lewrockwell--2020-02-20--Why Governments Hate Secession

Why Governments Hate Secession

When the Soviet Union began its collapse in 1989 , the world witnessed decentralization and secession on a scale not seen in Europe since the nineteenth century .
Over the next several years , puppet regimes and states-in-name-only broke away from Soviet domination and formed sovereign states .
Some states which had completely ceased to exist—such as the Baltic states—declared independence and became states in the own right .
In total , secession and decentralization in this era brought about more than twenty newly independent states .
This period served as an important reminder that human history is not , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever increasing state power and centralization .
Since then , however , the world has seen very few successful secession movements .
A handful of new countries have come into being over the past twenty years , such as East Timor and South Sudan .
But in spite of many efforts by separatists worldwide , there have been few changes to the lines on the maps .
This has certainly been the case in Europe and the Americas , where from Quebec to Scotland to Catalonia to Venice demands for independence have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of violence from central governments .
Anatomy of the State Murray Rothbard Best Price : $ 5.00 Buy New $ 5.82 Countries Don ’ t Like to Get Smaller This is partly due to the fact state organizations—that is , the people who control them—have little motivation to give up the benefits conferred by bigness .
States that control larger geographic areas and larger populations have greater ability to project their power and get more power .
Greater size means a larger frontier that can act as a physical buffer between the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s economic core .
Physical size is also helpful in terms of pursuing self-sufficiency in both energy production and agriculture .
More land means greater potential for resource extraction and acreage devoted to food production .
From the state ’ s perspective , these activities are good things because they can be taxed or expropriated .
In terms of population size , state control over larger populations means more human workers to tax , and , potentially , more highly productive urban workers .
Historically at least , larger populations also provided personnel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that control large territories and populations are able to directly control larger and more diverse economies within their borders .
This means more tax revenue , which in turn means greater military capability .
Naturally , state organizations are not inclined to abandon these advantages lightly , even when secession movement express a desire that they do so .
Why States Sometimes Get Smaller Sometimes , though , states are forced to contract in size and scope .
This usually happens when the cost of maintaining the status quo becomes higher than the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ autonomy .
Historically , the cost of maintaining unity is raised through military means .
Examples of this tactic being successfully employed include the cases of the United States , the Republic of Ireland , and some of the successor states of Yugoslavia .
But secession and decentralization have also often been achieved through bloodless or near bloodless means .
This was the case in Iceland and throughout most of the post-Iron Curtain states .
Bloodless secession movements , however , only occur when the parent state is weakened by larger events beyond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for example , seceded in 1944 , when World War II ensured that Denmark was in no position to object .
The post-Soviet states seceded when the Soviet state had been rendered impotent by decades of economic decline and ( in 1991 ) a failed coup .
Nor is it a coincidence that India gained independence from the United Kingdom in the years immediately following World War II .
It is likely the UK could have held on to India through military means indefinitely , but this would have come at a very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ standard of living .
It is possible to envision largely “ amicable ” separations .
The model for this is the separation of Canada , Australia , and New Zealand from the the United Kingdom .
But even in these cases , British control over these Commonwealth states ’ foreign policy was not totally abandoned until after World War II , when the British state had been weakened by depression and war .
Moreover , the British state assumed that these newly independent states would remain highly reliable geopolitical and economic allies indefinitely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ separation was perceived to be low .
In cases where the seceding state is perceived to have differing cultural , economic , or geopolitical interests—which is true of the overwhelming majority of cases—the parent state is , all else being equal , likely to meet demands for secession with much hostility .
Although liberal ideology has diminished the perception among much of the world ’ s population that bigger is better , most government agents—who are by nature decidedly illiberal—see things differently .
For them , the ideal state is most certainly a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the generous application of state violence have noticed that it is not a coincidence the world ’ s most powerful states—e.g.
, the US , Russia , China—are those that control large populations , large economic centers , and large geographic areas with sizable frontiers .
The combination of these three factors in various configuration ensures that existential threats to the regime are few and far between .
Russia ’ s relatively small economy—only a fraction of the size of Germany ’ s economy—is mitigated by its enormous geographical frontiers .
Its economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nuclear arsenal .
China ’ s per capita wealth is quite small , but Chinese territory and the sheer size of its overall economy ensures protection from foreign attack .
The US ’ s enormous economy and its huge ocean frontiers render it essentially immune to all existential threats other than large-scale nuclear war .
Large states such as these are limited only by the defensive capabilities of other states , and by the threat of domestic unrest and resistance .
As Ludwig von Mises noted in Liberalism , states can take only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ willing to give it .
There are limits to the public ’ s generosity .
This relationship between bigness and state power has been illustrated in the fact totalitarian states are virtually always large states .
In her book The Origins of Totalitarianism , Hannah Arendt examines a number of nontotalitarian dictatorships that sprang up in Europe before the Second World War .
These included ( among others ) the Baltic states , Hungary , Portugal , and Romania .
In many of these cases , Arendt contends the regimes attempted to turn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This was largely due to their lack of size : Although [ totalitarian ideology ] had served well enough to organize the masses until the movement seized power , the absolute size of the country then forced the would-be totalitarian ruler of masses into the more familiar patterns of class or party dictatorship .
The truth is that these countries simply did not control enough human material to allow for total domination and its inherent great losses in population .
Without much hope for the conquest of more heavily populated territories , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forced into a certain old-fashioned moderation lest they lose whatever people they had to rule .
This is also why Nazism , up to the outbreak of the war and its expansion over Europe , lagged so far behind its Russian counterpart in consistency and ruthlessness ; even the German people were not numerous enough to allow for the full development of this newest form of government .
Only if Germany had won the war would she have known a fully developed totalitarian rulership .
Arendt was not an economist , but had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noted that the necessity of size is so central to totalitarian regimes because they are so economically inefficient .
Contrary to promises of machine-like efficiency made by advocates of ever more powerful states , totalitarian states are absurdly wasteful both in terms of capital and human life .
The same is true—to varying extents—for all regimes .
But as the most centrally-planned ones—whether totalitarian or not—quickly become economic basket cases , large size is necessary .
A smaller state would quickly exhaust its capital and its population , and the regime would collapse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sustainability for longer .
Cultural factors can not be ignored , however .
Arendt concedes this process of collapse can be drawn out longer in societies that are more ideologically tolerant of it : That region ’ s relative tolerance for despotism is enabled by local ideologies that foster a “ feeling of superfluousness , ” which according to Arendt “ has been prevalent for centuries in the contempt for the value of human life.
” The Origins of Totalit ... Hannah Arendt Best Price : $ 8.49 Buy New $ 12.90 Fortunately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world today is toward smaller states .
As numerous scholars have noted , the average number of states in the world is larger now than at any other time in recent centuries .
Moreover , the rise of global trade has lessened the benefits of imperialism and expanding a state ’ s frontiers and population .
As Mises observed , freedom in trade negates the need for a state to acquire more of the world ’ s wealth through militaristic or imperialistic methods .
States often still seek economic “ self-sufficiency , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high , and the benefits of open trade so enticing , that more states are willing to accept trade as a substitute for “ lebensraum.
” This can already be observed , as globalization has allowed small states to thrive , and small states have even acted to force greater discipline on large states through tax competition .
There are certainly exceptions to this .
Some small states , such as North Korea , have maintained an economically isolationist and totalitarian stance—fueled both by internal paranoia and by real perennial threats issued by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in the case of the latter .
For the most part , however , the spread of markets ( and promarket ideology ) has raised the opportunity cost of militaristic expansion from the state ’ s perspective .
If offered the chance to expand at low cost , though , virtually all regimes would take the opportunity in a heartbeat .
And this is why we will likely continue to see regimes enthusiastically resist secession within their own borders .
States don ’ t have many opportunities to expand their territories and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about to sign off on secession lightly .
Nevertheless , new economic realities , wars , and demographic shifts may certainly affect the equation in coming years .
And then we may again see a redrawing of maps of a sort not seen since the end of the Cold War .
Note : The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute .
The Best of Ryan McMaken

When the Soviet Union began its collapse in 1989, the world witnessed decentralization and secession on a scale not seen in Europe since the nineteenth century.
Over the next several years, puppet regimes and states-in-name-only broke away from Soviet domination and formed sovereign states. Some states which had completely ceased to exist—such as the Baltic states—declared independence and became states in the own right. In total, secession and decentralization in this era brought about more than twenty newly independent states.
This period served as an important reminder that human history is not, in fact, just a story of ever increasing state power and centralization.
Since then, however, the world has seen very few successful secession movements. A handful of new countries have come into being over the past twenty years, such as East Timor and South Sudan. But in spite of many efforts by separatists worldwide, there have been few changes to the lines on the maps.
This has certainly been the case in Europe and the Americas, where from Quebec to Scotland to Catalonia to Venice demands for independence have been met with trepidation and sometimes outright threats of violence from central governments. Anatomy of the State Murray Rothbard Best Price: $5.00 Buy New $5.82 (as of 05:45 UTC - Details)
Countries Don’t Like to Get Smaller
This is partly due to the fact state organizations—that is, the people who control them—have little motivation to give up the benefits conferred by bigness. States that control larger geographic areas and larger populations have greater ability to project their power and get more power.
Greater size means a larger frontier that can act as a physical buffer between the state’s enemies and the state’s economic core. Physical size is also helpful in terms of pursuing self-sufficiency in both energy production and agriculture. More land means greater potential for resource extraction and acreage devoted to food production. From the state’s perspective, these activities are good things because they can be taxed or expropriated.
In terms of population size, state control over larger populations means more human workers to tax, and, potentially, more highly productive urban workers. Historically at least, larger populations also provided personnel for military uses.
Thus, states that control large territories and populations are able to directly control larger and more diverse economies within their borders. This means more tax revenue, which in turn means greater military capability. Naturally, state organizations are not inclined to abandon these advantages lightly, even when secession movement express a desire that they do so.
Why States Sometimes Get Smaller
Sometimes, though, states are forced to contract in size and scope. This usually happens when the cost of maintaining the status quo becomes higher than the cost of allowing a region to gain autonomy.
Historically, the cost of maintaining unity is raised through military means. Examples of this tactic being successfully employed include the cases of the United States, the Republic of Ireland, and some of the successor states of Yugoslavia.
But secession and decentralization have also often been achieved through bloodless or near bloodless means. This was the case in Iceland and throughout most of the post-Iron Curtain states.
Bloodless secession movements, however, only occur when the parent state is weakened by larger events beyond the secession movement itself. Iceland, for example, seceded in 1944, when World War II ensured that Denmark was in no position to object. The post-Soviet states seceded when the Soviet state had been rendered impotent by decades of economic decline and (in 1991) a failed coup. Nor is it a coincidence that India gained independence from the United Kingdom in the years immediately following World War II. It is likely the UK could have held on to India through military means indefinitely, but this would have come at a very high cost to the British economy and standard of living.
It is possible to envision largely “amicable” separations. The model for this is the separation of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand from the the United Kingdom. But even in these cases, British control over these Commonwealth states’ foreign policy was not totally abandoned until after World War II, when the British state had been weakened by depression and war. Moreover, the British state assumed that these newly independent states would remain highly reliable geopolitical and economic allies indefinitely. Thus, the geopolitical cost of separation was perceived to be low.
Mega-States Are the Ideal State
Liberalism Mises, Ludwig von Best Price: $11.95 Buy New $11.95 (as of 04:02 UTC - Details) In cases where the seceding state is perceived to have differing cultural, economic, or geopolitical interests—which is true of the overwhelming majority of cases—the parent state is, all else being equal, likely to meet demands for secession with much hostility.
Although liberal ideology has diminished the perception among much of the world’s population that bigger is better, most government agents—who are by nature decidedly illiberal—see things differently. For them, the ideal state is most certainly a large state.
Those who delight in the generous application of state violence have noticed that it is not a coincidence the world’s most powerful states—e.g., the US, Russia, China—are those that control large populations, large economic centers, and large geographic areas with sizable frontiers. The combination of these three factors in various configuration ensures that existential threats to the regime are few and far between. Russia’s relatively small economy—only a fraction of the size of Germany’s economy—is mitigated by its enormous geographical frontiers. Its economy is nonetheless large enough to maintain a nuclear arsenal. China’s per capita wealth is quite small, but Chinese territory and the sheer size of its overall economy ensures protection from foreign attack. The US’s enormous economy and its huge ocean frontiers render it essentially immune to all existential threats other than large-scale nuclear war.
Large states such as these are limited only by the defensive capabilities of other states, and by the threat of domestic unrest and resistance. As Ludwig von Mises noted in Liberalism, states can take only as much power as their populations are willing to give it. There are limits to the public’s generosity.
Totalitarian States Require Bigness
This relationship between bigness and state power has been illustrated in the fact totalitarian states are virtually always large states.
In her book The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt examines a number of nontotalitarian dictatorships that sprang up in Europe before the Second World War. These included (among others) the Baltic states, Hungary, Portugal, and Romania. In many of these cases, Arendt contends the regimes attempted to turn themselves into totalitarian regimes, but failed. This was largely due to their lack of size:
Although [totalitarian ideology] had served well enough to organize the masses until the movement seized power, the absolute size of the country then forced the would-be totalitarian ruler of masses into the more familiar patterns of class or party dictatorship. The truth is that these countries simply did not control enough human material to allow for total domination and its inherent great losses in population. Without much hope for the conquest of more heavily populated territories, the tyrants in these small countries were forced into a certain old-fashioned moderation lest they lose whatever people they had to rule. This is also why Nazism, up to the outbreak of the war and its expansion over Europe, lagged so far behind its Russian counterpart in consistency and ruthlessness; even the German people were not numerous enough to allow for the full development of this newest form of government. Only if Germany had won the war would she have known a fully developed totalitarian rulership.
Arendt was not an economist, but had she been one, she might have noted that the necessity of size is so central to totalitarian regimes because they are so economically inefficient. Contrary to promises of machine-like efficiency made by advocates of ever more powerful states, totalitarian states are absurdly wasteful both in terms of capital and human life. The same is true—to varying extents—for all regimes. But as the most centrally-planned ones—whether totalitarian or not—quickly become economic basket cases, large size is necessary. A smaller state would quickly exhaust its capital and its population, and the regime would collapse. Size can provide the appearance of sustainability for longer.
Cultural factors cannot be ignored, however. Arendt concedes this process of collapse can be drawn out longer in societies that are more ideologically tolerant of it:
Conversely, the chances for totalitarian rule are frighteningly good in the lands of traditional Oriental despotism, in India and China…
That region’s relative tolerance for despotism is enabled by local ideologies that foster a “feeling of superfluousness,” which according to Arendt “has been prevalent for centuries in the contempt for the value of human life.”
Continued Movement toward Smaller States
The Origins of Totalit... Hannah Arendt Best Price: $8.49 Buy New $12.90 (as of 06:35 UTC - Details) Fortunately for humanity, the trend in the world today is toward smaller states. As numerous scholars have noted, the average number of states in the world is larger now than at any other time in recent centuries. Moreover, the rise of global trade has lessened the benefits of imperialism and expanding a state’s frontiers and population. As Mises observed, freedom in trade negates the need for a state to acquire more of the world’s wealth through militaristic or imperialistic methods. States often still seek economic “self-sufficiency,” but the cost of this is so high, and the benefits of open trade so enticing, that more states are willing to accept trade as a substitute for “lebensraum.” This can already be observed, as globalization has allowed small states to thrive, and small states have even acted to force greater discipline on large states through tax competition.
There are certainly exceptions to this. Some small states, such as North Korea, have maintained an economically isolationist and totalitarian stance—fueled both by internal paranoia and by real perennial threats issued by its enemies (especially the US), in the case of the latter. For the most part, however, the spread of markets (and promarket ideology) has raised the opportunity cost of militaristic expansion from the state’s perspective. If offered the chance to expand at low cost, though, virtually all regimes would take the opportunity in a heartbeat. And this is why we will likely continue to see regimes enthusiastically resist secession within their own borders. States don’t have many opportunities to expand their territories and populations. So they’re not about to sign off on secession lightly. Nevertheless, new economic realities, wars, and demographic shifts may certainly affect the equation in coming years. And then we may again see a redrawing of maps of a sort not seen since the end of the Cold War.
Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.
The Best of Ryan McMaken


Occam’s Butter Knife

In contrast to Angela Saini ’ s acclaimed but dismal 2019 work of science denialism , Superior : The Return of Race Science , Adam Rutherford ’ s 2020 book How to Argue With a Racist : History , Science , Race and Reality benefits from Rutherford ’ s lively prose style .
The British science writer likes to illustrate his arguments with interesting examples , a stratagem that wouldn ’ t seem too much to ask of an author , but which is increasingly difficult to find these days as conventional wisdom ( which Rutherford labors hard to embody @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blustering on his Twitter bio , “ Back off man , I ’ m a scientist , ” Rutherford appears to have largely transitioned from being a geneticist to being a science pundit in the mode of Neil deGrasse Tyson and Richard Dawkins .
But that ’ s not a dishonorable career path .
And Rutherford is adept at writing .
For example , Rutherford ’ s book is quite a bit more interesting than a snooze-worthy essay last year , “ Race , genetics and pseudoscience : an explainer , ” that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coauthors were then crushed humiliatingly in Twitter debates by sports fans much more knowledgeable about the pervasive racial patterns in sports than they are .
But Rutherford , a rugby enthusiast , at least knows a fair amount about athletics , so he puts up a more cunning fight on this topic in his own book because he ’ s not being dragged down by his colleagues ’ ignorance .
In fact , I find Rutherford ’ s writing rather like mine in form .
Of course , the difference is that I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knowledge , while Rutherford is trying to decrease knowledge by denying realities .
Many pages later he delivers his big argument pooh-poohing this extraordinary racial gap in the 100-meter dash : But it turns out there are quite a few very fast West African sprinters , although no superstars yet of the magnitude of Usain Bolt or Carl Lewis .
Of the 143 men in history who have run 100 meters in under 10.00 seconds flat , 134 have been of at least half sub-Saharan descent .
Twelve have been Nigerian-born ( three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including Francis Obikwelu , the 2004 silver medalist for Portugal ) .
That makes Nigeria the No .
3 sprinting country in the world after the U.S. ( 57 ) and Jamaica ( 19 ) .
There are also two Ghanaians and two from Ivory Coast who have broken the ten-second barrier .
Besides the sixteen West Africans , there have also been eight southern Africans ( although one identifies as a Cape Coloured , a recent racial group that has emerged over the past few centuries from the admixture of whites @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
But why don ’ t they make up five-sixths ?
Because , as Francis Galton noted , nurture matters as well as nature .
Apparently , Africans don ’ t flourish in highly African countries as well as they do in countries under more white influence .
One of Rutherford ’ s strategies is to toss out facts , then argue that their seeming randomness undermines those evil racists ’ simplistic ideas : Instead , it ’ s all very complicated .
Thus he sums up his section on race in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , informed reader will notice how frequently his own factoids backfire on him .
For example : And the running velocity requirements versus technical expertise demands of positions correlate closely with the race of the players .
For example , all the starting cornerbacks in the NFL are black , but none of the placekickers are .

In contrast to Angela Saini’s acclaimed but dismal 2019 work of science denialism, Superior: The Return of Race Science, Adam Rutherford’s 2020 book How to Argue With a Racist: History, Science, Race and Reality benefits from Rutherford’s lively prose style. The British science writer likes to illustrate his arguments with interesting examples, a stratagem that wouldn’t seem too much to ask of an author, but which is increasingly difficult to find these days as conventional wisdom (which Rutherford labors hard to embody) becomes ever more anti-empirical.
Despite blustering on his Twitter bio, “Back off man, I’m a scientist,” Rutherford appears to have largely transitioned from being a geneticist to being a science pundit in the mode of Neil deGrasse Tyson and Richard Dawkins. But that’s not a dishonorable career path.
And Rutherford is adept at writing. For example, Rutherford’s book is quite a bit more interesting than a snooze-worthy essay last year, “Race, genetics and pseudoscience: an explainer,” that he coauthored with three academics.
His coauthors were then crushed humiliatingly in Twitter debates by sports fans much more knowledgeable about the pervasive racial patterns in sports than they are. But Rutherford, a rugby enthusiast, at least knows a fair amount about athletics, so he puts up a more cunning fight on this topic in his own book because he’s not being dragged down by his colleagues’ ignorance.
In fact, I find Rutherford’s writing rather like mine in form. Of course, the difference is that I point out facts in order to increase knowledge, while Rutherford is trying to decrease knowledge by denying realities.
Not only was this the last time a white man won the Olympic 100 meters, it was the last time that white men competed in the final….
Rutherford starts off his chapter on sports, “Black Power,” by forthrightly admitting of Allan Wells’ gold medal in the 1980 Olympic 100-meter dash:
Many pages later he delivers his big argument pooh-poohing this extraordinary racial gap in the 100-meter dash:
If people of West African ancestry have a genetic advantage, why are there few West African sprinters…?
But it turns out there are quite a few very fast West African sprinters, although no superstars yet of the magnitude of Usain Bolt or Carl Lewis. Of the 143 men in history who have run 100 meters in under 10.00 seconds flat, 134 have been of at least half sub-Saharan descent. Twelve have been Nigerian-born (three running under the colors of richer countries, including Francis Obikwelu, the 2004 silver medalist for Portugal). That makes Nigeria the No. 3 sprinting country in the world after the U.S. (57) and Jamaica (19). There are also two Ghanaians and two from Ivory Coast who have broken the ten-second barrier.
Besides the sixteen West Africans, there have also been eight southern Africans (although one identifies as a Cape Coloured, a recent racial group that has emerged over the past few centuries from the admixture of whites, blacks, Bushmen, and Malays).
So men born in sub-Saharan Africa make up one-sixth of all those who have run 100 meters in under ten seconds.
But why don’t they make up five-sixths? Because, as Francis Galton noted, nurture matters as well as nature. Apparently, Africans don’t flourish in highly African countries as well as they do in countries under more white influence.
One of Rutherford’s strategies is to toss out facts, then argue that their seeming randomness undermines those evil racists’ simplistic ideas: Instead, it’s all very complicated. Thus he sums up his section on race in team sports:
None of the numbers makes a great deal of sense if biological race is your guiding principle, and patterns in relation to ethnicity are terribly inconsistent both between sports and within them.
Yet, a careful, informed reader will notice how frequently his own factoids backfire on him. For example:
In top flight American football, the proportion of black players is around 70 percent, but like rugby, that is a game where there are highly specialized positions with different skills and physical attributes….
And the running velocity requirements versus technical expertise demands of positions correlate closely with the race of the players. For example, all the starting cornerbacks in the NFL are black, but none of the placekickers are.
Read the Whole Article


lewrockwell--2020-02-20--The Pump Jockey Employment Mandate

The Pump Jockey Employment Mandate

One of the silliest and most obnoxious make-work laws on the books may soon be the law in Illinois .
Maybe soon in your state , too .
It is already the law in New Jersey and Oregon .
.
.
where motorists aren ’ t allowed to pump their own gas .
For saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafety !
And for other things , too .
The proposed Gas Station Attendant Act – yes , really – reads as follows : “ No gas may be pumped at a gas station in this state unless it is pumped by a gas station attendant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t full-service .
It ’ s being forced to pay for services many of us do not want – leaving aside the money .
Amazon.com Gift Card i ... Buy New $ 10.00 In addition to being fleeced , you ’ re forced to let someone you don ’ t know and likely have no interest in knowing paw your car with his greasy mitts , maybe not-quite-tighten your gas cap ( triggering the “ check engine ” light to illuminate and requiring an OBD scan tool to un-illuminate ) while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In NJ and Oregon , a motorist can be Hut !
Hut !
Hutted !
by an armed government worker for pumping gas into their own car .
There ’ s very little chance you ’ ll be burned to death – note that fires at gas stations where it ’ s still legal to pump your own gas aren ’ t a problem .
But you might just get shot if you dare to pump-it-yourself in New Jersey , Oregon – and soon , Illinois , too .
Pumping gas isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – which precisely why rocket scientists aren ’ t hired to pump gas .
Instead , a least-common-denominator , minimum wage flunky will do the honors – and maybe some other things , too .
Maybe because he ’ s a lout .
Maybe because he just doesn ’ t care .
Maybe because he doesn ’ t like your Trump ( or Bernie ) for President bumper sticker .
But chiefly , because you won ’ t be allowed to say no .
The “ service ” he provides will be on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more leisurely than yours .
There will probably be fewer attendants than cars at times .
If you ’ re in a hurry , too bad .
At least it ’ ll make owning an electric car seem more reasonable .
The Best of Eric Peters

One of the silliest and most obnoxious make-work laws on the books may soon be the law in Illinois. Maybe soon in your state, too.
It is already the law in New Jersey and Oregon . . . where motorists aren’t allowed to pump their own gas. For saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafety!
And for other things, too.
The proposed Gas Station Attendant Act – yes, really – reads as follows:
“No gas may be pumped at a gas station in this state unless it is pumped by a gas station attendant employed at the gas station.”
This isn’t full-service. It’s being forced to pay for services many of us do not want – leaving aside the money.
Amazon.com Gift Card i... Buy New $10.00 (as of 08:25 UTC - Details) In addition to being fleeced, you’re forced to let someone you don’t know and likely have no interest in knowing paw your car with his greasy mitts, maybe not-quite-tighten your gas cap (triggering the “check engine” light to illuminate and requiring an OBD scan tool to un-illuminate) while also probably spilling gasoline on your paint.
And it’s illegal to object.
Because it’s the law.
In NJ and Oregon, a motorist can be Hut! Hut! Hutted! by an armed government worker for pumping gas into their own car. There’s very little chance you’ll be burned to death – note that fires at gas stations where it’s still legal to pump your own gas aren’t a problem.
But you might just get shot if you dare to pump-it-yourself in New Jersey, Oregon – and soon, Illinois, too.
Pumping gas isn’t rocket science, of course – which precisely why rocket scientists aren’t hired to pump gas. Instead, a least-common-denominator, minimum wage flunky will do the honors – and maybe some other things, too. Maybe because he’s a lout. Maybe because he just doesn’t care. Maybe because he doesn’t like your Trump (or Bernie) for President bumper sticker.
But chiefly, because you won’t be allowed to say no.
The “service” he provides will be on his timetable – which will likely be more leisurely than yours. There will probably be fewer attendants than cars at times. If you’re in a hurry, too bad. At least it’ll make owning an electric car seem more reasonable.
Read the Whole Article
The Best of Eric Peters


lewrockwell--2020-02-20--The Power of Viruses and the Power of You

“ I saw a horror movie and somehow it was the greatest experience of my life.
” In this article , I depart , for a moment , from the strategy of citing evidence in my coverage of the “ China epidemic.
” ( For my series of articles on the “ China epidemic , ” click here . )
Instead , I want to make a few brief notes on the subject of power .
For many or most people , there is a kind of programming in the mind which urges the acceptance of viruses as powerful .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ toward microbes .
The collection of sensations would be something like : riding on a train heading toward a possible break in the tracks .
Each person on board has been warned .
No one is sure whether the tracks , a few miles in the distance , have actually been ripped apart .
The train ’ s engineer in the cab isn ’ t stopping .
Vaccine Epidemic : How ... Best Price : $ 7.50 Buy New $ 12.99 There is fear , of course .
But there is also something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Where does it comes from ?
It comes from the realization that power is SOMEWHERE .
Where ?
In the potential break in the tracks .
People don ’ t often experience a sensation of power .
For that reason , they don ’ t want to minimize the importance of the tracks up ahead .
They don ’ t want to throw away that feeling .
At some level , they believe that , if they do throw it away , there will be no power anywhere .
And THAT would provoke @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be coddling an ILLUSION—and the whole warning they received was a monstrous fabrication to begin with—well , this prospect is entirely out of the question .
That couldn ’ t be , under any circumstances .
That would be too , too much .
If you were so foolish as to approach such a person and suggest he could , first and foremost , look to his OWN power , he would stare at you as if you were speaking a language from another planet .
To say that your advice , under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the warning—was inappropriate…this would be a vast understatement .
If a person , for whatever reason , believes he has no significant power , he searches for it elsewhere .
If he can find a train , a warning , and danger , he ’ ll climb onboard .
It ’ s far , far better than nothing .
In our society and present culture , of course , the thought that the individual has a great deal of inherent power , and a right to it , is on the wane @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another metaphor , is taking on lots and lots of water .
Typical sociopaths in high places , and their bootlickers , apply basic psychology they don ’ t teach in fifty-thousand-dollars-a-year colleges : People must be able to imagine power is SOMEWHERE .
They don ’ t believe they have it themselves .
So why not invoke images of power in a venue which results in a strange allegiance : “ I ’ ll see and feel power in a fearful threat to me .
I ’ ll sign on and remain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll cling to my threat , and I ’ ll feel rising fear and strange rising joy together.
” That ’ s the speeding train , the warning , the tracks .
The Best of Jon Rappoport

“I saw a horror movie and somehow it was the greatest experience of my life.”
In this article, I depart, for a moment, from the strategy of citing evidence in my coverage of the “China epidemic.” (For my series of articles on the “China epidemic,” click here.)
Instead, I want to make a few brief notes on the subject of power.
For many or most people, there is a kind of programming in the mind which urges the acceptance of viruses as powerful. This programming results in visceral emotional reactions toward microbes.
The collection of sensations would be something like: riding on a train heading toward a possible break in the tracks. Each person on board has been warned. No one is sure whether the tracks, a few miles in the distance, have actually been ripped apart. The train’s engineer in the cab isn’t stopping.
Vaccine Epidemic: How ... Best Price: $7.50 Buy New $12.99 (as of 06:30 UTC - Details) There is fear, of course. But there is also something else. An almost wild feeling. Where does it comes from? It comes from the realization that power is SOMEWHERE. Where? In the potential break in the tracks.
People don’t often experience a sensation of power. For that reason, they don’t want to minimize the importance of the tracks up ahead. They don’t want to throw away that feeling. At some level, they believe that, if they do throw it away, there will be no power anywhere. And THAT would provoke panic.
The idea that they might be coddling an ILLUSION—and the whole warning they received was a monstrous fabrication to begin with—well, this prospect is entirely out of the question. That couldn’t be, under any circumstances. That would be too, too much.
If you were so foolish as to approach such a person and suggest he could, first and foremost, look to his OWN power, he would stare at you as if you were speaking a language from another planet. To say that your advice, under the circumstances—the speeding train, the tracks, the warning—was inappropriate…this would be a vast understatement.
If a person, for whatever reason, believes he has no significant power, he searches for it elsewhere. If he can find a train, a warning, and danger, he’ll climb onboard. It’s far, far better than nothing.
In our society and present culture, of course, the thought that the individual has a great deal of inherent power, and a right to it, is on the wane. That ship, to go to another metaphor, is taking on lots and lots of water.
Typical sociopaths in high places, and their bootlickers, apply basic psychology they don’t teach in fifty-thousand-dollars-a-year colleges: People must be able to imagine power is SOMEWHERE. They don’t believe they have it themselves. So why not invoke images of power in a venue which results in a strange allegiance:
“I’ll see and feel power in a fearful threat to me. I’ll sign on and remain loyal, no matter what. I’ll cling to my threat, and I’ll feel rising fear and strange rising joy together.”
That’s the speeding train, the warning, the tracks.
That’s the virus.
Reprinted with permission from Jon Rappoport’s blog.
The Best of Jon Rappoport


lewrockwell--2020-02-20--Why the US Is Headed into Its Fourth Turning

International Man : The economic , political , social , and cultural situation seems to have become increasingly volatile in the United States and more broadly in the West .
Is this a unique situation or part of a recurring historical cycle ?
Authors William Strauss and Neil Howe introduced a popular theory in their book , The Fourth Turning , outlining the recurring generational cycles that have occurred throughout American history .
What are your thoughts ?
Doug Casey : I read Strauss and Howe ’ s first book , Generations , when it came out back in 1992 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Let me start off by recommending both Generations and The Fourth Turning to everybody .
Both books offer quite a scholarly , readable , and prescient view of the cyclicality of history .
And offer a very plausible forecast for the 2020s .
The Fourth Turning : An ... William Strauss , Neil ... Best Price : $ 6.00 Buy New $ 12.42 History ’ s best seen as cyclical , rather than a straight-line progress to some preordained end the way both the Marxists and the Abrahamic religions see it .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that there ’ s nothing new under the sun .
Plato in the Republic talks about how the younger generation—and we ’ re talking fourth century BC—can ’ t stand up to the moral values of their forefathers .
Older people have always thought that the younger generation wouldn ’ t quite measure up .
In recent American history , you ’ ll recall , the younger generation were the beatniks in the ’ 50s , the hippies in the ’ 60s , and the yuppies in the ’ 80s—so it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a tendency to think the world is going downhill .
Nothing new there .
But there ’ s always a rebirth .
Niccolò Machiavelli , in his Florentine Histories , said : Virtue gives birth to tranquility , tranquility to leisure , leisure to disorder , disorder to ruin… and similarly from ruin , order is born , from order virtue , from virtue , glory and good fortune .
The bottom line is that societies arise from poverty through moral strength—and that brings them prosperity .
But that prosperity brings on arrogance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which brings on weakness and moral decline .
Then they ’ re reduced to a condition of slavery and poverty again .
Change is the only constant—except in human nature .
As I look at the United States , it seems to me the peak of American culture was the time just before Teddy Roosevelt came into office .
Teddy is certainly among the top five worst presidents .
And there ’ s plenty of competition for that title .
He was the first real “ progressive ” president ; he wanted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of life .
Now , that ’ s not to say that Teddy Roosevelt wouldn ’ t have been a really great drinking pal , a wonderful guy to go camping with , a fun guy to have an intellectual conversation with .
He had a lot of admirable personal values .
But he was a nationalist , a statist , and a warmonger .
That ’ s why I say he was a horrible president .
The long-term trend of US overseas imperialism started with the Spanish–American War and the building of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Puerto Rico , the Philippines , and Hawaii—followed by World War I .
The US has gone from being noninterventionist to now having many hundreds of bases around the world and trying to give orders to every other country in the world .
That kind of arrogance always ends badly .
As a civilization—a culture—the US has been on an accelerating path downhill for about 120 years now .
That ’ s true even while science and technology have greatly increased the general standard of living .
It ’ s a mistake to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ higher moral values—that ’ s what Machiavelli was talking about .
I question whether that trend will change—at least until we have a genuine crisis .
Why not ?
Because a lot of the way a society acts comes from the way kids are brought up—the values that are inculcated in them when they ’ re young .
And increasingly , kids are taught what I would call the wrong values .
Saint Ignatius said this in the 17th century , and Lenin repeated it in the 20th century .
They both said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ youth , chances are you ’ ve directed his worldview for the rest of his life .
Cultural Marxists are now totally in control of the US educational system , and have been for a couple of generations .
That ’ s absolutely the case in the colleges and universities but also in the high schools and even in the grade schools .
Kids are being taught to be socialists , ecowarriors , social justice warriors , and “ woke ” from an early age .
It ’ s really serious .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This is one of the few areas in which I take some issue with The Fourth Turning .
The trend towards collectivism and statism seems to be a secular long-term trend that ’ s still accelerating .
There are a few bright spots .
Libertarians , for instance , are somewhat more prominent than in the past .
But the fact that libertarians believe in personal freedom , in the face of a societal trend in the opposite direction , makes me tend to believe they ’ re actually genetic mutants .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the population , whose nature has resisted the prevailing nurture .
I say that , only partially because of my own experience .
I grew up in what could—jokingly—be called a cannibalistic death cult and was imbued with all kinds of strange notions by nuns and priests at the schools that I went to .
I rejected them intuitively and intellectually , but they still stick to you like tar .
It can take years to wash off the effects of early indoctrination .
I ’ m more of a maverick than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just continue to believe what they ’ re taught as kids , reflexively and automatically—right or wrong .
So I don ’ t think there ’ s really much hope of a serious change in the direction of American culture .
At least until a major crisis—and the outcome of that is in doubt .
International Man : OK. That ’ s the long-term trend .
Where are we in the generational cycle now ?
Are we moving into the fourth turning and headed for a crisis ?
Doug Casey : Strauss and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the course of roughly 80 years , four generations .
To very briefly summarize their theory , there are four “ turnings ” : a “ high , ” an “ awakening , ” an “ unraveling , ” and a “ crisis.
” Over the last couple of decades , we ’ ve been undergoing the unraveling , where old values fall apart .
Next , Strauss and Howe predicted a crisis , starting about 2015 , which tests the very existence of the society .
Or at least the way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beyond seeing generations as being simply “ liberal ” or “ conservative.
” According to Strauss and Howe , there are four generational archetypes that last over a cycle of 80 years—20 years per generation—corresponding to the “ turnings.
” Without going into all the details , they see the baby boomers as being a “ Prophet ” Generation .
The authors are ideologically oriented—fire and brimstone types—very much like Bernie Sanders on the left and Donald Trump on the right .
Kind of biblically apocalyptic by nature .
They were quite correct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the so-called “ Nomad ” Generation .
These are kids who learned to take care of themselves—and are not so ideological in the way they think .
The Millennials are who are relevant at the moment .
They correspond , in Strauss and Howe ’ s view , to the World War II generation .
They ’ d be the frontline soldiers in the coming crisis and conflicts .
International Man : What happens after a crisis ?
Is there a positive way forward ?
Doug Casey : Historically , the answer is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ short run .
The best recent example is the French Revolution .
It got worse with Robespierre—a Bernie Sanders of the era—followed by Napoleon .
Or take the case of the Russian revolution .
As necessary as it was to get rid of Nicholas II , it got worse with Lenin , and then it got even worse with Stalin .
But even in those cases , France and Russia recovered .
If it all comes unglued in the US over the next decade , those two revolutions could be templates .
Look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and listen to what they ’ re saying .
They ’ re echoing Robespierre and Lenin .
The Republicans aren ’ t much better , because although they sometimes talk the talk of peace and personal freedom , they almost never walk the walk .
The two major US parties—and people in the Red counties and the Blue counties—seem to really hate each other .
It ’ s quite ugly sociologically .
There are irreconcilable differences .
They ’ re exacerbated by the fact we ’ re headed for a financial blow up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that .
Some years ago , there was a poll taken among Generation X types .
It turned out that more of them believed that space aliens were going to invade than that they were ever going to collect Social Security .
People have very little faith in “ the system ” anymore , the society , or the government .
If we go back to the beginning of the 20th century , the country really wasn ’ t very political at all .
People worried about their own lives , their own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Americans shared a common culture , beliefs , and values—that ’ s no longer true .
Now the country has become very politicized—everybody has a loud voice and they use votes as weapons against their neighbors .
It ’ s become a nation of nasty busybodies .
That makes me think the next upset will be something like a revolution .
It ’ s likely to be really ugly , because we ’ re looking , simultaneously , at an economic catastrophe , political chaos , and a social and demographic upset—and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Government often sees war as a way to unite the country .
So , what ’ s going to happen ?
I ’ ll hazard a guess that 50 years from now , the United States and , for that matter , most countries are not going to exist in anything like their present form .
The best solution is a peaceful break up into smaller political subdivisions .
As opposed to a civil war—which is a contest between one or more groups for the control of a central government .
The Best @ @ @

International Man: The economic, political, social, and cultural situation seems to have become increasingly volatile in the United States and more broadly in the West. Is this a unique situation or part of a recurring historical cycle?
Authors William Strauss and Neil Howe introduced a popular theory in their book, The Fourth Turning, outlining the recurring generational cycles that have occurred throughout American history.
What are your thoughts?
Doug Casey: I read Strauss and Howe’s first book, Generations, when it came out back in 1992. I thought it was brilliant.
Let me start off by recommending both Generations and The Fourth Turning to everybody. Both books offer quite a scholarly, readable, and prescient view of the cyclicality of history. And offer a very plausible forecast for the 2020s. The Fourth Turning: An... Howe, Neil Best Price: $7.92 Buy New $12.04 (as of 08:30 UTC - Details)
History’s best seen as cyclical, rather than a straight-line progress to some preordained end the way both the Marxists and the Abrahamic religions see it. But then, Ecclesiastes has its famous quote that there’s nothing new under the sun.
Plato in the Republic talks about how the younger generation—and we’re talking fourth century BC—can’t stand up to the moral values of their forefathers.
Older people have always thought that the younger generation wouldn’t quite measure up. In recent American history, you’ll recall, the younger generation were the beatniks in the ’50s, the hippies in the ’60s, and the yuppies in the ’80s—so it’s a passing parade. Older people have a tendency to think the world is going downhill. Nothing new there. But there’s always a rebirth.
Niccolò Machiavelli, in his Florentine Histories, said:
Virtue gives birth to tranquility, tranquility to leisure, leisure to disorder, disorder to ruin… and similarly from ruin, order is born, from order virtue, from virtue, glory and good fortune.
The bottom line is that societies arise from poverty through moral strength—and that brings them prosperity. But that prosperity brings on arrogance, and the arrogance brings on laziness, which brings on weakness and moral decline. Then they’re reduced to a condition of slavery and poverty again. Change is the only constant—except in human nature.
As I look at the United States, it seems to me the peak of American culture was the time just before Teddy Roosevelt came into office. Teddy is certainly among the top five worst presidents. And there’s plenty of competition for that title.
He was the first real “progressive” president; he wanted the government actively involved in all areas of life.
Now, that’s not to say that Teddy Roosevelt wouldn’t have been a really great drinking pal, a wonderful guy to go camping with, a fun guy to have an intellectual conversation with. He had a lot of admirable personal values. But he was a nationalist, a statist, and a warmonger. That’s why I say he was a horrible president.
The long-term trend of US overseas imperialism started with the Spanish–American War and the building of an overseas American empire in Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Hawaii—followed by World War I.
The US has gone from being noninterventionist to now having many hundreds of bases around the world and trying to give orders to every other country in the world. That kind of arrogance always ends badly.
As a civilization—a culture—the US has been on an accelerating path downhill for about 120 years now. That’s true even while science and technology have greatly increased the general standard of living. It’s a mistake to conflate a higher standard of living with higher moral values—that’s what Machiavelli was talking about.
I question whether that trend will change—at least until we have a genuine crisis. Why not? Because a lot of the way a society acts comes from the way kids are brought up—the values that are inculcated in them when they’re young. And increasingly, kids are taught what I would call the wrong values.
Saint Ignatius said this in the 17th century, and Lenin repeated it in the 20th century. They both said that if you indoctrinate someone in his youth, chances are you’ve directed his worldview for the rest of his life.
Cultural Marxists are now totally in control of the US educational system, and have been for a couple of generations. That’s absolutely the case in the colleges and universities but also in the high schools and even in the grade schools. Kids are being taught to be socialists, ecowarriors, social justice warriors, and “woke” from an early age. It’s really serious.
And it’s not a cyclical phenomenon. This is one of the few areas in which I take some issue with The Fourth Turning. The trend towards collectivism and statism seems to be a secular long-term trend that’s still accelerating.
There are a few bright spots. Libertarians, for instance, are somewhat more prominent than in the past. But the fact that libertarians believe in personal freedom, in the face of a societal trend in the opposite direction, makes me tend to believe they’re actually genetic mutants. They’re just a small percentage of the population, whose nature has resisted the prevailing nurture.
I say that, only partially because of my own experience. I grew up in what could—jokingly—be called a cannibalistic death cult and was imbued with all kinds of strange notions by nuns and priests at the schools that I went to. I rejected them intuitively and intellectually, but they still stick to you like tar. It can take years to wash off the effects of early indoctrination.
I’m more of a maverick than most people are, however. Most just continue to believe what they’re taught as kids, reflexively and automatically—right or wrong. So I don’t think there’s really much hope of a serious change in the direction of American culture. At least until a major crisis—and the outcome of that is in doubt.
International Man: OK. That’s the long-term trend. Where are we in the generational cycle now? Are we moving into the fourth turning and headed for a crisis?
Doug Casey: Strauss and Howe take a cyclical point of view over the course of roughly 80 years, four generations.
To very briefly summarize their theory, there are four “turnings”: a “high,” an “awakening,” an “unraveling,” and a “crisis.”
Over the last couple of decades, we’ve been undergoing the unraveling, where old values fall apart. Next, Strauss and Howe predicted a crisis, starting about 2015, which tests the very existence of the society. Or at least the way it’s run.
They go beyond seeing generations as being simply “liberal” or “conservative.” According to Strauss and Howe, there are four generational archetypes that last over a cycle of 80 years—20 years per generation—corresponding to the “turnings.”
Without going into all the details, they see the baby boomers as being a “Prophet” Generation. The authors are ideologically oriented—fire and brimstone types—very much like Bernie Sanders on the left and Donald Trump on the right. Kind of biblically apocalyptic by nature.
They were quite correct in defining the Generation X types as the so-called “Nomad” Generation. These are kids who learned to take care of themselves—and are not so ideological in the way they think.
The Millennials are who are relevant at the moment. They correspond, in Strauss and Howe’s view, to the World War II generation. They’d be the frontline soldiers in the coming crisis and conflicts.
International Man: What happens after a crisis? Is there a positive way forward?
Doug Casey: Historically, the answer is, “Almost never”—in the short run. The best recent example is the French Revolution. It got worse with Robespierre—a Bernie Sanders of the era—followed by Napoleon. Or take the case of the Russian revolution. As necessary as it was to get rid of Nicholas II, it got worse with Lenin, and then it got even worse with Stalin. But even in those cases, France and Russia recovered.
If it all comes unglued in the US over the next decade, those two revolutions could be templates. Look at the way leading Democrats think, and listen to what they’re saying. They’re echoing Robespierre and Lenin.
The Republicans aren’t much better, because although they sometimes talk the talk of peace and personal freedom, they almost never walk the walk. The two major US parties—and people in the Red counties and the Blue counties—seem to really hate each other.
It’s quite ugly sociologically. There are irreconcilable differences. They’re exacerbated by the fact we’re headed for a financial blow up. There’s no doubt about that.
Some years ago, there was a poll taken among Generation X types. It turned out that more of them believed that space aliens were going to invade than that they were ever going to collect Social Security. People have very little faith in “the system” anymore, the society, or the government.
If we go back to the beginning of the 20th century, the country really wasn’t very political at all. People worried about their own lives, their own families, and their own local communities. Americans shared a common culture, beliefs, and values—that’s no longer true. Now the country has become very politicized—everybody has a loud voice and they use votes as weapons against their neighbors. It’s become a nation of nasty busybodies.
That makes me think the next upset will be something like a revolution. It’s likely to be really ugly, because we’re looking, simultaneously, at an economic catastrophe, political chaos, and a social and demographic upset—and probably a military situation as well. Government often sees war as a way to unite the country.
So, what’s going to happen?
I’ll hazard a guess that 50 years from now, the United States and, for that matter, most countries are not going to exist in anything like their present form. The best solution is a peaceful break up into smaller political subdivisions. As opposed to a civil war—which is a contest between one or more groups for the control of a central government.
Reprinted with permission from International Man.
The Best of Doug Casey


lewrockwell--2020-02-20--Kafka Comes to The Hague

Kafka Comes to The Hague

You might think that when two honest men , with nothing to gain and much to lose , speak the truth about a major scandal in a body which might one day decide between world war and peace , that the world would immediately do the right thing .
You would be utterly wrong .
In the movies , the dissenters would quickly be recognised as the heroes of the story , their bosses would admit to doing wrong .
The media would celebrate their courage .
And the matter would be set right .
But the case of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( OPCW ) shows that it would be foolish to expect that to happen .
The OPCW is an agency of the UN .
It exists to ensure impartial and rigorous inspection of the alleged use of chemical weapons .
But it is now charged with being neither impartial nor rigorous .
An important story has been widely ignored , to the lasting shame of Western journalism .
The organisation involved has made no move to correct the wrong .
The individuals involved have been unfairly attacked by their own former employer .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on documents which have been gravely challenged , as if nothing had happened .
Fact : Leaks from the OPCW last summer , whose source has never been identified , showed that the OPCW had sidelined and suppressed key information undermining its own public conclusion that it was ‘ reasonable ’ to believe that chlorine gas had been used in warfare in Syria in April 2018 .
The leak cited work done by an OPCW inspector named Ian Henderson .
Mr Henderson is a Chemical Engineer who studied at the universities of Witwatersrand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballistics thanks to military service as an artilleryman .
He now lives in Australia .
He is entirely non-political .
As we shall see , he has had long and distinguished service at the OPCW and was highly-regarded by them right up till the moment when he challenged attempts to exclude his work from consideration .
Fact : Asked about the Henderson disclosure , the OPCW stated that it was mounting a leak enquiry , so unintentionally confirming that the documents were genuine .
Not long afterwards , Mr Henderson was escorted from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he declined to take part in what he called a ‘ witch-hunt ’ against his colleagues .
He has always said that he did not leak the material .
Fact : Further evidence of wrongdoing emerged late last autumn , when another senior inspector at the OPCW identified himself to a panel of experts as ‘ Alex ’ .
His testimony , reported by the website ‘ Counterpunch , stated that the suppression of key information had gone much further .
As confirmed by documents later published by Wikileaks , evidence which cast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ verdict was filleted out of the reports eventually published by the OPCW .
‘ Alex ’ also recounted how astonishingly , a group of Americans had been introduced to the investigation team , and had more or less told them that chlorine had been used .
Ian Henderson later confirmed that this wholly improper meeting had in fact taken place .

The Show Trial of A and B.
Kafka comes to The Hague
Why you should be worried
You might think that when two honest men, with nothing to gain and much to lose, speak the truth about a major scandal in a body which might one day decide between world war and peace, that the world would immediately do the right thing.
You would be utterly wrong.
In the movies, the dissenters would quickly be recognised as the heroes of the story, their bosses would admit to doing wrong. The media would celebrate their courage. And the matter would be set right.
But the case of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) shows that it would be foolish to expect that to happen. The OPCW is an agency of the UN. It exists to ensure impartial and rigorous inspection of the alleged use of chemical weapons. But it is now charged with being neither impartial nor rigorous.
An important story has been widely ignored, to the lasting shame of Western journalism. The organisation involved has made no move to correct the wrong. The individuals involved have been unfairly attacked by their own former employer.
Politicians have continued to repeat claims based on documents which have been gravely challenged, as if nothing had happened.
A summary of what happened
Fact: Leaks from the OPCW last summer, whose source has never been identified, showed that the OPCW had sidelined and suppressed key information undermining its own public conclusion that it was ‘reasonable’ to believe that chlorine gas had been used in warfare in Syria in April 2018.
A real expert
The leak cited work done by an OPCW inspector named Ian Henderson. Mr Henderson is a Chemical Engineer who studied at the universities of Witwatersrand and Durban and has considerable experience in ballistics thanks to military service as an artilleryman. He now lives in Australia. He is entirely non-political.
As we shall see, he has had long and distinguished service at the OPCW and was highly-regarded by them right up till the moment when he challenged attempts to exclude his work from consideration.
Unintentional
Fact: Asked about the Henderson disclosure, the OPCW stated that it was mounting a leak enquiry, so unintentionally confirming that the documents were genuine.
Not long afterwards, Mr Henderson was escorted from the OPCW building. This happened after he declined to take part in what he called a ‘witch-hunt’ against his colleagues. He has always said that he did not leak the material.
The second leak
Fact: Further evidence of wrongdoing emerged late last autumn, when another senior inspector at the OPCW identified himself to a panel of experts as ‘Alex’.
His testimony, reported by the website ‘Counterpunch, stated that the suppression of key information had gone much further. As confirmed by documents later published by Wikileaks, evidence which cast even more doubt on the chlorine gas verdict was filleted out of the reports eventually published by the OPCW.
Three mysterious Americans
‘Alex’ also recounted how astonishingly, a group of Americans had been introduced to the investigation team, and had more or less told them that chlorine had been used. Ian Henderson later confirmed that this wholly improper meeting had in fact taken place.
‘Make it sound like we found something’
At one point Mr Henderson had been told by a colleague: ‘we have been told by the first floor [the seat of power at the OPCW] that we have to make it sound like we found something’.
There had been serious internal rows in the OPCW about this censorship, fiercely over-ridden by senior officials. Inspectors had complained about being sidelined and having their work excluded from published reports. But they could get nowhere —as the OPCW has no agreed system in which would-be whistleblowers can access formal procedures. There was little the dissenters could do. But quite large numbers of OPCW staff must by then have been aware of the dissent.
In a statement which Ian Henderson addressed to the Security Council last January he makes claims that are quite astonishing. It describes his attempts to communicate his unease to the OPCW management.
“You will never get to the Director-General, and if you try and go around me to get to him, there will be consequences”
‘In the weeks following the incident, I attempted to redress the situation internally in a way that would not damage the credibility of the TS. This included the following: • I held discussions and meetings with the Chief of Cabinet, the (newly-joined) Director of Inspectorate, Head of Operations, Head of the Office of Confidentiality and Security, Director of the Office of Strategy and Policy, and the Acting Director of the Office of Internal Oversight. • I requested a meeting with the Director-General, as I thought the situation was serious enough to warrant him being made aware of it. The request for [a] meeting was denied and I was informed by a senior manager that “you will never get to the Director-General, and if you try and go around me to get to him, there will be consequences”. I shall identify the senior manager verbally, in his presence, should this be required. • I drafted a memorandum to the Director-General, through the Director of Inspectorate’.
Dossier
Henderson compiled a complete dossier of everything that was wrong with the Douma investigation. It was reviewed by the Chief of Cabinet but was not delivered to the DG. Henderson says, ‘I deposited a dossier with the Acting Director of the Office of Internal Oversight, together with a memorandum requesting an investigation by OIO into the situation of the FFM report. Months later I was informed that nothing would be done, as this was now seen as outside the scope of the activities of the Office of Internal Oversight.’
Slightly Foxed
By November 24th it was clear that the scandal was now out in the open.
Tucker Carlson, of Fox News, had interviewed Jonathan Steele about the revelations of ‘Alex’. The London Mail on Sunday carried the story prominently on Sunday 24th November, as did La Repubblica of Rome. Robert Fisk of ‘the Independent’ took up the case. Spectator America also covered it. The major news agencies made small references to it, one of which confirmed the authenticity of a crucial leaked e-mail.
The Sound of Silence
But most major media maintained an almost total silence about them. Meanwhile, on social media, sources sympathetic to the OPCW spread doubts about the validity of the leaks.
For weeks, the OPCW made no official response to these revelations.
Then, on 6th February the OPCW held a briefing for member states, in which it presented the outcome of its inquiry into the actions of two inspectors and an alleged breach of confidentiality. This was reported in a series of documents https://www.opcw.org/media-centre/news/2020/02/opcw-independent-investigation-possible-breaches-confidentiality-report
Who Shall Guard the Guardians?
One UK newspaper, ‘the Guardian’, reported this development thus:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/25/chemical-weapons-watchdog-opcw-defends-syria-report-after-leaks
The OPCW documents took the form of a show trial of both these individuals, conducted in their absence. Inspector A had said he would only participate in the investigation if the OPCW’s chief, Fernando Arias, was given a copy of his original complaint against what he saw as misuse of information. This was refused. Inspector B wished to bring his own lawyer. This also was refused. Both dissenters had tried repeatedly to take their concerns to Mr Arias, but they were blocked by senior management where the NATO powers which have been keen to intervene in Syria are well-represented.
Ad Hominem
The attack was almost entirely ad hominem, claiming, totally inaccurately, that they played a minor role, that they did not know the full story, that they had behaved in an underhand fashion. It did not in fact challenge the veracity of any of the leaks (for the simple reason that they are all true), but instead sought to belittle the two dissenters, who it referred to as ‘Inspector A’ and ‘Inspector B’.
Kafka Calls
These names make the whole thing sound like a mixture of Franz Kafka, Harold Pinter, J.B.Priestley and Inspector Morse. And Kafka, as so often, has provided the atmosphere of injustice, menace and obscurity.
But the claims made by the OPCW were shocking to those who actually know about the case. I am in a privileged position, I have spoken at length to Ian Henderson, who has been ‘outed’ beyond recall and who is obviously ‘Inspector A’. The identity of ‘Inspector B’ remains unrevealed.
I have since been in contact with both of them, receiving their detailed rebuttals to the charges made against them. It is my plan to publish these rebuttals in full at some point.
Telling the Security Council
But for the moment I will mainly refer readers to the written statement made by Ian Henderson to the UN Security Council. His ultimate employers, at a recent special session which discussed the case. He also made a briefer filmed statement. You may read the written document in full here:
https://thegrayzone.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Henderson-Testimony-UN.pdf
Oh yes, he was: Inspector A was a member of the FFM
But first let us hear Inspector A’s response to the repeated claim that he was not a member of the OPCW FFM (Fact Finding Mission) which went to Douma in April 2018. Here is his own answer: The OPCW have claimed ‘Inspector A was not a member of the FFM, and his name is not included in the mandates issued for FFM deployments.
‘A: Wrong, and misleading. When the first team was assembled, Inspector A was on a mission in Nepal. Therefore, obviously, he couldn’t be on the mandate for the team first deploying. When he returned to HQ, it was agreed at the operational level that there was a need to add critical experience and expertise to the FFM. He was then notified to the Syrian Arab Republic as an addition to the FFM team and he joined them. Documents support this.’
This Doesn’t Quite Add Up
I might add to this that the Final Report of the FFM (Annex 6, para 11) says:
https://www.opcw.org/sites/default/files/documents/2019/03/s-1731-2019%28e%29.pdf
‘On 4 June, FFM team members tagged and sealed the cylinders from Locations 2 and 4, and documented the procedure.'
Now, there is no doubt that 'Inspector A' is Ian Henderson, whose name was on the leak which was investigated.
In his recent report to the UN Security Council he says :
‘I was the sub-team leader for the visit to “Site 8”, to further inspect and photograph the cylinders removed from Locations 2 and 4, and to apply tags/seals to them.’
This would seem to be a conflict. The OPCW's own report says that FFM members tagged and sealed the cylinders. Mr Henderson was among those who did so and indeed led the team. In that case, surely, he must have been a member of the FFM.
Outstanding Professionals
This pretence that A and B are unimportant marginal figures is very odd. Both had in fact been considered outstanding professionals for the OPCW throughout their careers, and have many written notes commending the quality of their work. They were rehired - something the OPCW very rarely does – because the OPCW needed their experience.
The OPCW says they were rehired on a lower grade from the one they had previously held. It does not say that this was because the old higher grade had been abolished, and so it was no reflection on the two men’s skills and competence.
Underhand or Not?
THE OPCW also accuses Inspector A of underhand behaviour:
‘In July 2018, Inspector A, without proper authorisation, contacted companies about conducting an engineering
study on the cylinders found at two locations in Douma. When this became known to the team leader of the
FFM, Inspector A was instructed to refrain from making contact with any external third parties. The
investigation found that Inspector A did not accept this and decided that he was going to complete his study
alone—without informing the FFM team leader.’
Inspector A maintains that he behaved entirely properly and provided a detailed explanation of events in his statement to the UN Security Council (link above) beginning at paragraph 21.
Among many other attacks on the two inspectors is one which suggests that much of the investigation into the Douma incident was carried on after they had left or were no longer involved.
Only one visit to Douma
In fact there was only one OPCW visit to Douma and both A and B were deeply involved in it. Later work was done by an almost entirely different team, in what the OPCW calls ‘Country X’ which is almost certainly Turkey. No new information about chemical or ballistic or engineering matters was obtained on those deployments. And it was the suppression of important parts of the initial research, at Douma in April 2018, that caused the inspectors to dissent.
During this visit, Inspector A was in Douma, while Inspector B was in Damascus overseeing the technical and scientific operation. Inspector B *would* have been in Douma if his requests for the necessary security training (essential for such a risky deployment and very hard to complete at short notice) had not been turned down by the OPCW some time before. He was in close touch with the inspectors in Douma and was able to pass on his experience to them through secure communication. Inspector B is in fact one of only 4 inspectors (out of 10) who was present in Damascus for the entire duration of the investigation (14 April to 3 May). The team leader himself, who wrote the final report, left after 3 days, before the investigation ever began, which by an extension of the logic implied, invalidates the team leader’s contribution to the final report.
Inspector B was the planner and coordinator of all the scientific and technical activities on site. He was part of the sub-team involved in the negotiations with the Syrian authorities, participated in the interview process, wrote the on-site progress reports for the previous Director General, was the chief drafter of the original interim report, and with Inspector A, the most experienced inspector in the team. In fact, his 17 years’ experience as an inspector far outnumbers the average for the team.
Inspector B was the only organic chemist in the team and the recognised specialist in the OPCW when it came to chemical weapons production. As testimony to this, in his annual performance appraisals, it is cited by his supervisors that “he demonstrates a knowledge and skill in chemistry which is not possessed by others in the TS” (PMAS 2010), “I can say without fear of being unfair to others that you have been the professional in the TS that has contributed the most to the knowledge and understanding of CW chemistry applied to inspections. You produced a lot of knowledge and unselfishly shared every bit of what you know with others, enthusiastically” (PMAS 2017)’
There is more
I include these facts (a small sample of a 20,000 word dossier I have compiled on this matter) to indicate in just how many ways the OPCW’s attack on these two men is unfair and undeserved.
Perhaps even more important, the OPCW response does not in fact challenge their original concerns, which remain, about the investigation process and the report on Douma. These are that chemical, ballistics and engineering evidence from Douma itself, as well as evidence from external expert toxicologists, were known to the OPCW before the final report but suppressed by it because it would undermined its conclusion that said:
‘Regarding the alleged use of toxic chemicals as a weapon on 7 April 2018 in Douma, the Syrian Arab Republic, the evaluation and analysis of all the information gathered by the FFM—witnesses’ testimonies, environmental and biomedical samples analysis results, toxicological and ballistic analyses from experts, additional digital information from witnesses—provide reasonable grounds that the use of a toxic chemical as a weapon took place. This toxic chemical contained reactive chlorine. The toxic chemical was likely molecular chlorine.
A weak conclusion
Careful readers will note the weakness of the conclusion. ‘Reasonable grounds that the use of a toxic chemical took place’ is a very weak verdict. It is doubts that are usually reasonable. Grounds need to be demonstrable, as the burden of proof must lie with those who make the allegation, in any serious inquiry. As for ‘the toxic chemical was likely molecular chlorine’ this is also a remarkably weak and diffident statement, especially if it is being used to justify a large multinational military intervention (as it is).
It seems to me that the facts and expert opinions which the OPCW had suppressed in its published documents were, even so, unintentionally expressed in the weakness and vagueness of this conclusion.


lewrockwell--2020-02-20--The World Is Awash in Oil, False Assurances, Magical Thinking, and Complacency as Global Demand Care

The World Is Awash in Oil, False Assurances, Magical Thinking, and Complacency as Global Demand Careens Toward a Cliff

This collapse of price will manifest in all sorts of markets that are based on debt-funded purchases of desires rather than a warily prudent priority on needs .
Since markets are supposed to discover the price of excesses and scarcities , it ’ s a mystery why everything that is in oversupply is still grossly overpriced as global demand slides off a cliff : oil , semiconductors , Uber rides , AirBNB listings and many other risk-on / global growth stories are still priced as if pre-Covid-19 demand was still guaranteed .
Punters are still buying semiconductor stocks based on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counting the number of fairies on the head of a pin , ignoring the fundamental reality that very few people actually need a new mobile phone , vehicle , laptop , refrigerator , etc .
It boils down to confidence and certainty .
People pursue what they desire but don ’ t need when they ’ re brimming with confidence in the future , bolstered by an animal-spirits euphoria that their income and wealth will continue rising–a sense of certainty anchored by a belief that their economic world is essentially without risk .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hugh Smith Check Amazon for Pricing .
When confidence dissipates and is replaced by fear and uncertainty , desires lose their luster and needs take precedence .
When you ’ re afraid of getting a deadly virus or losing your livelihood , status symbols and frivolous spending no longer top the agenda .
Yet the entire risk-on / global growth story is based entirely on desires not needs .
The vast majority of demand isn ’ t for a pressing need , it ’ s for euphoric aspirational consumption , spending intended to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are , in their own self-image and in the image they present to the world in the brands they display , the cafes they dine in , etc .
etc .
Since the world is awash in false assurances , magical thinking and complacency , we might ask : what ’ s the market value of these disconnected-from-reality fantasies ?
There ’ s no pricing mechanism for such intangibles , of course , but should counting the number of fairies on the head of a pin give way to a new appreciation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , then global demand will fall off a cliff as desires are set aside indefinitely .
The Best of Charles Hugh Smith

This collapse of price will manifest in all sorts of markets that are based on debt-funded purchases of desires rather than a warily prudent priority on needs.
Since markets are supposed to discover the price of excesses and scarcities, it’s a mystery why everything that is in oversupply is still grossly overpriced as global demand slides off a cliff: oil, semiconductors, Uber rides, AirBNB listings and many other risk-on / global growth stories are still priced as if pre-Covid-19 demand was still guaranteed.
Punters are still buying semiconductor stocks based on out-of-touch projections that are the equivalent to counting the number of fairies on the head of a pin, ignoring the fundamental reality that very few people actually need a new mobile phone, vehicle, laptop, refrigerator, etc.
It boils down to confidence and certainty. People pursue what they desire but don’t need when they’re brimming with confidence in the future, bolstered by an animal-spirits euphoria that their income and wealth will continue rising–a sense of certainty anchored by a belief that their economic world is essentially without risk. Will You Be Richer or ... Smith, Charles Hugh Buy New $6.95 (as of 10:20 UTC - Details)
When confidence dissipates and is replaced by fear and uncertainty, desires lose their luster and needs take precedence. When you’re afraid of getting a deadly virus or losing your livelihood, status symbols and frivolous spending no longer top the agenda.
Yet the entire risk-on / global growth story is based entirely on desires not needs. The vast majority of demand isn’t for a pressing need, it’s for euphoric aspirational consumption, spending intended to make the buyer larger than they really are, in their own self-image and in the image they present to the world in the brands they display, the cafes they dine in, etc. etc.
Since the world is awash in false assurances, magical thinking and complacency, we might ask: what’s the market value of these disconnected-from-reality fantasies? There’s no pricing mechanism for such intangibles, of course, but should counting the number of fairies on the head of a pin give way to a new appreciation of risk and a pervasive awareness of uncertainty, then global demand will fall off a cliff as desires are set aside indefinitely.
Read the Whole Article
The Best of Charles Hugh Smith


lewrockwell--2020-02-20--Scandal-Ridden OPCW Now Using Twitter’s ‘Hide Replies’ Function

When Twitter first implemented its “ hide replies ” function last year I published an article warning that it could be used by establishment narrative managers to marginalize dissident voices and diminish the relatively egalitarian nature of the platform .
When I wrote it I was imagining the function being used by overt manipulators like cable TV pundits and Washington Post columnists , and think tank operatives like Neera Tanden who vocally supported the implementation of the function .
What I absolutely was not expecting , as paranoid and conspiracy-minded as I am , was a highly regarded UN-associated international @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that purpose .
As of this writing , if you go to the Twitter account for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons ( OPCW ) , you ’ ll see this tweet at the second from the top : If you log on to Twitter and go to that tweet and click this little button , it will take you to a section of “ hidden replies ” which aren ’ t visible on the main tweet .
You will not be surprised to learn that the tweet which the OPCW @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hide is critical of the organization : That “ # wikileaksdoumareport ” hashtag in the hidden tweet refers to the leaks which have been pouring out from the OPCW adding to the mountain of evidence that the US , UK and France bombed the Syrian government in 2018 as a retaliation for a chemical weapons attack in the town Douma which did not occur .
Whoever is in charge of the OPCW ’ s Twitter account does not like the lowly commoners talking about this on their page .
Here ’ s an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has the same issue : Click the same little button to view hidden replies and you ’ ll see three of them on this one , again all discussing the scandal-ridden Douma investigation : It doesn ’ t seem to happen if you ’ re not logged on to your account , and seems to express differently on different browsers , but if you log in and scroll through the OPCW Twitter page you ’ ll find many tweets with hidden replies , almost all of which directly pertain to the Douma scandal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have the largest number of replies is the smear job they released earlier this month attacking the whistleblowers whose leaks poked giant holes in the official Douma narrative .
This smear job has been ripped to shreds in an article by Grayzone ‘ s Aaron Maté , who in his trademark style systematically debunks the organisation ’ s attempts to spin the whistleblowers as incompetent outsiders who tried to manipulate the Douma investigation for no clear reason .
If you go to that OPCW tweet and scroll down you ’ ll see dozens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with the message “ This reply was hidden by the original Tweet author , ” meaning hidden by the author of the initial top tweet by the OPCW .
I ’ ve archived screenshots of the entire thread here as it looks from my account as of this writing , but here ’ s a small sample of what the top of the replies section looks like on that tweet : I myself posted the reply that got the most likes and retweets back when the OPCW first shared its smear job @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Twitter ’ s “ hide replies ” function it doesn ’ t show up in the main thread or in its “ hidden replies ” section .
Other users also say they can ’ t see it in either section .
So as things are right now it looks like some posts in threads with a large number of hidden replies are just disappeared entirely , which is all the more incentive for narrative managers to use it .
Amazon.com Gift Card i ... Buy New $ 10.00 There are already many users @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet again making use of opacity to silence dissident voices , and understandably so .
Ever since the first Douma leak in May 2018 this organisation has been stonewalling journalists , refusing to answer crucial questions , smearing its own investigators and denying them a platform to speak , all after hiding from the public the fact that there had been large amounts of internal dissent regarding its Douma investigation .
This dissent included unanimous agreement between four toxicologists that no chlorine attack occurred in Douma , and reports that some 20 OPCW @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Douma investigation was taking place .
The OPCW had no business hiding all this information from the public about an event which led to an act of war against a sovereign nation , and it has no business hiding the public ’ s attempts to demand more information be brought into the light .
These deliberate acts of obfuscation make no sense if you look at the OPCW as an independent international investigative body whose sole interest is truth and the elimination of chemical weapons , but they make perfect sense if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apparatus of the US-centralized empire .
The US government already has an established history of manipulating the OPCW into facilitating the advancement of pre-existing regime change agendas in the Middle East , and not one but two whistleblowers have separately attested that US government officials were brought in by OPCW leadership ( in violation of the organisation ’ s supposed independence ) to persuade them that the Syrian government had committed a chemical weapons attack .
The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons is acting like a narrative management operation because that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tool to help the US-centralized empire spin narratives favorable to pre-existing regime change agendas like the one it has long had for the Syrian government .
That ’ s how it behaves , so we should ignore all narrative spin and assume that that ’ s what it is until its behavior changes .
As long as it continues walking like a duck and quacking like a duck , we should continue to assume that it ’ s a duck .
The OPCW has been hiding replies on Twitter , yes .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is .
Thanks for reading !
The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for everything I publish .
My work is entirely reader-supported , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around , liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , checking out my podcast on either Youtube , soundcloud , Apple podcasts or Spotify , following @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , purchasing some of my sweet merchandise , buying my new book Rogue Nation : Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone , or my previous book Woke : A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers .
For more info on who I am , where I stand , and what I ’ m trying to do with this platform , click here .
Everyone , racist platforms excluded , has my permission to republish or use any part of this work ( or anything else I ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free of charge .

When Twitter first implemented its “hide replies” function last year I published an article warning that it could be used by establishment narrative managers to marginalize dissident voices and diminish the relatively egalitarian nature of the platform. When I wrote it I was imagining the function being used by overt manipulators like cable TV pundits and Washington Post columnists, and think tank operatives like Neera Tanden who vocally supported the implementation of the function.
What I absolutely was not expecting, as paranoid and conspiracy-minded as I am, was a highly regarded UN-associated international chemical watchdog group using the function for that purpose.
As of this writing, if you go to the Twitter account for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), you’ll see this tweet at the second from the top:
If you log on to Twitter and go to that tweet and click this little button, it will take you to a section of “hidden replies” which aren’t visible on the main tweet.
You will not be surprised to learn that the tweet which the OPCW’s Twitter account has chosen to hide is critical of the organization:
That “#wikileaksdoumareport” hashtag in the hidden tweet refers to the leaks which have been pouring out from the OPCW adding to the mountain of evidence that the US, UK and France bombed the Syrian government in 2018 as a retaliation for a chemical weapons attack in the town Douma which did not occur. Whoever is in charge of the OPCW’s Twitter account does not like the lowly commoners talking about this on their page.
Here’s an OPCW tweet from a week ago which has the same issue:
Click the same little button to view hidden replies and you’ll see three of them on this one, again all discussing the scandal-ridden Douma investigation:
It doesn’t seem to happen if you’re not logged on to your account, and seems to express differently on different browsers, but if you log in and scroll through the OPCW Twitter page you’ll find many tweets with hidden replies, almost all of which directly pertain to the Douma scandal.
The OPCW tweet which appears to have the largest number of replies is the smear job they released earlier this month attacking the whistleblowers whose leaks poked giant holes in the official Douma narrative. This smear job has been ripped to shreds in an article by Grayzone‘s Aaron Maté, who in his trademark style systematically debunks the organisation’s attempts to spin the whistleblowers as incompetent outsiders who tried to manipulate the Douma investigation for no clear reason.
OPCW: Independent Investigation into Possible Breaches of Confidentiality Report Released https://t.co/kaX2LJ71ej — OPCW (@OPCW) February 6, 2020
If you go to that OPCW tweet and scroll down you’ll see dozens of spaces where replies ought to be, with the message “This reply was hidden by the original Tweet author,” meaning hidden by the author of the initial top tweet by the OPCW. I’ve archived screenshots of the entire thread here as it looks from my account as of this writing, but here’s a small sample of what the top of the replies section looks like on that tweet:
I myself posted the reply that got the most likes and retweets back when the OPCW first shared its smear job, but in a strange twist on Twitter’s “hide replies” function it doesn’t show up in the main thread or in its “hidden replies” section. Other users also say they can’t see it in either section. So as things are right now it looks like some posts in threads with a large number of hidden replies are just disappeared entirely, which is all the more incentive for narrative managers to use it. Amazon.com Gift Card i... Buy New $10.00 (as of 08:25 UTC - Details)
There are already many users in the comments objecting to the OPCW yet again making use of opacity to silence dissident voices, and understandably so. Ever since the first Douma leak in May 2018 this organisation has been stonewalling journalists, refusing to answer crucial questions, smearing its own investigators and denying them a platform to speak, all after hiding from the public the fact that there had been large amounts of internal dissent regarding its Douma investigation. This dissent included unanimous agreement between four toxicologists that no chlorine attack occurred in Douma, and reports that some 20 OPCW inspectors had voiced objections to the way the Douma investigation was taking place.
The OPCW had no business hiding all this information from the public about an event which led to an act of war against a sovereign nation, and it has no business hiding the public’s attempts to demand more information be brought into the light.
Readers need to click on “hidden replies” to see how this is going down with an informed public. https://t.co/RuzlLd0VvS — Tim Hayward (@Tim_Hayward_) February 18, 2020
These deliberate acts of obfuscation make no sense if you look at the OPCW as an independent international investigative body whose sole interest is truth and the elimination of chemical weapons, but they make perfect sense if you see it as a narrative management apparatus of the US-centralized empire. The US government already has an established history of manipulating the OPCW into facilitating the advancement of pre-existing regime change agendas in the Middle East, and not one but two whistleblowers have separately attested that US government officials were brought in by OPCW leadership (in violation of the organisation’s supposed independence) to persuade them that the Syrian government had committed a chemical weapons attack.
The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons is acting like a narrative management operation because that is what it has become: a tool to help the US-centralized empire spin narratives favorable to pre-existing regime change agendas like the one it has long had for the Syrian government. That’s how it behaves, so we should ignore all narrative spin and assume that that’s what it is until its behavior changes. As long as it continues walking like a duck and quacking like a duck, we should continue to assume that it’s a duck.
The OPCW has been hiding replies on Twitter, yes. But at least it has stopped hiding what it is.
_______________________________
Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out my podcast on either Youtube, soundcloud, Apple podcasts or Spotify, following me on Steemit, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.
Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2