lewrockwell--2020-01-31--10 Common Things You Get Wrong About War (Thanks To Hollywood)

We may have been fighting each other since the dawn of time , though the average person still has little idea of what war is really like .
Our mental image of what happens on the battlefield is heavily influenced by pop culture , particularly the movies .
Unfortunately , the people making those movies have usually never been around a real fight , either , and are mostly just making things up as they go .
While we agree that fiction requires some suspension of disbelief to be enjoyable , that ’ s applicable to genres like science fiction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ war on the big screen comes with its fair share of drawbacks .
Most of us grow up with a glorified idea of what war is really like , as movie writers are busy writing about dual wielding guns rather than the stench of poop in the aftermath of a typical battle .
Dog tags have always been a popular part of casual fashion .
They admittedly look quite cool , which is probably because of being associated with the military .
Because of Hollywood , a lot of us assume that wearing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the forces do all the time .
As any veteran would tell you , though , showing off your dog tag isn ’ t considered to be sound etiquette within the military .
Amazon.com Gift Card i ... Buy New $ 10.00 While it ’ s true that you ’ ve to wear your tags at all times for identification while on duty , most soldiers keep them tucked inside .
Off duty , keeping your dog tag visible in civilian clothes is not in good taste , even – and especially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unlike what the movies tell us .
[ 1 ] From knives to antivirus software to alarm systems , companies across the board brand their products as ‘ military grade ’ , usually to signify higher quality and price .
If we were to ask you what that exactly means , chances are most of us won ’ t be able to tell .
We have this idea of things made by the military to be of higher in quality than consumer-grade products .
As it happens , military-grade quality actually doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of countless gimmicks advertising agencies use to justify exorbitantly higher prices .
While it may be true that civilians don ’ t yet have access to a lot of military tech , it ’ s because it ’ s classified for security reasons and not because they ’ re somehow making better things in there .
[ 2 ] 8 Almost No One Uses Automatic Fire As we ’ ve mentioned before , movies exaggerate the effects of various weapons to make them look more impressive on screen .
Take grenades as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s lower legs isn ’ t as impressive as a house blowing up with six people flying in the air .
Apart from giving us a faulty idea of what a battle is really like , it also affects decision-making during real-time disaster situations .
One particularly glaring difference between real and fictional wars is ‘ automatic fire ’ in assault rifles .
While military rifles do have a setting to turn the automatic , continuous burst mode on , almost no one uses it in real battles .
Apart from bullets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – a fact we ’ d come to in a bit – the distances in a real battle are simply too great for automatic fire to be any efficient .
That ’ s not to say that automatic fire isn ’ t used in real wars , though those guns are usually heavier and mounted on a bipod or tripod .
[ 3 ]

We may have been fighting each other since the dawn of time, though the average person still has little idea of what war is really like. Our mental image of what happens on the battlefield is heavily influenced by pop culture, particularly the movies. Unfortunately, the people making those movies have usually never been around a real fight, either, and are mostly just making things up as they go.
While we agree that fiction requires some suspension of disbelief to be enjoyable, that’s applicable to genres like science fiction and horror. Misrepresenting serious subjects like war on the big screen comes with its fair share of drawbacks. Most of us grow up with a glorified idea of what war is really like, as movie writers are busy writing about dual wielding guns rather than the stench of poop in the aftermath of a typical battle.
10 Showing Off Your Dog Tag Isn’t Cool
Dog tags have always been a popular part of casual fashion. They admittedly look quite cool, which is probably because of being associated with the military. Because of Hollywood, a lot of us assume that wearing dog tags as necklaces is something people in the forces do all the time. As any veteran would tell you, though, showing off your dog tag isn’t considered to be sound etiquette within the military. Amazon.com Gift Card i... Buy New $10.00 (as of 08:25 UTC - Details)
While it’s true that you’ve to wear your tags at all times for identification while on duty, most soldiers keep them tucked inside. Off duty, keeping your dog tag visible in civilian clothes is not in good taste, even – and especially – if you’re topless, unlike what the movies tell us.[1]
9 ‘Military Grade’ Is An Advertising Gimmick
From knives to antivirus software to alarm systems, companies across the board brand their products as ‘military grade’, usually to signify higher quality and price. If we were to ask you what that exactly means, chances are most of us won’t be able to tell. We have this idea of things made by the military to be of higher in quality than consumer-grade products.
As it happens, military-grade quality actually doesn’t exist, and is yet another one of countless gimmicks advertising agencies use to justify exorbitantly higher prices. While it may be true that civilians don’t yet have access to a lot of military tech, it’s because it’s classified for security reasons and not because they’re somehow making better things in there.[2]
8 Almost No One Uses Automatic Fire
As we’ve mentioned before, movies exaggerate the effects of various weapons to make them look more impressive on screen. Take grenades as an example; invisible shrapnel paralyzing someone’s lower legs isn’t as impressive as a house blowing up with six people flying in the air. Apart from giving us a faulty idea of what a battle is really like, it also affects decision-making during real-time disaster situations.
One particularly glaring difference between real and fictional wars is ‘automatic fire’ in assault rifles. While military rifles do have a setting to turn the automatic, continuous burst mode on, almost no one uses it in real battles. Apart from bullets costing a lot of money to buy – a fact we’d come to in a bit – the distances in a real battle are simply too great for automatic fire to be any efficient. That’s not to say that automatic fire isn’t used in real wars, though those guns are usually heavier and mounted on a bipod or tripod.[3]
Read the Whole Article


And Rightly So

And Rightly So : Selected Letters and Articles of Neil McCaffrey .
Edited by Peter S. Kwasniewski .
Roman Catholic Books , 2019 .
386 pages .
Reading this book brought back many memories .
It consists mostly of Neil McCaffrey ’ s letters , several of his articles and memos , and a few letters to him .
Neil McCaffrey was an extraordinary man who became my friend and professional mentor on many levels .
Neil had founded the Conservative Book Club in 1964 , and built a booming market among National Review and Human Events readers .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough books for people to buy .
That ’ s why Neil founded Arlington House in 1965 , and named it after Robert E. Lee ’ s ancestral home , stolen by Lincoln for a Union cemetery .
( I still hope to see it returned someday . )
McCaffrey had hoped to create a major publishing house that would bring conservative classics and contemporary titles to a broad public for the first time in the post-war period .
There was a series of books forecasting the death of the gold standard and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Harry Browne , preeminently .
The only bestseller Arlington ever had was Harry ’ s How You Can Profit From the Coming Devaluation , and I worked as his editor .
I also edited George Roche ’ s books , and the works of other many conservative leaders .
I was peripherally involved in the publication of Henry Hazlitt ’ s books .
Preeminently , I served as editor for new editions of Mises ’ s Theory and History , Bureaucracy , and Omnipotent Government .
Reading those books , I became a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to meet him at dinner in 1968 .
He was already in serious decline , but it was still wonderful .
That is also when I got to know his wife , Margit , who later helped me found the Mises Institute .
In economics , Neil ’ s guide was Mises .
One of Neil ’ s favorite topics was the moral and economic justification of charging interest .
He was also a brilliant student of Catholic theology , literature , and history , and a saintly man .
Nothing mattered as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and this led to a problem .
His Catholicism was the Church he had grown up in .
He loved the old Latin Mass and admired Pope St. Pius X ’ s battle against modernism .
Thus when under Paul VI in 1970 the “ Novus Ordo ” replaced the Latin Mass , which was almost completely banned , Neil was shocked .
“ When a Church that subsists on tradition bans this mass , abruptly and even ruthlessly , we are faced with a phenomenon that ought to unsettle a high-grade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a problem .
The Pope is head of the Church .
How could Neil defy his authority ?
His careful study of theology gave him the answer .
The Pope was only infallible under extremely demanding conditions , which were almost never met in practice .
Otherwise , Popes can make mistakes , and many of them have .
“ Popes can err and often have erred in their existential judgments on concrete temporal situations , which have nothing to do with papal infallibility .
One of the alarming developments in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Popes , and no group is more guilty of this than American Catholics.
” ( p.230 ) He thought that John XXIII and Paul VI were the two worst Popes in history .
We can only imagine what he would have said about Pope Francis .
Neil thus thought it was not only his right but his duty to fight against these Popes and against the Second Vatican Council .
He followed the same course of action when he defended the free market against so-called “ Catholic social teaching.
” Neil said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] Peter ’ s mandate that made him or his successors economists.
” ( p.33 ) .In Neil ’ s opinion , Mises , Hazlitt , and Murray Rothbard were far better guides to economics .
Murray sent Neil a presentation copy of Man , Economy , and State , and in response , Neil said in a letter dated May 29 , 1962 , “ Joan [ Neil ’ s beloved wife , Joan McCaffrey ] and I are most grateful , and honored , for the inscribed set of your new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it will come to be regarded as a classic.
” ( p.43 ) When you work your way through this book , it becomes more and more clear how close Neil was to Murray Rothbard .
They were friends for over thirty years , and Arlington House published the first four volumes of Murray ’ s great Conceived in Liberty series .
The two of them shared a love of jazz from the 1930s and 40s , and the book includes a section of letters where they talk about their favorite musicians .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But it had to be a libertarianism based on natural-law morality , like Murray ’ s , not nihilism .
In a memo to me dated October 29 , 1989 , he said .
“ As you distance yourselves from the barbarians and the libertines , the distance between us narrows .
All the better .
.
.Bravo for your remarks on egalitarianism , which I regard as an even greater menace to liberty than the state ( in our society ) because it pervades every institution .
.
.
We are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ God.
’ Of course it ’ s blasphemous .
You and I can see that none of us is equal .
We are all different , hence unequal .
Is God less perceptive than we ?
.
.
.
to hear today ’ s religious leaders talk , God made a terrible mistake creating men and races so plainly unequal , so they busy themselves trying to make good His cosmic blunder .
.
.The same remarks apply , of course , to equality before the law .
It is a severely limited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pp.119-120 ) During the Cold War , Neil and Murray carefully avoided talking about foreign policy .
Like Murray , he thought that almost all of America ’ s wars were unjustified , including the Civil War , World War I , and World War II .
But he made a one-time exception for the Cold War , which he regarded as a life and death battle for survival against an insidious enemy .
After the Cold War ended , he and Murray now saw eye-to-eye .
“ We really did consider Communism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and were therefore more willing than you to tolerate liberal anti-Communists .
I still think that this was the correct posture for the period .
But now , of course , we are in an entirely new situation and the notion of making common cause with Sidney Hook types is not far from grotesque .
And this is doubly true as modern liberalism plunges ahead on its rake ’ s progress .
I now think it represents a greater danger to souls and to civilization than even Communism.
” ( p.328 ) When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a return to our traditional policy of nonintervention .
It came as a shock to him that Bill Buckley did not .
Like Neil , Buckley claimed to be a supporter of limited government , the free market , and nonintervention .
But this had to be put away for the duration of the Cold War .
But after the Cold War , Buckley still wanted to preserve American hegemony .
In other words , Neil was honest , and Buckley was a phony .
This mattered to Neil because Buckley had been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s extraordinary skill in promotional letters had helped National Review get off the ground , and he constantly promoted Buckley ’ s causes and interests .
Buckley responded with betrayal .
Neil had partners in his business , and he lost control , with Buckley playing a malicious role .
The company was sold to Roy Disney in the mid-1970s , and eventually phased out .
By the end of his life , Neil recognized what had happened and he penned a devastating analysis of Buckley ’ s character .
Neil , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his opposition to American intervention in the Mideast and for his defense of traditional values .
Buckley sought to undermine Buchanan by insinuating that Buchanan was anti-Semitic .
Here is what Neil said : “ The only effective way to deal with Buckley is not to deal with him at all .
To reply is to dignify his attack , to make it respectable and even friendly His aim : to destroy with a smile .
In his peculiar code , this is the behavior of a gentleman .
.
.His tactic through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ destroyed somebody or allowed that person to be destroyed , has been the ‘ civilized ’ stab in the back.
” ( p.323 ) Neil McCaffrey was one of the greats .
If you read this outstanding book , you will get a sense of why he mattered to so many of us .
I closed this book with hope that a new generation will profit from Neil ’ s wisdom but also with sadness “ in thinking of the days that are no more.
” Omnipotent Government : ... Ludwig von Mises @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 1.99 Man , Economy , and Stat ... Murray N. Rothbard Best Price : $ 23.43 Buy New $ 29.95 Bureaucracy ( Lib Works ... Ludwig von Mises Best Price : $ 5.50 Buy New $ 10.50 Theory of Money and Cr ... Ludwig von Mises Best Price : $ 2.46 Buy New $ 8.54 The Best of Llewellyn H. Rockwell , Jr .

And Rightly So: Selected Letters and Articles of Neil McCaffrey. Edited by Peter S. Kwasniewski. Roman Catholic Books, 2019. 386 pages.
Reading this book brought back many memories. It consists mostly of Neil McCaffrey’s letters, several of his articles and memos, and a few letters to him. Neil McCaffrey was an extraordinary man who became my friend and professional mentor on many levels. Neil had founded the Conservative Book Club in 1964, and built a booming market among National Review and Human Events readers. But he soon noted that there were not enough books for people to buy.
That’s why Neil founded Arlington House in 1965, and named it after Robert E. Lee’s ancestral home, stolen by Lincoln for a Union cemetery. (I still hope to see it returned someday.) McCaffrey had hoped to create a major publishing house that would bring conservative classics and contemporary titles to a broad public for the first time in the post-war period.
There was a series of books forecasting the death of the gold standard and its consequences, by Bill Rickenbacker and Harry Browne, preeminently. The only bestseller Arlington ever had was Harry’s How You Can Profit From the Coming Devaluation, and I worked as his editor. I also edited George Roche’s books, and the works of other many conservative leaders. I was peripherally involved in the publication of Henry Hazlitt’s books.
Preeminently, I served as editor for new editions of Mises’s Theory and History, Bureaucracy, and Omnipotent Government. Reading those books, I became a thoroughgoing Misesian. I was so thrilled to meet him at dinner in 1968. He was already in serious decline, but it was still wonderful. That is also when I got to know his wife, Margit, who later helped me found the Mises Institute.
In economics, Neil’s guide was Mises. One of Neil’s favorite topics was the moral and economic justification of charging interest. He was also a brilliant student of Catholic theology, literature, and history, and a saintly man.
Nothing mattered as much to Neil as his Catholic faith, and this led to a problem. His Catholicism was the Church he had grown up in. He loved the old Latin Mass and admired Pope St. Pius X’s battle against modernism. Thus when under Paul VI in 1970 the “Novus Ordo” replaced the Latin Mass, which was almost completely banned, Neil was shocked. “When a Church that subsists on tradition bans this mass, abruptly and even ruthlessly, we are faced with a phenomenon that ought to unsettle a high-grade moron.” (p.165)
This led to a problem. The Pope is head of the Church. How could Neil defy his authority? His careful study of theology gave him the answer. The Pope was only infallible under extremely demanding conditions, which were almost never met in practice. Otherwise, Popes can make mistakes, and many of them have. “Popes can err and often have erred in their existential judgments on concrete temporal situations, which have nothing to do with papal infallibility. One of the alarming developments in the modern Church is the tendency to deify the Popes, and no group is more guilty of this than American Catholics.” (p.230) He thought that John XXIII and Paul VI were the two worst Popes in history. We can only imagine what he would have said about Pope Francis. Neil thus thought it was not only his right but his duty to fight against these Popes and against the Second Vatican Council.
He followed the same course of action when he defended the free market against so-called “Catholic social teaching.” Neil said “there is nothing in [Saint] Peter’s mandate that made him or his successors economists.” (p.33).In Neil’s opinion, Mises, Hazlitt, and Murray Rothbard were far better guides to economics. Murray sent Neil a presentation copy of Man, Economy, and State, and in response, Neil said in a letter dated May 29, 1962, “Joan [Neil’s beloved wife, Joan McCaffrey] and I are most grateful, and honored, for the inscribed set of your new opus. We hope and believe that it will come to be regarded as a classic.” (p.43)
When you work your way through this book, it becomes more and more clear how close Neil was to Murray Rothbard. They were friends for over thirty years, and Arlington House published the first four volumes of Murray’s great Conceived in Liberty series. The two of them shared a love of jazz from the 1930s and 40s, and the book includes a section of letters where they talk about their favorite musicians.
Neil found much to like in libertarianism. But it had to be a libertarianism based on natural-law morality, like Murray’s, not nihilism. In a memo to me dated October 29, 1989, he said. “As you distance yourselves from the barbarians and the libertines, the distance between us narrows. All the better. . .Bravo for your remarks on egalitarianism, which I regard as an even greater menace to liberty than the state (in our society) because it pervades every institution. . . We are drugged by the cliché ‘equal before God.’ Of course it’s blasphemous. You and I can see that none of us is equal. We are all different, hence unequal. Is God less perceptive than we?. . . to hear today’s religious leaders talk, God made a terrible mistake creating men and races so plainly unequal, so they busy themselves trying to make good His cosmic blunder. . .The same remarks apply, of course, to equality before the law. It is a severely limited equality, and should be.” (pp.119-120)
During the Cold War, Neil and Murray carefully avoided talking about foreign policy. Like Murray, he thought that almost all of America’s wars were unjustified, including the Civil War, World War I, and World War II. But he made a one-time exception for the Cold War, which he regarded as a life and death battle for survival against an insidious enemy. After the Cold War ended, he and Murray now saw eye-to-eye. “We really did consider Communism and its allies the main enemy, and were therefore more willing than you to tolerate liberal anti-Communists. I still think that this was the correct posture for the period. But now, of course, we are in an entirely new situation and the notion of making common cause with Sidney Hook types is not far from grotesque. And this is doubly true as modern liberalism plunges ahead on its rake’s progress. I now think it represents a greater danger to souls and to civilization than even Communism.” (p.328)
When the Cold War ended, he favored a return to our traditional policy of nonintervention. It came as a shock to him that Bill Buckley did not. Like Neil, Buckley claimed to be a supporter of limited government, the free market, and nonintervention. But this had to be put away for the duration of the Cold War. But after the Cold War, Buckley still wanted to preserve American hegemony. In other words, Neil was honest, and Buckley was a phony.
This mattered to Neil because Buckley had been one of his closest friends. Neil’s extraordinary skill in promotional letters had helped National Review get off the ground, and he constantly promoted Buckley’s causes and interests.
Buckley responded with betrayal. Neil had partners in his business, and he lost control, with Buckley playing a malicious role. The company was sold to Roy Disney in the mid-1970s, and eventually phased out.
By the end of his life, Neil recognized what had happened and he penned a devastating analysis of Buckley’s character. Neil, like Murray, liked Pat Buchanan for his opposition to American intervention in the Mideast and for his defense of traditional values. Buckley sought to undermine Buchanan by insinuating that Buchanan was anti-Semitic. Here is what Neil said: “The only effective way to deal with Buckley is not to deal with him at all. To reply is to dignify his attack, to make it respectable and even friendly His aim: to destroy with a smile. In his peculiar code, this is the behavior of a gentleman. . .His tactic through the years, whether he has actively destroyed somebody or allowed that person to be destroyed, has been the ‘civilized’ stab in the back.”(p.323)
Neil McCaffrey was one of the greats. If you read this outstanding book, you will get a sense of why he mattered to so many of us. I closed this book with hope that a new generation will profit from Neil’s wisdom but also with sadness “in thinking of the days that are no more.”
Omnipotent Government:... Ludwig von Mises Best Price: $16.61 Buy New $1.99 (as of 07:25 UTC - Details) Man, Economy, and Stat... Murray N. Rothbard Best Price: $23.43 Buy New $29.95 (as of 08:10 UTC - Details) Bureaucracy (Lib Works... Mises, Ludwig von Best Price: $5.83 Buy New $9.65 (as of 03:55 UTC - Details) How You Can Profit Fro... Browne, Harry Best Price: $5.77 Buy New $11.95 (as of 10:47 UTC - Details) Theory of Money and Cr... Ludwig von Mises Best Price: $2.46 Buy New $8.54 (as of 06:40 UTC - Details)
The Best of Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.


lewrockwell--2020-02-03--The State Is a Predator. It Can’t Be Used To Achieve Libertarian Ends

Tyler Cowen , who is said to be “ known as one of the libertarian world ’ s deepest thinkers , ” recently wrote a blog post entitled “ What Libertarianism Has Become and Will Become — State Capacity Libertarianism.
” There , Cowen asserts that libertarianism “ is now pretty much hollowed out , ” because it has not been able to address an idiosyncratic list of problems ranging from climate change to improving K-12 education .
Consequently , according to Cowen , “ smart ” classical liberals and libertarians “ have evolved into a view , as if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ view Cowen dubs “ State Capacity Libertarianism.
“ ( This name appears in bold font in the original post , seemingly belying Cowen ’ s claim that it is intended as an “ entirely non-sticky name.
” ) According to Cowen those libertarians inexplicably passed over by the invisible hand of ideological enlightenment have drifted off into “ Ron Paul-ism and less savory alt right directions.
” Cowen ’ s doctrine of State Capacity Libertarianism comprises eleven tenets encapsulated in a total of 719 words and , absent further elaboration , is surpassingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of mundane facts , casual observations lacking supporting facts , and explicit or implicit value judgments postulated without argument .
What State Capacity Libertarianism seems to boil down to in practice is the old-fashioned “ mixed economy ” as described by Paul Samuelson in a 1950s edition of his famous economics principles textbook .
This is mixed with a heavy dose of nineteenth-century gunboat diplomacy to maintain the postwar Pax Americana , “ extend capitalism and markets , ” and “ keep China at bay abroad.
” Given Cowen ’ s prodigious intellectual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ muddled and insubstantial and hardly warrants further discussion .
( Jeff Deist has also provided a clear and concise refutation of Cowen ’ s main points . )
The Rise and Fall of S ... Frank Chodorov Best Price : $ 8.36 Buy New $ 13.00 Cowen ’ s post , however , was clearly designed to provoke and boy , did it , with libertarians from every corner and outpost of the official movement and its borderlands weighing in ( here , here , here , here , here , and here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much worth discussing because they confirm Cowen ’ s contention that mainstream libertarianism has been “ hollowed out ” —although hardly in the sense that he intended .
Let me offer just two examples , from individuals I greatly admire and respect as scholars , economists , and dedicated libertarians .
David Henderson , a research fellow at the Hoover Institution , entitles his response “ The Meaning of Libertarianism.
” The title promises at least a brief elucidation of what in Henderson ’ s view are the core doctrines of libertarianism .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Instead Henderson begins by embracing Cowen ’ s distinction between “ smart libertarians ” and unnamed others , presumably the dummies and the “ unsavory.
” However , contrary to Cowen , Henderson identifies smart libertarians with a few mainstream libertarian institutions .
These comprise “ three main organizations , ” namely the Reason Foundation , the Cato Institute , and the Mercatus Center affiliated with George Mason University .
Ironically , the director of the Mercatus Center is none other than Tyler Cowen .
It is not surprising , therefore , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic and social problems promulgated by policy analysts at selected think tanks .
The bulk of Henderson ’ s article is thus confined to citations of research and anecdotes indicating how the free market and entrepreneurship would solve or alleviate the problems raised by Cowen , including traffic congestion , low-quality K-12 education , and climate change .
Near the end of his article Henderson rehearses the venerable public choice argument demonstrating that the perverse incentive structure confronting politicians , bureaucrats , and voters in the political arena produces the inefficient outcomes that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alignment of incentives guiding and coordinating the actions of consumers and producers in the market economy , which would conduce to a more efficient resolution of most of these problems .
Capitalism and Freedom ... Milton Friedman Best Price : $ 4.49 Buy New $ 7.12 Henderson does score cogent points against Cowen .
But , in the end , Henderson ’ s version of libertarianism amounts to little more than economism , the narrow and hollow doctrine of enlisting market forces to improve social efficiency under the existing political regime .
Henderson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ epitomized in Milton Friedman ’ s classic work Capitalism and Freedom .
Richard Ebeling , the prolific and prominent Austrian economist and libertarian , attempts to engage Cowen on a broader philosophical level than Henderson does .
In his article , Ebeling extolls and warns against losing sight of the “ classical liberal ideal.
” This is all well and good , and like Henderson , Ebeling lands some telling blows against Cowen ’ s eccentric political credo .
Ebeling ’ s critique is especially effective in demonstrating that government intervention leads to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ irrational allocation of scarce resources .
But the reader looks in vain for a solid and inspiring statement of the classical liberal ideal .
In the end , Ebeling does not seem able to completely free himself from the economistic approach to libertarianism , lamenting “ how difficult the logic of the ‘ economic way of thinking ’ can be for so many to , at first , grasp and understand.
” As if learning economics by itself—even sound Austrian economics—will cause the scales to fall from the eyes of the deceived and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see the true nature of the state as a criminal enterprise and the great and immediate enemy of human freedom .
More generally , Cowen ’ s State Capacity Libertarianism harkens back to an older tradition that frankly places the state beyond and above society .
In this view , the state is a nonmarginal actor whose task is to achieve certain collective outcomes intuited by Cowen or some other political philosopher .
In order to achieve its ordained goals , however , the state must possess two things : 1. sufficient legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ throughout the territory over which it exercises a monopoly of violence ; and 2. sufficient legal fiscal capacity to extract from its subjects the needed resources , the quantity of which are rigidly fixed by its duties .
Chief among these duties , according to Cowen , is “ the maintenance and extension of capitalism ” to promote economic growth .
Additionally , the state needs to be “ strong ” and “ centralized , ” although not necessarily large in size or scope , to discharge its responsibilities .
Hence , state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cowen , Henderson and Ebeling correctly point out that the state is an economic actor whose accretions of legal and fiscal capacity indeed involve opportunity costs and whose benefits are beyond calculation because they are not subject to the profit and loss test of the market .
Thus , when the state pursues goals beyond providing public goods and a secure legal and enforcement framework for voluntary production and exchange , it inevitably distorts economic activity .
Unfortunately In their eagerness to rebut Cowen , Henderson and Ebeling fail to recognize the germ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the state as wholly separate from society .
In portraying the state as an integral part of economy and society they ignore its unique political , i.e.
, predatory , nature .
Libertarianism becomes in their hands a recipe for constraining state action in the interest of optimizing social efficiency .
This economistic , hollowed-out version of libertarianism may be called “ state efficiency libertarianism.
” In contrast , hard-core , muscular libertarianism begins with the insight that the state is fundamentally different in nature from society and economy , and stands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ premise of state predation libertarianism , as we may call it , was expressed quite trenchantly by the men and women of the American Old Right , such as H. L. Mencken , Albert J. Nock , Frank Chodorov , Isabel Patterson , and Rose Wilder Lane , whose most eminent intellectual descendant was Murray Rothbard .
From them came no talk of growing the state to adequate “ capacity ” or directing it on a path to social efficiency .
For them the hallmarks of the state were its predatory nature and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us conclude with two passages from Old Right authors along these lines .
Albert Jay Nock vividly exposed the predatory nature of the state in his brilliant article “ The Criminality of the State ” : the State ’ s criminality is nothing new and nothing to be wondered at .
It began when the first predatory group of men clustered together and formed the State , and it will continue as long as the State exists in the world , because the State is fundamentally an anti-social institution , fundamentally criminal .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ serve any kind of social purpose is completely unhistorical .
It originated in conquest and confiscation—that is to say , in crime….No State known to history originated in any other manner , or for any other purpose .
Like all predatory or parasitic institutions , its first instinct is that of self-preservation .
All its enterprises are directed first towards preserving its own life , and , second , towards increasing its own power and enlarging the scope of its own activity .
For the sake of this it will , and regularly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make expedient .
In his classic book The Rise and Fall of Society ( pp .
xix–xxi ) , Frank Chodorov emphasized how prior to the twentieth century most political philosophers and the general public correctly recognized the utter apartness and “ otherness ” of the state with respect to society : In times past , the disposition was to look upon the State as something one had to reckon with , but as a complete outsider .
One got along with the State as best one could , feared or admired it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it and to enjoy its perquisites , or held it at arm ’ s length as an untouchable thing ; one hardly thought of the State as the integral of Society .
One had to support the State—there was no way of avoiding taxes—and one tolerated its interventions as interventions , not as the warp and woof of life .
And the State itself was proud of its position apart from , and above , Society .
The present disposition is to liquidate any distinction between State and Society , conceptually or institutionally….The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the enemy of Society , that the interests of these institutions are in opposition , is simply unthinkable… .
[ U ] ntil the modern era , it was an axiom that the State bears constant watching , that pernicious proclivities are built into it .
The Best of Joseph T. Salerno

Tyler Cowen, who is said to be “known as one of the libertarian world’s deepest thinkers,” recently wrote a blog post entitled “What Libertarianism Has Become and Will Become — State Capacity Libertarianism.” There, Cowen asserts that libertarianism “is now pretty much hollowed out,” because it has not been able to address an idiosyncratic list of problems ranging from climate change to improving K-12 education. Consequently, according to Cowen, “smart” classical liberals and libertarians “have evolved into a view, as if guided by an invisible hand.” This view Cowen dubs “State Capacity Libertarianism.“ (This name appears in bold font in the original post, seemingly belying Cowen’s claim that it is intended as an “entirely non-sticky name.”) According to Cowen those libertarians inexplicably passed over by the invisible hand of ideological enlightenment have drifted off into “Ron Paul-ism and less savory alt right directions.”
Cowen’s doctrine of State Capacity Libertarianism comprises eleven tenets encapsulated in a total of 719 words and, absent further elaboration, is surpassingly silly. The tenets are a hodgepodge of mundane facts, casual observations lacking supporting facts, and explicit or implicit value judgments postulated without argument. What State Capacity Libertarianism seems to boil down to in practice is the old-fashioned “mixed economy” as described by Paul Samuelson in a 1950s edition of his famous economics principles textbook. This is mixed with a heavy dose of nineteenth-century gunboat diplomacy to maintain the postwar Pax Americana, “extend capitalism and markets,” and “keep China at bay abroad.” Given Cowen’s prodigious intellectual reputation, this piece to me seems muddled and insubstantial and hardly warrants further discussion. (Jeff Deist has also provided a clear and concise refutation of Cowen’s main points.)
The Rise and Fall of S... Frank Chodorov Best Price: $8.36 Buy New $13.00 (as of 04:25 UTC - Details) Cowen’s post, however, was clearly designed to provoke and boy, did it, with libertarians from every corner and outpost of the official movement and its borderlands weighing in (here, here, here, here, here, and here). Now these responses are very much worth discussing because they confirm Cowen’s contention that mainstream libertarianism has been “hollowed out”—although hardly in the sense that he intended. Let me offer just two examples, from individuals I greatly admire and respect as scholars, economists, and dedicated libertarians.
David Henderson, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, entitles his response “The Meaning of Libertarianism.” The title promises at least a brief elucidation of what in Henderson’s view are the core doctrines of libertarianism. Unfortunately, this is not forthcoming. Instead Henderson begins by embracing Cowen’s distinction between “smart libertarians” and unnamed others, presumably the dummies and the “unsavory.” However, contrary to Cowen, Henderson identifies smart libertarians with a few mainstream libertarian institutions. These comprise “three main organizations,” namely the Reason Foundation, the Cato Institute, and the Mercatus Center affiliated with George Mason University. Ironically, the director of the Mercatus Center is none other than Tyler Cowen. It is not surprising, therefore, that for Henderson libertarianism means efficient solutions to economic and social problems promulgated by policy analysts at selected think tanks.
The bulk of Henderson’s article is thus confined to citations of research and anecdotes indicating how the free market and entrepreneurship would solve or alleviate the problems raised by Cowen, including traffic congestion, low-quality K-12 education, and climate change. Near the end of his article Henderson rehearses the venerable public choice argument demonstrating that the perverse incentive structure confronting politicians, bureaucrats, and voters in the political arena produces the inefficient outcomes that Cowen bemoans. This contrasts with the alignment of incentives guiding and coordinating the actions of consumers and producers in the market economy, which would conduce to a more efficient resolution of most of these problems.
Capitalism and Freedom... Milton Friedman Best Price: $4.49 Buy New $7.12 (as of 03:45 UTC - Details) Henderson does score cogent points against Cowen. But, in the end, Henderson’s version of libertarianism amounts to little more than economism, the narrow and hollow doctrine of enlisting market forces to improve social efficiency under the existing political regime. Henderson’s economistic approach to libertarianism is epitomized in Milton Friedman’s classic work Capitalism and Freedom.
Richard Ebeling, the prolific and prominent Austrian economist and libertarian, attempts to engage Cowen on a broader philosophical level than Henderson does. In his article, Ebeling extolls and warns against losing sight of the “classical liberal ideal.” This is all well and good, and like Henderson, Ebeling lands some telling blows against Cowen’s eccentric political credo. Ebeling’s critique is especially effective in demonstrating that government intervention leads to a distortion of economic calculation and the irrational allocation of scarce resources. But the reader looks in vain for a solid and inspiring statement of the classical liberal ideal.
In the end, Ebeling does not seem able to completely free himself from the economistic approach to libertarianism, lamenting “how difficult the logic of the ‘economic way of thinking’ can be for so many to, at first, grasp and understand.” As if learning economics by itself—even sound Austrian economics—will cause the scales to fall from the eyes of the deceived and subjugated masses and allow them to suddenly see the true nature of the state as a criminal enterprise and the great and immediate enemy of human freedom.
More generally, Cowen’s State Capacity Libertarianism harkens back to an older tradition that frankly places the state beyond and above society. In this view, the state is a nonmarginal actor whose task is to achieve certain collective outcomes intuited by Cowen or some other political philosopher. In order to achieve its ordained goals, however, the state must possess two things: 1. sufficient legal capacity to enforce its laws and regulations throughout the territory over which it exercises a monopoly of violence; and 2. sufficient legal fiscal capacity to extract from its subjects the needed resources, the quantity of which are rigidly fixed by its duties. Chief among these duties, according to Cowen, is “the maintenance and extension of capitalism” to promote economic growth. Additionally, the state needs to be “strong” and “centralized,” although not necessarily large in size or scope, to discharge its responsibilities. Hence, state capacity libertarianism.
In their response to Cowen, Henderson and Ebeling correctly point out that the state is an economic actor whose accretions of legal and fiscal capacity indeed involve opportunity costs and whose benefits are beyond calculation because they are not subject to the profit and loss test of the market. Thus, when the state pursues goals beyond providing public goods and a secure legal and enforcement framework for voluntary production and exchange, it inevitably distorts economic activity. Unfortunately In their eagerness to rebut Cowen, Henderson and Ebeling fail to recognize the germ of truth in Cowen’s conception of the state as wholly separate from society. In portraying the state as an integral part of economy and society they ignore its unique political, i.e., predatory, nature. Libertarianism becomes in their hands a recipe for constraining state action in the interest of optimizing social efficiency. This economistic, hollowed-out version of libertarianism may be called “state efficiency libertarianism.”
In contrast, hard-core, muscular libertarianism begins with the insight that the state is fundamentally different in nature from society and economy, and stands wholly apart from them. The main premise of state predation libertarianism, as we may call it, was expressed quite trenchantly by the men and women of the American Old Right, such as H. L. Mencken, Albert J. Nock, Frank Chodorov, Isabel Patterson, and Rose Wilder Lane, whose most eminent intellectual descendant was Murray Rothbard. From them came no talk of growing the state to adequate “capacity” or directing it on a path to social efficiency. For them the hallmarks of the state were its predatory nature and its existence apart from society. Let us conclude with two passages from Old Right authors along these lines.
Albert Jay Nock vividly exposed the predatory nature of the state in his brilliant article “The Criminality of the State”:
the State’s criminality is nothing new and nothing to be wondered at. It began when the first predatory group of men clustered together and formed the State, and it will continue as long as the State exists in the world, because the State is fundamentally an anti-social institution, fundamentally criminal. The idea that the State originated to serve any kind of social purpose is completely unhistorical. It originated in conquest and confiscation—that is to say, in crime….No State known to history originated in any other manner, or for any other purpose. Like all predatory or parasitic institutions, its first instinct is that of self-preservation. All its enterprises are directed first towards preserving its own life, and, second, towards increasing its own power and enlarging the scope of its own activity. For the sake of this it will, and regularly does, commit any crime which circumstances make expedient.
In his classic book The Rise and Fall of Society(pp. xix–xxi), Frank Chodorov emphasized how prior to the twentieth century most political philosophers and the general public correctly recognized the utter apartness and “otherness” of the state with respect to society:
In times past, the disposition was to look upon the State as something one had to reckon with, but as a complete outsider. One got along with the State as best one could, feared or admired it, hoped to be taken in by it and to enjoy its perquisites, or held it at arm’s length as an untouchable thing; one hardly thought of the State as the integral of Society. One had to support the State—there was no way of avoiding taxes—and one tolerated its interventions as interventions, not as the warp and woof of life. And the State itself was proud of its position apart from, and above, Society. The present disposition is to liquidate any distinction between State and Society, conceptually or institutionally….The idea that this power apparatus is indeed the enemy of Society, that the interests of these institutions are in opposition, is simply unthinkable….[U]ntil the modern era, it was an axiom that the State bears constant watching, that pernicious proclivities are built into it.
The Best of Joseph T. Salerno


Markle My Words

I never thought I ’ d get back to this silly subject ever again , but the Markles , as I now refer to them , have a way of getting our attention—and embarrassing Al Capone in the process .
( As the feds were closing in on him , Al was told Chicago was getting too hot and he should move to Canada .
“ Canada ?
” growled Capone , “ I don ’ t even know what street that ’ s on.
” ) Well , for any of you who , like Capone , have never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a very big country run by an even bigger fool named Trudeau .
But Canada ’ s fuzz dress beautifully in red tunics and shiny black boots and always get their man .
And now this lucky country also has the Markles , or royal riffraff , as some embittered old British salts now call them .
But let ’ s not be hasty .
Looking back , it seems to me that royal romances have a way of ending up quite badly at times .
Even 2,500 years ago .
Old Homer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing , was anything but a fool .
He created Helen of Troy as an innocent victim , totally manipulated by bad boy Paris and even by the much-too-proud Agamemnon-Menelaus brother act .
I thought of Homer recently when a woman ( not as beautiful as Helen , and much darker to boot ) took center stage and is threatening to do to the House of Windsor what the Paris-Helen duet did to the House of Atreus .
As a 1960s zonked-out hippy would say , “ Man , this is wild !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and 38 years old , one of mixed racial background , marries a 35-year-old member of the British royal family and within two short years demands to be moved abroad , to Canada and California , to be protected by the British secret service at the taxpayer ’ s expense , and blames British racism for her move , having been so advised by close friends such as publicist Ken Sunshine , TV personality Oprah Winfrey , and close friends George and Amal Clooney .
Amazon.com Gift Card i ... Buy New $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of this stuff before .
Don ’ t forget , Harry ’ s mother knew how to play the PR game as well as anyone .
She played the “ hated ” tabloid press like a Stradivarius , and no matter how much her lovelorn son claims that the paparazzi killed his mother , the photographers had been forewarned that the couple would be leaving the Ritz in Paris .
Her drunken chauffeur killed Diana , no one else .
La Meghan thought she knew how to handle royal media , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ understood the limits .
Meghan grew up hustling in Hollywood and had no idea of the world she had married into .
Advised by hucksters and PR people , super-woke showbiz riffraff , dubious billionaires on the make , and bitter old pop stars like Elton John , she turned against royal advisers who counseled duty above all else .
She saw only enemies around her , unless they were pop stars or their ilk .
Her ace in the hole became racism , the magic word of the 21st century that opens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ According to Meghan and her backers , the Brits are racists and have made her life intolerable because of her mixed blood .
The Best of Taki Theodoracopulos

I never thought I’d get back to this silly subject ever again, but the Markles, as I now refer to them, have a way of getting our attention—and embarrassing Al Capone in the process. (As the feds were closing in on him, Al was told Chicago was getting too hot and he should move to Canada. “Canada?” growled Capone, “I don’t even know what street that’s on.”) Well, for any of you who, like Capone, have never heard of the place, Canada is a very big country run by an even bigger fool named Trudeau. But Canada’s fuzz dress beautifully in red tunics and shiny black boots and always get their man. And now this lucky country also has the Markles, or royal riffraff, as some embittered old British salts now call them. But let’s not be hasty. Looking back, it seems to me that royal romances have a way of ending up quite badly at times. Even 2,500 years ago.
Old Homer, who started the whole royal soap-opera thing, was anything but a fool. He created Helen of Troy as an innocent victim, totally manipulated by bad boy Paris and even by the much-too-proud Agamemnon-Menelaus brother act. I thought of Homer recently when a woman (not as beautiful as Helen, and much darker to boot) took center stage and is threatening to do to the House of Windsor what the Paris-Helen duet did to the House of Atreus.
As a 1960s zonked-out hippy would say, “Man, this is wild!” A class-D actress who is divorced and 38 years old, one of mixed racial background, marries a 35-year-old member of the British royal family and within two short years demands to be moved abroad, to Canada and California, to be protected by the British secret service at the taxpayer’s expense, and blames British racism for her move, having been so advised by close friends such as publicist Ken Sunshine, TV personality Oprah Winfrey, and close friends George and Amal Clooney. Amazon.com Gift Card i... Buy New $10.00 (as of 08:25 UTC - Details)
Well, I’ve seen some of this stuff before. Don’t forget, Harry’s mother knew how to play the PR game as well as anyone. She played the “hated” tabloid press like a Stradivarius, and no matter how much her lovelorn son claims that the paparazzi killed his mother, the photographers had been forewarned that the couple would be leaving the Ritz in Paris. Her drunken chauffeur killed Diana, no one else.
La Meghan thought she knew how to handle royal media, but did not. Diana was upper-class and understood the limits. Meghan grew up hustling in Hollywood and had no idea of the world she had married into. Advised by hucksters and PR people, super-woke showbiz riffraff, dubious billionaires on the make, and bitter old pop stars like Elton John, she turned against royal advisers who counseled duty above all else. She saw only enemies around her, unless they were pop stars or their ilk. Her ace in the hole became racism, the magic word of the 21st century that opens all doors and buries all enemies. According to Meghan and her backers, the Brits are racists and have made her life intolerable because of her mixed blood.
We’ve read such crap again and again, mainly in The New York Times, a paper that has encouraged Meghan and her hubby, Harry, to keep playing the race card. (The New York Times has in the past five years written more lies than Pravda did in seventy, and the less said about the anti-white-male-Christian newspaper, the better.) The black population of Britain is 3 percent, yet no one was cheered more loudly and treated better than Meghan and her mother during her wedding. But then the bride suddenly went Hollywood, screaming at underlings, demanding total privacy, and refusing to attend to royal duties, duties that the couple were being paid to attend to by the civil list.
Rad the Whole Article
The Best of Taki Theodoracopulos


lewrockwell--2020-02-03--Warren’s Question and the Stare: Slouching Towards an American Gulag

Senator and presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren , having gone mad , asked during the Q & A portion of the Senate impeachment trial whether the Chief Justice and the U.S. Supreme Court have been sullied by Republicans .
This over seeming to be ready to move to a verdict without calling additional witnesses .
After reading her question , Roberts stares at her while Rep. Schiff makes his way to the podium , about 10 seconds .
The same question asked about the House impeachment trial would be far more relevant .
When Republicans were not permitted to present any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to cross examine Dem “ witnesses.
” None of whom actually witnessed anything , as far as anyone can tell .
Didn ’ t that hurt the credibility of the House of Representatives ?
Since this entire circus rests upon a single telephone call , the recording and transcript of which was immediately released by Trump , what kind of witness or further testimony is required ?
The public is now better informed than any supposed witnesses were .
Their testimony was merely their personal and partisan opinions .
Presstitutes Embedded ... Dr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Buy New $ 31.52 As for the supposed “ stare ” , that is manufactured baloney .
So what ?
Warren asked an insulting question , personal to Roberts , and I ’ m sure she was smirking the entire time he read it .
All of the hoo-ha about her brilliance is just Fake News journos lauding their Snarkmistress of the moment .
Huffpo and Kos are both well-known partisan hack Dem websites .
They appear to be under the delusion that this little impeachment play they are performing will somehow hurt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in November .
Ha !
Is publicly making Roberts read aloud some cynical question about Supreme Court credibility supposed to be brilliant ?
Any rational person would want to avoid pissing off the Chief Justice like that .
Or any Justice .
Yes , Roberts is seen as a conservative GOP leaning Justice .
But even so , do you want to make him even more conservative leaning ?
Hello Dems !
Is your grave deep enough now ?
Candidate Warren while pretending to be worried about the Supreme Court ’ s reputation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gutting another constitutional amendment , ( the First ) to stop “ disinformation.
” This along with the kneecapping the Second Amendment and likely several others .
Oh , and lauding with other Dem candidates the Leninist style Green New Deal ’ s call for “ wealth confiscation.
” To Save the Planet and other Good Stuff .
Don ’ t ask .
If the Midwest keeps voting for Trump , were Warren or the others elected President they would eventually call for liquidation of rich successful farmers , i.e .
the American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ logical end to all of this ?
Farmers are “ disproportionally ” White men after all .
Big landowners .
Time to make them pay up !
Send them all to the Dakotas to clean up those Indian reservations and dig reservoirs for flood control .
In winter !
Comrade Uncle Joe Stalin set up the template they ’ re following .
So why hold back now ?
Who knew that the real Democratic Party platform for 2020 would be modeled after the USSR ’ s 1930 Five Year Plan ?
Deplorables are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the new Green Order !
Find the guilty and punish them all !
Who will be their Stalinist NKVD chief Nikolai Yezhov to carry out this crucial Party work ?
Former FBI Chief James Comey still needs a job .
I ’ m sure he ’ d be up to the task .
He ’ s a proven soldier in the anti-Trump counter revolution .
And he has a few new scores to settle himself .
Progressive slogan of the moment : Whatever was old is new again !
The Best of @ @

Senator and presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren, having gone mad, asked during the Q&A portion of the Senate impeachment trial whether the Chief Justice and the U.S. Supreme Court have been sullied by Republicans. This over seeming to be ready to move to a verdict without calling additional witnesses. After reading her question, Roberts stares at her while Rep. Schiff makes his way to the podium, about 10 seconds.
The same question asked about the House impeachment trial would be far more relevant. When Republicans were not permitted to present any of their witnesses or given the chance to cross examine Dem “witnesses.” None of whom actually witnessed anything, as far as anyone can tell. Didn’t that hurt the credibility of the House of Representatives?
Since this entire circus rests upon a single telephone call, the recording and transcript of which was immediately released by Trump, what kind of witness or further testimony is required? The public is now better informed than any supposed witnesses were. Their testimony was merely their personal and partisan opinions.
Presstitutes Embedded ... Ulfkotte, Dr. Udo Best Price: $38.43 Buy New $34.09 (as of 11:15 UTC - Details) As for the supposed “stare”, that is manufactured baloney. So what? Warren asked an insulting question, personal to Roberts, and I’m sure she was smirking the entire time he read it. All of the hoo-ha about her brilliance is just Fake News journos lauding their Snarkmistress of the moment.
Huffpo and Kos are both well-known partisan hack Dem websites. They appear to be under the delusion that this little impeachment play they are performing will somehow hurt Trump and help eventual Dem Candidate X in November. Ha! Is publicly making Roberts read aloud some cynical question about Supreme Court credibility supposed to be brilliant? Any rational person would want to avoid pissing off the Chief Justice like that. Or any Justice. Yes, Roberts is seen as a conservative GOP leaning Justice. But even so, do you want to make him even more conservative leaning? Hello Dems! Is your grave deep enough now?
Candidate Warren while pretending to be worried about the Supreme Court’s reputation for legalisms, is also now promoting gutting another constitutional amendment, (the First) to stop “disinformation.” This along with the kneecapping the Second Amendment and likely several others. Oh, and lauding with other Dem candidates the Leninist style Green New Deal’s call for “wealth confiscation.” To Save the Planet and other Good Stuff. Don’t ask.
If the Midwest keeps voting for Trump, were Warren or the others elected President they would eventually call for liquidation of rich successful farmers, i.e. the American Kulaks. Isn’t that the logical end to all of this? Farmers are “disproportionally” White men after all. Big landowners. Time to make them pay up! Send them all to the Dakotas to clean up those Indian reservations and dig reservoirs for flood control . In winter! Comrade Uncle Joe Stalin set up the template they’re following. So why hold back now?
Who knew that the real Democratic Party platform for 2020 would be modeled after the USSR’s 1930 Five Year Plan? Deplorables are the new Trotskyites. Wreckers and saboteurs of the new Green Order! Find the guilty and punish them all! Who will be their Stalinist NKVD chief Nikolai Yezhov to carry out this crucial Party work? Former FBI Chief James Comey still needs a job. I’m sure he’d be up to the task. He’s a proven soldier in the anti-Trump counter revolution. And he has a few new scores to settle himself. Progressive slogan of the moment: Whatever was old is new again!
The Best of Mike Holmes


lewrockwell--2020-02-03--Can Bernie and Tulsi Survive Hillary’s ‘Urge’ a To Save the DNC?

For months now I ’ ve been convinced that Hillary Clinton will be entering the fray that is the Democratic Party primary season .
The affair to date has been a nothing short of high comedy .
Recent events have me more convinced than ever that she will be returning , like some zombie whose head we forgot to cut off , to haunt voters one more time this fall .
After the beginning of an obvious ( and planned ) PR campaign last week with the release of a big campaign ad documentary on Netflix and a big splash @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being coy .
And she announced this week that she now ‘ has the urge ’ to run again against Donald Trump .
Save us , please , from Hillary ’ s urges… .
Shudder .
And she did so making sure that everyone knew what she thought of the real front-runner for the nomination , Bernie Sanders .
As various anointed ones have dropped out of the race – Kamala Harris , Cory Booker , Robert O ’ Rourke – others have faltered despite huge ad spends while the media and pollsters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all that Joe Biden ’ s a serious candidate to take on Donald Trump this fall .
Against the Left : A Ro ... Llewellyn H Rockwell Jr Best Price : $ 13.57 Buy New $ 8.00 In fact , the only reason Biden is still in the race is to make the impeachment theater going on right now seem relevant and cogent .
But , like Biden himself , it is neither .
Then again neither is Hillary , but never underestimate this woman ’ s narcissistic solipsism .
If you look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s clear that most of the people running are there to try and distract voters away from the two candidates that resonate most with voters , Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard .
Yes , Gabbard is polling low but if you look at poll numbers versus money spent and/or raised to this point , she ’ s clearly got cache and the ability to build a real following .
And as the field shrinks those distractions become irrelevant .
Her poll numbers are rising the more the field winnows .
Neither of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the DNC .
They are outsiders within their party .
I ’ m no fan of Bernie Sanders .
In fact , I think he ’ s a terrible candidate — because , you know , commie !
— but that ’ s not the point of this article .
Bernie is surging in the early states and panic is setting in with the DNC .
And they must have a plan to stop him from running away with the nomination otherwise we could have two outsiders headlining this fall ’ s reality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the impeachment and potential removal of Donald Trump .
The impeachment is a distraction for Trump but it is a real problem for the Senators running for the Democratic nomination .
They have to spend all day listening to Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler lie while they could be out campaigning and raising money .
This hurts Bernie the most because Bernie is the one who will get zero help from the DNC ’ s big donors .
None of them are behind him and with good reason .
He ’ s hostile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of us as well , but that ’ s a different article ) .
Of the people running for President as Democrats the only person less acceptable to Wall St. than Elizabeth Warren is Bernie Sanders .
Warren ’ s entire campaign has been designed to push Bernie farther left by out-lefting him at every turn .
Bernie says 70 % top marginal tax rate , Warren says 77 % .
Bernie wants debt restructuring ?
Warren says forgive all student loan debt .
Her job is to make Bernie as unacceptable to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that makes Bernie more and more acceptable to a lot of people voting in the Democratic primaries .
And this Catch-22 is beginning to show up in the polls for Iowa and New Hampshire .
Then there ’ s the serious money behind Pete Buttigieg trying to create slightly gayer version of Barack Obama .
Again , he ’ s just another distraction to suck support away from Sanders and keep the field relatively close and the odds of an uncommitted primary season high .
Because the goal is to get to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the impeachment was slowed down to hurt Sanders , Warren and Amy Klobuchar and help give Biden the bump he needs to get some momentum coming into Iowa .
But I also don ’ t think it ’ s going to matter .
If you keep watching the headlines the attack dogs are out in full to discredit and hurt Sanders .
They know he ’ s a real force to be reckoned with .
And worse , his attack dog , Gabbard , has been muzzled by keeping her off the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take anyone else out , like she roasted that pig Kamala Harris last summer .
But I truly feel the DNC is looking to steal the nomination again from Sanders .
And the impeachment of Trump continues to somehow , against all odds , get worse for him , even though his party is supposed to be in charge of the proceedings .
I told everyone back in September when Nancy Pelosi announced she was going through with the impeachment process that this was all about getting rid of Trump .
But it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tulsi Gabbard that Gabbard ’ s response was beyond epic and I wrote about it then .
Gabbard throws down the gauntlet here outing Hillary as the mastermind behind the DNC strategy of allowing the current crop of future losers to fall all over themselves to alienate as many centrist voters as possible .
This paves the way for Hillary to swoop in on her broom , pointed hat in hand , and declare herself the savior of the Democratic Party ’ s chances to defeat Donald Trump next November .
So , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is trying to stop Bernie and Tulsi Gabbard is still an also-ran in New Hampshire and Iowa , polling between 5 % and 7 % .
So what ?
Well , I feel at this point it ’ s been game-planned by Gabbard and Sanders that they know what ’ s coming .
I felt the endorsement from Joe Rogan of Sanders was timed to distract from Hillary ’ s attack on Bernie in that Hollywood Reporter piece .
Rogan is far more influential than the dead tree media Hillary ’ s publicist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were out in full to attack Rogan and smear Sanders with their typical guilt-by-association nonsense .
I don ’ t tweet much folks , but this one gets to the truth of what ’ s going on in the murk and slime of Democratic Party politics .
Sanders and Gabbard know the DNC is out to destroy him .
And the question then becomes what ’ s next ?
What do they do to combat this ?
Gabbard is not running for re-election in Hawaii .
She says she ’ s committed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t think she ’ s getting the nomination and , frankly , I don ’ t think she is either .
She just filed a defamation of character lawsuit against Hillary for the smears Hillary threw around I linked to above .
She puts financial pressure on Hillary knowing that the Clintons couldn ’ t drum up support and dollars last year during their expensive speaking tour no one went to .
Amazon.com Gift Card i ... Buy New $ 10.00 Gabbard denies any kind of third party run , getting the Ron @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , she ’ s a very acceptable person to a lot of disaffected Trump voters like myself .
She speaks to them and can help carry Bernie as his running mate if he somehow makes it through the convention to be the Democratic nominee .
So , yes , Gabbard isn ’ t running for re-election because she ’ s running as Sanders ’ Vice-Presidential candidate .
And it may not be for the Democratic party in the end .
That ’ s the part you have to factor in here .
Game-planning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a real insurgency within the DNC to either get the nomination or split off and run as Independents .
This is Bernie ’ s last kick at the can .
He ’ s already gotten the gold watch from the DNC in 2016 , living the high life only a high member of the Politburo can .
Gabbard has burned all the bridges within the DNC she can , almost gleefully .
That makes her a person of integrity , of authenticity , in a U.S. political wasteland of charlatans , reality show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she climbs out of the basement in Pelosi ’ s House , the better off she ’ ll be .
I don ’ t put it past either of these people to think that preventing Hillary from regaining control of the Democrats and spoiling her return is the best outcome for America , even if it re-elects Donald Trump .
But , if Trump is removed to make way for Hillary , then the Race to 270 electoral votes becomes a non-binary affair .
The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Best of Thomas Luongo

For months now I’ve been convinced that Hillary Clinton will be entering the fray that is the Democratic Party primary season. The affair to date has been a nothing short of high comedy.
Recent events have me more convinced than ever that she will be returning, like some zombie whose head we forgot to cut off, to haunt voters one more time this fall.
After the beginning of an obvious (and planned) PR campaign last week with the release of a big campaign ad documentary on Netflix and a big splash in the Hollywood Reporter Hillary finally stopped being coy. And she announced this week that she now ‘has the urge’ to run again against Donald Trump.
Save us, please, from Hillary’s urges…. Shudder.
And she did so making sure that everyone knew what she thought of the real front-runner for the nomination, Bernie Sanders.
As various anointed ones have dropped out of the race – Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Robert O’Rourke – others have faltered despite huge ad spends while the media and pollsters do their level best to convince us all that Joe Biden’s a serious candidate to take on Donald Trump this fall. Against the Left: A Ro... Rockwell Jr, Llewellyn H Best Price: $2.85 Buy New $8.00 (as of 07:59 UTC - Details)
In fact, the only reason Biden is still in the race is to make the impeachment theater going on right now seem relevant and cogent. But, like Biden himself, it is neither.
Then again neither is Hillary, but never underestimate this woman’s narcissistic solipsism.
If you look back on the race to date it’s clear that most of the people running are there to try and distract voters away from the two candidates that resonate most with voters, Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard.
Yes, Gabbard is polling low but if you look at poll numbers versus money spent and/or raised to this point, she’s clearly got cache and the ability to build a real following. And as the field shrinks those distractions become irrelevant. Her poll numbers are rising the more the field winnows.
Neither of them is acceptable in any way to the DNC. They are outsiders within their party. I’m no fan of Bernie Sanders. In fact, I think he’s a terrible candidate — because, you know, commie! — but that’s not the point of this article.
Bernie is surging in the early states and panic is setting in with the DNC. And they must have a plan to stop him from running away with the nomination otherwise we could have two outsiders headlining this fall’s reality show.
And that plan starts with the impeachment and potential removal of Donald Trump.
The impeachment is a distraction for Trump but it is a real problem for the Senators running for the Democratic nomination. They have to spend all day listening to Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler lie while they could be out campaigning and raising money.
This hurts Bernie the most because Bernie is the one who will get zero help from the DNC’s big donors. None of them are behind him and with good reason. He’s hostile to most of them (and most of us as well, but that’s a different article).
Of the people running for President as Democrats the only person less acceptable to Wall St. than Elizabeth Warren is Bernie Sanders. Warren’s entire campaign has been designed to push Bernie farther left by out-lefting him at every turn. Bernie says 70% top marginal tax rate, Warren says 77%. Bernie wants debt restructuring? Warren says forgive all student loan debt.
Her job is to make Bernie as unacceptable to mainstream U.S. voters as possible. Unfortunately, that makes Bernie more and more acceptable to a lot of people voting in the Democratic primaries. And this Catch-22 is beginning to show up in the polls for Iowa and New Hampshire.
Then there’s the serious money behind Pete Buttigieg trying to create slightly gayer version of Barack Obama. Again, he’s just another distraction to suck support away from Sanders and keep the field relatively close and the odds of an uncommitted primary season high.
Because the goal is to get to a brokered convention this summer. So, the impeachment was slowed down to hurt Sanders, Warren and Amy Klobuchar and help give Biden the bump he needs to get some momentum coming into Iowa.
It’s not working.
But I also don’t think it’s going to matter. If you keep watching the headlines the attack dogs are out in full to discredit and hurt Sanders. They know he’s a real force to be reckoned with. And worse, his attack dog, Gabbard, has been muzzled by keeping her off the debate stage so she can’t take anyone else out, like she roasted that pig Kamala Harris last summer.
But I truly feel the DNC is looking to steal the nomination again from Sanders. And the impeachment of Trump continues to somehow, against all odds, get worse for him, even though his party is supposed to be in charge of the proceedings.
I told everyone back in September when Nancy Pelosi announced she was going through with the impeachment process that this was all about getting rid of Trump. But it was in October when Hillary went after Tulsi Gabbard that Gabbard’s response was beyond epic and I wrote about it then.
Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a … — Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 (@TulsiGabbard) October 18, 2019
… concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know — it was always you, through your proxies and … — Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 (@TulsiGabbard) October 18, 2019
… powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose. It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly. — Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 (@TulsiGabbard) October 18, 2019
Gabbard throws down the gauntlet here outing Hillary as the mastermind behind the DNC strategy of allowing the current crop of future losers to fall all over themselves to alienate as many centrist voters as possible.
This paves the way for Hillary to swoop in on her broom, pointed hat in hand, and declare herself the savior of the Democratic Party’s chances to defeat Donald Trump next November.
So, Hillary’s running, the DNC is trying to stop Bernie and Tulsi Gabbard is still an also-ran in New Hampshire and Iowa, polling between 5% and 7%. So what?
Well, I feel at this point it’s been game-planned by Gabbard and Sanders that they know what’s coming. I felt the endorsement from Joe Rogan of Sanders was timed to distract from Hillary’s attack on Bernie in that Hollywood Reporter piece.
Rogan is far more influential than the dead tree media Hillary’s publicist works with. And her attack dogs were out in full to attack Rogan and smear Sanders with their typical guilt-by-association nonsense.
I don’t tweet much folks, but this one gets to the truth of what’s going on in the murk and slime of Democratic Party politics.
If you ever wanted proof that hyper-sensitive identity politics was nothing more than a cheap political tool of the worst kind. I give you Joe Rogan is a Nazi. Wake up, get unwoke … profithttps://t.co/la7bgSKS7f — Tom Luongo (@TFL1728) January 24, 2020
Sanders and Gabbard know the DNC is out to destroy him. And the question then becomes what’s next?
What do they do to combat this? Gabbard is not running for re-election in Hawaii. She says she’s committed to running for President. I don’t think she’s getting the nomination and, frankly, I don’t think she is either.
She just filed a defamation of character lawsuit against Hillary for the smears Hillary threw around I linked to above. She puts financial pressure on Hillary knowing that the Clintons couldn’t drum up support and dollars last year during their expensive speaking tour no one went to. Amazon.com Gift Card i... Buy New $10.00 (as of 08:25 UTC - Details)
Gabbard denies any kind of third party run, getting the Ron Paul treatment from the media. But, she’s a very acceptable person to a lot of disaffected Trump voters like myself. She speaks to them and can help carry Bernie as his running mate if he somehow makes it through the convention to be the Democratic nominee.
So, yes, Gabbard isn’t running for re-election because she’s running as Sanders’ Vice-Presidential candidate.
And it may not be for the Democratic party in the end. That’s the part you have to factor in here.
Game-planning this out, these two are running a real insurgency within the DNC to either get the nomination or split off and run as Independents. This is Bernie’s last kick at the can. He’s already gotten the gold watch from the DNC in 2016, living the high life only a high member of the Politburo can.
Gabbard has burned all the bridges within the DNC she can, almost gleefully. That makes her a person of integrity, of authenticity, in a U.S. political wasteland of charlatans, reality show hucksters and outright thieves.
The quicker she climbs out of the basement in Pelosi’s House, the better off she’ll be.
I don’t put it past either of these people to think that preventing Hillary from regaining control of the Democrats and spoiling her return is the best outcome for America, even if it re-elects Donald Trump.
But, if Trump is removed to make way for Hillary, then the Race to 270 electoral votes becomes a non-binary affair.
The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.
The Best of Tom Luongo


Coronavirus Update

Using more recent data from China of the coronavirus ’ infection and death rates than the Indian scientists had , “ Moon of Alabama ” concludes that the “ pandemic ” has reached its peak and will be over with in a month .
If so , then Jon Rappoport was correct in the beginning that coronavirus was just another big scare hype .
Let ’ s hope that this is the case and that the coronavirus is a far less threat than ordinary flu .
Nevertheless , such a happy outcome still leaves us with a lot of puzzling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them : • Why such an enormous effort by the Chinese government using draconian quarantine measures affecting millions of people and multi-country halts of travel to and from China over a threat far less serious than ordinary flu ?
• Why is there a rush to develop a vaccine ?
• Why the expert predictions of a worldwide pandemic ?
• Why did the virus originate in a Chinese city known to have labs for the study of dangerous viruses ?
• Why do the scare viruses originate in China—SARS , swine flu @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Why did the team of scientists in India find elements of HIV in the coronavirus genome that is believed to raise the infectious potential , a finding , if correct , implies the engineering of a bioterror weapon ?
Be Ready for Anything : ... Daisy Luther Best Price : $ 10.45 Buy New $ 9.69 The scientists might be wrong , but they are not presenting a conspiracy theory .
They published their paper provisionally in order to get input from other scientists .
I have no idea whether their findings will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told , we might never know .
If the virus proves to be bioengineered , the Chinese government will know whether something they did escaped .
If they are not responsible for the virus , they will perceive an attack on them by the US .
This type of information would confirm Chinese suspicions : “ Research conducted by the Pentagon , and DARPA specifically , has continually raised concerns , not just in the field of bioweapons and biotechnology , but also in the fields of nanotechnology , robotics and several others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been developing a series of unsettling research projects that ranges from microchips that can create and delete memories from the human brain to voting machine software that is rife with problems .
“ Now , as fear regarding the current coronavirus outbreak begins to peak , companies with direct ties to DARPA have been tasked with developing its vaccine , the long-term human and environmental impacts of which are unknown and will remain unknown by the time the vaccine is expected to go to market in a few weeks time .
“ Furthermore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past history with bioweapons and their more recent experiments on genetic alteration and extinction technologies as well as bats and coronaviruses in proximity to China have been largely left out of the narrative , despite the information being publicly available .
Also left out of the media narrative have been the direct ties of both the USAMRIID and DARPA-partnered Duke University to the city of Wuhan , including its Institute of Medical Virology .
“ Though much about the origins of the coronavirus outbreak remains unknown , the U.S. military ’ s ties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ institutions are worth detailing as such research — while justified in the name of “ national security ” — has the frightening potential to result in unintended , yet world-altering consequences .
The lack of transparency about this research , such as DARPA ’ s decision to classify its controversial genetic extinction research and the technology ’ s use as a weapon of war , compounds these concerns .
While it is important to avoid reckless speculation as much as possible , it is the opinion of this author that the information in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that readers should use this information to reach their own conclusions about the topics discussed herein.
” If the Indian scientists ’ findings are correct , we should expect them to be shouted down by government supported scientists .
To save their careers , they would have to acknowledge a mistake in their research .
If the virus were a US manufactured one , China would have the same incentive to coverup the fact as Washington , because otherwise the consequence would be war , for which China is not ready .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , concurrent with the announcement of the new virus there were accusations that the Chinese virus lab was responsible for the pandemic threat and might even have released it purposely on its own population .
Moon of Alabama is correct to call this a conspiracy theory .
It is a conspiracy theory to discredit the Chinese government with the Chinese population and the rest of the world .
The Chinese government has no interest in harming the Chinese economy and discrediting itself with a population that it is trying to rule without a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interest in ruining the Chinese .
I think it is a good thing that the question whether coronavirus is an engineered virus came up .
There are a number of secret high security labs around the world doing scary things .
As Whitney Webb writes , “ The lack of transparency about this research , such as DARPA ’ s decision to classify its controversial genetic extinction research and the technology ’ s use as a weapon of war , compounds these concerns.
” There is a treaty—or was as Washington might have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the arms control agreements with the Russians—that supposedly prevents countries from making bioweapons .
However , whether they are making the weapons or not , they are doing research that could quickly be weaponized .
Perhaps it would be a good thing if there were a worldwide public discussion whether the benefit of the research is greater than the risk of a deadly pandemic .
The lack of transparency makes mischief possible .
Remember the anthrax letters in the wake of 9/11 that turned out to contain a version of anthrax available only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cover this up , the letters were blamed on a dead man who had no motive to send the letters and no access to the anthrax .
Something as dangerous as bioengineered pathogens require plenty of transparency .
There is no reason scientists should be permitted to investigate whatever they want .
Think for a minute , what is the good of nuclear weapons ?
Perhaps if Earth were invaded by hightech Aliens , thermonuclear weapons could be a defense .
Perhaps if an astroid is on collision course with Earth , nuclear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that would burn up in the atmosphere or into smaller pieces that would do less damage .
What else are nuclear weapons good for but to bring us Armageddon ?
A lot of thought is needed also about robotics and artificial intelligence .
Robots such as those that can withstand deep underwater pressures and radiation are useful .
But robots that displace people can leave humans unemployed and without purpose .
And do we really want machines as smart or smarter than humans or weaponized ?
The challenges of these technologies can be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unintended and ignored consequences can be horrific .
The Prepperu2019s Blue ... Tess Pennington Best Price : $ 11.98 Buy New $ 18.98 An obvious question is : If people with white skin can not use certain words or long-established expressions , can not read , study , or teach certain subjects that some believe are offensive , and can not organize or segregate themselves as others are permitted to do , why can scientists and governments study and manufacture things that could terminate life itself ?
This makes no sense .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sense soon , conspiracy theories are going to become very real .
We can not rely on the ethics and morality of governments .
They have neither .
Consider the US and its European vassals .
For 20 years they have bombed , invaded , murdered , and ravaged seven countries , destroying them in whole or part , all on the basis of transparent lies .
And nothing is done about it .
Indeed , the murderous process continues .
Based on these transparent lies , President George W. Bush violated the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on suspicion alone , and President Obama violated due process by executing US citizens on suspicion alone .
Neither were impeached .
Congress , the judiciary , and the public accepted this shredding of the US Constitution and stepped into a police state .
When there is no honest media to protect the people , government transparency becomes even more critical .
Since 2009 , the US government has overthrown governments in Honduras , Ukraine , Bolivia , Brazil , Argentina , reversed the reform process in Ecuador , temporarily overthrew Chevez in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his successor Maduro .
Cuba , North Korea , Syria , Iran , Russia , and China remain on Washington ’ s list of countries to be overthrown .
This extraordinary arrogance is easily capable of a using a false flag engineered pathogen to produce termoil within a country that collapses a government .
For this reason , the transparency of research is of the upmost importance .
The Best of Paul Craig Roberts

Using more recent data from China of the coronavirus’ infection and death rates than the Indian scientists had, “Moon of Alabama” concludes that the “pandemic” has reached its peak and will be over with in a month.
If so, then Jon Rappoport was correct in the beginning that coronavirus was just another big scare hype.
Let’s hope that this is the case and that the coronavirus is a far less threat than ordinary flu. Nevertheless, such a happy outcome still leaves us with a lot of puzzling questions. Here are a few of them:
Why such an enormous effort by the Chinese government using draconian quarantine measures affecting millions of people and multi-country halts of travel to and from China over a threat far less serious than ordinary flu? Why is there a rush to develop a vaccine? Why the expert predictions of a worldwide pandemic? Why did the virus originate in a Chinese city known to have labs for the study of dangerous viruses? Why do the scare viruses originate in China—SARS, swine flu, bird flue, coronavirus? Why did the team of scientists in India find elements of HIV in the coronavirus genome that is believed to raise the infectious potential, a finding, if correct, implies the engineering of a bioterror weapon?
Be Ready for Anything:... Daisy Luther Best Price: $10.45 Buy New $9.69 (as of 07:15 UTC - Details) The scientists might be wrong, but they are not presenting a conspiracy theory. They published their paper provisionally in order to get input from other scientists. I have no idea whether their findings will be validated, and whatever we are told, we might never know. If the virus proves to be bioengineered, the Chinese government will know whether something they did escaped. If they are not responsible for the virus, they will perceive an attack on them by the US. This type of information would confirm Chinese suspicions:
“Research conducted by the Pentagon, and DARPA specifically, has continually raised concerns, not just in the field of bioweapons and biotechnology, but also in the fields of nanotechnology, robotics and several others. DARPA, for instance, has been developing a series of unsettling research projects that ranges from microchips that can create and delete memories from the human brain to voting machine software that is rife with problems.
“Now, as fear regarding the current coronavirus outbreak begins to peak, companies with direct ties to DARPA have been tasked with developing its vaccine, the long-term human and environmental impacts of which are unknown and will remain unknown by the time the vaccine is expected to go to market in a few weeks time.
“Furthermore, DARPA and the Pentagon’s past history with bioweapons and their more recent experiments on genetic alteration and extinction technologies as well as bats and coronaviruses in proximity to China have been largely left out of the narrative, despite the information being publicly available. Also left out of the media narrative have been the direct ties of both the USAMRIID and DARPA-partnered Duke University to the city of Wuhan, including its Institute of Medical Virology.
“Though much about the origins of the coronavirus outbreak remains unknown, the U.S. military’s ties to the aforementioned research studies and research institutions are worth detailing as such research — while justified in the name of “national security” — has the frightening potential to result in unintended, yet world-altering consequences. The lack of transparency about this research, such as DARPA’s decision to classify its controversial genetic extinction research and the technology’s use as a weapon of war, compounds these concerns. While it is important to avoid reckless speculation as much as possible, it is the opinion of this author that the information in this report is in the public interest and that readers should use this information to reach their own conclusions about the topics discussed herein.”
If the Indian scientists’ findings are correct, we should expect them to be shouted down by government supported scientists. To save their careers, they would have to acknowledge a mistake in their research. If the virus were a US manufactured one, China would have the same incentive to coverup the fact as Washington, because otherwise the consequence would be war, for which China is not ready.
There are other concerns. For example, concurrent with the announcement of the new virus there were accusations that the Chinese virus lab was responsible for the pandemic threat and might even have released it purposely on its own population. Moon of Alabama is correct to call this a conspiracy theory. It is a conspiracy theory to discredit the Chinese government with the Chinese population and the rest of the world. The Chinese government has no interest in harming the Chinese economy and discrediting itself with a population that it is trying to rule without a harsh hand, but Washington has an interest in ruining the Chinese.
I think it is a good thing that the question whether coronavirus is an engineered virus came up. There are a number of secret high security labs around the world doing scary things. As Whitney Webb writes, “The lack of transparency about this research, such as DARPA’s decision to classify its controversial genetic extinction research and the technology’s use as a weapon of war, compounds these concerns.” There is a treaty—or was as Washington might have pulled out of it like it has the arms control agreements with the Russians—that supposedly prevents countries from making bioweapons. However, whether they are making the weapons or not, they are doing research that could quickly be weaponized.
Perhaps it would be a good thing if there were a worldwide public discussion whether the benefit of the research is greater than the risk of a deadly pandemic. The lack of transparency makes mischief possible. Remember the anthrax letters in the wake of 9/11 that turned out to contain a version of anthrax available only in a US government lab. To cover this up, the letters were blamed on a dead man who had no motive to send the letters and no access to the anthrax. Something as dangerous as bioengineered pathogens require plenty of transparency.
There is no reason scientists should be permitted to investigate whatever they want. Think for a minute, what is the good of nuclear weapons? Perhaps if Earth were invaded by hightech Aliens, thermonuclear weapons could be a defense. Perhaps if an astroid is on collision course with Earth, nuclear missiles could shatter it into small pieces that would burn up in the atmosphere or into smaller pieces that would do less damage. What else are nuclear weapons good for but to bring us Armageddon?
A lot of thought is needed also about robotics and artificial intelligence. Robots such as those that can withstand deep underwater pressures and radiation are useful. But robots that displace people can leave humans unemployed and without purpose. And do we really want machines as smart or smarter than humans or weaponized?
The challenges of these technologies can be very interesting to scientists, but the unintended and ignored consequences can be horrific. The Prepperu2019s Blue... Tess Pennington Best Price: $11.98 Buy New $18.98 (as of 02:20 UTC - Details)
An obvious question is: If people with white skin cannot use certain words or long-established expressions, cannot read, study, or teach certain subjects that some believe are offensive, and cannot organize or segregate themselves as others are permitted to do, why can scientists and governments study and manufacture things that could terminate life itself? This makes no sense. If we do not begin to make better sense soon, conspiracy theories are going to become very real.
We cannot rely on the ethics and morality of governments. They have neither. Consider the US and its European vassals. For 20 years they have bombed, invaded, murdered, and ravaged seven countries, destroying them in whole or part, all on the basis of transparent lies. And nothing is done about it. Indeed, the murderous process continues.
Based on these transparent lies, President George W. Bush violated the US Constitution and held indefinitely American citizens on suspicion alone, and President Obama violated due process by executing US citizens on suspicion alone.
Neither were impeached. Congress, the judiciary, and the public accepted this shredding of the US Constitution and stepped into a police state. When there is no honest media to protect the people, government transparency becomes even more critical.
Since 2009, the US government has overthrown governments in Honduras, Ukraine, Bolivia, Brazil, Argentina, reversed the reform process in Ecuador, temporarily overthrew Chevez in Venezuela and continues to try to overthrow his successor Maduro. Cuba, North Korea, Syria, Iran, Russia, and China remain on Washington’s list of countries to be overthrown.
This extraordinary arrogance is easily capable of a using a false flag engineered pathogen to produce termoil within a country that collapses a government. For this reason, the transparency of research is of the upmost importance.
The Best of Paul Craig Roberts