The Canadian government engages in restricted entry in behalf of its medical professionals. To be fair, the US authorities would undoubtedly have acted in much the same manner were a similar offer made from outside of its borders (they did exactly that during Katrina in 2005). They are under the thumb of the American Medical Association, the strongest labor union in the US. A similar situation applies in the country to the north of us.
There is a doctor shortage on Fogo Island, Newfoundland, Canada. This small community of slightly more than 2200 has no physician available to it; none at all. Nor is medical help available anywhere nearby. There is to be sure the possibility of a 50-minute ferry trip to the mainland, but during the winter this is all too often more theoretical than actual.
But this failure of Canadian socialized medicine is not the real story here. Rather, it is the fact that the authorities in charge refused the offer of a fully qualified clinician from Massachusetts, who offered his services for three months, entirely for free.
Why would any doctor in his right mind make any such offer? Dr. Paul Hart has strong ties to Canada in general, and to Newfoundland in particular, and wanted to “give back” to the Fogo (“fire” in Portuguese) Island community. He originally hailed from Toronto (that’s a big city in the Frozen North), went to Memorial University in Newfoundland and Labrador. He was struck by the plight of the Fogo-ites. He stated: “It’s my wish to say thank you to the province of Newfoundland for providing me with this phenomenal education and a wonderful medical career.”
Sorry, this nice guy tale still isn’t the story. The real story is that the Canadian government authorities rejected his supererogatory offer. Their excuse? According to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, such an offer could only be accepted by doctors in “active practice for at least four months in the last three years” and Dr. Hart, let me repeat that, Doctor Hart, did not qualify since he has been doing telemedicine for two of the last three years. This physician is good enough for the patients in Massachusetts, but patients in Fogo Island must be made of less healthy protoplasm.
“NYT buries in the 21st paragraph that it has an independent source who confirms the two IRS whistleblowers’ claim that David Weiss said he was blocked from bringing charges against Hunter Biden in California,” Ross said in his tweet.
“Of course they did,” responded the House Judiciary Committee GOP’s account.
Although geographical factors played a role, the key to western development is to be found in the fact that, while Europe constituted a single civilization—Latin Christendom—it was at the same time radically decentralized. In contrast to other cultures—especially China, India, and the Islamic world—Europe comprised a system of divided and, hence, competing powers and jurisdictions.3
It is not uncommon to encounter political theorists and pundits who insist that political centralization is a boon to economic growth. In both cases, it is claimed the presence of a unifying central regime—whether in Brussels or in Washington, DC, for example—is essential in ensuring the efficient and free flow of goods throughout a large jurisdiction. This, we are told, will greatly accelerate economic growth.
In many ways, the model is the United States, inside of which there are virtually no barriers to trade or migration at all between member states. In the EU, barriers have been falling in recent decades.
The historical evidence, however, suggests that political unity is not actually a catalyst to economic growth or innovation over the long term. In fact, the European experience suggests that the opposite is true.
Why Did Europe Surpass China in Wealth and Growth?
A thousand years ago, a visitor from another planet might have easily overlooked Europe as a poor backwater. Instead, China and the Islamic world may have looked far more likely to be the world leaders in wealth and innovation indefinitely.
Why is it, then, that Europe became the wealthiest and most technologically advanced civilization in the world?
Indeed, the fact that Europe had grown to surpass other civilizations that were once more scientifically and technologically advanced had become apparent by the nineteenth century. Historians have debated the question of the origins of this “European miracle” ever since. This “miracle,” historian Ralph Raico tells us:
consists in a simple but momentous fact: It was in Europe—and the extensions of Europe, above all, America—that human beings first achieved per capita economic growth over a long period of time. In this way, European society eluded the “Malthusian trap,” enabling new tens of millions to survive and the population as a whole to escape the hopeless misery that had been the lot of the great mass of the human race in earlier times. The question is: why Europe?1
Across the spectrum of historians, theories about Europe’s economic development have been varied, to say the least.2 But one of the most important characteristics of European civilization—ever since the collapse of the Western Roman Empire—has been Europe’s political decentralization.
There is a reason that the children, beginning in infancy, are targeted by State indoctrination, drugs, chemicals, bioweapon injections masquerading as ‘vaccines,’ insane propaganda, distraction, gross perversion, and are pulled away from family mentally and physically throughout their lives. This, in and of itself, if allowed to continue, will guarantee mind destruction of multiple future generations, and that will secure a fully dumbed-down, compliant, and obedient proletariat mass in the future. At that point, total control by the technocrats over humanity will have been achieved.
Self-defense comes in many forms, but all defense of self begins and ends with dissent, non-compliance, disobedience, saying no to any and all rule, and never allowing aggression against mind and body; mental or physical. Without dissent, defense is not possible, because when voluntary compliance is the prevailing behavior, whether sought, desired, or not, all defense mechanisms are effectively disarmed. In other words, silence in the face of injustice, immorality, terror, or tyranny, creates a condition of weakness, submission, and irresponsibility, which are all the fodder of indifference. When you say nothing, when you do not say no, when you take no action against evil, you commit evil. By not speaking out, and by not responding, you have spoken loudly, and openly committed an act of cowardice. The ultimate blame lies not just with the aggressor in this circumstance, but also equally with he who hides and remains silent.
In “Beyond Good and Evil,” Friedrich Nietzsche wrote: “He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee.” This is an accurate description of the phenomenon of becoming what one lives, so if you live in a state of indifference, ignoring the evil around you, accepting it in order to avoid conflict and responsibility, you become the evil you have chosen to ignore. The dark abyss in this circumstance, is created by your own inaction against it.
What we face as a society, is the most tremendous threat ever perceived or active in the history of mankind. Do you scoff at this seemingly ‘bold’ pronouncement? If so, you are already fooled, and a major contributor to the vast problems rampant in our world today. Instead of the State just singularly seeking war, the continuance of the bogus Federal Reserve System, isolated government corruption, communism, fascism, or any broad-based totalitarian assault on certain segments of society, we are all being bombarded from a thousand different directions at once with all these atrocities and many more, including attacks on our freedom and sovereignty, on our minds and bodies, and on every aspect of our being. Due to the colossal advances in technology, which in many more ways than not are being used against us in order to build a literal transhuman world run by technocratic means, we are facing what could be considered a technological Armageddon, where all control over humanity will be isolated in the hands of the most powerful few. To accept this, to treat it as normal or eminent, is a most fatal error, and one that could determine our fate in perpetuity.
When humanity ceases to exist in any natural form, when male and female become one, when transhumanism and mind control are inescapable realities, when perversion is commonly accepted, the presence of life that we have all known to be magical and a wonder, will have disappeared. The world being designed is not a world of love, hope, and dreams, it is a nightmare of horror, and those pursuing this downfall of man have already lost all human characteristics. They are monsters, so we must fight and defeat them without becoming monsters ourselves.
There is a reason that the children, beginning in infancy, are targeted by State indoctrination, drugs, chemicals, bioweapon injections masquerading as ‘vaccines,’ insane propaganda, distraction, gross perversion, and are pulled away from family mentally and physically throughout their lives. This, in and of itself, if allowed to continue, will guarantee mind destruction of multiple future generations, and that will secure a fully dumbed-down, compliant, and obedient proletariat mass in the future. At that point, total control by the technocrats over humanity will have been achieved.
While technology has the capability to accomplish many great things, in the hands of these monsters who seek universal control, it can also be used to destroy us. Many refer to this technological phenomenon as ‘artificial intelligence,’ (AI) but there is no such thing. This false terminology is being used against us, as machines are not intelligent, they are programmed by intelligence, or so it is believed. When man becomes a machine, real intelligence ends, and a programmed society of slaves is the result. AI is ‘defined’ as “perceiving, synthesizing, and inferring information–demonstrated by computers, as opposed to intelligence displayed by humans or other animals.” Intelligence is defined as the ability to learn, reason, and understand, so honest intelligence cannot be artificial, and machines are still machines. The transhuman digitization of man will mean the end of all traditional life as we know it.
The bulk of this society, has already succumbed to a digital world, and relies on what is falsely labeled ‘social media’ as parent, family, and friend, disregarding the natural state of personal communication, love, companionship, debate, and the grandeur of nature. At this point, the future is not owned by you, but is owned by your masters.
“Posthumanism,” on the other hand, aims at a more distant and radical future. Our artificial “mind children” will displace their human parents entirely. The virtual heavens and outer space will be populated with digital and mechanical beings far beyond our puny imaginations. At that point, either our souls will be transfigured into ones and zeros or human life will become a distant memory to immortal machines.
For now, biotech eugenics is conducted on humans through in vitro fertilization and preimplantation genetic testing.
Transhumanism is a materialist inversion of spiritual aspirations, which promises to create a heaven on earth in exchange for merging our souls with machines.
Transhumanism has morphed from a fringe philosophy into the spirit of our age. As defined by its hero, Max More, the transhumanism movement represents the “continuation and acceleration of the evolution of intelligent life beyond its currently human form and human limitations by means of science and technology.” In popular culture, transhumanism functions as a dark techno-religion expanding into the spiritless void of atheism. In this neo-religion, transhumanists are the desert fathers evoking prophetic visions in the wilderness.
Allowing for diverse opinion, their prophecies chart various paths through biological and cultural eugenics. These culminate in digital Darwinism—or a survival of the fittest algorithm. Human bodies and brains are to be optimized. Cultures are to be cleansed of maladaptive norms through social engineering. Digital minds and mechanical bodies, inspired by biological designs, are to be brought into existence. These hyperintelligent entities will fuse with human beings, forming symbiotic collectives. The resulting superorganisms will compete for supremacy.
As during the agricultural and industrial revolutions, technology is a deciding factor in the struggle for worldly power. Running with that principle, most transhumanists believe thinking machines will surpass us in the near future. God-like artificial intelligence will be humanity’s “final invention.” After that, we have nothing to do but relax and enjoy the show. Should our digital deities show mercy, human beings will survive like parasites in a mechanical host.
The reader may be forgiven if that does not sound like heaven on earth. The mismatch between transhuman fantasies and experienced reality is comical at times. When a working prototype takes off, the resemblance is unsettling. Every time I decide transhumanism is just a cargo cult, another load of real cargo arrives. For instance, CRISPR made it possible to edit genes with remarkable precision. The promise of designer babies and elective gene therapies lies, we are told, just over the horizon. Outside of clinical trials, however, direct gene-editing is restricted by the FDA.
For now, biotech eugenics is conducted on humans through in vitro fertilization and preimplantation genetic testing. In this process, a customer’s ovaries are coaxed to produce a batch of eggs. These are fertilized and frozen. Cell samples are tested for genetic diseases. For an extra fee, companies like Genomic Prediction Inc. will screen for dwarfism genes and low intelligence. After analysis is complete, a superior embryo is placed in the womb. The losers go to the cherub ward.
On the cyborg front, advanced prosthetics and brain implants are regularly used for medical purposes. Around 160,000 deep-brain-stimulation devices have been implanted to suppress seizures, Parkinson’s tremors, addictive impulses, and chronic depression. It’s like a pacemaker in your skull, capable of altering mood. True brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) have also made enormous strides in the past decade. Currently, these devices have been implanted in more than 50 patients, allowing them to operate robotic limbs and type text onscreen with their minds alone.
Among the top BCI companies are Blackrock Neurotech, backed by Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel, and the newer start-up Synchron. After obtaining FDA approval and massive investments by Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos, Synchron is moving fast. Like many in this field, CEO Tom Oxley wants to progress from healing to enhancement. He hopes Synchron implants will one day allow healthy customers to “throw” their emotions into other people’s brains. Think of it as synthetic empathy.
“So what if rather than using your words, you could throw your emotions? Just for a few seconds. And have [other people] really feel how you feel,” Oxley pitched to a TED Talk audience in June 2022. “At that moment, we would have realized that the necessary use of words to express our current state of being was always going to fall short. The full potential of the brain would then be unlocked.”
Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk’s Neuralink is better known than its competitors, for one reason, because he advertises his “whole brain interface” as a future commercial device. In fact, Musk warns it will be necessary for human relevance in the age of AI. “If we have digital superintelligence that’s just much smarter than any human at a …species level, how do we mitigate that risk?” he asked at last year’s Neuralink Show and Tell. “And then even in a benign scenario, where the AI is very benevolent, then how do we even go along for the ride?” Musk’s solution is “replacing a piece of skull with like, you know, a smartwatch.”
We still see the value the robber barons created from both their commercial efforts and their charitable/social efforts. It remains to be seen whether we will see value from the social justice movement. One thing is for sure, the corrosive effects of rent seeking eat away at the rule of law, which is a foundation of American prosperity.
The term “rent seeking” is a derogatory term that implies companies and people seek to take more than they earn. It hearkens to some Marxist ideology as well. However, especially when combined with regulatory capture and bureaucratic corruption, rent seeking is a valid concept. What happens when the shoe is on the other foot and people and organizations engage in rent seeking from a social justice perspective? Is it rent seeking or corruption for actions to secure social justice? Does the end justify the means?
Investopedia defines rent seeking as follows: “Rent seeking (or rent-seeking) is an economic concept that occurs when an entity seeks to gain added wealth without any reciprocal contribution of productivity. Typically, it revolves around government-funded social services and social service programs.”
Political scientists and economists traditionally apply the term “rent seeking” to capitalists, especially the so-called robber barons from the Gilded Age. However, what the definition does not seem to consider is value creation. Value creation could be a subset of the “contribution of productivity,” but productivity does not mean value creation. We can be highly productive in activities that produce little value or may even destroy value. While the robber barons could be cruel and demanding by virtually any measure, they created the economy and infrastructure that saw the United States through two world wars. The robber barons also provided tremendous social value with the libraries, universities, and museums they funded along with their other charitable activities. These benefits do not excuse their predatory actions, but they created extensive value, which mitigates the amount of rent-seeking behavior.
The term “rent seeking” and its definition hearken back to Karl Marx’s terminology and critique of capitalism. He was most decidedly against any form of rent seeking. Perhaps it is no accident that unions grew and perhaps reached their high point during the Gilded Age. After the Russian Revolution in 1917, the West, particularly the US, turned away from anything resembling communism. The term “rent seeking” is still a charged term and concept however.
A good example of rent seeking among government programs is a homeowner that builds a house in an area with frequent floods, fires, or hurricanes, yet he does not purchase the appropriate hazard insurance. When disaster strikes, the homeowner expects, if not demands, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to pay the costs to rebuild. FEMA does—why? Is there some deep regulatory capture going on by the home lenders and insurance companies? More study is required, but I suspect so.
…these submarine-launched ballistic missiles, manufactured by Lockheed Martin (“We deliver innovative solutions to the world’s toughest challenges”), can destroy the world in a flash. Destroy it many times over. A final solution….
After a string of box office disappointments execs at Warner Bros Discovery might be planning to suck profitable TCM dry.
“Turner Classic Movies has always been more than just a channel,” read the statement. “It is truly a precious resource of cinema, open 24 hours a day, seven days a week.”
For the past decade, my television viewing had alternated almost exclusively between Fox News and Turner Classic Movies, with the occasional PBS British mystery. In the two months since Fox fired Tucker Carlson, it has been only TCM. The vintage film channel is a unique window on the richness of 20th century America through its defining art form — cinema. TCM revolutionized the presentation of some of the finest pictures ever made by showing them commercial-free in their entirety and their original form, post 1953 in spectacular cinemascope.
Now the marvelous vintage film network is in mortal danger, once again due to the stupidity and ineptitude of corporate executives, in this case those at the parent company, Warner Bros.
Last week, threatened budget cuts by Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav prompted the departure of numerous high-level TCM officials, including the vice-presidents of programming (Charles Tabesh), production (Anne Wilson), marketing (Dexter Fedor), and TCM Enterprises (Genevieve McGillicuddy), with more heads on the block. The reason for the bloodbath seems obvious. While TCM has been perennially profitable thanks to the love of film shared by both its personnel and devout fan base, Warner Brothers studio appears to be a bottomless money drain.
A logical link can be made between Warner’s latest box office disaster The Flash — budget $200 million, opening weekend gross $55 million — and the TCM exodus. The implosion of The Flash is not just a direct financial blow, it jeopardizes an entire slate of DC Comics projects, like the new adventures of Superman, Wonder Woman, and other superhero franchises. Because the people in charge of them have no idea of what they’re doing, and clearly far less talent than the auteurs whose work TCM showcases. Consequently, gutting the channel would save Warner honchos a little money and a lot of embarrassment.
Ironically, last April, TCM celebrated the studio’s 100th anniversary with a 24/7 marathon of its unforgettable pictures, such as The Adventures of Robin Hood, The Maltese Falcon, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, The Searchers, Rio Bravo, The Exorcist, and — salt on Warner’s The Flash wound — the first superhero picture, the delightful Superman. Rewatching all of these for the umpteenth time, I realized that nothing the studio has done this century comes remotely close to any one of them. Even the lesser titles shown on TCM display a level of storytelling and execution far beyond today’s filmmakers. This could be partly explained by the decline in American culture, which the old movies expose to our detriment.
Why the department does more harm than good — and how we could actually help students.
The real work would again be done in the states and amongst students, families, and educators. The need for a bulging federal bureaucracy would disappear. If, as a result, the US Department of Education itself disappeared, so much the better!
Imagine a government program that existed to achieve one goal — a laudable goal. But after spending more than $1 trillion in taxpayer dollars — that’s trillion, with twelve zeros — in pursuit of that goal, not only had the agency failed to achieve the goal, but it had also made the problem demonstrably worse.
Perhaps it’s not that hard to imagine because so much of what the federal government does is to fail in its mission.
But that scenario is far from hypothetical. It’s the regrettable truth about the US Department of Education. And those trillion dollars only scratch the surface of why the agency is a failed experiment and a malignancy to those who love freedom and believe students are more important than “the education system.”
The department’s main function in elementary and secondary education has been to spend money … a lot of money. But over the course of its four-decade history, there’s scant evidence that the department has done anything to improve student outcomes. In fact, there is considerable evidence to the contrary. It doesn’t take much more than a cursory skim of the Nation’s Report Card to see that it’s true.
But with money comes power. And because the Department of Education controls so much money, it has the power to push schools around, meaning that even things like “nonregulatory guidance” and “Dear Colleague letters” quickly become law in schools because the department threatens to withhold funding from those who don’t adhere to its edicts.
Power has been the department’s primary purpose. Its bulging bureaucracy has created rules, guidance, conditions, and red tape that have consistently stifled innovation, shackled teachers, slowed student achievement, advanced political agendas, and squandered most of the trillions in taxpayer dollars that have come through “Big ED’s” Brutalist doorways.
MCViewPoint 