MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Should Individualism be Medicated Away to be Replaced by “Welfarism?”

Posted by M. C. on November 25, 2022

Forcibly giving people collectivism-promoting “Morality Pills” (archive link) is a popular suggestion among bioethicists. It was published in Bill Gates-funded The Conversation and is discussed widely in scientific literature. (The Conversation received 7 million dollars from Bill Gates but pretends to be an independent journalism publication)

World Economic Forum Sponsored Research into “Collectivist Bioenhancement”

https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/should-individualism-be-medicated

Igor Chudov

Medical ethics is a large field of study. The Covid pandemic certainly brought many medical ethics issues to the forefront and produced rather amazing “ethicist” gems, such as this:

Be aware that “bioethics” has moved on to proposals that might seem crazy to you but are considered seriously and published in Bill Gates-funded publications and scientific journals. Important studies on this subject are conducted under the auspices of the World Economic Forum.

Forcibly giving people collectivism-promoting “Morality Pills” (archive link) is a popular suggestion among bioethicists. It was published in Bill Gates-funded The Conversation and is discussed widely in scientific literature. (The Conversation received 7 million dollars from Bill Gates but pretends to be an independent journalism publication)

What are these morality pills? You might think that morality, to them, means being a good husband or wife, an honest businessperson, fulfilling promises, and so on. Why not enhance that? What’s the problem?

The problem is that this is NOT how they define morality! To them, morality is a collectivist mindset, lack of critical thinking, and compliance. The article explains that some people lack “moral qualities” and refuse to wear masks or take Covid vaccines, or even deny climate change:

See the rest here

Be seeing you

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

The US Pledges “Climate Reparations” While Americans Suffer

Posted by M. C. on November 25, 2022

Remember you are supposed to suffer for Ukraine…and everything else Washington tries to conquer and control.

https://www.theorganicprepper.com/climate-reparations/


Daisy Luther

If you’re new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

(Psst: The FTC wants me to remind you that this website contains affiliate links. That means if you make a purchase from a link you click on, I might receive a small commission. This does not increase the price you’ll pay for that item nor does it decrease the awesomeness of the item. ~ Daisy)

Author of The Blackout Book and the online course Bloom Where You’re Planted

More people than ever are facing dire circumstances, and we’re just getting started with this economic disaster. And what is our government doing?

Why, they’re giving our money away.

To other countries, no less.

The U.S. government agreed to pay “climate reparations.”

But the plight of our own countrymen seems to be less important than those in other countries affected by climate change. The United States has just agreed to pay up to a billion dollars to poor countries for “climate reparations.” As per an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal:

The use of climate policy to soak Americans keeps getting worse, and the United Nation’s climate conference in Egypt ended this weekend with agreement on a new fund to pay reparations to poor countries. Welcome to the latest climate shakedown.

The 2015 Paris accord suggested rich countries compensate poor countries for climate damage—the rationale being that industrialization has increased temperatures and led to natural disasters. Poor countries finally forced discussion of a formal mechanism to pay climate reparations onto this year’s U.N. conference agenda.

…on Thursday Europe abandoned the U.S. by proposing a deal, and Mr. Kerry rolled over.

Wealthy countries will now set up a fund to cover climate damage for the least developed countries—i.e., not China or middle-income nations. This will be financed from “a broad donor base” and “mosaic of solutions,” such as international development banks and taxes on aviation, shipping and fossil fuels.

Some reports suggest that the US will be on the hook for up to a billion dollars. In October, it was reported that the total amount due would be $4.3 trillion.

That’s the sum the US and other major carbon polluters will face at the COP27 climate summit in Egypt next month.

Well, other polluters except for China.

China is not contributing jack sh*t. It’s essential to note that out of all the polluters in the world, China is the worst offender, creating 30% of the world’s carbon emissions.

Yet, they’re exempt from this outrageous bill. Not one thin dime shall they pay. I’m not a fan of China’s dystopian policies and government, but at least they aren’t causing shortages and suffering in their own country in order to virtue signal how green they are.

In the end, it’s just the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Says the WSJ:

Countries might also shake down U.S. fossil-fuel producers in their own courts. Climate reparations will merely serve as another form of global income redistribution. The Biden Administration’s surrender shows again that the religion of climate change is progressive penance for the sin of being prosperous.

In doing this, they ignore the plight of everyday Americans who can’t afford to run their heat or keep their homes.

Meanwhile, Americans are truly suffering.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Turkey Denied Presidential Pardon After Photos Emerge Of It Attending January 6

Posted by M. C. on November 23, 2022

https://babylonbee.com/news/turkey-denied-presidential-pardon-after-photos-emerge-of-it-attending-jan-6-riot

Article Image

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a break from a long-standing tradition, the White House announced that this year’s Thanksgiving turkey would not receive a ceremonial pardon from President Joe Biden after it was discovered that the turkey had attended the riot at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

“The turkey we had chosen for the occasion has been determined to be completely undeserving of a pardon,” said White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre in a media briefing. “The President was very eager to bestow a pardon, but unfortunately, it came to our attention that this turkey participated in the violent attack on the Capitol that attempted to overthrow the government and destroy democracy itself.”

The turkey has been returned to police custody.

The Biden administration learned of the scandal after it was presented with photos of the foul fowl wearing a red “Make America Great Again” baseball cap among other Trump supporters and undercover federal agents planted surreptitiously throughout the crowd on the day of the riot. Though other witnesses vehemently argued that the turkey had valiantly attempted to prevent agitators from vandalizing the Capitol and breaching its doors, security camera footage of the MAGA turkey wandering the halls and gobbling in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office was considered particularly damning.

“Listen, these dangerous ultra-MAGA birds are a serious threat to our nation, folks,” President Biden said in brief remarks about the situation. “They must be dealt with and put in their rightful place, which is on my dinner table. End of speech. Walk away from podium.”

At publishing time, all requests made to interview the turkey had been denied. It was reported that the bird was placed in solitary confinement at an undisclosed location as it awaited its execution, brining, and deep-frying without due process.

Bee seeing you

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

War Party Rising! Incoming House Speaker McCarthy Touts Super-Neocon Agenda

Posted by M. C. on November 23, 2022

Incoming Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) has vowed to put “confronting China” at the top of his agenda as speaker. Washington Neocons cannot survive without an enemy. Also today, Daniel Larison lays out what a President DeSantis foreign policy may look like…and it aint pretty. Are neocons firmly back in the driver’s seat?

The Ron Paul Liberty Report

https://rumble.com/v1whrcu-war-party-rising-incoming-house-speaker-mccarthy-touts-super-neocon-agenda.html

Be seeing you

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

Dailywire Article

Posted by M. C. on November 23, 2022

Elon Musk And Dinesh D’Souza Explain Why Leftists Aren’t Being Let Back On Twitter

By  Virginia Kruta

Elon Musk And Dinesh D’Souza Explain Why Leftists Aren’t Being Let Back On Twitter

https://www.dailywire.com/news/elon-musk-and-dinesh-dsouza-explain-why-leftists-arent-being-let-back-on-twitter

…“We don’t hear much about Democrats and leftists being let back on Twitter. Why? Because they were never kicked off in the first place. Their lies and misinformation simply escaped all scrutiny. Censorship has been deployed as a one-way operation against conservatives,” D’Souza tweeted, tagging Musk in his post…

See the rest here

Be seeing you

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

Can a Deeply Unserious America Fix Its Economy?

Posted by M. C. on November 23, 2022

Less often quoted are Mellon’s follow-up words to Hoover: Liquidation would “purge the rottenness out of the system,” so “people will work harder” and “live a more moral life.”

Mellon, having lived most of his life in an America without a central bank, understood economic recessions as necessary cures rather than ills to be avoided.

https://mises.org/wire/can-deeply-unserious-america-fix-its-economy

Jeff Deist

Does America simply lack the political will to face economic reality?

In the teeth of the Depression, Treasury secretary Andrew Mellon famously told President Herbert Hoover to “liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate”—in other words, to resist bailing out any industry through state intervention. This was a tough sell even in those days, and of course Hoover succumbed to politics and took the opposite approach, greatly and needlessly damaging the US economy for decades to come.

Less often quoted are Mellon’s follow-up words to Hoover: Liquidation would “purge the rottenness out of the system,” so “people will work harder” and “live a more moral life.”

Mellon, having lived most of his life in an America without a central bank, understood economic recessions as necessary cures rather than ills to be avoided. But he also understood the human price that would be paid in the aftermath of a period of phony economic prosperity. Only hard work and personal sacrifice, person by person and town by town, could get America out of its economic mess. Fiscal and monetary policy would provide no free lunch, as millions of Americans learned the hard way in the 1930s.

Fast-forward to 2022, and it’s hard to imagine Janet Yellen calling for liquidation or telling Americans to improve their moral fiber. Nobody votes for austerity or personal responsibility, and any politician or bureaucrat or central banker who even suggests it is doomed today.

Yet this mythology of austerity persists, that a stingy federal Treasury and reticent central bank don’t intervene enough in economic crises. Consider this howler from Paul Krugman back in 2011, apparently delivered with a straight face: “One thing is clear: Mellon-style liquidationism is now the official doctrine of the G.O.P.” Keep in mind he wrote this several years into the most “extraordinary” monetary intervention in the history of the world—one which ultimately saw the US Fed purchase several trillions’ worth of Treasury debt from the “market”! Yet for Krugman, it is never enough.

As the bruising midterm elections recently demonstrated, America is a deeply unserious country. A serious political discussion at the federal level would center on existential structural problems of war and peace, debt and the dollar, and entitlements. But these issues can be addressed only by real austerity and real pain. So instead, we distract and divert ourselves worrying about whether Donald Trump should be allowed on Twitter. We argue over flu viruses, guns, transgenderism, climate, and abortion (none of which the federal government has the slightest jurisdiction over) rather than the material standard of living we will leave our grandchildren.

This is possible only because millions of Americans, maybe a majority, are simply economics deniers. They either don’t believe economic laws exist or think economics can be overcome by legislation, regulation, or central bank actions. And there are plenty of deniers among the ranks of professional economists! The profession does itself no favors when it cheerleads for politics, providing an intellectual veneer for interventionism. Human nature makes us want to believe untrue things, but economics should help disabuse Americans of political fantasies.

Let’s face it: the US is not a free-market economy because we don’t much believe in markets, despite our lip service. Most Americans, and virtually all political, media, academic, corporate, and banking elites, believe economic intervention (fiscal and monetary stimulus) form the basis of our economy—not production and saving.

So, what would a serious America do to correct our disastrous economic path? This may seem like an academic or rhetorical question, but it’s worth laying out the actual steps necessary to build a real economy rather than a fake one dependent on monetary or fiscal interventionism. As Dr. Mark Thornton recently explained, these steps may be conceptually simple even as they are wildly beyond political imagination today:

  • a wholesale adoption of laissez-faire economic doctrine by national politicians;
  • immediate deep tax and regulatory reductions;
  • immediate sharp reductions in government spending at every level (leaving federal spending well below federal revenue);
  • rigorous entitlement cuts, using some combination of means testing and raising age eligibility for both Social Security and Medicare;
  • rigorous defense spending cuts of at least 50 percent, combined with a radically reduced US military footprint overseas;
  • cessation of new debt issuance by the US Treasury;
  • cessation of active monetary “policy” by the Federal Reserve Bank, meaning no intervention with respect to the money supply, interest rates, or credit and debt markets (including US Treasurys);
  • a radical reduction in the Fed’s balance sheet by letting existing Treasurys mature and roll off;
  • an entirely hands-off approach allowing the US dollar to float freely relative to other currencies and commodities;
  • an express policy against bailouts or subsidies of any kind to any industry or company, regardless of the severity of an economic downturn;
  • allowing troubled industries or companies, no matter how big, to fail—through bankruptcy and asset sales; investor losses; and firing boards, management, and employees when restructuring is possible;
  • actively encouraging business and individuals to save (through market/floating interest rates);
  • elimination of any price ceilings or floors on prices, wages, and profits;
  • elimination of any unemployment subsidies to individuals, along with abolition of minimum wage laws; and finally,
  • the immediate sale of federal land and other assets to reduce debt service on the $31 trillion in Treasury obligations and to restore worldwide confidence in the US economy.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is what a real program of austerity looks like. That these actions are politically unfeasible—complete nonstarters—shows how politics dominates economics in America. The profession charged with explaining how no free lunch is possible instead mostly operates as a handmaiden to the state and its bosses. But politics won’t fix this, and we won’t vote our way out of trouble. The best path forward is at the state and local levels, attempting to build regional economies with less fragility in the face of the warring, borrowing, spending, and devaluing mania of Uncle Sam.

Author:

Contact Jeff Deist

Jeff Deist is president of the Mises Institute. He previously worked as chief of staff to Congressman Ron Paul, and as an attorney for private equity clients. Contact: email; Twitter.

Be seeing you

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

Macron Calls for “Recalibrated” Capitalism Under Single Global Order – The New American

Posted by M. C. on November 23, 2022

It is a message as old as Nimrod building the Tower of Babel in an attempt to create a one-world government in his day. What Macron is doing is simply re-casting that old effort in new language, because very few would favor a world government with an economy controlled by that world government.

Instead, the world’s people must be convinced that only a world government can solve the world’s problems. But of course, a world government would create a new, and much bigger problem for freedom.

https://thenewamerican.com/macron-calls-for-recalibrated-capitalism-under-single-global-order/

Macron Calls for “Recalibrated” Capitalism Under Single Global Order
AP Images

In an address at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Forum in Thailand on Friday of last week, French President Emmanuel Macron said that the world needs “a single global order” to deal with the trade conflict between Communist China and the United States, a situation that Macron bemoaned as forcing other countries to choose sides.

Elected president of France in May 2017 on the “Renaissance” Party ticket, Macron had previously been a member of the Socialist Party. Evidently, while he has now rebranded himself with a different political party, his dedication to the cause of world government — a goal that has been a socialist cornerstone since at least the days of Karl Marx — is quite clear.

In his keynote address at the summit in Bangkok, which he titled “Navigating a Turbulent World,” Macron posed a question: “Are you on the U.S. or the China side?” to which he answered that what was needed was “a single global order” to replace the rule of superpowers such as the United States or China.

Macron described the United States and China as “two big elephants” that needed to be replaced by the “cooperation of a lot of other animals” through a single world order. This trade confrontation, Macron contended, was just one of three situations that have caused the drive for a global order, trade, and investment. The other two problems are the Russia-Ukraine war and climate change.

“A dynamic balance is the best way for nations to avoid being forced to choose between superpowers,” Macron said. “Countries have to pursue inclusive, sustainable development to address inequality and instability. You compete, all of us want to win. But you have to respect the sovereignty of the other one.” It would seem that a respect for national sovereignty and a “single” global order are contradictory.

Macron certainly does not favor the traditional concept of a free market, arguing in his talk that capitalism’s DNA must be recalibrated to advance the cause of world trade and development.

It should be noted that a push for world government, as Macron apparently is doing, would receive little support around the world without convincing the nations of the world, and their citizens, that a “single, global order” is necessary to solve alleged problems that cannot be solved otherwise. That is why globalists — those who favor a world government — have used the understandable desire to avoid wars to get the populations of the world to favor such a government. They argue that national sovereignty and economic competition is the cause of military conflicts.

The big pushes for world government after World War I with the League of Nations and after World War II with the United Nations, and during the Cold War, illustrate this. When the Soviet Union was the major concern of many after World War II, it was argued that internationalism and alliances such as NATO were needed to prevent wars. So, it is rather predictable that a globalist such as Macron would cite the need for a single global order when he mentioned the Russia-Ukraine War.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

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

We Shouldn’t Destroy Our Economy In The Name of Battling Russia or China

Posted by M. C. on November 23, 2022

The Ron Paul Liberty Report

Neocons, Out-hawking the democrats

https://rumble.com/v1wief0-we-shouldnt-destroy-our-economy-in-the-name-of-battling-russia-or-china.html

Be seeing you

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

AP Editor Said She “Can’t Imagine” A US Intelligence Official Being Wrong

Posted by M. C. on November 23, 2022

Our rulers lie to us, propagandize us, endanger us, impoverish us, destroy journalism, start wars, kill our biosphere and make our world dark and confusing, and they suffer no consequences for it. We cannot allow them to continue holding all of the power and none of the responsibility. This is backwards and must end.

https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/ap-editor-said-she-cant-imagine-a?r=iw8dv&utm_medium=android

The Associated Press journalist who reported a US intelligence official’s false claim that Russia had launched missiles at Poland last week has been fired. 

As we discussed previously, AP’s anonymously sourced report which said “A senior U.S. intelligence official says Russian missiles crossed into NATO member Poland, killing two people” went viral because of the massive implications of direct hot warfare erupting between Russia and the NATO alliance. AP subsequently retracted its story as the mainstream political/media class came to accept that it was in fact a Ukrainian missile that had struck Poland.

AP’s firing of reporter James LaPorta looks at this time to be the end point of any accountability for the circulation of this extremely dangerous falsehood. AP spokesperson Lauren Easton says no disciplinary action will be taken against the editors who waved the bogus story through, and to this day the public has been kept in the dark about the identity of the US official who fed such extremely egregious misinformation/disinformation to the public through the mainstream press.

Aaron Maté @aaronjmate

Important that AP accounts for publishing the false claim that Russia fired missiles into Poland. But the much more important task is finding out why an anonymous senior US intelligence official fed AP that false claim.

Mediaite @Mediaite

AP Fires Reporter Whose Anonymously-Sourced and Retracted Story Claimed Russia Killed Polish Civilians https://t.co/fMW5rPbpPx1:31 AM ∙ Nov 23, 2022705Likes215Retweets

It is utterly inexcusable for AP to continue to protect the anonymity of a government official who fed them such a profoundly significant falsehood. This didn’t just affect AP staff, it affected the whole world; we deserve to know what happened and who was responsible, and AP has no business obstructing that knowledge from us. 

LaPorta’s firing looks like this is yet another instance where the least powerful person involved in a debacle is being made to take the fall for it. A powerful intelligence official will suffer no consequences for feeding false information to the press — thereby ensuring that it will happen again — and no disciplinary action will be taken against LaPorta’s superiors, despite the absolute buffoonery that subsequent reporting has revealed on their part.

In an article titled “Associated Press reporter fired over erroneous story on Russian attack,” The Washington Post reports the following (emphasis added):

Internal AP communications viewed by The Post show some confusion and misunderstanding during the preparations of the erroneous report.

LaPorta shared the U.S. official’s tip in an electronic message around 1:30 p.m. Eastern time. An editor immediately asked if AP should issue an alert on his tip, “or would we need confirmation from another source and/or Poland?”

After further discussion, a second editor said she “would vote” for publishing an alert, adding, “I can’t imagine a U.S. intelligence official would be wrong on this.”

derek davison @dwdavison

The AP fired the reporter but not the editor who, apparently, will literally believe and publish anything a US intelligence official tells her.

Image

Paul Farhi @farhip

New: ⁦⁦@AP⁩ fires reporter over erroneous news alert on Russian attack. Latest by me: https://t.co/LxLUkPjIgZ4:59 PM ∙ Nov 22, 2022345Likes83Retweets

“I can’t imagine a US intelligence official would be wrong on this.”

Can you imagine not being able to imagine a US intelligence official being wrong? This would be an unacceptable position for any educated adult to hold, much less a journalist, still less an editor, and still less an editor of one of the most influential news agencies on earth.

These are the people who publish the news reports we read to find out what’s happening in the world. This is the baby-brained level of thinking these people are serving the public interest with.

Antiwar commentator Daniel Larison writes the following of the AP editor’s shocking quote:

Skepticism about official claims should always be the watchword for journalists and analysts. These are claims that need more scrutiny than usual rather than less. If you can’t imagine that an intelligence official could get something important wrong, whether by accident or on purpose, you are taking far too many things for granted that need to be questioned and checked out first.

Intelligence officials of many governments feed information to journalists and have done so practically ever since there was a popular press to feed information to, and that information certainly should not be trusted just because an official source hands it over. It is also always possible for intelligence officials to just get things wrong, whether it is because they are relying on faulty information or because they were too hasty in reaching conclusions about what they think they know.

Whether the AP’s source was feeding them a line or was simply mistaken, a claim as provocative and serious as this one should have been checked out much more thoroughly before it got anywhere near publication. The AP report in this case seems to have been a combination of a story that was “too good to check” and a culture of deference to official sources in which the editors didn’t feel compelled to make the effort to check.

Daniel Larison @DanielLarison

“If you can’t imagine that an intelligence official could get something important wrong, whether by accident or on purpose, you are taking far too many things for granted that need to be questioned and checked out first.” daniellarison.substack.com/p/the-danger-o…

Twitter avatar for @AthertonKD

Kelsey D. Atherton@AthertonKD

AP Editor 1: we’ve got a rule about needing two sources, but maybe not this time? AP Editor 2: A single source in US Intel can’t be wrong, let’s run this in the way most likely to suggest imminent nuclear war [One week Later] AP: the reporter fucked up https://t.co/0VVKgT43h5

See the rest here

Be seeing you

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

The Big Lie Revisited – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on November 22, 2022

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/11/dom-armentano/the-big-lie-revisited/

By Dom Armentano

The main-stream media has repeated almost daily that  Donald Trump and several important MAGA-friendly organizations  continue to support the so-called “big lie,”  namely,  that the 2020 election was stolen. They also repeat almost daily  that this conclusion about that election  is totally bogus  since   “no evidence” of substantial election fraud  was  ever uncovered in the  65+ lawsuits filed after the election; Trump and his supporters lost them all.  The election was stolen?  What nonsense. It’s all “delusional thinking” and irrational conspiracy theory. Case closed.

Well not quite.

The American Bar Association (ABA) has published a list of the legal filings that challenged the results of the 2020 election and a summary of the court findings in each case.  It makes for very interesting reading.

The most important lesson to be drawn from  these  case summaries is that the bulk of them  have (almost) nothing to do with the  alleged evidence concerning  voter and election fraud.  And the reason for this is reasonably clear. Fraud is  itself  an extremely difficult legal matter to litigate; along with any relevant empirical evidence, the legal concepts of due diligence and “intent” would have to be fully explored.  Moreover, any  determination of election and/or voter  fraud  would have  required (at a very minimum)  a so-called “evidentiary hearing”  where the court would  take testimony under oath  from expert witnesses;  accept and evaluate  properly supported affidavits; evaluate any relevant election data analysis,  and explore the  murky issue of “intent” (by elected officials and others) at some length.  To my knowledge,  none of this process or analysis occurred in any systematic manner in any of the 65  post-2020 election challenge cases.

*

So what were these cases really about?  My reading of the summaries convinces me that the courts were concerned almost exclusively  with what are termed “procedural issues” and not with the actual substance of what would  constitute election fraud.  For example, the so-called issue of “standing” is procedural. Does a  particular plaintiff have the legal right  to bring this  action?  If the answer is “no” then the entire case is summarily dismissed.  (This happened in several  of the challenge cases). This, of course,  is a perfectly appropriate ruling but it has  nothing  whatsoever to do with the issue of substantial fraud one way or the other.

In another one of the 65 cases,  the judge actually asked why the plaintiff  could not have filed suit before the election regarding some alleged problem in the way the voting process was likely to be administered.  “Too late now” the judge said, in effect.  Case dismissed.  One judge actually asserted that any complaints about the legitimate certification of the election (in Georgia)  were all now “moot” since “the election results… had already been certified.”  But the issue of “certification legitimacy” was the very concept that the plaintiffs were challenging! Unbelievable.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

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