MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Vaccinations’

From Lockdowns to “The Great Reset” | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on August 4, 2020

The truth, however, is that this new world order of digital tyranny comes with a comprehensive social credit system. The People’s Republic of China is the pioneer of this method of surveillance and control of individuals, corporations, and sociopolitical entities.

For the individual, one’s identity is reduced to an app or chip that registers almost any personal activity. In order to gain a few individual rights, and be it only to travel to a certain place, a person must balance such apparent privileges with his submission to a web of regulations that define in detail what is “good behavior” and deemed as beneficial to humankind and the environment. For example, during a pandemic, this sort of control would extend from the obligation of wearing a mask and practicing social distancing to having specific vaccinations in order to apply for a job or to travel.

https://mises.org/wire/lockdowns-great-reset?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=184ee9ccf4-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_9_21_2018_9_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-184ee9ccf4-228343965

The lockdown in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic has accelerated the implementation of long-held plans to establish a so-called new world order. Under the auspices of the World Economic Forum (WEF), global policymakers are advocating for a “Great Reset” with the intent of creating a global technocracy. It is not by coincidence that on October 18, 2019, in New York City the WEF participated in “Event 201” at the “high-level” pandemic exercise organized by the John Hopkins Center for Health Security.

This coming technocracy involves close cooperation between the heads of the digital industry and of governments. With programs such as guaranteed minimum income and healthcare for all, the new kind of governance combines strict societal control with the promise of comprehensive social justice.

The truth, however, is that this new world order of digital tyranny comes with a comprehensive social credit system. The People’s Republic of China is the pioneer of this method of surveillance and control of individuals, corporations, and sociopolitical entities.

For the individual, one’s identity is reduced to an app or chip that registers almost any personal activity. In order to gain a few individual rights, and be it only to travel to a certain place, a person must balance such apparent privileges with his submission to a web of regulations that define in detail what is “good behavior” and deemed as beneficial to humankind and the environment. For example, during a pandemic, this sort of control would extend from the obligation of wearing a mask and practicing social distancing to having specific vaccinations in order to apply for a job or to travel.

It is, in short, a type of social engineering which is the opposite of a spontaneous order or of development. Like the mechanical engineer with a machine, the social engineer—or technocrat—treats society as an object. Different from the brutal suppressions by the totalitarianism of earlier times, the modern social engineer will try to make the social machine work on its own according to the design. For this purpose, the social engineer must apply the laws of society the way the mechanical engineer follows the laws of nature. Behavioral theory has reached a stage of knowledge that makes the dreams of social engineering possible. The machinations of social engineering operate not through brute force, but subtly by nudge.

Under the order envisioned by the Great Reset, the advancement of technology is not meant to serve the improvement of the conditions of the people but to submit the individual to the tyranny of a technocratic state. “The experts know better” is the justification.

The Agenda

The plan for an overhaul of the world is the brainchild of an elite group of businessmen, politicians, and their intellectual entourage that used to meet in Davos, Switzerland, in January each year. Brought into existence in 1971, the World Economic Forum has become a megaglobal event since then. More than three thousand leaders from all over the world attended the meeting in 2020.

Under the guidance of the WEF, the agenda of the Great Reset says that the completion of the current industrial transformation requires a thorough overhaul of the economy, politics, and society. Such a comprehensive transformation requires the alteration of human behavior, and thus “transhumanism” is part of the program.

The Great Reset will be the theme of the fifty-first meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos in 2021. Its agenda is the commitment to move the world economy toward “a more fair, sustainable and resilient future.” The program calls for “a new social contract” that is centered on racial equality, social justice, and the protection of nature. Climate change requires us “to decarbonize the economy” and to bring human thinking and behavior “into harmony with nature.” The aim is to build “more equal, inclusive and sustainable economies.” This new world order must be “urgently” implemented, the promotors of the WEF claim, and they point out that the pandemic “has laid bare the unsustainability of our system,” which lacks “social cohesion.”

The WEF’s great reset project is social engineering at the highest level. Advocates of the reset contend that the UN failed to establish order in the world and could not advance forcefully its agenda of sustainable development—known as Agenda 2030—because of its bureaucratic, slow, and contradictory way of working. In contrast, the actions of the organizational committee of the World Economic Forum are swift and smart. When a consensus has been formed, it can be implemented by the global elite all over the world.

Social Engineering

The ideology of the World Economic Forum is neither left nor right, nor progressive or conservative, it is also not fascist or communist, but outright technocratic. As such, it includes many elements of earlier collectivist ideologies.

In recent decades, the consensus has emerged at the annual Davos meetings that the world needs a revolution, and that reforms have taken too long. The members of the WEF envision a profound upheaval at short notice. The time span should be so brief that most people will hardly realize that a revolution is going on. The change must be so swift and dramatic that those who recognize that a revolution is happening do not have the time to mobilize against it.

The basic idea of the Great Reset is the same principle that guided the radical transformations from the French to the Russian and Chinese Revolutions. It is the idea of constructivist rationalism incorporated in the state. But projects like the Great Reset leave unanswered the question of who rules the state. The state itself does not rule. It is an instrument of power. It is not the abstract state that decides, but the leaders of specific political parties and of certain social groups.

Earlier totalitarian regimes needed mass executions and concentration camps to maintain their power. Now, with the help of new technologies, it is believed, dissenters can easily be identified and marginalized. The nonconformists will be silenced by disqualifying divergent opinions as morally despicable.

The 2020 lockdowns possibly offer a preview of how this system works. The lockdown worked as if it had been orchestrated—and perhaps it was. As if following a single command, the leaders of big and small nations—and of different stages of economic development—implemented almost identical measures. Not only did many governments act in unison, they also applied these measures with little regard for the horrific consequences of a global lockdown.

Months of economic stillstand have destroyed the economic basis of millions of families. Together with social distancing, the lockdown has produced a mass of people unable to care for themselves. First, governments destroyed the livelihood, then the politicians showed up as the savior. The demand for social assistance is no longer limited to specific groups, but has become a need of the masses.

Once, war was the health of the state. Now it is fear of disease. What lies ahead is not the apparent coziness of a benevolent comprehensive welfare state with a guaranteed minimum income and healthcare and education for all. The lockdown and its consequences have brought a foretaste of what is to come: a permanent state of fear, strict behavioral control, massive loss of jobs, and growing dependence on the state.

With the measures taken in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, a big step to reset the global economy has been made. Without popular resistance, the end of the pandemic will not mean the end of the lockdown and social distancing. At the moment, however, the opponents of the new world order of digital tyranny still have access to the media and platforms to dissent. Yet the time is running out. The perpetrators of the new world order have smelled blood. Declaring the coronavirus a pandemic has come in handy to promote the agenda of their Great Reset. Only massive opposition can slow down and finally stop the extension of the power grip of the tyrannical technocracy that is on the rise.

Author:

Antony P. Mueller

Dr. Antony P. Mueller is a German professor of economics who currently teaches in Brazil. Write an e-mail. See his website and blog.

 

Be seeing you

 

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

bionic mosquito: Objective Truth

Posted by M. C. on May 7, 2020

Kuhn would observe that once a paradigm has been accepted, it remains accepted until the unavoidable crisis forces its adherents out of their worshipful stupor. No matter the evidence against it in the meantime, nothing will sway this institutional acceptance.

We see this all around us. It certainly exists in economics and central banking. Despite the obvious flaws (to put it mildly), the only answer that mainstream economics can allow is more of the same, at exponentially-increasing rates. We see it in science, with climate change, the corona, and vaccinations.

https://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2020/05/objective-truth.html#more

David Gordon has introduced a new weekly series at the Mises site, called Friday Philosophy. Every week it is a real treat. His recent post, entitled Murray Rothbard and Thomas Kuhn, contained interesting observations. The post focusses on Rothbard’s look at Kuhn’s book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962):

Though people differ about what Kuhn meant, many take him to deny that science gives access to the real world. Truth is relative to a “paradigm,” another much disputed word.

Gordon would comment that while Rothbard rejects Kuhn’s philosophy, he accepts much of what Kuhn says about the history of science. So, what does Kuhn say? Citing Rothbard:

The continual progress, onward-and-upward approach was demolished for me, and should have been for everyone, by Thomas Kuhn’s famed Structure of Scientific Revolutions. …Kuhn demolished what I like to call the “Whig theory of the history of science”.

By “Whig theory,” Rothbard means the idea that “science marches onward and upward, each year, decade or generation learning more and possessing ever more correct scientific theories.” Kuhn has taken this notion to task. Rothbard notes that Kuhn’s idea is perfectly applicable to the Whig theory of history, that things are supposedly always getting better.

At any point in time, we are closer to whatever is right, or true, than at any point in the past. The liberal west certainly embraced this notion with the Enlightenment, and the deplorables are regularly told to get on the right side of history any time we question one iota of the progressivist agenda.

While Kuhn is writing of scientific progress, Rothbard applied Kuhn’s concept to economic thought – noting the faulty belief held by many who assume this ever-advancing notion of progress toward the true:

There can, then, be no such thing as gross systemic error that deeply flawed, or even invalidated, an entire school of economic thought, much less sent the world of economics permanently astray.

Kuhn would observe that once a paradigm has been accepted, it remains accepted until the unavoidable crisis forces its adherents out of their worshipful stupor. No matter the evidence against it in the meantime, nothing will sway this institutional acceptance.

We see this all around us. It certainly exists in economics and central banking. Despite the obvious flaws (to put it mildly), the only answer that mainstream economics can allow is more of the same, at exponentially-increasing rates. We see it in science, with climate change, the corona, and vaccinations.

We see it in the sweep of history, with every empire’s rise until its inevitable fall – never changing course until a course-change was violently forced upon it (with the one notable exception, perhaps, of the Soviet Union, which went down rather quietly).

Rothbard separates his appreciation of Kuhn’s comments regarding progress from Kuhn’s overall philosophical views:

One need not adopt Kuhn’s nihilistic philosophic outlook, his implication that no one paradigm is or can be better than any other, to realize that his less than starry-eyed view of science rings true both as history and as sociology.

It is a tremendously meaningful point, and it is the point that prompted my thoughts here. Just because we run into institutionally-defended “truths” regardless of the facts, does not mean that there is no such thing as “truth.”

Rothbard takes Kuhn’s observations regarding hard science, and applies it to what we now consider the softer sciences – to include economics. Rothbard offers the example of Greek Fire, a seventh century technology – a type of a flamethrower – that remains baffling to modern scientists. He also adds to this the varnish of a Stradivarius violin, “which nobody can duplicate.”

We know less about certain areas of optics than they did in the 18th century. At any rate, when we get to the social sciences and philosophy, this is much more true.

David Gordon would neatly tie together what some might see as a conflict in Rothbard’s thought, making clear that Rothbard’s views were logically consistent. Acceptance of Kuhn’s take-down of the Whig history of scientific thought does not require acceptance of Kuhn’s relativist philosophy:

…doesn’t this make truth in science relative after all? But this doesn’t follow. Truth and universal agreement aren’t the same thing.

Which leads me to the comment I made at the Mises site:

There are objective truths, in hard sciences, social sciences, philosophy, theology, etc. These lie at the center of a circle. We discover them, we lose them, if we are lucky we discover them again.

When we lose them, we pay a price, whether a collapsed bridge or a collapsed society.

Throughout our history, we have moved closer or farther from these truths; sometimes advancing toward objective truth, at other times regressing from objective truth.

But at the center lies objective truth.

The one thing I will add: there are some objective truths which I believe man does not have the ability to grasp perfectly. Like Plato’s forms, there are some that we cannot even picture perfectly in our mind. Yet, even for these, we can grasp what is closer and what is farther from the true form.

It isn’t a question of looking back longingly to some favorite point in history: The Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta, or the relationship of Church and king in the Middle Ages.

It isn’t a question of going back or going forward on a timeline. We are not moving along a line; we are moving around the center of a circle. It is a question of moving toward the center of the circle.

Conclusion

We look back on medieval science, and mockingly call the Church to task for defending what we moderns see as several crazy notions. One regularly noted example is that of Copernicus and Galileo, with the Church standing in the way of scientific advance. This is often played as the trump card by the scientistic crowd. Well, it turns out even this example isn’t as black and white as moderns would like to believe.

Religion has stood in the way of science, and since the Enlightenment dumped religion science has been freed to advance toward truth, unhindered by superstition.  This is the worldview we are taught to believe.

But how will the future look back on our time? We are in the grip of a scientism that has taken on many disciplines – from medicine, to climate, geopolitical considerations, social sciences, economic sciences, gender understanding, etc.

These notions are sillier than most ideas held institutionally during the Middle Ages. Sillier, and infinitely more dangerous. If there is a future for human beings as human beings, we will look back on our time as…dare I say it…barbaric.

If in the future we aren’t human beings (insert your favorite reference to one of dozens of dystopian novels or movies)? Well, then none of this really matters. But the objective truth I hold to about the future tells me not to fear this.

Be seeing you

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

Panic Pandemic – Why are people who should know better buying the Covid19 hype? – OffGuardian

Posted by M. C. on March 20, 2020

But what if from Day Two to Day Ten inclusive 198 more people get it and none of them die?

Well, according to the normal method of assessing CFR that would be 200 cases, one death, and a CFR of 0.5%

But with this brilliant new method, it would still be a CFR of 50% – because we are only allowed to count the cases who got sick on the same day as the fatality. And only two people got sick that day, of whom 50% died.

You see the corrupt genius of it?

https://off-guardian.org/2020/03/16/panic-pandemic-why-are-people-who-should-know-better-buying-the-covid19-hype/

Catte Black

The only certainty about the ‘novel’ virus is that a great deal of nonsense is being talked about it by people who really ought to know better, and a great deal of opportunism is being displayed.

From Netanyahu grabbing the chance to postpone his corruption trial to Hollywood starlets claiming they have ‘tested positive’ (surely not a sad and cynical attempt to up their profile), this bandwagon is seething and teeming with those trying to seize their moment of fame or get rich or stay out of jail or just join in the mayhem

It’s cool to be nCoV-positive now. Maybe that’s why such inordinate numbers of famous people are staking their claim to it.

ISIS are apparently a bit worried about nCoV also and is allegedly sending out travel advisories to its jihadists.

Yup, that’s a real thing, right there. Really happening. Definitely.

Meanwhile, the propaganda is relentless, and there’s a variety for all tastes.

If you like your fear porn vanilla you can read all the articles based on total speculation that tell you millions will die if we don’t demand martial law and vaccines. (Speaking of vaccines, the as-yet-untested Covid19 vaccine is going to mandatory in Denmark, and in the US the manufacturers will have legal immunity should it cause any ill-effects).

If you are of a more sceptical turn of mind well, how about nCoV as bio-weapon? Plenty of juicy stuff on that topic also.

And scientists and science journals are not immune. There’s no shortage of people with PhDs willing to talk nonsense with a sciencey spin in order to convince the more inquiring proles that the governments are correct to invoke emergency powers and get that untested vaccine cranking out asap.

Look at this beauty. Written by a team of MDs and other ‘experts’ and appearing in The Lancet, it is about the most naked example I have seen to date of pseudoscience being used to inflate the perception of nCoV as something other than what it is.

The purpose of the article is apparently to find some sort of barely rational reason for estimating the nCoV case fatality rate to be higher than it actually is by a factor of ten.

Here’s the ‘reasoning’ it offers:

However, these mortality rate estimates are based on the number of deaths relative to the number of confirmed cases of infection, which is not representative of the actual death rate; patients who die on any given day were infected much earlier, and thus the denominator of the mortality rate should be the total number of patients infected at the same time as those who died.

They actually suggest with a straight face (though they don’t say why) that in order to get a ‘real’ figure for case fatality we need to count deaths as a percentage only of those who became infected at the same time as those who died.

So, if on Day One of a hypothetical new disease, two people get it and one dies, this would be a 50% case fatality ratio.

Sure, no problem. Common sense and statistics agree with that.

But what if from Day Two to Day Ten inclusive 198 more people get it and none of them die?

Well, according to the normal method of assessing CFR that would be 200 cases, one death, and a CFR of 0.5%

But with this brilliant new method, it would still be a CFR of 50% – because we are only allowed to count the cases who got sick on the same day as the fatality. And only two people got sick that day, of whom 50% died.

You see the corrupt genius of it? It’s a statistical nonsense that crucially gives permission to any would-be stats compilers in the WHO or elsewhere to overestimate the CFR of this bug, or indeed any other subsequent alleged ‘killer’ virus.

If you doubt this is the point, then read the article. This is just what the authors do, having the total gall to claim the ‘real’ CFR for nCoV is anywhere up to 20%, based solely on this crazy new way of figuring out the stats.

Which will look great in future headlines, and help pave the way for public acceptance of a total fascist dictatorship.

If you ever doubted that corruption is now endemic and all our institutions – political, legal, medical – are stacked with yes-men and jobsworths or fools prepared to put their names to any junk proclamation that might get them a raise or save their professional skins, just think of this article. Written by alleged world-class ‘experts’, published in the Lancet, and nothing more than a word salad of contradictory nonsense and meaningless conclusions designed to promote a political and propagandist point.

It even at one point acknowledges the probability of many many subclinical or symptom-free carriers of this supposed virus. But while the authors satisfy some dormant scrap of conscience by alluding to it they don’t draw their readers’ attention to the concomitant fact this lowers the case fatality by quite a way. In fact they allow themselves to sort of imply the opposite, because that is the level on which such people work:

Notably, the full denominator remains unknown because asymptomatic cases or patients with very mild symptoms might not be tested and will not be identified.

This is just one example of the forest of disinformative, hysterical, fog-bound garbage being poured on our heads about this so-called pandemic. That this is part of a coordinated and massive attempt to instil worldwide fear and enact worldwide population-management methods is now undeniable.

What is nCoV19? I honestly do not know.

The more the fear porn ramps up, the less certain I become of any aspect of the narrative surrounding it. We are definitely all being discouraged from questioning its virulence, discouraged from referring to its official fatality and case numbers, which do not correlate with the level of fear we are being told is appropriate. There is certainly a massive and multifaceted attempt to fudge and inflate those numbers to bring them in line with the ‘response’.

This brings us back to our revelation that good old Wikipedia have been downgrading the CFR of the Spanish Flu. It’s hard not to see this as part of the same process.

The actual death rates just aren’t high enough. So talk them up, play pea and thimble games with the stats, and do some Memory-Holing so that the 1918 pandemic suddenly has a very similar CFR, allowing your tame media to make all the right comparisons in their op eds and editorials, pointing out how many millions died back then despite it only having a fatality ratio of 2.5%.

They seem aware of the discrepancy, and are making efforts to prevent people researching it. The WHO are warning people not to read “too much” about the disease in order to protect their mental health. In a write up on the reccomendations, the BBC says this:

There is a lot of misinformation swirling around – stay informed by sticking to trusted sources of information such as government and NHS websites

Whether this virus is as imaginary as some are saying, or entirely real, it’s being hyped to a point beyond any connection with reality, and not just in the media. It’s a multi-pronged assault on our minds right now. Allegedly reliable and authoritative medical professionals are just as likely to talk propaganda at you as some government minister or media halfwit.

Even in the alt-media, many have stopped thinking and gone full deer-in-the-headlights, devoting their websites to recycling government talking points and urging those same governments to lock down their citizens.

How bizarre is it that outlets who were – just weeks ago – warning against trusting anything that comes out of the mouths of our ‘masters’, are now prepared to surrender entirely to official narratives and official ‘safe-keeping’ – and for a virus which, even if totally real, has killed about 7,000 people – or around 7% of the numbers who have died over the same time period – of the current flu.

Yes, that is a real statistic. Check it out.

And no, don’t tell me it’s “not a fair comparison” because the flu is ‘always’ here and nCoV is new. All you do by that is display your unthinking foolishness. Flu viruses are RNA viruses that mutate all the time – which is why you can catch ‘the flu’ over and over again; You’re catching a different strain, a ‘new’ variant. Just like nCoV it needs to travel by infection routes. And just like nCov it has to start small.

But unlike nCov it has already managed to kill around 100,000 people since Jan 1 this year. So let go of that particular piece of nonsense, ok?

Do the alt-media types backing these extreme quarantine and self-isolation notions think the anti-assembly laws, mandatory vaccines and other special powers will all just vanish once this crisis has subsided (because all pandemics eventually do go away)? Do they think the de facto martial law will be temporary?

Do they think we can just ask nice and everything will go back to the way it was? (assuming, of course, the entire system hasn’t morphed into the Hunger Games due to global financial meltdown and mass poverty, because we all basically signed off on closing down what remains of our economy.

Are they thinking at all, or just reacting?

The panic is now seeding itself and doing the propaganda work for those who set it off, and an obvious and very very alarming agenda is being rolled out right behind it.

It’s never been more important to stay alert, sceptical and objective. We’ll keep trying to do that – and you should all do the same.

Be seeing you

Fbi Report Ends Nra Nonsense About "good Guys With Guns" | Page 14 | US Message Board ...

 

 

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

Powered by Gates Foundation Cash, MIT Develops ‘Tattoo ID’ Tracking Who Has Had Vaccinations – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on December 26, 2019

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/12/no_author/powered-by-gates-foundation-cash-mit-develop-tattoo-id-tracking-who-has-had-vaccinations/

Sputnik News

The invisible “tattoo” is a pattern made up of tiny semiconducting crystals that reflect light and thus glows under infra-red light. The pattern will be delivered alongside the vaccine into the skin via hi-tech dissolvable microneedles made of a mixture of polymers and sugar.

MIT researchers have struck on a novel, and for many surely unsettling, method of keeping track of who has and hasn’t had a particular vaccination – creating an ink that can be safely embedded in the skin alongside the vaccine itself, and only visible using a special infra-red application.

“In areas where paper vaccination cards are often lost or do not exist at all, and electronic databases are unheard of, this technology could enable the rapid and anonymous detection of patient vaccination history to ensure that every child is vaccinated,” MIT researcher Kevin McHugh said in a statement.

Strikingly, the research was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation – in fact, the project came about following a direct request from the Microsoft founder himself, who has been personally and somewhat controversially involved in efforts to eradicate polio and measles via vaccinations worldwide.

​The system has been practically trialled by MIT researchers on rats, with the embryonic patterns still detectable nine months after injection – on human cadavers, the patterns outlasted five years of simulated Sun exposure.

“It’s possible someday this ‘invisible’ approach could create new possibilities for data storage, biosensing, and vaccine applications that could improve how medical care is provided, particularly in the developing world,” MIT professor and senior author Robert Langer said.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation came under intense criticism for a vaccination project in India in 2009.

​During the year, several schools for tribal children in Telangana became sites for observation studies for a cervical cancer vaccine, which was administered to thousands of girls aged nine – 15. The test subjects were administered Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccine Gardasil in three rounds under the supervision of state health department officials. In all, 16,000 girls in the district, many of whom stayed in state government-run hostels meant for tribal students – months later, many started falling ill and by 2010 five died.

A standing committee on health and family welfare that investigated the studies in India tabled its report in 2013, finding consent for conducting the studies wasn’t properly secured, in flagrant violation of medical norms – in many cases, children gave ‘fingerprint’ consent for the tests despite having no idea about the nature of the disease or the vaccine. In others, consent forms were simply not secured at all.

Be seeing you

Fantasy Island Opening - YouTube

 

 

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