MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Mental Health Round-Ups: The Next Phase of the Government’s War on Thought Crimes

Posted by M. C. on July 20, 2023

The age-old practice by which despotic regimes eliminate their critics or potential adversaries by making them disappear—or forcing them to flee—or exiling them literally or figuratively or virtually from their fellow citizens—is happening with increasing frequency in America.

In New York City, for example, you could find yourself forcibly hospitalized for suspected mental illness if you carry “firmly held beliefs not congruent with cultural ideas,” exhibit a “willingness to engage in meaningful discussion,” have “excessive fears of specific stimuli,” or refuse “voluntary treatment recommendations.”

https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/mental_health_round_ups_the_next_phase_of_the_governments_war_on_thought_crimes

By John & Nisha Whitehead

“There are no dangerous thoughts; thinking itself is a dangerous activity.”—Hannah Arendt

Get ready for the next phase of the government’s war on thought crimes: mental health round-ups and involuntary detentions.

Under the guise of public health and safety, the government could use mental health care as a pretext for targeting and locking up dissidents, activists and anyone unfortunate enough to be placed on a government watch list.

If we don’t nip this in the bud, and soon, this will become yet another pretext by which government officials can violate the First and Fourth Amendments at will.

This is how it begins.

In communities across the nation, police are being empowered to forcibly detain individuals they believe might be mentally ill, based solely on their own judgment, even if those individuals pose no danger to others.

In New York City, for example, you could find yourself forcibly hospitalized for suspected mental illness if you carry “firmly held beliefs not congruent with cultural ideas,” exhibit a “willingness to engage in meaningful discussion,” have “excessive fears of specific stimuli,” or refuse “voluntary treatment recommendations.”

While these programs are ostensibly aimed at getting the homeless off the streets, when combined with advances in mass surveillance technologies, artificial intelligence-powered programs that can track people by their biometrics and behavior, mental health sensor data (tracked by wearable data and monitored by government agencies such as HARPA), threat assessments, behavioral sensing warnings, precrime initiatives, red flag gun laws, and mental health first-aid programs aimed at training gatekeepers to identify who might pose a threat to public safety, they could well signal a tipping point in the government’s efforts to penalize those engaging in so-called “thought crimes.”

As the AP reports, federal officials are already looking into how to add “‘identifiable patient data,’ such as mental health, substance use and behavioral health information from group homes, shelters, jails, detox facilities and schools,” to its surveillance toolkit.

Make no mistake: these are the building blocks for an American gulag no less sinister than that of the gulags of the Cold War-era Soviet Union.

The word “gulag” refers to a labor or concentration camp where prisoners (oftentimes political prisoners or so-called “enemies of the state,” real or imagined) were imprisoned as punishment for their crimes against the state.

The gulag, according to historian Anne Applebaum, used as a form of “administrative exile—which required no trial and no sentencing procedure—was an ideal punishment not only for troublemakers as such, but also for political opponents of the regime.”

Totalitarian regimes such as the Soviet Union also declared dissidents mentally ill and consigned political prisoners to prisons disguised as psychiatric hospitals, where they could be isolated from the rest of society, their ideas discredited, and subjected to electric shocks, drugs and various medical procedures to break them physically and mentally.

In addition to declaring political dissidents mentally unsound, government officials in the Cold War-era Soviet Union also made use of an administrative process for dealing with individuals who were considered a bad influence on others or troublemakers. Author George Kennan describes a process in which:

The obnoxious person may not be guilty of any crime . . . but if, in the opinion of the local authorities, his presence in a particular place is “prejudicial to public order” or “incompatible with public tranquility,” he may be arrested without warrant, may be held from two weeks to two years in prison, and may then be removed by force to any other place within the limits of the empire and there be put under police surveillance for a period of from one to ten years.

Warrantless seizures, surveillance, indefinite detention, isolation, exile… sound familiar?

It should.

The age-old practice by which despotic regimes eliminate their critics or potential adversaries by making them disappear—or forcing them to flee—or exiling them literally or figuratively or virtually from their fellow citizens—is happening with increasing frequency in America.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Is the Gold Standard Coming Back? BRICS Gold-Backed Currency

Posted by M. C. on July 20, 2023

Doug Casey: Yellen and Powell are said to be economists. In fact, they are not economists. An economist is somebody who describes the way the world works in going about its business of producing and consuming. That’s not what these people attempt to do. They try to prescribe the way they think the world ought to work by creating more dollars.

International Man: There have long been rumors that Russia or China would create a gold-backed currency, but there was never a formal acknowledgment… until recently.

The Russian government recently stated:

“The BRICS countries are planning to introduce a new trading currency, which will be backed by gold.”

Analysts expect a formal announcement at the next BRICS summit in Johannesburg in the coming weeks.

What is your take?

Doug Casey: Let’s try to parse the words in the statement. In particular, the use of the word “trading.” I’m not sure what the difference between a “trading currency” and an ordinary currency might be. My guess is that it would only be used for settling accounts internationally. Also, if it’s going to be backed by gold, where will that gold be held? Will the amount of this currency—let’s call it the BRIC—that different governments get be based only upon the amount of gold that they have in their treasury? And will the currency be just for governments, or will it be available to companies or the average guy?

It’s unlikely to be of use to the average guy. In the first place, they won’t be printing 100 BRIC (or whatever they’ll call it) notes in this age of CBDCs. Allowing its use by the plebs would give them entirely too much freedom to take their assets across borders. Remember that almost all the countries talking about replacing the dollar now have crappy “blocked “currencies that are essentially worthless outside their home countries. My guess is that the new BRIC will be for international settlement only, just so they don’t have to use the dollar. Citizens will still have to use their crappy national currencies domestically.

There’s a basic question we have to ask ourselves, one that everyone is forgetting: Why is this new currency “backed” by gold in the first place? Why not simply use gold?

In other words, why have a government middleman there to call some amount of gold a “franc,” a “ruble,” a ‘pound,” a “dollar,” or whatever? Who needs some untrustworthy intermediary to give you paper? Why not just allow everybody to use gold itself, the world’s only historically successful money? The only reason for a currency is because they’re planning on manipulating it, which means inflating it at some point.

Of course, it will be nominally backed by gold to start with—it has to be, because none of these governments trust each other. But who among them can be trusted to store and redeem the gold? Nobody. That guarantees that although it might start out well because somebody says it’s redeemable and limited in quantity, it’ll eventually fall apart.

International Man: While the details remain unknown, how do you expect a potential BRICS gold-backed currency to work in practice?

What does this mean for the US dollar?

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

A Bit of Political Theater in Vilnius

Posted by M. C. on July 19, 2023

A whining President Zelensky goes home with almost nothing but still might start World War 3

 We elect our leaders with the expectation that they will keep us safe, not engage in brinksmanship with nuclear weapons. 

By Philip Giraldi

The Unz Review

It is a lucky break that the Screen Actors Guild has gone on strike as it will give Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky an opportunity to dust off his thespian credentials and look for a new job when the Russians eventually bring down his government. Hollywood and Las Vegas would undoubtedly compete for such a nice Jewish young man to revive his former comedy routine where he played a piano with his penis. To be sure, without disrobing, Zelensky was inevitably the star performer at the recently completed two day NATO Summit in Vilnius Lithuania on July 11th-12th which also featured as a speaker US President Joe Biden, who provided a certain type of context by declaring that “Russia could end this war tomorrow by…ceasing its inhumane attacks on Russia!”

Zelensky whined and strutted through the two days, complaining that instant fast-track admittance of Ukraine to the NATO alliance was his right to enable him to defeat the Russian invaders. When he was instead offered a collaborative process whereby Ukraine would be made “ready” for entry through necessary rebuilding of its military coupled with institutional reforms to combat corruption and strengthen democracy, Zelensky called the delay “absurd” and “weak” on the part of his hosts. And he did so on social media to make sure that he embarrassed everyone involved. Zelensky also did not help his cause by parading in his ratty green combat fatigues, to include his presence at the first night’s gala reception before a group photo where he was observed standing alone, being ignored by the well-dressed crowd of delegates and spouses nearby who had turned their backs on him both metaphorically and physically.

All of which did not mean that the Summit was not, at least rhetorically, a cheerleading event for the plucky Ukrainian defenders against the Russian hordes. The American delegation emphasized that Washington would be there with whatever it takes to support the Ukrainians until “the end” when the war was “won,” whatever that was intended to mean. This has been described by some in the US media as an “Israel Model” in which you supply your proteges with money and weapons before looking the other way when they actually use them “aggressively and unilaterally,” often contrary to your own interests. And NATO meanwhile was firm in its support of the demand that all Ukrainian land be returned to Kiev’s control, to include Crimea, which is a complete deal breaker if there is ever to be any possibility of a negotiated settlement of the conflict, so it seems that the war will go on.

Observers at the Summit opined that the consensus among participants at the meeting was to throw some scraps to Zelensky while also avoiding any commitments that would heighten the risk of escalation into a nuclear war. The decision not to jump into bed with a desperate Zelensky recognized in part that he was and is reckless and would do anything he could to provoke broadening of the war if given the ability to do so. Beyond that, most of the heads of state gathered in Vilnius recognized that, from a domestic political perspective, their respective fellow countrymen have become increasingly weary of the war as it grinds on and brings with it negative economic consequences. And there are elections coming up, not only in the United States, later this year and in 2024.

Nevertheless, Washington was certainly on top of the effort to make sure that Zelensky would have the tools and political support that he would need to start World War Three, even if it required a bit of dissimulation. Biden wrapped up his whirlwind visit to Europe in new NATO member Finland on Thursday, praising the strength of the NATO alliance and expressing his delusion that there is no possibility that Russia will win the war against Ukraine. He said, without stuttering, that “Putin’s already lost the war. Putin has a real problem. How does he move from here? What does he do?”

See the rest here

Be seeing you

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

India’s Modi Meets Biden – U.S. Screw Turners Squirm Some More

Posted by M. C. on July 19, 2023

Finally, outside some BBC cheerleading of the “accomplishments” of the recent Biden-Modi meetup in Washington and TIME Magazine harping about human rights detente failures, all the U.S. came away with were a microchip manufacturing investment deal and a U.S. jet engine promise for India made planes. Meanwhile, Russia remains the dominant supplier of Indian arms,

https://journal-neo.org/2023/07/18/indias-modi-meets-biden-u-s-screw-turners-squirm-some-more/

Author: Phil Butler

India’s Modi Meets Biden - U.S. Screw Turners Squirm Some More

The United States leadership is squirming to resolidify ties with parts of the world that either bombed, invaded, or marginalized in recent decades. The prime example of marginalization is India. However, without the current gigantic trade surpluses boosting Indian confidence in America, Prime Minister Narendra Modi will have to do much less tightrope-walking between Washington and the emerging multipolar world. Since the end of the Cold War, India has practiced a multi-aligned foreign policy. This may soon change.

It’s no secret that Indian businesses are raking in billions on discounted Russian crude oil. According to the latest reports, Indian refiners saved over $7.17 billion in foreign exchange in the 14 months which ended in May 2023. Russian tankers flood India’s Gulf of Kutch, home to the world’s biggest refining operation. Ironically or poetically, India then ships refined oil to markets like the European Union at a hefty value-added price. If the trend goes unchecked, India will surpass Saudi Arabia as the largest oil exporter to the EU.

Changing gears. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said recently that Iran will be formally approved as a member of the regional Shanghai Cooperation Organization with China, Russia, and Central Asian countries. Iran also has sights on becoming a member of the BRICS. India is a member of both organizations. This organization represents about 40% of the world’s population, 20% of the world’s GDP, and 60% of the Eurasia landmass. This quote from a CBS News report frames what’s taking place:

See the rest here

Be seeing you

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

Lawmakers Slip Censorship Provisions into Pentagon Spending Bill

Posted by M. C. on July 19, 2023

Proposals to silence military personnel from speaking to a civil rights group and purge the internet of certain information fly under the radar.

https://www.leefang.com/p/lawmakers-slip-censorship-provisions?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

LEE FANG

The biennial Pentagon budget reauthorization usually presents ample opportunities for wasteful spending, as lawmakers slip provisions into routine legislation that compels the government to purchase unnecessary and overpriced military equipment.

But this year, lawmakers have also quietly pushed changes to the National Defense Authorization Act that aim to silence military personnel and purge the internet of certain information.

One particularly alarming provision comes from Rep. Mike Turner, a Republican from Ohio, which prohibits the Department of Defense from engaging with the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), a civil rights group advocating for the separation of church and state.

MRFF represents service members of all religions and denominations, helping them report instances of inappropriate proselytizing and the presence of religious symbols in official military affairs. The organization has previously succeeded in having crusader imagery removed from a Marine squadron and a Bible taken down from display at the F.E. Warren Air Force Base near Cheyenne, Wyoming.

“It is unprecedented in American history that Congress has ever tried to basically extinguish or assassinate a civil rights organization,” said Mikey Weinstein, an attorney, and former Air Force officer who founded the group in 2005.

Under this provision, not only is Defense Department staff prohibited from communicating with MRFF or Weinstein, but the military is also barred from taking any action in response to “any claim, objection, or protest made by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation without the authority of the Secretary of Defense.”

See the rest here

Be seeing you

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

Mercantilism: A Lesson for Our Times? | Mises Institute

Posted by M. C. on July 18, 2023

He concluded that the

motive of all these regulations, is to extend our own manufactures, not by their own improvement, but by the depression of those of all our neighbors, and by putting an end, as much as possible, to the troublesome competition of such odious and disagreeable rivals.

Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to, only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer. … But in the mercantile system, the interest of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer; and it seems to consider production, and not consumption, as the ultimate end and object of all industry and commerce.

https://mises.org/library/mercantilism-lesson-our-times

Murray N. Rothbard

Mercantilism has had a “good press” in recent decades, in contrast to 19th-century opinion. In the days of Adam Smith and the classical economists, mercantilism was properly regarded as a blend of economic fallacy and state creation of special privilege. But in our century, the general view of mercantilism has changed drastically: Keynesians hail mercantilists as prefiguring their own economic insights; Marxists, constitutionally unable to distinguish between free enterprise and special privilege, hail mercantilism as a “progressive” step in the historical development of capitalism; socialists and interventionists salute mercantilism as anticipating modern state building and central planning.

Mercantilism, which reached its height in the Europe of the 17th and 18th centuries, was a system of statism which employed economic fallacy to build up a structure of imperial state power, as well as special subsidy and monopolistic privilege to individuals or groups favored by the state. Thus, mercantilism held that exports should be encouraged by the government and imports discouraged. Economically, this seems to be a tissue of fallacy; for what is the point of exports if not to purchase imports, and what is the point of piling up monetary bullion if the bullion is not used to purchase goods?

But mercantilism cannot be viewed satisfactorily as merely an exercise in economic theory. The mercantilist writers, indeed, did not consider themselves economic theorists, but practical men of affairs who argued and pamphleteered for specific economic policies, generally for policies which would subsidize activities or companies in which those writers were interested. Thus, a policy of favoring exports and penalizing imports had two important practical effects: it subsidized merchants and manufacturers engaged in the export trade, and it threw up a wall of privilege around inefficient manufacturers who formerly had to compete with foreign rivals. At the same time, the network of regulation and its enforcement built up the state bureaucracy as well as national and imperial power.

The famous English Navigation Acts, which played a leading role in provoking the American Revolution, are an excellent example of the structure and purpose of mercantilist regulation. The network of restriction greatly penalized Dutch and other European shippers, as well as American shipping and manufacturing, for the benefit of English merchants and manufacturers, whose competition was either outlawed or severely taxed and crippled. The use of the state to cripple or prohibit one’s competition is, in effect, the grant by the state of monopolistic privilege; and such was the effect for Englishmen engaged in the colonial trade.

A further consequence was the increase of tax revenue to build up the power and wealth of the English government, as well as the multiplying of the royal bureaucracy needed to administer and enforce the regulations and tax decrees. Thus, the English government, and certain English merchants and manufacturers, benefited from these mercantilist laws, while the losers included foreign merchants, American merchants and manufacturers, and, above all, the consumers of all lands, including England itself. The consumers lost, not only because of the specific distortions and restrictions on production of the various decrees, but also from the hampering of the international division of labor imposed by all the regulations.

Adam Smith’s Refutation

Mercantilism, then, was not simply an embodiment of theoretical fallacies; for the laws were only fallacies if we look at them from the point of view of the consumer, or of each individual in society. They are not fallacious if we realize that their aim was to confer special privilege and subsidy on favored groups; since subsidy and privilege can only be conferred by government at the expense of the remainder of its citizens, the fact that the bulk of the consumers lost in the process should occasion little surprise.1

Contrary to general opinion, the classical economists were not content merely to refute the fallacious economics of such mercantilist theories as bullionism or protectionism; they also were perfectly aware of the drive for special privilege that propelled the “mercantile system.” Thus, Adam Smith pointed to the fact that linen yarn could be imported into England duty free, whereas heavy import duties were levied on finished woven linen. The reason, as seen by Smith, was that the numerous English yarn spinners did not constitute a strong pressure group, whereas the master weavers were able to pressure the government to impose high duties on their product, while making sure that their raw material could be bought at as low a price as possible. He concluded that the

motive of all these regulations, is to extend our own manufactures, not by their own improvement, but by the depression of those of all our neighbors, and by putting an end, as much as possible, to the troublesome competition of such odious and disagreeable rivals.

Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to, only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer. … But in the mercantile system, the interest of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer; and it seems to consider production, and not consumption, as the ultimate end and object of all industry and commerce.

In the restraints upon the importation of all foreign commodities which can come into competition with those of our own growth, or manufacture, the interest of the home-consumer is evidently sacrificed to that of the producer. It is altogether for the benefit of the latter, that the former is obliged to pay that enhancement of price which this monopoly almost always occasions.

It is altogether for the benefit of the producer that bounties are granted upon the exportation of some of his productions. The home-consumer is obliged to pay, first, the tax which is necessary for paying the bounty, and secondly, the still greater tax which necessarily arises from enhancement of the price of the commodity in the home market.2

Before Keynes

Mercantilism was not only a policy of intricate government regulations; it was also a pre-Keynesian policy of inflation, of lowering interest rates artificially, and of increasing “effective demand” by heavy government spending and sponsorship of measures to increase the quantity of money. Like the Keynesians, the mercantilists thundered against “hoarding,” and urged the rapid circulation of money throughout the economy; furthermore, they habitually pointed to an alleged “scarcity of money” as the cause of depressed trade or unemployment.3 Thus, in a prefiguration of the Keynesian “multiplier,” William Potter, one of the first advocates of paper money in the Western world (1650), wrote:

The greater quantity … of money … the more commodity they sell, that is, the greater is their trade. For whatsoever is taken amongst men … though it were ten times more than now it is, yet if it be one way or other laid out by each man, as fast as he receives it … it doth occasion a quickness in the revolution of commodity from hand to hand … much more than proportional to such increase of money.4

And the German mercantilist F.W. von Schrötter wrote of the importance of money changing hands, for one person’s spending is another’s income; as money “pass[es] from one hand to another … the more useful it is to the country, for … the sustenance of so many people is multiplied,” and employment increased. Thrift, according to von Schrötter, causes unemployment, since saving withdraws money from circulation. And John Cary wrote that if everyone spent more, everyone would obtain larger incomes, and “might then live more plentifully.”5

Historians have had an unfortunate tendency to depict the mercantilists as inflationists and therefore as champions of the poor debtors, while the classical economists have been considered hardhearted apologists for the status quo and the established order. The truth was almost precisely the reverse. In the first place, inflation did not benefit the poor; wages habitually lagged behind the rise in prices during inflations, especially behind agricultural prices. Furthermore, the “debtors” were generally not the poor but large merchants and quasi-feudal landlords, and it was the landlords who benefited triply from inflation: from the habitually steep increases in food prices, from the lower interest rates and the lower purchasing power of money in their role as debtors, and from the particularly large increases in land values caused by the fall in interest rates. In fact, the English government and Parliament was heavily landlord dominated, and it is no coincidence that one of the main arguments of the mercantilist writers for inflation was that it would greatly raise the value of land.

Exploitation of Workers

See the rest here

Be seeing you

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

Inflation: Your Role as a Milk Cow

Posted by M. C. on July 18, 2023

And that, in fact, is exactly the idea. Banks figured out ages ago that, although people will only tolerate so much taxation, they’ll not only tolerate, but welcome the hidden tax of inflation. The illusion that they’re “getting ahead” gives them the false confidence to take on debt, which will, over time, cripple them.

The purpose of bank-created inflation is to extract wealth from the populace.

by Jeff Thomas

milk cow

 Subscribe to International Man

Traditionally, inflation has been defined as “an increase in the amount of currency in circulation.” Such an increase almost always causes an increase in the cost of goods and services, since, more plentiful currency units lowers their rarity, as compared to the supply of goods and services, which remains roughly the same. Therefore, it shouldn’t be surprising if a 20% increase in the amount of currency units translates into a 20% increase in the price of goods and services.

Unfortunately, in recent decades, even dictionaries have been offering a revised definition of inflation, as “an increase in the price of goods and services.” This is a pity, as it makes an already confusing subject even more difficult to understand.

This is especially true for the average guy who has a minimal understanding of economics, but does realise that, even if his wages increase (which he regards as a good thing), he never seems to get ahead. In the end, he always seems to be worse off.

Let’s say that you’re paid $4000 per month. You budget for housing, food, clothing, transportation, etc. Let’s say that that adds up to $3800 per month, and you’re hoping to put $200 per month into savings. Often that doesn’t happen, as unplanned expenses “pop up,” and must be paid for. So, in the end, you save little or nothing.

In the meantime, you’re daydreaming about buying a new car, but it can’t be bought, because you don’t have any money to allocate to it.

Then, your boss says that the recent prosperity has resulted in a big new contract for the company that allows him to give you a raise of $200 a month.

This is your big chance. You go to the car dealership, buy the car, and arrange for time payments of $200 per month to pay for it.

However, what’s rarely understood is that the theoretical “prosperity” is the result of governmentally induced inflation. What appears to be prosperity is merely a rise in costs and, along with it, a rise in your wages.

You appear to be “getting ahead,” but here’s what really happens…

The inflation that resulted in your pay rise also raises the prices on most or all other goods and services. So, instead of spending $3800 on expenses every month, your costs have risen to, say, $4200.

So, only months after your pay rise, you become aware that, not only are all your expenses higher (which you didn’t figure on when you bought the car), you now have the extra monthly obligation of the $200 car payment.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

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

What TWA 800 Had in Common With Hunter B’s Laptop

Posted by M. C. on July 18, 2023

There, Salinger told the assembled executives that he had “very important details that show the plane was brought down by a U.S. Navy missile.” He added the obvious: “If the news came out that an American naval ship shot down that plane it would be something that would make the public very, very unhappy and could have an effect on the election.”

They were quick to swat him out of the Kennedy pantheon. The FBI, the White House, the Navy, all took a shot. Salinger was unready for the assault. The media found the subject irresistible. In the month of November 1996 alone, the New York Times ran four articles with headlines that mocked Salinger.

What was more disquieting this time around is that the conspirators scarcely bothered to conceal their actions. They didn’t much care if everyone knew what they were doing — just as long as the big guy won.

On July 17, 1996, TWA Flight 800 left JFK airport in New York City heading east to Paris. Twelve minutes after its 8:19 departure the doomed 747 blew up off the south coast of Long Island, killing all 230 souls aboard.

On August 23, 1996, the New York Times reported on its front page, above the fold right, “Prime Evidence Found That Device Exploded in Cabin of Flight 800.” According to the Times, only the FBI’s uncertainty about whether the device was a bomb or a missile kept it from declaring TWA 800’s destruction a crime.

On that same day, above the fold left, was the headline, “Clinton Signs Bill Cutting Welfare; States in New Role.”

The Clintons had an election to win. One of those storylines would have to go. A month later, the administration started floating the possibility of a mechanical failure, and the bomb and missile story lines, despite the “prime evidence,” were allowed to die.

Legendary JFK press secretary and former U.S. senator Pierre Salinger knew better. A loyal enough Democrat, he sat on what he knew until it had lost its political punch. He broke his silence at an aviation conference in the French resort city of Cannes just two days after the November election.

There, Salinger told the assembled executives that he had “very important details that show the plane was brought down by a U.S. Navy missile.” He added the obvious: “If the news came out that an American naval ship shot down that plane it would be something that would make the public very, very unhappy and could have an effect on the election.”

Imagine that — the intelligence community conspiring with a Democrat party administration and the Department of Justice to suppress information that might well have altered the outcome of a presidential election.

The media joined the conspiracy to make sure no one would ever dare to do in the future what Salinger had just done. The conspirators did not care what role Salinger had played in Camelot.

They were quick to swat him out of the Kennedy pantheon. The FBI, the White House, the Navy, all took a shot. Salinger was unready for the assault. The media found the subject irresistible. In the month of November 1996 alone, the New York Times ran four articles with headlines that mocked Salinger.

George Johnson was particularly merciless. “It was all linked to Whitewater,” Johnson wrote, “unless the missile was meant for a visiting U.F.O.?”

Johnson’s reference to “Whitewater” was not uncommon. He made slighting illusions as well to Waco, Ruby Ridge, Arkansas state troopers, Vincent Foster, and other sources of amusement in Clinton-era newsrooms.

What Johnson was attempting to do, and he was hardly unique in so doing, was to paint TWA 800 as one wacky anti-Clinton conspiracy out of many. What he did not do — no one at the Times did after the first two days — was speak to any of the 258 FBI witnesses to a likely missile strike.

Nor did any CIA analyst talk to an eyewitness. That did not stop the agency from taking the lead role in determining what the eyewitnesses saw. The CIA’s true commission was to find some semi-plausible explanation to explain away what the eyewitnesses actually did see.

Read the Whole Article

Be seeing you

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

Are Empirical Generalizations Really Bias?

Posted by M. C. on July 18, 2023

What is an empirical generalization? It stems from observation. People note, for example, that men are on average taller than women. Does this mean that all men have greater height than all women? Of course not. Milton Friedman stood at about five feet, while Brittney Griner, a WNBA All-Star recently released from Russia, is 6’9”.

https://substack.com/inbox/post/135074068

WALTER BLOCK

According to the New York Times, Karith Foster, a black woman, addressed a leadership summit meeting of the very woke Woodward company specializing in aerospace. She was brought in so as to change this firm’s Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) program, which wasn’t working satisfactorily, to something called “Belonging.” In the course of her remarks, she challenged her audience as follows:

“Had they ever locked the car when a Black man walked by? Had they thought, yes, Jewish people really are good with money?” Had they questioned the intelligence of someone with a thick Southern accent?”

Pretty much everyone in the audience, including the speaker herself, acknowledged remorse by raising their hands to indicate they were guilty of these offenses. She then claimed that acting in this manner, holding these beliefs, was an instance of bias, which must be eradicated if we are to attain a just society.

Let us consider each of these three challenges.

My friend of many years, the late Walter E. Williams, is a black man well over six feet tall. He once told me that often, when he walked into an elevator, the white men already on board exhibited concern, and the white women held their purses closer to their bodies. He said he well understood this behavior, and did not resent it. It was due to the fact that the black crime rate was much higher than that of any other demographic group.

He knew full well that he wasn’t going to mug anyone on the elevator (he was a distinguished economics professor at George Mason University; the only people he mugged, intellectually, were socialists and interventionists), but appreciated that the other occupants of the elevator were merely judging him on the basis of limited information; on what they could see of him: a tall powerful looking black man. Were these white people biased? Of course not: they were merely and justifiably basing their assessments, and their behavior, on empirical generalizations.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

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

Kamala Harris is Here to Reduce Your Population

Posted by M. C. on July 18, 2023

Personal details
BornKamala Devi Harris[a]
October 20, 1964 (age 58)
Oakland, California, U.S.
Political partyDemocratic
Wikipedia

Population reduction 58 years to late.

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/kamala-harris-is-here-to-reduce-your-population/

by Per Bylund 

democratic presidential candidate kamala harris

Des Moines, Iowa / USA – August 10, 2019: United States Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris greets supporters at the Iowa State Fair political soapbox in Des Moines, Iowa.

It is no surprise to libertarians that what is in the interest of the government might not be in the interest of people in general. More often than not, the government’s interest is directly at odds with the interests of people in general. The countless wars waged by governments throughout history, for which common people paid ultimately with their lies, bear witness to this fact.

Wars are also waged on the domestic populations that the government supposedly serves and protects. Under the guise of the greater or public good, which always require some sacrifice yet curiously dovetail with the government’s interests, individuals are the means if not the problem. In the words of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, they’re “watched over, inspected, spied on, directed, legislated at, regulated, docketed, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, assessed, weighed, censored, ordered about”—and taxed to finance the whole apparatus.

That it is the government vs. the people rather than the government for, by, and of the people is clear in the former’s policies in practice as well as in the statements from its leaders. Very recently, Vice President Kamala Harris noted that “When we invest in clean energy and electric vehicles and reduce population, more of our children can breathe clean air and drink clean water.” Yes, she said “reduce population.”

The White House quickly posted an updated speech suggesting the VP had merely misread. She meant to say pollution, not population.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

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