lewrockwell--2020-07-03--What Happens Next for China—Collapse or War With the US?

International Man : While many have been distracted by the unrest in the US , tensions with China are soaring .
Recently , Beijing passed a national security law that would undermine Hong Kong ’ s autonomy .
What comes next for US-China relations ?
Doug Casey : I lived in Hong Kong , on and off , from 1985 to 2005 .
When I first moved there , it was a Chinese city , but there were a lot of Western expats .
When I returned most recently , it had transformed into a Chinese city with very few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Singapore .
What ’ s happening in Hong Kong is unfortunate , but frankly , it ’ s none of our business .
Unfortunate things are happening in a hundred places around the world .
You just can ’ t solve other people ’ s problems for them , nor should you try .
Nobody likes a busybody .
2016 1 oz American Sil ...
Check Amazon for Pricing .
As I ’ ve said so many times in the past , the US government has got to stop sticking its nose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The US has been acting as the world ’ s self-appointed cop since at least WWII , as often as not stepping in on the side of the bad guys—whether it knew it or not— and bankrupting itself while making enemies in the process .
In the case of Hong Kong , my view is that the Beijing regime is totally wrong , but it would be a disastrous error for us to get involved .
The same goes for the South and East China Seas , which were in the news a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sending a bunch of aircraft carriers there to show the flag , which is dangerous and provocative and none of our business .
Just as it would be none of China ’ s business if the US decided to make the Gulf of Mexico its own private backyard sea .
Should China try to contest that ?
Should China step in if Mexico decided the Gulf is really its territorial water ?
The fact is that Chinese and US businessmen get along just fine .
If the Chinese prove to be unethical or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stop working with the firm that cheats them .
Why should the US government be involved ?
The US and Chinese governments are posturing at each other like a couple of angry chimpanzees .
The Chinese government and the US government are both dead hands on their economies .
Neither serves a useful purpose .
They ’ re the problem , not Chinese and American businessmen .
The Chinese government sees Taiwan as a breakaway secessionist province .
They don ’ t recognize its independence , much as Lincoln didn ’ t recognize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s great the Taiwanese are independent , but it ’ s not our problem .
It ’ s just as stupid for the US government to chance a war there as it would be for the Brazilian government to make Taiwan its business .
International Man : What does it mean for the economy and US politics ?
Doug Casey : Well , there ’ s a huge trade deficit between the US and China , which Trump loves to point out .
I don ’ t see that as a problem at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the US consumes it .
It ’ s one-sided—to the American consumer ’ s benefit .
We pay them in US dollars , which will soon be treated like Old Maid cards , created by the trillions .
If the US government wants the deficit to stop , it only has to stop its printing presses .
The fact is that the Chinese economy has been tremendously successful because it dumped communism starting in 1980 and free-marketized .
The progress that they ’ ve made in the last 40 years is totally unprecedented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Well , unprecedented for a country that size—because Singapore , Hong Kong , Dubai , all city-states—have done at least as well by implementing low taxes and almost no regulations .
Vitamin D3 , Zinc and M ... Jeffers , Nancy Best Price : null Buy New $ 6.98 That said , the Chinese economy could actually collapse .
Why ?
Because the expansion that they ’ ve gone through over the last 40 years has been financed by hundreds of millions of Mrs. Wongs saving half of their income .
They save @ @ @ @ @ @ @ put it in the banks .
The banks lend it to governmental entities and businesses .
It ’ s a debt-driven economy , not an equity-driven economy .
The PRC has made huge progress , but—unlike Hong Kong , Singapore , or Taiwan—it ’ s built on bank debt .
The yuan isn ’ t a sound currency .
China has an active stock market , and it ’ s true that Mrs. Wong is involved in the stock market .
But the Chinese stock market doesn ’ t raise capital so much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wong trades the stock market but treats it like a version of the Macau casinos .
Because the Chinese economy is built on debt from the banks , and because the government controls so much of the economy , a lot of that debt has been misallocated .
And can ’ t be repaid .
Remember , whenever the State is involved , things are done mainly for political , not economic , reasons .
And there ’ s always corruption whenever government is involved .
How so ?
Everybody ’ s heard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that have been built but largely unoccupied , combined with roads and bridges that go nowhere .
Is it brilliant strategic thinking or a gigantic example of State “ planning ” and bureaucratic stupidity ?
I can ’ t say from a current boots-on-the-ground standpoint because it ’ s been about five years since I ’ ve been to China proper .
But I believe that there ’ s been a huge waste of capital—because it ’ s being politically allocated .
The Treatment Trap : Ho ... Singh , Janardan Prasad Best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 7.90 If Mrs. Wong goes to take her yuan out of the bank and she can ’ t because it has been put into uneconomic projects or if she gets her yuan back and they ’ re worth nothing—there could be a revolution in China .
As the US descends into the Greater Depression , a lot of Chinese factories producing for the US market are going to be in trouble .
That will result in a lot of Chinese unemployment , mostly urban .
China has had one of the great mass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moved from the countryside into the city .
If people in the cities become unemployed , they ’ re going to blame the government , and their government will blame the US .
The whole world revolves around government today .
It ’ s not just true in the US and China , but all countries .
What ’ s the upshot of this ?
Will manufacturing return to the US ?
I don ’ t think so because the US isn ’ t very business-friendly .
For one thing , taxes in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Most governments—the US government , the states , cities , and local governments—are more bankrupt than ever before because of the COVID hysteria .
These governments are also adding regulations—they ’ re not deregulating .
Why should businesses come back to the US and be subject to vastly more regulations than in the Orient ?
US labor costs are also higher , even though labor is less and less an element in manufacturing .
As taxes and regulation grow , at some point the US is likely to have foreign exchange controls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ word to the wise on that subject—diversify abroad .
In any event , during a depression , the general standard of living goes down .
It ’ ll go down both for the Chinese , who will be producing less .
And for the Americans , who ’ ll be consuming less .
International Man : What are your thoughts on China ’ s future overall ?
Doug Casey : First , I ’ d like to point out that a lot of people still refer to the country as “ Communist China.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It hasn ’ t been a communist system for 40 years , since Deng Xiaoping reformed the economy .
China may still have pictures of Mao on their currency , but it has nothing to do with communism anymore .
The Communist Party is just a scam , benefitting its members alone .
They get to live high off the hog .
The Communist Party is nothing more than the Chinese Deep State .
It no longer has anything to do with Marx , Lenin , or Mao—an unexpected plus .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , because it ’ s not communist .
It ’ s not even socialist .
They have a fascist system , just like we have in the US .
In other words , business is privately owned , and consumer goods are widely available—but it ’ s all controlled by the State .
It ’ s an authoritarian system .
The Chinese have moved towards the US system , even while the US is moving towards the Chinese system .
There ’ s an excellent chance China will go the way of Yugoslavia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countries , or the USSR , which broke into 15 .
Czechoslovakia broke up into two .
Or the United Kingdom , for that matter , which is probably going to become disunited .
This is a trend all over the world today .
Countries are subdividing into smaller ethnic-based units .
It could happen in China .
And the US as well—but that ’ s a whole different conversation .
About 80 % of the people in China are ethnic Han Chinese ; most speak Mandarin as their mother language as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are scores of other languages and cultures within China , representing over 300 million—that ’ s a lot of people .
For instance , in Southern China—Hong Kong , Guangzhou—the native language isn ’ t Mandarin .
It ’ s Cantonese .
They use the same ideograms as Mandarin does , but the language is as unintelligible to a native Mandarin speaker as , say , Danish is to an English speaker .
Duckura Jump Rocket La ... Best Price : $ 13.79 Buy New $ 14.99 We ’ re talking about 68 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a huge number .
It ’ s larger than most countries in Europe .
The same is true of the Shanghai-ese .
I ’ m not even counting Mongolia , Tibet , and Xinjiang—which are all actually separate countries with ethnically , culturally , and linguistically different natives .
They ’ re being purposefully overwhelmed , demographically conquered , by the Han Chinese .
There are a dozen other seriously different countries within China itself .
I don ’ t doubt that when the going gets tough , they ’ re going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to being bossed by Beijing .
Of course , the central government will resist violently , the same way the Russians recently did with the Chechens , the Burmese did with the Karens and Rohinga , or the Indonesians with the East Timorese .
But there are scores of other examples .
It ’ s not unlikely China will break up into autonomous regions run by warlords , much the way it was during the 1930s .
As outlandish as that might sound .
International Man : What are the odds of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or the South China Sea , and what would be the consequences of that ?
Doug Casey : Well , it ’ s quite possible .
But why does that have to be the problem of the US ?
It ’ s almost impossible for the US to invade China .
What kind of attack can the US mount ?
Is the US going to launch a bunch of ICBMs onto Chinese cities ?
That makes no sense because the Chinese have their own ICBMs to fire back .
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to look like .
And there will be something resembling World War 3 .
History hasn ’ t ended , contrary to Fukuyama ’ s silly book of some years ago .
So if the US can ’ t and won ’ t invade China and won ’ t do an ICBM strike , what will they do ?
If it comes to a hot war , it will look like what I described in our recent interview .
But , along the way , the US government will try to destroy the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dust-up with the Chinese—using aircraft and aircraft carriers—would be a catastrophe for the Americans .
The Chinese have sophisticated bases all along their shore .
This makes the dozen or so US aircraft carriers nothing but sitting ducks .
They ’ d be turned into artificial reefs .
I ’ m sure divers of the next century will enjoy that—but today ’ s Americans won ’ t .
A war is not out of the question , but , again , it won ’ t be a conventional war using today ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really feasible , although the generals and admirals will be the last ones to figure that out .
International Man : Recent polls suggest that nearly 2/3 of Americans have a negative view of China .
What role will China play in the upcoming presidential election ?
Doug Casey : That is an interesting question , especially in the context of the race riots now taking place in the US right now .
When the going gets tough in any country , it makes all the sense in the world for that country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enemy to unite the people .
In the case of the US , they ’ d hope to change the equation from whites versus blacks and browns , to Americans against the Chinese .
Of course , they ’ ve played this card against Iraq and Iran .
They played it against Russia .
China Rx : Exposing the ... Singh , Janardan Prasad Best Price : $ 21.33 Buy New $ 17.50 When we talk about racism , the fact is that almost every ethnic group considers itself to be special or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In fact , the Chinese , as a group , probably have more belief in their racial superiority than any other group .
That augurs poorly for world peace .
But will the Chinese have anything to do with the coming election ?
I ’ d say very little .
In so far as they do , however , they ’ re going to be Democrat-leaning .
The US still thinks it has a monopoly on interfering with other countries ’ elections and governments .
The Chinese dislike nationalists such as Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of foolishness , as he ’ s already shown , with import duties and quotas .
They ’ d much rather have a globalist who would try to cooperate with them .
As you know , I made a money bet that Trump would win in 2016 .
This time , I don ’ t care about Trump losing , per se .
He ’ s a guy with no philosophical core , although he is a cultural conservative , and against PC types and cultural Marxists on a gut level .
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not winning , because that would be a catastrophe .
Unfortunately , however , the collectivists have momentum on their side .
Why ?
They have an actual philosophy , even if it ’ s a very bad one .
The Republicans , however , have none .
They only counter by saying their enemy is going too far , too fast .
That ’ s why they always come off as confused and weak hypocrites .
If I was going to put money on it this time , the winner is likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sides are going to stuff the ballot boxes and do all kinds of things with electronic voting and voting by mail .
The Democrats , however , are much more professional and experienced at this type of thing than the Republicans .
They ’ re likely to win .
The Best of Doug Casey

International Man: While many have been distracted by the unrest in the US, tensions with China are soaring.
Recently, Beijing passed a national security law that would undermine Hong Kong’s autonomy. What comes next for US-China relations?
Doug Casey: I lived in Hong Kong, on and off, from 1985 to 2005. When I first moved there, it was a Chinese city, but there were a lot of Western expats.
When I returned most recently, it had transformed into a Chinese city with very few expats. They’d all gone to Singapore.
What’s happening in Hong Kong is unfortunate, but frankly, it’s none of our business. Unfortunate things are happening in a hundred places around the world. You just can’t solve other people’s problems for them, nor should you try. Nobody likes a busybody.
2016 1 oz American Sil... Check Amazon for Pricing. As I’ve said so many times in the past, the US government has got to stop sticking its nose in other people’s business. The US has been acting as the world’s self-appointed cop since at least WWII, as often as not stepping in on the side of the bad guys—whether it knew it or not— and bankrupting itself while making enemies in the process.
In the case of Hong Kong, my view is that the Beijing regime is totally wrong, but it would be a disastrous error for us to get involved.
The same goes for the South and East China Seas, which were in the news a few years back. The US is sending a bunch of aircraft carriers there to show the flag, which is dangerous and provocative and none of our business. Just as it would be none of China’s business if the US decided to make the Gulf of Mexico its own private backyard sea. Should China try to contest that? Should China step in if Mexico decided the Gulf is really its territorial water?
The fact is that Chinese and US businessmen get along just fine. If the Chinese prove to be unethical or dishonest, a US business should just stop working with the firm that cheats them. Why should the US government be involved?
The US and Chinese governments are posturing at each other like a couple of angry chimpanzees. The Chinese government and the US government are both dead hands on their economies. Neither serves a useful purpose. They’re the problem, not Chinese and American businessmen.
Taiwan is another simmering problem.
The Chinese government sees Taiwan as a breakaway secessionist province. They don’t recognize its independence, much as Lincoln didn’t recognize the Confederacy. I think it’s great the Taiwanese are independent, but it’s not our problem. It’s just as stupid for the US government to chance a war there as it would be for the Brazilian government to make Taiwan its business.
International Man: What does it mean for the economy and US politics?
Doug Casey: Well, there’s a huge trade deficit between the US and China, which Trump loves to point out.
I don’t see that as a problem at all.
The Chinese produce stuff and the US consumes it. It’s one-sided—to the American consumer’s benefit. We pay them in US dollars, which will soon be treated like Old Maid cards, created by the trillions. If the US government wants the deficit to stop, it only has to stop its printing presses.
The fact is that the Chinese economy has been tremendously successful because it dumped communism starting in 1980 and free-marketized. The progress that they’ve made in the last 40 years is totally unprecedented in world history as a result. Well, unprecedented for a country that size—because Singapore, Hong Kong, Dubai, all city-states—have done at least as well by implementing low taxes and almost no regulations. Vitamin D3, Zinc and M... Jeffers, Nancy Buy New $6.98 (as of 03:40 UTC - Details)
That said, the Chinese economy could actually collapse. Why? Because the expansion that they’ve gone through over the last 40 years has been financed by hundreds of millions of Mrs. Wongs saving half of their income. They save it in Chinese yuan, and they put it in the banks. The banks lend it to governmental entities and businesses.
It’s a debt-driven economy, not an equity-driven economy. The PRC has made huge progress, but—unlike Hong Kong, Singapore, or Taiwan—it’s built on bank debt. The yuan isn’t a sound currency.
China has an active stock market, and it’s true that Mrs. Wong is involved in the stock market. But the Chinese stock market doesn’t raise capital so much as substitute for a casino. Mrs. Wong trades the stock market but treats it like a version of the Macau casinos.
Because the Chinese economy is built on debt from the banks, and because the government controls so much of the economy, a lot of that debt has been misallocated. And can’t be repaid. Remember, whenever the State is involved, things are done mainly for political, not economic, reasons. And there’s always corruption whenever government is involved.
How so? Everybody’s heard about the scores of new Chinese cities that have been built but largely unoccupied, combined with roads and bridges that go nowhere. Is it brilliant strategic thinking or a gigantic example of State “planning” and bureaucratic stupidity? I can’t say from a current boots-on-the-ground standpoint because it’s been about five years since I’ve been to China proper. But I believe that there’s been a huge waste of capital—because it’s being politically allocated. The Treatment Trap: Ho... Singh, Janardan Prasad Best Price: $8.42 Buy New $7.90 (as of 03:41 UTC - Details)
If Mrs. Wong goes to take her yuan out of the bank and she can’t because it has been put into uneconomic projects or if she gets her yuan back and they’re worth nothing—there could be a revolution in China.
As the US descends into the Greater Depression, a lot of Chinese factories producing for the US market are going to be in trouble. That will result in a lot of Chinese unemployment, mostly urban. China has had one of the great mass migrations of history since 1980—most peasants have moved from the countryside into the city.
If people in the cities become unemployed, they’re going to blame the government, and their government will blame the US. The whole world revolves around government today. It’s not just true in the US and China, but all countries.
What’s the upshot of this? Will manufacturing return to the US? I don’t think so because the US isn’t very business-friendly. For one thing, taxes in the US are going to go up.
Most governments—the US government, the states, cities, and local governments—are more bankrupt than ever before because of the COVID hysteria. These governments are also adding regulations—they’re not deregulating. Why should businesses come back to the US and be subject to vastly more regulations than in the Orient? US labor costs are also higher, even though labor is less and less an element in manufacturing.
As taxes and regulation grow, at some point the US is likely to have foreign exchange controls to keep capital from leaving. A word to the wise on that subject—diversify abroad. In any event, during a depression, the general standard of living goes down. It’ll go down both for the Chinese, who will be producing less. And for the Americans, who’ll be consuming less.
International Man: What are your thoughts on China’s future overall?
Doug Casey: First, I’d like to point out that a lot of people still refer to the country as “Communist China.” That’s a huge misnomer.
It hasn’t been a communist system for 40 years, since Deng Xiaoping reformed the economy. China may still have pictures of Mao on their currency, but it has nothing to do with communism anymore.
The Communist Party is just a scam, benefitting its members alone. They get to live high off the hog. The Communist Party is nothing more than the Chinese Deep State. It no longer has anything to do with Marx, Lenin, or Mao—an unexpected plus.
We shouldn’t call it communist China, because it’s not communist. It’s not even socialist. They have a fascist system, just like we have in the US. In other words, business is privately owned, and consumer goods are widely available—but it’s all controlled by the State. It’s an authoritarian system. The Chinese have moved towards the US system, even while the US is moving towards the Chinese system.
What’s next for China?
There’s an excellent chance China will go the way of Yugoslavia, which broke up into six smaller countries, or the USSR, which broke into 15. Czechoslovakia broke up into two. Or the United Kingdom, for that matter, which is probably going to become disunited. This is a trend all over the world today. Countries are subdividing into smaller ethnic-based units. It could happen in China. And the US as well—but that’s a whole different conversation.
About 80% of the people in China are ethnic Han Chinese; most speak Mandarin as their mother language as well.
At the same time, there are scores of other languages and cultures within China, representing over 300 million—that’s a lot of people.
For instance, in Southern China—Hong Kong, Guangzhou—the native language isn’t Mandarin. It’s Cantonese. They use the same ideograms as Mandarin does, but the language is as unintelligible to a native Mandarin speaker as, say, Danish is to an English speaker. Duckura Jump Rocket La... Best Price: $13.79 Buy New $14.99 (as of 02:52 UTC - Details)
We’re talking about 68 million native Cantonese speakers. That’s a huge number. It’s larger than most countries in Europe.
The same is true of the Shanghai-ese.
I’m not even counting Mongolia, Tibet, and Xinjiang—which are all actually separate countries with ethnically, culturally, and linguistically different natives. They’re being purposefully overwhelmed, demographically conquered, by the Han Chinese. There are a dozen other seriously different countries within China itself.
I don’t doubt that when the going gets tough, they’re going to look to independence, as opposed to being bossed by Beijing. Of course, the central government will resist violently, the same way the Russians recently did with the Chechens, the Burmese did with the Karens and Rohinga, or the Indonesians with the East Timorese. But there are scores of other examples.
It’s not unlikely China will break up into autonomous regions run by warlords, much the way it was during the 1930s. As outlandish as that might sound.
International Man: What are the odds of a military clash over Taiwan, Hong Kong, or the South China Sea, and what would be the consequences of that?
Doug Casey: Well, it’s quite possible. But why does that have to be the problem of the US?
It’s almost impossible for the US to invade China. What kind of attack can the US mount? Is the US going to launch a bunch of ICBMs onto Chinese cities?
That makes no sense because the Chinese have their own ICBMs to fire back. That’s not what World War III is likely to look like. And there will be something resembling World War 3. History hasn’t ended, contrary to Fukuyama’s silly book of some years ago.
So if the US can’t and won’t invade China and won’t do an ICBM strike, what will they do? If it comes to a hot war, it will look like what I described in our recent interview.
But, along the way, the US government will try to destroy the Chinese economy.
Getting into a military dust-up with the Chinese—using aircraft and aircraft carriers—would be a catastrophe for the Americans. The Chinese have sophisticated bases all along their shore. This makes the dozen or so US aircraft carriers nothing but sitting ducks.
They’d be turned into artificial reefs. I’m sure divers of the next century will enjoy that—but today’s Americans won’t. A war is not out of the question, but, again, it won’t be a conventional war using today’s military junk. It’s not really feasible, although the generals and admirals will be the last ones to figure that out.
International Man: Recent polls suggest that nearly 2/3 of Americans have a negative view of China. What role will China play in the upcoming presidential election?
Doug Casey: That is an interesting question, especially in the context of the race riots now taking place in the US right now.
When the going gets tough in any country, it makes all the sense in the world for that country’s government to find a foreign enemy to unite the people. In the case of the US, they’d hope to change the equation from whites versus blacks and browns, to Americans against the Chinese.
Of course, they’ve played this card against Iraq and Iran. They played it against Russia. China Rx: Exposing the... Singh, Janardan Prasad Best Price: $21.33 Buy New $17.50 (as of 03:37 UTC - Details)
When we talk about racism, the fact is that almost every ethnic group considers itself to be special or superior. That absolutely includes the Chinese. In fact, the Chinese, as a group, probably have more belief in their racial superiority than any other group. That augurs poorly for world peace.
But will the Chinese have anything to do with the coming election? I’d say very little. In so far as they do, however, they’re going to be Democrat-leaning. The US still thinks it has a monopoly on interfering with other countries’ elections and governments.
The Chinese dislike nationalists such as Trump. Trump is capable of all kinds of foolishness, as he’s already shown, with import duties and quotas. They’d much rather have a globalist who would try to cooperate with them.
As you know, I made a money bet that Trump would win in 2016. This time, I don’t care about Trump losing, per se. He’s a guy with no philosophical core, although he is a cultural conservative, and against PC types and cultural Marxists on a gut level.
What I really care about is the Democrats not winning, because that would be a catastrophe. Unfortunately, however, the collectivists have momentum on their side. Why? They have an actual philosophy, even if it’s a very bad one. The Republicans, however, have none. They only counter by saying their enemy is going too far, too fast. That’s why they always come off as confused and weak hypocrites.
If I was going to put money on it this time, the winner is likely to be whoever cheats best. Both sides are going to stuff the ballot boxes and do all kinds of things with electronic voting and voting by mail.
The Democrats, however, are much more professional and experienced at this type of thing than the Republicans. They’re likely to win.
Reprinted with permission from International Man.
The Best of Doug Casey


lewrockwell--2020-07-03--Want To Kill the Economy Again? Keep Threatening More Lockdowns

The first time governments imposed business closures in the name of fighting the spread of COVID-19 , the job market imploded .
Forty million Americans lost their jobs , and at least 20 million of those are still unemployed .
Income in America fell to such low levels that federal tax revenues fell by more than 50 percent year over year in April and remained down more than 25 percent in May .
These are losses of historic proportions .
It remains to be seen if the country even began anything that could realistically be called a “ recovery ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unemployment claims were still at over a million new applicants according to the most recent data .
That ’ s still off-the-charts bad .
Nonetheless , we continue to hear about how , any day now , we ’ ll see evidence of a “ V-shaped recovery ” in which jobs and economic growth will come roaring back .
But now we ’ re already seeing governments—by which I mean a small cadre of governors and unelected bureaucrats who currently rule by decree—announcing another round of business closures and ongoing government regulations that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s daily interactions with customers .
The 9 Steps to Keep th ... Buttar , Rashid A .
Best Price : $ 36.68 Buy New $ 21.56 This is likely to greatly slow any V-shapred recovery that might have been forming , and it will give businesses reason to further put off plans for implementing efforts at recovering from the economic crash experienced in April and May .
This is due to businesses being physically barred from hiring in many cases , but it ’ s also due to “ regime uncertainty.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phenomenon in which business and property owners can not plan for the future because of capricious , unpredictable , and incoherent government interventions .
This has happened a number of times in the past in the United States , an in each case , it prolonged economic depressions .
As shown by economic historian Robert Higgs , regime uncertainty was a significant factor in the long duration of the Great Depression .
It again became a factor during the so-called Great Recession , when the US government began implementing a veritable smorgasbord of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ periods , there were few limits on government action and the legal environment was prone to be substantially changed on short notice and in a succession of fits and starts .
Not surprisingly , under these conditions , businesses became reluctant to engage in new plans for expansion , employment , or investment .
Now , thanks to the coming “ second round ” of state lockdowns , businesses are once again in a similar position .
For example , yesterday Colorado governor Jared Polis announced that the governor ’ s office was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , after only a few weeks of being allowed to remain open .
This comes after a tiny uptick in new cases in the state .
Doctor Yourself : Natur ... Saul , Andrew W PH.D. Best Price : $ 24.27 Buy New $ 28.28 What was the legal process for dictating to these businesses that they must now remain closed ?
There was none .
For all we know , Polis just decided in the shower yesterday morning that it “ felt right ” to close down bars again .
There is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , no period for public comment .
We live in a world where a politician can simply decide to shut down businesses whenever the mood strikes him .
Polis certainly isn ’ t the only politician of this type .
Governors in a number of states have taken similar actions , from California to New York to Texas and Florida .
Bars , and other businesses , are again being closed by government edict .
Or as in New York , they are not being allowed to open at all .
Some observers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s only bars and a small minority of businesses .
It ’ s no big deal !
” This might be true to some extent were other businesses able to obtain any useful information on the likelihood that they too will be shut down .
After all , just because it ’ s “ only ” bars being closed now doesn ’ t mean it won ’ t be all restaurants , barbershops , and offices later .
And how might businesses get this information for planning purposes ?
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or guidance are offered by the secretive junta of bureaucrats that decides a business ’ s fate .
A business could ask , “ At what number of new cases/hospitalizations will you extend new business closures ?
” But the business is unlikely to receive any answer , because it is clear that governments have established no objective standards of any kind .
These government planners apparently decide business closures based on personal whims or on political pressure .
What ’ s worse , these changes can occur without any warning at all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plans for dealing with COVID-19 , governments have yet to announce or establish any standard at all by which to judge whether business closures or lockdowns are necessary .
Exactly how many COVID-19 deaths or hospitalizations are necessary to “ trigger business closures ” ?
Virtually no government is willing to say .
The only governor who appears to have even suggested an actual numerical standard is Greg Abbott of Texas who claims : 2019 W American Silver ...
Check Amazon for Pricing .
As I said from the start , if the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the State of Texas would take further action to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 .
But even in this case , government action is vaguely defined only as “ further action.
” That could mean virtually anything .
So business owners are left just guessing what governments might do next without anything we might call “ due process ” or even a “ legislative process.
” It ’ s just a matter of a single man or woman issuing diktats about whether or not a business owner is allowed to use his or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s someone else ’ s business today , doesn ’ t mean it won ’ t be your business tomorrow .
That ’ s the nature of regime uncertainty .
One round of regulations now doesn ’ t mean there won ’ t be something quite different and far worse coming down the line soon .
Under these conditions , there is little reason to assume there will be a V-shaped recovery .
After a period of only one month of “ reopening , ” governments are already enacting new business @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in these shutdowns indefinitely .
It ’ s as if the system were designed to maximize regime uncertainty and destroy employment and income .
For business owners , there ’ s no end in sight .
The Best of Ryan McMaken

The first time governments imposed business closures in the name of fighting the spread of COVID-19, the job market imploded.
Forty million Americans lost their jobs, and at least 20 million of those are still unemployed. Income in America fell to such low levels that federal tax revenues fell by more than 50 percent year over year in April and remained down more than 25 percent in May. These are losses of historic proportions.
It remains to be seen if the country even began anything that could realistically be called a “recovery” in June. After all, new unemployment claims were still at over a million new applicants according to the most recent data. That’s still off-the-charts bad. Nonetheless, we continue to hear about how, any day now, we’ll see evidence of a “V-shaped recovery” in which jobs and economic growth will come roaring back.
But now we’re already seeing governments—by which I mean a small cadre of governors and unelected bureaucrats who currently rule by decree—announcing another round of business closures and ongoing government regulations that micromanage every aspect of a business’s daily interactions with customers. The 9 Steps to Keep th... Buttar, Rashid A. Best Price: $36.68 Buy New $21.56 (as of 04:50 UTC - Details)
This is likely to greatly slow any V-shapred recovery that might have been forming, and it will give businesses reason to further put off plans for implementing efforts at recovering from the economic crash experienced in April and May.
This is due to businesses being physically barred from hiring in many cases, but it’s also due to “regime uncertainty.”
Regime uncertainty is a wealth-killing, job-killing phenomenon in which business and property owners cannot plan for the future because of capricious, unpredictable, and incoherent government interventions.
This has happened a number of times in the past in the United States, an in each case, it prolonged economic depressions.
As shown by economic historian Robert Higgs, regime uncertainty was a significant factor in the long duration of the Great Depression. It again became a factor during the so-called Great Recession, when the US government began implementing a veritable smorgasbord of new regulations and bailouts.
During these periods, there were few limits on government action and the legal environment was prone to be substantially changed on short notice and in a succession of fits and starts.
Not surprisingly, under these conditions, businesses became reluctant to engage in new plans for expansion, employment, or investment.
Now, thanks to the coming “second round” of state lockdowns, businesses are once again in a similar position.
For example, yesterday Colorado governor Jared Polis announced that the governor’s office was once again shutting down bars and nightclubs, after only a few weeks of being allowed to remain open. This comes after a tiny uptick in new cases in the state. Doctor Yourself: Natur... Saul, Andrew W PH.D. Best Price: $24.27 Buy New $28.28 (as of 03:19 UTC - Details)
What was the legal process for dictating to these businesses that they must now remain closed? There was none. For all we know, Polis just decided in the shower yesterday morning that it “felt right” to close down bars again. There is no debate, no checks and balances, no period for public comment. We live in a world where a politician can simply decide to shut down businesses whenever the mood strikes him.
Polis certainly isn’t the only politician of this type.
Governors in a number of states have taken similar actions, from California to New York to Texas and Florida. Bars, and other businesses, are again being closed by government edict. Or as in New York, they are not being allowed to open at all.
Some observers might shrug and say “well, it’s only bars and a small minority of businesses. It’s no big deal!” This might be true to some extent were other businesses able to obtain any useful information on the likelihood that they too will be shut down. After all, just because it’s “only” bars being closed now doesn’t mean it won’t be all restaurants, barbershops, and offices later.
And how might businesses get this information for planning purposes? It’s not as if any objective standards or guidance are offered by the secretive junta of bureaucrats that decides a business’s fate.
A business could ask, “At what number of new cases/hospitalizations will you extend new business closures?” But the business is unlikely to receive any answer, because it is clear that governments have established no objective standards of any kind. These government planners apparently decide business closures based on personal whims or on political pressure. What’s worse, these changes can occur without any warning at all. Even after months of talk about plans for dealing with COVID-19, governments have yet to announce or establish any standard at all by which to judge whether business closures or lockdowns are necessary. Exactly how many COVID-19 deaths or hospitalizations are necessary to “trigger business closures”? Virtually no government is willing to say. The only governor who appears to have even suggested an actual numerical standard is Greg Abbott of Texas who claims: 2019 W American Silver... Check Amazon for Pricing.
As I said from the start, if the positivity rate rose above 10%, the State of Texas would take further action to mitigate the spread of COVID-19.
But even in this case, government action is vaguely defined only as “further action.” That could mean virtually anything. So business owners are left just guessing what governments might do next without anything we might call “due process” or even a “legislative process.” It’s just a matter of a single man or woman issuing diktats about whether or not a business owner is allowed to use his or her property. Moreover, just because it’s someone else’s business today, doesn’t mean it won’t be your business tomorrow. That’s the nature of regime uncertainty. One round of regulations now doesn’t mean there won’t be something quite different and far worse coming down the line soon.
Under these conditions, there is little reason to assume there will be a V-shaped recovery. After a period of only one month of “reopening,” governments are already enacting new business shutdowns and claiming the authority to engage in these shutdowns indefinitely. It’s as if the system were designed to maximize regime uncertainty and destroy employment and income. For business owners, there’s no end in sight.
The Best of Ryan McMaken


lewrockwell--2020-07-03--NY Times Deploys Heavy Gun To Back ‘Intel’ on Russian Bounties

After examining his record , New York Times readers should be skeptical of anything David Sanger writes , including his latest artful works of deception .
The New York Times is pulling out all the stops in promoting its dubious story on Russia offering bounty for dead U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan .
Wednesday ’ s installment , a “ news analysis ” by Times veteran writers David E. Sanger and Eric Schmitt , treats the allegations that Russia paid Taliban or Taliban-related terrorists to kill U.S. troops as flat fact : iPlay , iLearn Kids Gol ... Best Price : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is presented as “ bolstering other evidence of the plot , including detainee interrogations.
” The take from the Afghan-run interrogations is , ipso facto , highly dubious ; and we need to know a lot more about the alleged new “ electronic data.
” Sanger and Schmitt put the “ bounty ” story atop a “ list of Russian aggressions in recent weeks rival [ ing ] some of the worst days of the Cold War.
” They hold up to ridicule White House statements that the president wants to have only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this prompts “ derision from officials who have spent years working on the daily brief and say it is most valuable when filled with dissenting interpretations and alternative explanations.
” Granted , such dissent might have been helpful to President George W. Bush , rather than having PDB briefers like Michael Morell ( later to become deputy CIA director ) parroting the line of then-Director George Tenet and Vice President Dick Cheney that there were tons of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq .
But what is wrong with preferring “ verified ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attempting to explain unverified reporting reeking of political agendas ?
( Morell later went on TV to call for the covert murder of Russians and Iranians in Syria . )
I helped prepare The President ’ s Daily Brief for Presidents Nixon , Ford , and Reagan , and personally conducted the one-on-one morning briefings in the Oval Office from 1981 to 1985 .
In those days we did our best to corroborate reporting — especially on highly sensitive issues — and did not try to cover our derrieres by alerting the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reporting , however sexy .
Later , Cheney ’ s fascination/fixation with the yarn about “ yellowcake uranium ” going to Iraq from Niger did not pass the smell test , for example , something that it took the International Atomic Energy Agency only a day or two of investigation to demolish .
Resveratrol Supplement ... Buy New $ 21.95 ( $ 0.37 / Count ) Seymour Hersh wrote in the March 24 , 2003 New Yorker , just days after the attack on Iraq : “ On March 7th , Mohamed ElBaradei @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vienna , told the UN Security Council that the documents involving the Niger-Iraq uranium sale were fakes .
‘ The I.A.E.A .
has concluded , with the concurrence of outside experts , that these documents .
.
.
are in fact not authentic , ’ ElBaradei said .
One senior I.A.E.A .
official went further .
He told [ Hersh ] , ‘ These documents are so bad that I can not imagine that they came from a serious intelligence agency .
It depresses me , given the low quality of the documents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At the level it reached , I would have expected more checking.
’ ” Intelligence analysts must pay close attention , of course , to provenance .
What is this or that source ’ s record for accuracy , for reliability .
What kind of trough might this or that source be feeding from ; and what agenda might she or he have ?
Discriminating readers of the corporate media — and especially the Times — should do the same with respect to journalists .
When they see the byline of David Sanger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Those who look back to before the U.S./UK attack on Iraq will discover that Sanger was heavily promoting the existence of WMD in Iraq as a certainty .
In a July 29 , 2002 article co-written with Thom Shanker , for example , Iraq ’ s ( non-existent ) “ weapons of mass destruction ” appear no fewer than seven times as flat fact .
Niacin : The Real Story ... Abram Hoffer M.D .
Ph ... .
Best Price : $ 9.68 Buy New $ 1.99 This Sanger/Shanker article , apparently fed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days after the head of British intelligence , Sir Richard Dearlove , was briefed by CIA chief Tenet at CIA headquarters in Langley , VA. Three days later , on July 23 , Dearlove told then Prime Minister Tony Blair that the coming attack on Iraq was a done deal .
We did not know this until May 2005 when The Times of London was given the text of what became known as the Downing Street Memo — the minutes of the briefing that Dearlove gave Blair on July 23 , 2002 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Here ’ s an excerpt : “ C [ [ Sir Richard Dearlove , head of MI6 ] ] reported on his recent talks in Washington [ [ with George Tenet , CIA director at CIA headquarters on July 20 , three days earlier ] ] .
… Military action was now seen as inevitable .
Bush wanted to remove Saddam , through military action , justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD .
But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.
” More instructive still , in May @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the now-famous “ Downing Street Memorandum ” showed that President George W. Bush had decided by early summer 2002 to attack Iraq , The New York Times ignored it for six weeks until David Sanger rose to the occasion with a tortured report claiming just the opposite .
A Convenient Death : Th ... Halper , Daniel Best Price : $ 21.05 Buy New $ 17.12 The title given his article of June 13 2005 was “ Prewar British Memo Says War Decision Wasn ’ t Made.
” Against this peculiar reporting record @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at face value Sanger ’ s Jan. 6 , 2017 report “ Putin Ordered ‘ Influence Campaign ’ Aimed at U.S. Election , Report Says.
” Or the report he authored , with Michael Shear the following day , “ Putin Led a Complex Cyberattack Scheme to Aid Trump , Report Finds.
” And Therein Lies the Rub … or the rubbish , as the British might say .
The fable of the Russian hack has now gone the way of Russia-Trump collusion .
( See , for example : “ Mueller ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York Times readers catch on to David Sanger ’ s story telling ?
Sadly , there are plenty of Pulitzer presstitutes — particularly on Russiagate , but Sanger is the archdeacon of them all — by far the most accomplished at the art .

After examining his record, New York Times readers should be skeptical of anything David Sanger writes, including his latest artful works of deception.
Special to Consortium News
The New York Times is pulling out all the stops in promoting its dubious story on Russia offering bounty for dead U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan.
Wednesday’s installment, a “news analysis” by Times veteran writers David E. Sanger and Eric Schmitt, treats the allegations that Russia paid Taliban or Taliban-related terrorists to kill U.S. troops as flat fact:
“Russia’s complicity in the bounty plot came into sharper focus on Tuesday as the The New York Times reported that American officials intercepted electronic data showing large financial transfers from a bank account controlled by Russia’s military intelligence agency to a Taliban-linked account.”
iPlay, iLearn Kids Gol... Best Price: $24.63 Buy New $27.99 (as of 02:55 UTC - Details) This is presented as “bolstering other evidence of the plot, including detainee interrogations.” The take from the Afghan-run interrogations is, ipso facto, highly dubious; and we need to know a lot more about the alleged new “electronic data.”
Sanger and Schmitt put the “bounty” story atop a “list of Russian aggressions in recent weeks rival[ing] some of the worst days of the Cold War.” They hold up to ridicule White House statements that the president wants to have only “verified” intelligence, claiming that this prompts “derision from officials who have spent years working on the daily brief and say it is most valuable when filled with dissenting interpretations and alternative explanations.”
Oh, yeah?
The President’s Daily Brief (PDB)
Granted, such dissent might have been helpful to President George W. Bush, rather than having PDB briefers like Michael Morell (later to become deputy CIA director) parroting the line of then-Director George Tenet and Vice President Dick Cheney that there were tons of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But what is wrong with preferring “verified” intelligence rather than a menu of options attempting to explain unverified reporting reeking of political agendas? (Morell later went on TV to call for the covert murder of Russians and Iranians in Syria.)
I helped prepare The President’s Daily Brief for Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan, and personally conducted the one-on-one morning briefings in the Oval Office from 1981 to 1985. In those days we did our best to corroborate reporting — especially on highly sensitive issues — and did not try to cover our derrieres by alerting the president and his top aides to highly dubious reporting, however sexy.
Later, Cheney’s fascination/fixation with the yarn about “yellowcake uranium” going to Iraq from Niger did not pass the smell test, for example, something that it took the International Atomic Energy Agency only a day or two of investigation to demolish. Resveratrol Supplement... Buy New $21.95 ($0.37 / Count) (as of 02:49 UTC - Details)
‘Not Authentic’
Seymour Hersh wrote in the March 24, 2003 New Yorker, just days after the attack on Iraq:
“On March 7th, Mohamed ElBaradei, the Director-General of the IAEA in Vienna, told the UN Security Council that the documents involving the Niger-Iraq uranium sale were fakes. ‘The I.A.E.A. has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents . . . are in fact not authentic,’ ElBaradei said. One senior I.A.E.A. official went further. He told [Hersh], ‘These documents are so bad that I cannot imagine that they came from a serious intelligence agency. It depresses me, given the low quality of the documents, that it was not stopped. At the level it reached, I would have expected more checking.’”
Sources
Intelligence analysts must pay close attention, of course, to provenance. What is this or that source’s record for accuracy, for reliability. What kind of trough might this or that source be feeding from; and what agenda might she or he have? Discriminating readers of the corporate media — and especially the Times — should do the same with respect to journalists. When they see the byline of David Sanger they need to examine his record.
Those who look back to before the U.S./UK attack on Iraq will discover that Sanger was heavily promoting the existence of WMD in Iraq as a certainty. In a July 29, 2002 article co-written with Thom Shanker, for example, Iraq’s (non-existent) “weapons of mass destruction” appear no fewer than seven times as flat fact. Niacin: The Real Story... Abram Hoffer M.D. Ph.... Best Price: $9.68 Buy New $1.99 (as of 10:10 UTC - Details)
This Sanger/Shanker article, apparently fed by intelligence sources, came just nine days after the head of British intelligence, Sir Richard Dearlove, was briefed by CIA chief Tenet at CIA headquarters in Langley, VA. Three days later, on July 23, Dearlove told then Prime Minister Tony Blair that the coming attack on Iraq was a done deal.
We did not know this until May 2005 when The Times of London was given the text of what became known as the Downing Street Memo — the minutes of the briefing that Dearlove gave Blair on July 23, 2002. No one has disputed its authenticity. Here’s an excerpt:
“C [[Sir Richard Dearlove, head of MI6]] reported on his recent talks in Washington [[with George Tenet, CIA director at CIA headquarters on July 20, three days earlier]]. … Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” More instructive still, in May 2005, when first-hand documentary evidence from the now-famous “Downing Street Memorandum” showed that President George W. Bush had decided by early summer 2002 to attack Iraq, The New York Times ignored it for six weeks until David Sanger rose to the occasion with a tortured report claiming just the opposite. A Convenient Death: Th... Halper, Daniel Best Price: $21.05 Buy New $17.12 (as of 02:55 UTC - Details) The title given his article of June 13 2005 was “Prewar British Memo Says War Decision Wasn’t Made.”
Against this peculiar reporting record, I was not inclined to take at face value Sanger’s Jan. 6, 2017 report “Putin Ordered ‘Influence Campaign’ Aimed at U.S. Election, Report Says.” Or the report he authored, with Michael Shear the following day, “Putin Led a Complex Cyberattack Scheme to Aid Trump, Report Finds.”
And Therein Lies the Rub
… or the rubbish, as the British might say. The fable of the Russian hack has now gone the way of Russia-Trump collusion. (See, for example: “Mueller’s Forensic-free Findings.”
When will New York Times readers catch on to David Sanger’s story telling? Sadly, there are plenty of Pulitzer presstitutes — particularly on Russiagate, but Sanger is the archdeacon of them all — by far the most accomplished at the art.
Reprinted with the author’s permission.


lewrockwell--2020-07-03--Farce or Freedom This Fourth?

Farce or Freedom This Fourth?

This weekend will either be the Fourth of July or the Farce .
You will know by whether you see Americans celebrating their obedience or their freedom .
You will be able to tell which it is by whether you can see their faces .
Free people look the part .
They do not wear the same government-decreed uniform .
A sea of the Face Diapered Demoralized , standing six feet apart on X marks the spot – perhaps with plexiglass partitions in between – isn ’ t a picture-portrait of freedom .
To describe such a pathetic spectacle of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ freedom ” is like describing a quadriplegic as “ differently abled.
” Not even the dignity of editorial honesty – much less the dignity of men , which is being systematically attacked for reasons which by now ought to be as clear the July sun .
Free people are free to smile – and be seen smiling .
They do not obediently stand on X marks the spot or stand six feet apart just because a sign said so .
For the same reason they wouldn ’ t do jumping jacks because a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said so .
A VOYAGE IN IMAGINATIO ... Holmes , Dr Joel S Buy New $ 9.95 What meaning does “ freedom ” have if you are not free to get together with friends and others who choose to get together with you to peacefully enjoy each others ’ company – and see each others ’ faces ?
Livestock are examined for signs of “ sickness ” – corralled and forcibly injected with various substances .
They are chuted along the desired path , which isn ’ t one of their choosing .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ do not .
We have an opportunity celebrate this weekend – if we can find the independence to assert our freedom .
By not allowing ourselves to be treated like livestock , corralled and herded and everything but actually gelded – which we might as well be , if we do allow it .
Awan Minutes To Midnig ... Webb , George Buy New $ 0.99 Assert your right to smile – and to see others smile .
To breath freely .
To shake the hand of a friend – or give a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of you aren ’ t afraid to .
Without fear of what the fearful feel when they see you do so .
Let them get therapy .
Do not permit them to organize your reality around their psychological debility .
Let the uniform gather six-feet-apart and X marks-the-spot , looking the same and conveying the same without expression .
Their faces hidden but their souls revealed .
These are the people of the Farce of July , who will celebrate it in their own pathetic way .
In the same way that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out whenever a Dear Leader departs – while also looking all the same , having the same uniforms and the same expressions .
In the same way that Stalin ’ s chicken ran back to Stalin after its rough plucking – Stalin ’ s crumbs being more desirable to the pathetic bird than its self-respect .
Self-respect requires deciding for oneself .
If one submits to every decision of others then to speak of the “ self ” is absurd .
You haven ’ t got one .
Grunt Style America Me ... @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up for yourself by not tolerating the abuse of yourself , nor of others by dint of your manly example .
Which isn ’ t a trait that only men can summon .
It is a trait asserted by free human beings of both sexes – and one lacking in the moral eunuchs of the faceless , who stand where they are told on X marks-the-spot .
Free men and women stand wherever they like .
They get-together with whom they like , whenever they like and as close as they like .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ see one another .
They smile and they laugh – visibly , openly .
This is how they celebrate their freedom .
It is how Americans once did – and can , again .
Which – if they do – will mean their children can .
The Best of Eric Peters

This weekend will either be the Fourth of July or the Farce. You will know by whether you see Americans celebrating their obedience or their freedom. You will be able to tell which it is by whether you can see their faces.
Free people look the part. They do not wear the same government-decreed uniform. A sea of the Face Diapered Demoralized, standing six feet apart on X marks the spot – perhaps with plexiglass partitions in between – isn’t a picture-portrait of freedom. To describe such a pathetic spectacle of fear-induced obedience as people “celebrating their freedom” is like describing a quadriplegic as “differently abled.” Not even the dignity of editorial honesty – much less the dignity of men, which is being systematically attacked for reasons which by now ought to be as clear the July sun.
Free people are free to smile – and be seen smiling. They do not obediently stand on X marks the spot or stand six feet apart just because a sign said so. For the same reason they wouldn’t do jumping jacks because a sign (or a government Gesundheitsfuhrer) said so. A VOYAGE IN IMAGINATIO... Holmes, Dr Joel S Buy New $9.95 (as of 04:21 UTC - Details)
What meaning does “freedom” have if you are not free to get together with friends and others who choose to get together with you to peacefully enjoy each others’ company – and see each others’ faces?
Livestock are examined for signs of “sickness” – corralled and forcibly injected with various substances. They are chuted along the desired path, which isn’t one of their choosing. They have little to celebrate and so do not.
We have an opportunity celebrate this weekend – if we can find the independence to assert our freedom. By not allowing ourselves to be treated like livestock, corralled and herded and everything but actually gelded – which we might as well be, if we do allow it.
Awan Minutes To Midnig... Webb, George Buy New $0.99 (as of 05:08 UTC - Details) Assert your right to smile – and to see others smile. To breath freely. To shake the hand of a friend – or give a friend a hug – if the two of you aren’t afraid to. Without fear of what the fearful feel when they see you do so. Let them get therapy. Do not permit them to organize your reality around their psychological debility.
Let the uniform gather six-feet-apart and X marks-the-spot, looking the same and conveying the same without expression. Their faces hidden but their souls revealed.
Obedience uber alles.
These are the people of the Farce of July, who will celebrate it in their own pathetic way. In the same way that the people of North Korea tear their hair out whenever a Dear Leader departs – while also looking all the same, having the same uniforms and the same expressions. In the same way that Stalin’s chicken ran back to Stalin after its rough plucking – Stalin’s crumbs being more desirable to the pathetic bird than its self-respect.
Self-respect requires deciding for oneself. If one submits to every decision of others then to speak of the “self” is absurd. You haven’t got one.
Grunt Style America Me... Buy New $24.95 (as of 02:56 UTC - Details) It requires standing up for yourself by not tolerating the abuse of yourself, nor of others by dint of your manly example. Which isn’t a trait that only men can summon. It is a trait asserted by free human beings of both sexes – and one lacking in the moral eunuchs of the faceless, who stand where they are told on X marks-the-spot.
Free men and women stand wherever they like. They get-together with whom they like, whenever they like and as close as they like. They look at one another and can see one another. They smile and they laugh – visibly, openly.
This is how they celebrate their freedom.
It is how Americans once did – and can, again.
Which – if they do – will mean their children can.
Read the Whole Article
The Best of Eric Peters


rEVOLution

Regarding the tumultuous 2020 , there are some who are able to acknowledge the deeper roots of discontent in society – the underlying causes of division , angst , and anger .
This is not to discount the purposefully created agitation – certainly driven by the press and the many political agendas for which the press plays merely a public relations role .
But this manipulation by the press and its political clients can only work if there is a lever in society waiting to be pulled .
It only works because the cracks exist .
Society can not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What are some of these roots of discontent ?
It all certainly starts with central banking , and this exploded nationally in 2008 .
What the people saw , fully exposed like never before , was a system designed to protect the connected and wealthy ; a system that inherently disfavored the rest of us .
The Revolution : A Mani ... Ron Paul Best Price : $ 1.99 Buy New $ 6.99 Trillions in bailouts – from both the federal government and the Fed .
Bankers saved despite making trillions in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fiat credit offered and counterfeit because the borrowers were unqualified in the first place .
Bonuses paid and stock values rising when making these loans , and further bonuses paid and stock values rising when being bailed out of these actions .
Next comes the drug war .
A pretext for every kind of intervention , search , invasion , and taking by the state .
The United States has the largest population of people incarcerated on the planet , and ( if memory serves ) something like half of these are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ related .
Families torn apart , search and seizure , infinite additional cause for negative interaction between police and the people .
All designed to tear the fabric of society apart .
This issue can not be separated from the militarism abroad .
An adventurous foreign policy – violent and ruthless – transfers its weaponry , hardware , skills and tactics to the home front .
But it is even worse : ethically , what ’ s the difference ?
A society that accepts – even worships – militarism and torture abroad can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at home .
Many want to believe it is two different things , but the actor in each case is the same .
And the effect on our conscious selves of the foreign interventions dissolves any means by which to hold firm against a similar condition at home .
We grow numb to all of it .
We decry the death of one man in Minnesota as an attempt to salve our wounds of supporting the millions of murders overseas .
Deeper in our conscience lies abortion .
Murder on a very grand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most defenseless of society .
A society that sacrifices unborn infants for a better future .
No , child sacrifice has not left this earth .
No one wants to admit the damage this causes to society , but how can it not be a permanent scar ?
Those who have gone through this trauma suffer one of two fates – either a permanent condition bordering on depression , or a permanent callousness .
Or some combination of the two , at neither extreme .
And this , not just for the mother @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certainly to include the father .
Next : we live in a fact-free world .
The level of cognitive dissonance has reached unimaginable levels – both on the discussion around the corona and on the discussion of race relations ( whatever that means ) in American society .
The internal turmoil brought on by the prayerful desire to believe the story despite what our own “ lying ” eyes tell us can result in nothing other than societal suicide .
Donald Trump Make Amer ... Best Price : $ 11.91 Buy New $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a sense of community .
This is manifest today in the debate on immigration .
Is there a culture and society worth protecting and defending ?
Should it mean something to be a resident , and , ultimately , a citizen ?
If the answer is no to these questions , society is lost .
Now , only the first and to some degree the second of these on the list above is being somewhat discussed as sources underlying the current turmoil in society .
Certainly , the Wall Street bailouts and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ connected and exploit the rest is identified as such .
The drug war is only starting to be discussed in light of the question of policing .
The rest I say are also underlying our condition , but I have not seen these discussed in the context of today ’ s turmoil .
Yet these are there , in varying degrees in the collective conscience of society .
The state of being human makes these internal conflicts unavoidable – and makes living a life as a human being rather difficult .
What does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rEVOLution ?
That label was born in Ron Paul ’ s presidential campaign twelve years ago .
Ron Paul ran on all of these issues in 2008 and again in 2012 .
I recall telling relatives and friends that he offered the last hope for holding the society together .
Not that I think things would be fundamentally different today had he won .
Paul himself said that just electing him would not be enough .
Senators , congressmen , the marriage of the bureaucratic apparatus and big business – these all offered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the presidency might hope to accomplish .
His was a message of LOVE in the best sense .
Yet his biggest boos came from audiences of so-called Christians – primarily aghast at his views on the military .
His biggest cheers came on college campuses – the same ones used as weapons against civil society .
What is interesting is that four years ago Donald Trump ran on many of these same points – I don ’ t believe he made a point of the drug war , and I am sure he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abortion .
But central banking , militarism , our fact-free world , and immigration – these were all central to his message and his popularity .
Trump was no Ron Paul .
He certainly did not have Paul ’ s principled grounding , but he had a bluster that Paul does not have – Paul is too much of a gentleman .
But in this age of 140 ( more recently , 280 ) characters , Trump was the master .
Aizics Mint Donald Tru ... Buy New $ 12.95 The two have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , being republicans , they had all the democrats against them .
They also had most of the republicans against them and most , if not all , of the bureaucratic state against them as well .
And this last point is telling .
Look at the list again : central banking , the drug war , military adventurism , abortion , a fact-free world , sense of self and community .
I can make a very sound natural law argument in support of the position Ron Paul took on every one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tact taken by society and our political ( and many Christian ) leaders on these same issues is directly counter to sound natural law .
The run of Ron Paul ( and , later , of Donald Trump ) fully exposed that the supposed left-right divide we are supposedly offered in politics is nonsense .
Over the last weeks , I have begun formulating a view that the divide – the actual divide in society – is one of natural law .
There are those who accept it and desire it – on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ superficial political spectrum .
There are many who reject it – on both sides of the same false political divide .
We are seeing that natural law can not be long ignored or abused .
We are seeing it in our society today .
God – or for you atheists out there , our human nature – can not long be mocked , ridiculed , or ignored , without pushing back .
Violently , if necessary .
We are five-hundred years past the Renaissance , and three hundred ( or so ) years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1800s – after the Franco-Prussian War and before World War One – the West enjoyed – for a brief forty-year period – the best fruits of Enlightenment thinking .
That ’ s it .
Forty years .
Splash Brothers Custom ... Buy New $ 14.99 Progressivism : the scientistic man , freed from any higher force above him was set free on the world , giving us communism , fascism , modern democracy , central banking , two world wars .
No higher law .
No God .
No natural law .
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have lived through it since 1914 .
What we are living through today is the last breaths of a dying carcass .
We look back on the God of the Old Testament ( I know , He is the same God – allow me a shortcut ) and exclaim : how can he be so cruel – even genocidal ?
We have the nerve to ask such questions given the man-made genocides of our time .
This is where we are today .
And this is why the sin of the Christian churches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its most prominent churches ) will be counted as the greatest .
The Best of Bionic Mosquito

Regarding the tumultuous 2020, there are some who are able to acknowledge the deeper roots of discontent in society – the underlying causes of division, angst, and anger. This is not to discount the purposefully created agitation – certainly driven by the press and the many political agendas for which the press plays merely a public relations role.
But this manipulation by the press and its political clients can only work if there is a lever in society waiting to be pulled. It only works because the cracks exist. Society cannot be fragmented unless there are defects to exploit.
What are some of these roots of discontent? It all certainly starts with central banking, and this exploded nationally in 2008. What the people saw, fully exposed like never before, was a system designed to protect the connected and wealthy; a system that inherently disfavored the rest of us.
The Revolution: A Mani... Ron Paul Best Price: $1.99 Buy New $6.99 (as of 11:00 UTC - Details) Trillions in bailouts – from both the federal government and the Fed. Bankers saved despite making trillions in counterfeit loans – counterfeit due both to the fiat credit offered and counterfeit because the borrowers were unqualified in the first place. Bonuses paid and stock values rising when making these loans, and further bonuses paid and stock values rising when being bailed out of these actions.
Next comes the drug war. A pretext for every kind of intervention, search, invasion, and taking by the state. The United States has the largest population of people incarcerated on the planet, and (if memory serves) something like half of these are in for non-violent offenses – primarily drug related.
Families torn apart, search and seizure, infinite additional cause for negative interaction between police and the people. All designed to tear the fabric of society apart.
This issue cannot be separated from the militarism abroad. An adventurous foreign policy – violent and ruthless – transfers its weaponry, hardware, skills and tactics to the home front. But it is even worse: ethically, what’s the difference?
A society that accepts – even worships – militarism and torture abroad cannot at the same time deplore it at home. Many want to believe it is two different things, but the actor in each case is the same. And the effect on our conscious selves of the foreign interventions dissolves any means by which to hold firm against a similar condition at home.
We grow numb to all of it. We decry the death of one man in Minnesota as an attempt to salve our wounds of supporting the millions of murders overseas.
Deeper in our conscience lies abortion. Murder on a very grand scale, against the most vulnerable and most defenseless of society. A society that sacrifices unborn infants for a better future. No, child sacrifice has not left this earth.
No one wants to admit the damage this causes to society, but how can it not be a permanent scar? Those who have gone through this trauma suffer one of two fates – either a permanent condition bordering on depression, or a permanent callousness. Or some combination of the two, at neither extreme. And this, not just for the mother, but all those around her – certainly to include the father.
Next: we live in a fact-free world. The level of cognitive dissonance has reached unimaginable levels – both on the discussion around the corona and on the discussion of race relations (whatever that means) in American society. The internal turmoil brought on by the prayerful desire to believe the story despite what our own “lying” eyes tell us can result in nothing other than societal suicide. Donald Trump Make Amer... Best Price: $11.91 Buy New $7.96 (as of 03:15 UTC - Details)
Finally, a sense of self and a sense of community. This is manifest today in the debate on immigration. Is there a culture and society worth protecting and defending? Should it mean something to be a resident, and, ultimately, a citizen? If the answer is no to these questions, society is lost.
Now, only the first and to some degree the second of these on the list above is being somewhat discussed as sources underlying the current turmoil in society. Certainly, the Wall Street bailouts and a financial system designed to enrich the connected and exploit the rest is identified as such. The drug war is only starting to be discussed in light of the question of policing.
The rest I say are also underlying our condition, but I have not seen these discussed in the context of today’s turmoil. Yet these are there, in varying degrees in the collective conscience of society. The state of being human makes these internal conflicts unavoidable – and makes living a life as a human being rather difficult.
What does all of this have to do with rEVOLution? That label was born in Ron Paul’s presidential campaign twelve years ago. Ron Paul ran on all of these issues in 2008 and again in 2012. I recall telling relatives and friends that he offered the last hope for holding the society together.
Not that I think things would be fundamentally different today had he won. Paul himself said that just electing him would not be enough. Senators, congressmen, the marriage of the bureaucratic apparatus and big business – these all offered powerful counterforces to what anyone elected to the presidency might hope to accomplish.
His was a message of LOVE in the best sense. Yet his biggest boos came from audiences of so-called Christians – primarily aghast at his views on the military. His biggest cheers came on college campuses – the same ones used as weapons against civil society.
What is interesting is that four years ago Donald Trump ran on many of these same points – I don’t believe he made a point of the drug war, and I am sure he didn’t make a point on abortion. But central banking, militarism, our fact-free world, and immigration – these were all central to his message and his popularity.
Trump was no Ron Paul. He certainly did not have Paul’s principled grounding, but he had a bluster that Paul does not have – Paul is too much of a gentleman. But in this age of 140 (more recently, 280) characters, Trump was the master. Aizics Mint Donald Tru... Buy New $12.95 (as of 03:15 UTC - Details)
The two have something else in common: of course, being republicans, they had all the democrats against them. They also had most of the republicans against them and most, if not all, of the bureaucratic state against them as well.
And this last point is telling. Look at the list again: central banking, the drug war, military adventurism, abortion, a fact-free world, sense of self and community. I can make a very sound natural law argument in support of the position Ron Paul took on every one of these issues. This suggests that the tact taken by society and our political (and many Christian) leaders on these same issues is directly counter to sound natural law.
The run of Ron Paul (and, later, of Donald Trump) fully exposed that the supposed left-right divide we are supposedly offered in politics is nonsense. Over the last weeks, I have begun formulating a view that the divide – the actual divide in society – is one of natural law. There are those who accept it and desire it – on both the left and right of our superficial political spectrum. There are many who reject it – on both sides of the same false political divide.
We are seeing that natural law cannot be long ignored or abused. We are seeing it in our society today. God – or for you atheists out there, our human nature – cannot long be mocked, ridiculed, or ignored, without pushing back. Violently, if necessary.
Conclusion
Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, A World Split Apart:
This means that the mistake must be at the root, at the very basis of human thinking in the past centuries. I refer to the prevailing Western view of the world which was first born during the Renaissance and found its political expression from the period of the Enlightenment. It became the basis for government and social science and could be defined as rationalistic humanism or humanistic autonomy: the proclaimed and enforced autonomy of man from any higher force above him. It could also be called anthropocentricity, with man seen as the center of everything that exists.
We are five-hundred years past the Renaissance, and three hundred (or so) years past the Enlightenment. In the late 1800s – after the Franco-Prussian War and before World War One – the West enjoyed – for a brief forty-year period – the best fruits of Enlightenment thinking. That’s it. Forty years. Splash Brothers Custom... Buy New $14.99 (as of 03:15 UTC - Details)
Progressivism: the scientistic man, freed from any higher force above him was set free on the world, giving us communism, fascism, modern democracy, central banking, two world wars.
No higher law. No God. No natural law. What is the result? Truthfully, we have lived through it since 1914. What we are living through today is the last breaths of a dying carcass.
We look back on the God of the Old Testament (I know, He is the same God – allow me a shortcut) and exclaim: how can he be so cruel – even genocidal? We have the nerve to ask such questions given the man-made genocides of our time.
This is where we are today.
Epilogue
And this is why the sin of the Christian churches (not Christianity, but many of its most prominent churches) will be counted as the greatest.
Reprinted with permission from Bionic Mosquito.
The Best of Bionic Mosquito