lewrockwell--2020-10-15--R is the Rock That Shatters the Greenhouse Effect

The greenhouse effect is hopelessly at odds with basic science .
Science says all gases react the same when heated .
The greenhouse theorists says , no , some gases act differently .
I hold that the greenhouse effect is all bosh .
Let me explain .
The greenhouse effect claims that the presence of a greenhouse gas , say , carbon dioxide , raises the temperature of the air above what it would be if it was replaced by , say , oxygen instead .
Proponents claim air is a mixture of gases , some are the greenhouse gases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ methane .
Most are not greenhouse gases .
These are nitrogen , oxygen and argon .
It is also claimed that without the trace greenhouse gases the 59 0F average temperature of Earth would plummet to 0 0F .
We would freeze solid and life would be difficult .
Dire things would happen to our world if these gases should increase very much .
HINDAWI Winter Beanie ... Buy New $ 16.98 Other planets in our solar system with thick atmosphere ’ s like our own planet have completely different gases .
Venus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1960s to have an atmosphere 92 times as heavy as Earth ’ s and composed of 96 % carbon dioxide .
It also had a shockingly higher temperature than supposed , hot enough to melt lead and tin .
This led the astronomer Carl Sagan to claim in 1961 that it was a victim of a “ runaway greenhouse effect.
” This was refuted by the scientist Robert Ian Holmes in 2018 .
Holmes convincingly demonstrated that Venus ’ s seemingly high surface temperature could be entirely explained without the greenhouse effect .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ temperature was entirely explained by the simple arithmetic of its mass , density and pressure .
The composition of Venus ’ s atmosphere played no role .
It could have been composed of air like Earth ’ s with the same result : There is no need for a “ runaway greenhouse effect.
” To do this Holmes made use of a simple equation most students of high school chemistry or physics would recognize .
It is called the equation of state .
How could such a fundamental equation and the theory behind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sagan had a PhD in a science that makes use of this in the evolution of stars and why they shine at night .
How could he have overlooked this ?
Whenever something irrational happens , suspect politics is behind it .
THE KEY ROLE OF THE NUMBER R Holmes used observational data to refute Sagan ’ s and others ’ claims about the greenhouse effect operating on Venus .
A different tack will be taken here using the very precise measurements from experimental data taken over the years on the common gases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effect .
I will do this without any elaborate theory , merely the use of simple arithmetic and some basic concepts of high school science .
The fact that all gases act alike when heated means this in science : The amount of energy or work going into heating any gas is a number that never changes its value for a unit amount of that gas for each degree of temperature raised .
Science calls this constant number , R. It is a fraction that can be pictured like this : You can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Response of any gas to heating .
It has a precise numerical value agreed to by scientists and it is this long decimal , R = 8.31446261815324 .
The units used with it are joules for the numerator and 1 mole and 1 degree Kelvin for the denominator since it is a fraction as can be seen above .
For what follows put aside all that detail about the unfamiliar units of joule , mole and degree Kelvin .
Just concentrate on the first seven digits of R only , 8.314 462 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ differences between gases when we measure them .
So , the experimental values for R we get for each individual gas will be different from the others .
Baby Girls Boys Winter ... Buy New $ 11.99 The question we want to answer is how much they differ .
Are the greenhouse effect advocates right that there are significant differences in each gas ’ s response to heating that imperil our planet , or not ?
TESTING WHETHER ALL GASES RESPOND TO HEATING EQUALLY – USING R What we are concerned with are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the greenhouse gases compared with the non-greenhouse gases .
If the greenhouse effect is true , we should find a significantly lower value for carbon dioxide ’ s R value than for oxygen , nitrogen and argon .
Why a lower value , and not higher ?
The idea is that carbon dioxide for the same amount of energy will create a higher temperature than , say , oxygen .
This is another way of saying carbon dioxide is more efficient , it takes less energy or work to get the same one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the numerator you see in the above picture is smaller for carbon dioxide than oxygen for that very reason .
So , the R value for carbon dioxide must be SMALLER than for oxygen since the numerator is smaller .
The same must also be true for water vapor and methane : They must have significantly smaller R values , too .
What I am going to give you is the experimental value of R for each gas in our atmosphere .
Each experimental value is completely indifferent to any scientist ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ famous or eminent .
It comes from a laboratory measurement with an exquisitely accurate device called a calorimeter .
Because they are not perfect , calorimeter ’ s have experimental error , which alone should cause some small variation in results from gas to gas .
What we are looking for , again , are significant differences , not small stuff .
PerfectPrime HP0210GR ... Buy New $ 17.99 Science developed over the first few decades of the 20th century progressively more sensitive measurements of three aspects of gases that play a role @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for R. These are called C and C and M. The first is known as a gas ’ s specific heat at constant pressure , thus the c and p in the nickname above .
The second is known as a gas ’ s specific heat at constant volume , thus the c and v in its nickname .
M means the amount of a gas called molar-mass .
You do not need to understand these complicated concepts , just that they give you R when used .
Here is the arithmetic : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Then multiply c – c times M and the answer equals R. This simple formula is called Mayer ’ s Law , named for the physicist who found it .
You do not need to understand how and why this law is true , just that in science it is treated as true .
For its derivation go here .
To make this more visible I am going to show a table where each gas is shown on a line with the difference between these two ( C – C ) and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
At the line ’ s end will be the R for that gas .
Here goes .
I will show the so-called greenhouse gases first , then the non-greenhouse gases .
On the last line I will show you the experimental values for air .
Remember , R = 8.314462 .
Here is the source for the table ’ s data .
See Table A-1 .
Notice anything peculiar about the so-called bad guy , carbon dioxide ?
I don ’ t .
It looks like oxygen , argon and nitrogen .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
You would have to go out to the third decimal place to see any difference from the theoretically exact value .
Because the data has four place precision , we can only be confident to three decimal places to the right of the digit 8 in the table for R ’ s value .
Notice the third decimal place ’ s values vary from 3 to 5 for the six gases .
The average of the six is 8.314 .
So , the R for all of these gases is about 8.314 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argon and oxygen .
Both had the greatest “ greenhouse effect , ” 0.001 less than air .
Even if either 100 % replaced air , it would not have a measurable effect on our planet ’ s average temperature .
Carbon dioxide had a R value greater than air , not less .
A major disconnect here , unexplainable by the greenhouse theorists .
The small differences between the common atmospheric gases reflects what science means when it says all are alike in response to heating .
The wonder then is why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bottom line : Carbon dioxide goes to the same temperature as oxygen , nitrogen and argon when the same amounts of each gas are compared with the same energy when tested under controlled , precise laboratory conditions .
The greenhouse fanatics insist that carbon dioxide goes to a higher temperature under these conditions .
Any small increase is devastating .
If you look at their papers , they never substantiate their claim , they merely assume it is true .
It ’ s all bluff and raw assertion .
The experimental data shows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , water vapor and methane .
Pulamau00c2 Funnie Var ... Buy New $ 13.96 I have just presented experimental data that says greenhouse gases DO NOT raise the temperature of air anymore than anything else .
R says it can not .
A one degree increase in temperature will result from the same energy input into carbon dioxide as any other gas in air , no more , no less .
This is the same result Robert Ian Holmes found for observational data taken from Venus , or any of the other planets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For those of you who are scientifically inclined , I urge you to look at his scientific essays online .
They are readable and provide a lot of history that completes the story .
Now a brief note on something mentioned about our planet being 59 degrees warmer than it should .
So , if the greenhouse effect does not operate , what causes that thing ?
The answer is simple .
The weight of our atmosphere causes that 59 degree warm up .
If you go deep down into a mine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hotter as you go deeper .
No sunlight down there , so no greenhouse effect could work even if it did operate as claimed .
The greater depth of air creates a heavier column of air than at the surface , causing the temperature to go up as you descend .
That phenomenon is what causes the “ lapse rate ” or observed cooling as one goes up a mountain or heating as we go down a mountain .
The same gas laws that underlie R apply everywhere , that is why they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ temperatures and the evolution of stars .
Remember , there is no pope in science .
People are free to choose whatever proposition they wish to believe .
Some people do not try to test their propositions .
They instead merely look for things that affirm or support their claims .
This may be okay when beginning an investigation of some hunch .
It is not reasonable in science to assert a proposition without looking for evidence that its exact opposite is true instead .
Look back over what was done here .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ found its exact opposite , carbon dioxide is no different than any other gas , and then subjected that to an empirical test where it could be found false .
Powerful evidence of a very precise and accurate nature was brought forward .
The limit of experimental error was four digit accuracy as seen in the table and it was NOT rejected as false .
This makes Sagan ’ s unexamined hypothesis from 1961 false from the start .
SCIENTISTS SHOULD NOT TRY TO MERELY AFFIRM THEIR PROPOSITIONS As a scientist , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ am also very curious why the editors of his 1961 article did not raise any questions about his unsupported assertion .
Afterall , Sagan went to considerable lengths to disprove with facts and data controversial propositions by Fred Hoyle and others .
He does not do so with his own thesis stated in column three top on page 855 .
Why was he allowed such latitude by the referees of that famed journal ?
BeanieTail & Scarf Bun ... Buy New $ 29.99 A predecessor to Sagan who was concerned with the warming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Beginning in 1938 and continuing to 1961 , Callendar ’ s articles emphasized the history of carbon dioxide ’ s radiative effects .
Here again is the search for confirmation of a theory , rather than looking for evidence supporting its opposite .
Ironically , Callendar ’ s father , Hugh Callendar had pioneered a highly sensitive flow calorimeter that enabled scientists to very accurately measure the specific heats of gases in the 1920s and 30s .
I have a textbook in science from 1932 , for example , and its table @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the specific heats of gases listed in my table above .
So , there was no lack of evidence even in 1932 that Callendar ’ s warming effect of carbon dioxide would have proved false and rejected .
He did not look for it , so he did not see it .
For both of these men , critical analysis is reserved for others ’ arguments , and not when they advocated something .
Ego gets involved in advocacy and lots of times politics takes hold , too .
I believe that is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and left wing politics blinded him , even though he frequently exhorted students of science to do exactly the opposite .
It was just too irresistible .
Callendar sought an explanation of the ice ages and found carbon dioxide as the culprit .
He also found we were helping the cause of preventing one by accumulating it in the atmosphere from our activities .
One advocate saw carbon dioxide as a boon for the planet and its occupants , the other saw it as the bane .
Neither was being scientific , instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Both were funded by government grants during friendly political currents .
The sad part of it all is our federal government ’ s now cynical use of science funding mechanisms to stymie critical studies of climate changes .
Just try to get an NSF grant contradicting the greenhouse effect .
The government is no neutral body seeking to fund truth .
It has its own political interests very often antagonistic to the public which funds its misdeeds .
They have been using our tax dollars to fund scientific models of climate change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and temperature change .
Well , models are not data nor a substitute for critical analysis .
The whole apparatus is based on assumption , never tested , that greenhouse gases exist , and it is going to stay that way no matter which way the political winds blow .

The greenhouse effect is hopelessly at odds with basic science. Science says all gases react the same when heated. The greenhouse theorists says, no, some gases act differently. I hold that the greenhouse effect is all bosh. Let me explain.
The greenhouse effect claims that the presence of a greenhouse gas, say, carbon dioxide, raises the temperature of the air above what it would be if it was replaced by, say, oxygen instead. Proponents claim air is a mixture of gases, some are the greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, water vapor and methane. Most are not greenhouse gases. These are nitrogen, oxygen and argon. It is also claimed that without the trace greenhouse gases the 59 0F average temperature of Earth would plummet to 0 0F. We would freeze solid and life would be difficult. Dire things would happen to our world if these gases should increase very much.
HINDAWI Winter Beanie ... Buy New $16.98 (as of 04:21 UTC - Details) Other planets in our solar system with thick atmosphere’s like our own planet have completely different gases. Venus was found by space probes in the 1960s to have an atmosphere 92 times as heavy as Earth’s and composed of 96% carbon dioxide. It also had a shockingly higher temperature than supposed, hot enough to melt lead and tin. This led the astronomer Carl Sagan to claim in 1961 that it was a victim of a “runaway greenhouse effect.” This was refuted by the scientist Robert Ian Holmes in 2018. Holmes convincingly demonstrated that Venus’s seemingly high surface temperature could be entirely explained without the greenhouse effect. He did this by showing its atmospheric temperature was entirely explained by the simple arithmetic of its mass, density and pressure. The composition of Venus’s atmosphere played no role. It could have been composed of air like Earth’s with the same result: There is no need for a “runaway greenhouse effect.” To do this Holmes made use of a simple equation most students of high school chemistry or physics would recognize. It is called the equation of state. How could such a fundamental equation and the theory behind it be overlooked for so long? Sagan had a PhD in a science that makes use of this in the evolution of stars and why they shine at night. How could he have overlooked this? Whenever something irrational happens, suspect politics is behind it.
THE KEY ROLE OF THE NUMBER R
Holmes used observational data to refute Sagan’s and others’ claims about the greenhouse effect operating on Venus. A different tack will be taken here using the very precise measurements from experimental data taken over the years on the common gases of our atmosphere to test the greenhouse effect. I will do this without any elaborate theory, merely the use of simple arithmetic and some basic concepts of high school science.
The fact that all gases act alike when heated means this in science: The amount of energy or work going into heating any gas is a number that never changes its value for a unit amount of that gas for each degree of temperature raised. Science calls this constant number, R. It is a fraction that can be pictured like this:
You can think of R as being short for Response of any gas to heating. It has a precise numerical value agreed to by scientists and it is this long decimal, R = 8.31446261815324. The units used with it are joules for the numerator and 1 mole and 1 degree Kelvin for the denominator since it is a fraction as can be seen above. For what follows put aside all that detail about the unfamiliar units of joule, mole and degree Kelvin. Just concentrate on the first seven digits of R only, 8.314 462. As it turns out, there are differences between gases when we measure them. So, the experimental values for R we get for each individual gas will be different from the others. Baby Girls Boys Winter... Buy New $11.99 (as of 04:21 UTC - Details)
The question we want to answer is how much they differ. Are the greenhouse effect advocates right that there are significant differences in each gas’s response to heating that imperil our planet, or not?
TESTING WHETHER ALL GASES RESPOND TO HEATING EQUALLY – USING R
What we are concerned with are differences in R’s value for the greenhouse gases compared with the non-greenhouse gases. If the greenhouse effect is true, we should find a significantly lower value for carbon dioxide’s R value than for oxygen, nitrogen and argon. Why a lower value, and not higher? The idea is that carbon dioxide for the same amount of energy will create a higher temperature than, say, oxygen. This is another way of saying carbon dioxide is more efficient, it takes less energy or work to get the same one degree temperature rise as oxygen. So, the numerator you see in the above picture is smaller for carbon dioxide than oxygen for that very reason. So, the R value for carbon dioxide must be SMALLER than for oxygen since the numerator is smaller. The same must also be true for water vapor and methane: They must have significantly smaller R values, too.
What I am going to give you is the experimental value of R for each gas in our atmosphere. Each experimental value is completely indifferent to any scientist’s claim about reality, regardless how famous or eminent. It comes from a laboratory measurement with an exquisitely accurate device called a calorimeter. Because they are not perfect, calorimeter’s have experimental error, which alone should cause some small variation in results from gas to gas. What we are looking for, again, are significant differences, not small stuff.
PerfectPrime HP0210GR ... Buy New $17.99 (as of 04:21 UTC - Details) Science developed over the first few decades of the 20th century progressively more sensitive measurements of three aspects of gases that play a role in determining each gas’s value for R. These are called C p and C v and M. The first is known as a gas’s specific heat at constant pressure, thus the c and p in the nickname above. The second is known as a gas’s specific heat at constant volume, thus the c and v in its nickname. M means the amount of a gas called molar-mass. You do not need to understand these complicated concepts, just that they give you R when used.
Here is the arithmetic: Take C p and subtract C v from it. Then multiply c p – c v times M and the answer equals R. This simple formula is called Mayer’s Law, named for the physicist who found it. You do not need to understand how and why this law is true, just that in science it is treated as true. For its derivation go here. To make this more visible I am going to show a table where each gas is shown on a line with the difference between these two (C p – C v ) and then the gas’s M value. At the line’s end will be the R for that gas. Here goes. I will show the so-called greenhouse gases first, then the non-greenhouse gases. On the last line I will show you the experimental values for air. Remember, R = 8.314462. Here is the source for the table’s data. See Table A-1.
Notice anything peculiar about the so-called bad guy, carbon dioxide? I don’t. It looks like oxygen, argon and nitrogen. The same for water vapor and methane. You would have to go out to the third decimal place to see any difference from the theoretically exact value. Because the data has four place precision, we can only be confident to three decimal places to the right of the digit 8 in the table for R’s value. Notice the third decimal place’s values vary from 3 to 5 for the six gases. The average of the six is 8.314. So, the R for all of these gases is about 8.314. The smallest R value was for argon and oxygen. Both had the greatest “greenhouse effect,” 0.001 less than air. Even if either 100% replaced air, it would not have a measurable effect on our planet’s average temperature. Carbon dioxide had a R value greater than air, not less. A major disconnect here, unexplainable by the greenhouse theorists. The small differences between the common atmospheric gases reflects what science means when it says all are alike in response to heating. The wonder then is why all this mischief about carbon dioxide?
Bottom line: Carbon dioxide goes to the same temperature as oxygen, nitrogen and argon when the same amounts of each gas are compared with the same energy when tested under controlled, precise laboratory conditions. The greenhouse fanatics insist that carbon dioxide goes to a higher temperature under these conditions. Any small increase is devastating. If you look at their papers, they never substantiate their claim, they merely assume it is true. It’s all bluff and raw assertion. The experimental data shows our atmosphere is insensitive to carbon dioxide, water vapor and methane. Pulamau00c2 Funnie Var... Buy New $13.96 (as of 04:21 UTC - Details)
GREENHOUSE GASES DO NOT EXIST
I have just presented experimental data that says greenhouse gases DO NOT raise the temperature of air anymore than anything else. R says it cannot. A one degree increase in temperature will result from the same energy input into carbon dioxide as any other gas in air, no more, no less. This is the same result Robert Ian Holmes found for observational data taken from Venus, or any of the other planets with thick atmospheres, such as Jupiter. For those of you who are scientifically inclined, I urge you to look at his scientific essays online. They are readable and provide a lot of history that completes the story.
Now a brief note on something mentioned about our planet being 59 degrees warmer than it should. So, if the greenhouse effect does not operate, what causes that thing? The answer is simple. The weight of our atmosphere causes that 59 degree warm up. If you go deep down into a mine, you will notice the air gets hotter as you go deeper. No sunlight down there, so no greenhouse effect could work even if it did operate as claimed. The greater depth of air creates a heavier column of air than at the surface, causing the temperature to go up as you descend. That phenomenon is what causes the “lapse rate” or observed cooling as one goes up a mountain or heating as we go down a mountain.
The same gas laws that underlie R apply everywhere, that is why they are used in astronomy to explain stellar temperatures and the evolution of stars. Remember, there is no pope in science. People are free to choose whatever proposition they wish to believe. Some people do not try to test their propositions. They instead merely look for things that affirm or support their claims. This may be okay when beginning an investigation of some hunch. It is not reasonable in science to assert a proposition without looking for evidence that its exact opposite is true instead. Look back over what was done here. I took Sagan’s argument, found its exact opposite, carbon dioxide is no different than any other gas, and then subjected that to an empirical test where it could be found false. Powerful evidence of a very precise and accurate nature was brought forward. The limit of experimental error was four digit accuracy as seen in the table and it was NOT rejected as false. This makes Sagan’s unexamined hypothesis from 1961 false from the start.
SCIENTISTS SHOULD NOT TRY TO MERELY AFFIRM THEIR PROPOSITIONS
As a scientist, he should not have done this. I am also very curious why the editors of his 1961 Science article did not raise any questions about his unsupported assertion. Afterall, Sagan went to considerable lengths to disprove with facts and data controversial propositions by Fred Hoyle and others. He does not do so with his own thesis stated in column three top on page 855. Why was he allowed such latitude by the referees of that famed journal? BeanieTail & Scarf Bun... Buy New $29.99 (as of 04:21 UTC - Details)
A predecessor to Sagan who was concerned with the warming effect of carbon dioxide was Guy Callendar. Beginning in 1938 and continuing to 1961, Callendar’s articles emphasized the history of carbon dioxide’s radiative effects. Here again is the search for confirmation of a theory, rather than looking for evidence supporting its opposite. Ironically, Callendar’s father, Hugh Callendar had pioneered a highly sensitive flow calorimeter that enabled scientists to very accurately measure the specific heats of gases in the 1920s and 30s. I have a textbook in science from 1932, for example, and its table of values have three place accuracy for the specific heats of gases listed in my table above. So, there was no lack of evidence even in 1932 that Callendar’s warming effect of carbon dioxide would have proved false and rejected. He did not look for it, so he did not see it.
For both of these men, critical analysis is reserved for others’ arguments, and not when they advocated something. Ego gets involved in advocacy and lots of times politics takes hold, too. I believe that is what happened to Sagan. Both ego and left wing politics blinded him, even though he frequently exhorted students of science to do exactly the opposite. It was just too irresistible. Callendar sought an explanation of the ice ages and found carbon dioxide as the culprit. He also found we were helping the cause of preventing one by accumulating it in the atmosphere from our activities. One advocate saw carbon dioxide as a boon for the planet and its occupants, the other saw it as the bane. Neither was being scientific, instead they were advocates of a faulty proposition. Both were funded by government grants during friendly political currents.
The sad part of it all is our federal government’s now cynical use of science funding mechanisms to stymie critical studies of climate changes. Just try to get an NSF grant contradicting the greenhouse effect. The government is no neutral body seeking to fund truth. It has its own political interests very often antagonistic to the public which funds its misdeeds. They have been using our tax dollars to fund scientific models of climate change built on associations between carbon dioxide accumulation and temperature change. Well, models are not data nor a substitute for critical analysis. The whole apparatus is based on assumption, never tested, that greenhouse gases exist, and it is going to stay that way no matter which way the political winds blow.


lewrockwell--2020-10-15--The Great California Exodus

The Great California Exodus

German author Franz Kafka wrote in The Metamorphosis , “ There is an infinite amount of hope in the universe…but not for us.
” The legendary writer might as well have been writing about the state of California , a progressive wasteland that is the personification of everything wrong with leftist orthodoxy .
In the mid-nineteenth century , when it became a state , tens of thousands of people headed west .
Today , those with a modicum of judgment and respect for their pocketbook are heading anywhere that is not named California , attempting to flee the incompetent mismanagement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ friends in Sacramento on every subject , from the economy to civil liberties .
California may be the most populous state in the Union , but it could transform into the exodus capital of America .
The Golden State has witnessed its population stall , declining slightly from 39.96 million to 39.78 million in the second half of 2019 , according to the Department of Finance .
The Metamorphosis Kafka , Franz Best Price : $ 2.27 Buy New $ 5.99 Growth has slowed close to zero or even declined in most coastal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advanced , and counties east of Los Angeles witnessed modest growth .
However , Los Angeles County shed residents for the second consecutive year in 2019 .
It is unclear how severe the population drop is in the aftermath of the Coronavirus pandemic and the state government ’ s proposed tax hikes .
Contrary to internet mythos , it is not only high-income earners who are packing up their things and saying goodbye to Newsom .
Studies , including one from the Public Policy Institute of California and another by the Empire Center @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poorer households are more likely to flee than their affluent counterparts .
But considering the policing being proposed or enacted , it is safe to say that the wealthy have no reason to be some of the left behinds .
In August , California Democrats proposed a significant tax hike on the wealthy .
The Assembly legislation includes raising the top income tax rate to 16.8 percent , retroactive to January of this year .
It would boost the top rate to 14.3 percent for households earning more than $ 1 million , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million , and 16.8 percent on income above $ 5 million .
A separate bill would slap a 0.4 percent tax on assets topping $ 30 million .
While this is damaging to the economy and may be considered isolated to the rich , everything else that California is doing is hurting and will continue to hurt everybody else .
Newsom recently signed an executive order that phases out the sale of all gasoline-powered automobiles by 2035 .
The EO will still permit these cars to be owned and sold on the used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certainly push consumers to switch to the heavily subsidized electric vehicle market .
In a statement , Newsom also endorsed a ban on petroleum fracking .
However , instead of taking executive action , he urged the California Legislature to adopt prohibitions or restrictions on fracking .
This could potentially impact the more than 360,000 people who are employed in the oil and gas sector .
California Dreaming : T ... Hickey , Andrew Best Price : $ 24.17 Buy New $ 20.91 Despite being one of the wealthiest jurisdictions in the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rolling blackouts .
For the first time in nearly twenty years , California is launching planned blackouts , prompting the governor to concede that the state needed to “ sober up ” about renewable energy sources failing to offer enough power for millions of residents at peak demand .
Although local left-leaning politicians and the mainstream press will allude to the widespread wildfires as evidence of climate change , it has been years of gross negligence contributing to the disaster .
As Liberty Nation wrote in January 2019 : Not only is California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a government-induced water shortage .
The state allowed clean fresh water to travel from rivers into the Pacific Ocean , refusing to consume the natural resource as part of efforts to appease green zealots .
The other problem is that farmers are exempt from water restrictions and do not pay market prices .
And yet residents can face fines of up to $ 500 per day if they take a long shower .
California has even targeted freelancers as part of politicians ’ crusades to save them from the free market ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governor signed into law AB5 , a bill that would mandate companies to reclassify freelancers and contingent workers as full-time employees .
Organized labor celebrated , but the laborers were outraged—and with good reason .
In the immediate aftermath of the legislation , businesses let go of their freelancers , while professional freelancers lost thousands of dollars in income .
The state has pivoted slightly , but instead of fully conceding the error of its ways , lawmakers insist AB5 is great .
Despite facing a tremendous budget gap and a pension crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for slavery reparations .
Goodnight , L.A. : The R ... Hartman , Kent Best Price : $ 3.60 Buy New $ 9.46 And , worse , this is all in addition to the plethora of Coronavirus restrictions Newsom and his pals at the local level have introduced over the last six months .
The list of boondoggles , blunders , and botches can go as long as the lineup to the exit door .
The situation in California has had a snowball effect .
Every progressive prescription that has done more harm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an avalanche , leading folks to the nearest exit .
They want to hop off the ultraleftist train and find greener pastures .
Many prominent figures are either waving goodbye or grieving about the situation .
Ben Shapiro and The Daily Wire team have packed up their supplies and are headed to Nashville .
Joe Rogan grabbed his cowboy hat and supply of DMT and sought refuge in Texas .
Los Angeles Dodgers superstar Mookie Betts griped that the tax rates are crazy .
Will you be next ?
If you have left-leaning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , be sure to remember the hashtag # DontCaliforniaMyArizona .

German author Franz Kafka wrote in The Metamorphosis, “There is an infinite amount of hope in the universe…but not for us.” The legendary writer might as well have been writing about the state of California, a progressive wasteland that is the personification of everything wrong with leftist orthodoxy. In the mid-nineteenth century, when it became a state, tens of thousands of people headed west. Today, those with a modicum of judgment and respect for their pocketbook are heading anywhere that is not named California, attempting to flee the incompetent mismanagement of Governor Gavin Newsom and his Democratic friends in Sacramento on every subject, from the economy to civil liberties.
The Exodus: A Primer
California may be the most populous state in the Union, but it could transform into the exodus capital of America. The Golden State has witnessed its population stall, declining slightly from 39.96 million to 39.78 million in the second half of 2019, according to the Department of Finance. The Metamorphosis Kafka, Franz Best Price: $2.27 Buy New $5.99 (as of 04:22 UTC - Details)
Growth has slowed close to zero or even declined in most coastal counties. The San Francisco Bay Area advanced, and counties east of Los Angeles witnessed modest growth. However, Los Angeles County shed residents for the second consecutive year in 2019. It is unclear how severe the population drop is in the aftermath of the Coronavirus pandemic and the state government’s proposed tax hikes.
Contrary to internet mythos, it is not only high-income earners who are packing up their things and saying goodbye to Newsom. Studies, including one from the Public Policy Institute of California and another by the Empire Center for Public Policy, have found that poorer households are more likely to flee than their affluent counterparts. But considering the policing being proposed or enacted, it is safe to say that the wealthy have no reason to be some of the left behinds.
California Nightmarin’
In August, California Democrats proposed a significant tax hike on the wealthy. The Assembly legislation includes raising the top income tax rate to 16.8 percent, retroactive to January of this year. It would boost the top rate to 14.3 percent for households earning more than $1 million, 16.3 percent on income over $2 million, and 16.8 percent on income above $5 million. A separate bill would slap a 0.4 percent tax on assets topping $30 million.
While this is damaging to the economy and may be considered isolated to the rich, everything else that California is doing is hurting and will continue to hurt everybody else.
Newsom recently signed an executive order that phases out the sale of all gasoline-powered automobiles by 2035. The EO will still permit these cars to be owned and sold on the used car market, but the measure will certainly push consumers to switch to the heavily subsidized electric vehicle market.
In a statement, Newsom also endorsed a ban on petroleum fracking. However, instead of taking executive action, he urged the California Legislature to adopt prohibitions or restrictions on fracking. This could potentially impact the more than 360,000 people who are employed in the oil and gas sector. California Dreaming: T... Hickey, Andrew Best Price: $24.17 Buy New $20.91 (as of 04:22 UTC - Details)
Despite being one of the wealthiest jurisdictions in the world, California is mirroring Venezuela by enduring rolling blackouts. For the first time in nearly twenty years, California is launching planned blackouts, prompting the governor to concede that the state needed to “sober up” about renewable energy sources failing to offer enough power for millions of residents at peak demand.
Although local left-leaning politicians and the mainstream press will allude to the widespread wildfires as evidence of climate change, it has been years of gross negligence contributing to the disaster. As Liberty Nation wrote in January 2019:
Most forests are engulfed in dead trees. The saplings are crushed together and consume the water that old-growth trees need, causing them to endure an infestation of pests and a precipitous slide to death. What is necessary is thinning, which can be performed by private logging firms.
Not only is California going through power shortages but also suffering a government-induced water shortage. The state allowed clean fresh water to travel from rivers into the Pacific Ocean, refusing to consume the natural resource as part of efforts to appease green zealots. The other problem is that farmers are exempt from water restrictions and do not pay market prices. And yet residents can face fines of up to $500 per day if they take a long shower.
California has even targeted freelancers as part of politicians’ crusades to save them from the free market’s vile exploitation. Last year, the governor signed into law AB5, a bill that would mandate companies to reclassify freelancers and contingent workers as full-time employees. Organized labor celebrated, but the laborers were outraged—and with good reason. In the immediate aftermath of the legislation, businesses let go of their freelancers, while professional freelancers lost thousands of dollars in income. The state has pivoted slightly, but instead of fully conceding the error of its ways, lawmakers insist AB5 is great.
Despite facing a tremendous budget gap and a pension crisis, the state is hatching a plan for slavery reparations. Goodnight, L.A.: The R... Hartman, Kent Best Price: $3.60 Buy New $9.46 (as of 04:22 UTC - Details)
And, worse, this is all in addition to the plethora of Coronavirus restrictions Newsom and his pals at the local level have introduced over the last six months.
The list of boondoggles, blunders, and botches can go as long as the lineup to the exit door.
#DontCaliforniaMyArizona
The situation in California has had a snowball effect. Every progressive prescription that has done more harm than good has converted the snowball into an avalanche, leading folks to the nearest exit. They want to hop off the ultraleftist train and find greener pastures. Many prominent figures are either waving goodbye or grieving about the situation. Ben Shapiro and The Daily Wire team have packed up their supplies and are headed to Nashville. Joe Rogan grabbed his cowboy hat and supply of DMT and sought refuge in Texas. Los Angeles Dodgers superstar Mookie Betts griped that the tax rates are crazy. Will you be next? If you have left-leaning views and travel to Texas or Arkansas, be sure to remember the hashtag #DontCaliforniaMyArizona.
Originally published by Liberty Nation.


lewrockwell--2020-10-15--The Virus That Isn’t There Has a Hypnotic Effect

I have written several recent articles documenting the fact that the COVID virus is missing in action .
[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] And when I say missing , I ’ m talking about two MAJOR confessions , from both the CDC and a group of study-authors in Europe…and in each case , these people were in the process of assembling instructions on how to perform the diagnostic PCR test for that very virus .
The virus they said they didn ’ t have .
They didn ’ t have it because they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ couldn ’ t get it because no one had it .
In other words , the existence of the COVID virus is unproven .
Sticky Bananas Unisex- ... Buy New $ 34.99 Now , I want to point out three factors that produce a hypnotic effect .
Even in the absence of the virus , these factors seem to indicate the virus “ must exist.
” I ’ m not talking about government or media pronouncements , which are obvious .
ONE : Scientists and public health agencies claim they ’ ve ISOLATED @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to believe them .
The term “ isolation ” is thrown around like a politician throws around the term , “ the people.
” Isolation of a virus SHOULD mean it is separated out from all the genetic , cellular , microbial , and waste material that surrounds it .
But don ’ t assume , when professionals are talking or writing , that this is what they DO mean .
Do not assume that .
For example , they often mean : “ We have the virus in a dish in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contains human cells , chemicals , drugs , and other material .
However , we know the virus is there and growing , because it is killing the human cells… ” Wrong .
There is more than sufficient non-viral substance in the soup that could be doing the cell-killing .
And obviously , “ the virus ” in the dish is surrounded by this mix of material .
It is far from isolated .
And , as I ’ ve documented in a previous article , if the CDC , one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , couldn ’ t get the virus , as of July of this year , and admitted it in writing… “ the virus ” isn ’ t isolated .
TWO : This hypnotic effect ropes in some of the brightest medical and scientific professionals , who otherwise challenge all sorts of medical dogma .
It is : “ The genetic sequence of the virus is well established .
Many studies confirm this.
” HJ Media Oval Trump 20 ... Buy New $ 8.95 Well , sure .
If experts have mapped out the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus must exist .
Right ?
Wrong .
The sequence is INFERRED .
It is ASSUMED .
Inferred from what ?
The genetic sequence could be cobbled together from several sources : the unseparated material “ in the dish in the lab ” ; a piece or pieces of RNA that have been arbitrarily chosen as “ relevant clues ” ; a piece or pieces of synthetic RNA that , again , have been arbitrarily selected according to a bias in favor of a certain type of virus .
Bias ?
What does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
When a few dozen people in Wuhan fell ill , back in 2019 , there were a million ways researchers could have gone , in trying to figure out the cause .
Of course , as I ’ ve written , they could have looked out their windows and observed the horrific air pollution hanging over the city , and realized these “ unexplained cases ” of pneumonia had a ridiculously simple origin .
[ 5 ] But no .
The researchers opted , as they always do , for a “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , without a shred of evidence , to “ look for ” a germ from the coronavirus family .
That was the pre-planned story .
That was the bias .
From that point on , the die was cast .
The “ genetic sequencing ” involved cobbling together , by assumption and inference , a collage of INFORMATION , into code , which would satisfy the pre-ordained scenario .
They ASSEMBLED a genetic sequence that matched what they were going for : a coronavirus .
Pink Label President T ... Buy New $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is performed by people looking directly at a virus through a cosmic microscope and jotting down the names of rows of genes sitting side by side like cars in a supermarket parking lot .
THREE : The other hypnotic factor is the PCR test .
“ If the test exists to detect the virus , the virus must exist.
” Wrong .
The test—which has irreparable and fatal flaws , as I ’ ve documented—is working , at best , from a fragment of RNA which is ASSUMED to come from the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that fragment as “ relevant , ” the test result clams the person is “ infected.
” People believe the test must mean something .
And the only thing it could mean is : it finds the virus in a person , or the virus isn ’ t in that person ’ s body .
But either way , the virus is real .
The deck is stacked .
The game is rigged .
Welcome to the Deep Medical State .
As in any truly deep operation , only a small number of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The rest are blind , and accepting .
Some are willfully blind .
They see the truth in a flash of insight , and then they shut up .
However , in this mad “ COVID landscape , ” minds and doors are opening .
The hypnotic haze is receding .
The truth is coming out .
Doctors , scientists , reporters , and members of the public are discovering and rejecting the Big Con .
The Best of Jon Rappoport

I have written several recent articles documenting the fact that the COVID virus is missing in action. [1] [2] [3] [4]
And when I say missing, I’m talking about two MAJOR confessions, from both the CDC and a group of study-authors in Europe…and in each case, these people were in the process of assembling instructions on how to perform the diagnostic PCR test for that very virus. The virus they said they didn’t have.
They didn’t have it because they couldn’t get it.
They couldn’t get it because no one had it.
In other words, the existence of the COVID virus is unproven. Sticky Bananas Unisex-... Buy New $34.99 (as of 04:23 UTC - Details)
Now, I want to point out three factors that produce a hypnotic effect. Even in the absence of the virus, these factors seem to indicate the virus “must exist.” I’m not talking about government or media pronouncements, which are obvious.
ONE: Scientists and public health agencies claim they’ve ISOLATED the virus.
There is no reason to believe them. The term “isolation” is thrown around like a politician throws around the term, “the people.”
Isolation of a virus SHOULD mean it is separated out from all the genetic, cellular, microbial, and waste material that surrounds it. But don’t assume, when professionals are talking or writing, that this is what they DO mean. Do not assume that.
For example, they often mean: “We have the virus in a dish in the lab. The soup in the dish contains human cells, chemicals, drugs, and other material. However, we know the virus is there and growing, because it is killing the human cells…”
Wrong. There is more than sufficient non-viral substance in the soup that could be doing the cell-killing. And obviously, “the virus” in the dish is surrounded by this mix of material. It is far from isolated.
And, as I’ve documented in a previous article, if the CDC, one of the biggest public health agencies in the world, couldn’t get the virus, as of July of this year, and admitted it in writing…“the virus” isn’t isolated.
TWO: This hypnotic effect ropes in some of the brightest medical and scientific professionals, who otherwise challenge all sorts of medical dogma. It is: “The genetic sequence of the virus is well established. Many studies confirm this.” HJ Media Oval Trump 20... Buy New $8.95 (as of 04:23 UTC - Details)
Well, sure. If experts have mapped out the genetic structure of the virus, the virus must exist. Right?
Wrong. The sequence is INFERRED. It is ASSUMED.
Inferred from what? The genetic sequence could be cobbled together from several sources: the unseparated material “in the dish in the lab”; a piece or pieces of RNA that have been arbitrarily chosen as “relevant clues”; a piece or pieces of synthetic RNA that, again, have been arbitrarily selected according to a bias in favor of a certain type of virus.
Bias? What does that mean? I’ll explain. When a few dozen people in Wuhan fell ill, back in 2019, there were a million ways researchers could have gone, in trying to figure out the cause.
Of course, as I’ve written, they could have looked out their windows and observed the horrific air pollution hanging over the city, and realized these “unexplained cases” of pneumonia had a ridiculously simple origin. [5] But no.
The researchers opted, as they always do, for a “new virus.” And, they chose, without a shred of evidence, to “look for” a germ from the coronavirus family. That was the pre-planned story. That was the bias.
From that point on, the die was cast. The “genetic sequencing” involved cobbling together, by assumption and inference, a collage of INFORMATION, into code, which would satisfy the pre-ordained scenario.
They ASSEMBLED a genetic sequence that matched what they were going for: a coronavirus.
Pink Label President T... Buy New $9.95 (as of 04:23 UTC - Details) Don’t imagine genetic sequencing is performed by people looking directly at a virus through a cosmic microscope and jotting down the names of rows of genes sitting side by side like cars in a supermarket parking lot.
THREE: The other hypnotic factor is the PCR test. “If the test exists to detect the virus, the virus must exist.”
Wrong. The test—which has irreparable and fatal flaws, as I’ve documented—is working, at best, from a fragment of RNA which is ASSUMED to come from the virus. If the test appears to identify that fragment as “relevant,” the test result clams the person is “infected.”
People believe the test must mean something. And the only thing it could mean is: it finds the virus in a person, or the virus isn’t in that person’s body. But either way, the virus is real.
Wrong.
The deck is stacked. The game is rigged. Welcome to the Deep Medical State.
As in any truly deep operation, only a small number of elite professionals understand the basic con. The rest are blind, and accepting. Some are willfully blind. They see the truth in a flash of insight, and then they shut up.
However, in this mad “COVID landscape,” minds and doors are opening. The hypnotic haze is receding. The truth is coming out. Doctors, scientists, reporters, and members of the public are discovering and rejecting the Big Con.
SOURCES:
[1] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/10/08/the-smoking-gun-where-is-the-coronavirus-the-cdc-says-it-isnt-available/
[2] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/10/09/covid-the-virus-that-isnt-there-the-root-fraud-exposed/
[3] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/10/12/the-fake-coronavirus-and-the-missing-study-the-secret-in-plain-sight/
[4] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/10/13/yet-another-case-of-the-missing-virus-they-lied-and-locked-down-the-world/
[5] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/tag/wuhan/
Reprinted with permission from Jon Rappoport’s blog.
The Best of Jon Rappoport


lewrockwell--2020-10-15--This is Going to be One for the Record Books

Just because society experiences turmoil doesn ’ t mean your personal life has to .
And a depression doesn ’ t have to be depressing .
Most of the real wealth in the world will still exist—it will just change ownership .
We ’ re now at the tail end of a very long , but in many ways a very weak and artificial , economic expansion .
At the same time we ’ ve had one of the strongest securities bull markets in history .
Both are the result of trillions of new dollars created over the last decade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ willing to consider the possibility of tough times—let alone The Greater Depression .
But , perverse though it may seem , this is the very best time to think about it .
The U.S. economy is a house of cards , built on quicksand , with a tsunami on the way .
I urge everyone to read up on the topic .
For now , I ’ ll only briefly touch on the nature of depressions .
There are at least three good definitions of the term : The Great Depression ( ... @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : $ 17.07 • A period of time when most people ’ s standard of living drops significantly .
• A period of time when distortions and misallocations of capital are liquidated .
• A period of time when the business cycle climaxes .
Using the first definition , any natural disaster can cause a depression .
So can living above your means for long enough .
But the worst kind of depression has not just economic effects , but economic causes .
That ’ s where definitions 2 and 3 come in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way the market operates , causing people to do things they ’ d otherwise consider unreasonable or uneconomic ?
Only government action , i.e.
, coercion .
This takes the form of regulation , taxes , and currency inflation .
Always under noble pretexts , government is constantly directly and indirectly inducing people to buy and sell things they otherwise wouldn ’ t , to do things they ’ d prefer not to , and to invest in things that make no sense .
America ’ s Great ... Rothbard , Murray Buy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subtly reduce a society ’ s general standard of living , but the serious trouble happens when such misallocations build up to an unsustainable degree and reality forces them into liquidation .
The result is bankrupted companies , defaulted debt , and unemployed workers .
The business cycle is caused mainly by currency inflation , which is accomplished today by the monetization of government debt through the banking system ; essentially , when the government runs a deficit , the Federal Reserve buys its debt , and credits the government ’ s account @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Using the printing press to create new money is largely passé in today ’ s electronic world .
Either way , inflation sends false signals to businessmen ( especially those who get the money early on , as it filters through the economy ) , making them overestimate demand for their products .
That causes them to hire more workers and make capital investments—often with borrowed money .
This is called “ stimulating the economy.
” Inflating the currency can actually drive down interest rates for a while , because the price of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the increased supply of money .
This causes people to save less and borrow more , just as Americans have been doing for years .
A lot of that newly created money goes into the stock market , driving it higher .
The Great Depression : ... McElvaine , Robert S. Best Price : $ 1.90 Buy New $ 11.93 It all looks pretty good , until retail prices start rising as a delayed consequence of the increased money supply , and interest rates skyrocket to reflect the depreciation of the currency .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , government typically starts the process all over again with a new and larger “ stimulus package.
” The more often this happens , the more ingrained become the distortions in the way people consume and invest , and the nastier the eventual depression .
This is why I predict the Greater Depression will be … well … greater .
This is going to be one for the record books .
Much different , much longer lasting , and much worse than the unpleasantness of 1929-1946 .
The Best of Doug Casey

Just because society experiences turmoil doesn’t mean your personal life has to. And a depression doesn’t have to be depressing. Most of the real wealth in the world will still exist—it will just change ownership.
What is a depression?
We’re now at the tail end of a very long, but in many ways a very weak and artificial, economic expansion. At the same time we’ve had one of the strongest securities bull markets in history. Both are the result of trillions of new dollars created over the last decade. Right now very few people are willing to consider the possibility of tough times—let alone The Greater Depression.
But, perverse though it may seem, this is the very best time to think about it. The U.S. economy is a house of cards, built on quicksand, with a tsunami on the way. I urge everyone to read up on the topic. For now, I’ll only briefly touch on the nature of depressions. There are at least three good definitions of the term: The Great Depression (... Shannon, David A. Best Price: $17.07 (as of 04:24 UTC - Details)
A period of time when most people’s standard of living drops significantly. A period of time when distortions and misallocations of capital are liquidated. A period of time when the business cycle climaxes.
Using the first definition, any natural disaster can cause a depression. So can living above your means for long enough. But the worst kind of depression has not just economic effects, but economic causes. That’s where definitions 2 and 3 come in.
What can cause distortions in the way the market operates, causing people to do things they’d otherwise consider unreasonable or uneconomic? Only government action, i.e., coercion. This takes the form of regulation, taxes, and currency inflation.
Always under noble pretexts, government is constantly directly and indirectly inducing people to buy and sell things they otherwise wouldn’t, to do things they’d prefer not to, and to invest in things that make no sense. America’s Great ... Rothbard, Murray Buy New $12.95 (as of 06:14 UTC - Details)
These misallocations of capital subtly reduce a society’s general standard of living, but the serious trouble happens when such misallocations build up to an unsustainable degree and reality forces them into liquidation. The result is bankrupted companies, defaulted debt, and unemployed workers.
The business cycle is caused mainly by currency inflation, which is accomplished today by the monetization of government debt through the banking system; essentially, when the government runs a deficit, the Federal Reserve buys its debt, and credits the government’s account at a commercial bank with dollars. Using the printing press to create new money is largely passé in today’s electronic world.
Either way, inflation sends false signals to businessmen (especially those who get the money early on, as it filters through the economy), making them overestimate demand for their products. That causes them to hire more workers and make capital investments—often with borrowed money. This is called “stimulating the economy.”
Inflating the currency can actually drive down interest rates for a while, because the price of money (interest) is lowered by the increased supply of money. This causes people to save less and borrow more, just as Americans have been doing for years. A lot of that newly created money goes into the stock market, driving it higher.
The Great Depression: ... McElvaine, Robert S. Best Price: $1.90 Buy New $11.93 (as of 04:24 UTC - Details) It all looks pretty good, until retail prices start rising as a delayed consequence of the increased money supply, and interest rates skyrocket to reflect the depreciation of the currency.
That’s when businesses start failing. Stocks fall. Bond prices collapse. Large numbers of workers lose employment.
Rather than let the market adjust itself, government typically starts the process all over again with a new and larger “stimulus package.” The more often this happens, the more ingrained become the distortions in the way people consume and invest, and the nastier the eventual depression.
This is why I predict the Greater Depression will be … well … greater. This is going to be one for the record books. Much different, much longer lasting, and much worse than the unpleasantness of 1929-1946.
Reprinted with permission from International Man.
The Best of Doug Casey


lewrockwell--2020-10-15--Slaughter in the Cities

Slaughter in the Cities

Establishment voices are finally , grudgingly admitting that murders and shootings are up spectacularly in 2020 .
But the reasons , they all agree , are immensely complicated and rather boring .
Perhaps , they muse , it has something to do with lockdowns ?
Or there could be any number of other subtly interacting factors .
Who can tell ?
In any case , this mysterious rise in violence is beyond the comprehension , much less the control , of politicians .
For example , Nate Silver ’ s FiveThirtyEight headlined : Trump Doesn ’ t Know Why Crime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Or Any Other Politician .
…We don ’ t actually know why crime went up this year .
To be fair , we don ’ t truly know why crime goes up…well , ever .
Nor do we know how to make it go down in the long term .
Boarded Up Chicago : St ...
Slaughter , Zachary Best Price : $ 62.00 Buy New $ 45.99 So there ’ s no reason to consider the sudden rise in slaughter in the cities when casting your vote this fall .
Crime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate change where voting matters .
Instead , the rise and fall of crime is a vast , mysterious process , reminiscent of continental drift in its inevitability , which public policy and media opinion couldn ’ t possibly affect .
Indeed , wouldn ’ t you rather read about some outrageous tweet by Trump than about this intensely tedious giant outbreak of gunfire ?
Consider this Chicago Tribune graph of shootings ( i.e.
, number of people killed or wounded by bullets ) in the Windy City : Despite the weirdness of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 2020 had been a pretty normal year for shootings in Chicago up through late May .
Yet notice the sudden kink after Memorial Day in the blue line representing the total number of those shot so far this year .
Over a single week at the end of May , Chicago shifted to a new , more violent slope .
Up through May 26 , 2020 , Chicago had seen 15 percent more shooting victims year-to-date than in 2019 .
But from May 27 through Oct. 5 , shootings were up a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anything happen in late May that encouraged criminals and discouraged cops ?
The data journalists appear stumped when they try to think back that far .
But , as you may recall ( it was in the news at the time ) , George Floyd died in police custody on May 25 , and three days later the Democratic mayor of Minneapolis let rioters burn down a police station .
From there , looting and rioting spread nationwide as the press and universities extolled the Mostly Peaceful Protesters .
Once again , 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the severe death toll NYC had absorbed in early April from the pandemic .
New York City , which has probably been the best policed big city in America in this century , did not see a rise in shootings as fast as Chicago did .
But then in the first week of June 2020 , gunplay ramped up and subsequently exploded in the second week of the month , the time of Floyd ’ s jaw-dropping funeral , with 72 victims versus 14 in the same week of 2019 .
This City @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Best Price : $ 8.42 Buy New $ 9.73 Through the end of May , 2020 shootings had been up 18 percent over 2019 in New York City .
But in June through September , the number of killed or wounded has been an insane 156 percent higher than last year .
National trends have been similar to Chicago and New York .
According to Wikipedia ’ s list of mass shooting incidents ( which it defines as four or more wounded or killed ) , the number of people struck in mass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year through the end of May .
But in June through September , the number of victims of mass shootings grew by 61 percent from 1,005 in 2019 to 1,621 in the Summer of George .
One bit of good news has been that the mass shooters ’ aim has been worse in 2020 than in 2019 , with a higher ratio of wounded to killed .
One reason is because highly lethal school and church mass shootings have declined from ten at this point in 2019 to only two this year , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ churches have so often been closed due to the virus .
Another cause is because even more than in 2019 when blacks , at 13.4 percent of the population , accounted for 55.9 percent of all murder offenders in the recently released FBI statistics , blacks appear to have been responsible for most of the mass shootings during the Summer of George .

Establishment voices are finally, grudgingly admitting that murders and shootings are up spectacularly in 2020. But the reasons, they all agree, are immensely complicated and rather boring.
Perhaps, they muse, it has something to do with lockdowns? Or there could be any number of other subtly interacting factors. Who can tell? In any case, this mysterious rise in violence is beyond the comprehension, much less the control, of politicians. For example, Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight headlined:
Trump Doesn’t Know Why Crime Rises or Falls. Neither Does Biden. Or Any Other Politician. …We don’t actually know why crime went up this year. To be fair, we don’t truly know why crime goes up…well, ever. Nor do we know how to make it go down in the long term.
Boarded Up Chicago: St... Slaughter, Zachary Best Price: $62.00 Buy New $45.99 (as of 04:25 UTC - Details) So there’s no reason to consider the sudden rise in slaughter in the cities when casting your vote this fall. Crime isn’t something immediately threatening like climate change where voting matters. Instead, the rise and fall of crime is a vast, mysterious process, reminiscent of continental drift in its inevitability, which public policy and media opinion couldn’t possibly affect. Indeed, wouldn’t you rather read about some outrageous tweet by Trump than about this intensely tedious giant outbreak of gunfire?
Seriously, the current shooting spree in our cities is one of the simplest, most flagrantly obvious phenomena in the history of the social sciences.
Consider this Chicago Tribune graph of shootings (i.e., number of people killed or wounded by bullets) in the Windy City:
Despite the weirdness of the coronavirus lockdowns that began in March, 2020 had been a pretty normal year for shootings in Chicago up through late May. Yet notice the sudden kink after Memorial Day in the blue line representing the total number of those shot so far this year. Over a single week at the end of May, Chicago shifted to a new, more violent slope.
Up through May 26, 2020, Chicago had seen 15 percent more shooting victims year-to-date than in 2019. But from May 27 through Oct. 5, shootings were up a stunning 74 percent over 2019.
Did anything happen in late May that encouraged criminals and discouraged cops? The data journalists appear stumped when they try to think back that far. But, as you may recall (it was in the news at the time), George Floyd died in police custody on May 25, and three days later the Democratic mayor of Minneapolis let rioters burn down a police station. From there, looting and rioting spread nationwide as the press and universities extolled the Mostly Peaceful Protesters.
Similarly, here’s the NYPD’s graph of shooting victims in New York City with 2019 in red and 2020 in yellow:
Once again, 2020 was running strangely similar to 2019 despite the severe death toll NYC had absorbed in early April from the pandemic.
New York City, which has probably been the best policed big city in America in this century, did not see a rise in shootings as fast as Chicago did. But then in the first week of June 2020, gunplay ramped up and subsequently exploded in the second week of the month, the time of Floyd’s jaw-dropping funeral, with 72 victims versus 14 in the same week of 2019. This City Is Killing M... Foiles, Jonathan Best Price: $8.42 Buy New $9.73 (as of 04:25 UTC - Details)
Through the end of May, 2020 shootings had been up 18 percent over 2019 in New York City. But in June through September, the number of killed or wounded has been an insane 156 percent higher than last year.
“Wouldn’t you rather read about some outrageous tweet by Trump than about this intensely tedious giant outbreak of gunfire?”
National trends have been similar to Chicago and New York. According to Wikipedia’s list of mass shooting incidents (which it defines as four or more wounded or killed), the number of people struck in mass shootings was up 14 percent over last year through the end of May. But in June through September, the number of victims of mass shootings grew by 61 percent from 1,005 in 2019 to 1,621 in the Summer of George.
One bit of good news has been that the mass shooters’ aim has been worse in 2020 than in 2019, with a higher ratio of wounded to killed. One reason is because highly lethal school and church mass shootings have declined from ten at this point in 2019 to only two this year, no doubt in part because schools and churches have so often been closed due to the virus.
Another cause is because even more than in 2019 when blacks, at 13.4 percent of the population, accounted for 55.9 percent of all murder offenders in the recently released FBI statistics, blacks appear to have been responsible for most of the mass shootings during the Summer of George.
Read the Whole Article


lewrockwell--2020-10-15--Another Dumb White Liberal Feminist Makes a Fool of Herself

Mary Bucholtz is professor and chairperson of the Linguistis Department at the University of California at Santa Barbara .
She @ @ @ @ @ including herself , to be racists .
Indeed , she claims America is suffering a @ @ @ @ @ Let ’ s see now , if white Americans are white supremacist racists , why @ @ @ @ @ country fill up with people of color and reduce the white percentage of the population @ @ @ @ @ to 60 % and falling ?
Would white racists vote in an immigration law that @ @ @ @ @ and fills the country up with black people ?
Would white supremacists impose affirmative action @ @ @ @ @ to elevate blacks ?
Apparently , these questions are too profound for the faculty and @ @ @ @ @ California .
You can read the IQ-handicapped Mary Bucholtz ’ s argument here .
The @ @ @ @ @

Mary Bucholtz is professor and chairperson of the Linguistis Department at the University of California at Santa Barbara. She declared all white Americans, including herself, to be racists. Indeed, she claims America is suffering a pandemic of white supremacy.
Let’s see now, if white Americans are white supremacist racists, why did they let their white country fill up with people of color and reduce the white percentage of the population from close to 100% to 60% and falling? PLREOSEVNTE Women&rsqu... Buy New $49.99 (as of 09:09 UTC - Details)
Would white racists vote in an immigration law that essentially keeps white people out and fills the country up with black people?
Would white supremacists impose affirmative action against white people in order to elevate blacks?
Would white supremacist racists elect a black president?
Apparently, these questions are too profound for the faculty and administration of the University of California.
You can read the IQ-handicapped Mary Bucholtz’s argument here.
The Best of Paul Craig Roberts


lewrockwell--2020-10-15--His Childlike Faith in Politics

His Childlike Faith in Politics

Now , I have not lost my ideals in the least ; my faith in fundamentals is exactly what it always was .
What I have lost is my old childlike faith in practical politics .
Chesterton was told , by those older and wiser , that as he matured , he would lose his ideals and focus on the practical .
It turns out exactly the opposite occurred .
It is not his ideals that have been lost , but his faith in those who pretend to speak for those ideals : As much as I ever did , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe in Liberalism .
But there was a rosy time of innocence when I believed in Liberals .
He was raised a liberal , and has always believed in democracy – meaning “ a self-governing humanity.
” This is based on two principles : first , the things in common to all men are more important than the things peculiar to each man ; second , the political instinct is one of those things held in common .
Orthodoxy Chesterton , G. K. Best Price : $ 2.65 Buy New $ 6.99 This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will explain : the political instinct is made manifest in the laws of the state .
But Chesterton does not see this as time bound ; tradition plays a fundamental role : It is obvious that tradition is only democracy extended through time .
It is trusting to a consensus of common human voices rather than to some isolated or arbitrary record .
Tradition is nothing more than the extension of the franchise , taking into account the knowledge and wisdom of those who came before , who learned lessons in our stead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Tradition refuses to submit to the oligarch of the moment : All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth ; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death .
A good man ’ s opinion is of value , whether he is alive today or in some time past .
And in this journey , Chesterton finds that all that he discovers has been discovered in the past – it had been discovered by Christianity .
But before coming to this , he begins with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but the sunny country of common sense .
It is not earth that judges heaven , but heaven that judges earth ; so for me at least it was not earth that criticised elfland , but elfland that criticised the earth .
Jack the Giant killer killed giants because they are gigantic – a mutiny against pride ; the lesson of Cinderella he compares to the Magnificat ; Beauty and the Beast teaches that a thing must be loved before it is lovable ; Sleeping Beauty is blessed with all gifts , yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t these details , but “ the whole spirit of its law , ” a way of looking at life , that Chesterton finds of value .
In fairyland we avoid the word “ law ” ; but in the land of science they are singularly fond of it .
We understand why liberty is taken from the man who takes liberties , but we can not say why an egg turns into a chicken , or a bear turns into a prince .
Which is the more strange ?
After all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prince than a chicken is to an egg .
We must answer the same way that the fairy godmother answered Cinderella about how mice turned into horses : In Defense of Sainty : ... Chesterton , G.K. Best Price : $ 10.00 Buy New $ 13.99 We must answer that it is MAGIC .
It is not a “ law , ” for we do not understand its general formula .
…All the terms used in the science books , “ law , ” “ necessity , ” “ order , ” “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are really unintellectual , because they assume an inner synthesis , which we do not possess .
The only words that ever satisfied me as describing Nature are the terms used in the fairy books , “ charm , ” “ spell , ” “ enchantment.
” We enjoy love tales because of our instinct of sex ; we enjoy astonishing tales because of our instinct of astonishment .
The youngest children don ’ t even need fairy tales to be astonished ; mere tales will suffice : A child of seven is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a door and saw a dragon .
But a child of three is excited by being told that Tommy opened a door .
In his journey , Chesterton discovered that the strongest emotion came from realizing that life was as precious as it was puzzling .
From this , he came to gratitude , but at the time he did not know to whom he should be grateful .
For two legs ?
For , not just a birthday present , but for his birth day ?
If Cinderella asks why she must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fairy godmother might reply : ask how you are even going at all !
We rebel against that which we understand all too well ; we obey that which we do not understand at all : In the fairy tale an incomprehensible happiness rests upon an incomprehensible condition .
A box is opened , and all evils fly out .
A word is forgotten , and cities perish .
A lamp is lit , and love flies away .
A flower is plucked , and human lives are forfeited .
An apple is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is gone .
While Chesterton ’ s fairy tales were left on the nursery floor , he has not found any books as sensible since then .
Are we to resist rules simply because they are mysterious ?
Coming to us from our fathers and from our fairy tales , we can understand why these might be mysterious even if we can not understand why these might be rules .
Keeping to one woman is a small price for so much as seeing one woman .
To complain that I could only be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had only been born once .
It was incommensurate with the terrible excitement of which one was talking .
It showed , not an exaggerated sensibility to sex , but a curious insensibility to it .
A man is a fool who complains that he can not enter Eden by five gates at once .
It took Chesterton some time to understand that the modern world was wrong on many things while his nurse was quite right .
The modern world has stripped us of convictions found in the fairy tales : Whatu2019s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Price : $ 5.15 Buy New $ 4.78 …I found the whole modern world talking scientific fatalism ; saying that everything is as it must always have been , being unfolded without fault from the beginning .
The materialist is in prison , the prison of this one thought .
While the cosmos might be infinite , there was nothing interesting to it – not in the way that forgiveness or free will are interesting .
In fairyland there had been a real law ; a law that could be broken , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that can be broken .
But the machinery of this cosmic prison was something that could not be broken ; for we ourselves were only a part of its machinery .
We are either unable to do things or we are destined to do them .
In such a world , what is the point of law ?
As Chesterton wrestled with this , he found the entire enterprise ever more shallow .
And where did he arrive , at least to this point : • …first , that this world does not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ miracle with a supernatural explanation ; it may be a conjuring trick , with a natural explanation .
But the explanation of the conjuring trick , if it is to satisfy me , will have to be better than the natural explanations I have heard .
• Second , I came to feel as if magic must have a meaning , and meaning must have some one to mean it .
There was something personal in the world , as in a work of art ; whatever it meant it meant violently .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ beautiful in its old design , in spite of its defects , such as dragons .
• Fourth , that the proper form of thanks to it is some form of humility and restraint : we should thank God for beer and Burgundy by not drinking too much of them .
We owed , also , an obedience to whatever made us .
• And last , and strangest , there had come into my mind a vague and vast impression that in some way all good was a remnant to be stored @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ruin .
And all this without giving a thought to Christian theology .
The Best of Bionic Mosquito

Now, I have not lost my ideals in the least; my faith in fundamentals is exactly what it always was. What I have lost is my old childlike faith in practical politics.
Orthodoxy, G.K. Chesterton (ebook)
Chesterton was told, by those older and wiser, that as he matured, he would lose his ideals and focus on the practical. It turns out exactly the opposite occurred. It is not his ideals that have been lost, but his faith in those who pretend to speak for those ideals:
As much as I ever did, more than I ever did, I believe in Liberalism. But there was a rosy time of innocence when I believed in Liberals.
He was raised a liberal, and has always believed in democracy – meaning “a self-governing humanity.” This is based on two principles: first, the things in common to all men are more important than the things peculiar to each man; second, the political instinct is one of those things held in common. Orthodoxy Chesterton, G. K. Best Price: $2.65 Buy New $6.99 (as of 04:50 UTC - Details)
This might seem slightly off, but Chesterton will explain: the political instinct is made manifest in the laws of the state. But Chesterton does not see this as time bound; tradition plays a fundamental role:
It is obvious that tradition is only democracy extended through time. It is trusting to a consensus of common human voices rather than to some isolated or arbitrary record.
Tradition is nothing more than the extension of the franchise, taking into account the knowledge and wisdom of those who came before, who learned lessons in our stead and passed these lessons on to us. Tradition refuses to submit to the oligarch of the moment:
All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death.
A good man’s opinion is of value, whether he is alive today or in some time past. And in this journey, Chesterton finds that all that he discovers has been discovered in the past – it had been discovered by Christianity. But before coming to this, he begins with his childhood fairytales.
Fairyland is nothing but the sunny country of common sense. It is not earth that judges heaven, but heaven that judges earth; so for me at least it was not earth that criticised elfland, but elfland that criticised the earth.
Jack the Giant killer killed giants because they are gigantic – a mutiny against pride; the lesson of Cinderella he compares to the Magnificat; Beauty and the Beast teaches that a thing must be loved before it is lovable; Sleeping Beauty is blessed with all gifts, yet succumbs to death. Yet it isn’t these details, but “the whole spirit of its law,” a way of looking at life, that Chesterton finds of value.
In fairyland we avoid the word “law”; but in the land of science they are singularly fond of it.
We understand why liberty is taken from the man who takes liberties, but we cannot say why an egg turns into a chicken, or a bear turns into a prince. Which is the more strange? After all, a bear is closer to a prince than a chicken is to an egg. We must answer the same way that the fairy godmother answered Cinderella about how mice turned into horses: In Defense of Sainty: ... Chesterton, G.K. Best Price: $10.00 Buy New $13.99 (as of 04:28 UTC - Details)
We must answer that it is MAGIC. It is not a “law,” for we do not understand its general formula. …All the terms used in the science books, “law,” “necessity,” “order,” “tendency,” and so on, are really unintellectual, because they assume an inner synthesis, which we do not possess. The only words that ever satisfied me as describing Nature are the terms used in the fairy books, “charm,” “spell,” “enchantment.”
We enjoy love tales because of our instinct of sex; we enjoy astonishing tales because of our instinct of astonishment. The youngest children don’t even need fairy tales to be astonished; mere tales will suffice:
A child of seven is excited by being told that Tommy opened a door and saw a dragon. But a child of three is excited by being told that Tommy opened a door.
In his journey, Chesterton discovered that the strongest emotion came from realizing that life was as precious as it was puzzling. From this, he came to gratitude, but at the time he did not know to whom he should be grateful. For two legs? For, not just a birthday present, but for his birth day? If Cinderella asks why she must depart the ball by midnight, the fairy godmother might reply: ask how you are even going at all!
We rebel against that which we understand all too well; we obey that which we do not understand at all:
In the fairy tale an incomprehensible happiness rests upon an incomprehensible condition. A box is opened, and all evils fly out. A word is forgotten, and cities perish. A lamp is lit, and love flies away. A flower is plucked, and human lives are forfeited. An apple is eaten, and the hope of God is gone.
While Chesterton’s fairy tales were left on the nursery floor, he has not found any books as sensible since then. Are we to resist rules simply because they are mysterious? Coming to us from our fathers and from our fairy tales, we can understand why these might be mysterious even if we cannot understand why these might be rules.
Keeping to one woman is a small price for so much as seeing one woman. To complain that I could only be married once was like complaining that I had only been born once. It was incommensurate with the terrible excitement of which one was talking. It showed, not an exaggerated sensibility to sex, but a curious insensibility to it. A man is a fool who complains that he cannot enter Eden by five gates at once.
It took Chesterton some time to understand that the modern world was wrong on many things while his nurse was quite right. The modern world has stripped us of convictions found in the fairy tales: Whatu2019s Wrong with ... G. K. Chesterton Best Price: $5.15 Buy New $4.78 (as of 05:50 UTC - Details)
…I found the whole modern world talking scientific fatalism; saying that everything is as it must always have been, being unfolded without fault from the beginning.
The materialist is in prison, the prison of this one thought. While the cosmos might be infinite, there was nothing interesting to it – not in the way that forgiveness or free will are interesting.
In fairyland there had been a real law; a law that could be broken, for the definition of a law is something that can be broken. But the machinery of this cosmic prison was something that could not be broken; for we ourselves were only a part of its machinery.
We are either unable to do things or we are destined to do them. In such a world, what is the point of law? As Chesterton wrestled with this, he found the entire enterprise ever more shallow. And where did he arrive, at least to this point:
…first, that this world does not explain itself. It may be a miracle with a supernatural explanation; it may be a conjuring trick, with a natural explanation. But the explanation of the conjuring trick, if it is to satisfy me, will have to be better than the natural explanations I have heard.
Second, I came to feel as if magic must have a meaning, and meaning must have some one to mean it. There was something personal in the world, as in a work of art; whatever it meant it meant violently.
Third, I thought this purpose beautiful in its old design, in spite of its defects, such as dragons.
Fourth, that the proper form of thanks to it is some form of humility and restraint: we should thank God for beer and Burgundy by not drinking too much of them. We owed, also, an obedience to whatever made us.
And last, and strangest, there had come into my mind a vague and vast impression that in some way all good was a remnant to be stored and held sacred out of some primordial ruin.
And all this without giving a thought to Christian theology.
Reprinted with permission from Bionic Mosquito.
The Best of Bionic Mosquito