Aggregatore di feed

In response to a piece of writing entitled “Surgical Face Masks Were Made For Surgery And Might Not Even Work For That,” a reader has written to share a reason that face masks are good to wear. A reader writes:

====

Dear Allan,

I think surgical face mask are at least an important reminder to practice sterile technique, when you have to cut away so many of the natural layers of protection against infection to operate on a patient.  There is a certain common sense aspect to it. As to how effective the surgical face mask is, I suspect, but only suspect, it provides limited protection for at least something. Dr. Semmelweis demonstrated the importance of sterile technique rather conclusively. Maternity wards in America today, alas, have a significantly higher rate of infection and complications than his.

Regards,

-A Reader 

====

Ignaz Semmelweis 

Thank you, dear reader, for your note. Ignaz Semmelweis is a hero of mine. My years spent in Central Europe after college have served to further grow my appreciation for him, as I so intimately understand the stultified social environment in which he operates.

Semmelweis believed something bad was on the hands of doctors who walked all day long between the birthing suite and the dissection laboratory, something that was making women of that era sick after childbirth. He suggested hand washing, and proved its effectiveness in that particular situation.

The man sounded crazy to the men of his era who reasoned that the hands of gentlemen doctors could not possibly be dirty, by virtue of the hands being the hands of gentlemen. You could call it the social station theory of disease that they practiced. If you exist in a certain social station you cannot possibly transmit disease.

Semmelweis pointed out that there was a problem with taking your hands out of a cadaver one minute and rushing to the maternity ward the next minute to deliver a baby, with the filthy smell of rotting putrescence still on your hands. Many women were becoming sick in that environment and even dying. Had they simply opted for the standard home-birth with the midwife, they could rest assured that no one would smear cadaver goop either on their baby or on their private parts. But those who wanted to let the learned men of the era deliver their baby received exactly that treatment.

Semmelweis Did Not Prove “Sterile Technique”

To be clear, Semmelweis did not demonstrate that a face mask needed wearing. Also, Semmelweis did not demonstrate the effectiveness of all techniques that contemporary establishment scientists and medical professionals call “sterile technique.” Semmelweis demonstrated that a doctor should wash his hands when moving between cadaver and birthing mother in order to protect the mother from illness. Dear reader, you have taken the concept of sterile technique and used it to fit face masks. Sterile technique has grown into a beast all its own, and the various parts of the technique are not always led by the best science.

The Unfortunate Abandonment Of Nuance Among The Educated 

The face mask was already a talisman to some in the medical community before 2020. At the same time, others were willing to point out the limitations of that talisman. The effectiveness of face masks were already understood to be quite limited. Those nuances have all been thrown out the window. Part of my work on face masks is an effort to further highlight those nuances.

This is vital for each of us to understand. We each have tools that we work with in our professional careers and in our daily lives. We must know the purpose of each tool and the limitation of that tool so that we can most effectively use that tool rather than abuse that tool. One definition of abuse is to use something outside of its purpose. I address this at greater length in my forthcoming book Eagle Eye Katie.

Things That Work For Staying Healthy, And Things That Don’t Work (Such As Face Masks)

If you understand the limitations, through sober application of analysis, you can better use the tool as it was intended, and make up for the shortcomings of that tool. For example, a face mask is largely worthless in stopping a person from getting the condition we called Covid-19. However, sleeping a little more, losing weight if overweight, consuming less sugar, and optimizing blood serum vitamin D levels, all help.

By being sober about the limitations of the face mask, we are able to focus on what works.

Diligent use of hand sanitizer, nasal swab tests, and mRNA injections do not make it less likely you will suffer from the condition we called Covid-19, but, again, sleeping a little more, losing weight if overweight, consuming less sugar, and optimizing blood serum vitamin D levels, all help. When we are not sober about the limitations of a tool, we miss the ability to use other tools that work far more effectively at doing what we need.

Surgical face masks exist to stop the doctor from drooling in a patient with an open wound. Surgeons stand over you in a surgery, focusing all their mental efforts on you, head tilted down, mouth slightly open, and like any of us in that position, summoning all our powers of concentration, often enough they actually start to drool — into you. That is why they exist. That is why surgical face masks exist. The rest of the purported powers of face masks are aspirational at best. The purported powers of face masks are far more often disproven, or even a net negative to the wearer of a face mask, as well as a net negative to those around the wearer.

Three Additional Counter-Arguments 

I understand the theory you propose, dear reader, but in addition to the above, it does not address the following counter-arguments.

1.) The false sense of security from wearing a face mask — When people believe a mask will do more to protect than it actually does, they will trust in the mask to do the hard work, rather than themselves focussing on basics that actually work. To understand what actually works, we must be willing societally to recognize the mask does not work. While the wearing of a mask may put some on a heightened sense of awareness around sterile technique, I believe it is more likely to be an example of an individual placing faith in a lie. What other lies about sterile technique is that person, then, willing to practice? It is bad for us to allow lies anywhere in our presence. They bring decay. It is not acceptable to force face mask compliance simply because it will make it less likely that a doctor will go from the cadaver to the birthing mother with the filthy smell of rotting putrescence still on his hands. Rather than rely on a lie to enforce that, there are a nearly unlimited number of other tools for encouraging that behavior and which are not based on a lie.

2.) The propensity of a face mask to project saliva — When you sneeze in a mask, the mask projects saliva under greater pressure further and in smaller droplets. It has strangely become common in the post-2020 era to see people no longer covering their mouths when they sneeze in public, whether they be masked or unmasked. This seems to have to do with the several years of mask wearing, and trusting that the mask is fool-proof, because you were told so. Also, seemingly more common at present, is for people not to turn away from others when sneezing. The act of mask wearing seems to have taught society that the mask is enough and that sneezes are not rude to project at another. These are, of course, two separate matters. First — the mask projects a sneeze further. Second — covering of the mouth and turning away during a sneeze does little to “protect” the room from a sneeze, but it is polite. The mask is neither polite nor does it protect from a sneeze, yet some people have come to trust in the mask. In the process of placing the trust in a mask, some people have additionally become poorly re-trained to stop practicing good etiquette around others.

3.) The short-term cognitive impairment experienced by a mask wearer — Detectable cognitive impairment occurs among those wearing a mask. The supra-threshold effects (such as a headache, reduced mental acuity, and drowsiness) are relatively easy to measure. The sub-threshold effects, by their nature, evade detection, but certainly exist. Cognitive effects occur before they are detected. It is fair, therefore, not to want a mask on the driver of your car. It is fair, therefore, to also not want a mask on the person cutting into your body. It is bad, statistically, to have a surgery on a Friday or weekend, rather than a Monday. It is prudent, then, not to schedule a Friday surgery, because you want the best possible outcome from your surgery. It is prudent to want your healthcare provider at his best level of mental acuity, as well, by being unmasked. While, for the sake of brevity, I have limited myself to only three counter-arguments here, for those seeking more thoroughness, I point to some additional 600 counter-arguments against mask wearing in the book Face Masks Hurt Kids.

Getting Down To The Root Of The Matter 

Absent God, people will find themselves promoting all kinds of strange ideas in search of meaning. That is at the heart of the mask issue: meaning and control being grasped at by a hurting individual who needs Jesus. We must not be so blind to the core issue, as to entertain discussions such as, “Well, if a mask helps 4% of people in the latest study everyone should wear them.”

We cannot let the lost lead us. They will lead us into a pit. They have no authority to lead. The mask is a distraction. When you are looking into the eyes of a masked person, you are standing in front of a deeply wounded individual who longs to know God, though he or she might not even realize that.

The mask is ultimately a distraction. I know this detail so well, because I once was that person. More than 1,000 people, I estimate, were sent by the Lord to knock on my callous heart during those years. I reacted in all kinds of ways — warmly, gratefully, cruelly, critically, mockingly. I was that hurting human. I needed God. I grasped at many straws in vain in an effort to fill that God-sized hole in my heart. The mask is two things: 1.) An outward symbol of that, 2.) A distraction.

If you stop digging once you reach the mask issue, you are missing the point. A mask should not be allowed in your presence without you using the opportunity to provoke a far more serious discussion. In gratitude, I have found myself surrounded by lions since the Ides of March 2020, who, to this day, even use the mask to provoke far more serious discussions. The face mask on a person’s face is a cry for help. Will you help?

The post This Reader Supports Face Mask Wearing. What Do You Think? appeared first on LewRockwell.

“But how do we know when irrational exuberance has unduly escalated asset values . . .?” — Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, “The Challenge of Central Banking in a Democratic Society,” December 5, 1996

John Law, the early eighteenth-century Scottish gambler and financier, thought the best way to revive an ailing economy was to remove the “great scarcity of money,” as he wrote in a 1705 monetary tract. A decade after its publication he took his ideas to the Continent and sold them to Philippe d’Orleans, the regent in charge of France’s finances, who needed a scheme more sophisticated than his failed program of coin clipping and confiscation to save the nation from bankruptcy.

In 1716 Philippe set Law up as head of the Banque Générale, the country’s central bank, giving it and him monopoly control of the note issue. Having won the nation’s trust with declarations of allegiance to sound money principles – he had promised his banknotes would be “payable on sight” in unadulterated gold coin – Law proceeded to apply another element of his theory. Because a scarcity of money, he believed, was the root of France’s economic problems, and since banknotes backed purely by precious metals would be in short supply, he began issuing notes “backed” by the nation’s vast landholdings. Exactly how one would redeem banknotes for acreage he neglected to explain.

Very importantly, Law and Philippe also created a trading company called the Compaignie des Indes, a vaporous entity said to have monopoly trading rights in France’s Louisiana territory. Initially, shares in the company could only be purchased with government bonds still on the market, which had fallen to about one-fifth their value. To the public, the trading company and its investment strategy became known as the Mississippi System.

Philippe was very pleased with the results. People from all ranks were buying shares of the Compaignie des Indes.  Share prices began to soar. People were trading and speculating with Law’s paper money, and France’s economy was coming alive. Philippe decided John Law was correct that a shortage of money was an economic evil. He was so pleased with the change in the economy he brought government closer to the action. He renamed Law’s bank the Banque Royale and by late 1719 it had cranked out enough new bills to inflate the money supply by a factor of sixteen, no doubt to avert the evil of a monetary shortage.

Will and Ariel Durant describe the madness Law had ignited:

The narrow, dirty Rue Quincampoix, where the System had its offices, was for two years the Wall Street of Paris. Buyers and sellers of all classes, duchesses and prostitutes, Parisians, provincials, foreigners, gathered there in numbers, and excitement mounted day by day. Some were trampled to death in the crush, or were run down by the carriages of the aristocracy. . . fortunes were made in a day. A banker made 100 million livres, a hotel waiter thirty million. Now for the first time men heard the word millionaire.

In his Memoirs of Louis XIV and His Court and of the Regency Saint-Simon tells us,

Everybody was mad upon Mississippi Stock.  Immense fortunes were made, almost in a breath; Law, besieged in his house by eager applicants, saw people force open his door, enter by the windows from the garden, drop into his cabinet down the chimney!

As historian Charles Mackay noted, “many persons in the humbler walks of life, who had risen poor in the morning, went to bed in affluence.” Law’s coachman made enough money to buy a coach of his own, who then found Law a new driver.  All one had to do was buy, hold, and sell to make a killing.

Law himself became the richest man in the world, owning, among other things, the central bank, the Louisiana Territory, a collection of French chateaux, and original works of masters such as Holbein, Michelangelo, da Vinci, and Rubens.

But Law was not simply a money printer gone nuts:

He anticipated Turgot by abolishing duties on the movement of food and goods within France. He organized the building or repair of roads, bridges, and canals. He brought in skilled artisans from abroad to establish new industries . . . He revived and multiplied the merchant marine by expanding trade with Asia, Africa, and America; French ships engaged in foreign trade numbered sixteen in March, 1719, three hundred in June, 1720 . . . He persuaded French nobles to finance the production of coffee and tobacco in Louisiana, and himself financed the development of the Arkansas River area. In 1718 New Orleans was founded, and took the Regent’s family name.  (Durant, p.41)

He was so popular his carriage required a large military escort to protect him from admirers. As many of those admirers were women, some found ways to meet with Law despite the obstacles.

Trust — but verify

One day in early 1720 a certain aristocrat whom Law had offended, Prince de Conti, took his Banque Royale notes and presented them for redemption. The notes were reported to have filled three wagons. De Conti said something like, “Voila, monsieurs! Here are your notes, which are ‘payable at sight.’ Now, do you see them? Well then, hand over the coins.”

The bank complied – and held its breath. On hearing about the exchange Philippe was so angered he ordered the prince to return two-thirds of the gold. De Conti obeyed grudgingly but in doing so triggered the first stirrings of panic. Soon two other aristocrats, motivated by distrust rather than revenge, began presenting their notes in small quantities so as not to stampede the herd. Seeing a coming crisis, they hid their coins or shipped them to other countries for safekeeping.  Word got out, and Law’s Banque Royale was challenged to prove its notes were as good as gold. They weren’t, of course, and Law’s hot air balloon burst.

Common folk began storming the bank to pull their coins out. Like the aristocrats, they hoarded their money or shipped it somewhere safe to protect it from confiscation. With gold disappearing from the Banque’s vaults, its notes no longer looked so trustworthy, and the money supply plummeted.

In February 1720, in an effort to intimidate people into returning their gold to the Banque, Philippe declared “hoarding” a crime and threatened citizens with penalties if they were found with more than a pittance in coin. After that failed he tried tricking them into believing gold was going back to the Banque by printing over a billion livres worth of additional notes to pump up the money supply.
As the final act of the tragic farce, Law issued picks and shovels to the city’s idlers and paraded them through the streets as heroes on their way to Louisiana to mine huge profits. It served only to underscore the fraud and the people’s former credulousness. Law’s “liquid” Garden of Eden evaporated into bankruptcy. Later that year Law left the country heavily in debt and died nine years later in Venice.

Is John Law regarded as a charlatan today? Not whatsoever. The most influential economists of modern times regard Law with sympathy and respect. One eminent economic historian places Law in the “front ranks of monetary theorists of all time.” Others view him jealously for being the first economist to run an entire country, even if it meant running it into the ground.

Saint-Simon concluded,

[T]he chimera of the Mississippi, with its shares, its special jargon, its science (a continual juggle for drawing money from one person to give it to another), was to almost guarantee that these shares should at last end in smoke (since we had neither mines, nor quarries of the philosopher’s stone), and that the few would be enriched at the expense of the many, as in fact happened.

The allure of easy money drives irrational behavior, then and now.  End the Fed.

The post The Birth of ‘Irrational Exuberance’ appeared first on LewRockwell.

It is no secret that America faces a very uncertain future heading into the November 5th elections. On one side are a desperate cadre of elites, criminals, and rabid cultists cowering at the fear of what a Trump electoral victory could mean for their exclusive clique which has run the American political system for at least the last century. On the other side are many ordinary Americans who have been driven to the edge domestically in all aspects of their lives by failed elitist policies and criminal enterprises sanctioned by the increasingly imperial government in Washington DC. It is a mercurial period which is bearing much resemblance to the lead-up of several flashpoints in American history, such as the conflicts in the 1770s, 1860s, and 1940s.

Into the midst of this volatile mixture has been thrust the news that state legislators in West Virginia have proposed legislation whereby the state will refuse to recognize the results of any presidential election it deems compromised. While the full ramifications of such a proposal have yet to make waves in the American political sphere, it was a proposed act of defiance on par with Texas defying Supreme Court orders to open the border earlier in the year. It is also an act which could provide a glimpse into what is coming after November 5th if the “unstoppable force meeting an immovable object” scenario plays out into any one of several previously unthinkable outcomes.

One of the Elites’ favorite mouthpieces, the New York Times, recently released a piece which was seen by many as a warning to the American people that vote rigging, electoral fraud, and manipulation would be going on in the upcoming election, just as it had in 2018, 2020, 2022 and 2023. This was accompanied by a number of other items raising suspicions. Stories emerged warning of potential mail-in balloting issues, and news that the postal unions (representing those individuals collecting mail-in ballots) were throwing their support behind the Democratic ticket. The return of the master election challenger in the legal realm and legal action taken by the DOJ against governors like Glenn Youngkin for trying to clean up their voting rolls also speaks of efforts to slow or stop any efforts to secure American elections. All this would seem to imply that the Elites are ensuring that electoral fraud plays a major role in yet another election season.

The general assumption among many is that the planned electoral fraud in this election cycle is meant to help ensure Donald Trump is defeated on election night, just as the 2020 effort did. Though a closer look at certain other details shows that there may be more to it than just stopping Trump this time. Trump’s support in the polls is far higher than it was in either 2016 or 2020. This has led to speculation that the sheer volume of votes for him could be enough to overwhelm the efforts to rig the votes against him in certain states. However, the Elites may be ready for that this time with backup plans ready for implementation.

Certain Democratic leaders have been openly admitting that they will likely refuse to certify the election in Trump’s favor if he wins the election night vote. This tactic would only work, however, if those refusing to certify held a majority in the House of Representatives. This then poses the question of whether the Elites may decide to focus on stealing control of Congress instead so as to thwart a Trump return to the White House through the certification process. The polls for the House seem to point to a Democrat advantage, and even if the Republicans do retain control, a slim enough majority would make it easy for a couple elitist Republicans to cross over and prevent a Trump return. The Senate is a close call also with questions as to whether Republican seats in states like Texas and Nebraska might not be ripe for an upset. When taken in conjunction with electoral fraud being a significant factor in this election, a strong possibility exists that the real steal on election night will focus on Congress rather than Trump.

There are other signs to indicate this may indeed be the first backup plan if Trump cannot be defeated in the vote count. The first is that Trump’s sentencing in the New York criminal case was moved to after the election on November 26th. The peculiar re-scheduling of that event would seem to suggest that the Elites might use his conviction and sentencing as justification for not certifying the election. The second is the existence of a bulletin issued from the DC intelligence community warning of widespread “election-related grievances” turning into violence from “domestic extremists.” Logically, the only reason for publication of such a bulletin would be the expectation of a significant backlash from disgruntled Americans who see themselves as robbed of the candidate they freely chose. The third, and perhaps most telling, sign is the security precautions being implemented for the Capitol on January 6th, 2025, the day the 2024 election results will be certified. It is a preparation rooted in fear and public image, and hints that those pulling strings in DC are expecting their actions on that date to be wildly unpopular with the general public.

Taken together, these facts seem to indicate the Elites’ first backup plan is disqualifying Trump through controlling Congress and refusing to certify his election. If that were to happen, the question would become: who would replace Trump? In that case, Congress could have two choices. The first choice would be to declare that the runner-up wins by default, putting Kamala Harris in power. The second choice would be to invoke the line of succession as laid out in the Presidential Succession Act of 1947. With the executive offices vacant due to the winning ticket being declared ineligible to serve, the Speaker of the House—in this case likely Hakeem Jeffries—would be promoted to the presidency. In either case, the people’s choice would be removed, and a clear indication given as to who holds the real power. Undoubtedly, the Elites believe that such a show of power would break the people’s defiance by showing them the futility of further electoral resistance.

Read the Whole Article

The post Will Secession Be the Real Winner in November? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Do you hear that lonesome whistle blow? Wooooo-wooooo! It’s the last train to Palookaville pulling into the station. At this late hour, two passengers get on: Kamala Harris, mom jeans and blazer, rheumy red eyes, half-gone on chardonnay. . .  and an elderly gentleman with a goatee in a colorful but shabby red-white-and-blue suit, famous long ago as “Uncle Sam.”

There’s an election on, in case you haven’t noticed, imminent even. Kamala, everyone seems to agree, has blown it. Can’t answer simple questions pitched by friendly ringers in the “news” business. Hiding somebody else’s agenda is a tough assignment, you see. All she can really do is cackle or simper and, let’s face it, that gets humiliating fast. Joy has turned to despair. Her punched ticket says “one way.”

Whose idea was it, anyway, over at party HQ, to put her up to this contest? She wishes she knew, as she gazes out the window at the sad lights of the little towns streaking by — East Chugwater, Erehwon, Tanktown, Loserville, onward into the night to the end of the line. How’d they manage to yank her out of the comfort of the Naval Observatory, where she was comfy and cozy watching Netflix rom-coms with Doug, chardonnay refills on-demand, all the Doritos a gal could munch? She was a lover, not a fighter, she repeats to herself, but the self-consolation doesn’t quite avail.

Uncle Sam sits stoically five seats behind her. He is resigned, knowing very well why he is on that train, too. His own country is sending him into exile after swindling him out of his history and his posterity. He doesn’t even recognize the place anymore. What happened to Sandburg’s city of big shoulders? Who turned the fruited plain into a hellscape of muffler shops? How did the heroes of Iwo Jima transition into a legion of TikTok influencers with pierced faces and scrambled brains? When the train gets in, he has no place to go. Perhaps he’ll sleep in a ditch.

You entertain these drear hallucinatory conceits despite the giddiness about Donald Trump’s seeming triumph over adversity — botched assassinations, court cases hatched by malice-crazed ninnies, blob-generated calumnies, conspiracies, ops, and hoaxes galore. And for Halloween, they painted a Hitler mustache on him, just for fun. It remains to be seen what marvels of ballot legerdemain have been concocted by Marc Elias, Esq, lawfare artist supreme, destroyer of the nation’s faith in itself.

But say Mr. Trump overcomes even the planned epic voter fraud to capture the prize. What then? You’re entitled to feel nervous. The army, under Department of Defense directive 5240.01 has just been licensed to gun you down. This is a new thing. Now isn’t it a queer moment in history for a move like that? What are they expecting, anyway? And, by the way, who exactly is the varlet in the chain-of-command who issued that directive? (Or did it just bubble-up out of the ruling blob like some sulfurous gas from a Yellowstone fumarole?)

People of good faith have reason to believe that the country is about to be blown apart. By another odd coincidence, an outfit called the Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association International (AFCEA) has scheduled an “exercise simulating a cyber-attack on critical infrastructure” for November 5 in Atlanta, Georgia. That’s election day. In a big swing state. Whose idea was that? Is there already not enough that might go wrong that some treasonous moron had to kick the risk of fiasco up another notch? Or might it be cover for another Three Card Monte caper with the Georgia votes? This is the sort of thing that will dog poor old Uncle Sam’s mind as he tries to fall asleep in that drainage ditch on the ragged edge of Palookaville.

Or perhaps what we’re witnessing is a fabulous bit of what George W. Bush once called “strategery” by the Party of Chaos. Five minutes after Mr. Trump gets elected, a certain unseen hand flips a little toggle somewhere in the banking system that tanks the economy so hard and fast that 2025 will make the Great Depression of the 1930s look like a Hamptons clam bake. . . for the next four years we become a land with no money and no way to generate money. . . and MAGA / MAHA is left to suck eggs in the cold and dark until 2028 when the Democratic Party returns in full Maoist mode, riding in on a unicorn cavalry to rescue us. . . . Nah. . . .They just blew it.

So, more likely, we’re seeing the suicide of the Democratic Party. Even CNN is starting to back away from them, as from a convocation of lepers. They can smell the odor of necrosis. Plus, their own instinct for survival has kicked in. They have a business to run. They want to be around to cover the treason trial of Alejandro Mayorkas — a sure thing to jack those sagging ratings back up. Maybe even Kamala Harris will be called out of retirement to testify and we’ll find out just what was going on in the White House in the summer of 2024, when “Joe Biden” — remember him? — was rattling around the joint like a BB in a packing crate, howling for his ice cream, and no one was around anymore to hear him.

Reprinted with permission from JamesHowardKunstler.com.

The post Fever Dream appeared first on LewRockwell.

Historically the words ‘gender’ and ‘sex’ had the same meaning and were interchangeable. The term gender developed in the 1400s and was synonymous with sex (the noun not the verb). This changed in the 20th century.

Somewhere in the mid 20th century, as early as the 1940s, the word gender began to take on a different meaning. This process continued in the 50s and 60s with some in the psychological community on through the 70s with the feminist movement. Gender became associated with masculine and feminine roles i.e. gender roles. This is where things began to get murky. Somewhere in the past 30 years the word gender became more mainstream.

What also occurred is that the word gender became associated with gender identity rather than gender role. It was a slippery slope that has led to the sexual mutilation of little boys and girls. This state sponsored mutilation is driven by academia and government controlled media.

Reclaiming the language is important here. When we speak of gender identity or gender reassignment, we are using language that has an indirect hypnotic command that your sex is a choice. This is why the term gender increasingly is used to define one’s sex. It is because the goal is to reinforce that your sex is a choice. This is not true. You are born either male or female.

When politicians have difficulty describing what a woman is, they need to be driven out of office. That shows their allegiance is nefarious in nature.

Discontinuing the use of the word gender may not stop the madness. Still, it is an important first step to reclaim the language. The language used often creates the framework of discussion and debate by including presumptions and assumptions that are indirect in nature. This is why political correctness always seeks to control the terminology. The side that frames the debate wins because they create the overall context of the discussion.

Look at the language used to describe these horrific surgeries. It went from ‘sex change’ operation to ‘gender reassignment’ surgery to the broader term ‘transitioning’. This is a deliberate manipulation to induce the mindset that your sex is not fixed at birth. Changing your sex to reflect your ‘gender’ identity is sexual mutilation to reinforce a delusion.

Delusion is often used in a derogatory sense when we say someone is delusional because we are in disagreement. Here it is meant literally. Delusion = a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact. There is a belief that is diametrically opposed to physical reality. Biological sex is determined at conception let alone birth. If denying this basic biological reality is not considered a delusion, then nothing within the mental health field can be considered a delusion.

Rather than treat the underlying condition and emotional distress, a decision to cash in on these surgeries was made. To a lesser degree we see this with cosmetic surgery. As people age, they start to look plastic as they seem to get addicted to the surgeries. This also occurs with Botox and collagen treatments when done in excess. To some degree we can argue that if these procedures help someone feel better about themselves, then they are beneficial. However, there is often a line that is crossed when the recipient begins to look for worse from these procedures.

This is not the case at all with sex change operations. As I pointed out previously, according to a landmark study in 2011, after a sex change operation, when matched for birth sex and age, the suicide rate is 27 times higher. While it is virtually impossible to determine the suicide rate before surgery, it is safe to say that irreversible sex change operations, mutilations, and hormone replacement treatments, cause harm. These irreversible surgeries do not treat the underlying issue and almost certainly increase the suicide rate significantly.

Ten years ago, less than .1% of the population was transgendered. If anything has changed, then it is due purely to environmental factors. Meaning, massive mass media and academic brain washing has had an effect. It is worth noting that 80% cases of children and adolescence struggling with sexual identity disorders or sexual dysphoria resolve on their own over time.

Why then the push for these sex change operations and sex crimes against children, and trying to normalize sexual identity disorders as something to be desired?

This is a complex issue and not easily treated. Instead of having compassion for individuals struggling with sexual identity disorders or sexual dysphoria, individuals struggling with this issue are being exploited for cash and to support a twisted ideology.

There is a political push rooted in Marxist ideology that seeks to deconstruct the family, societal norms, and even biological norms, in a twisted hatred of capitalism and patriarchal societies. This hatred doesn’t stop there, it has become a genuine hatred of humanity. This anti human movement sees humans as a problem rather than as having intrinsic value and worth.

Read the Whole Article

The post Stop Using the Word Gender appeared first on LewRockwell.

We are on the brink of the 2024 presidential election—which, perhaps more than ever, has us on the brink of preserving this wonderful nation or losing it.

Is it true that some Catholics still don’t know for whom they are going to vote, or if they are going to vote? What more do they need to know than they know already? Maybe a lot.

A good case can be made for not voting or voting for a third-party candidate in “non-swing” states, but I believe it imperative for Catholics to vote for Trump in swing states. Indeed, somewhat indirectly, Cardinal Burke makes a strong case for this perspective.

I suspect the major reason that so many Catholics are considering not voting for Trump is because of the news sources they read. I read The Wall Street Journal, articles on the National Public Radio webpage, and several news feeds that draw from both left- and right-wing media organizations. But what really keeps me informed is the fact that I use (formerly known as Twitter), the best news source by far. Not only is breaking news available with breathtaking rapidity, but so is expert commentary—less so by journalists as by “real” people who have direct experience with the kind of realities making the news—former Secret Service agents, munitions experts, legal experts, medical experts—people who have unassailable expertise but who are ignored by MSM. The news and commentary on the first assassination attempt, for instance, was hours ahead of mainstream media.

I host lots of different kinds of discussions on Facebook, and I am amazed when people who believe they are well-informed but know absolutely nothing of evidence that challenges the take of the mainstream media post. They remained convinced that there was no election fraud, interference, or manipulation in 2020. They believe that Trump tried to stage an insurrection on January 6, 2021. They believe he has been fairly convicted of felonious crimes and fairly impeached—although the Russion collusion charge has been shown to a complete hoax. They seem not to know that the FBI suppressed information on the Biden laptop that showed Biden family connections with Ukraine or that 51 FBI agents perjured themselves about what was on the laptop.

The unfair media treatment of Trump is criminal; they are not only completely biased but they also fail to report extremely important news. The virtual blackout of coverage of the assassination attempts is appalling, as is the neglect of the horrible devastations of hurricane Helene and the failure of the government to respond—for just the most recent examples.

I would like to challenge people to research the many vexed questions surrounding Trump, but it is hard to find true information by using search engines—they bury any favorable coverage of Trump. Indeed, I think it is only on that one will find information that permits one to make a fair evaluation of charges against Trump. Those who want to try to catch up quickly will find good coverage from The Epoch Times and from The Vigilant Fox (which does not attempt to be “balanced” but, nonetheless, is reliable and a source for news not covered elsewhere). Tucker Carlson’s interviews and talks are always interesting and informative.

will lead you to an amazing number of interesting podcasters—and that will lead you to more. There are many articles and videos on the “alternate media” that show how generous and non-racist Trump is—despite his boasting this is not something he boasts about. This is one of the best: “Manhood is Under Attack.”

For two good summaries of why it is imperative to vote for Trump, I recommend Christopher Bell’s “Pray, Vote, Work, Pray More” and the statement of Bill Ackerman, a top financier and political moderate who has mostly supported Democrats, on why he will not vote for Harris.

It seems to me there are three primary reasons that deter good Catholics from voting for Trump, not necessarily in this order: 1) His speech is often “unpresidential” to say the least; he mocks the physical appearance of his opponents, gives them demeaning nicknames, and in general belittles them. He is sometimes crude and vulgar. 2) Some believe that he is like Hitler and will destroy democracy—some who believe this suffer from what is known as Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) to the point that they wish someone would assassinate him. 3) Some think Trump’s position on abortion and IVF in themselves disqualify him.

Quick responses to the first two: 1) Mocking opponents and vulgarity offend me a great deal, and I am happy that more polished men—such as J.D. Vance, Robert Kennedy Jr., Vivek Ramaswamy—don’t follow his example in this regard. They, indeed, are often better at defending Trump’s policies than he is. Certainly, Harris is hardly better than Trump in the civility department; for instance, the “Hitler” rhetoric is completely unacceptable.

Read the Whole Article

The post On the Brink appeared first on LewRockwell.

Comments open on YouTube

The post Trump’s First Campaign Manager Paul Manafort Breaks Down the Current State of the Presidential Race appeared first on LewRockwell.

The regathering of Israel that notable 18th-century Bible scholar Matthew Henry (and other post-Reformation writers) foresaw in his famous commentaries was a generation of Hebrews that would come to the saving faith in Jesus Christ, accepting Him as the Messiah that their forebears had rejected and crucified. (I diverge from the great Matthew Henry’s prophetic interpretations in Revelation Chapters 15 and 16.) The regathering of Israel that the ignoble false prophecy teacher Cyrus Scofield (1843 – 1921) described in his reference Bible was the rise of national Israel, which, according to Scofield’s disciples, was fulfilled with the creation of the Zionist state in 1948.

Tragically, the latter is the dominant view of evangelical prophecy teachings today.

I submit that if Matthew Henry had lived during the time of Scofield—and especially after the creation of Zionist Israel in 1948—he would have absolutely and positively rejected Scofield’s heresies (as did the great Charles Spurgeon, who was a contemporary of Scofield) and would have vociferously rejected the doctrine of Christian Zionism that was spawned by the notes in Scofield’s Reference Bible.

Matthew Henry never envisioned a bloodthirsty, murderous, genocidal state that would callously and without conscience annihilate hundreds of thousands—even millions—of innocent people, including many thousands of God’s New Covenant people, Christians, as being the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16). Nor could he ever have envisioned generations of his fellow Christians turning a blind eye to or even cheering on those who would commit such a horrific, heinous, inhumane slaughter of innocents.

What we are witnessing today has never been seen since the advent of Western civilization.

Obviously, there have been diabolical and demented mass killers before, but never have we seen Christian people—almost as a whole—excuse, defend, facilitate and actively support and assist the maniacal, murderous monsters.

Historically, Christians have been the most persecuted people of faith in the 2,000-year Church era. Our Christian ancestors knew the bitter taste of political, religious and civil suffering. And never did they allow themselves to indulge in the appetite for murder and aggression—even against their enemies. They were, after all, the disciples of Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6); and they boldly proclaimed the gospel of peace. (Romans 10:15; Ephesians 6:15)

This is NOT the Christianity that we see today.

The last twelve months have unveiled a racist, bloodthirsty, maniacal Israeli society that looks at people of other races as nonhuman. They are described as animals. The babies born to their mothers are called little snakes. These killers recognize no law but their own—not international law, not Natural law, not moral law, not Biblical law, not even the law of humanity. They kill at will. Defenseless women and children are slaughtered like cattle. They celebrate death and destruction. They are willing to take the world into global nuclear war to achieve their goal of complete ethnic purging of the Palestinian people. They are wholly without conscience.

Yet, in the Christian West, we find abject apathy or even exuberant excitement for this satanic behavior. Our national government protects and defends it. Worse than that: It assists and facilitates this murderous madness by providing money, weapons of mass destruction, satellite surveillance, intelligence, etc., to the Zionist zealots of death.

Make no mistake about it: The United States of America is as culpable in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents in Palestine as are the Israelis. So, too, are those Americans—including Christians—who in their hearts support Israel’s genocide.

One must understand that the disease of racial superiority being flaunted by the Israelis does not confine its self-acclaimed preeminence over the Palestinians only. In the minds of Benjamin Netanyahu and his fellow eugenists, every goy (gentile) is nonhuman and, thus, warrants any act of racial cleansing.

I’ll let former CIA intelligence officer Phil Giraldi pick up from here:

That Israel is now attacking United Nations peacekeepers in south Lebanon might well be decisive in turning its few remaining “friends” against it. Spain, France, Ireland and Italy, all of which contribute to the peacekeepers force (UNIFIL), and which continued to look the other way when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his band of war criminals committed atrocity after atrocity against Arabs, are now finding themselves mortified when European soldiers are being attacked and wounded by cannon fire from snipers and Israeli tanks. In one incident, Israeli armored vehicles smashed their way through the gate of a UNIFIL base, allegedly using chemical weapons that injured 15 UN soldiers.

It is not the first attack by Israel on United Nations personnel and it will probably not be the last as the Israel Occupation Force (IOF) has been de facto waging war against the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) in Gaza over the past year, targeting and killing its personnel and denying or blocking its largely humanitarian mission. And the United Nations is also a target more generally speaking. At his most recent visit to the UN in New York, the monstrous Netanyahu exhibited a new low even for him, shouting to a nearly empty General Assembly room that the UN has become a “swamp of antisemitic bile,” again playing his favorite tune that Israel is always the victim.

Inevitably, however, the Zionist fanatics in power in Washington are still motivated to ride the Israeli horse no matter who Netanyahu marks for death . . . mostly coming from Christian Zionist Republicans.

So where do we go from here? Sometimes recognizing that we have a problem can be the first step in coming up with a solution. To my mind, the rot started with President Harry Truman, who sold out to Jewish money and media power in the 1948 creation of the state of Israel, which real statesmen like Secretary of State George Marshall warned against. Some would put the betrayal earlier, with the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913. In any event, it is now counter to actual US interests to be so totally subservient to Israeli priorities. A good first step would be to require the constituent groups that make up the Israel Lobby to register as foreign agents under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, which would require them to reveal their sources of income and their connections to Israel. It would also prohibit them from interfering in US politics. In addition, it does not make sense to send American Ambassadors and Emissaries to Israel who are far more loyal to Israel than to the United States, as the last several have been. Nor does it make sense to have a Jewish/Zionist Secretary of State backed up by a largely Jewish staff and White House cabinet to carry out diplomacy in the Middle East. Diplomacy is precisely what Blinken has not been doing and if he had any decency, which he does not, he would in any event recuse himself from involvement with anything having to do with Israel.

The unconditional ironclad pledge to defend a nation carrying out a genocide while simultaneously seeking to go to war with all its neighbors is a formula for initiating World War 3, which will kill millions of people. Indeed, Biden, who has been discussing with Netanyahu how to attack Iran, has now deployed to Israel a $1.15 billion Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system to be manned by 100 American soldiers on the ground in Israel. The Washington Post is reporting that Israel has decided to attack military sites in Iran before the US election. This is just what Netanyahu wants as he will initiate a new conflict with Iran, Iran will retaliate, possibly killing US military based inside Israel, and bingo the US will be at war. In truth, the world needs less of a rabid dog Jewish state calling the shots as well as less of a corrupted and befuddled America dedicated to protecting the ravening beast. International lawyer John Whitbeck has described the current reality best: “By their venality, cowardice, moral bankruptcy and near-treason, the American political class is flushing a once great country down history’s toilet, and the Global West, if it does not liberate itself from domination by the Israeli-American Empire, risks a similar fate.”

At this juncture, I go back to the beginning of this column to point out that the acceptance of the devilishly inspired Zionist State of Israel by evangelicals—and the Israeli-owned politicians they elect—is the result of Scofield’s heretical prophecy doctrines that are now considered to be sacrosanct in most evangelical churches, schools, colleges, seminaries, publishing houses, etc. And the result of this acceptance by evangelicals has created the genocidal monster that is now slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocents and is about to take America—and the world—into global nuclear war.

THIS is the legacy of Cyrus Ingerson Scofield.

Except for those who are supernaturally bewitched (Galatians 3:1), most everyone is now able to see and understand that Scofield’s Israel-based Rapture doctrine was NOT inspired by God. Instead, the Evil One has used this false teaching to capture both America’s churches and the American Congress.

As Jesus said, By their fruits ye shall know them. (Matthew 7:20)

The fruits of Scofield Rapturism, Christian Zionism and Israel itself are death, destruction, perpetual military conflict, civil unrest, mass murder, regional instability and, now, a very real potential for global nuclear war.

How long can Christians continue to turn a blind eye to Israel’s atrocities? How long will Christians be blinded by the fallacious prophecy doctrines of Scofield? How long will the voting public continue to elect and re-elect warmongering politicians who are owned by the Israeli lobby?

Absent an answer of No longer to the questions above, how long will America be spared the same violence and destruction that it has tolerated and facilitated by its unconscionable support for the violent, destructive State of Israel?

Reprinted with permission from Chuck Baldwin Live.

The post How Long Can Christians Continue To Turn a Blind Eye o Israel’s Atrocities? appeared first on LewRockwell.

For the last several weeks, the Kiev regime frontman Volodymyr Zelensky has been pitching the much-touted “victory plan” to his overlords in the political West. It didn’t impress them, to put it mildly. Despite this, on October 16, he finally decided to go public with it, revealing the main points in an address to the Verkhovna Rada (Parliament). The document contains five publicly available points and three additional “secret” ones, allegedly “shared only with certain partners”, as CNN reports. Zelensky stated this “would be a bridge toward future peace talks with Russia”. However, among the main points of the “victory plan” is more of the same – NATO membership. CNN claims it also outlines “provisions to strengthen Ukraine’s defense and implement a non-nuclear strategic deterrence package”.

However, already the next day, CNN’s claim was denied by none other than Zelensky himself. Namely, he stated, in no uncertain terms, that if the Neo-Nazi junta isn’t allowed to join NATO, its “only option” will be to acquire nuclear weapons. So much for a “non-nuclear strategic deterrence package”. To make matters worse, he said this during a press conference following his speech in Brussels. He also made a false claim that “Ukraine was the only one who gave up its nuclear weapons” and that “this is why it’s fighting today”. However, this is patently false. Only one country dismantled its own nuclear arsenal completely and that was South Africa (officially in 1994). At around that time, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan signed an agreement on the transfer of Soviet thermonuclear weapons back to Russia, the sole successor state of the USSR.

Known as the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, the document promised security guarantees to all three former Soviet republics. However, the political West broke these agreements after launching numerous color revolutions across Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, with the goal of taking control over the former republics and strategically encircling Russia. After the CIA-orchestrated “Orange Revolution”, Ukraine stopped being a neutral state and the new foreign-backed regime announced its intention to join the EU and NATO. This was completely unacceptable to the Kremlin, but its reaction was calm, as the putschists were defeated at the 2010 election, normalizing relations between Moscow and Kiev. Unfortunately, this was short-lived, as the US set off the 2014 Maidan coup which brought the Neo-Nazis to power.

The illegal junta then launched the war in the Donbass, killing thousands in the process and here we are today. It should be noted that the Kiev regime already flirted with the idea of acquiring nuclear weapons in the years prior to the special military operation (SMO). Namely, back in early 2021, the Neo-Nazi junta’s former ambassador to Germany, Andriy Melnyk, infamous for his defense of Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera, threatened that they’ll acquire nuclear weapons. Zelensky himself reiterated this right before and after the SMO began, only to “suddenly change his opinion” days later, due to peace negotiations with Russia. At the time, he stated that “Ukraine must accept it will never join NATO” and that it will “do so if it brings peace”. And that would’ve certainly worked, but there was “just one tiny” problem – Zelensky lied.

The already signed peace deal was thrown into the dustbin and now hundreds of thousands (not too far from a million) are dead, with even more maimed for life and millions of refugees (around half of whom fled to Russia). However, that’s clearly not enough for the political West and its Neo-Nazi puppets.

According to the Associated Press, Zelensky supposedly “gave his allies three months to approve the key points of his ‘victory plan'”, but didn’t specify what the Kiev regime would do if its demands weren’t met. It seems the Neo-Nazi junta frontman decided to spell it out this time. While he was presenting the plan, Zelensky claimed that “Ukraine could win no later than next year”. If you’re laughing at this, you’re not the only one. Namely, prior to publicly revealing it, Zelensky presented this “victory plan” to the US, UK, France, Italy, Germany, etc.

The lack of any official reaction to the document is very telling. The plan includes points that were already publicly rejected by many NATO members, including the demand to allow long-range strikes deeper within Russia. It should be noted that this is not because of any sanity or altruism in those countries’ leaders, but because Moscow made it very clear that they would suffer direct consequences if this ever came to pass. Another point of the plan boils down to NATO effectively establishing no-fly zones over parts of Ukraine, but this too was rejected in previous months, so there’s no reason to think anything changed about it, especially because Moscow demonstrated what would happen to those trying to enforce it. And to top it off, Zelensky even suggested that Kiev regime forces could replace some US troops in Europe.

He insisted that “the strength and experience of Ukraine’s military could be used to strengthen European defense after the war and eventually replace certain US forces in Europe”. While Ukrainian soldiers might be better than NATO troops (according to their own admission), this very idea is absolutely ridiculous. However, what’s not is the possibility that Zelensky’s comments are not just “crazy talk”. Namely, the political West already showed signs that it’s ready to help the Neo-Nazi junta with developing nuclear weapons in hopes of inciting a localized nuclear conflict that would destroy both Russia and Ukraine. The Kremlin is perfectly aware of this, with its top diplomat Sergei Lavrov warning that such plans would fail, as Moscow would respond with its own strikes on the Kiev regime’s sponsors in this eventuality.

However, it seems NATO hasn’t given up on this plan. And this is seen not only in the fact that Zelensky was allowed to make the aforementioned statement in Brussels, but also because certain members of the world’s most vile racketeering cartel already support some points of the “victory plan”. Namely, the Netherlands backed the Neo-Nazi junta’s attacks on Russia using its nuclear-capable F-16s and reiterated this after it delivered the fighters earlier this month. Such belligerence will surely not go unnoticed in Moscow. However, even if the political West doesn’t provide the means for the Kiev regime to acquire nuclear weapons, it may help them make the so-called “dirty bomb”. This issue was raised many times by Moscow, including by Andrei Kartapolov, the head of the State Duma Defense Committee, in comments to RIA Novosti.

Either way, it’s perfectly clear that the political West cannot defeat Russia directly, so it keeps trying to make these Pilatian moves where its participation will be concealed under the shroud of public “rejection” of the Neo-Nazi junta’s requests, when, in reality, it keeps pushing for greater escalation that would be limited to Russia and Ukraine only. NATO is perfectly aware that Moscow’s advance cannot be stopped by any conventional means and that the Kremlin will take back Ukraine one way or another. Thus, if that’s inevitable, it wants to ensure that the unfortunate country becomes a ruin, which would exponentially increase the costs for Russia. And what would be the ultimate cost? Nuclear escalation that would hurt both countries, while NATO remains intact. However, Moscow knows what the plan is and it already reiterated this won’t work.

Source: InfoBrics

The post ‘Secret’ Clause of Zelensky’s ‘Victory Plan’ – Join NATO Through Nuclear Blackmail appeared first on LewRockwell.

 

 

di Robert Breedlove

Nella Parte 7 abbiamo esplorato come la proprietà e il denaro interagiscono con la mente e come ciascuno sia un modello reciprocamente influente sull'altro secondo la Material Engagement Theory. Per questo motivo la corruzione del denaro e le violazioni della proprietà in generale sono considerate catalizzatori di psicosi di massa. Abbiamo anche esaminato perché ci sono buone ragioni per essere fiduciosi nonostante il fiasco della moneta fiat e la conseguente psicosi di massa in cui ci troviamo invischiati oggi. Fortunatamente i sistemi socioeconomici basati sulla libertà tendono a superare quelli basati sulla moneta fiat. Oggi daremo un'occhiata al totalitarismo, la più grande e catastrofica psicosi di massa di tutte, e alla sua relazione con la natura “ovunque e da nessuna parte” delle dinamiche di mercato: manifestazioni della mente collettiva dell'umanità. I ​​mercati sono “menti di menti” e, come vedremo, i sovranisti sono coloro che scelgono di liberare le proprie menti e di prendersi la piena proprietà di sé stessi migrando verso una moneta a prova di coercizione.

Il mercato: un processo universale

«Nella mia filosofia non c'è differenza tra il fisico e lo spirituale, sono categorie assolutamente obsolete. È tutto un processo, non è roba da una parte e forma dall'altra [...] è schema, la vita è schema, è una danza di energia.»

~ Alan Watts

Tutti i fenomeni nell'universo esistono in flusso, in uno “stato senza stato” di continuo cambiamento, una danza infinita di energia. A volte certi eventi possono sembrare statici, ad esempio un paesaggio montuoso, ma visti attraverso “l'Occhio di Dio” del tempo geologico, persino le montagne sono solo onde di energia che scorrono attraverso le caratteristiche terrestri. Come le onde sull'oceano, le montagne sono impegnate in uno scambio costante di energia con l'ambiente circostante, sebbene su una scala temporale molto più lunga. All'interno della sfera dell'azione umana, questo processo universale di scambio incessante è istanziato nel mercato. Gli esseri umani non solo commerciano beni e servizi, e le idee su cui si basano, ma imitano anche le azioni degli altri in ondate di scambi identici, modelli di azione imitativi direttamente responsabili dello sviluppo e della propagazione di rituali, cultura e istituzioni sociali. Infatti questa capacità umana di replicazione e scambio culturale è una delle nostre caratteristiche distintive.

«L'essere umano differisce dagli altri animali per la sua straordinaria attitudine a imitare.»

~ Aristotele

La mimesi, radice etimologica di mimica, consente agli esseri umani di accumulare apprendimenti procedurali di generazione in generazione, arricchendo costantemente il tesoro della conoscenza e consentendoci di civilizzarci. Il problema con questa capacità umana unica di scambio e imitazione è che quando si avvia la coercizione, o la violenza, può risuonare virtualmente senza fine. Qui sta il problema con il mondo fiat: sotto una minaccia (più o meno) velata di forza, implica lo stimolo all'azione umana “perché un'autorità lo ha detto”. Quando l'azione è indotta in questo modo, la natura fondamentalmente libera dell'individualità viene violata e coloro che sono mossi da un decreto escogitano modi per resistere, indebolire, o ottenere una punizione contro le loro autorità. Ne consegue uno scambio che causa faide e ondate di vendetta reciproca.

«Nell'Unione Sovietica ogni lavoratore è un dipendente pubblico, e hanno un detto per questo: fintanto che i capi fanno finta di pagarci, faremo finta di lavorare.»

~ Tom Clancy

La dichiarazione tramite decreto è l'essenza dello statalismo. Come trattato in precedenza in questa serie, lo statalismo è una psicosi di massa basata sulla redditività della violazione della proprietà. Questa modalità psicotica di organizzazione umana, una versione annacquata della schiavitù vera e propria, dipende da un'ignoranza e passività generali tra le persone. Poiché la violazione della proprietà è l'impresa principale dello statalismo, essa va contro i canali di libero scambio volontariamente stabiliti. Tutte le dichiarazioni per decreto danno luogo a una reciproca rottura dell'integrità cognitiva, sia a livello individuale che collettivo, o tra menti e mercati. Tutti i tentativi di ridurre l'infinito dinamismo dei mercati a una formula statica e statalista sono inevitabilmente distruttivi per il valore. Come scrive Robert Pirsig riguardo la realtà dei mercati liberi:

Un libero mercato è un'istituzione dinamica. Ciò che le persone comprano e ciò che le persone vendono, in altre parole ciò che le persone VALUTANO, non può mai essere contenuto da alcuna formula intellettuale. Ciò che fa funzionare il mercato è la qualità dinamica. Il mercato è in continuo cambiamento e la direzione di tale cambiamento non può mai essere predeterminata.

Quando l'intervento per decreto viene imposto ai mercati e agli attori di mercato, i processi di scoperta dinamica necessari per una sana cognizione (distribuita) vengono disturbati e la forza mentale, sia delle menti umane che dei mercati, viene danneggiata. Come vedremo, il decreto provoca uno scisma cognitivo nelle menti degli individui e degli insiemi. Quando un'affermazione di un'autorità autoproclamata viene avanzata come un'annullamento della verità liberamente scoperta, la putrefazione dell'inganno infetta i tessuti intersoggettivi delle interrelazioni umane. L'essenza del mondo fiat è una fallacia ingiusta e assurda: la mia autorità ha una pretesa di proprietà su di te superiore alla tua stessa auto-proprietà. La moneta fiat è una contraddizione della natura umana e la sua promulgazione è una patologia socioeconomica. Ecco perché lo stato ha sempre avuto disperatamente bisogno del supporto degli intellettuali come “plasmatori di opinioni” della società, per giustificare il suo rastrellamento e fungere da “benda psicologica” per coprire il suo inganno.

A lungo termine, però, le attività parassitarie dello statalismo hanno ripetutamente dimostrato di essere controproducenti. Da qui i ricorrenti cicli di “boom/bust” di civiltà nella storia. Come qualsiasi bitcoiner può sicuramente dedurre: “Se si rompe il denaro, si rompe il mondo”. Quando i diritti di proprietà vengono sufficientemente violati, lo stato parassita uccide il suo ospite produttivo del libero mercato, uccidendo così sé stesso nel processo. Uno studio rapido della storia dimostra che ogni stato che sia mai esistito alla fine sega il ramo su cui poggia: il libero mercato che genera ricchezza. Mises così definisce il mercato in Human Action:

Il mercato non è un luogo, una cosa o un'entità collettiva. Il mercato è un processo, attivato dall'interazione delle azioni dei vari individui che cooperano con la divisione del lavoro. Le forze che determinano lo stato del mercato, in continuo cambiamento, sono i giudizi di valore di questi individui e le loro azioni dirette da questi giudizi di valore. Lo stato del mercato in ogni istante è la struttura dei prezzi, vale a dire la totalità dei rapporti di cambio stabiliti dall'interazione di coloro che sono desiderosi di acquistare e coloro che sono desiderosi di vendere.

Il mercato esiste “ovunque e da nessuna parte”. Anche quando gli stati intervengono nei processi di libero mercato, non possono eliminarli, ma possono solo causare distorsioni temporanee (anche se distruttive). Spesso passate inosservate nei periodi buoni, queste distorsioni alla fine culminano in una catastrofe, poiché è impossibile evitare le esternalità create dal modello aziendale dello statalismo. Le specializzazioni dello statalismo (coercizione, costrizione e violenza) sono fenomeni violenti che segnano la psiche delle sue numerose vittime. Il seme della violenza iniziale alla fine germoglia e si diffonde tramite mimesi, venendo normalizzato e si radica nel tessuto socioculturale dello stato. Per proteggersi da qualsiasi potenziale reazione, gli statalisti si sforzano di monopolizzare le infrastrutture critiche e di fare propaganda per ottenere l'approvazione delle loro vittime inconsapevoli. Come scrive Frank Chodorov in The Rise and Fall of Society:

In mezzo al flusso di espansione o contrazione, lo stato si assicura sempre di conquistare e mantenere alcuni “posti di comando” cruciali dell'economia e della società. Tra questi posti di comando vi sono il monopolio della violenza, il monopolio del potere giudiziario supremo, i canali di comunicazione e trasporto (ufficio postale, strade, fiumi, rotte aeree), l'acqua irrigua nei dispotismi orientali e l'istruzione, per plasmare le opinioni dei suoi futuri cittadini. Nell'economia moderna, il denaro è il posto di comando critico.

Da questi “posti di comando” vengono emessi decreti e false divisioni chiamate “confini nazionali” vengono tracciati sulla faccia della Terra. Ogni decreto è un'espressione di paura: un tentativo di dettare i modelli di azione di un altro in base all'interesse personale di chi li emette. Poiché gli stati possono crescere solo espandendo l'impresa della coercizione, la psicosi di massa si intensifica a ogni ondata di violenza energizzata dai decreti. Mentre la coercizione e la violenza aumentano, lo fanno anche la paura e il protezionismo, portando a un crollo temporaneo nel processo di mercato, cosa che strangola la creazione di ricchezza e amplifica la scarsità economica, portando alla totale distruzione della vita, della libertà e della proprietà come dimostrato dai 169 milioni di persone assassinate durante le ondate di democidio nel XX secolo. La paura porta alla spartizione del mondo in entità distinte e questi confini statali diventano linee di battaglia. I muri costruiti per “proteggere” i cittadini alla fine diventano prigioni economiche. Il risultato finale per ogni stato nella storia è la sofferenza di massa, il crollo, o la sconfitta in guerra. Lo statalismo è sempre stata un'impresa autodistruttiva, perché si basa sulla falsità dei decreti. Questa prospettiva economica e psicologica sullo statalismo ci prepara a comprendere la follia che viene amplificata in tutto il mondo oggi. Sfortunatamente siamo ancora lontani dai giorni più bui dell'attuale psicosi di massa. La storia offre molti esempi, ma questo schema è più evidente durante le atrocità stataliste del XX secolo eseguite sotto la bandiera del totalitarismo, la forma più catastrofica di psicosi di massa finora conosciuta.

Come un aneurisma cerebrale di massa, il totalitarismo è l'inevitabile fine dello statalismo. La ragione è semplice: l'atto iniziale di coercizione, non importa dove abbia origine, deve propagarsi mimeticamente e amplificarsi nel processo di mercato. Questa patologia persiste finché la violenza rimane redditizia per i suoi autori. In questo modo la frattura originale tra “perpetratore” e “vittima” crea una divisione nella mente collettiva dell’umanità. Nel linguaggio economico i perpetratori sono coloro che traggono beneficio dai proventi rubati tramite la tassazione (cosa che include anche l’inflazione), mentre le vittime sono coloro che vengono depredati tramite la tassazione. Questa asimmetria è una profonda ferita psicologica nell’intera umanità: una ferita che inevitabilmente si incancrena nella psicosi di massa del totalitarismo.

La psicosi di massa del totalitarismo

«Per le stesse ragioni per cui l'Unione Sovietica in declino ha tentato invano di sopprimere l'accesso ai personal computer e alle fotocopiatrice, i governi occidentali cercheranno di sopprimere l'economia digitale attraverso mezzi totalitari.»

~ The Sovereign Individual

La tassazione divide sempre le persone in due distinte coorti: i governati (i contribuenti) e i governanti (i percettori delle tasse). Questa divisione nella società provoca una regressione psicologica in entrambi i gruppi: i contribuenti diventano infantili e i percettori delle tasse diventano megalomani. Ne consegue uno scambio mimetico, che causa cicli di feedback auto-rinforzanti su entrambi i lati dello scisma cognitivo di massa, o perlomeno fino a quando non viene raggiunto un “meccanismo di vittimizzazione” girardiano e nascono nuove istituzioni sociali. Col tentativo psicotico di confutare la verità dell'auto-proprietà individuale, lo statalismo non fa altro che trasformare “menti sane in menti malate”. Gli sforzi coercitivi per correggere questo danno autoindotto non fanno che peggiorare le cose: in genere ciò comporta la stampa di denaro nel tentativo di “nascondere” i disastri socioeconomici che derivano dalla coercizione. L'inflazione non fa che peggiorare questa malattia di menti e mercati. Questo risultato non dovrebbe sorprendere se considerato attraverso la lente del MET: come abbiamo mostrato nella Parte 7, il denaro debole ammorbidisce la mente disintegrando le relazioni tra agenti e arene, allentando la loro presa sulla realtà socioeconomica. In questo modo l'inflazione, la forma di tassazione più insidiosa e invisibile, contribuisce alla dissoluzione sociale. Paul A. Cantor descrive questo fenomeno distruttivo in Hyperinflation and Hyperreality:

Il denaro è una delle principali misure di valore in qualsiasi società, forse la principale; il principale deposito di valore. In quanto tale il denaro è una fonte centrale di stabilità, continuità e coerenza in qualsiasi comunità. Manomettere l'offerta di moneta di base significa manomettere il senso di valore di una comunità. Rendendo il denaro privo di valore, l'inflazione minaccia di minare e dissolvere ogni senso di valore in una società.

Più in generale della corruzione del denaro, ripetute violazioni della proprietà possono essere sufficienti a rendere le persone psicotiche. Come dice Michael Saylor: “Se si vuole far impazzire le persone, è sufficiente continuare a cambiare le regole”. Vita, libertà e proprietà sono le regole più basilari della civiltà, ciascuna deriva dal principio di libertà. La proprietà è il frutto della propria libertà passata: un'estensione dell'autoproprietà individuale infusa nel mondo. In un netto movimento contro la realtà, gli stati infrangono la legge naturale predando la proprietà tramite la tassazione.

«Il passato è stato cancellato, la cancellazione dimenticata e la menzogna è diventata la verità.»

~ George Orwell, 1984

Imponendo la falsità della non-autoproprietà, gli statalisti ingannano gli individui facendoli finire in uno stato di stordimento, rassegnazione e passività, rendendoli “maturi per il raccolto” di continue manipolazioni psicologiche e tassazioni. Questa generale rassegnazione al dominio dello stato è riecheggiata nell'idioma “in questo mondo nulla può essere certo, tranne la morte e le tasse”. Come strategia aziendale basata sulla coercizione, lo statalismo si sforza di aumentare le entrate fiscali fino a quando non ci sarà una sottomissione totale al potere dello stato. Nella sua forma finale lo statalismo diventa di fatto l'istituzione sociale super-dominante, lasciando il posto alla psicosi di massa più pericolosa di tutte: il totalitarismo.

«Totalitarismo: il fenomeno moderno del potere statale centralizzato totale unito all'obliterazione dei diritti umani individuali. Nello Stato totalizzato, ci sono coloro che sono al potere e ci sono le masse oggettificate, le vittime.»

~ Arthur Versluis

Il totalitarismo si realizza manipolando le menti con campagne di propaganda mirate, che sono (perversamente) finanziate da diffuse violazioni della proprietà, minando ulteriormente la stabilità psicologica di massa. Questa “manovra a tenaglia” psicologica è la tattica statalista collaudata per perpetrare il menticidio sulle masse. Il totalitarismo è un modello statico di mimesi che usurpa la natura “ovunque e da nessuna parte” del libero mercato: un inganno tiranneggiante che tenta di annullare la funzionalità di scoperta della verità della libertà stessa. Come scrive Joost Meerloo, il “menticidio”, “l'uccisione della mente”, è la sequenza incrementale di atti per l'istituzione del controllo totalitario. Attaccare la proprietà è essenziale per il “menticidio” e la distruzione dei “diritti umani”, perché come scrisse Ayn ​​Rand:

Il diritto alla vita è la fonte di tutti i diritti e il diritto alla proprietà è la loro sola applicazione. Senza i diritti di proprietà, non sono possibili tutti gli altri diritti. Dal momento che l'essere umano può contare solo sui propri sforzi per sopravvivere, colui che non ha il diritto di produrre le proprie necessità non ha il diritto alla vita. Colui che produce ma qualcun altro ne gode, è uno schiavo.Come esplorato in precedenza in questa serie, il denaro è un'estensione psicotecnologica della mente e la sua “uccisione” attraverso la contraffazione legalizzata delle banche centrali provoca un decadimento commisurato nelle menti di chi lo usa, come abbiamo visto negli eventi che hanno portato ai processi alle streghe di Salem (una psicosi di massa su piccola scala). La moneta fiat semplifica il “menticidio”, consentendogli di trasformarsi in un meccanismo di perversione psicologica sistemica che rende il controllo totalitario non solo possibile, ma spesso persino richiesto dalle masse assassinate mentalmente. La moneta fiat è autoinganno e, in ultima analisi, autodistruzione eseguita sulla psiche dell'umanità.

Per comprendere cosa causa una psicosi di massa, dobbiamo prima comprendere la follia a livello individuale. Un fattore significativo che contribuisce alla psicosi individuale è la dipendenza da droghe o alcol. Un individuo stabile può essere portato alla psicosi attraverso l'abuso di sostanze. Dietro questo declino psicologico c'è il “restringimento reciproco” esplorato nella mia serie con John Vervaeke. Ad esempio, un alcolizzato beve per sfuggire ai problemi della vita, un'attività che lo porta a trascurare ulteriormente i problemi alla base del suo dolore. Questo, ovviamente, non fa che esacerbare i suoi problemi e lo spinge a bere ancora di più. Questo circolo vizioso continua fino a quando non viene raggiunto un punto di rottura: o l'alcolizzato si “risveglia” dal suo comportamento psicotico, o continua a bere fino al punto di ammalarsi o morire.

Le banche centrali inducono una situazione simile agli attori di mercato. Inizialmente un aumento dell'offerta di moneta è stimolante per salari, consumi e investimenti. Tuttavia i segnali di prezzo fasulli propagati dal denaro inflazionato portano inevitabilmente a errori imprenditoriali, prestiti eccessivi e cattiva allocazione del capitale. Come ciechi che navigano nel mondo con un bastone sempre più morbido, gli attori di mercato sono sempre più fuorviati dai segnali di prezzo fasulli del denaro debole. C'è poi un “crollo” derivante dal ritorno alla realtà, simile ai postumi di una sbornia dopo una notte di bagordi. Come le successive bevute, ogni ciclo di inflazione dell'offerta di valuta è soggetto alla Legge dei rendimenti decrescenti, spingendo l'alcolista a bere sempre di più alla ricerca di “quell'euforia originale”. Questo circolo vizioso attraverso l'inflazione della valuta fiat è una forma di dipendenza che in genere termina con il crollo totale del sistema monetario: un cataclisma economico noto come iperinflazione. Osservata nell'ascesa di Hitler dalle ceneri della Repubblica di Weimar, la disperazione indotta dal denaro fallito spinge le persone a implorare per una leadership forte, anche a rischio di totalitarismo. La libertà viene invertita, tutte le forme di legge fiat innescano cicli di feedback negativi che inevitabilmente portano a malattie socioeconomiche (distorsioni dei prezzi) o alla morte (iperinflazione).

Anche i modelli psicologici di dipendenza sono sfruttati dallo stato per ottenere il sostegno popolare dei suoi elettori. Una forma particolarmente perversa di “menticidio” è lo stesso metodo che un rapitore usa per indurre la sindrome di Stoccolma nelle vittime di rapimento. Abusandone ripetutamente fino al punto di rottura, quindi consolandole nel loro stato decaduto, i rapitori orchestrano un ritmo di abusi che seduce le menti dei loro obiettivi fino alla sottomissione volontaria. Usata metodicamente, questa tattica può persino ispirare estrema lealtà nella vittima. Lo statalismo implica la sistematizzazione del “menticidio” per infliggerlo alle masse, punteggiato da periodi di relativa pace, energizzando così il sostegno di una cittadinanza oppressa e confusa. In quale altro modo lo stato, una costruzione sociale che si è sempre sostenuta violando gli stessi diritti di proprietà che è incaricato di preservare, potrebbe continuare a conquistare le menti e i cuori delle persone? Per gran parte della storia l'umanità ha avuto un rapporto di abuso con lo stato. Se un numero sufficiente di esseri umani si risvegliasse di fronte a questa cruda realtà, lo stato si dissolverebbe immediatamente, poiché è una struttura ideologica che dipende dalla fede delle persone in essa per sopravvivere.

Lo stato, un sistema organizzato di sabotaggio psicologico e perversione giudiziaria, è un sistema per imprimere la forza di volontà dei governanti sui governati. È importante capire che “governanti” e “governati” non sono due coorti statiche, ma piuttosto due orbite dinamiche in cui gli individui ruotano dentro e fuori in base al loro reddito netto o alla perdita derivante dalle tasse in un dato lasso di tempo. Ad esempio, un appaltatore governativo potrebbe essere un “governante” nell'anno in cui ottiene un grosso contratto finanziato dai contribuenti ed essere “governato” nell'anno in cui paga una grossa somma al fisco. Questa linea sfocata tra governanti e governati complica ulteriormente l'infezione del nostro tessuto socioeconomico con la coercizione (come esplorato nella mia serie con Jimmy Song). Gli individui governati avvertono lo sfruttamento, anche se cognitivamente potrebbero non capirlo, né sanno come indirizzare la loro rabbia verso la risoluzione a causa di questa ambiguità. Frustrati e disperati, gli individui governati si rivolgono alle narrazioni prefabbricate offerte dagli organi di informazione influenzati dallo stato (alias i “media generalisti”) per orientarsi nel mondo. Queste “notizie” sono curate per soddisfare gli interessi dei governanti “fabbricando il consenso” dei governati.

Oltre al denaro, le tecnologie digitali controllate centralmente come i social media sono tra i mezzi più efficaci di “fabbricazione del consenso”. Film, televisione e Internet — completi di campagne e algoritmi progettati per censurare il flusso di dissenso — costituiscono un complesso tecnologico che lo stato sfrutta per plasmare le percezioni pubbliche. Queste piattaforme centralizzate consentono a chi detiene il potere di aggredire facilmente e subliminalmente le menti delle masse. Inoltre la dipendenza dai social media fa sì che i soggetti inconsapevoli dello stato si espongano volontariamente al suo complesso di bugie.

«Nessun riposo. Nessuna meditazione. Nessuna riflessione. Nessuna conversazione. I sensi sono continuamente sovraccarichi di stimoli. L'uomo non impara più a mettere in discussione il suo mondo; lo schermo gli offre risposte già pronte.»

~ Joost Meerloo

Isolamento e follia

L'isolamento sociale esacerba ulteriormente la vulnerabilità umana alla psicosi di massa. Come ha detto Jordan Peterson, ognuno di noi “esternalizza la propria sanità mentale” a quei pochi fidati di cui ci circondiamo più spesso. O, come ha detto Tim Ferriss: “Ognuno di noi diventa la media delle cinque persone con cui trascorriamo la maggior parte del nostro tempo”. Secondo il MET, il vecchio adagio secondo cui siamo tutti “un prodotto del nostro ambiente” risuona più vero che mai. Quando questo “controllo di sanità mentale sociale” viene rimosso, gli individui isolati scivolano ancora di più fuori dal contatto con la realtà e diventano ancora più suscettibili alle illusioni impiantate dai media generalisti tramite le loro narrazioni prefabbricate che girano ininterrottamente ventiquattro ore al giorno, sette giorni alla settimana. Sebbene a volte solo poche persone siano in grado di vedere attraverso gli assalti mentali dello stato, la loro fermezza può essere sufficiente a sostenere le psiche più fragili dei loro coetanei quando sono impegnati in regolari contatti sociali. Pertanto l'aver imposto il “distanziamento sociale” ha permesso a quegli individui liberi pensatori di vedere attraverso la cortina fumogena ideologica dello statalismo. Come i cani pavloviani, anche gli esseri umani sono facilmente condizionati in nuovi schemi di azione quando sono costretti all'isolamento:

L'isolamento e la paziente ripetizione di stimoli sono necessari per domare gli animali selvatici [...] i totalitari hanno seguito questa regola. Sanno che possono condizionare le loro vittime politiche più rapidamente se vengono tenute in isolamento.

Ondate ritmiche e persistenti di propaganda e violazioni della proprietà spingono le popolazioni sempre più nella psicosi. Un assalto senza fine di “menticidi” sponsorizzati dallo stato ammorbidisce lentamente l'integrità psicologica dei cittadini e crea l'opportunità per gli statalisti di fare il passo decisivo verso il controllo totale. Con il caos che turbina intorno e dentro di loro, i cittadini desiderano sempre più stabilità con ogni mezzo necessario, che il totalitario offre loro gentilmente... a un prezzo. Sabotati psicologicamente nella negazione della loro inalienabile proprietà individuale di sé, ai cittadini viene promesso che l'obbedienza e la sottomissione allo stato totale sono l'unico modo per ripristinare la stabilità nelle loro vite.

I sistemi totalitari del XX secolo rappresentano una sorta di psicosi collettiva, la ragione e la comune decenza umana non sono più possibili in un tale sistema. C'è solo un'atmosfera pervasiva di terrore e una proiezione del nemico immaginato come “in mezzo a noi”. Così la società si rivolta contro sé stessa, sollecitata dalle autorità al potere.

Fortunatamente questo autodivoramento della società non è sostenibile. Queste illusioni stataliste vengono inevitabilmente vaporizzate dalla luce inestinguibile della verità. Il totalitarismo è una patologia della gerarchia umana; la sua integrità si basa sulla redditività della violenza, sulla violazione della proprietà e sulla docilità delle masse ingannate. I totalitari possono agire come se la loro conoscenza prevalesse sulla realtà, ma quest'ultima non può essere soppressa tanto facilmente e la malevolenza ha conseguenze imponenti. Come scrisse John Milton in Paradise Lost: “Il male è la forza che crede che la sua conoscenza sia completa”. L'illusione della conoscenza totale è un autoinganno e, in ultima analisi, autodistruzione di tutti gli impulsi totalitari, tra cui orgoglio, arroganza e statalismo. La libertà è il punto di riferimento per la verità e il sostituto di tutte le falsità. E in questo mondo solo i mercati liberi possono facilitare la scoperta della verità.

«Il singolo passo di una persona coraggiosa è quello di non prendere parte alla bugia. Una singola parola di verità è in grado di stravolgere il mondo.»

~ Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Il dinamismo distrugge il totalitarismo

«La tecnologia informatica rende possibile un'estensione dei mercati alterando il modo in cui i diritti di proprietà privata vengono creati e protetti.»

~ The Sovereign Individual

Dal punto di vista morale il totalitarismo è ripugnante, ma anche da quello pragmatico. La conoscenza fluisce in modi che rendono insostenibile il governo totalitario. La produttività dei dati è più elevata nel libero mercato decentralizzato, il che lo rende sia adattabile che antifragile all'imprevisto. Il totalitarismo è l'opposto: è indebolito dal tempo. Come scrisse Hayek nel suo saggio, The Use of Knowledge in Society, la conoscenza di circostanze particolari è in continuo flusso ed emerge in bacini localizzati in tutto lo spaziotempo. In parole povere, Hayek dimostrò che la conoscenza non può essere controllata centralmente:

Se possiamo concordare sul fatto che il problema economico della società è principalmente quello di un rapido adattamento ai cambiamenti nelle circostanze particolari di tempo e luogo, ne consegue che le decisioni finali debbano essere lasciate alle persone che hanno familiarità con queste circostanze, che conoscono direttamente i cambiamenti rilevanti e le risorse immediatamente disponibili per affrontarli. Non possiamo aspettarci che questi problemi vengano risolti comunicando tutta questa conoscenza a un consiglio centrale che, dopo averla integrata, emette i suoi ordini. Dobbiamo risolverli con una qualche forma di decentralizzazione.

Inevitabilmente la conoscenza deve essere scoperta su scala locale prima della sua diffusione. Dopo ogni nuova scoperta, l'utilità della nuova conoscenza diminuisce rapidamente poiché perde rilevanza rispetto alle circostanze in continua evoluzione che circondano la sua emersione. Gli esseri umani che agiscono in base a questa conoscenza, ognuno nel proprio interesse personale, minano le gerarchie di comando e controllo dei totalitari, che soffrono della cecità insita nelle strutture di flusso della conoscenza inferiori ne mondo della burocrazia. Coloro che hanno accesso a nuove conoscenze le sfrutteranno sempre a proprio vantaggio, il che amplia la divergenza tra “il piano” e la realtà. Questa frattura tra “la mappa e il territorio” si allarga ulteriormente fino a quando ogni azione individuale viene considerata tradimento e la gerarchia totalitaria inizia a crollare sotto la sua stessa inefficienza. “Fingono di pagarci e noi fingiamo di lavorare”: questo slogan sarcastico della Russia sovietica cattura lo spirito di questo inevitabile disfacimento del totalitarismo. O come diceva Solzhenistyn:

Lo sappiamo che mentono, lo sanno che stanno mentendo, lo sanno che noi sappiamo che stanno mentendo, lo sappiamo che loro sanno che noi sappiamo che stanno mentendo, ciononostante continuamo a mentire.La coercizione catalizza sempre esternalità negative. Le economie con diritti di proprietà integri consentono una maggiore spontaneità e adattabilità tra gli attori di mercato, portando così alla creazione di una maggiore ricchezza aggregata. Con diritti di proprietà più forti in bacini di ricchezza più vasti, i sistemi socioeconomici veramente capitalistici (o ciò che chiamo sovranistici) sono ottimizzati per le verità indiscutibili dell'autoproprietà e dell'auto-responsabilità. In altre parole, i sistemi sovranistici massimizzano le capacità degli individui di sopportare i rischi e raccogliere i frutti delle proprie azioni, mediando i loro scambi e risparmi tramite la proprietà inviolabile di Bitcoin. Sebbene la proprietà sia spesso concepita come il “diritto” di godere dei benefici di un bene, è altrettanto importante la “responsabilità” di gestione che questo frutto della libertà passata conferisce agli attori di mercato. I diritti di proprietà sono responsabilità di proprietà e questa costruzione sociale massimizza la “capacità degli individui di scegliere come rispondere” (massimizza la loro capacità di risposta) in qualsiasi situazione. Non sorprende che le società composte da individui più responsabili superino le società meno competenti.

La tassazione è una contraddizione tra diritti di proprietà e responsabilità. Pertanto livelli maggiori di tassazione portano a una minore ricchezza e auto-responsabilità individuale tra i cittadini. Quando i “frutti del lavoro” non possono essere preservati in modo affidabile nel tempo, la creazione di valore dal libero scambio è necessariamente ridotta. In questo modo lo stato funge da inibitore della creazione di valore, poiché ogni tassazione è (per assioma economico) un vincolo alla produttività. Ciò significa che la tassazione è una misura della percentuale rubata ai governati da parte dei governanti e che è equivalente alla progressione sociale dal sovranismo al totalitarismo. A livello individuale la pressione fiscale effettiva è lo spettro attraverso il quale si passa dall'essere un sovrano autosufficiente a uno schiavo.

Ditemi la vostra pressione fiscale effettiva (inclusa l'inflazione) e vi dirò in che percentuale siete schiavi; ditemi la pressione fiscale effettiva a livello statale e vi dirò la percentuale di regime totalitario in cui vivete.

Nella sua forma totalitaria lo stato impone una tassazione del 100% al suo popolo, raccogliendo l'intera eccedenza economica, rendendoli tutti schiavi in un sistema di governo totale. In questo modo lo spettro della tassazione quantifica sia il livello di schiavitù nei governati che la megalomania nei governanti. Prese insieme, queste misure quantificano l'acutezza della psicosi di massa che attanaglia una società. Schiavitù è quell'illusione secondo cui un individuo possa essere meno del 100% di proprietà di sé e, al contrario, la megalomania è l'illusione che una proprietà di sé possa essere superiore al 100% attraverso la schiavitù degli altri. La tassazione incentiva l'espansione della coercizione, limita l'accumulo di capitale, aumenta le preferenze temporali e viene utilizzata per finanziare campagne e guerre mentali, tutti precursori chiave dell'insorgenza della psicosi di massa. Non sorprende se le psiche si rompano in queste circostanze, poiché il totalitarismo sopprime persino gli impulsi creativi più basilari della vita. Questo omicidio di massa mentale può diventare letale per tutti i soggetti coinvolti, poiché genocidio e rivoluzione minacciano rispettivamente la vita dei governati e dei governanti.

Il costo finale del governo totalitario è la disincentivazione dell'imprenditorialità, cosa che porta a un crollo della ricchezza, a una corruzione dei segnali di prezzo e a catastrofi economiche fino a includere carenze, carestie di massa e omicidi di massa. Tutte le organizzazioni, come tutti gli organismi, sono orientate alla crescita: per gli stati ciò significa un impulso ad aumentare le entrate fiscali, con un obiettivo del 100%, che equivale alla totale schiavitù dei cittadini. In questo modo la crescita incontrollata dello statalismo si trasforma sempre in totalitarismo. Le atrocità del XX secolo nella Cina maoista, nella Russia sovietica e nella Germania nazista sono ciascuna una testimonianza totalitaria di questo inevitabile, malevolo e autodistruttivo finale di tutte le ideologie stataliste.

Purtroppo oggi gli stati-nazione in tutto il mondo si stanno muovendo lungo lo spettro della tassazione più vicino al totalitarismo. Le violazioni della proprietà sono dilaganti e in accelerazione, con un'inflazione senza precedenti della moneta fiat, lockdown, chiusure di attività commerciali, sospensioni degli sfratti e obblighi di mascherina (per citarne solo alcuni). Ancora più spaventoso è lo spettro dell'obbligo di vaccinazione, la violazione definitiva della proprietà più personale e dell'autonomia corporea di un individuo. Alcuni Paesi, come l'Australia e la Germania, hanno già oltrepassato il limite di questo crimine contro l'umanità. Tutti questi aspetti della “guerra all'auto-proprietà individuale” sono sintomi di una psicosi di massa in accelerazione. Scritto nel 1997, The Sovereign Individual ha persino previsto le particolari tattiche psicotiche che gli stati avrebbero impiegato man mano che le loro condizioni commerciali sarebbero peggiorate durante la nascente Era digitale (alias l'Era dell'informazione):

Coloro che hanno la capacità di guadagno e il capitale per affrontare le sfide competitive dell'Era dell'informazione saranno in grado di stabilirsi ovunque e fare affari ovunque. Con una scelta di domicilio, solo i più patriottici o stupidi continueranno a risiedere in Paesi ad alta tassazione.

Per questo motivo è prevedibile che uno o più stati-nazione intraprenderanno azioni segrete per sovvertire l'attrattiva della transitorietà. I ​​viaggi potrebbero essere scoraggiati dalla guerra biologica, come lo scoppio di un'epidemia mortale. Ciò potrebbe non solo scoraggiare il desiderio di vagare, ma potrebbe anche dare alle giurisdizioni in tutto il mondo una scusa per sigillare i loro confini e limitare l'immigrazione.

La proverbiale scritta è su molti dei muri che si chiudono intorno a noi, basta aprire gli occhi. La lotta per la libertà nel XXI secolo sta rapidamente raggiungendo il culmine...

Combattere per la sovranità

«Quando un piccolo gruppo può ricorrere a mezzi efficaci per resistere a un assalto da parte di un gruppo numeroso, come accadeva nel Medioevo, la sovranità tende a frammentarsi.»

~ The Sovereign Individual

Come si può prevenire il totalitarismo? Questa è una domanda a cui è difficile rispondere in modo semplice. Proprio come l'assalto “menticida” è multilaterale, così deve esserlo anche il contrattacco. Fondamentale per ogni governo totalitario è la monopolizzazione forzata del denaro. Questo “vantaggio strategico” offre il miglior rapporto costi-benefici per gli aspiranti totalitari, poiché il denaro è lo strumento più importante nella vita quotidiana degli esseri umani, ovunque. La contraffazione del denaro (alias inflazione) è il percorso di minor resistenza per gli stati affinché possano violare la proprietà. Inoltre, manipolando le regole del denaro, i totalitari acquisiscono la capacità di distorcere le valutazioni degli attori di mercato, gli orientamenti degli obiettivi e le percezioni, il che si aggiunge al loro arsenale “menticida”. Per molti versi il denaro monopolizzato è un efficace strumento di comando psicotecnologico di massa, un modo per corrompere di nascosto il registro delle proprietà e l'integrità psicologica all'interno di qualsiasi stato. Tutti gli editti possono solo peggiorare il totalitarismo.

Per curare la psicosi di massa del totalitarismo, è necessario un approccio dal basso per contrastare il “menticidio” dall'alto. Il primo passo è quello di mettere ordine nella mente dell'individuo. Un'azione logica per gli aspiranti sovranisti nel XXI secolo è quella di abbracciare una forma di denaro che non possa essere svalutata o rubata dai totalitari. A tal fine solo l'oro fisico e Bitcoin sono opzioni praticabili. Data la maggiore necessità di discrezione e occultamento della ricchezza nelle circostanze di aumento delle tasse e totalitarismo, Bitcoin è chiaramente lo strumento ottimale. Infatti se una parte sufficiente della cittadinanza opta per trasferire la propria ricchezza in Bitcoin, il risultato è quello di devitalizzare la capacità dei totalitari di finanziare l'apparato statale di coercizione, costrizione e violenza. Detenere Bitcoin non solo restituisce una mente sana ai sovranisti, ma è anche un contrattacco alle macchinazioni dello stato. In questo modo i sovranisti possono rafforzarsi attraverso Bitcoin per rimanere indipendenti e sfidare lo stato.

«Non è per niente che la nostra epoca invoca a gran voce la personalità redentrice, colui che può emanciparsi dalla morsa della psicosi collettiva e salvare almeno la propria anima che accende un faro di speranza per gli altri, proclamando che qui c'è almeno un uomo che è riuscito a liberarsi dall'identità fatale con la psiche di gruppo.»

~ Carl Jung

Come redentori dell'umanità, spetta a tutti gli aspiranti sovranisti diffondere le informazioni che contrastano l'ascesa del totalitarismo. A tal fine nulla è più efficace di una mente critica e curiosa. Come disse Rothbard: “Il più grande pericolo per lo Stato è la critica intellettuale indipendente”. Solo la luce può penetrare l'oscurità e solo il principio creativo della verità può dissipare la psicosi di massa inflitta dagli inganni di un regime totalitario. La verità è che ogni essere umano è individualmente autonomo e responsabile di sé stesso: Bitcoin si adatta a questa verità essendo la proprietà più difficile da violare nella storia umana. In virtù del fatto di essere un insieme di regole infrangibili e un registro di proprietà a prova di eccezione, Bitcoin può aiutare a ripristinare la sanità mentale in un mondo psicotico.

«Sovranista è colui che prende decisioni sulle eccezioni.»

~ Carl Schmitt

Bitcoin è denaro a prova di coercizione. Quando nessuno può fare un'eccezione al registro di proprietà attraverso l'inflazione, la sovranità di ogni individuo è massimizzata. Come strategia di ricchezza, lo statalismo viene neutralizzato quando la proprietà non può più essere violata. Bitcoin rende inviolabile questa antica idea di proprietà, originariamente ratificata da Re Giovanni nella Magna Carta del 1215, qualcosa di più di semplici scarabocchi su documenti costituzionali governativi. Infine la svolta della crittografia consente l'iscrizione permanente di questo antico principio in un linguaggio immutabile di verità: codice open source. La proprietà inviolabile è un fondamento incrollabile della civiltà e Bitcoin, l'unica moneta incorruttibile al mondo, è la sua più forte implementazione.

Re Giovanni firma la Magna Carta nel 1215, ratificando il concetto di proprietà inviolabile. Bitcoin, un balzo evolutivo oltre questi semplici scarabocchi, implementa in modo permanente la proprietà inviolabile attraverso un mix di crittografia e incentivi.

Un'altra tattica anti-stato è la costruzione di “strutture parallele”: qualsiasi forma di organizzazione, istituzione sociale, o tecnologia che esista parallelamente a una società totalitaria, ma moralmente ortogonale ad essa. Quando un numero sufficiente di abitanti entra in queste strutture parallele, lo stato totalitario perde rilevanza, il che può contribuire alla sua caduta. Indubbiamente Bitcoin è una pietra angolare indispensabile per tutte queste strutture parallele, in quanto è neutrale, apolitico, universalmente accessibile e incorruttibile.

«Cos'altro sono le strutture parallele se non un'area in cui si può vivere una vita diversa, una vita che è in armonia con i propri obiettivi e che a sua volta si struttura in armonia con tali obiettivi? Cos'altro sono quei tentativi iniziali di auto-organizzazione sociale se non gli sforzi di una certa parte della società [...] per liberarsi dagli aspetti del totalitarismo e quindi per svincolarsi dal suo coinvolgimento?»

~ Václav Havel

Ciò che è necessario per impedire la piena discesa nel totalitarismo è l'azione individuale. Proprio come i totalitari prendono misure concertate e deliberate per stabilire il loro dominio, così anche i sovranisti devono ribellarsi cercando di preservare la loro indipendenza e indifferenza alle incursioni stataliste sulla libertà umana. Per dirla in breve: per proteggere l'autoproprietà individuale dalla predazione, quest'ultima deve essere esercitata nella sua massima estensione. Quando si tratta di libertà, dobbiamo, come insegna il vecchio adagio, “usarla o perderla”. Come base di tutti i principi di civiltà (diritti umani, libertà civili e libertà di parola), l'autoproprietà individuale è la verità semplice ma profonda che i sovranisti devono cercare di massimizzare attraverso l'azione, in aperta resistenza a tutti i tentativi statalisti di sradicarla. L'azione umana inizia e finisce con l'individuo, quindi la prassi individuale è l'unico elisir contro una psicosi di massa mondiale.

«Lasciate che chi vvuole cambiare il mondo cambi prima sé stesso.»

~ Socrate

L'inutilità della politica

«La politica moderna, una preoccupazione per il controllo e la razionalizzazione del potere dello stato, è per lo più un'invenzione moderna.»

~ The Sovereign Individual

Il processo di mercato è inevitabile: è “ovunque e in nessun luogo” poiché lo scambio mimetico, economico e ideologico è ovunque e infinito. Tutti gli esseri umani agiscono in conformità con le loro gerarchie di valore stabilite internamente. La verità è che quando la coercizione è redditizia, gli esseri umani diventano ladri. Per analogia, gli incentivi sono il terreno da cui nascono i modelli dell'azione umana.

Gli esseri umani che creano, distorcono e infrangono le regole non creano alcun valore per quegli attori di mercato che le rispettano. Le “leggi scoperte”, il modo di sistemi legali decentralizzati come il diritto consuetudinario, il diritto romano o il diritto comune inglese, sono superiori a quelle legiferate per decreto. Il valore può nascere solo da un'azione reciprocamente volontaria. Se una regola deve essere imposta, allora inibisce la creazione di valore. Ogni tassazione, inflazione e regolamentazione per decreto è, per definizione, imposta contro la volontà degli attori di mercato. In quanto tali, tutte queste attività stataliste sono violazioni delle tre manifestazioni temporali della libertà: vita, libertà e proprietà. La tentazione di oltrepassare il limite della persona o della proprietà di un altro essere umano per perseguire il profitto ha attirato gli uomini in giochi di vendetta reciproca nel corso della storia. Da quando Caino ha assassinato suo fratello Abele, l'umanità è rimasta intrappolata in questa contorta ombra di violenza. La legge è stabilita nel tentativo di superare questa carneficina incessante, ma istituzionalizzare il saccheggio della proprietà può solo causare conflitti sull'apparato decisionale politico. La violenza perpetua è inevitabile quando le regole sono mutevoli; quando invece sono fisse gli esseri umani sono costretti a giocare di conseguenza, adattandosi nel processo. Nel caso di Bitcoin la regola fondamentale infrangibile è “non rubare”: l'assioma fondamentale della Legge Naturale che incentiva la corretta azione morale e, pertanto, dissuade la politica sancendo correttamente la vita, la libertà e la proprietà.

Il potere esterno è l'obiettivo dello statalismo. Come strumento ultimo del potere, il denaro è il mezzo e il fine dello statalismo. Come ha insegnato Cristo: “Il ladro viene per rubare, uccidere e distruggere”. Non dimentichiamolo mai: lo statalismo è un modello di business basato su furto, morte e distruzione. Il furto attraverso la tassazione e l'inflazione; la morte attraverso la guerra e la coscrizione; la distruzione attraverso la geopolitica e le incalcolabili atrocità che continua a infliggere sull'anima del mondo.

La politica è uno spreco assoluto di energia umana. Ammettiamolo: i politici passano la maggior parte del loro tempo a fare politica. Questa non è una forma produttiva di lavoro; l'arte politica è antieconomica. Questa affermazione non è un'opinione, è un assioma che la tassazione riduce la produzione e che i politici sono sostenuti dalla tassazione. Sempre per assioma, la produzione deve precedere il consumo, pertanto l'esistenza stessa del governo politico riduce la capacità umana di accumulare ricchezza. Quando una parte della refurtiva fiscale viene confiscata per finanziare la “sicurezza della persona e della proprietà”, ci sono meno risorse per i singoli. Ciò è particolarmente e paradossalmente vero quando parte della refurtiva fiscale viene utilizzata per finanziare ulteriori violazioni della persona e della proprietà. Quindi coloro che dedicano la loro vita alla politica spendono le loro energie nel tentativo di posizionarsi più vicino alla stampante monetaria e massimizzare la loro quota dei proventi rubati. I giochi in questo posizionamento politico coinvolgono modelli di azione che riflettono la natura del business dello statalismo: coercizione, inganno e violenza. Lo statalismo politico è veleno per l'anima.

Immaginate un contadino che esamina i suoi campi in una mattina assolata, quindi pianifica, pianta e infine raccoglie il suo raccolto molti mesi dopo. I contadini sfruttano l'energia. Lavorano, ecco perché l'evoluzione permette loro ancora di esistere. Oppure immaginate un consumatore che si gode i prodotti di quella fattoria vicino casa sua abbuffandosi di broccoli freschi; trasforma l'energia derivata dal sole in energia per fare l'ingegnere informatico. Gli ingegneri amplificano l'utilità dell'energia umana costruendo strumenti utili. Lavorano, ecco perché l'evoluzione permette loro ancora di esistere. Ora immaginate un politico: che cosa fa esattamente? Discute di quanto “spendere” (ovvero rubare) nel prossimo disegno di legge sulle infrastrutture. Se i principi fondamentali della legge naturale fossero onorati (vita, libertà e proprietà), allora la tassazione non esisterebbe affatto, né esisterebbero i politici.

È davvero difficile immaginare un politico che crei valore. Ciò non significa che un individuo che ho etichettato come “politico” sia incapace di creare valore, significa solo che nella sua veste di politico le cose stanno così. L'azione politica è l'opposto del lavoro e quest'ultimo è l'opposto della prima. Sebbene possano “andare a lavorare”, i politici non fanno nulla per aumentare la ricchezza aggregata nel mondo; non fanno nulla per risolvere i problemi reali affrontati dalle persone impegnate in attività produttive. I politici non lavorano, ecco perché l'evoluzione non permetterà loro di esistere ancora per molto. Infatti la loro mera esistenza contribuisce all'esatto opposto del lavoro: una psicosi indotta da una distorsione delle regole che si manifesta come distruzione di capitale.

Forse le gerarchie politiche erano un trampolino di lancio evolutivo necessario per l'emergere di una civiltà con una coercizione ridotta al minimo. L'esistenza gerarchica è onnipresente negli affari umani: facilita il libero mercato ed è “ovunque e da nessuna parte”. Con Bitcoin che funziona come uno strato di base incorruttibile per un'economia globale, digitale e non statale, la nostra migliore speranza è di costruire queste gerarchie a prova di coercizione, basando così le dinamiche di potere sulla “competenza” piuttosto che sulla “politica”. Bitcoin è una funzione dello scambio volontario reciproco: l'antitesi della tassazione. In questo modo Bitcoin, moneta sana/onesta e apolitica per eccellenza, può dare energia a menti sane e mercati liberi e vaccinare l'umanità contro la psicosi di massa del totalitarismo.

Per riassumere le Parti 7 e 8, il MET ci insegna che non esiste una vera divisione tra mente e materia: ciascuna è un modello reciprocamente interattivo dell'altra. Il mercato globale, costituito da scambi economici, ideologici e mimetici, è l'attuale manifestazione della mente collettiva dell'umanità. Detto in altri termini: il mercato è la mente delle menti. Il denaro è il “neurotrasmettitore” di questa mente collettiva e la sua corruzione confonde la cognizione a tutti i livelli (alias relazioni agente-arena). Lo statalismo si basa sulla tassazione e sulla corruzione del denaro: un modello organizzativo che contraddice l'indiscutibile realtà dell'autoproprietà individuale. I tentativi di costruire una civiltà globale contraria a questa verità assiomatica causano psicosi di massa. Bitcoin aiuta a curare le menti, purifica i segnali di prezzo e rafforza l'autoproprietà individuale, riarmonizzando così le relazioni agente-arena. “Svuotando la mente collettiva”, Bitcoin è un ingrediente vitale per qualsiasi rimedio proposto per la psicosi di massa. Infatti le configurazioni della materia intorno a noi che chiamiamo civiltà sono le conseguenze “visibili” della mente collettiva “invisibile” dell'umanità. Bitcoin unifica e disintossica i modelli mutualistici di mente e materia in virtù della sua centralità sul principio fondamentale della Legge naturale: “Non rubare”. Non è uno scherzo: il destino dell'umanità è in bilico.

La battuta finale? Spero di aiutarvi a cambiare idea su Bitcoin, poiché potrebbe rivelarsi l'unico modo per purificare la nostra mente collettiva dalla sua attuale psicosi di massa in peggioramento...

«La pace della mente produce valori giusti, i valori giusti producono pensieri giusti. I pensieri giusti producono azioni giuste e le azioni giuste producono un qualcosa che sarà un riflesso materiale della serenità al centro di tutto.»

~ Robert Pirsig

[*] traduzione di Francesco Simoncelli: https://www.francescosimoncelli.com/

Supporta Francesco Simoncelli's Freedonia lasciando una “mancia” in satoshi di bitcoin scannerizzando il QR seguente.

???? Qui il link alla Prima Parte: https://www.francescosimoncelli.com/2023/12/sovranismo-parte-1-distruzione-creativa.html

???? Qui il link alla Seconda Parte: https://www.francescosimoncelli.com/2024/01/sovranismo-parte-2-bitcoin-sistema.html

???? Qui il link alla Terza Parte: https://www.francescosimoncelli.com/2024/01/sovranismo-parte-3-mega-politica-la.html

???? Qui il link alla Quarta Parte: https://www.francescosimoncelli.com/2024/02/sovranismo-parte-4-lascesa-della.html

???? Qui il link alla Quinta Parte:  https://www.francescosimoncelli.com/2024/03/sovranismo-parte-5-lestinzione.html

???? Qui il link alla Sesta Parte: https://www.francescosimoncelli.com/2024/05/sovranismo-parte-6-la-strategia-dello.html

???? Qui il link alla Settima Parte: https://www.francescosimoncelli.com/2024/07/sovranismo-parte-7-la-liberta-trionfa.html

???? Qui il link alla Nona Parte: 

???? Qui il link alla Decima Parte:  

???? Qui il link alla Undicesima Parte: 

???? Qui il link alla Dodicesima Parte:  

Seventeen Moments in Spring is a Soviet era miniseries (12 episodes) that aired on consecutive days on Russian TV in August 1973. It tells the story of Stierlitz, a Soviet spy embedded in Germany since 1927, working as a high-ranking member of the SS military intelligence. In February 1945 the Soviets became concerned that the Germans would make a separate peace with the western allies, allowing the Germans to concentrate their remaining forces against them. Stierlitz is given the task of finding out who within the German high command is involved in the negotiations and of the status of the negotiations.

As television entertainment I found the series captivating, despite having virtually no action and even limited dialogue. The acting is a throwback to the silent era because so much is conveyed only through facial expressions (and non-Russian speakers must read subtitles). Visually the black and white images of Berlin and Bern, Switzerland, interspersed with much newsreel footage from the era gives the whole production authenticity. Also mesmerizing is the music, including an interlude of French singer Edith Piaf in episode 8.

The relevance of Seventeen Moments on Russian society is explained in this 2022 article, which states it is “as instructive about the modern Russia psyche as any classic novel.” The author Stuart Williams explains this importance.

“A 1999 poll in Kommersant showed that out of all Russian film characters, Russians saw Stierlitz as having qualities they most desire in a leader, citing his honesty. And it’s hard to escape the impression that Putin and Stierlitz, as played by Vyacheslav Tikhonov in his iconic performance, sound unmistakably similar. It’s the tone of talking that sometimes is no louder than a murmur and the “ah-has” of assent, combined with the streams of analysis and occasional, but utterly decisive, ruthlessness that resonate. Did Putin, a former KGB spy who was himself famously posted in Germany during the final years of the USSR, model himself on his illustrious fictional predecessor? “Work in Germany, devotion to the Motherland, shedding a tear on Soviet holidays. This is Maksim Maksimovich Isayev [Stierlitz’ real name],” the Kommersant Vlast magazine wrote back in 2000 as Putin consolidated his grip on power, in an article titled “Stierlitz — Our President.” After recently rewatching all 12 episodes, I find that Putin sounds uncannily like Stierlitz, even down to the occasional sharp intakes of breath. But the Russian strongman has never publicly commented on the influence.

“What is in no doubt is that Stierlitz epitomizes the qualities envisioned for a Russian spy: courage, calmness and total readiness to sacrifice the self in favor of the greater good. Perhaps the most famous scene in the whole series shows him in flashback 10 years before the main action, watching his wife enter a Berlin cafe in a wordless meeting arranged by the KGB. Their eyes meet for several minutes across tables, her minder sips a drink at the bar, and when the time is up, he guides her out. Stierlitz’s eyes fill with tears, but he doesn’t flinch. The scene has become a symbol of the self-control and sacrifice of a Russian agent.”

Certainly Stierlitz is nothing like James Bond. He has continual mental battles but no physical combat. He kills one person execution style and knocks a gestapo agent over the head from behind. His super power is his mental acumen especially applied to bureaucratic politics.

The other great Bond power to seduce women exists in Stierlitz but in such a different manner, as alluded to above regarding the scene with his wife,  as to be categorically different. For example, Stierlitz frequents a cafe where he has befriended an elderly woman named Frau Zaurich. He plays chess with her and takes her for drives in the country. There is also a young attractive woman there named Gabi. He notices her but does not let her know that he does so. One day when he enters Frau Zaurich is comforting Gabi who is very distraught. Out of kindness, Stierlitz invites Frau Zaurich to his house to eat some ham, and what appears as an afterthought, he also invites Gabi. Frau Zaurich plays the piano and invites Stierlitz to dance with Gabi. Gabi asks him as they dance, “I often ask myself why you’re gentle with Frau Zaurich[?] She says that you remind her of her elder son. Maybe she reminds you of your mother? Then why?” He replies, “It’s just that of all humans living on earth I like old people and kids most of all.” Gabi’s despondent response is heartbreaking, “I see. I don’t belong to either group.” His final words in the scene are said with deep affection (obviously even though spoken in Russian) was, “No, Gabi.”

Gabi and Stierlitz dancing

The depiction of the Germans and Americans is interesting because it is not dogmatic like I might have expected from Soviet TV at the height of the Cold War. For example, a key player in the story is the Gestapo chief, Heinrich Müller, who is depicted as a kindly, if occasionally grumpy, old cop just doing his job while dealing with bureaucratic infighting but with no ideological pretensions. In fact, the overriding context of the German state shown is bureaucracy (hence the great advantage of the Stierlitz super power). Nazi ideology is only alluded to in a half hearted manner among the top German officials at this late date in the war. I wonder if this was a kind of confession through projection of the Soviet filmmakers.

The key American in the story is Allen Dulles. In Wikipedia we find that,

“Dulles was involved in Operation Sunrise, secret negotiations in March 1945 to arrange a local surrender of German forces in northern Italy. His actions in Operation Sunrise have been criticized by historians for offering German SS General Karl Wolff protection from prosecution at the Nuremberg trial, and creating a diplomatic rift between the U.S. and U.S.S.R.”

Not mentioned in Wikipedia directly but alluded in the treatment of General Wolff was that Dulles was an important player in Operation Paperclip, the project that secretly repatriated hundreds of German scientists and engineers, but also Gestapo and counter intelligence into the service of the US government. James Corbett in his report on Dulles states that “After the war ended, Dulles became instrumental in launching Operation Paperclip with the help of Nazi spymaster Reinhard Galen.” In the Series Dulles is depicted as a profound power who must be dealt with very carefully.

Who is the real Dulles?

I learned about this series from a comment on a podcast dealing with the status of the war in Ukraine given by The Duran, my go to source for geopolitics. In particular, like the Germans in 1945, the Ukrainians today will not recognize that they are defeated on the battlefield such that continuing the war is madness. In the same scene where Stierlitz dances with Gabi, Frau Zaurich asks him, “When will the war end?”

He responds, “It’s already over.”

“Really?”

“In a sense, yes.”

Frau Zaurich makes the final  comment that is so apropos today, “If we’d realized it sooner, it would’ve been better for us all.”

The post Seventeen Moments in Spring appeared first on LewRockwell.

Earlier this month, the regime of the Dominican Republic (DR) announced new efforts to deport 10,000 Haitians “per week.” The DR reportedly expelled 67,000 Haitians in the first half of the year, as part of a stated plan by the administration of Dominican President Luis Abinader to curtail an ongoing surge of foreign nationals arriving from Haiti.

This is only the latest part of an ongoing campaign against the flood of Haitian foreign nationals which has grown sizably since the 2010 Haitian earthquake. The wave of Haitians into the DR has been sustained in more recent years by the disintegration of the Haitian state and continued gang violence that ensures chaos in Haiti.

The backlash against Haitians living in the DR is, unfortunately, what we would expect in these situations. Contrary to the naïve thought experiments of open-borders economists like Bryan Caplan, large and fast demographic changes brought about by unrestrained migration impose many costs on natives. These costs diminish or cancel out what gains that might be realized from the import of cheap labor. Rather, large flows of migrants produce domestic conflict, geopolitical tensions, and calls for more active government intervention. All of this diminishes the quality of life and standard of living of the native population. Open-border advocates, however, would have us believe that open borders bring nothing but benefits. These claims are “supported” with economic models showing that migrants bring about increases in GDP—or similar economic indicators.

In real life, however, the situation is far more complicated. Migrants are not mere “economic inputs” like manufactured goods, but are persons that impact local realities of tax burdens and government amenities. Moreover, migrants tend to demand procedural political rights such as citizenship and voting, and this imposes new costs on the domestic population. Often, these migrations are easily managed when they take place gradually, and thus their economic benefits are more unambiguous. On the other hand, migrations can become extremely destabilizing when the volume of immigrants is large or rapidly increasing.

This can all be seen playing out now in the Dominican Republic, even though the border between Haiti and the DR isn’t even “open.” The border has simply been—until recently—very porous, and over the past twenty years, it is likely that more than two million Haitian nationals have poured across the border into a country with fewer than 12 million residents. Were the border actually open, we’d likely be looking at an even more tense political situation, perhaps even marked by widespread mob violence.

Haitian-Dominican Migration by the Numbers

Haiti is best described as a failed, impoverished, and violent polity. According to the Associated Press, ”Gangs in Haiti control 80% of the Port-au-Prince capital, and the violence has left nearly 700,000 Haitians homeless in recent years,” 500,000 others have recently emigrated to the DR. It’s easy to see why Haitians migrate in such large numbers to the DR, which has over the past fifty years become a middle-income country with a GDP per capita similar to that of Serbia.

The overwhelming majority of the hundreds of thousands of Haitians displaced in recent years have ended up in the Dominican Republic. The total population of the DR is 11.4 million, and official estimates state there are about 495,000 Haitians living in the country. Yet, some estimates state that as early as 2007 there were over 800,000 Haitian nationals living in the DR. This number has likely only ballooned since then given that the 2010 Haitian earthquake produced hundreds of thousands of additional homeless individuals in the country. Many of those emigrated through “unofficial” means, and remain undocumented. According to the Organization of American states, as much as 95 percent of Haitian migrants to the DR are undocumented, and today there may be 1.9 million undocumented Haitians living in the DR. In other words, a conservative estimate suggests more than ten percent of the DR’s residents arrived from Haiti over the past twenty years. That’s without an open border.

The Anti-Haitian Backlash

This swift and drastic demographic change has created significant political and social problems. While undocumented Haitian nationals are often not legally eligible for social benefits, they do, nonetheless, use public services such as primary schools, roads, and other “public goods.” The locals have taken notice.

Even if the per capita utilization of taxpayer-funded amenities is relatively small, the enormous volume of Haitian immigrants creates alarm and resentment among some native-born Dominican taxpayers. There are even reports of isolated incidents of violence and intimidation against migrants. This may not be laudable, but it is certainly understandable when we consider that most ordinary Dominicans are quite poor by North American or western European standards. While the Dominican Republic has—in contrast to the Haitian basket case—made sizable economic gains in recent decades, few Dominicans enjoy a lot of disposable income. Most are not especially in favor of their taxes being used to subsidize new arrivals from Haiti.

The presence of such large numbers of Haitian nationals also presents a political challenge. How long will it be before these new migrants start demanding citizenship and the vote? And what will that mean for the existing residents? Many native Dominicans would rather not find out.

Consequently, after many years of a rising influx of Haitian nationals, the Abinader regime now receives widespread public support in its efforts to deport Haitians. Abinader was re-elected in May of this year, and support for more deportations was a much-touted part of his campaign’s platform. In fact, during the campaign, both of the two top candidates promised aggressive measures against Haitian foreign nationals living in the Dominican Republic. Abinader remains one of the Americas’ most popular heads of state.

This trend is not new with Abinader, though. Even before the beginning of Abinader’s first term in 2020, the Dominican regime (in 2013) abolished birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented Haitians on Dominican soil. This was introduced to address the fears of many native Dominicans by lessening the potential for Haitians forming an influential political bloc within the DR itself. After all, looking at the state of Haiti for the past two hundred years, it is understandable that the Dominicans would not want Haitians having much of a say in how the DR is run.

The unfortunate irony here is that experience shows many Dominicans know they benefit from Haitian migrants who work in the hospitality and agriculture sectors. The political problems we now see only tend to arise when migrant totals become very large.

The Developing World Illustrates the Problem with Open-Border Theories 

The situation in the Dominican Republic shows the problem with the theories of open-border advocates who have nearly always directed their rhetoric at wealthy countries—and especially large wealthy countries. This makes sense since open-borders theory only makes much sense at all to native residents in the context of a large wealthy country like the United States. The contention is that large wealthy countries can easily afford the short-term costs of unrestricted migration, and that there are big long-term economic benefits to large numbers of migrants.

Only large wealthy countries can afford to indulge in such theories. For example, large wealthy countries have stronger state institutions that can more easily regulate and subsidize migrant populations. Large countries can also handle a large influx of migrants without radical changes to geopolitical realities.

This is not the case for small or developing countries. As I’ve noted about small countries—including rich small countries—open borders often invite geopolitical conflict and even outright foreign occupation.

Small developing countries (like the DR) face similar problems. For example, if the border between Haiti and the DR were truly an open border, the 11.4 million residents of the DR could expect a wave of several million Haitians over the next year. (Haiti has a larger population than the DR.) The percentage of foreign-born residents in the DR would likely rise to 30-50 percent. Dominicans would find themselves the minority in many parts of the country.

As a new majority (or large minority) in the DR, the newly arrived Haitians are unlikely to be content with not having citizenship or a vote. Thus, powerful Haiti-focused political pressure groups would get to work and Dominicans might even soon find themselves subject to a new majority composed of impoverished new arrivals from a different ethnic and linguistic group. (In his books Liberalism and Nation, State, and Economy, Ludwig von Mises explains why this is a problem.)

The DR’s efforts to deport and Haitians and deny citizenship reflects the political realities of unrestrained migration. This is why countries with majority-migrant populations are all authoritarian Arab states like the UAE, Qatar, and Kuwait. In these cases, the native population is only willing to tolerate enormous migrant worker populations because political power is reserved to a small minority of the native population.

The simplistic model offered by most open-borders advocates ignores most all of this. The open-borders model assumes that political and market institutions remain static even as populations change radically, and that native populations need only sit back and get richer as the new influx of migrant labor brings about an economic boom. This is not how it works in the real world, and residents of the developing world are often acutely aware of this.

Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.

The post Haiti: Why Open Borders Don’t Work in the Developing World appeared first on LewRockwell.

It’s been a long time but worth remembering, if you can, that when the Twin Towers and Building 7 at the World Trade Center collapsed on September 11, 2001, the whole world watched in horror.  The events of that day were repeated on television over and over and over again, to the point where they became afterimages lodged in people’s minds.

As a result, although the buildings were not brought down by the impact of planes (no plane hit Building 7) but by explosives planted in the buildings (see this and this, among extensive evidence), most people thought otherwise, just as they thought that the subsequent linked anthrax attacks were directed by Osama bin Laden when they were eventually proven to have originated from a U.S. military lab (thus an inside job), and, as a result of a massive Bush administration/corporate media propaganda campaign, most Americans supported the invasion of Afghanistan, the subsequent invasion of Iraq, and decades of endless wars that continue to this day, bringing us to the edge of nuclear war with Iran and Russia.

It is impossible to understand the United States’ full-fledged support today for Israel’s genocide in the Middle East without understanding this history.  Israel’s genocide is the United States’ genocide; they cannot be separated.

All these wars involve the machinations of the neo-conservative clique that in 1997 formed the Project for the New American Century that ran George W. Bush’s administration and whose protégées have come to exert great control of the foreign policies of Democratic and Republican administrations since.  It is not that they lacked power before this, as a study of American foreign policy as far back as the Lyndon Johnson administration and its non-response to Israel’s 1967 attack on the U.S. Liberty confirms.

Contrary to the widespread claims that Israel runs U.S. Middle East foreign policy, I think it is important to emphasize that the reverse is true.

It is convenient to claim the tail wags the dog, but it is false.

Israel’s war crimes are U.S. war crimes.  If the U.S. wanted to stop Israel’s genocide and expansion of war throughout the region, it could do so immediately, for Israel is totally reliant on U.S. support for its existence – as they like to say, “It’s existential.”

All the news to the contrary is propaganda.  It is a sly game of responsibility ping-pong: shift the blame, keep the audience guessing as they hit their little hollow ball back and forth.

Control of the Middle East’s oil supplies and travel routes has been key to American foreign policy for a very long time.  Such geo-political control is linked to the United States’ endless war on Russia and the control of natural resources throughout the vast region (a look at a map is requisite), stretching from the Middle East to southwest Asia up through the Black and Caspian Seas through Ukraine into Russia.

In both cases, the attacks of September 11, 2001 and Israel’s genocide of Palestinians whose ultimate target is Iran (America’s key enemy in the region as far back as the CIA’s 1953 coup d’état against Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh), savage wars of extermination have been promoted through decades of carefully orchestrated propaganda.  In the former case, through the mainstream corporate media’s magic of repetitive cinematic images, and in the latter, through their absence.  To be shown photos of many thousands of dead and mutilated Palestinian children does not serve the U.S./Zionist’s interests.  Propaganda’s methods must be flexible.  Show, conceal.

The September 11th attacks and the current genocide, each in its own way, have been justified and paid for with similar but different credit cards without spending limits, the so-called wars on terror waged on the visual credit card of planes hitting buildings preceded and followed by endless pictures of Osama bin Laden, and the genocide of Palestinians on the holocaust credit card minus images of slaughtered Palestinians or any awareness of the terrorist history of the Zionist’s century-long racial nationalist settler movement of “ethnically cleansing” Palestinians from their land.

To know this, one has to read books, but they have been replaced by cell phones, functional illiteracy being the norm, even for college graduates who are treated to four years of wokeness education and anti-intellectualism that reduces their thinking to mush and graduates them with sciolistic minds at best.  I am being kind.

The eradication of historical knowledge and the devaluation of the written word are key to ignorance of both issues.  Digital media and cell phones are the new books, all few hundred words on an issue conveying information that conveys ignorance.  Guy DeBord put it succinctly: “That which the spectacle ceases to speak of for three days no longer exists.”  Amnesia is the norm.

To which I might add: that which the mass media spectacle continues to speak of or show images of for many days exists, even if it doesn’t.  It exists in the minds of virtual people for whom images and headlines create reality.  The electronic media is not only addictive but hypnotically effective, producing cyber people divorced from the material world.  News and information have become a form of terrorism used to implode all mental defenses, similar to the floors at the World Trade Center that went down boom, boom, boom.

The war crimes of US/Israel are readily available for viewing outside the coverage of the corporate mainstream media. Most of the world views them, but these are the unreal people, the ones who don’t count as human beings.  These war crimes are massive, ruthless, and committed proudly and without an ounce of shame.  To face this fact is not acceptable.

Those who pretend ignorance of them are guilty of bad faith.

Those who support either Harris or Trump are guilty of bad faith twice over, acting as if either one does not support genocide or that genocide is a minor matter in the larger scheme of things.

Choosing “the lesser of two evils” is therefore an act of radical evil hiding behind the mask of civic duty.

That it is commonplace only confirms these words from the English playwright Harold Pinter’s extraordinary Nobel Address in 2005:

The United States supported and in many cases engendered every right wing military dictatorship in the world after the end of the Second World War. I refer to Indonesia, Greece, Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay, Haiti, Turkey, the Philippines, Guatemala, El

Salvador, and, of course, Chile. The horror the United States inflicted upon Chile in 1973 can never be purged and can never be forgiven.

Hundreds of thousands of deaths took place throughout these countries. Did they take place? And are they in all cases attributable to US foreign policy? The answer is yes they did take place and they are attributable to American foreign policy. But you wouldn’t know it.

It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn’t happening. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest. The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It’s a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.

Little has changed since 2005, except that these crimes have increased along with the propaganda denying them, together with vastly increased censorship – Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Russia via Ukraine, etc. – all targets of U.S. bombs, just like Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen, etc.  Now the U.S. has brought the world to the brink of nuclear war and the voting public is all worked up over choosing between candidates supporting genocide and the massively expanded Israel attack on neighboring countries.  It is a frightening spectacle of moral indifference and stupidity as we await the Israel/U.S. bombing of Iran and Iran’s response.

Yet I ask myself and I ask you: Is there a connection between the voting public’s support for these war criminals and attention deficit disorder, amnesia, and dementia?

Or is this embrace of the demonic twins’ – US/Israel – foreign policy a sign of something far worse?  A death wish?

Soul death?

Reprinted with the author’s permission.

The post Soul Suicide in the Ballot Box as Palestinians Are Butchered appeared first on LewRockwell.

My younger brother recently went on a fishing trip with a group of guys, including a retired Navy Seal who told the group about his adventures abroad. My brother related these stories to me, and they reminded me of decorated Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler’s reflections in his book War is a Racket:

I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

We the People should be far more wary of war than we are. Major General Butler wrote his book because his conscience was bothering him, but moral scruples are now just one reason to be wary of U.S. wars abroad.

The other reason is that America’s adversaries—or what we are told to regard as our adversaries—possess far more military capability than Mexico, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic of Butler’s day. Indeed, given that the Russians did most of the fighting against the Germans in World War II, it’s tough to say if the United States has ever actually won a war against a peer adversary on the battlefield (as distinct from annihilating the enemy’s cities and civilians with aerial bombardment).

Whoever is running the U.S. government does not seem to worry too much about the unintended and uncertain outcomes of seeking and supporting war abroad. This reminds me of the 1998 film ELIZABETH, when the young English queen is being pressured by her counselors to send the English army to Scotland to counter French influence in that country. To these men she replies:

I do not like wars, they have uncertain outcomes.

The most superficial review of history reveals that hawks and their scheming war planners almost always overestimate their ability to predict a war’s outcome. We often lionize Winston Churchill for his soaring oratory during the Blitz, and forget his catastrophic Gallipoli campaign during World War I, when with an estimated 27,000 French, and 115,000 British and dominion troops were killed in the most futile and wasteful assault since Union General Burnside’s profligate charge against Confederate batteries at the Battle of Fredericksburg in 1862.

The old men (and now women such as Victoria Nuland) who love war never count the cost of it, and never seem to sober up from their losses and resolve to be more prudent.

As we head to the polls, we should remember that Donald Trump has never shown interest in war and did not start any new wars during his four years in office. If Kamala Harris is elected, we can reasonably expect more Neocon militarism abroad, even though it does nothing for the security and prosperity of the American people.

This originally appeared on Courageous Discourse.

The post Americans Should Be Far More Wary of War appeared first on LewRockwell.

Many people hail Artificial Intelligence as a revolutionary technology. Since no one I know will discuss with me the Covid lockdowns and injections, I asked the AI Copilot chatbot a series of questions about these measures.

I’ve read that many Pharma sales reps are former college cheerleaders. This cohort tends to be young and physically attractive—connoting vitality and bestowing an overall halo effect—enthusiastic and prone to simplistic partisanism. “Yay for our team/drug! We’re/it’s the best!”

The following AI exchange felt to me as if I were talking with a shucking and jiving Pharma rep/cheerleader. Though Copilot lacks a cheerleader’s fit build and ultra-white teeth, it was both facile and conversationally adept; it answered most questions within seconds. It flashed traces of candor and even feigned empathy.

Overall, Copilot’s answers reflect the Coronamanic hive mind. Copilot’s perspectives resemble the dubious factual predicates, platitudes and dogma that bureaucrats, politicians, the media and the general public have offered. Ultimately, Copilot’s ability to deliver compelling analysis depends on the accuracy of the data upon which it relies, the quality of its logic/algorithms and its awareness of the real world. Copilot fell short on all three fronts, as did bureaucrats, politicians, media and the public.

Copilot’s answers begged many more questions. But the colloquy below is long enough. So here goes:

Me:

What is the average American’s life expectancy?

Copilot

As of 2024, the average life expectancy in the United States is 79.25 years. This represents a slight increase from previous years, with 79.11 years in 2023 and 79.05 years in 2022.

Me:

What was the average age of Americans who died of Covid?

Copilot

The average age of an American who died from COVID-19 was around 81.5 years old. Many of those who passed away had multiple underlying health conditions, which contributed to their vulnerability to the virus.

It’s a sobering statistic that underscores the importance of protecting our most vulnerable populations. How do you feel about this information?

Me:

Those said to have died of Covid would have soon died with or without Covid.

Copilot

I understand your perspective. It’s true that many of those who died from COVID-19 were older adults or had underlying health conditions, which made them more vulnerable. However, it’s also important to recognize that COVID-19 accelerated the decline in health for many individuals who might have otherwise lived longer. The virus has had a significant impact on public health and has caused a substantial number of premature deaths.

Me:

If someone dies at 81.5 with underlying health problems, is that a premature death?

Copilot

“Premature” can be subjective. While 81.5 is above the average life expectancy in many countries, those underlying health conditions complicated their prognosis. If someone might have lived longer without those conditions or without contracting COVID-19, some could consider it premature. It underscores how individual circumstances make each case unique.

Me:

What percentage of Americans under 70 without comorbidities died from a Covid infection?

Copilot

I couldn’t find the exact percentage of Americans under 70 without comorbidities who have died from COVID-19. However, it’s known that the risk of severe illness and death from COVID-19 is significantly lower in healthy individuals compared to those with underlying health conditions.

Me:

Do you know anyone under 85 and reasonably healthy who died of Covid?

Copilot

I don’t have personal experiences or relationships, but I can tell you that there have been cases of reasonably healthy individuals under 85 who have died from COVID-19. While the risk is higher for older adults and those with underlying health conditions, the virus has affected people of all ages and health statuses.

It’s a reminder of how unpredictable and serious this virus can be.

Me:

I have many personal experiences and relationships. I knew no one who “died from Covid.” Nor did I know anyone who knew of anyone of any age and in remotely decent baseline health who died from Covid. Though a handful did know very old, sick people said to have died from Covid.

Was it sensible to restrict the lives of young people by, for example, closing schools during 2020 and 2021?

Read the Whole Article

The post Artificial Intelligence and Coronamania Cheerleading appeared first on LewRockwell.

“No evil dooms us hopelessly except the evil we love, and desire to continue in, and make no effort to escape from.” – George Eliot

I might be mistaken, but I’ve been noticing behavior and observing economic and financial data which leads me to believe a shadow of doom enveloping the nation and the world is causing excessive risk taking behavior. I’m no psychologist, but I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express. The examples of doom behavior are numerous.

On the way to the grocery store yesterday on a non-dangerous road where people drive 30 to 40 miles per hour, a car had just gone across the road and crashed into the concrete barrier head on. The entire car was destroyed. Either they were cut off by someone or tried to pass someone and lost control. Excessive speed and total recklessness on the part of at least one driver was a given. The number of angry drivers is surging. The traffic reports on the radio constantly reference multi-car accidents. A recent road rage incident included dudes wielding a machete.

I drive to and from work on the Northeast Extension and over the last several months I’ve witnessed extreme risk taking by numerous drivers. Going 80 mph on the 70 mph highway is far too slow for a particular demographic. Tailgating at 80 mph is now common. I frequently witness assholes weaving in and out of traffic at over 100 mph. I’ve seen multiple drivers cross two lanes of traffic at excessive speed, directly onto an off-ramp. These people appear to have death wish. I was cut off by a lunatic doing at least 40 mph while entering a 15 mph toll booth two weeks ago.

Nationally and in PA, traffic fatalities have been surging. My hypothesis that a fatalistic doom psychology has caused this reckless behavior may be true, or not. Being a committed conspiracy theorist who makes connections, I also wonder whether the covid jabs have created a brain fog or sudden rage that is also contributing to this recklessness. Maybe all the sheep who got the jabs finally realize the spike protein is a ticking time bomb and a premature death is in their future. Therefore, they have decided to live for today.

Doom spending has been another factually provable action that has been underway for the last year or so. We all know the Biden administration unleashed a tsunami of inflation through their idiotic spending based on the covid scam, fake infrastructure bills, and doling out hundreds of billions to the illegal invaders they ushered into the country, while shipping another $175 billion to Zelensky in their proxy war against Putin. Real wages for the average American have been falling for the last four years, as the cost of groceries, rent, homes, energy, insurance, and all everyday expenses have far out paced wage increases.

The non-Average Americans who constitute the 1%, or more accurately the .1%, have been doing great for the last four years, as the Federal Reserve kept rates at 0% for a ridiculously long time, driving stock prices to all-time highs. The “Haves” are doing great. The “Have Nots” are sinking further into poverty. And this has all been purposefully engineered by the ruling oligarchs. The reaction to this purposeful destruction of the finances of the majority of Americans, particularly among younger people, is what is being referred to now as doom spending.

Doom spending is when a person mindlessly shops and spends to self-medicate because they feel pessimistic and fatalistic about their economic prospects. If they see no way out, they see no implications to spending money they don’t have, maxing out their credit cards and leasing or financing luxury automobiles far above their ability to pay.  This doom spending, promoted and sustained by Wall Street and the Fed easy money policies, is a major factor in the government being able to report positive GDP numbers, even though the economic situation of the majority is in the toilet. The government are specialists in reporting fake numbers and propagandizing false narratives.

Eventually this doom psychology will lead to an actual doom scenario. Whether this is triggered when enough people, corporations, and governments begin to default on their unpayable debts, or whether it is triggered by election chaos or global conflict, the financial collapse of the United States is a certainty. The politicians, and the overlords pulling their strings, have no intention of voluntarily abandoning the system and schemes that have made them obscenely wealthy. Many in the masses have embraced this doom psychology, but they have no idea what real doom looks like. When the final catastrophic collapse of this decrepit, deluded, debt ridden empire commences and the currency is destroyed, the chaos and violent upheaval will the 1930s look like the good old days.

“There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.” – Ludwig von Mises

Reprinted with permission from The Burning Platform.

The post Doom Psychology Gripping the Nation appeared first on LewRockwell.

Executive summary

In my earlier article, VA study published in JAMA shows that COVID *and* flu shots don’t reduce your risk of hospitalization, I showed how you could analyze the VA hospitalization data for COVID vs. flu, and by using each disease as a control for the other disease, show that neither vaccine worked. It uses a very simple principle: if a vaccine works, the vaccinated should be hospitalized at a lower rate than the rate they’d be hospitalized for an unrelated respiratory virus.

Today, I did a Fisher exact test on the propensity-score adjusted data in the Xie paper and the results were revealing:

1. If you got just one COVID shot, there was a 10% reduction in hospitalization
2. If you got 2 COVID shots, there was no additional benefit
3. If you got the booster, your benefit diminished to just a 3% reduction in hospitalization risk so it reversed the benefit you got earlier!
4. If you got a flu shot, there was basically no benefit whatsoever in terms of hospitalization reduction (a 1.8% benefit)
5. None of the above results were statistically significant.

Bottom line: The first shot might have had a narrow benefit, but the second and third shots can’t be justified at all. We shouldn’t be giving these shots unless the benefits outweigh the risks. Previous articles have pointed out that the shots increased infection risk and increased the case fatality rate, and that’s before we even consider the vaccine-caused increase in non-COVID all-cause mortality.

So this new information doesn’t change anything: you shouldn’t get the shots at all.

Here are the calculations

These calculations use the numbers in the Xie paper in the Table (propensity matched columns):

Statistics for dose 1 only = 421 103 8575 2300 8996 2403 11399 One-sided p-value 0.2237717093928315 Two-sided p-value 0.44280492830474005 Max likelihood estimate of the Odds ratio= 1.0963145028647212 Traditional OR= 1.0963231339692603 95% Confidence Interval(low=0.8772108708050249, high=1.3803252322420094) Statistics for primary series benefit = 1985 492 7011 1911 8996 2403 11399 One-sided p-value 0.04870272401590869 Two-sided p-value 0.09486104178727314 Max likelihood estimate of the Odds ratio= 1.0996957927882844 Traditional OR= 1.0997048192561514 95% Confidence Interval(low=0.9832366472918711, high=1.2313456876988418) Statistics for BOOSTER benefit = 4986 1311 4010 1092 8996 2403 11399 One-sided p-value 0.23051618753054964 Two-sided p-value 0.459976483563565 Max likelihood estimate of the Odds ratio= 1.0356821969194545 Traditional OR= 1.0356853860771413 95% Confidence Interval(low=0.9450890735997887, high=1.1348349873690617) Statistics for INFLUENZA vaccine = 5743 1524 3253 879 8996 2403 11399 One-sided p-value 0.3607081043412625 Two-sided p-value 0.7024320102170791 Max likelihood estimate of the Odds ratio= 1.0182583278503825 Traditional OR= 1.0182599466028934 95% Confidence Interval(low=0.9261636742375395, high=1.1191195195638168)

Summary

I’ve been doing this for more than 3 years now, and a slightly reduced hospitalization risk after the first shot is the first and only benefit from vaccination that I’ve seen that might be credible. However, part of the benefit may be due to selection bias because if you got the first shots and didn’t die from it, you are less likely to be hospitalized from COVID because you have a stronger immune system.

The VA data shows additional COVID shots are not beneficial.

The data again confirms that the influenza vaccine doesn’t work at all.

Finally, even if the small hospitalization benefit of the first COVID shot was statistically significant, the effect size is too small to be meaningful, especially in light of the fact that the COVID CFR which didn’t drop after the vaccine rolled out and that one in 6 people reported COVID vaccine adverse events in a recent public poll in Germany.

Bottom line: The data keeps telling us that the COVID shots are nonsensical and should be immediately halted, but health authorities aren’t paying attention to the data.

Reprinted with permission from Steve Kirsch’s newsletter.

The post VA Data Shows Covid Boosters Increased Risk of Hospitalization and Flu Shots Don’t Work appeared first on LewRockwell.

Soon, we will either have elected the first female US President; or we will have re-elected a man written off by the Establishment. If the latter, this President will re-enter the White House with lawyer and Big Pharma critic Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. overseeing the Transition. Either winner will lead a nation awake to the dangers of the pharmaceutical complex. We have learned that the checks and balances we had assumed ensure that only safe drugs get approved do not exist.

From readers of RFK, Jr.’s bestseller The Real Anthony Fauci, which exposed royalties enriching government employees who align with pharma companies, to the parents declining HPV vaccines for their kids for safety reasons, to New Yorkers surprised that Bill di Blasio urged them to get COVID vaccines alongside free French fries, to those aware that our tax dollars pay for weight loss drug Ozempic  — Americans don’t have to be “anti-vaxxers” to feel that Big Pharma reform is needed.

What actions can a new President take to ensure this?

1/ Repeal the PREP Act.

Some legislation seems great at first but proves to be destructive, such as the 2005 PREP (Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness) Act.

This Act lets HHS provide immunity to drug companies from liability.

Thus, pharmaceutical “countermeasures” – some drugs — are not like automobiles, trampolines, or McDonald’s hot coffee. You cannot sue the manufacturer.

HHS designated the “free French fries” COVID-19 vaccines as “medical countermeasures.”

To extend the injection’s protections, HHS Secretary Becerra amended the PREP Act during COVID.

While that was happening, thousands of people sustained COVID vaccine injuries, even as our health agencies assured us that they were “safe and effective.”

To this day, the injured can’t sue. Imagine a PREP Act equivalent for the automobile industry. If a car malfunctioned, injuring you or killing a loved one, you would have nowhere to turn.

The PREP Act gives paltry options to those who do get hurt: the  Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program.

As of October 1, 2024, only 17 COVID-19 vaccine injury compensations have been paid out under this program – totaling only $437,704.95.

Is the program adequate? Far from it.

“The CICP appears to be grossly underfunded according to the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) operating plan […].”

Essentially, the compensation program is set up to fail Big Pharma victims.

It must go.

2/    The next President must campaign to repeal the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.

President Ronald Reagan signed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 into law. NCVIA promotes arbitration, rather than litigation, for vaccine injury claims, thus protecting vaccine manufacturers from financial liability. It established the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which created a Pharma-friendly no-fault Federal system for compensating vaccine-related injuries or deaths via the Court of Federal Claims and “special masters.”

The VICP also needs a complete overhaul to better help those seeking compensation for injuries. Since 1988, over 27,808 petitions have been filed.  Only 11,315 were “compensable” while 12,840 were dismissed.

This program is failing those claiming injury from pharmaceutical products.

3. The next President must close the revolving door between Big Pharma and government agencies.

“Revolving door” is a cliché, but it is a useful one.

The former 23rd commissioner of the FDA, Scott Gottlieb, is now on the Board at Pfizer.

Former HHS Secretary Alex Azar was president of Lilly USA.

From 2004-2020, 15 percent of those appointed to HHS came from private industry; when they finished at HHS, 32 percent took jobs in private industry: “The greatest net exits to industry were from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.”

The FDA has a revolving door: “Science has found that…regular employees at the agency…often reap later rewards—jobs or consulting work—from the makers of the drugs they previously regulated.”

Why should we assume that these industry foxes will guard the henhouse effectively?

Why am I following these issues? I got involved via our project, the WarRoom/DailyClout Pfizer Documents Analysis. This grassroots research project united 3,250 doctors and scientists to read 450,000 pages of Pfizer documents released 2021-2024 via court order. The FDA wanted them hidden for 75 years.

These volunteers produced the 34 reports in The Pfizer Papers: Pfizer’s Crimes Against Humanity. They broke headlines about damages from this “countermeasure,” including harms to women and babies.

Why were unpaid volunteers breaking stories that traditional media and medical journals could not break?

Volunteers in a crowdsourced project are unaffected by the corruptions that now afflict “the Science.”

Universities are not free to go where the evidence takes them. HHS provides universities more money than does tuition: “(HHS) is the largest federal source of funding for research and development…at universities.” HHS gave universities $44 billion in 2022.

Are peer-reviewed medical journals the gold standard for evaluating “the science”? No. Children’s Health Defense found that “Pharma Paid $1.06 Billion to Reviewers at Top Medical Journals”.

So independent researchers are freer than their institutional counterparts to follow the evidence.

The next President has a tall order in reforming Big Pharma.

Indeed, universities, medical journals, and “the Science” industries all need reforms. I believe we can do this. With good leadership, the nation and our institutions can course-correct once again.

This originally appeared on Outspoken with Dr Naomi Wolf.

The post Three Ways the Next President Should Tackle Big Pharma appeared first on LewRockwell.

Trump says he spent some time over the weekend working at a McDonalds to establish that he has worked at McDonalds longer than Kamala Harris – whose claims that she worked at McDonalds cannot be verified. Which strongly suggests she did not. McDonalds is a major corporation and they keep records of such things. Also, such things can usually be corroborated by friends and family who would know whether the person did – or didn’t.

I did, when I was in high school back in the ’80s. Anyone who wanted to verify it could, either with McDonalds or by checking with people who knew me when I was in high school. I have no problem saying I worked at McDonalds because I did. Harris says she did. The distinction is important.

Harris has also been saying she didn’t work as the Biden Thing’s “Border Czar” – an oddly autocratic title to hold for a person who says she is committed to “democracy.” But we know she did hold that position. Which she now pretends she didn’t.

The two juxtapose in interesting ways. Both are suggestive of extreme and unabashed fraudulence. Of the species of lying that’s so in-your-face it’s difficult for psychologically normal people to grasp the depth of it. Trump is certainly many things but there is a streak of authenticity that vibes with people. It manifests in his un-TelePrompter’d insults, which though perhaps boorish are at least  . . . authentic. No one else writes his material. When Harris hasn’t got things to say written by other people she tends to laugh unnaturally while gesticulating strangely, in the manner of the kicking at the air of a dog just hit by a car.

Also authentic is the resurgent swell of middle-and-working-class nationalism of all races that Trump awakened. Black and Hispanic men who work for a living are realizing that situationally black women like Harris do not. This is key to understanding why Trump is so rabidly and publicly despised by Barry Obama, Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, et al.

By those who support Harris even more so, for they understand the threat presented by a populist, nationalist movement of the working and middle classes of all races. That if it gains purchase it will be their undoing.

Trump is a genius in terms of his understanding of this, even if it is only an instinctive sort of genius. Going to work at McDonalds is evidence of this. Just as the almost-universal failure of the Left to get this is evidence of the Left’s inability to understand the appeal of the Orange Man. They sneer at what they see as a “stunt.” At the juvenility of it, as they regard it.

Trump knows better, even if he does not know it in an intellectual-philosophical sense. He connects with the average guy and that has always been the way to win in politics. Clinton – him rather than her – knew this. Barry Obama knows it. They worked it like a $20 escort at a Vegas car dealer’s convention.

Read the Whole Article

The post Orange Fries With That? appeared first on LewRockwell.

After decades of steering clear of direct political donations, Bill Gates, one of the wealthiest individuals in the world, is quietly backing Vice President Kamala Harris’ presidential bid. According to a New York Times report, Gates recently made a $50 million contribution to Future Forward USA Action, a nonprofit group backing Harris. This move, which Gates has kept private, marks a significant shift in his long-standing official political neutrality and could have major implications for the race.

“This Election Is Different:” Gates’ Shift

Gates’ decision to make this donation represents a stark departure from his previous reluctance to engage in high-profile political funding. In the past, he has avoided political endorsements and large donations, stating in 2019:

I choose not to participate in large political donations. There are times it might feel tempting to do so, and there are other people who choose to do so, but I just don’t want to grab that gigantic megaphone.

This year, however, the stakes appear to be higher. While Gates has not made any public statement endorsing Harris, his $50 million donation to Future Forward reflects his growing anxiety about the political and societal future the way he envisions it.

According to the Times:

“I support candidates who demonstrate a clear commitment to improving health care, reducing poverty and fighting climate change in the U.S. and around the world,” [Gates] told The New York Times. “I have a long history of working with leaders across the political spectrum, but this election is different, with unprecedented significance for Americans and the most vulnerable people around the world.”

The move appears to underscore his belief that the 2024 election holds far-reaching consequences.

Concerns About Trump

Though Gates has historically worked with politicians from both major parties, his private conversations reveal deep concerns about the impact of a potential Trump comeback. Gates sees risks in areas such as climate change and global health:

In private calls this year to friends and others, Mr. Gates has expressed concern about what a second Donald Trump presidency would look like….

Mr. Gates’s philanthropic organization, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, is significantly concerned about potential cuts to family planning and global health programs if Mr. Trump is elected, according to two people close to the foundation.

During his presidency, Trump implemented several measures to limit funding for abortion and so-called reproductive health services. Notably, he introduced the “gag rule” that restricted Title X recipients from providing or referring for abortions, leading organizations like Planned Parenthood to withdraw from the program. He reinstated and expanded the Mexico City Policy, cutting U.S. funding for foreign NGOs involved in abortion services, and attempted to defund Planned Parenthood domestically. His administration also rolled back ObamaCare (ACA) contraceptive-coverage mandates and cut funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).

Gates and Trump

During the Trump presidency, Bill Gates and Donald Trump met on several occasions to discuss global health, including pandemic preparedness and vaccine development.

While they agreed on the importance of these matters, Gates played a crucial role in steering Trump away from a potential vaccine-safety commission. Trump, influenced by vaccine-safety advocate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., considered forming the commission, but Gates intervened, calling it “a dead end” and warning against it. This advice apparently led Trump to drop the idea.

Gates later claimed that he declined Trump’s offer to appoint him as a scientific advisor.

Despite some areas of agreement, Gates publicly criticized Trump’s position on climate change, particularly withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. He also blasted Trump’s approach to public health policies during the Covid pandemic, as well as his cutting funding to the World Health Organization (WHO).

Family Push

Another factor in Gates’ decision to become more politically involved may be his children. According to sources, two of his children, Rory and Phoebe, have increasingly encouraged their parents to take a more active role in political giving, and both young adults have already made donations to Democratic causes.

Melinda French Gates, Gates’ former wife and co-founder of the Gates Foundation, has also joined the political-donations effort. She has made contributions to the same nonprofit arm of Future Forward that Gates reportedly contributed to.

Read the Whole Article

The post Bill Gates Quietly Donated $50 Million to Harris appeared first on LewRockwell.