imposed state religion or an economic system based on monopolies, should be ready to acknowledge that a government exerting a monopolistic territorial sovereignty leads to the same situation of lack of civilization (wars, clashes, feuding) and unfreedom (subjection to and manipulation by a central power) for everybody, irrespective of personal needs and wishes. That is why Michael Rozeff is all in favour of Panarchy because “Panarchists do not attempt to smash the governments others want. They deny no one the freedom to be unfree. However, they deny others (and their States and governments) the freedom to make them unfree.”

Panarchism is a new political philosophy that builds upon and extends the core concept of consent of the governed, which goes back primarily to John Locke. Consent of the governed is a concept that permeated revolutionary America. It appears in Article 6 of the Virginia Bill of Rights. It appears in the Essex Result. Benjamin Franklin wrote “In free governments the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns.” The Declaration of Independence asserts that “Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Panarchism proposes a comprehensive extension of liberty to the consensual choice of government itself, in form and content. It proposes government by consent for any persons who arrange such government for themselves. Conversely, it proposes that a government has no authority over any persons who do not consent to it.

Panarchy is a condition of human relations in which each person is at liberty to choose his own social and political governance without being coerced. Panarchy means that persons may enter into and exit from social and political relations freely. It means that government exists only with the consent and by the consent of the governed.

Panarchism has new conceptions of what a people who are governed, a government, and consent mean. These give rise to a new conception of the nonterritorial State and revised ideas about sovereignty and authority. By viewing government as nonterritorial, panarchism reorients the movement for liberty away from destroying the governments that others may prefer and toward obtaining the governments that each of us may prefer.

Free persons in a free society already practice a degree of panarchy. By individual consent, they associate with those whom they wish to associate with (and who wish to associate with them), and they do not associate with others. By choice, they vary their associations by time, place, duration, and other dimensions. They choose companions, places to live, workplaces, clubs, and churches on the basis of individual consent rendered in a noncoercive social context. Free persons form consensual organizations, associations, and groups. They form themselves into sub-societies and “peoples,” which are groups of persons that, via individual consent, willingly aggregate on various grounds and interests. In doing so, they create multiple coexisting forms of governance whose basis is not territorial (although it may optionally be so) but relational.

Panarchism proposes that panarchy be extended to government (or functions of government) in the same way that it is already present in society. Let persons be free to form peoples and to choose their own forms of government.

Why? Because consent today is too limited to allow a meaningful sovereignty of people. Because the rulers have become the sovereign and the people their servants. Because complex systems of voting and parties have diluted consent to the vanishing point. Because would-be peoples are thwarted from forming. Liberty does not mean a vote for one of two parties that runs a single monopoly government. It means active consent over the very form, as well as the content, of one’s governing relations.

Why panarchism? Because in today’s governing relations, we find ourselves living under distant States and governments whose form is not of our choosing. Because the planet is blanketed with States and governments that too often deliver injustice, insecurity, disorder, waste, misery, death, and destruction, as States and governments historically have done. Because States and governments focus and amplify power, using it for purposes that many of us do not believe in. And because governments today legitimate and encourage contentious struggles for domination where one group’s gains is another group’s loss, and where the struggles absorb more and more resources and divert energy from productive to unproductive uses.

The liberty that is basic to panarchy promises a better way of life, by extending to each of us the capacity to engage in the social and political relations of our own choosing in accord with our own beliefs. Since persons will not freely consent to governments whose decisions in the main leave them, by their own estimation, worse off, the free choice of government will provide the kind of check-and-balance on government failures and misdeeds that is a critical missing element of today’s political arrangements.

Panarchy envisages many possible societies and sub-societies across a land, region, or province. There need not be a single sovereign authority that imposes law on all, unless it happens to be by consent. In panarchy, multiple and diverse sources of self-chosen sovereignty coexist side-by-side, each finding its source of legitimacy from the consent of those who are willing to place themselves within a particular set of governing relations. People freely place themselves within multiple non-territorial governing associations, as contrasted with finding themselves assigned by authorities on a geographical basis.

The American revolutionaries blazed a trail toward nonterritorial government when they called for consent of the governed, but they simultaneously veered away from that trail. Just as they skirted the slavery question, they skirted the issues of what constituted a people, a legitimate government, consent, and secession. Article 14 of the Virginia Declaration of Rights sought “to maintain Virginia’s sovereignty over its restless, far-flung western counties.” It proclaimed “That the people have a right to uniform government; and, therefore, that no government separate from, or independent of the government of Virginia, ought to be erected or established within the limits thereof.” This particular territorial idea of government was justified by a false appeal to a mythical right to uniform government, in order to prevent the formation of West Virginia. Some 85 years later, West Virginia, which for decades had many sound reasons not to be governed by Richmond, finally seceded from Virginia.

Little has changed. Despite hundreds of breakaway and secession movements worldwide, the territorial notion of government has not changed. Indeed, many such movements themselves view government as territorial. American federalism has become nationalism. Governments of today are making societies over, based upon claims of legitimate authority that are less rooted in consent than in territorial claims of rulership.

The idea of government needs to be severed from the idea of the territorial State and from the notion that the government of such a State is all that government is or can be. Since the State is single, territorial, and coercive, such an idea views government as single, territorial, and coercive. The territorial idea supports States in place. It empties consent of all real meaning and replaces it by the machinations of meaningless votes, party politics, lobbying, redistricting, power, and campaign money flows. The territorial idea of government without consent dooms mankind to living without one of the most basic liberties, which is the liberty to choose one’s government.

It is a mistake to identify government as the executive and administrative means of the monopoly State. When those who are pro-State do this, it leaves little or no room for those who do not consent and wish to live by their own forms of government. When those who are anti-State do this, they become anti-government, a position that does not allow those who want various forms of their own government to exercise their choices.

Government is the social coordination of human personal interactions. To the extent that human beings interact with one another, government is thus inescapable. Advocates of no government, unless they eschew all social interaction, can no more live without government than can statists. But the necessity of government does not imply that government must be nonconsensual and territorial. We have an alternative to living under a single territorial State that makes and enforces all sorts of rules, for all of us, all the time. Panarchy is that alternative.

We ourselves govern a vast range of human activities by consent, nonterritorially, and without the State. This was historically and is currently the case. Persons within human societies create governance from varied and multiple sources that include moral and ethical codes, custom, bodies of judge-discovered law, rules, principles, manners, religion, pacts, agreements, understandings, and contracts, as well as through a variety of instruments, institutions, and organizations that include family, associations, churches, schools, corporations, and business firms. Society, in this sense, which is really many interpenetrating and diverse societies, already reflects a high degree of panarchy. Societies everywhere already employ panarchy as a beneficial principle of social organization and order.

Panarchism proposes extending panarchy further. It stands for a world in which people live by the governing relations of their choice while abiding by the decisions of their neighbors to live by theirs. A society with such liberty will hold together in the same ways that societies have always held together: through a complex network of shared values, beliefs, ways, language, and other commonalities that are put to work through self-interest that is expressed in individual, associational, and cooperative endeavors. It will hold together better than today’s societies because the nonconsensual government that fertilizes today’s constant political and economic battles, rebellions, and civil wars will have been reduced.

Different people understand freedom and liberty in different ways, and even when they agree, they place different values on liberty. One woman may choose to labor for another for a wage, while another may regard wage-labor as slavery. One man may allow himself to be inducted into an army, while another may look upon the draft as slavery. These different ideas of good and bad government can coexist in panarchy. Liberty and government are not at mutually exclusive poles. Abolishing government per se does not bring liberty for all. Abolishing government and replacing it with one’s own personal vision of liberty does not bring liberty for all. Liberty for all entails the capacity for all to choose their own governments. In panarchy, men and women are free to be unfree (in the eyes of others) to any desired degree. They may enter into many different kinds of governing relations. This sets panarchy apart from political conceptions that deny them the choice of State and government. Panarchists do not attempt to smash the governments others want. They deny no one the freedom to be unfree. However, they deny others (and their States and governments) the freedom to make them unfree.

Once we open up our thinking on the question of what government is, we can get away from the idea of “a government” and “the government.” Government is a set of functions that can be identified. Change is not a question of today’s government or none. There are all sorts of intermediate possibilities.

National governments have absorbed major functions such as old age security, aid to the indigent, and health care from civil society and local government. They have done so via complex majority rules and voting procedures that circumvented consent of the governed. Governments across the world often suppress minorities of many kinds. The imposition of nation-wide rules discriminates against and suppresses all those who do not consent and who do not want their government to handle certain critical issues. Medicare, for example, involves a taking and a wealth transfer. This kind of program could become nonterritorial and consensual. Mr. K can subscribe to a plan and belong to a government that deducts from his wages, while Mr. J need not. They can be neighbors and do this.

Many of today’s government functions can remain in place for those who want them while making them voluntary for those who do not. The idea in these cases is not to end government but make it consensual. Vast amounts of regulation of labor relations, energy, education, health, and welfare are such that one neighbor can live without certain rules even if his neighbor wants them. Instead of attempting to take Medicare away or attempting to persuade voters to vote it down, which plays the game of accepting monopoly and territorial government, panarchism goes at the problem of lack of consent and unjust powers of government in a different way. Let those who want Medicare have it; let those who don’t withdraw. Panarchism seizes the moral high ground. Why should those who don’t want Medicare be impressed into it by those who do? Isn’t this like making everyone belong to the same church? How can there be consent of the governed when we are herded, whether we like it or not, into programs that affect our lives in major ways?

Coordination problems involving human interaction are not going to disappear. The reform of government even where coordination issues are not at issue may well be difficult. Panarchism does not deny these difficulties. It sets out a just and peaceful destination that can be achieved peaceably, which is a future of reform in which the State abandons its territorial claims. This may happen little by little. It may happen by degrees. It may happen partially and gradually, or it may happen by leaps. Consensual and nonconsensual government are likely to continue to exist alongside one another for some time. Reforms, small and large, are unpredictable. They are for people themselves to advance and accomplish. Every step that people take, peaceful and nonaggressive, toward devising and living by their own government is a step toward more complete panarchy and greater liberty.

 

 

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

Bread and Circuses in Pennsylvania

Posted by M. C. on April 23, 2020

COVID

While I believe all businesses are important, one has to wonder at Governor Wolf’s logic in deciding what is essential.

While people are unemployed, idled and wondering whether they will have a job when this is over, ice cream stands are opening in Pennsylvania.

Ice cream is the bread in bread and circuses.

“Bread and circuses” (or bread and games; from Latin: panem et circenses) is a metonymic phrase referring to superficial appeasement. It is attributed to Juvenal, a Roman poet active in the late first and early second century AD — and is used commonly in cultural, particularly political, contexts. – Wikipedia

We are being played.

Like the magician making you look here when the real trick is sneaking up on you from there.

Be seeing you

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

DNRs, Digital Tattoos, Eliminating The Unfit, Eugenics Redux – It’s 1930’s Europe – Deja Vu all over again

Posted by M. C. on April 23, 2020

The NHS, the go to place for government medicine, has sent mailers out for people to consider DNRs to salvage a system floundering way before COVID.

Bill Gates wants vaccination history, and presumably all medical history, tattooed on us via an implanted chip.

Now New York has now attempted mandatory DNRs for cardiac patients. This is about as obvious as eugenics can get. Eliminating the societal burden of the unfit.

We know who runs the show in New York. The Democratic poster boy for the next presidential election due to his handling of Coronavirus. Andrew Cuomo.

This crisis is tearing the veil off the democratic socialism and it looks a lot like progressive eugenics and national socialism.

New York state rescinds DNR order for cardiac patients amid coronavirus crisis | Fox News

https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-york-state-instructs-paramedics-not-to-revive-cardiac-patients-amid-coronavirus-crisis-report

By Danielle Wallace, Nick Givas

New York state rescinded a blanket do-not-resuscitate order on Wednesday, that instructed first-responders not to revive patients without a pulse, in an effort to preserve resources during the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak…

Be seeing you

20 Best Memorable Yogi Berra Quotes About Success And Baseball

 

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

Withdraw US Support From Saudi Arabia – Antiwar.com Original

Posted by M. C. on April 23, 2020

Unfortunately, President Barack Obama continued decades of truckling to the Saudis.

Unfortunately, the result was to make Americans accomplices to murder.

This is the country that financed 9/11!

Yet we arm them and Al Qaeda to attack countries that have never attacked US.

https://original.antiwar.com/doug-bandow/2020/04/22/withdraw-us-support-from-saudi-arabia/

by

After five years of bloody, inconclusive war, Saudi Arabia declared a ceasefire in Yemen. Although hailed as a possible breakthrough for peace, Riyadh’s de facto admission of defeat did not stop the fighting. Moreover, even an effective ceasefire would be at best a halfway measure.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia should end its invasion and withdraw its forces. To encourage the KSA to halt a cruel campaign which has killed hundreds of thousands, created millions of refugees, and left most of the population hungry and impoverished, Washington should terminate its support for the needless Saudi war, including sale of weapons and munitions, as well as intelligence sharing.

Modern Yemen has been in crisis since it – originally in the form of two separate states – was born around six decades ago. Saudi Arabia has meddled in its neighbor’s affairs since the beginning, at one point squaring off against Egypt when a royal regime was resisting an ultimately successful military revolt. Riyadh later bribed tribal leaders and spread hateful Wahhabist teaching in Yemen. The Kingdom also aided President Ali Abdullah Saleh after the Ansar Allah (“Supporters of God”) movement, dominated by the al-Houthi tribe, revolted against his government. In contrast, Iran’s involvement was minimal.

The two Yemens united in 1990, but since then the single state has been rent by political discord, civil conflict, and regional separatism. Saleh’s luck ran out in early 2012 when he was ousted after the Arab Spring hit Yemen. But three years later he joined with the Houthis to oust President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi, his successor. None of this had much to do with Riyadh and nothing to do with Washington.

However, Saudi Arabia’s ruthless and reckless Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman believed he could reinstall Hadi in a brief campaign, leaving a compliant regime in Sanaa. This policy was just one of many which turned the once quiescent KSA into the most dangerous and destabilizing regime in the Middle East.

The Kingdom supported jihadist insurgents in Syria, kidnapped Lebanon’s prime minister, underwrote the al-Sisi coup and dictatorship in Egypt, used troops to back Bahrain’s authoritarian minority Sunni monarchy against the majority Shia population, financed civil war in Libya, and sought to overthrow the Qatari monarchy. Domestically the crown prince increased political repression while leaving intact totalitarian religious controls which ban all faiths but Islam. The latest State Department human rights report takes 58 pages to describe the Kingdom’s crimes against its own people. Freedom House gives Riyadh a lower rating for political and civil liberties than Yemen.

Riyadh expected its impoverished neighbor to be an easy target. However, unlike the effete Saudi military the Yemeni people were used to hardship and combat. Under attack by the Saudis backed by Washington, the Houthis turned to Tehran for support, which was eager to bleed the Kingdom.

Even worse for America, the war interrupted Yemeni operations against al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the most dangerous of the local affiliates, and other radical groups. Saleh’s government had cooperated with the U.S. against them; the Houthis also battled AQAP. However, both the nominal Hadi government and Saudi-Emirati coalition accommodated and even armed these extremist movements, including with American weapons.

Unfortunately, President Barack Obama continued decades of truckling to the Saudis. Having dismissed their opposition to negotiations with Iran over the nuclear accord with Iran, the president decided to reassure the Saudi royals by supporting the crown prince’s murderous misadventure. Washington sold aircraft and weapons to the kingdom, provided intelligence for targeting, and even refueled Saudi planes (a practice the Trump administration finally ended).

Unfortunately, the result was to make Americans accomplices to murder.

Humanitarian groups figure that upwards of two-thirds to three-quarters of civilian deaths and damage in Yemen have been caused by the coalition’s air campaign, which has hit marriages, funerals, apartments, and hospitals with equal avidity. The country’s commercial and social infrastructure also has been destroyed. The Emiratis even have backed southern separatists active against the Hadi government, threatening to dismember the nation.

As a result, Yemen scarcely exists anymore. Human Rights Watch reported: “Across the country, civilians suffer from a lack of basic services, a spiraling economic crisis, abusive local security forces, and broken governance, health, education, and judicial systems.” About 80 percent of Yemen’s almost 30 million people need outside aid of some sort. Roughly two-thirds of Yemenis lack adequate access to clean water and adequate health care and suffer from food insecurity. A third of the population is at risk of famine. In 2017 a cholera epidemic hit more than a million Yemenis. Some 20,000 noncombatants have died as a result of combat and another 130,000 from effects of the war.

The Houthi movement is no friend of the West and rules brutally over the territories it controls. But the harm caused by the continuation of internal strife going back years was a lesser magnitude than that which resulted from the Saudi invasion, which internationalized the fighting, made Yemen into a sectarian battleground, and turned the conflict into a Saudi-Iranian proxy war.

The only constructive role that Washington can play is to end military assistance, as proposed by House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith (D-Wash.), leaving Riyadh to bear the full cost of its folly. The administration claims to help moderate the Kingdom’s conduct, a gelastic argument given the ongoing carnage. America has no leverage so long as the president adopts a Saudi-first policy and refuses to criticize even Riyadh’s worst crimes.

The Saudi ceasefire is the Kingdom’s first public acknowledgment that its aggression has failed. The crown prince finally had to recognize brutal reality. Some analysts write of the complex issues that now must be negotiated. The only talks necessary are over the amount of reconstruction aid from Saudi Arabia necessary to rebuild the nation that it callously destroyed.

Riyadh should end its invasion. Washington should stop aiding and abetting the KSA’s criminal war.

Be seeing you

 

 

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

Fauci Backpedals on Vitamin C and D Recommendations – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on April 23, 2020

If nly healthy immune systems protected us from the disease of government.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/04/joseph-mercola/fauci-backpedals-on-vitamin-c-and-d-recommendations/

By

Mercola.com

As reported in my April 7, 2020, article “Vitamins C and D Finally Adopted as Coronavirus Treatment,” the largest hospital system in New York, Northwell Health, has been giving COVID-19 patients admitted into intensive care 1,500 milligrams of intravenous vitamin C three to four times a day in conjunction with the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine and the antibiotic azithromycin, both of which have shown promise in coronavirus treatment.1

According to Dr. Andrew G. Weber, a pulmonologist and critical-care specialist affiliated with two Northwell Health facilities on Long Island, “The patients who received vitamin C did significantly better than those who did not get vitamin C. It helps a tremendous amount, but it is not highlighted because it’s not a sexy drug.”2

NIAID Director Backpedals on Vitamin C and D Recommendations

Curiously, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the face of the White House coronavirus response team, is now saying life probably will not go back to normal until we have the ability to vaccinate the entire global population against COVID-19.3

I say “curiously,” as just four short years ago, in a Washingtonian article,4 “How to Avoid Getting Sick When You’re Around People All Day,” Fauci touted vitamins C and D as being good for boosting your immune system and fighting infectious disease.

Vitamin C “can enhance your body’s defense against microbes,” he said — a statement backed by recent research showing vitamin C supplementation lowers your risk of the common cold.5 At the time, Fauci said he was taking 1,000 milligrams (mg) of vitamin C, himself, every day. “Many people also do not get enough vitamin D, which affects a lot of body functions, so that would be helpful, too,” he added.

Yet, in a March 26, 2020, interview with RealClear Politics,6 he changed his tune, saying there was “no definite proof” that the vitamins work, even though some studies show they do. What changed? Why did he say vitamins C and D help boost immune function and ward off infectious disease four years ago, only to deny it now?…

Be seeing you

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

Tennis Star Novak Djokovic Concerned COVID-19 Vaccine May Be Mandatory – Collective Evolution

Posted by M. C. on April 23, 2020

More Robert Kennedy jr. than De Niro.

No sheeple is Novak Djokovic.

https://www.collective-evolution.com/2020/04/21/tennis-star-novak-djokovic-concerned-the-coronavirus-vaccine-may-be-mandatory/

In Brief

  • The Facts:Novak Djokovic recently said in a Facebook Live discussion that he faces a dilemma if a coronavirus vaccine becomes compulsory for players before they can return to competition., as he is opposed to vaccination.
  • Reflect On:Why does big media constantly ridicule those who have concerns about vaccine safety? Why not address the concerns they have instead of shaming them all the time? What is really going on here?

Special Note To Our Readers: We are concerned that our Facebook Page will be deleted, so we are encouraging all those who want to continue to receive and be able to find our content to sign up for our email list.

Multiple mainstream media news sources continue to label those who question vaccine safety and those who support informed consent as “anti-vax” and “conspiracy theorists.” They seem to constantly use hate and ridicule instead of simply addressing and acknowledging the concerns that are being raised by many vaccine safety advocates. At the recent Global Health Vaccine Safety summit hosted by the World Health Organization, Professor Heidi Larson, a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project, recommended that we must forego name-calling with ‘hostile language’ such as “anti-vax”. She recommended encouraging people to ask questions about vaccine safety. After all, it makes sense–in order to make our vaccines safer and more effective, you would think everybody would be on board with constant questioning and examination, no?

She also emphasized how it’s not just people questioning vaccine safety, it’s also many doctors and scientists. At the conference, she stated that:

The other thing that’s a trend, and an issue, is not just confidence in providers but confidence of health care providers, we have a very wobbly health professional frontline that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. That’s a huge problem, because to this day any study I’ve seen… still, the most trusted person on any study I’ve seen globally is the health care provider, and if we lose that, we’re in trouble.

You can read more about the conference from us, and find a link to watch it if interested, here.

Scientists and doctors are even coming together forming organizations that support informed consent with regards to vaccines, and providing the science and evidence as to why more doctors, scientists and parents are becoming concerned. The Physicians For Informed Consent is one great example.

 

Novak Djokovic

The latest “big” name to make comments comes from tennis star Novak Djokovic. Vaccines have become such a controversial topic that we don’t see many people with a large following speak up about the concerns that surround them. This is probably due to the fact that they are subjected to large amounts of scrutiny from the mainstream media, just like we are seeing right now with Djokovic. He recently expressed his concerns regarding the coronavirus vaccine, which is still a long way away from being on the market.

According to ESPN,

Novak Djokovic said he faces a dilemma if it becomes compulsory for players to get vaccinated before they can return to competing, as he is opposed to vaccinations. “Personally, I am opposed to vaccination, and I wouldn’t want to be forced by someone to take a vaccine in order to be able to travel. Djokovic said in a live Facebook chat on Sunday with several fellow Serbian athletes. “But if it becomes compulsory, what will happen? I will have to make a decision. I have my  thoughts about the matter, and whether those thoughts will change at some point, I don’t know.”

Will the coronavirus vaccine be mandatory for people to travel? For people to play sports? In a recent interview, Bill Gates painted the picture that a vaccine that reaches the masses is the only solution to the new coronavirus. You can read more about that here.  Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau,  did the same.

It’s no secret that vaccines are not completely safe for everyone, it’s clearly not a ‘one size fits all’ product, and that’s evident by the fact that nearly $4 billion has been paid out to families of vaccine injured children via the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA). As astronomical as the monetary awards are, they’re even more alarming considering that only an estimated 1% of vaccine injuries are even reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS).

Not only has vaccine injury been a concern for people, but a number of studies have surfaced that question the efficacy of various vaccines. For example,  A new study published in The Royal Society of Medicine is one of multiple studies over the years that has emerged questioning the efficacy of the HPV vaccine. The researchers conducted an appraisal of published phase 2 and 3 efficacy trials in relation to the prevention of cervical cancer and their analysis showed “the trials themselves generated significant uncertainties undermining claims of efficacy” in the data they used. The researchers emphasized that “it is still uncertain whether human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination prevents cervical cancer as trials were not designed to detect this outcome, which takes decades to develop.”  The researchers point out that the trials used to test the vaccine may have “overestimated” the efficacy of the vaccine. You can read more about that here.

Here’s an article that goes more in depth into the science on why so many people now refuse the flu shot.

When it comes to measles, multiple outbreaks have been traced back to vaccinated individuals, and outbreaks have been found to partly be a result of the vaccine itself. For example, during the measles outbreak in California in 2015, a large number of suspected cases occurred in recent vaccinees. Of the 194 measles virus sequences obtained in the United States in 2015, 73 were identified as vaccine sequences. The media (Pharma-owned) generated high public anxiety. This fear mongering led to the demonization of unvaccinated children, who were perceived as the spreaders of this disease. Rebecca J. McNall, a co-author of the published report, is a CDC official in the Division of Viral Diseases who had the data proving that the measles outbreak was in part caused by the vaccine. It is evidence of the vaccine’s failure to provide immunity.  (source)

There have also been hundreds of deaths, and thousands of hospitalizations and permanent disabilities associated with the measles vaccine. You can read more about the measles vaccine here.

The Takeaway

At the end of the day, multiple concerns can be raised, and hundreds of studies can be looked at and hundreds of books can be written about this controversial topic. Is our consent for a mandatory coronavirus vaccination being manufactured? Should we force everybody to get it? Should we simply trust big media and federal health regulatory agencies without doing our research? Is it really right, ethical and moral for these agencies to enforce mandatory measures on us when there is evidence showing that it is not something that would benefit the whole, the way it is marketed to do so?

Are our rights and freedoms being taken away in multiple areas? Something to think about…

Be seeing you

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

Vimeo Bans Documentary Exposing “Big Pharma’s” Influence Within The World Health Organization – Collective Evolution

Posted by M. C. on April 23, 2020

https://www.collective-evolution.com/2020/04/20/vimeo-bans-documentary-exposing-big-pharmas-influence-within-the-world-health-organization/

In Brief

  • The Facts:A documentary called “trustWHO” explores the influence that the pharmaceutical industry, among others, has on the World Health Organization. It was recently banned by Vimeo.
  • Reflect On:Why is sound and solid research presenting credible information being banned and censored on multiple platforms across the internet?

Special note to readers: This is the most comprehensive investigation into both sides of the vaccine debate. Researchers, medical professionals and scientists, come together to bring you the information you need to know in order to make educated decisions about vaccines. The global viewing event for The Truth About Vaccines begins April 22.

I recently published a piece about Wikileaks regarding recent posts they made pertaining to documents they released nearly a decade ago . The documents highlight the influence that pharmaceutical companies have on health policy set by the World Health Organization (WHO).

Towards the end of that article, I wrote about a documentary that’s recently been removed by Vimeo, and I wanted to publish another article that specifically shines light on this matter.

Vimeo deleted “trustWHO”, a film directed by Lilian Franck. Vimeo stated that they do not support “Videos that depict or encourage self-harm, falsely claim that mass tragedies are hoaxes, or perpetuate false or misleading claims about vaccine safety.”

According to the filmmakers, the claim from Vimeo is “Both misleading and false. “trustWHO” has been thoroughly researched for 7 years; it has been fact-checked and approved by lawyers, experts in the medical field and even by key executives of the WHO itself. The documentary simply investigated how efficiency and transparency of the WHO are undermined by both corporate influences and a lack of public funding. It is a journalistic investigation based on facts and far from what Vimeo makes it out to be. This is our full statement on the matter, presented by Robert Cibis (Filmmaker, Co-author and producer of “trust WHO”).

 

In our world today, there is the powerful presence of a digital Orwellian “fact checker” that’s going around the internet and social media deleting any evidence that threatens corporate, political, financial or elitist interests, or information that simply highlights the corruption within agencies that have been tasked to safeguard us. The elimination of content from various platforms, like Vimeo, Youtube, Facebook and more is being done so in an immoral and unethical manner.

This is why we here at Collective Evolution are concerned that our Facebook Page will be deleted, so we are encouraging all those who want to continue to receive and be able to find our content to sign up for our email list.

The more that sound information is censored, the more it’s simply going to contribute to the awakening of more people, and more people are going to seek out that censored information and evaluate it for themselves.

Below is a message from  Oval Media, producers of Trust WHO. In the video you can see a snippet of the documentary. It features a number of scientists and doctors, and former officials from within the World Health Organization. If you’re interested in watching the full version, you can support them and do so here while it’s still up. They are also currently fundraising for a documentary they would like to produce on the current COVID-19 pandemic. You can contribute here and find out more about that if interested.

Be seeing you

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

Crackdown lockdown downtown: fiddling case numbers while Rome burns « Jon Rappoport’s Blog

Posted by M. C. on April 23, 2020

This was based on a CDC computer model projection predicting as many as 1.4 million deaths from just two countries.”

“So when did they say this about COVID-19? Trick question: It was actually about the Ebola virus in Liberia and Sierra Leone five years ago, and the ultimate death toll was under 8,000.”

MASS IMPRISONMENT OF THE POPULATION.

And as I’ve said from the beginning, the key moment was the Chinese Regime locking down 50 million people overnight. That was the signal and the model and the “breakthrough.” “They did it, so we can do it, too.”

All hype, all theater, all the time.

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/04/22/crackdown-lockdown-downtown-fiddling-case-numbers-while-rome-burns/

by Jon Rappoport

In today’s episode of CDC/WHO holds the world hostage and builds a new wing on its mystical temple of lying science, while trance-induced billions stare at their TV sets for the latest fabrications, we begin here—

Author Michael Fumento sets off an explosion in his recent article on the failure of epidemic models: “’The … crisis we face is unparalleled in modern times,’ said the World Health Organization’s assistant director, while its director general proclaimed it ‘likely the greatest peacetime challenge that the United Nations and its agencies have ever faced.’ This was based on a CDC computer model projection predicting as many as 1.4 million deaths from just two countries.”

“So when did they say this about COVID-19? Trick question: It was actually about the Ebola virus in Liberia and Sierra Leone five years ago, and the ultimate death toll was under 8,000.”

Bang.

Well, look, the CDC and WHO have to stay in business, right? They can’t allow a fallow period of no pandemics. They HAVE TO predict dire consequences. Otherwise, some people might start questioning their budgets. It’s a fight for bureaucratic survival, and if millions or billions of people have to lose their jobs and income and freedom in the process, so be it.

Here is a key paragraph from the CDC’s latest brain-twisting definition of a COVID case. As you’ll see, it allows the counting of cases where no confirmatory diagnostic test has been done on a patient at all. Have to inflate those numbers, right? How else can an agency justify its existence?

“As of April 14, 2020, CDC case counts and death counts include both confirmed and probable cases and deaths…A confirmed case or death is defined by meeting confirmatory laboratory evidence for COVID-19. A probable case or death is defined by i) meeting clinical criteria AND epidemiologic evidence with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID-19; or ii) meeting presumptive laboratory evidence AND either clinical criteria OR epidemiologic evidence; or iii) meeting vital records criteria with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID19.”

If you spend too long trying to decipher the meaning of every phrase and term in that definition, you might find yourself in the labyrinth of a psych ward. But it IS obvious that a COVID case without a confirming diagnostic test is being welcomed on board. “Sure, why not, join the party.”

Meanwhile, out front, on television, and quietly in the Oval Office, petty bureaucrat, numbers massager, and interim president of the United States of Crackdown Lockdown, Anthony Fauci, can switch case numbers up and down and sideways. He can shovel it high and deep to his heart’s content. All in all, his job is keeping the public health gravy train moving, while covering the caboose (ass) of that train.

Fauci, New England Journal of Medicine, February 28, 2020, “Navigating the Uncharted”:

“If one assumes that the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high as the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968)…”

In case there is any doubt, those “pandemic influenza seasons” of 1957 and 1968 did NOT result in any lockdowns. People went outdoors. They mingled. They sat in stadiums. They went to their jobs.

Fauci, March 30, 2020, Reason Magazine: “Jake Tapper asked Fauci how many COVID-19 cases the United States can expect to see, ‘To be honest with you, we don’t really have any firm idea,’ Fauci said. ‘There are things called models. And when someone creates a model, they put in various assumptions. And the model is only as good and as accurate as your assumptions…Looking at what we’re seeing now,’ Fauci said, ‘we’re going to have millions of cases’ in the United States, and it is reasonable to expect ‘between 100,000 and 200,000’ deaths. But he cautioned that ‘I just don’t think that we really need to make a projection, when it’s such a moving target, that you can so easily be wrong and mislead people.’ Deborah Birx, coordinator of the White House’s COVID-19 task force, yesterday cited similar but somewhat less alarming estimates, saying ‘between 80,000 and 160,000, maybe even potentially 200,000 people,’ could be killed by COVID-19 in the United States.”

Uh huh. Right. Sure. Bad flu season. Really bad flu season. Millions of cases. Between 80,000 and 200,000 thousand dead in the US. Depends on the definition of a COVID case and how jacked up the numbers are. Depends on which computer model and projection is used.

Depends on whether the talking heads decide it’s a day for tough love or just plain tough. Either way, some version of fiction is going to run like sewer water out of their mouths.

It’s Christmas and birthday and Thanksgiving all rolled into one for the CDC and WHO. They’ve finally gotten what they wanted, all through the parade of AIDS, West Nile, SARS, bird flu, Swine Flu, Zika, and the terrorist smallpox scare:

MASS IMPRISONMENT OF THE POPULATION.

And as I’ve said from the beginning, the key moment was the Chinese Regime locking down 50 million people overnight. That was the signal and the model and the “breakthrough.” “They did it, so we can do it, too.”

All hype, all theater, all the time.

SOURCE:

* https://issuesinsights.com/2020/04/18/after-repeated-failures-its-time-to-permanently-dump-epidemic-models/

* https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html

* https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387

* https://reason.com/2020/03/30/as-trump-imagines-2-2-million-deaths-from-covid-19-in-the-u-s-a-top-federal-disease-expert-cautions-against-believing-worst-case-scenarios/

Be seeing you

 

 

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

A Protest From France – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on April 23, 2020

Over here in Europe, we have heard American presidents use such expressions since the 1960s, as in “the war on poverty” or the “war on drugs” or “the war on terrorism” or more recently in “the war on climate change.” Odd language of this sort seemed to be one of America’s many eccentricities. It also did not escape our notice that none of these would-be wars have ever been won.

The right thing to do now is to abandon these policies swiftly and entirely. The citizens of free countries are able to protect themselves. They can act individually and collectively. They cannot act well when they are locked down. They will greet any honest and competent advice on what they can and should do, upon which they will proceed responsibly, whether alone or in coordination with others.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/04/jrg-guido-hlsmann/a-protest-from-france/

After WWI, the distinguished British economist, Edwin Cannan was asked, somewhat reproachfully, what he did during the terrible war years. He replied: “I protested.” The present article is a similar protest against the current lockdown policies put into place, in most countries of the western world, to confront the current coronavirus pandemic.

Here in France, where I live and work, President Macron had announced on Thursday, March 12th that all schools and universities would be shut down on the following Monday. On that Monday, then, he appeared on TV again and announced that the entire population would be confined, starting the very next day. The only exceptions would be “necessary” activities, especially medical services, energy production, security, and food production and food distribution. This policy response was apparently coordinated with other European governments. Italy, Germany, Spain, and have applied essentially the same measures.

I think that these policies are understandable and well-intentioned. Like many other commentators, I also think that they are wrongheaded, harmful, and potentially disastrous. An old French proverb says that the way to hell is plastered with good intentions. Unfortunately, it seems as though the present policies are no exception.

My protest concerns the basic ideas that have motivated these policies. They were clearly enunciated by President Macron in his TV address of March 12th. Here he made three claims that I found most intriguing.

The first one was that his government was going to apply drastic measures to “save lives” because the country was “at war” with the Covid19 virus. He repeatedly used the phrase “we are at war” (nous sommes en guerre) throughout his talk.

Secondly, he insisted right at the very beginning that it was imperative to heed the advice of “the experts.” Monsieur Macron literally said that we all should have to listen and follow the advice of the people “who know” – meaning who know the problem and who know how best to deal with it.

His third major point was this emergency situation had revealed how important it was to enjoy a state-run system of public healthcare. How lucky are we to have such a system and to be able to rely on it, now, in the heat of the war against the virus! Unsurprisingly, the president insinuated that this system would be reinforced in the future.

Now, these are not the private ideas of Monsieur Macron. They are shared by all major governments in the EU and by many governments in other parts of the world. They are also shared by all major political parties here in France, as well as by President Macron’s predecessors. Therefore, the purpose of the following remarks is not to criticise the president of this beautiful country, or his government, or any person in particular. The purpose is to criticise the ideas on which the current policy is based.

I do not have any epidemiological knowledge or expertise. But I do have some acquaintance with questions of social organisation, and I am also intimately familiar with scientific research and with the organisation of scientific research. My protest does not concern the medical assessment of the Covid19 virus and of its propagation. It concerns the public policies designed to confront this problem.

As far as I can see, these policies are based on one extraordinary claim and two fundamental errors. I will discuss them in turn.

An extraordinary claim

The extraordinary claim is that war-time measures such as confinement and shut-downs of commercial activity are justified by the objective to “save lives” which are at risk because of the burgeoning coronavirus pandemic.

Over here in Europe, we have heard American presidents use such expressions since the 1960s, as in “the war on poverty” or the “war on drugs” or “the war on terrorism” or more recently in “the war on climate change.” Odd language of this sort seemed to be one of America’s many eccentricities. It also did not escape our notice that none of these would-be wars have ever been won. Despite the great sums of money that the US government has spent to fight them, despite the new state institutions that were put in place, and despite the great and growing infringements on the economic and civil liberties of ordinary Americans, the problems themselves never went away. Quite to the opposite, they were perpetuated and aggravated.

Most of the European governments have now joined ranks with the Americans and consider that they, too, are at war, with a virus. It is therefore appropriate to insist that this is metaphorical language. A war is a military conflict designed to protect the state – and thus of the very institution that is commonly held to guarantee the lives and liberties of the citizens – against malicious attack from an outside power, usually another state. In a war, the very existence of the state is under attack. Clearly, this is not so in the present case.

Moreover, there can be no war with a virus, simply because a virus does not act. At most, therefore, the word “war” can be used here metaphorically. It then serves as a cover and justification of infringements of the very civil and economic liberties that the state is supposed to protect.

Now, in the traditional conception, the state is supposed to protect and promote the common good. Protecting the lives of the citizens might therefore, arguably, justify massive state interventions. But then the very first questions should be: how many lives are at stake? Government epidemiologists, in their most dire estimates – the factual basis is still not solidly established – have considered that about ten percent of the infected persons might be in need of hospital care and that a large part of those would die. It was also known, by mid-March already, that this mortal threat in the great majority of cases concerned very old people, the average Covid19 victim being around 80 years of age.

The claim that wartime measures, which threaten the economic livelihood of the great majority of the population and also the lives of the poorest and most fragile people of the world economy – a point on which I will say more below – in order to save the lives of a few, most of whom are close to death anyway, is an extraordinary claim, to say the least. Read the rest of this entry »

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

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »