MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘sociopaths’

What Would Be the Aftermath of a Globalist Failure?

Posted by M. C. on September 13, 2022

by Jeff Thomas

The globalists have, at best, until the end of the decade before they’ve completed their self-destruction. By that time, the rest of the world will already be cutting up the pie.

If this supposition is correct, we shall see the leaders – Russia, China, India, Brazil, Iran and others come to the fore in new alliances. As before, much of the Third World countries will remain bit players, but under new masters.

In a previous article, Will Globalism Succeed, I described the likelihood of the success of the globalist plan to take over the world.

My take on the question is that the plan will fail.

But why should that be? Well let’s have a look at it.

First, we should recognize that, in any society, roughly 4% of all people are sociopathic and 1% are likely to be psychopathic. I won’t go into the definitions of these two terms, but the primary symptoms of both are as follows:

  • Lack of empathy for others.
  • Impulsive behavior.
  • Attempting to control others with threats or aggression.
  • Using intelligence, charm, or charisma to manipulate others.
  • Not learning from mistakes or punishment.
  • Lying for personal gain.
  • Showing a compulsion for physical violence

Sociopaths always rise to populate governments during periods when the people have become affluent, then complacent. This has been in play in the First World for quite a while, and its governments (the US, UK, EU, Canada, Australia, Japan, New Zealand) are now infested with sociopaths. But in spite of the success in the First World by the globalists to create dominance over their minions, they’ve been rather unsuccessful at roping in other nations. The Third World nations have sought to benefit from First World goods and technologies, whilst otherwise seeking to be left alone. They fear the globalists but don’t wish to join them.

The Second World is a different matter. China and Russia, in particular, have been wooed by the globalists, but the seat at the table that they’ve been offered has been far too small to attract them to join as lesser partners.

Russia and China have instead joined together in an otherwise unlikely partnership and have expanded that partnership to increasingly include Third World countries.

It’s important to note that, at present, the world, as a whole, is largely sitting on the fence, fearful of the globalists, but sure in the knowledge that the West will soon self-destruct. Their collective goal is to avoid conflict as much as possible until this occurs.

But why do they take this position?

See the rest here

Be seeing you

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

The Oligarchic Empire Is Actually Simple And Easy To Understand – by Caitlin Johnstone – Caitlin’s Newsletter

Posted by M. C. on August 21, 2021

Yeah, don’t you worry your pretty little heads about war. It will just confuse you, because it’s far too complicated to understand. These important matters should be left to men like John Bolton, who are consistently wrong about every foreign policy issue.

https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/the-oligarchic-empire-is-actually

Caitlin Johnstone

If you’re like me and spend entirely too much time on Political Twitter you may have recently observed a bunch of people saying you shouldn’t post your opinion about the Afghanistan situation unless you’re an expert who has studied the nation’s dynamics in depth. Like an empire invading a nation and murdering a bunch of people for decades is some super complicated and esoteric matter that you need a PhD to have an opinion about.

You see fairly simple abuses framed as highly complicated issues all the time by people who defend those abuses. War. Israeli apartheid. My abusive ex used to go around telling people what happened between us was more complicated than I was making it sound. 

Before he became Trump’s National Security Advisor in 2018 John Bolton faced a contentious interview on Fox News where he was criticized for his role in Bush’s invasion of Iraq, and he responded that “the point I think you need to understand is, life is complicated in the Middle East. When you say ‘the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was a mistake,’ it’s simplistic.”

Bolton is now among the “experts” on Afghanistan doing mainstream media tours on CNN and NPR explaining to the public that the decision to end the 20-year military occupation was a mistake.https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/NPFc9YN7LIE?start=323&rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0

Yeah, don’t you worry your pretty little heads about war. It will just confuse you, because it’s far too complicated to understand. These important matters should be left to men like John Bolton, who are consistently wrong about every foreign policy issue.

This carefully promoted idea serves only the powerful, and entirely too many people buy into it. You’ll even see dedicated leftists shying away from commentary on western imperialism in favor of domestic policy because they don’t feel confident talking about something they’ve been trained to believe is very difficult and complex.

Which is silly, because war is actually the easiest aspect of the oligarchic empire to understand. Murdering people with military explosives for power and profit is plainly wrong. You don’t need to be an Ivy League university graduate to understand this, and given the track record of Ivy League university graduates on this matter it’s probably better if you are not. A globe-spanning power structure loosely centralized around the United States orchestrates murder at mass scale to ensure perpetual domination of the planet. It really is that simple.

Now, you can spend the rest of your life studying the details of precisely how this is the case, but they’re just that: details about how this dynamic is taking place. You can learn all about the various ways the oligarchic empire advances its geostrategic agendas using wars, proxy conflicts, coups, sanctions, special ops, cold war brinkmanship and the so-called “war on terror”, but you will only be discovering further details about this simple overarching truth.Nathan Bernhardt @jonbernhardtthe politico reporters snapping off tweets about how “if you haven’t really studied afghanistan, please, you don’t have to tweet about it” are the exact same people who will sell you the next warAugust 17th 2021440 Retweets3,094 Likes

And the same is true of the other aspects of the status quo power structure: they’re meant to look complicated, but what you actually need to know about them to orient yourself in our world is fairly simple. 

The systems of capitalism are very complex by design, and a tremendous amount of thievery happens in those mysterious knowledge gaps on financial and economic matters where only the cleverest manipulators understand what’s going on. But the basics of our problem are quite simple: money rewards and uplifts sociopathy. The more willing you are to do whatever it takes to become wealthy, the wealthier you will be. Those who rise to the top are those who are sufficiently lacking in human empathy to step on whoever they need to step on to get ahead.

As a result we’ve had many generations of wealthy sociopaths using their fortunes and clout to influence governmental, media, financial and economic systems in a way that advantages them more and more with each passing year. This is why we are ruled by sociopaths who understand that money is power and power is relative, which means the less money everyone else has the more power they get to have over everyone else. They’ve been widening the wealth gap further and further over the years, a trend they seek to continue with the so-called “Great Reset” you’ve been hearing so much about lately.

You can spend the rest of your life learning to follow the money, studying the dynamics of currency, banking and economics, but what you’ll be learning is more and more details about the way the dynamic I just described is taking place. 

Sociopaths rise to the top, the most powerful of whom understand that things like money, governments and the lines drawn between nations are all collective narrative constructs which can be altered in whatever way benefits them and ignored whenever it’s convenient. For this reason controlling the stories the public tell themselves about what’s going on in their world is of paramount importance, which is why so much wealth gets poured into buying up media and media influence in the form of advertising, funding think tanks and NGOs, and buying up politicians with campaign contributions and corporate lobbying.Caitlin Johnstone ⏳ @caitozSociety Is Made Of Narrative. Realizing This Is Awakening From The Matrix. Life in our society is like the movie The Matrix, except instead of AI keeping us asleep in an illusory world, it’s psychopathic oligarchs. And instead of code, it’s narrative. Society Is Made Of Narrative. Realizing This Is Awakening From The Matrix.In the movie The Matrix, humans are imprisoned in a virtual world by a powerful artificial intelligence system in a dystopian future. What they take to be reality is actually a computer program that has been jacked into their brains to keep them in a comatose state. They live their whole lives in th…caitlinjohnstone.substack.comJuly 13th 2021184 Retweets466 Likes

These powerful sociopaths tend to form loose alliances with each other and with the heads of government agencies as often as possible since it’s always easier to move with power than against it. So what you get is an alliance of depraved oligarchs with no loyalty to any nation using powerful governments as tools to bomb, bully and plunder the rest of the world for their own power and profit, and using mass-scale media psyops to keep the public from rising up and stopping them.

And that’s it, really. So simple it can be summed up in a few paragraphs. Don’t let elitists use the illusion of complexity to cow you out of talking about what’s going on in your world. You can see what’s going on well enough to begin speaking out, and the more you learn the more detailed the picture will become. 

Speak. You are infinitely more qualified to comment on the way power is moving in the world than the people who’ve been consistently wrong about everything throughout their entire careers yet remain widely platformed by the oligarchic media. If John Bolton gets a voice, so do you.

____________________________

My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on FacebookTwitterSoundcloud or YouTube, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fiPatreon or Paypal. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here

Be seeing you

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

The Ascendance of Sociopaths in U.S. Governance

Posted by M. C. on April 29, 2021

Now, I believe, it’s out of control. The U.S. is already in a truly major depression and on the edge of financial chaos and a currency meltdown. The sociopaths in government will react by redoubling the pace toward a police state domestically and starting a major war abroad. To me, this is completely predictable. It’s what sociopaths do.

https://internationalman.com/articles/the-ascendance-of-sociopaths-in-us-governance/

by Doug Casey

An International Man lives and does business wherever he finds conditions most advantageous, regardless of arbitrary borders. He’s diversified globally, with passports from multiple countries, assets in several jurisdictions, and his residence in yet another. He doesn’t depend absolutely on any country and regards all of them as competitors for his capital and expertise.

Living as an international man has always been an interesting possibility. But few Americans opted for it, since the U.S. used to reward those who settled in and put down roots. In fact, it rewarded them better than any other country in the world, so there was no pressing reason to become an international man.

Things change, however, and being rooted like a plant – at least if you have a choice – is a suboptimal strategy if you wish to not only survive, but prosper. Throughout history, almost every place has at some point become dangerous for those who were stuck there. It may be America’s turn.

For those who can take up the life of an international man, it’s no longer just an interesting lifestyle decision. It has become, at a minimum, an asset saver, and it could be a lifesaver. That said, I understand the hesitation you may feel about taking action; pulling up one’s roots (or at least grafting some of them to a new location) can be almost as traumatic to a man as to a vegetable.

As any intelligent observer surveys the world’s economic and political landscape, he has to be disturbed – even dismayed and a bit frightened – by the gravity and number of problems that mark the horizon. We’re confronted by economic depression, looming financial chaos, serious currency inflation, onerous taxation, crippling regulation, a developing police state, and, worst of all, the prospect of a major war. It seems almost unbelievable that all these things could affect the U.S., which historically has been the land of the free.

How did we get here? An argument can be made that things went bad because of miscalculation, accident, inattention, and the like. Those elements have had a role, but it is minor. Potential catastrophe across the board can’t be the result of happenstance. When things go wrong on a grand scale, it’s not just bad luck or inadvertence. It’s because of serious character flaws in one or many – or even all – of the players.

So is there a root cause of all the problems I’ve cited? If we can find it, it may tell us how we personally can best respond to the problems.

In this article, I’m going to argue that the U.S. government, in particular, has been overrun by the wrong kind of person. It’s a trend that’s been in motion for many years but has now reached a point of no return. In other words, a type of moral rot has become so prevalent that it’s institutional in nature. There is not going to be, therefore, any serious change in the direction in which the U.S. is headed until a genuine crisis topples the existing order. Until then, the trend will accelerate.

The reason is that a certain class of people – sociopaths – are now fully in control of major American institutions. Their beliefs and attitudes are insinuated throughout the economic, political, intellectual, and psychological/spiritual fabric of the U.S.

What does this mean to you, as an individual? It depends on your character. Are you the kind of person who supports “my country, right or wrong,” as did most Germans in the 1930s and 1940s? Or the kind who dodges the duty to be a helpmate to murderers? The type of passenger who goes down with the ship? Or the type who puts on his vest and looks for a lifeboat? The type of individual who supports the merchants who offer the fairest deal? Or the type who is gulled by splashy TV commercials?

What the ascendancy of sociopaths means isn’t an academic question. Throughout history, the question has been a matter of life and death. That’s one reason America grew; every American (or any ex-colonial) has forebears who confronted the issue and decided to uproot themselves to go somewhere with better prospects. The losers were those who delayed thinking about the question until the last minute.

I have often described myself, and those I prefer to associate with, as gamma rats. You may recall the ethologist’s characterization of the social interaction of rats as being between a few alpha rats and many beta rats, the alpha rats being dominant and the beta rats submissive. In addition, a small percentage are gamma rats that stake out prime territory and mates, like the alphas, but are not interested in dominating the betas. The people most inclined to leave for the wide world outside and seek fortune elsewhere are typically gamma personalities.

You may be thinking that what happened in places like Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, and scores of other countries in recent history could not, for some reason, happen in the U.S. Actually, there’s no reason it won’t at this point. All the institutions that made America exceptional – including a belief in capitalism, individualism, self-reliance, and the restraints of the Constitution – are now only historical artifacts.

On the other hand, the distribution of sociopaths is completely uniform across both space and time. Per capita, there were no more evil people in Stalin’s Russia, Hitler’s Germany, Mao’s China, Amin’s Uganda, Ceausescu’s Romania, or Pol Pot’s Cambodia than there are today in the U.S. All you need is favorable conditions for them to bloom, much as mushrooms do after a rainstorm.

Conditions for them in the U.S. are becoming quite favorable. Have you ever wondered where the 50,000 people employed by the TSA to inspect and degrade you came from? Most of them are middle-aged. Did they have jobs before they started doing something that any normal person would consider demeaning? Most did, but they were attracted to – not repelled by – a job where they wear a costume and abuse their fellow citizens all day.

Few of them can imagine that they’re shepherding in a police state as they play their roles in security theater. (A reinforced door on the pilots’ cabin is probably all that’s actually needed, although the most effective solution would be to hold each airline responsible for its own security and for the harm done if it fails to protect passengers and third parties.) But the 50,000 newly employed are exactly the same type of people who joined the Gestapo – eager to help in the project of controlling everyone. Nobody was drafted into the Gestapo.

What’s going on here is an instance of Pareto’s Law. That’s the 80-20 rule that tells us, for example, that 80% of your sales come from 20% of your salesmen or that 20% of the population are responsible for 80% of the crime.

As I see it, 80% of people are basically decent; their basic instincts are to live by the Boy Scout virtues. 20% of people, however, are what you might call potential trouble sources, inclined toward doing the wrong thing when the opportunity presents itself. They might now be shoe clerks, mailmen, or waitresses – they seem perfectly benign in normal times. They play baseball on weekends and pet the family dog. However, given the chance, they will sign up for the Gestapo, the Stasi, the KGB, the TSA, Homeland Security, or whatever. Many seem well intentioned, but are likely to favor force as the solution to any problem.

But it doesn’t end there, because 20% of that 20% are really bad actors. They are drawn to government and other positions where they can work their will on other people and, because they’re enthusiastic about government, they rise to leadership positions. They remake the culture of the organizations they run in their own image. Gradually, non-sociopaths can no longer stand being there. They leave. Soon the whole barrel is full of bad apples. That’s what’s happening today in the U.S.

It’s a pity that Bush, when he was in office, made such a big deal of evil. He discredited the concept. He made Boobus americanus think it only existed in a distant axis, in places like North Korea, Iraq and Iran, which were and still are irrelevant backwaters and arbitrarily chosen enemies. Bush trivialized the concept of evil and made it seem banal because he was such a fool. All the while, real evil, very immediate and powerful, was growing right around him, and he lacked the awareness to see he was fertilizing it by turning the U.S. into a national security state after 9/11.

Now, I believe, it’s out of control. The U.S. is already in a truly major depression and on the edge of financial chaos and a currency meltdown. The sociopaths in government will react by redoubling the pace toward a police state domestically and starting a major war abroad. To me, this is completely predictable. It’s what sociopaths do.

Editor’s Note: A big part of any strategy to reduce your political risk is to place some of your savings outside the immediate reach of the thieving bureaucrats in your home country. Obtaining a foreign bank account is a convenient way to do just that.

That way, your savings cannot be easily confiscated, frozen, or devalued at the drop of a hat or with a couple of taps on the keyboard. In the event capital controls are imposed, a foreign bank account will help ensure that you have access to your money when you need it the most.

In short, your savings in a foreign bank will largely be safe from any madness in your home country.

Despite what you may hear, having a foreign bank account is completely legal and is not about tax evasion or other illegal activities. It’s simply about legally diversifying your political risk by putting your liquid savings in sound, well-capitalized institutions where they’re treated best.

We recently released a comprehensive free guide where we discuss our favorite foreign banks and jurisdictions, including, crucially, those that still accept Americans as clients and allow them to open accounts remotely for small minimums.

New York Times best-selling author Doug Casey and his team describe how you can do it all from home. And there’s still time to get it done without extraordinary cost or effort. Click here to download the PDF now.

Be seeing you

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

Doug Casey on Some Encounters with US Deep State Sociopaths

Posted by M. C. on March 26, 2021

They were one deviation above prostitutes, conmen, spies, and thieves—they’re professional liars. Actors pretend to be somebody they’re not. Professional deceivers. Not until very recently were actors idealized. You have to respect their skills, of course. And some actors are decent people just doing a job, entertaining; I’m all for them.

https://internationalman.com/articles/doug-casey-on-some-encounters-with-us-deep-state-sociopaths/

International Man: Government attracts sociopathic types who are interested in wielding power over others. These are the kinds of people who rise to the top of the Deep State, the permanently entrenched bureaucracy.

You’ve met your fair share of swamp creatures. Tell us about the time you met former Vice President Dick Cheney.

Doug Casey: It was at the New Orleans Investment Conference, the year Dick Cheney was running for president. A friend of mine who took a dislike to Cheney invited me to join him at a special meeting that had been organized for Republican fat cats—potential donors to Cheney’s campaign.

Cheney was pressing the flesh and holding forth. I joined the group, and Cheney comes up to me, as he did to everybody. He says, “Dick Cheney, it’s nice to meet you,” and sticks his hand out. I looked at him and said, “Dick, I’m not going to shake hands with you. I despise you and everything you stand for.”

I thought that delivering a verbal gut blow in public might shatter his criminal persona. But he’s a skilled politician and has been around the block many times.

His comeback was, “Well, why do you say that?” That gave me 60 seconds to detail exactly why I thought he was a horrible human being. He tried not to show it, but it threw him off balance and destroyed any possibility of raising money from the assembled fat cats. I think it’s important that self-important public figures be treated appropriately, as they deserve.

About a week later, I was at another conference in San Francisco. Cheney was also there; he was attending all of the hard money/conservative conferences. He figured that attendees—wealthy, conservative Republicans—were likely donors to his campaign.

Anyway, my friend Mark Skousen ran into Cheney at the Hyatt’s business center.

Mark went up to Cheney, and to break the ice said, “Mr. Cheney, it’s nice to meet you. I understand that you met my friend Doug Casey last week in New Orleans.” I don’t think Mark was trying to wave a red flag in front of an angry bull—just being naive.

Cheney wouldn’t shake hands and refused to talk to him.

That was interesting because I would have thought that Cheney would have just disregarded me as another heckler. Apparently, my having ruined his day in New Orleans put him on a slow burn. Perhaps it ruined his week.

The next year, when I was still a trustee at Washington College, Stephen Balch, the founder of the newly formed National Association of Scholars and Trustees, invited me to join the organization. Lynn Cheney, Dick’s wife—a thoroughly distasteful pear-shaped harpy—was also at the meeting. She was being recruited as an influential bigwig. We took an immediate and visceral dislike to each other. I was subsequently disinvited to join, which came as no great surprise.

International Man: Another notable Deep State figure is former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich. You’ve met him several times and have even debated him on a conference stage.

Tell us about your experiences with Newt Gingrich.

Doug Casey: I met Newt also at the New Orleans conference. Although I lived in Washington DC for many years, I never associated with Deep State types. But, as I said, they often show up at financial conferences, where conservative rich people can be tapped for donations.

I had a private lunch with Newt. It was pleasant enough, although, like most conversations with politicians, completely meaningless. Newt seemed incapable of originating any thought that wasn’t a programmed talking point. Pols are experts at dodging questions—they like to limit the conversation to inoffensive subjects like the weather and the state of the roads.

I was unsuccessful in getting him to talk about any serious philosophical or historical issues. But I was able to turn the conversation to the events of 9/11—because this was only two months after they occurred.

I asked him: “What do you think about what happened to Building 7.” And, he said, “Building 7? What do you mean?”

I explained to him that it was a 47-story office building, which wasn’t hit by a plane, but nonetheless collapsed in its own footprint—as did Buildings 1 and 2—later on the same day. He looked at me and said, “What are you talking about? I’ve never heard about that. Is that right?”

I was flummoxed that somebody in his position didn’t even know that a third major building in the WTC had gone down on 9/11. The event has never been adequately explained, and nobody cares, even though its collapse confounds the laws of engineering and physics.

It was obvious to me that he sincerely knew nothing about it. Of course, Building 7 was never talked about in the news. That giant omission is inexplicable and brings up all kinds of questions about what really happened that day and who was really at fault.

I don’t think Newt had been exposed to it because these people live in a silo, where they only talk to their handlers, sycophants, and other Deep Staters in similar positions.

Newt, a leader of the Republican Party, really didn’t know anything beyond his talking points. He had no observations worth remembering about history or economics either—the two things that he was supposed to know more about than most. No doubt he’ll deny the encounter if asked about it. My parting words to him were, “Be sure to check out Building 7.” He may or may not have asked anybody else about it since he would risk being labeled a conspiracy theorist. Here is a man who passes as an intellectual in the brain-dead Republican party but who has about zero intellectual curiosity.

International Man: Many people don’t know this, but you were a classmate of Bill Clinton at Georgetown University. Can you tell us about any of your encounters with the former president?

Doug Casey: I’ve had three encounters with Bill Clinton over the years, but only two worth mentioning. I’ll dispense with stories about him worshipping at the altar of a porcelain god after a night of debauchery—so did most everybody in the class. Or that it’s said he wasn’t much of a ladies’ man in those days. I guess that came later, with political success.

Anyway, in our freshman year, Bill knocked on my dorm room door and introduced himself, saying that he was running for class president. Even then, I had no interest in politics—certainly not something as trivial as a student council president.

It was a brief conversation, and my response was something like, “Okay, nice to meet you, but student government really isn’t my bag …. ”

The next time I saw Bill was at our 25th class reunion. It was very nice of him to throw a party for our class at the White House. It was a black-tie event—a big deal because he was the president.

When the time came, I walked up to him and said, “Hey, Bill, how you doing? Nice to see you.” That’s what you say to a classmate. He looked at me very forthrightly and said, “Hey, Doug, how are you? Nice to see ya.”

I was taken aback by his apparent sincerity. Maybe he remembered me from one of the big TV shows that I’d been on and put two and two together. Maybe he has an eidetic memory. Or, maybe he just saw my name tag without tipping that fact.

One thing is certain about Bill Clinton: He’s as charming a man as you could ever hope to meet. When he’s talking to you, you feel like you’re the only person in the room and that you’re certainly the most important person in the room. My classmates who knew him well all tipped him as a likely president.

The third time was at our 50th class reunion, which was much smaller and obviously wasn’t at the White House. He was, understandably, still the center of attention. He was very affable, and a lot of guys circled around him.

One thing I remember clearly from our 25th reunion, even though the alcohol was flowing freely, was Hillary’s presence. She kept to herself, but what stuck out to me and the guys that I was talking to was that she was surrounded by four or five young, very good-looking girls. They were like a mini-Praetorian Guard. They reminded me of young velociraptors, the stars of Jurassic Park, pert and alert, their eyes darting everywhere, observing everything around her, making sure she wasn’t molested.

The cute velociraptors brought to mind a joke…. But maybe certain rumors are true…. Do you know the joke about why Chelsea Clinton is so ugly? The answer is Janet Reno was her father. That was a long time ago, of course, and some of our readers may not get it.

International Man: The American people have always been enamored with celebrities. In the past, it was movie stars and singers, but in recent years, Deep State politicians have become the new celebrities in the American public’s eyes.

What are your thoughts about that? And what does it say about society and the future?

Doug Casey: It speaks very poorly of the American people.

I think the first president who was something of a real celebrity was Teddy Roosevelt. He was, in fact, an interesting man, not just a media-manufactured personality. Adventurer, author, athlete, and Renaissance man in many ways, he would have been a boon companion to simply hang around with. But he was a horrible president. A “progressive” who encouraged every type of government activism, a “trustbuster,” and general busybody sticking the government’s nose everywhere into the country’s business. And worst of all, he was a warmonger, basically having made his bones on San Juan Hill in Cuba.

Teddy Roosevelt was the first celebrity president, starting the cult of personality in US politics.

FDR made himself into a celebrity with his great style and his fireside chats, pandering to the common man with his own money while greatly worsening and lengthening the Great Depression.

JFK was the next celebrity president. He was young, good-looking, well-spoken, and had a very pretty wife.

And, of course, Ronald Reagan, a well-intentioned actor.

As time has gone on, we’ve moved more and more toward celebrity presidents—people who build a cult of the personality around themselves. Something Stalin, Mao, Hitler did very successfully. And Third World despots all try to do.

I’ve got a feeling Hollywood will become increasingly important in politics. The public has always enjoyed watching actors, but throughout history—from ancient times—they were on the bottom rung of society. People of quality and stature didn’t want to be personally associated with them, no matter how famous they were.

Why might that be?

They were one deviation above prostitutes, conmen, spies, and thieves—they’re professional liars. Actors pretend to be somebody they’re not. Professional deceivers. Not until very recently were actors idealized. You have to respect their skills, of course. And some actors are decent people just doing a job, entertaining; I’m all for them.

But, that said, they’re generally poor role models or moral examples because the nature of acting is to project a false image. Being a skilled liar is rewarded. There’s a reason Hollywood is famous for depravity and dissipation.

There are now many actors who have mentioned their political ambitions. Not least of them are Meghan Markle and Ben Affleck.

Nowadays, fame, name recognition, and being good-looking are much more important to the public than ideas or character. It’s a very bad trend.

Editor’s Note: Sociopaths are drawn to the government. They seek power and control over others through coercion, taxation and more.

Unfortunately, there’s little any individual can practically do to change the course of these trends in motion.

The best you can and should do is to stay informed so that you can protect yourself in the best way possible.

That’s precisely why bestselling author Doug Casey and his colleagues just released an urgent new PDF report that explains what could come next and what you can do about it. Click here to download it now.

Be seeing you

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

COVID Tests Gone Wild—An Epidemic of COVID Positive Tests

Posted by M. C. on January 11, 2021

Summary:

  1. We have an epidemic of COVID-positive tests that is substantially larger than the epidemic of identified Relevant Infectious COVID Disease. In contrast, people with actual, mild cases of COVID-disease aren’t all getting tested. So the data, on which lockdowns are supposedly justified, are lousy.
  2. The data on COVID hospitalizations and deaths in the US are exaggerated by a government subsidization scheme that incentivizes the improper use of tests in people without particular risk of the disease.
  3. Avoid getting tested for COVID unless you are symptomatic yourself, have had exposure to someone who was both symptomatic and tested positive for COVID, or have some other personal reason that makes sense.
  4. Know that getting tested before traveling abroad puts you at a modest risk of getting a false-positive test result, which will assuredly screw up your trip. It’s a new political risk of travel.
  5. There is a lot more to this viral testing game, and there are a lot of weird incentives. There are gray areas and room for debate.
  6. Yes, the COVID disease can kill people. But a positive test won’t kill anybody. Sadly, every COVID-positive test empowers those politicians and bureaucrats who have a natural bent to control people—the sociopaths and their ilk.

https://internationalman.com/articles/covid-tests-gone-wild-an-epidemic-of-covid-positive-tests/

by John Hunt, MD

Editor’s Note: In the setting of COVID-19, almost every country in the world closed its borders, locked down its citizens, and forced businesses to close. Today, most governments still restrict travel, economic activity, and social gatherings.

The justification for these unprecedented measures has been a growing number of COVID-19 cases. This has unleashed an epidemic of COVID testing—with PCR and rapid antigen tests as the means of identifying positive COVID cases. Our very own Dr. John Hunt examines the science behind COVID testing, whether the testing paradigms are effective, and the rationality behind government response to the virus.

What COVID tests mean and don’t mean

RT-PCR tests can be designed to be highly sensitive to the presence of the original viral RNA in a clinical sample. But a highly sensitive test risks poor specificity for actual infectious disease.

Rapid antigen tests are different. They measure viral protein. They do so by reacting a clinical sample with one or two lab-created antibodies that are labeled with a measurable marker. These antigen tests are often poorly specific, meaning they can show as positive in the absence of any actual viral protein or any COVID disease.

For a lab test, what does it mean to be sensitive? What does it mean to be specific?

I’ll use COVID to help explain these terms. In order to do this correctly, we need to avoid using the language of the media and government because those institutions tend to mislead us via language manipulation. For example, they’ve wrongly taught us that a COVID-positive test is synonymous with COVID- disease. It isn’t, as you will soon see.

So for this article, I will use the term “Relevant Infectious COVID Disease” to mean a condition, caused by COVID-19, in which a patient is sickened by the virus or has (in their airways) living replicating virus capable of being transmitted to others. This seems a fair definition of what we should be caring about in this disease. If the patient isn’t sick and isn’t capable of transmitting the disease, then any COVID RNA or protein that may appear in a test is not relevant, nor infectious, and therefore of little to no consequence.

You can think of a test’s sensitivity like this: In a group of 100 people who absolutely have Relevant Infectious COVID Disease, how many people does the test actually report as “positive?” For a test that is 95% sensitive, 95 of these 100 patients with the true disease will be reported by the test as COVID positive and 5 will be missed.

Specificity: In a group of 100 people who absolutely do not have Relevant Infectious COVID Disease, how many will be reported by the test as “negative?” For a test that is 95% specific, 95 of these healthy people will be reported as COVID-negative and 5 will be incorrectly reported as COVID-positive

Sensitivity and Specificity are inherent characteristics of a test, not of a patient, not of a disease, and not of a population. These terms are very different than Positive Predictive Value (PPV) and Negative Predictive Value (NPV). PPV and NPV are affected not only by the test’s sensitivity and specificity but also by the characteristics of the people chosen to be tested and, particularly, the patients’ underlying likelihood of actually having true Relevant Infectious COVID Disease. The Positive Predictive Value—the chance a positive test actually indicates a true disease—is greatly improved if you test people who are likely to have COVID, and, importantly, avoid testing people unlikely to have COVID.

If you do a COVID test with 95% sensitivity and 95% specificity in 1,000 patients who are feverish, have snot pouring out of their noses, are coughing profusely, and are short of breath, then you are using that test as a diagnostic test in people who currently have a reasonable up-front chance of having Relevant Infectious COVID Disease. Let’s say 500 of them do actually have Relevant Infectious COVID Disease, and the others have a common cold. This 95% sensitive test will correctly identify 475 of these people who are truly ill with COVID as being COVID-positive, and it will miss 25 of them. This same test is also 95% specific, which means it will falsely label 25 of the 500 non-COVID patients as COVID-positive. Although the test isn’t perfect it has a Positive Predictive Value of 95% in this group of people, and is a pretty good test overall.

But what if you run this very same COVID test on everyone in the population? Let’s guesstimate that the up-front chance of having Relevant Infectious COVID in the US at this moment is about 0.5% (suggesting that 5 out of 1000 people currently have the actual transmittable disease right now, which is a high estimate). How does this same 95% sensitive/95% specific test work in this screening setting? The good news is that this test will likely identify the 5 people out of every 1000 with Relevant Infectious COVID! Yay! The bad news is that, out of every 1000 people, it will also falsely label 50 people as COVID-positive who don’t have Relevant Infectious COVID. Out of 55 people with positive tests in each group of 1000 people, 5 actually have the disease. 50 of the tests are false positives. With a Positive Predictive Value of only 9%, one could say that’s a pretty lousy test. It’s far lousier if you test only people with no symptoms (such as screening a school, jobsite, or college), in whom the up-front likelihood of having Relevant Infectious COVID Disease is substantially lower.

The very same test that is pretty good when testing people who are actually ill or at risk is lousy when screening people who aren’t.

In the first scenario (with symptoms), the test is being used correctly for diagnosis. In the second scenario (no symptoms), the test is being used wrongly for screening.

A diagnostic test is used to diagnose a patient the doctor thinks has a reasonable chance of having the disease (having symptoms like fever, cough, a snotty nose, and shortness of breath during a viral season).

A screening test is used to check for the presence of a disease in a person without symptoms and no heightened risk of having the disease.

A screening test may be appropriate to use when it has very high specificity (99% or more), when the prevalence of the disease in the population is pretty high, and when there is something we can do about the disease if we identify it. However, if the prevalence of a disease is low (as is the case for Relevant Infectious COVID) and the test isn’t adequately specific (as is the case with PCR and rapid antigen tests for the COVID virus), then using such a test as a screening measure in healthy people is forcing the test to be lousy. The more it is used wrongly, the more misinformation ensues.

Our health authorities are recommending more testing of asymptomatic people. In other words, they are encouraging the wrong and lousy application of these tests. Our health officials are doing what a first-year medical student should know better than to do. It’s enough of a concerning error that it leaves two likely conclusions: 1) that our leading government health officials are truly incompetent and/or 2) that we, as a nation, are being intentionally gaslighted/manipulated. Or it could be both. (Another conclusion you should consider is that my analysis of these tests is incorrect. I’m open to a challenge.)

So what if you, as an individual, get a positive PCR test result (one that has 95% specificity) without having symptoms of COVID-19 or recent exposure to a true Relevant Infectious COVID Disease patient? What do you do? Well, with that positive test, your risk of having COVID has just increased from less than 5 in 1,000 (the general population risk) to about somewhere perhaps 5 in 55 (the risk of actual Relevant Infectious COVID Disease in asymptomatic people with a COVID-19-positive test). That’s an 18-fold increase in risk, amounting to a 9% risk of you having Relevant Infectious COVID Disease (or a 91% chance of you being totally healthy). That may be a relevant increase in risk in your mind, enough that you choose to avoid exposing your friends and family to your higher risk compared to the general population. But if the government spends resources to contact-trace you, then they are contact-tracing 91% of people uselessly. And they are deciding whether to lock us down based on the wrong notion that COVID-positive tests in healthy people are epidemiologically accurate when indeed they are mostly wrong.

For the 50 asymptomatic low-risk people falsely popping positive out of each group of 1,000, what makes them pop positive? For a rapid antigen test, it is because the test is never meant for use as a screening test in healthy asymptomatic people because it’s not specific enough. For a PCR test, positivity confidently means that there was COVID RNA in that sample, sure, but your nose or mouth very likely just filtered some dead bits of viral debris from the dust particles in the air as you walked through CVS to get the test before you learned you were supposed to use the drive-through. PCR can be way too sensitive.

A few strands of RNA are irrelevant. Even a few hundred fully intact viral particles are not likely to infect or cause disease. Humans aren’t that wimpy. But keep in mind that there is a very small chance that the test popped positive because you are about to get sick with COVID-19, and the test caught you, by pure luck, just before you are to become sick.

On top of this wrong use of diagnostic tests as screening tests, the government has been subsidizing hospitals for taking care of COVID-19-positive patients. Let’s say a hospital performs a COVID test 4 times during a hospital stay as a screening test in a patient who has no symptoms of COVID. If that test pops positive once and negative three times, the hospital will report that patient as having COVID-19, even though the one positive result is highly likely to have been a false positive. Why do hospitals do this testing so much? In part, because they’ll get $14,000 more from the government for each patient they declare has COVID-19.

When we see statistics of COVID-19 deaths, we should recognize that some substantial percentage of them should be called “Deaths with a COVID-19-positive test.” When we see reports of case numbers rising, we should know that they are defining “case” as anyone with a COVID-19-positive test, which, as you might now realize, is really a garbage number.

Summary:

  1. We have an epidemic of COVID-positive tests that is substantially larger than the epidemic of identified Relevant Infectious COVID Disease. In contrast, people with actual, mild cases of COVID-disease aren’t all getting tested. So the data, on which lockdowns are supposedly justified, are lousy.
  2. The data on COVID hospitalizations and deaths in the US are exaggerated by a government subsidization scheme that incentivizes the improper use of tests in people without particular risk of the disease.
  3. Avoid getting tested for COVID unless you are symptomatic yourself, have had exposure to someone who was both symptomatic and tested positive for COVID, or have some other personal reason that makes sense.
  4. Know that getting tested before traveling abroad puts you at a modest risk of getting a false-positive test result, which will assuredly screw up your trip. It’s a new political risk of travel.
  5. There is a lot more to this viral testing game, and there are a lot of weird incentives. There are gray areas and room for debate.
  6. Yes, the COVID disease can kill people. But a positive test won’t kill anybody. Sadly, every COVID-positive test empowers those politicians and bureaucrats who have a natural bent to control people—the sociopaths and their ilk.

John Hunt, MD is a pediatric pulmonologist/allergist/immunologist, a former tenured Associate Professor and academic medical researcher, who has extensive experience and publications involving PCR, antigen testing, and analysis of respiratory fluid. He is internationally recognized as an expert in aerosol/respiratory droplet collection and analysis. He’s also Doug Casey’s coauthor for the High Ground novels Speculator, Drug Lord, and the just-released Assassin, and he is a founding member of the LLC that owns International Man.

Editor’s Note: Unfortunately, most people have no idea what really happens when a government goes out of control, let alone how to prepare…

How will you protect yourself in the event of an economic crisis?

New York Times best-selling author Doug Casey and his team just released a guide that will show you exactly how. Click here to download the PDF now.

Be seeing you

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

Do We Need The State? – Doug Casey’s International Man

Posted by M. C. on May 21, 2020

Editor’s Note: Sociopaths are drawn to the government. They seek power and control over others through coercion, taxation and more.

Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived together peaceably in Palestine, Lebanon, and North Africa for centuries until the situation became politicized after World War I. Until then, an individual’s background and beliefs were just personal attributes, not a casus belli. Government was at its most benign, an ineffectual nuisance that concerned itself mostly with extorting taxes. People were busy with that most harmless of activities: making money.

https://internationalman.com/articles/do-we-need-the-state/

by Doug Casey

Rousseau was perhaps the first to popularize the fiction now taught in civics classes about how government was created. It holds that men sat down together and rationally thought out the concept of government as a solution to problems that confronted them. The government of the United States was, however, the first to be formed in any way remotely like Rousseau’s ideal. Even then, it had far from universal support from the three million colonials whom it claimed to represent. The U.S. government, after all, grew out of an illegal conspiracy to overthrow and replace the existing government.

There’s no question that the result was, by an order of magnitude, the best blueprint for a government that had yet been conceived. Most of America’s Founding Fathers believed the main purpose of government was to protect its subjects from the initiation of violence from any source; government itself prominently included. That made the U.S. government almost unique in history. And it was that concept – not natural resources, the ethnic composition of American immigrants, or luck – that turned America into the paragon it became.

The origin of government itself, however, was nothing like Rousseau’s fable or the origin of the United States Constitution. The most realistic scenario for the origin of government is a roving group of bandits deciding that life would be easier if they settled down in a particular locale, and simply taxing the residents for a fixed percentage (rather like “protection money”) instead of periodically sweeping through and carrying off all they could get away with. It’s no accident that the ruling classes everywhere have martial backgrounds. Royalty are really nothing more than successful marauders who have buried the origins of their wealth in romance.

Romanticizing government, making it seem like Camelot, populated by brave knights and benevolent kings, painting it as noble and ennobling, helps people to accept its jurisdiction. But, like most things, government is shaped by its origins. Author Rick Maybury may have said it best in Whatever Happened to Justice?,

“A castle was not so much a plush palace as the headquarters for a concentration camp. These camps, called feudal kingdoms, were established by conquering barbarians who’d enslaved the local people. When you see one, ask to see not just the stately halls and bedrooms, but the dungeons and torture chambers.

“A castle was a hangout for silk-clad gangsters who were stealing from helpless workers. The king was the ‘lord’ who had control of the blackjack; he claimed a special ‘divine right’ to use force on the innocent.

“Fantasies about handsome princes and beautiful princesses are dangerous; they whitewash the truth. They give children the impression political power is wonderful stuff.”

Is The State Necessary?

The violent and corrupt nature of government is widely acknowledged by almost everyone. That’s been true since time immemorial, as have political satire and grousing about politicians. Yet almost everyone turns a blind eye; most not only put up with it, but actively support the charade. That’s because, although many may believe government to be an evil, they believe it is a necessary evil (the larger question of whether anything that is evil is necessary, or whether anything that is necessary can be evil, is worth discussing, but this isn’t the forum).

What (arguably) makes government necessary is the need for protection from other, even more dangerous, governments. I believe a case can be made that modern technology obviates this function.

One of the most perversely misleading myths about government is that it promotes order within its own bailiwick, keeps groups from constantly warring with each other, and somehow creates togetherness and harmony. In fact, that’s the exact opposite of the truth. There’s no cosmic imperative for different people to rise up against one another…unless they’re organized into political groups. The Middle East, now the world’s most fertile breeding ground for hatred, provides an excellent example.

Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived together peaceably in Palestine, Lebanon, and North Africa for centuries until the situation became politicized after World War I. Until then, an individual’s background and beliefs were just personal attributes, not a casus belli. Government was at its most benign, an ineffectual nuisance that concerned itself mostly with extorting taxes. People were busy with that most harmless of activities: making money.

But politics do not deal with people as individuals. It scoops them up into parties and nations. And some group inevitably winds up using the power of the state (however “innocently” or “justly” at first) to impose its values and wishes on others with predictably destructive results. What would otherwise be an interesting kaleidoscope of humanity then sorts itself out according to the lowest common denominator peculiar to the time and place.

Sometimes that means along religious lines, as with the Muslims and Hindus in India or the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland; or ethnic lines, like the Kurds and Iraqis in the Middle East or Tamils and Sinhalese in Sri Lanka; sometimes it’s mostly racial, as whites and East Indians found throughout Africa in the 1970s or Asians in California in the 1870s. Sometimes it’s purely a matter of politics, as Argentines, Guatemalans, Salvadorans, and other Latins discovered more recently. Sometimes it amounts to no more than personal beliefs, as the McCarthy era in the 1950s and the Salem trials in the 1690s proved.

Throughout history government has served as a vehicle for the organization of hatred and oppression, benefitting no one except those who are ambitious and ruthless enough to gain control of it. That’s not to say government hasn’t, then and now, performed useful functions. But the useful things it does could and would be done far better by the market.

Editor’s Note: Sociopaths are drawn to the government. They seek power and control over others through coercion, taxation and more.

Unfortunately, there’s little any individual can practically do to change the course of these trends in motion.

The best you can and should do is to stay informed so that you can protect yourself in the best way possible, and even profit from the situation.

Be seeing you

 

 

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

The Power of Viruses and the Power of You – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on February 20, 2020

People must be able to imagine power is SOMEWHERE. They don’t believe they have it themselves. So why not invoke images of power in a venue which results in a strange allegiance:

“I’ll see and feel power in a fearful threat to me. I’ll sign on and remain loyal, no matter what. I’ll cling to my threat, and I’ll feel rising fear and strange rising joy together.”

That’s the speeding train, the warning, the tracks.

That’s the virus.

Jon Rappaport has been kicked out of WordPress for violating some policy. Don’t know the details.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/02/jon-rappoport/the-power-of-viruses-and-the-power-of-you/

By

Jon Rappoport’s blog

“I saw a horror movie and somehow it was the greatest experience of my life.”

In this article, I depart, for a moment, from the strategy of citing evidence in my coverage of the “China epidemic.” (For my series of articles on the “China epidemic,” click here.)

Instead, I want to make a few brief notes on the subject of power.

For many or most people, there is a kind of programming in the mind which urges the acceptance of viruses as powerful. This programming results in visceral emotional reactions toward microbes.

The collection of sensations would be something like: riding on a train heading toward a possible break in the tracks. Each person on board has been warned. No one is sure whether the tracks, a few miles in the distance, have actually been ripped apart. The train’s engineer in the cab isn’t stopping.

There is fear, of course. But there is also something else. An almost wild feeling. Where does it comes from? It comes from the realization that power is SOMEWHERE. Where? In the potential break in the tracks.

People don’t often experience a sensation of power. For that reason, they don’t want to minimize the importance of the tracks up ahead. They don’t want to throw away that feeling. At some level, they believe that, if they do throw it away, there will be no power anywhere. And THAT would provoke panic.

The idea that they might be coddling an ILLUSION—and the whole warning they received was a monstrous fabrication to begin with—well, this prospect is entirely out of the question. That couldn’t be, under any circumstances. That would be too, too much.

If you were so foolish as to approach such a person and suggest he could, first and foremost, look to his OWN power, he would stare at you as if you were speaking a language from another planet. To say that your advice, under the circumstances—the speeding train, the tracks, the warning—was inappropriate…this would be a vast understatement.

If a person, for whatever reason, believes he has no significant power, he searches for it elsewhere. If he can find a train, a warning, and danger, he’ll climb onboard. It’s far, far better than nothing.

In our society and present culture, of course, the thought that the individual has a great deal of inherent power, and a right to it, is on the wane. That ship, to go to another metaphor, is taking on lots and lots of water.

Typical sociopaths in high places, and their bootlickers, apply basic psychology they don’t teach in fifty-thousand-dollars-a-year colleges: People must be able to imagine power is SOMEWHERE. They don’t believe they have it themselves. So why not invoke images of power in a venue which results in a strange allegiance:

“I’ll see and feel power in a fearful threat to me. I’ll sign on and remain loyal, no matter what. I’ll cling to my threat, and I’ll feel rising fear and strange rising joy together.”

That’s the speeding train, the warning, the tracks.

That’s the virus.

Be seeing you

 

 

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