lewrockwell--2020-03-05--How Ron Paul ‘Lost” the Iowa Caucus, But Won Iowa In 2012

Politics has eternally involved the battle of the upstart against the status quo and the reported uniqueness of Bernie Sanders getting “ screwed ” in 2016 and again in 2020 by the Democratic establishment , evokes memories of Ron Paul 2008 , and Ron Paul 2012 .
On Tuesday , January 3 , 2020 , Ron Paul took third place in the “ Presidential Preference Poll ” portion of the Iowa Caucus .
Results from that night were all over the news .
Months later , at the Republican National Convention , on August 28 , 2012 , Ron Paul @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Iowa ’ s 28 delegates .
This did not make the news .
The Iowa 2012 Presidential Preference Poll vote totals cited in the most excellent electoral resource The Green Papers are as follows : The Revolution : A Mani ... Ron Paul Best Price : $ 1.99 Buy New $ 6.99 If you really had to come up with a delegate estimate , you could argue that the preceding vote totals provide the following delegates : Santorum , Romney , Paul – 6 delegates each , Gingrich – 4 delegates , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if I really had to come up with a number because you are holding a gun to my head ” estimates from Iowa are often referred to as “ soft delegate count.
” But that ’ s not at all how the process works .
The very mention of soft delegates in reference to Iowa is a contrivance .
You don ’ t “ need ” to come up with a delegate estimate on caucus night .
You don ’ t “ need ” to pretend that the Presidential Preference Poll is very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report that the process doesn ’ t work that way .
The media could also fairly report that in most elections , the media is able to steamroll the electorate so well that the process doesn ’ t really matter .
That would be honest reporting .
Every four years we are told that Iowa is a vital election and that the non-binding Presidential Preference Poll means everything .
It means little .
It ’ s an opportunity for the media to promote their favorite candidates , while downplaying others , with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on display .
As such , caucus reporting provides an opportunity for a transparent view of how duplicitous these conniving , “ objective ” journalists can be with their role in society .
Democratic strategist James Carville came up with key messaging for Clinton 1992 as they took on incumbent President George H.W .
Bush who had lied about tax hikes – “ read my lips , no new taxes ” – and was dealing with a sluggish economy .
The point Carville impressively kept as the focus of the very distracting , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ It ’ s the economy stupid.
” Ron Paul 2012 ’ s messaging was one of greater liberty .
His state strategy was largely built around the delegates .
It could be a strategy described as “ It ’ s the delegates stupid !
” The Iowa Caucus ( or Iowa Caucuses , as some like to say ) , in both parties , has two parts : 1 . )
the straw poll or Presidential Preference Poll and 2 . )
the delegate selection process .
The Presidential Preference Poll is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is of no actual consequence on the nomination process , aside from the claimed importance that media falsely attributes to it , in order to manufacture support for a favored candidate or candidates .
The delegate selection process , in contrast , is how Iowa caucus-goers procedurally contribute to the choosing of a presidential candidate .
Ron Paul ’ s campaign figured he wasn ’ t going to beat the media at their game .
The media was just too entrenched and interested in maintaining the status quo .
Eventually Donald Trump 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media savvy candidate .
Ron Paul was a different candidate .
The Ron Paul 2012 campaign figured out how to “ hack ” the electoral process by seeking delegates instead .
This strategy by the campaign is often credited to Deb Hopper .
The night of Tuesday , January 3 , 2012 – the night of the Iowa Caucus , played an important role in the Iowa presidential nomination process , but not for the reason the papers reported .
It was significant because of the handful of delegates elected that night from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delegates in total .
In contrast to caucus night , what really mattered in 2012 in Iowa is what happened on Saturday , March 10 at the Iowa Republican Party County Conventions – where state convention delegates are chosen , what happened on Saturday April 21 at the Iowa Republican Party Congressional District Conventions – where state district convention delegates are chosen , and then on Friday , June 15 at the Iowa State Republican District Convention and Saturday , June 16 at the Iowa State Republican Convention – where 28 delegates to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ron Paul won Iowa decisively at all of those venues .
Not only did he win at pressing his campaign toward national victory in Iowa in 2012 , he also won by getting more supporters of his on the State Central Committee and in various other state party roles than any other candidate , which promised lasting impact on the functioning of the Iowa Republican Party .
Ron Paul won Iowa decisively from caucus night forward and kept winning in an increasingly virtuous spiral .
The only thing Ron Paul did not win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Presidential Preference Poll that the media likes to spin into a big thing .
That was won by Rick Santorum whose campaign did not have longevity in this process .
He suspended his campaign on April 10 , 2012 , a day short of a year after he announced his candidacy on April 11 , 2011 .
Nine of the 12 below were Iowa residents who publicly declared their support for Ron Paul .
Two of the twelve below were on the slate passed out by Paul supporters , meaning that they were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some way seen as allies in the political process .
Only one of the 12 chosen by convention delegates was neither a Ron Paul supporter nor seen as a preferred ally to work with .
This 92 % success rate that night is impressive .
• Congressional District 2 • Bob Anderson ( Johnson County GOP chair ; publicly neutral , not on the slate passed out by Paul supporters ) • Ed Kelenyi ( Jefferson County central committee member ; publicly neutral ; on the slate passed out by Paul supporters ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( on the slate passed out by Paul supporters ) On Friday night , June 15 , 2012 , Ron Paul secured 9 of the 28 delegates from Iowa and possibly as many as 11 of the 28 delegates from Iowa .
Seventeen more remained up for grabs .
This is considerably more delegates than the papers announced on January 3 , 2012 , when they went to press and subverted the Iowa electoral process by lying about it and claiming that the Presidential Preference Poll won by Rick Santorum played a significant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choose the presidential nominee .
Swords Into Plowshares ... Paul , Ron Best Price : $ 4.00 Buy New $ 15.99 The Ron Paul campaign did not stop there .
It had another round of delegate selections to go .
1,624 delegates attended the Iowa Republican Party State Convention on Saturday June 16 , 2012 .
Thirteen delegates chosen were at-large delegates .
Ron Paul won 10 of 13 at-large delegates at the state convention .
Three delegate spots are filled by those with specific state party roles .
Elections for those roles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The roles and election winners were : This is an incredibly lengthy and resource intensive process that requires significant commitment not only from a campaign , but more significantly from thousands of residents in Iowa .
It is far more important than what took place for an hour or two on the night of the January 3 , 2012 Iowa Caucus .
The final 25 delegates and their 25 replacements were ( http : //www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/IA-R ) : This list is overwhelmingly composed of Ron Paul supporters .
The 40th Republican National Convention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thursday , August 30 , 2012 at the Tampa Bay Times Forum .
On Tuesday , August 28 , 2012 , a roll call vote took place during which time , Governor Mitt Romney received 2,061 votes from the 2,286 delegates in attendance to make him the Presidential nominee of the Republican Party .
The Romney campaign had not been able to make nice with Ron Paul , and by the opening of the convention , had largely failed to win over Paul ’ s most ardent supporters .
Notably the appearance of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Republican National Convention may indicate some level of cooperation between Ron Paul ’ s national campaign and the Republican National Committee .
Nonetheless , a great divide remained between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul publicly .
With the two remaining Republican candidates not yet allied with each other , RNC Chairman Reince Priebus in coordination with the Romney campaign was not willing to let the Ron Paul supporters use the floor to show dissension in front of the national media .
Consequently , relatively little attention was given to the actual roll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media centerpiece of any convention in our contemporary era .
Tremendous pressure had been put on state delegations to show unanimous support for Governor Romney .
And the drama that preceded that August 28 vote , and the irregularity around voting that took place during that verbal and public roll call vote , could fill a book .
This all points to the fact that votes cast by the Iowa delegation were , by no means , fair-weather support .
Against great pressure , the Iowa delegation voted from the floor with overwhelming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 22 of the 28 delegates supporting him .
Those 28 votes are the culmination of the entire months long party nomination process in Iowa .
Ron Paul had , most certainly , won Iowa in 2012 .
This was a very different outcome than the inaccurate media portrayal of who “ won ” Iowa on the night of the Iowa Caucus – January 3 , 2012 .
Though he was not the national party ’ s nominee , Ron Paul won Iowa on January 3 , 2012 , and he won Iowa all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2012 .
The Best of Allan Stevo

Politics has eternally involved the battle of the upstart against the status quo and the reported uniqueness of Bernie Sanders getting “screwed” in 2016 and again in 2020 by the Democratic establishment, evokes memories of Ron Paul 2008, and Ron Paul 2012.
On Tuesday, January 3, 2020, Ron Paul took third place in the “Presidential Preference Poll” portion of the Iowa Caucus. Results from that night were all over the news.
Months later, at the Republican National Convention, on August 28, 2012, Ron Paul won a decisive supermajority of 79% of Iowa’s 28 delegates. This did not make the news.
In 2012 Ron Paul resoundingly won Iowa.
The Iowa 2012 Presidential Preference Poll vote totals cited in the most excellent electoral resource The Green Papers are as follows: The Revolution: A Mani... Ron Paul Best Price: $1.99 Buy New $6.99 (as of 11:00 UTC - Details)
Rick Santorum 29,839 – 24.56%
Mitt Romney 29,805 – 24.53%
Ron Paul 26,036 – 21.43%
Newt Gingrich 16,163 – 13.30%
Rick Perry 12,557 – 10.33%
Michelle Bachman 6,046 – 4.98%
If you really had to come up with a delegate estimate, you could argue that the preceding vote totals provide the following delegates: Santorum, Romney, Paul – 6 delegates each, Gingrich – 4 delegates, Perry – 3 delegates. Those “if I really had to come up with a number because you are holding a gun to my head” estimates from Iowa are often referred to as “soft delegate count.” But that’s not at all how the process works. The very mention of soft delegates in reference to Iowa is a contrivance.
You don’t “need” to come up with a delegate estimate on caucus night. You don’t “need” to pretend that the Presidential Preference Poll is very meaningful. The media could just fairly report that the process doesn’t work that way. The media could also fairly report that in most elections, the media is able to steamroll the electorate so well that the process doesn’t really matter. That would be honest reporting.
Every four years we are told that Iowa is a vital election and that the non-binding Presidential Preference Poll means everything. It means little. It’s an opportunity for the media to promote their favorite candidates, while downplaying others, with the media’s full level of deceit on display. As such, caucus reporting provides an opportunity for a transparent view of how duplicitous these conniving, “objective” journalists can be with their role in society.
ITDS – It’s the Delegates Stupid!
Democratic strategist James Carville came up with key messaging for Clinton 1992 as they took on incumbent President George H.W. Bush who had lied about tax hikes – “read my lips, no new taxes” – and was dealing with a sluggish economy. The point Carville impressively kept as the focus of the very distracting, uber-scandal-prone Arkansas governor’s campaign: “It’s the economy stupid.”
Ron Paul 2012’s messaging was one of greater liberty. His state strategy was largely built around the delegates. It could be a strategy described as “It’s the delegates stupid!”
The Iowa Caucus (or Iowa Caucuses, as some like to say), in both parties, has two parts: 1.) the straw poll or Presidential Preference Poll and 2.) the delegate selection process.
The Presidential Preference Poll is what the media reports on, and is of no actual consequence on the nomination process, aside from the claimed importance that media falsely attributes to it, in order to manufacture support for a favored candidate or candidates.
The delegate selection process, in contrast, is how Iowa caucus-goers procedurally contribute to the choosing of a presidential candidate.
Ron Paul’s campaign figured he wasn’t going to beat the media at their game. The media was just too entrenched and interested in maintaining the status quo. Eventually Donald Trump 2016 won at exactly that game with a media savvy candidate. Ron Paul was a different candidate.
The Ron Paul 2012 campaign figured out how to “hack” the electoral process by seeking delegates instead. This strategy by the campaign is often credited to Deb Hopper.
The night of Tuesday, January 3, 2012 – the night of the Iowa Caucus, played an important role in the Iowa presidential nomination process, but not for the reason the papers reported. It was significant because of the handful of delegates elected that night from each precinct, amounting to thousands of delegates in total.
Ron Paul Won Iowa at The County Conventions & Congressional District Conventions
In contrast to caucus night, what really mattered in 2012 in Iowa is what happened on Saturday, March 10 at the Iowa Republican Party County Conventions – where state convention delegates are chosen, what happened on Saturday April 21 at the Iowa Republican Party Congressional District Conventions – where state district convention delegates are chosen, and then on Friday, June 15 at the Iowa State Republican District Convention and Saturday, June 16 at the Iowa State Republican Convention – where 28 delegates to the Republican National Convention are chosen.
Ron Paul won Iowa decisively at all of those venues. Not only did he win at pressing his campaign toward national victory in Iowa in 2012, he also won by getting more supporters of his on the State Central Committee and in various other state party roles than any other candidate, which promised lasting impact on the functioning of the Iowa Republican Party. Ron Paul won Iowa decisively from caucus night forward and kept winning in an increasingly virtuous spiral.
The only thing Ron Paul did not win out of Iowa was the nearly meaningless Presidential Preference Poll that the media likes to spin into a big thing. That was won by Rick Santorum whose campaign did not have longevity in this process. He suspended his campaign on April 10, 2012, a day short of a year after he announced his candidacy on April 11, 2011.
Ron Paul Won Iowa at the State District Convention
Friday night, June 15, 2012, district conventions were held. Ron Paul won 11 of 12 delegate spots.
Nine of the 12 below were Iowa residents who publicly declared their support for Ron Paul. Two of the twelve below were on the slate passed out by Paul supporters, meaning that they were either privately Paul supporters or were in some way seen as allies in the political process. Only one of the 12 chosen by convention delegates was neither a Ron Paul supporter nor seen as a preferred ally to work with. This 92% success rate that night is impressive.
• Congressional District 1
Kelly Schoen (Veterans for Ron Paul) Brent Oleson (endorsed Paul) Jeff Luecke (endorsed Paul)
Congressional District 2 Ani DeGroot (Paul staff) Bob Anderson (Johnson County GOP chair; publicly neutral, not on the slate passed out by Paul supporters) Ed Kelenyi (Jefferson County central committee member; publicly neutral; on the slate passed out by Paul supporters)
Congressional District 3 Gopal Krishna (on the slate passed out by Paul supporters) Nancy Bowery (Campaign for Liberty) Glen Massie (State Representative; endorsed Paul)
Congressional District 4 Dusty Juhl (Campaign for Liberty) Brian Kraft (Paul supporter) Jeff Taylor (Paul supporter)
On Friday night, June 15, 2012, Ron Paul secured 9 of the 28 delegates from Iowa and possibly as many as 11 of the 28 delegates from Iowa. Seventeen more remained up for grabs. This is considerably more delegates than the papers announced on January 3, 2012, when they went to press and subverted the Iowa electoral process by lying about it and claiming that the Presidential Preference Poll won by Rick Santorum played a significant role in the way caucus-goers in Iowa choose the presidential nominee. Swords Into Plowshares... Paul, Ron Best Price: $4.00 Buy New $15.99 (as of 11:36 UTC - Details)
The Ron Paul campaign did not stop there. It had another round of delegate selections to go.
Ron Paul Won Iowa at the State Convention
1,624 delegates attended the Iowa Republican Party State Convention on Saturday June 16, 2012. Thirteen delegates chosen were at-large delegates. Ron Paul won 10 of 13 at-large delegates at the state convention.
Three delegate spots are filled by those with specific state party roles. Elections for those roles were also chosen at the state convention. The roles and election winners were:
National Committeeman: Steve Scheffler (Paul)
National Committeewoman: Kim Pearson (Paul)
Republican Party of Iowa Chairman & Republican National Committee Member: A.J. Spiker (Ron Paul’s state co-chair)
This is an incredibly lengthy and resource intensive process that requires significant commitment not only from a campaign, but more significantly from thousands of residents in Iowa. It is far more important than what took place for an hour or two on the night of the January 3, 2012 Iowa Caucus.
The final 25 delegates and their 25 replacements were (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/IA-R):
Delegates:
Dr. Drew Ivers, Delegation Chairman, Hamilton,
Steve Anders, Pottawattamie,
Robert Anderson, Johnson,
Andrea Bie, Allamakee,
Nancy Bowery, Page,
Governor Terry Branstad, Boone,
Michelle Bullock, Polk,
Ani DeGroot, Johnson,
David Fischer, Polk,
U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley, Butler,
Mark Hansen, Pottawattamie,
Will Johnson, Dubuque,
Dusty Juhl, Story,
Ed Kelenyi, Jefferson,
Brian Kraft, Boone,
Gopal Krishna, Polk,
Roger Leahy, Jefferson,
Jeff Luecke, Dubuque,
State Representative Glen Massie, Polk, James Mills, Floyd,
Lexy Nuzum, Madison,
Brent Oleson, Linn,
Kelly Schoen, Linn,
Margaret Stoldorf, Montgomery,
Jeff Taylor, Sioux.
Alternates:
Chelsy Askren, Clayton,
Jennifer Bowen, Dallas,
John Bowery, Page,
Buddi Brooks, Pottawattamie,
Chris Canny, Johnson,
Sam Clovis, Plymouth,
Jonas Cutler, Polk,
Therese Davis, Guthrie,
Aaron Dowdell, Marshall,
Benjamin DuBois, Story,
Mike Gresham, Fremont,
Eric Grote, Franklin,
Dr. Cody Hoefert, Lyon,
Jeff Jorgensen, Pottawattamie,
Tracee Knapp, Ringgold,
Titus Landegent, Plymouth,
Gabe Lanz, Polk,
Ruth Long, Union,
Lt. Governor Kim Reynolds,
Clarke, Lisa Smith, Wapello,
Sarah Stokes, Black Hawk,
Chet Swanson, Jefferson,
Kurt Whalen, Scott,
David Wiederstein, Cass,
State Senator Brad Zaun, Polk.
This list is overwhelmingly composed of Ron Paul supporters.
Conclusion: Ron Paul Won Iowa At the Republican National Convention
The 40th Republican National Convention was held Monday, August 27 to Thursday, August 30, 2012 at the Tampa Bay Times Forum.
On Tuesday, August 28, 2012, a roll call vote took place during which time, Governor Mitt Romney received 2,061 votes from the 2,286 delegates in attendance to make him the Presidential nominee of the Republican Party.
The Romney campaign had not been able to make nice with Ron Paul, and by the opening of the convention, had largely failed to win over Paul’s most ardent supporters. Notably the appearance of Senator Rand Paul on the dais during the Republican National Convention may indicate some level of cooperation between Ron Paul’s national campaign and the Republican National Committee. Nonetheless, a great divide remained between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul publicly.
With the two remaining Republican candidates not yet allied with each other, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus in coordination with the Romney campaign was not willing to let the Ron Paul supporters use the floor to show dissension in front of the national media. Consequently, relatively little attention was given to the actual roll call vote, which is often a media centerpiece of any convention in our contemporary era.
Tremendous pressure had been put on state delegations to show unanimous support for Governor Romney. And the drama that preceded that August 28 vote, and the irregularity around voting that took place during that verbal and public roll call vote, could fill a book.
This all points to the fact that votes cast by the Iowa delegation were, by no means, fair-weather support. Against great pressure, the Iowa delegation voted from the floor with overwhelming strength in favor of Ron Paul with 22 of the 28 delegates supporting him. Those 28 votes are the culmination of the entire months long party nomination process in Iowa. Ron Paul had, most certainly, won Iowa in 2012.
This was a very different outcome than the inaccurate media portrayal of who “won” Iowa on the night of the Iowa Caucus – January 3, 2012. Though he was not the national party’s nominee, Ron Paul won Iowa on January 3, 2012, and he won Iowa all the way through to August 28, 2012.
Ron Paul was Iowa’s choice in 2012.
The Best of Allan Stevo


lewrockwell--2020-03-05--Gold Skyrocketing… and How To Be Positioned To Profit

International Man : Gold is breaking out .
What do you make of this ?
The thing to remember here is that since the crisis of 2008 , not just the US but all of the major governments in the world—the Japanese , the Chinese , the Europeans , and all the little countries too—have been printing up money hand over fist .
Gold hasn ’ t really responded so far .
All that new money has gone into the stock and bond markets , and certain areas of the real estate markets .
Now interest rates are once again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over $ 17 trillion of bonds have negative yields—something that should be metaphysically impossible .
Money is finally starting to filter down into commodities .
All of which are extraordinarily depressed right now .
The move in gold has grabbed everyone ’ s attention .
But all the commodities are going to move higher .
There ’ s a lot of fear building up , and that always drives gold prices .
I ’ m bullish on gold .
I don ’ t think this is a false start .
The New Case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : $ 0.25 Buy New $ 6.99 It last peaked in 2011 around $ 1,900 .
Gold is going back to at least its previous high , and that goes for all the other commodities as well .
International Man : There ’ s a lot of fear building up .
What does that mean for gold ?
Doug Casey : A lot of people are starting to recognize that in today ’ s world you don ’ t really own anything .
Stocks in your stock account are just another liability of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goes bust , you ’ re out of luck for anything beyond the amount for which you ’ re insured .
You ’ re just another unsecured creditor , like the broker ’ s landlord .
You really don ’ t own the stocks in your stock account—at least in any secure way .
When it comes to commodities , the bust of MF Global under Corzine a few years ago proved that you really don ’ t own the money in your commodities account either .
It used to be than an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That ’ s no longer the case .
You don ’ t really own the money in your bank account , at least beyond the insured amount .
The 2013 Cyprus crisis proved that .
Instead of bailing out the banks , they were “ bailed in ” by customer accounts .
The fractional reserve banking system , combined with a debt-heavy economy , guarantees there will be another wave of bank failures .
Governments will follow the Cyprus model .
Depositor ’ s funds are at risk .
More people are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t own any intangible assets in today ’ s over-financialized world .
Security is an illusion .
That ’ s why there ’ s going to be a movement to gold .
As I ’ ve said many times in the past , but it bears repeating , gold is the only financial asset that ’ s not simultaneously somebody else ’ s liability .
It ’ s the “ go to ” asset in an unstable world .
International Man : The Fed and other central banks seem to be creating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does this mean for gold ?
Doug Casey : Well , the more fiat money that ’ s created , the higher prices are going to go .
That absolutely includes gold .
The big X factor is the huge amount of debt in the world , which is once again at new all-time highs .
Mortgage debt , student loan debt , automobile debt , credit card debt , government debt , and corporate debt .
The US dollar itself is a form of debt .
It ’ s been this country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now .
All that debt can be sustained with interest rates at 0 % or 2 % , but if—or rather when—interest rates eventually go up , a lot of that is going to be defaulted on .
That will redirect people ’ s attention to an asset that can ’ t be defaulted on , such as physical gold .
International Man : If gold is merely a “ tradition ” as central banks like to pretend it is , why are central banks buying record amounts of it ?
Doug Casey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m always skeptical about the figures reported by governments .
Not all central bankers are buying gold ; it ’ s essentially just the Chinese and the Russians .
Central bankers aren ’ t rocket scientists ; they ’ re just government employees who ’ ve weaseled themselves into a position where they ’ re over paid , get to wear $ 1,000-dollar suits , and go to ritzy meetings .
They have no understanding of economics , despite degrees from prestigious schools .
They ’ ve been brought up on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are Marxists .
Central banks are really just engines of inflation .
They really serve no purpose except to allow governments to extract capital from their populations indirectly by printing currency .
As opposed to honestly—insofar as taxation is honest—by confiscating the money directly from citizens .
My hope is that over the next 20 years most of these central banks will go bankrupt .
The Federal Reserve ’ s published balance sheet is loaded with trillions of dollars of ultra-low interest rate bonds .
When—not if—rates return to even normal levels they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ negative equity .
But I expect rates to go to the levels of the early 80 ’ s and beyond .
Hopefully the Fed and other central banks will go bust and disappear .
They ’ ll certainly go bust .
As to disappearing , that ’ s not a prediction , just a fond hope .
Banking and money should be left to the market , not an arm of the State .
Let me re-emphasize that the Russians and the Chinese have been buying a lot of gold in recent years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ?
The major asset of the world ’ s central banks is US dollars .
Even though central bankers aren ’ t rocket scientists , they recognize that the dollar is the just the unsecured asset of a bankrupt government , the US government .
So the Russians and the Chinese are trying to lighten up on dollars and go to gold .
Other governments and central banks will too .
It ’ s only convenient for everyone to use dollars out of habit , and because most everything is priced in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , China , and Iran don ’ t like to use dollars , because any time they transfer dollars—even between themselves—those dollars must clear through New York .
The last thing that any of these countries want to do is use the currency of their adversary , or perhaps their enemy .
24K Gold Rose , Forever ... Buy New $ 46.74 They don ’ t want to use renminbi and rubles , which are illiquid paper currencies .
They don ’ t trust each other , or each other ’ s currencies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to use dollars .
As a result I think the whole world is going back to gold .
That will take the gold price to much higher levels .
Remember , there are probably only about six billion ounces above ground , and the supply grows less than 1.5 % per year from new production .
That ’ s not much , considering that there are about 7.5 billion people in the world .
International Man : How are you positioned to profit ?
Number one is buy gold coins every time I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no longer buy large one-ounce gold coins .
I only buy smaller , generally quarter of an ounce , gold coins .
Things like Sovereigns , with a small numismatic value .
That ’ s because I ’ ve noticed , in several countries now , that if you have something that looks like it might be a Maple Leaf or a Krugerrand , they ’ ll open up your briefcase and check it out .
It ’ s happened to me where they ’ ve mistaken silver coins for gold coins .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but preferably ones that look like pocket change .
Number two is to speculate on gold indirectly .
I ’ ve always been very big in mining stocks and they ’ re very cheap right now .
When they run , the whole group can generally go 1,000 % .
I ’ m very involved in mining exploration and development stocks in particular at the moment .
Those are the basics on how you play gold .
You should mainly buy gold for safety , out of prudence , and for insurance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be quite profitable in the years to come .
The Best of Doug Casey

International Man: Gold is breaking out. What do you make of this?
Doug Casey: It’s long overdue.
The thing to remember here is that since the crisis of 2008, not just the US but all of the major governments in the world—the Japanese, the Chinese, the Europeans, and all the little countries too—have been printing up money hand over fist. Gold hasn’t really responded so far.
All that new money has gone into the stock and bond markets, and certain areas of the real estate markets. Now interest rates are once again down to their all-time lows, and over $17 trillion of bonds have negative yields—something that should be metaphysically impossible. Money is finally starting to filter down into commodities. All of which are extraordinarily depressed right now.
The move in gold has grabbed everyone’s attention. But all the commodities are going to move higher. There’s a lot of fear building up, and that always drives gold prices.
I’m bullish on gold. I don’t think this is a false start. The New Case for Gold Rickards, James Best Price: $0.25 Buy New $6.99 (as of 11:36 UTC - Details)
It last peaked in 2011 around $1,900. Gold is going back to at least its previous high, and that goes for all the other commodities as well.
International Man: There’s a lot of fear building up. What does that mean for gold?
Doug Casey: A lot of people are starting to recognize that in today’s world you don’t really own anything.
Stocks in your stock account are just another liability of the brokerage firm. If your broker goes bust, you’re out of luck for anything beyond the amount for which you’re insured. You’re just another unsecured creditor, like the broker’s landlord. You really don’t own the stocks in your stock account—at least in any secure way.
When it comes to commodities, the bust of MF Global under Corzine a few years ago proved that you really don’t own the money in your commodities account either. It used to be than an account with a clearing broker was sacrosanct. That’s no longer the case.
You don’t really own the money in your bank account, at least beyond the insured amount. The 2013 Cyprus crisis proved that. Instead of bailing out the banks, they were “bailed in” by customer accounts. The fractional reserve banking system, combined with a debt-heavy economy, guarantees there will be another wave of bank failures.
Governments will follow the Cyprus model. Depositor’s funds are at risk.
More people are starting to realize that you actually don’t own any intangible assets in today’s over-financialized world. Security is an illusion.
That’s why there’s going to be a movement to gold. As I’ve said many times in the past, but it bears repeating, gold is the only financial asset that’s not simultaneously somebody else’s liability. It’s the “go to” asset in an unstable world.
International Man: The Fed and other central banks seem to be creating an ever-increasing amount of currency. What does this mean for gold?
Doug Casey: Well, the more fiat money that’s created, the higher prices are going to go. That absolutely includes gold.
The big X factor is the huge amount of debt in the world, which is once again at new all-time highs. Mortgage debt, student loan debt, automobile debt, credit card debt, government debt, and corporate debt. The US dollar itself is a form of debt. It’s been this country’s major export for two generations now.
All that debt can be sustained with interest rates at 0% or 2%, but if—or rather when—interest rates eventually go up, a lot of that is going to be defaulted on. That will redirect people’s attention to an asset that can’t be defaulted on, such as physical gold.
International Man: If gold is merely a “tradition” as central banks like to pretend it is, why are central banks buying record amounts of it?
Doug Casey: Well, to start with, I’m always skeptical about the figures reported by governments. Not all central bankers are buying gold; it’s essentially just the Chinese and the Russians. Central bankers aren’t rocket scientists; they’re just government employees who’ve weaseled themselves into a position where they’re over paid, get to wear $1,000-dollar suits, and go to ritzy meetings. They have no understanding of economics, despite degrees from prestigious schools. They’ve been brought up on Keynesianism, and a lot of them are Marxists.
Central banks are really just engines of inflation. They really serve no purpose except to allow governments to extract capital from their populations indirectly by printing currency. As opposed to honestly—insofar as taxation is honest—by confiscating the money directly from citizens.
My hope is that over the next 20 years most of these central banks will go bankrupt. The Federal Reserve’s published balance sheet is loaded with trillions of dollars of ultra-low interest rate bonds. When—not if—rates return to even normal levels they’ll have hundreds of billions of negative equity. But I expect rates to go to the levels of the early 80’s and beyond.
Hopefully the Fed and other central banks will go bust and disappear. They’ll certainly go bust. As to disappearing, that’s not a prediction, just a fond hope. Banking and money should be left to the market, not an arm of the State.
Let me re-emphasize that the Russians and the Chinese have been buying a lot of gold in recent years.
Now, why are they doing that?
The major asset of the world’s central banks is US dollars. Even though central bankers aren’t rocket scientists, they recognize that the dollar is the just the unsecured asset of a bankrupt government, the US government.
So the Russians and the Chinese are trying to lighten up on dollars and go to gold. Other governments and central banks will too. It’s only convenient for everyone to use dollars out of habit, and because most everything is priced in dollars today.
But countries like Russia, China, and Iran don’t like to use dollars, because any time they transfer dollars—even between themselves—those dollars must clear through New York. The last thing that any of these countries want to do is use the currency of their adversary, or perhaps their enemy. 24K Gold Rose, Forever... Buy New $46.74 (as of 02:55 UTC - Details)
But what’s the alternative?
They don’t want to use renminbi and rubles, which are illiquid paper currencies. They don’t trust each other, or each other’s currencies. They certainly don’t want to use dollars. As a result I think the whole world is going back to gold. That will take the gold price to much higher levels. Remember, there are probably only about six billion ounces above ground, and the supply grows less than 1.5% per year from new production. That’s not much, considering that there are about 7.5 billion people in the world.
International Man: How are you positioned to profit?
Doug Casey: I’m doing several things.
Number one is buy gold coins every time I get a chance. However, I no longer buy large one-ounce gold coins. I only buy smaller, generally quarter of an ounce, gold coins. Things like Sovereigns, with a small numismatic value.
That’s because I’ve noticed, in several countries now, that if you have something that looks like it might be a Maple Leaf or a Krugerrand, they’ll open up your briefcase and check it out. It’s happened to me where they’ve mistaken silver coins for gold coins.
You should be buying physical gold coins, but preferably ones that look like pocket change.
Number two is to speculate on gold indirectly. I’ve always been very big in mining stocks and they’re very cheap right now. When they run, the whole group can generally go 1,000%. I’m very involved in mining exploration and development stocks in particular at the moment.
Those are the basics on how you play gold. You should mainly buy gold for safety, out of prudence, and for insurance. But I believe it will also be quite profitable in the years to come.
Reprinted with permission from International Man.
The Best of Doug Casey


lewrockwell--2020-03-05--Criminals in San Francisco Act With Impunity, Knowing There Are No Consequences

A criminal justice system exists to protect people and property .
We already noted that , in San Francisco , the criminal justice system no longer protects people .
However , it ’ s not just San Francisco that has a problem .
The whole of California does and there ’ s a video making the rounds now showing what happens when the government withdraws its protection from law-abiding citizens .
In 2014 , California voters approved Proposition 47 , which downgraded certain felonies to misdemeanors .
Significantly , the new measure mandated that any theft below $ 950 would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the law passed , Stanford University ’ s Justice Advocacy Project put out a report – with one of its authors having co-written Prop .
47 – stating that there were now 13,000 fewer people in California ’ s prisons and that the state had already saved $ 150 million .
The study , though , forgot to look at the cost to California ’ s citizens .
Against the Left : A Ro ... Llewellyn H Rockwell Jr Best Price : $ 13.57 Buy New $ 8.00 The reality is that civic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prosecute misdemeanors .
It ’ s too much effort for too small an ultimate consequence for the malefactor .
This is especially true , as we ’ ll see , when the prosecutor has leftist ideas about what constitutes justice .
Already in 2016 , California retailers were complaining about the new law ’ s effect on their businesses : Anything below $ 950 keeps the crime a misdemeanor — and likely means the thieves face no pursuit and no punishment , say retailers and law enforcement officials .
Large retailers including Safeway @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pharmacies say shoplifting increased at least 15 percent , and in some cases , doubled since voters approved Proposition 47 and ended the possibility of charging shoplifting as a felony with the potential for a prison sentence .
Shoplifting reports to the Los Angeles Police Department jumped by a quarter in the first year , according to statistics the department compiled for The Associated Press .
In San Francisco , the problems from Prop .
47 have been compounded by the fact that last November voters elected Chesa Boudin to be their District @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two terrorists from the 1960s group the Weather Underground , both of whom went to prison for felony murder .
Boudin was therefore raised by two other Weather Underground members : William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn .
He is a revolutionary Marxist at a level most Americans can not even comprehend .

A criminal justice system exists to protect people and property. We already noted that, in San Francisco, the criminal justice system no longer protects people. However, it’s not just San Francisco that has a problem. The whole of California does and there’s a video making the rounds now showing what happens when the government withdraws its protection from law-abiding citizens.
In 2014, California voters approved Proposition 47, which downgraded certain felonies to misdemeanors. Significantly, the new measure mandated that any theft below $950 would be a misdemeanor.
A year after the law passed, Stanford University’s Justice Advocacy Project put out a report – with one of its authors having co-written Prop. 47 – stating that there were now 13,000 fewer people in California’s prisons and that the state had already saved $150 million. The study, though, forgot to look at the cost to California’s citizens.
Against the Left: A Ro... Rockwell Jr, Llewellyn H Best Price: $2.85 Buy New $8.00 (as of 07:59 UTC - Details) The reality is that civic law enforcement seldom tries to investigate or prosecute misdemeanors. It’s too much effort for too small an ultimate consequence for the malefactor. This is especially true, as we’ll see, when the prosecutor has leftist ideas about what constitutes justice.
Already in 2016, California retailers were complaining about the new law’s effect on their businesses:
Anything below $950 keeps the crime a misdemeanor — and likely means the thieves face no pursuit and no punishment, say retailers and law enforcement officials. Large retailers including Safeway, Target, Rite Aid and CVS pharmacies say shoplifting increased at least 15 percent, and in some cases, doubled since voters approved Proposition 47 and ended the possibility of charging shoplifting as a felony with the potential for a prison sentence. Shoplifting reports to the Los Angeles Police Department jumped by a quarter in the first year, according to statistics the department compiled for The Associated Press.
In San Francisco, the problems from Prop. 47 have been compounded by the fact that last November voters elected Chesa Boudin to be their District Attorney. Boudin is the son of two terrorists from the 1960s group the Weather Underground, both of whom went to prison for felony murder. Boudin was therefore raised by two other Weather Underground members: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. He is a revolutionary Marxist at a level most Americans cannot even comprehend.
Read the Whole Article


lewrockwell--2020-03-05--The Nonconsent of the Governed

The Nonconsent of the Governed

The urban-rural problem waxes ; it is like a bad marriage and the only solution is a divorce .
But while the rural “ man ” would happily leave the marriage on reasonable terms and peaceably , the urban “ woman ” will never allow the “ man ” to leave .
It begs the question about consent of the governed – the supposed basis for legitimate government ( assuming for the sake of discussion such a thing exists ) .
The answer to this question pretty much establishes the illegitimacy of the government .
In my home state of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( and geographic ) majority of the state does not consent to being disarmed and criminalized by the government in Richmond – which represents Richmond and Northern Virginia .
90-plus percent of the state ’ s counties oppose the slew of gun confiscation/criminalization measures proposed and likely to be imposed upon them .
The people of these rural counties did not consent to any of this .
And they have no say in any of this – because the state government is controlled by the urban population centers , whose concentrated numbers give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s governing apparatus .
The 90-plus percent geographic majority outside the urban hives of Richmond and Northern Virginia can vote but it ’ s becoming as meaningless a gesture as voting in the old Soviet Union , where there was one candidate on the ballot – and no option to say no .
But Saul Alinsky ’ s “ rules for radicals ” can work the other way , too .
Use their ( stated ) principles against them by insisting they abide by them .
We do not consent .
Yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impose .
We demand to be represented .
.
.
by people who represent us .
We will no longer accept being told what we must accept by you and the people who represent only you .
This applies just as logically – and morally – at the federal as well as the state level .
It is a mockery of the concept of representation to assert that the 15,000 residents of a rural county such as mine are “ represented ” by two senators elected by the millions who reside in Richmond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by a president elected by millions of people who reside in other states and thousands of miles away .
Like sausage making , it does not bear examination .
And it all rests on the doublethinkian fiction of consent of the governed .
The Best of Eric Peters

The urban-rural problem waxes; it is like a bad marriage and the only solution is a divorce. But while the rural “man” would happily leave the marriage on reasonable terms and peaceably, the urban “woman” will never allow the “man” to leave.
It begs the question about consent of the governed – the supposed basis for legitimate government (assuming for the sake of discussion such a thing exists).
The answer to this question pretty much establishes the illegitimacy of the government.
In my home state of Virginia, for example, the rural (and geographic) majority of the state does not consent to being disarmed and criminalized by the government in Richmond – which represents Richmond and Northern Virginia.
90-plus percent of the state’s counties oppose the slew of gun confiscation/criminalization measures proposed and likely to be imposed upon them. The people of these rural counties did not consent to any of this. And they have no say in any of this – because the state government is controlled by the urban population centers, whose concentrated numbers give them a virtual lock on the state’s governing apparatus. The 90-plus percent geographic majority outside the urban hives of Richmond and Northern Virginia can vote but it’s becoming as meaningless a gesture as voting in the old Soviet Union, where there was one candidate on the ballot – and no option to say no.
But Saul Alinsky’s “rules for radicals” can work the other way, too. Use their (stated) principles against them by insisting they abide by them.
We do not consent. Yet you impose. This illegitimizes what you impose. We demand to be represented . . . by people who represent us. We will no longer accept being told what we must accept by you and the people who represent only you.
This applies just as logically – and morally – at the federal as well as the state level.
It is a mockery of the concept of representation to assert that the 15,000 residents of a rural county such as mine are “represented” by two senators elected by the millions who reside in Richmond and Northern Virginia and even more risibly by a president elected by millions of people who reside in other states and thousands of miles away.
Like sausage making, it does not bear examination.
And it all rests on the doublethinkian fiction of consent of the governed.
Read the Whole Article
The Best of Eric Peters


lewrockwell--2020-03-05--Have We Brewed a Whirlwind?

Have We Brewed a Whirlwind?

In the United States and throughout the Western World there is public distrust of public authorities and distrust among the public of one another .
Public authorities who do not like “ conspiracy theories ” do a lot to generate them .
We can see the public ’ s distrust of public authorities in the negligent response to the coronavirus .
The refusal of public authorities to stop incoming flights from infected countries has brought the dangerous virus into the Western World where inaction has so far prevailed .
Many virologists and other experts have criticized the inaction for seriously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of the expert statements made to public health authorities .
See Belgium and Germany .
The refusals of public officials to take protective steps partly reside in ideological positions .
In Europe it is the European Union ’ s commitment to open borders and one Europe .
Closing the borders goes against the ideology that nationalism is the problem .
The Neoconservative Th ... Roberts , Dr. Paul Craig Best Price : $ 7.49 Buy New $ 15.31 In other instances , Canada for example , the Prime Minister apparently considers it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incoming flights from Iran .
See this .
The public sees inaction , disbelieves the feeble reasons given , and takes action to exhaust supplies of protective gear , storable foods , and everything else that disappears in a panic .
As the inaction of public authorities is not understandable , all sorts of explanations arise .
For example : The Center for Disease Control ( CDC ) and the National Institute for Health ( NIH ) want the virus to spread , because the result will be bigger budgets ; the pharmaceutical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to spread , because it will bring them profits in mandatory vaccination whether it prevents or aids the spread of the virus ; governments want the virus to spread , because it allows them to impose martial law and abolish civil liberties ; elites are using the virus to reduce the world population ; governments are using the virus to reduce the strain of the elderly on health care systems and save money .
You can add to this list on your own .
Amazon.com Gift Card i ... Buy New $ 10.00 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is lack of public cooperation in whatever response effort public authorities eventually mount .
Another consequence is that this lack of public cooperation justifies more coercion by government in order to deal with the threat .
Remember all of the violations of Constitutional protections made by the George W. Bush and Obama regimes in responst to 9/11 and the “ terrorist threat.
” A big difference is that then there was no pandemic .
Distrust among the public of one another has been fomented by decades of feminist attacks on men and by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ racists.
” These attacks have been institutionalized in the educational system .
They have been useful to feminist and “ racial minorities ” for advancement .
But they have atomized the population .
Where there was once community , no matter how unequal , there is the lack of community .
The “ sexist ” and “ racist ” offences are more taught than felt and are reaching the point of absurdity .
Every day someone finds a slur in a word that has been part of the language for centuries before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minorities .
These manufactured “ offences ” are used to excoriate men and to fire them from jobs and deny them professional careers .
Guillaume Durocher points out that community is also being destroyed by the decline in national community .
The core entities that produced national communities or countries are being flooded out by incoming multitudes of immigrants from different cultures and value systems .
Many on the left show open contempt for nationhood and national solidarity .
Durocher explains the collapse of national community here .
Now assaulting a fragmenting Western @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not be known .
Is there enough leadership to overcome the long-inflicted damages and to pull the people together and to reestablish community ?
With the Democrats politically weaponizing the coronavirus against President Trump , it does not seem so .
The Best of Paul Craig Roberts

In the United States and throughout the Western World there is public distrust of public authorities and distrust among the public of one another. Public authorities who do not like “conspiracy theories” do a lot to generate them.
We can see the public’s distrust of public authorities in the negligent response to the coronavirus. The refusal of public authorities to stop incoming flights from infected countries has brought the dangerous virus into the Western World where inaction has so far prevailed.
Many virologists and other experts have criticized the inaction for seriously endangering the public. I recently posted some of the expert statements made to public health authorities. See Belgium and Germany.
The refusals of public officials to take protective steps partly reside in ideological positions. In Europe it is the European Union’s commitment to open borders and one Europe. Closing the borders goes against the ideology that nationalism is the problem. The Neoconservative Th... Roberts, Dr. Paul Craig Best Price: $7.49 Buy New $15.31 (as of 10:30 UTC - Details)
In other instances, Canada for example, the Prime Minister apparently considers it “racist” to protect Canadians from incoming flights from Iran. See this.
The public sees inaction, disbelieves the feeble reasons given, and takes action to exhaust supplies of protective gear, storable foods, and everything else that disappears in a panic.
As the inaction of public authorities is not understandable, all sorts of explanations arise. For example: The Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the National Institute for Health (NIH) want the virus to spread, because the result will be bigger budgets; the pharmaceutical companies (Big-Pharma) want the virus to spread, because it will bring them profits in mandatory vaccination whether it prevents or aids the spread of the virus; governments want the virus to spread, because it allows them to impose martial law and abolish civil liberties; elites are using the virus to reduce the world population; governments are using the virus to reduce the strain of the elderly on health care systems and save money. You can add to this list on your own.
Amazon.com Gift Card i... Buy New $10.00 (as of 08:25 UTC - Details) One consequence of distrust of public authorities is lack of public cooperation in whatever response effort public authorities eventually mount. Another consequence is that this lack of public cooperation justifies more coercion by government in order to deal with the threat. Remember all of the violations of Constitutional protections made by the George W. Bush and Obama regimes in responst to 9/11 and the “terrorist threat.” A big difference is that then there was no pandemic.
Distrust among the public of one another has been fomented by decades of feminist attacks on men and by decades of attacks on white people as “racists.” These attacks have been institutionalized in the educational system. They have been useful to feminist and “racial minorities” for advancement. But they have atomized the population. Where there was once community, no matter how unequal, there is the lack of community.
The “sexist” and “racist” offences are more taught than felt and are reaching the point of absurdity. Every day someone finds a slur in a word that has been part of the language for centuries before the presence in the population of racial minorities. These manufactured “offences” are used to excoriate men and to fire them from jobs and deny them professional careers.
Guillaume Durocher points out that community is also being destroyed by the decline in national community. The core entities that produced national communities or countries are being flooded out by incoming multitudes of immigrants from different cultures and value systems. Many on the left show open contempt for nationhood and national solidarity. Durocher explains the collapse of national community here.
Now assaulting a fragmenting Western World comes a pandemic whose consequences cannot be known. Is there enough leadership to overcome the long-inflicted damages and to pull the people together and to reestablish community? With the Democrats politically weaponizing the coronavirus against President Trump, it does not seem so.
The Best of Paul Craig Roberts


lewrockwell--2020-03-05--The Myth of Moderate Nuclear War

The Myth of Moderate Nuclear War

There are many influential supporters of nuclear war , and some of these contend that the use of ‘ low-yield ’ and/or short-range weapons is practicable without the possibility of escalation to all-out Armageddon .
In a way their argument is comparable to that of the band of starry-eyed optimists who thought , apparently seriously , that there could be such a beast as a ‘ moderate rebel ’ .
In October 2013 the Washington Post reported that “ The CIA is expanding a clandestine effort to train opposition fighters in Syria amid concern that moderate , US-backed militias are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s civil war , ” and the US Congress gave approval to then President Barack Obama ’ s plan for training and arming moderate Syrian rebels to fight against Islamic State extremists .
The belief that there could be any grouping of insurgents that could be described as “ moderate rebels ” is bizarre and it would be fascinating to know how Washington ’ s planners classify such people .
It obviously didn ’ t dawn on them that any person who uses weapons illegally in a rebellion could not be defined as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moderate ?
Perhaps a moderate rebel could be equipped with US weapons that kill only extremists ?
Or are they allowed to kill only five children a month ?
The entire notion was absurd , and predictably the scheme collapsed , after expenditure of vast amounts of US taxpayers ’ money .
And even vaster amounts of money are being spent on developing and producing what might be classed as moderate nuclear weapons , in that they don ’ t have the zillion-bang punch of most of its existing 4,000 plus warheads .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that if a nuclear weapon is ( comparatively ) small , then it ’ s less dangerous than a big nuclear weapon .
The Official CIA Manua ... Melton , H. Keith Best Price : $ 4.20 Buy New $ 9.99 In January 2019 the Guardian reported that “ the Trump administration has argued the development of a low-yield weapon would make nuclear war less likely , by giving the US a more flexible deterrent .
It would counter any enemy ( particularly Russian ) perception that the US would balk at using @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a limited nuclear attack because its missiles were all in the hundreds of kilotons range and ‘ too big to use ’ , because they would cause untold civilian casualties.
” In fact , the nuclear war envisaged in that scenario would be a global catastrophe — as would all nuclear wars , because there ’ s no way , no means whatever , of limiting escalation .
Once a nuclear weapon has exploded and killed people , the nuclear-armed nation to which these people belonged is going to take massive action .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ government is just going to sit there and try to start talking with an enemy that has taken the ultimate leap in warfare .
It is widely imagined — by many nuclear planners in the sub-continent , for example — that use of a tactical , a battlefield-deployed , nuclear weapon will in some fashion persuade the opponent ( India or Pakistan ) that there is no need to employ higher-capability weapons , or , in other words , longer range missiles delivering massive warheads .
These people think that the other side @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and come to the conclusion that at most it should itself reply with a similar weapon .
But such a scenario supposes that there is good intelligence about the effects of the weapon that has exploded , most probably within the opponent ’ s sovereign territory .
This is verging on the impossible .
War is confusing in the extreme , and tactical planning can be extremely complex .
But there is no precedent for nuclear war , and nobody — nobody — knows for certain what reactions will be to such a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The US 2018 Nuclear Posture Review stated that low-yield weapons “ help ensure that potential adversaries perceive no possible advantage in limited nuclear escalation , making nuclear employment less likely ” .
But do the possible opponents of the United States agree with that ?
How could they do so ?
The reaction by any nuclear-armed state to what is confirmed as a nuclear attack will have to be swift .
It can not be guaranteed , for example , that the first attack will not represent a series .
It will , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world will then be a tiny step from doomsday .
The US nuclear review is optimistic that “ flexibility ” will by some means limit a nuclear exchange , or even persuade the nuked-nation that there should be no riposte , which is an intriguing hypothesis .
As pointed out by Lawfare , “ the review calls for modification to ‘ a small number of existing submarine-launched ballistic missile ( SLBM ) warheads ’ to provide a low-yield option .
It also calls for further exploration of low-yield options , arguing that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that potential adversaries perceive no possible advantage in limited nuclear escalation , making nuclear employment less likely.
’ This is intended to address the argument that adversaries might think the United States , out of concern for collateral damage , would hesitate to employ a high-yield nuclear weapon in response to a ‘ lower level ’ conflict , in which an adversary used a low-yield nuclear device .
The review argues that expanding low-yield options is ‘ important for the preservation of credible deterrence , ’ especially when it comes to smaller-scale regional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ H ... Tim Weiner Best Price : $ 2.13 Buy New $ 8.95 “ Credible deterrence ” is a favourite catch-phrase of the believers in limited nuclear war , but its credibility is suspect .
Former US defence secretary William Perry said last year that he wasn ’ t so much worried about the vast number of warheads in the world as he was by open proposals that these weapons are “ usable ” .
It ’ s right back to the Cold War and he emphasises that “ The belief that there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – which I haven ’ t heard being openly discussed in the United States or in Russia for a good many years – is happening now in those countries which I think is extremely distressing.
” But the perturbing thing is that while it is certainly being discussed in Moscow , it ’ s verging on doctrine in Washington .
In late February US Defence Secretary Esper was reported as having taken part in a “ classified military drill in which Russia and the United States traded nuclear strikes.
” The Pentagon stated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contingency where you ’ re conducting a war with Russia and Russia decides to use a low-yield , limited nuclear weapon against a site on NATO territory.
” The US response was to fire back with what was called a “ limited response.
” First of all , the notion that Russia would take the first step to nuclear war is completely baseless , and there is no evidence that this could ever be contemplated .
But ever if it were to be so , it can not be imagined for an instant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warfare in riposte .
These self-justifying wargames are dangerous .
And they bring Armageddon ever closer .
The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation .

There are many influential supporters of nuclear war, and some of these contend that the use of ‘low-yield’ and/or short-range weapons is practicable without the possibility of escalation to all-out Armageddon. In a way their argument is comparable to that of the band of starry-eyed optimists who thought, apparently seriously, that there could be such a beast as a ‘moderate rebel’.
In October 2013 the Washington Post reported that “The CIA is expanding a clandestine effort to train opposition fighters in Syria amid concern that moderate, US-backed militias are rapidly losing ground in the country’s civil war,” and the US Congress gave approval to then President Barack Obama’s plan for training and arming moderate Syrian rebels to fight against Islamic State extremists. The belief that there could be any grouping of insurgents that could be described as “moderate rebels” is bizarre and it would be fascinating to know how Washington’s planners classify such people. It obviously didn’t dawn on them that any person who uses weapons illegally in a rebellion could not be defined as being moderate. And how moderate is moderate? Perhaps a moderate rebel could be equipped with US weapons that kill only extremists? Or are they allowed to kill only five children a month? The entire notion was absurd, and predictably the scheme collapsed, after expenditure of vast amounts of US taxpayers’ money.
And even vaster amounts of money are being spent on developing and producing what might be classed as moderate nuclear weapons, in that they don’t have the zillion-bang punch of most of its existing 4,000 plus warheads. It is apparently widely believed in Washington that if a nuclear weapon is (comparatively) small, then it’s less dangerous than a big nuclear weapon. The Official CIA Manua... Melton, H. Keith Best Price: $4.20 Buy New $9.99 (as of 12:00 UTC - Details)
In January 2019 the Guardian reported that “the Trump administration has argued the development of a low-yield weapon would make nuclear war less likely, by giving the US a more flexible deterrent. It would counter any enemy (particularly Russian) perception that the US would balk at using its own fearsome arsenal in response to a limited nuclear attack because its missiles were all in the hundreds of kilotons range and ‘too big to use’, because they would cause untold civilian casualties.”
In fact, the nuclear war envisaged in that scenario would be a global catastrophe — as would all nuclear wars, because there’s no way, no means whatever, of limiting escalation. Once a nuclear weapon has exploded and killed people, the nuclear-armed nation to which these people belonged is going to take massive action. There is no alternative, because no government is just going to sit there and try to start talking with an enemy that has taken the ultimate leap in warfare.
It is widely imagined — by many nuclear planners in the sub-continent, for example — that use of a tactical, a battlefield-deployed, nuclear weapon will in some fashion persuade the opponent (India or Pakistan) that there is no need to employ higher-capability weapons, or, in other words, longer range missiles delivering massive warheads. These people think that the other side will evaluate the situation calmly and dispassionately and come to the conclusion that at most it should itself reply with a similar weapon. But such a scenario supposes that there is good intelligence about the effects of the weapon that has exploded, most probably within the opponent’s sovereign territory. This is verging on the impossible.
War is confusing in the extreme, and tactical planning can be extremely complex. But there is no precedent for nuclear war, and nobody — nobody — knows for certain what reactions will be to such a situation in or near any nation. The US 2018 Nuclear Posture Review stated that low-yield weapons “help ensure that potential adversaries perceive no possible advantage in limited nuclear escalation, making nuclear employment less likely”. But do the possible opponents of the United States agree with that? How could they do so?
The reaction by any nuclear-armed state to what is confirmed as a nuclear attack will have to be swift. It cannot be guaranteed, for example, that the first attack will not represent a series. It will, by definition, be decisive, because the world will then be a tiny step from doomsday. The US nuclear review is optimistic that “flexibility” will by some means limit a nuclear exchange, or even persuade the nuked-nation that there should be no riposte, which is an intriguing hypothesis.
As pointed out by Lawfare, “the review calls for modification to ‘a small number of existing submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) warheads’ to provide a low-yield option.
It also calls for further exploration of low-yield options, arguing that expanding these options will ‘help ensure that potential adversaries perceive no possible advantage in limited nuclear escalation, making nuclear employment less likely.’ This is intended to address the argument that adversaries might think the United States, out of concern for collateral damage, would hesitate to employ a high-yield nuclear weapon in response to a ‘lower level’ conflict, in which an adversary used a low-yield nuclear device. The review argues that expanding low-yield options is ‘important for the preservation of credible deterrence,’ especially when it comes to smaller-scale regional conflicts.” Legacy of Ashes: The H... Tim Weiner Best Price: $2.13 Buy New $8.95 (as of 06:40 UTC - Details)
“Credible deterrence” is a favourite catch-phrase of the believers in limited nuclear war, but its credibility is suspect. Former US defence secretary William Perry said last year that he wasn’t so much worried about the vast number of warheads in the world as he was by open proposals that these weapons are “usable”. It’s right back to the Cold War and he emphasises that “The belief that there might be tactical advantage using nuclear weapons – which I haven’t heard being openly discussed in the United States or in Russia for a good many years – is happening now in those countries which I think is extremely distressing.” But the perturbing thing is that while it is certainly being discussed in Moscow, it’s verging on doctrine in Washington.
In late February US Defence Secretary Esper was reported as having taken part in a “classified military drill in which Russia and the United States traded nuclear strikes.” The Pentagon stated that “The scenario included a European contingency where you’re conducting a war with Russia and Russia decides to use a low-yield, limited nuclear weapon against a site on NATO territory.” The US response was to fire back with what was called a “limited response.”
First of all, the notion that Russia would take the first step to nuclear war is completely baseless, and there is no evidence that this could ever be contemplated. But ever if it were to be so, it cannot be imagined for an instant that Washington would indulge in moderate nuclear warfare in riposte. These self-justifying wargames are dangerous. And they bring Armageddon ever closer.
The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.


lewrockwell--2020-03-05--How ‘Woman’ Became a Dirty Word

How ‘Woman’ Became a Dirty Word

This Sunday is International Women ’ s Day .
I ’ ve got to confess , I ’ ve never been much of a fan .
It ’ s always seemed like an excuse for middle-class women with good jobs , fat salaries and nice lives to revel in smug self-pity .
There are lots of reasons to want to see the back of this yawn-fest .
But the idea that ‘ women ’ is an offensive term that needs to be redefined or , better still , erased from our vocabulary ?
Give me a break .
And yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Earlier this week , to mark International Women ’ s Day , Sefton Council on Merseyside raised flags outside Bootle and Southport town halls .
Woke flag-raising is a thing now .
We ’ ve all become familiar with the rainbow flag to signify gay pride , but there is also a flag for bisexual pride ; a blue , pink and white flag for ‘ transgender day of remembrance ’ ; and a purple , green and white flag to signify genderqueer .
There ’ s even a flag to represent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agreed through a multistage vote , natch .
So , what flag to fly on International Women ’ s Day ?
Sefton council went with a flag declaring , ‘ Woman , noun , adult female ’ , which seems fair enough .
However , this simple , brief definition raised the ire of one man , Adrian Harrop .
Harrop , a GP and LGBT activist , is always quick off the mark when it comes to outrage by proxy .
He tweeted at Sefton Council , ‘ the flag you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hostile transphobic dog whistle ’ .
Another man , Sefton councillor Leo Evans , raised the alarm with those in charge of flags and responded to Harrop : ‘ @ seftoncouncil is and should be an [ sic ] diverse and inclusionary council , not one that seeks to exclude anyone.
’ And that was all it took .
At the behest of men , the flag to mark International Women ’ s Day was removed and apologies were issued .
And now we all know : Sefton is an ‘ inclusionary ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uppity women who expect to be included .
They can be insulted as ‘ dogs ’ .
Amazon.com Gift Card i ... Buy New $ 10.00 It ’ s not just on Merseyside that International Women ’ s Day is now considered ‘ problematic ’ .
At Leicester University , students have planned a week of festivities – but the word ‘ woman ’ is nowhere in sight .
Instead , students are celebrating ‘ International Womxn ’ s Week ’ , a move instigated by their trans-woman women ’ s officer , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ otherwise known as a man .
In a newsletter to students , the university explained : ‘ We use the term “ womxn ” as a more inclusive spelling of “ women ” that includes any person who identifies as a womxn.
’ So that ’ s clear .
The category of women no longer refers exclusively to adult females ; rather , it has expanded to include any man who feels like calling himself a woman .
This new definition of womanhood was spelled out by Lola Olufemi , a feminist and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ read out at a recent conference commemorating the 50th anniversary of Ruskin College ’ s inaugural Women ’ s Liberation Conference .
Olufemi helpfully explains that ‘ woman is an umbrella term ’ under which anyone supportive of her worldview can ‘ gather to make their demands ’ .
It takes an unbelievable degree of arrogance to impose your own definition on words and , in so doing , exclude females who were fighting for women ’ s rights before you were even born .
The consequences of this redefinition were soon made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feminist , author and professor , Selina Todd – was effectively No Platformed from the conference after Olufemi refused to speak if Todd was on a panel .
When ‘ women ’ becomes ‘ an umbrella term ’ , females are silenced .

This Sunday is International Women’s Day. I’ve got to confess, I’ve never been much of a fan. It’s always seemed like an excuse for middle-class women with good jobs, fat salaries and nice lives to revel in smug self-pity. There are lots of reasons to want to see the back of this yawn-fest. But the idea that ‘women’ is an offensive term that needs to be redefined or, better still, erased from our vocabulary? Give me a break.
And yet, this is exactly what is happening. Earlier this week, to mark International Women’s Day, Sefton Council on Merseyside raised flags outside Bootle and Southport town halls. Woke flag-raising is a thing now. We’ve all become familiar with the rainbow flag to signify gay pride, but there is also a flag for bisexual pride; a blue, pink and white flag for ‘transgender day of remembrance’; and a purple, green and white flag to signify genderqueer. There’s even a flag to represent the asexual community: its design was agreed through a multistage vote, natch. So, what flag to fly on International Women’s Day?
Sefton council went with a flag declaring, ‘Woman, noun, adult female’, which seems fair enough. However, this simple, brief definition raised the ire of one man, Adrian Harrop. Harrop, a GP and LGBT activist, is always quick off the mark when it comes to outrage by proxy. He tweeted at Sefton Council, ‘the flag you’re flying at the moment is a hostile transphobic dog whistle’. Another man, Sefton councillor Leo Evans, raised the alarm with those in charge of flags and responded to Harrop: ‘@seftoncouncil is and should be an [sic] diverse and inclusionary council, not one that seeks to exclude anyone.’ And that was all it took. At the behest of men, the flag to mark International Women’s Day was removed and apologies were issued. And now we all know: Sefton is an ‘inclusionary’ council as long as it is not uppity women who expect to be included. They can be insulted as ‘dogs’. Amazon.com Gift Card i... Buy New $10.00 (as of 08:25 UTC - Details)
It’s not just on Merseyside that International Women’s Day is now considered ‘problematic’. At Leicester University, students have planned a week of festivities – but the word ‘woman’ is nowhere in sight. Instead, students are celebrating ‘International Womxn’s Week’, a move instigated by their trans-woman women’s officer, Dan Orr – a biological male, otherwise known as a man. In a newsletter to students, the university explained: ‘We use the term “womxn” as a more inclusive spelling of “women” that includes any person who identifies as a womxn.’ So that’s clear. The category of women no longer refers exclusively to adult females; rather, it has expanded to include any man who feels like calling himself a woman.
This new definition of womanhood was spelled out by Lola Olufemi, a feminist and ‘organiser’, in a statement read out at a recent conference commemorating the 50th anniversary of Ruskin College’s inaugural Women’s Liberation Conference. Olufemi helpfully explains that ‘woman is an umbrella term’ under which anyone supportive of her worldview can ‘gather to make their demands’. It takes an unbelievable degree of arrogance to impose your own definition on words and, in so doing, exclude females who were fighting for women’s rights before you were even born. The consequences of this redefinition were soon made clear: an actual woman – the feminist, author and professor, Selina Todd – was effectively No Platformed from the conference after Olufemi refused to speak if Todd was on a panel. When ‘women’ becomes ‘an umbrella term’, females are silenced.
Read the Whole Article


lewrockwell--2020-03-05--Some Very Handy Tips

Some Very Handy Tips

Shoppers have flooded to drugstores to stock up on hand sanitizer as the coronavirus outbreak in the United States has worsened , leaving shelves barren of the product for those who weren ’ t quick off the mark .
In the past week , demand for hand sanitizer has soared 1,400 % with some stores limiting the amount of a customer can purchase at one time and others jacking up prices looking to make a profit off the global panic .
Amazon has banned 10,000 users for price gouging as the panic buying intensifies .
While public health experts are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hands with soap and water is the best way to warn off coronavirus germs , there are ways to make your own hand sanitizer for those times when you just can ’ t get to a sink .
The Wuhan Coronavirus ... Ellis , Cat Buy New $ 14.36 ‘ Homemade hand sanitizers are just as effective as what you buy as long as you used the right percentage of alcohol , ’ Dr. David Agus told CBS MoneyWatch .
‘ This is a good way to get around people price-gouging for Purell.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ hand sanitizer to work , it needs to be compromised of at least 60 percent alcohol .
Recommended for use is rubbing alcohol ( Isopropyl alcohol ) while ethanol will also make a suitable variation .
In order to protect your skin , aloe vera gel is added to the rubbing alcohol and a few drops of essential oil will give it a nicer smell .
There have been nine deaths , all in Washington state , as a result of the coronavirus

Shoppers have flooded to drugstores to stock up on hand sanitizer as the coronavirus outbreak in the United States has worsened, leaving shelves barren of the product for those who weren't quick off the mark.
How to make homemade hand sanitizer Place 2/3 cup of rubbing alcohol (Isopropyl alcohol) in a bowl Add 1/3 cup of aloe vera gel and mix well Add 5-10 drops of essential oil and mix again Ensure alcohol equals to 60% of mixture Use a funnel to transfer to a liquid soap container Ensure container is tightly sealed Ethanol can be used instead of rubbing alcohol Alternative non-alcohol methods swap one tablespoon of witch hazel and half a teaspoon of tea tree oil for the rubbing alcohol Advertisement
In the past week, demand for hand sanitizer has soared 1,400% with some stores limiting the amount of a customer can purchase at one time and others jacking up prices looking to make a profit off the global panic.
Amazon has banned 10,000 users for price gouging as the panic buying intensifies.
While public health experts are advising that routinely and effectively washing your hands with soap and water is the best way to warn off coronavirus germs, there are ways to make your own hand sanitizer for those times when you just can't get to a sink.
'Homemade hand sanitizers are just as effective as what you buy as long as you used the right percentage of alcohol,' Dr. David Agus told CBS MoneyWatch.
'This is a good way to get around people price-gouging for Purell.'
In order for any good home hand sanitizer to work, it needs to be compromised of at least 60 percent alcohol.
Recommended for use is rubbing alcohol (Isopropyl alcohol) while ethanol will also make a suitable variation.
In order to protect your skin, aloe vera gel is added to the rubbing alcohol and a few drops of essential oil will give it a nicer smell.
SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEO
Hand sanitizer can be made at home by using rubbing alcohol and aloe vera gel
Empty shelves of sanitizing wipes in the Walgreens in Boston as concerned shoppers stock up
There have been eleven deaths in Washington state and California as a result of the virus
To make your own hand sanitizer, take 2/3 cup of rubbing alcohol and mix in a large bowl with 1/3 cup of aloe vera gel and 5-10 drops of the essential oil of your choice.
A two-ounce spray bottle or a liquid soap container can be used to hold the mixture to take on your commute or leave in your home or office.
If made properly and sealed tightly in its container, a homemade hand sanitizer can last for weeks.
'If you make it well, it's about as effective as using soap and water,' Dr. Stephen Morse, a professor of epidemiology at Columbia University in New York, told CBS.
'We know it works — just make sure it has enough alcohol in it.'
While health experts say that DIYers should ensure the solution is at least 60 percent alcohol, some claim an alcohol-free version can be made using witch hazel and tea tree oil.
Rubbing alcohol should be mixed with aloe vera gel and a few drops of an essential oil
Rubbing alcohol, aloe vera gel and a few drops of essential oil are mixed together
If properly made and sealed, homemade sanitizer can be kept for several weeks
In this case, one cup of aloe vera gel should be mixed with one tablespoon of witch hazel, half a teaspoon of tea tree oil, a drop of vitamin E oil and a few drops of an essential oil.
The witch hazel is said to be a non-drying cleanser while tea tree oil will take on germs.
The Vitamin E oil is used to add moisture.
According to Miryam Warham, a biology professor at William Paterson University, hand washing is still the best method to rid yourself of germs. By washing your hands you are removing all germs from your skin.
Hand sanitizer aims to kill the germs but does not remove them.
'Handwashing is the most important first step, and you shouldn't be bashful about it,' Wahrman told Business Insider.
The death toll from the coronavisrus in the United States has now reached eleven people.
At least 137 people have been diagnosed.
Amazon says it has banned 10,000 sellers attempting to price-gouge on bottles of hand sanitizer and other cleaning products as stocks run low amid the coronavirus outbreak
There have now been over 3,200 deaths related to the virus globally and over 93,000 infected.
The Center of Disease Control continues to advise people to wash their hands regularly with warm water and soap for at least 20 seconds, or use alcohol-based hand sanitizer, to prevent the spread.
Hand sanitizer does not kill all viruses but is effective against the coronavirus.
On Wednesday, Amazon banned 10,000 users for price gouging and removed one million products for making spurious health claims amid the global coronavirus outbreak.
Unscrupulous online traders have tried to cash in on the health emergency as stocks of hand sanitizer and face masks have run low in stores amid panic-buying.
Two-packs of Purrell hand sanitizer, which typically sell for $12, were marked up at $119.99 on Amazon this week as people tried to protect themselves from the virus.
A company spokesman told ABC: 'There is no place for price gouging on Amazon.'