lewrockwell--2020-01-13--The Constitution, War Powers, Congress, and the American Military: A Study of Betrayal

Any conversation about American liberty should begin and end with the false notion that the United States Constitution was written for the purpose of protecting that liberty .
The opposite of course is true .
This was a document in the form of a contract written by powerful men in secret , in the dark of night , and behind closed and locked doors .
It was never signed by any others than those drafting this tyrannical set of rules , and was never agreed to by anyone .
It was politically motivated , and used to set up a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which had little restriction by any state or individual .
This is a worthless document that is revered by many due to what seems to be a brainwashing technique that causes a limitation of intellect .
The great Lysander Spooner said : “ But whether the Constitution really be one thing , or another , this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had , or has been powerless to prevent it .
In either case , it is unfit to exist.
” In addition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has no inherent authority or obligation .
It has no authority or obligation at all , unless as a contract between man and man .
And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing.
” It certainly is not fit to exist , and remember that it was written and implemented 244 years ago , and no citizen has ever in history signed this contract .
No Treason : The Consti ... Lysander Spooner Best Price : $ 6.99 Buy New $ 7.49 Spooner ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not go far enough in denouncing even the idea of such nonsensical trickery .
The very thought that man ’ s natural rights can be protected by a document drafted by politicians is absurd , and given that this document can be amended at any time by government , even the pretense of freedom is lost .
The people can only have a say in the decision-making by a majority selection of proxies through a forced participation in the corrupt voting process .
A piece of parchment allowing almost unlimited powers to those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only worthless as the “ law of the land , ” but is in fact a direct assault on the freedoms of any who do not voluntarily agree by physical contract to accept it .
In current times , what is heard ad nauseum , are silly pronouncements by so-called “ representatives of the people , ” and pompous asses in the media that something is unconstitutional , but what does this even mean ?
Considering the convoluted and vague language , the massive powers given to government , and the fact that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abuse it interpret it , there is not even any semblance of honesty present .
Add the ever-increasing tyrannical powers now claimed by the executive branch , and the entirety of this constitutional process is nothing more than a farce .
But then , was this not always the case ?
In today ’ s news , given the brutal and murderous wars and assassinations taking place at the hands of the U.S. war machine , the Congress is voting on its own war powers , powers already in place .
Interestingly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declare war , so that same body voting on resolutions that are already solidified in their precious constitution is absolutely asinine .
This is simply an exercise of flatulence done in order to appease the hapless proletariat , and create an image of responsibility where none exists .
This is telling in that the terroristic U.S has been warring aggressively against innocents for over 93 % of its existence , and Congress has not authorized any war in the past 79 years .
Too little too late is an absurd understatement , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of aggression since the beginning , whether a declaration was evident or not .
But one thing should be clarified here because many of those that claim to be champions of the Constitution , and who also claim to speak for the protection of freedom , simply calls for Congress to declare war so that all is legitimate and moral .
That has not , and could never be the single legitimate reason to prosecute war .
In fact , no war in the history of the U.S. has been warranted , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Revolutionary War , and the South ’ s defense of its independence .
So Congress giving a green light to slaughter those in other lands , something they have done in the past , would be nothing less than a murderous war crime .
Unless the actual defense of this homeland due to an outright military attack is evident , no war should ever be waged .
Congress has never actually represented the people in this situation ; it only represents itself and those in the ruling class .
The mere thought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could represent the interests of hundreds of millions is mindboggling .
Only a few select individuals and groups would ever be represented , meaning that all other ’ s rights would be negated .
This leads us to the agents of state force in the military that are directly controlled by the political class .
This same political class is controlled by the elite cadre of central bankers , other banking cartels , and corporatists , those that make up what is referred to as the military industrial complex .
These are the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in politics , mainly those in the Executive Branch and Congress , to continue to grow this murderous empire so as to sustain this powerful fascist oligarchy .
The reverence for this military machine , a machine responsible for the total destruction of many entire countries , for the maiming , displacement , and deaths of tens of millions of innocent men , women , and children across the planet , is almost universal .
This alone is reason for absolute contempt for this governing system created not for liberty , but for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public has been relentless and ever present .
This betrayal while seemingly obvious , has continued to strengthen throughout our history , and today continues with such arrogance and force that the final destruction of liberty seems close at hand .
This is happening currently at an accelerated pace , and with little resistance .
Continued blind obedience by the masses to a nation state based on lies is a most pathetic state of affairs , and one that can only lead to despair .
In order to face betrayal in life , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is necessary .
Until the general population accepts the truth , and decides to fight back against the ruling class and its government pawns , the risk of losing everything will remain in place .
None should ever accept the ridiculous notion that a few chosen from a crowd of fools should rule over the rest under the guise of “ representative ” government .
The mere idea of this is one that can only marginalize the individual in favor of the collective , and therefore destroy all sovereignty of the people at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coldest of all cold monsters .
Coldly it lies , too ; and this lie creeps from its mouth : ` I , the state , am the people.
’ … Everything about it is false ; it bites with stolen teeth .
” ~ Friedrich Nietzsche – “ Thus Spake Zarathustra “ The Best of Gary D. Barnett

Any conversation about American liberty should begin and end with the false notion that the United States Constitution was written for the purpose of protecting that liberty. The opposite of course is true. This was a document in the form of a contract written by powerful men in secret, in the dark of night, and behind closed and locked doors. It was never signed by any others than those drafting this tyrannical set of rules, and was never agreed to by anyone. It was politically motivated, and used to set up a federal system with extreme centralized power, which had little restriction by any state or individual. This is a worthless document that is revered by many due to what seems to be a brainwashing technique that causes a limitation of intellect.
The great Lysander Spooner said: “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.” In addition, he said: “The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing.” It certainly is not fit to exist, and remember that it was written and implemented 244 years ago, and no citizen has ever in history signed this contract.
No Treason: The Consti... Lysander Spooner Best Price: $6.99 Buy New $7.49 (as of 10:05 UTC - Details) Spooner’s statements are correct, but do not go far enough in denouncing even the idea of such nonsensical trickery. The very thought that man’s natural rights can be protected by a document drafted by politicians is absurd, and given that this document can be amended at any time by government, even the pretense of freedom is lost. The people can only have a say in the decision-making by a majority selection of proxies through a forced participation in the corrupt voting process. A piece of parchment allowing almost unlimited powers to those in government by mob rule is not only worthless as the “law of the land,” but is in fact a direct assault on the freedoms of any who do not voluntarily agree by physical contract to accept it.
In current times, what is heard ad nauseum, are silly pronouncements by so-called “representatives of the people,” and pompous asses in the media that something is unconstitutional, but what does this even mean? Considering the convoluted and vague language, the massive powers given to government, and the fact that appointed agents of the very politicians that abuse it interpret it, there is not even any semblance of honesty present. Add the ever-increasing tyrannical powers now claimed by the executive branch, and the entirety of this constitutional process is nothing more than a farce. But then, was this not always the case?
In today’s news, given the brutal and murderous wars and assassinations taking place at the hands of the U.S. war machine, the Congress is voting on its own war powers, powers already in place. Interestingly, the Constitution states that only Congress can declare war, so that same body voting on resolutions that are already solidified in their precious constitution is absolutely asinine. This is simply an exercise of flatulence done in order to appease the hapless proletariat, and create an image of responsibility where none exists. This is telling in that the terroristic U.S has been warring aggressively against innocents for over 93% of its existence, and Congress has not authorized any war in the past 79 years. Too little too late is an absurd understatement, as Congress has been complicit in all wars of aggression since the beginning, whether a declaration was evident or not.
But one thing should be clarified here because many of those that claim to be champions of the Constitution, and who also claim to speak for the protection of freedom, simply calls for Congress to declare war so that all is legitimate and moral. That has not, and could never be the single legitimate reason to prosecute war. In fact, no war in the history of the U.S. has been warranted, with the possible exception of the beginning of the Revolutionary War, and the South’s defense of its independence. So Congress giving a green light to slaughter those in other lands, something they have done in the past, would be nothing less than a murderous war crime. Unless the actual defense of this homeland due to an outright military attack is evident, no war should ever be waged. Congress has never actually represented the people in this situation; it only represents itself and those in the ruling class. The mere thought that a small group of elected trimmers could represent the interests of hundreds of millions is mindboggling. Only a few select individuals and groups would ever be represented, meaning that all other’s rights would be negated.
This leads us to the agents of state force in the military that are directly controlled by the political class. This same political class is controlled by the elite cadre of central bankers, other banking cartels, and corporatists, those that make up what is referred to as the military industrial complex. These are the profiteers of war that use their pawns in politics, mainly those in the Executive Branch and Congress, to continue to grow this murderous empire so as to sustain this powerful fascist oligarchy.
The reverence for this military machine, a machine responsible for the total destruction of many entire countries, for the maiming, displacement, and deaths of tens of millions of innocent men, women, and children across the planet, is almost universal. This alone is reason for absolute contempt for this governing system created not for liberty, but for tyranny.
The betrayal of the American public has been relentless and ever present. This betrayal while seemingly obvious, has continued to strengthen throughout our history, and today continues with such arrogance and force that the final destruction of liberty seems close at hand. This is happening currently at an accelerated pace, and with little resistance. Continued blind obedience by the masses to a nation state based on lies is a most pathetic state of affairs, and one that can only lead to despair.
In order to face betrayal in life, acceptance of the truth of that betrayal is necessary. Until the general population accepts the truth, and decides to fight back against the ruling class and its government pawns, the risk of losing everything will remain in place. None should ever accept the ridiculous notion that a few chosen from a crowd of fools should rule over the rest under the guise of “representative” government. The mere idea of this is one that can only marginalize the individual in favor of the collective, and therefore destroy all sovereignty of the people at large.
“The state is the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly it lies, too; and this lie creeps from its mouth: `I, the state, am the people.’… Everything about it is false; it bites with stolen teeth. ” ~ Friedrich Nietzsche – “Thus Spake Zarathustra“
The Best of Gary D. Barnett


lewrockwell--2020-01-13--The War in Afghanistan Is a Fraud (and Now We Have Proof)

Bombs have numbers .
Humans have names .
Our American military boasts a skill and passion for using numbers to turn names into yet more numbers .
But these numbers have grown so gargantuan and out of control that one struggles to comprehend them .
In just 10 months in 2018—the latest numbers made available—our military dropped 5,982 munitions on Afghanistan , turning many thinking , living and loving names into cold , lifeless numbers .
Over the span of the war , 43,000 Afghan civilians have been numberized .
We , as Americans , essentially never even notice when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will happen again many times today , and no one in America will really care .
( At least not while the game is on . )
64,000 Afghan security forces have been numberized since 2001 .
Against the State : An ... Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. Best Price : $ 2.57 Buy New $ 8.56 Our government has known for years that the war in Afghanistan is a jaw-dropping disaster on the level of “ Cats ” : the movie .
How do we know they knew ?
The Washington Post actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a step back from its lust for pro-war propaganda .
( The last time it achieved such a feat was during the O.J .
Simpson trial .
The first one .
The one with the glove . )
The Post unearthed a trove of thousands of internal government documents that expose the catastrophic war .
And it turns out there are Tinder dates between a young neo-Nazi and an old Jewish lady that have gone better than this war .
“ that senior US officials failed to tell the truth about the war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making rosy pronouncements they knew to be false and hiding unmistakable evidence the war had become unwinnable , ” the paper reported .
Let me translate The Washington Post ’ s fancy-pants language : U.S. officials didn ’ t “ fail to tell the truth ” ; they fucking lied .
The phrase “ failed to tell the truth ” oozes around the brain ’ s neural pathways , strategically dodging the anger receptors .
“ Failed to tell the truth ” sounds like veracity is a slippery fish U.S. officials just couldn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take a moment to consider the motivations and goals of the war in Afghanistan .
The U.S. ostensibly invaded the country to stop al-Qaida from attacking us in any way , namely by flying large planes into our buildings .
We achieved this goal within the first couple months .
With al-Qaida essentially decimated , it seems logical that we should have left the country , reserving the right to return if any other big passenger airplanes came after us .
But we didn ’ t leave .
We never leave .
Rule @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is “ Never Truly Leave a Country After Invading.
” In order to explain our continued presence , we had to move the goal post .
To what ?
We weren ’ t sure .
We ’ re still not sure .
Nearly 20 years later , if you ask a U.S. general or president ( any of them ) what the goal is in Afghanistan , they ’ ll feed you a word salad so large it ’ ll keep you regular for months .
In fact , we now know that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the war , the Pentagon and the Bush administration didn ’ t know who the bad guys were .
( Right now you ’ re thinking it ’ s rather juvenile and uninformed of me to refer to enemy forces as “ bad guys , ” but , as you ’ ll see in a moment , our government literally spoke about them in those terms .
Side note : This is because murderous rampages by war criminals are always juvenile .
Murder , by definition , is unevolved . )
According @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , an unnamed former adviser to an Army Special Forces team said , “ They thought I was going to come to them with a map to show them where the good guys and bad guys live .
It took several conversations— [ a ] t first , they just kept asking : ‘ But who are the bad guys , where are they ?
’ ” Yet we Americans were instructed in the early years that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had everything under control .
To imply otherwise was to make a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ribbons .
But in reality , Rumsfeld , too , had a sizable bad-guy problem .
“ I have no visibility into who the bad guys are , ” he said behind closed , locked , soundproof doors .
Meanwhile , Rumsfeld publicly and boldly led the nation in a well-defined and decisive victory in the land of the Afghans .
In 2003 , he said , during a press conference alongside Afghan President Hamid Karzai , “ General Franks and I … have concluded that we ’ re at a point where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activity to a period of stability and stabilization and reconstruction and activities.
” Yep , no more major combat—just 17 years of reconstruction ( and activities ) .
Apparently , most U.S.-backed “ reconstruction ” is done from the air , via bombs .
Let that be a lesson to you , rest of the world : You better not screw with us or we ’ ll reconstruct you and your whole family !
67 journalists have been reconstructed during the war in Afghanistan .
Amazon.com Gift Card i ... Buy New $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an utter , unmitigated disaster ?
Maybe we can stretch it to three ?
We ’ ve been funding warlords and extremist jihadis and hoping they will play nice .
Yet American presidents have continually told us we ’ re making progress .
“ Douglas Lute , a three-star Army general who served as Afghanistan war czar during the Bush and Obama administrations , told government interviewers in 2015 , ‘ What are we trying to do here ?
We didn ’ t have the foggiest notion of what we were undertaking.
’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many Americans , because if there ’ s one thing we ’ re good at , it ’ s having a foggy idea of what we ’ re doing .
To put it simply , we are the best at bad ideas .
But these Afghanistan Papers unveil a pretty terrible picture .
One we need to confront as a nation and not just sweep under the rug ( and not just because the rug would have to be the size of the Pacific Rim ) .

Bombs have numbers. Humans have names. Our American military boasts a skill and passion for using numbers to turn names into yet more numbers. But these numbers have grown so gargantuan and out of control that one struggles to comprehend them.
In just 10 months in 2018—the latest numbers made available—our military dropped 5,982 munitions on Afghanistan, turning many thinking, living and loving names into cold, lifeless numbers. Over the span of the war, 43,000 Afghan civilians have been numberized. We, as Americans, essentially never even notice when it happens. Statistically speaking, it will happen again many times today, and no one in America will really care. (At least not while the game is on.)
64,000 Afghan security forces have been numberized since 2001.
Against the State: An ... Rockwell Jr., Llewelly... Best Price: $5.02 Buy New $5.52 (as of 11:35 UTC - Details) Our government has known for years that the war in Afghanistan is a jaw-dropping disaster on the level of “Cats”: the movie. How do we know they knew? The Washington Post actually just published some impressive reporting, taking a step back from its lust for pro-war propaganda. (The last time it achieved such a feat was during the O.J. Simpson trial. The first one. The one with the glove.) The Post unearthed a trove of thousands of internal government documents that expose the catastrophic war. And it turns out there are Tinder dates between a young neo-Nazi and an old Jewish lady that have gone better than this war.
“ [The document trove] reveals that senior US officials failed to tell the truth about the war in Afghanistan throughout the 18-year campaign, making rosy pronouncements they knew to be false and hiding unmistakable evidence the war had become unwinnable,” the paper reported.
Let me translate The Washington Post’s fancy-pants language: U.S. officials didn’t “fail to tell the truth”; they fucking lied. The phrase “failed to tell the truth” oozes around the brain’s neural pathways, strategically dodging the anger receptors. “Failed to tell the truth” sounds like veracity is a slippery fish U.S. officials just couldn’t catch.
424 humanitarian aid workers have been numberized.
Let’s take a moment to consider the motivations and goals of the war in Afghanistan. The U.S. ostensibly invaded the country to stop al-Qaida from attacking us in any way, namely by flying large planes into our buildings. We achieved this goal within the first couple months. With al-Qaida essentially decimated, it seems logical that we should have left the country, reserving the right to return if any other big passenger airplanes came after us.
But we didn’t leave. We never leave. Rule No. 1 of the American empire is “Never Truly Leave a Country After Invading.” In order to explain our continued presence, we had to move the goal post. To what? We weren’t sure. We’re still not sure. Nearly 20 years later, if you ask a U.S. general or president (any of them) what the goal is in Afghanistan, they’ll feed you a word salad so large it’ll keep you regular for months. In fact, we now know that even during some of the earliest years of the war, the Pentagon and the Bush administration didn’t know who the bad guys were. (Right now you’re thinking it’s rather juvenile and uninformed of me to refer to enemy forces as “bad guys,” but, as you’ll see in a moment, our government literally spoke about them in those terms. Side note: This is because murderous rampages by war criminals are always juvenile. Murder, by definition, is unevolved.)
According to the Post’s Afghanistan Papers, an unnamed former adviser to an Army Special Forces team said, “They thought I was going to come to them with a map to show them where the good guys and bad guys live. It took several conversations—[a]t first, they just kept asking: ‘But who are the bad guys, where are they?’ ”
Yet we Americans were instructed in the early years that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had everything under control. To imply otherwise was to make a mockery of tens of millions of yellow ribbons. But in reality, Rumsfeld, too, had a sizable bad-guy problem.
“I have no visibility into who the bad guys are,” he said behind closed, locked, soundproof doors. Meanwhile, Rumsfeld publicly and boldly led the nation in a well-defined and decisive victory in the land of the Afghans.
In 2003, he said, during a press conference alongside Afghan President Hamid Karzai, “General Franks and I … have concluded that we’re at a point where we clearly have moved from major combat activity to a period of stability and stabilization and reconstruction and activities.”
Yep, no more major combat—just 17 years of reconstruction (and activities). Apparently, most U.S.-backed “reconstruction” is done from the air, via bombs. Let that be a lesson to you, rest of the world: You better not screw with us or we’ll reconstruct you and your whole family!
67 journalists have been reconstructed during the war in Afghanistan. Amazon.com Gift Card i... Buy New $10.00 (as of 08:25 UTC - Details)
Is two decades too long for an utter, unmitigated disaster? Maybe we can stretch it to three? We’ve been funding warlords and extremist jihadis and hoping they will play nice. Yet American presidents have continually told us we’re making progress. “Douglas Lute, a three-star Army general who served as Afghanistan war czar during the Bush and Obama administrations, told government interviewers in 2015, ‘What are we trying to do here? We didn’t have the foggiest notion of what we were undertaking.’ ”
I imagine that quote particularly upsets many Americans, because if there’s one thing we’re good at, it’s having a foggy idea of what we’re doing.
Vietnam: foggy idea.
Iraq: very strong foggy idea.
Libya: one hell of a foggy idea.
Unfettered capitalism: the foggiest idea.
To put it simply, we are the best at bad ideas. But these Afghanistan Papers unveil a pretty terrible picture. One we need to confront as a nation and not just sweep under the rug (and not just because the rug would have to be the size of the Pacific Rim).
Read the Whole Article


lewrockwell--2020-01-13--Thoughts on Tyler Cowen’s “State Capacity Libertarianism”

George Mason University economist Tyler Cowen has penned a brief manifesto for what he calls “ State Capacity Libertarianism ” on the Marginal Revolution blog .
In it he makes the case for libertarians to embrace “ state capacity ” in certain limited cases .
You can read his essay here .
My initial responses , in no particular order , are as follows : 1 .
There is no political will or constituency for skillful technocratic state management of society .
This is a pipe dream , once simply referred to as elusive “ good government.
” When do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up ?
2 .
There is no third way between state and market , regardless of technology or material development .
Futurism is bunk ; the question before us today is the same as thirty , fifty , or one hundred years ago : who decides ?
Decentralization vs. centralization is the most important policy question .
Amazon.com Gift Card i ... Buy New $ 25.00 3 .
Western states won ’ t give up their sclerotic regulatory , tax , central banking , and entitlement systems no matter how many flying cars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be a huge drag on science , infrastructure , medicine/health , and overall well-being .
4 .
The environmental movement will quash nuclear ( especially after Fukushima ) , and the energy capacity vs. weight/cost issue will continue to plague electric cars/planes .
5 .
Left socialism , not libertarian futurism , is the rising tide across the West — and its constituency skews young .
Adopting its pose , language , or ostensible goals won ’ t produce Singapore .
6 .
Climate change is not a problem or issue for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ West can ’ t advance until it stops warring .
War and peace won ’ t be solved technocratically , and true noninterventionism requires a painful rethinking of the hubris known as universalism .
I thought technocrats believed in realpolitik ?
8 .
Human happiness and prosperity depend on elements of civil society which libertarian futurists don ’ t like ( faith , family , et al. )
.
Hence the cheap jab at “ Ron Paulism.
” 9 .
We build “ capacity ” in society through profit , saving , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not better , in each and every case .
10 .
Libertarianism simply means “ private.
” It is a non-state approach to organizing human society .
It is not narrow or confining ; in fact everything Cowen desires in an improved society can be advanced through private mechanisms .
The Best of Jeff Deist

George Mason University economist Tyler Cowen has penned a brief manifesto for what he calls “State Capacity Libertarianism” on the Marginal Revolution blog. In it he makes the case for libertarians to embrace “state capacity” in certain limited cases. You can read his essay here.
My initial responses, in no particular order, are as follows:
1. There is no political will or constituency for skillful technocratic state management of society. This is a pipe dream, once simply referred to as elusive “good government.” When do public choicers of all people give this up?
2. There is no third way between state and market, regardless of technology or material development. Futurism is bunk; the question before us today is the same as thirty, fifty, or one hundred years ago: who decides? Decentralization vs. centralization is the most important policy question. Amazon.com Gift Card i... Buy New $25.00 (as of 06:10 UTC - Details)
3. Western states won’t give up their sclerotic regulatory, tax, central banking, and entitlement systems no matter how many flying cars or hyperloops we want. This reality will be a huge drag on science, infrastructure, medicine/health, and overall well-being.
4. The environmental movement will quash nuclear (especially after Fukushima), and the energy capacity vs. weight/cost issue will continue to plague electric cars/planes.
5. Left socialism, not libertarian futurism, is the rising tide across the West — and its constituency skews young. Adopting its pose, language, or ostensible goals won’t produce Singapore.
6. Climate change is not a problem or issue for anyone to solve.
7. The West can’t advance until it stops warring. War and peace won’t be solved technocratically, and true noninterventionism requires a painful rethinking of the hubris known as universalism. I thought technocrats believed in realpolitik?
8. Human happiness and prosperity depend on elements of civil society which libertarian futurists don’t like (faith, family, et al.). Hence the cheap jab at “Ron Paulism.”
9. We build “capacity” in society through profit, saving, and capital investment. Government makes this worse, not better, in each and every case.
10. Libertarianism simply means “private.” It is a non-state approach to organizing human society. It is not narrow or confining; in fact everything Cowen desires in an improved society can be advanced through private mechanisms.
The Best of Jeff Deist


lewrockwell--2020-01-13--In an Era of Big Tech Censorship, Big Pharma Intoxication, and Big Government Surveillance, Soleiman

In an Era of Big Tech Censorship, Big Pharma Intoxication, and Big Government Surveillance, Soleimani’s Death is a ‘Win’ for No One…

To those who are celebrating the death of Qasem Soleimani , I ask this simple question : How does his death make you better off in America ?
The First Amendment in America is just as dead as Soleimani , and no one in government — not even Trump — is lifting a finger to defend and restore online free speech .
Instead , we all remain enslaved subjects under a fanatical left-wing techno-cult that ’ s far more insane than Soleimani ’ s followers ever could have imagined .
Yes , Soleimani ’ s body was shredded by advanced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that once existed in America is no less eviscerated under the malicious censorship war being waged by Google , Facebook , Twitter and YouTube .
Soleimani may be dead , but censorship is alive and well in America , and no one in any position of power is fighting against it .
Against the Left : A Ro ... Llewellyn H Rockwell Jr Best Price : $ 13.57 Buy New $ 8.00 The Pentagon said Soleimani had to be taken out because he was planning “ imminent ” combat operations against United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ completed its online combat operations against tens of millions of Americans , having successfully banned , demonetized , smeared , slandered and de-platformed nearly every voice that supports the very freedoms America is supposedly fighting for in the Middle East .
This abundantly demonstrates the absurdity of any claim that blowing up people in Iraq or Iran somehow makes us “ more free ” in America .
The claim that the Pentagon is “ fighting for freedom ” is total propaganda .
If firing missiles at Middle Eastern terrorists made America more free @ @ @ @ @ @ @ !
” But Soleimani ’ s death didn ’ t end Jack Dorsey ’ s ban of conservative Twitter accounts , nor Sundar Pichai ’ s blacklisting of the NaturalNews.com domain from Google , and it has already become abundantly obvious that Hellfire missiles are wasted in Iraq while the real terrorists — such as Sundar Pichai — continue to operate their daily “ combat operations ” across the ‘ net , in total violation of America ’ s laws and civil rights .
At least the Iranian people had the sense to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no matter how radical his ideas may have been .
Yet here in America , almost no one even recognizes they ’ ve already lost the very freedoms we all pretend our military is fighting for .
Soleimani ’ s death is not a win for America .
It ’ s a distraction from the massive , gaping losses America is suffering every day right here at home as far more dangerous techno-terrorists run their fanatical oppression schemes across the ‘ net , violating the basic human rights of tens of millions of @ @ @

To those who are celebrating the death of Qasem Soleimani, I ask this simple question: How does his death make you better off in America?
The First Amendment in America is just as dead as Soleimani, and no one in government — not even Trump — is lifting a finger to defend and restore online free speech. Instead, we all remain enslaved subjects under a fanatical left-wing techno-cult that’s far more insane than Soleimani’s followers ever could have imagined. Yes, Soleimani’s body was shredded by advanced missile technology, but the free speech that once existed in America is no less eviscerated under the malicious censorship war being waged by Google, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.
Soleimani may be dead, but censorship is alive and well in America, and no one in any position of power is fighting against it. Against the Left: A Ro... Rockwell Jr, Llewellyn H Best Price: $2.85 Buy New $8.00 (as of 07:59 UTC - Details)
The Pentagon said Soleimani had to be taken out because he was planning “imminent” combat operations against United States persons. Yet Big Tech has already completed its online combat operations against tens of millions of Americans, having successfully banned, demonetized, smeared, slandered and de-platformed nearly every voice that supports the very freedoms America is supposedly fighting for in the Middle East. This abundantly demonstrates the absurdity of any claim that blowing up people in Iraq or Iran somehow makes us “more free” in America. The claim that the Pentagon is “fighting for freedom” is total propaganda.
If firing missiles at Middle Eastern terrorists made America more free, I would say “fire away!” But Soleimani’s death didn’t end Jack Dorsey’s ban of conservative Twitter accounts, nor Sundar Pichai’s blacklisting of the NaturalNews.com domain from Google, and it has already become abundantly obvious that Hellfire missiles are wasted in Iraq while the real terrorists — such as Sundar Pichai — continue to operate their daily “combat operations” across the ‘net, in total violation of America’s laws and civil rights.
At least the Iranian people had the sense to mourn the death of their leader, no matter how radical his ideas may have been. Yet here in America, almost no one even recognizes they’ve already lost the very freedoms we all pretend our military is fighting for.
It’s all just glorious bulls##t.
Soleimani’s death is not a win for America. It’s a distraction from the massive, gaping losses America is suffering every day right here at home as far more dangerous techno-terrorists run their fanatical oppression schemes across the ‘net, violating the basic human rights of tens of millions of American citizens.
Read the Whole Article


lewrockwell--2020-01-13--The Politics Behind Banning Russia From the Olympics

There ’ ve been ongoing propaganda pieces that skirt over some inconvenient realities , for those seeking to unfairly admonish Russia in the Olympic movement .
One case in point is the January 2 Reuters article “ Use 1992 Yugoslavia Precedent for Russians in Tokyo – Historian “ .
With a stated “ some Russians “ , that article suggestively under-represents the actual number of 2018 Russian Winter Olympians at Pyeongchang , while supporting a hypocritically flawed aspect , having to do with Yugoslavia in 1992 .
The downplaying of Russian participation at Pyeongchang , is seemingly done to spin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kept out .
At the suggestion of the World Anti-Doping Agency ( WADA ) , the International Olympic Committee ( IOC ) closely vetted Russians for competition at the 2018 Winter Olympics .
In actuality , the 2018 Russian Winter Olympic participation wasn ’ t so off the mark , when compared to past Winter Olympiads – something which ( among other things ) puts a dent into the faulty notion that Russia should be especially singled out for sports doping .
At the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics , Russia had its largest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on account of the host nation being allowed a greater number of participants .
The 168 Russian Winter Olympians at Pyeongchang is 9 less than the Russians who competed at the 2010 Winter Olympics .
Going back further , Russian Winter Olympic participation in 2006 was at 190 , with its 2002 contingent at 151 , 1998 having 122 and 1994 ( Russia ’ s first formal Winter Olympic appearance as Russia ) 113 .
Amazon.com Gift Card i ... Buy New $ 10.00 The aforementioned Reuters piece references a “ historian “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on using the 1992 Summer Olympic banning of Yugoslavia ( then consisting of Serbia and Montenegro ) as a legitimate basis to ban Russia from the upcoming Summer Olympics .
In this instance , Alan Dershowitz ’ s periodic reference to the “ if the shoe is on the other foot ” test is quite applicable .
Regarding Mallon , “ historian ” is put in quotes because his historically premised advocacy is very much incomplete and overly propagandistic .
For consistency sake and contrary to Mallon , Yugoslavia should ’ ve formally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Olympic banning of Yugoslavia was bogus , given that the IOC and the IOC affiliated sports federations didn ’ t ban the US and USSR for their respective role in wars , which caused a greater number of deaths than what happened in 1990s Bosnia .
The Reuters article at issue references a United Nations resolution for sanctions against Yugoslavia , without any second guessing , in support of the preference ( at least by some ) to keep politics out of sports as much as possible .
Mallon casually notes that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1992 Summer Olympics , unlike individual Yugoslav athletes , who participated as independents .
At least two of the banned Yugoslav teams were predicted to be lead medal contenders .
Croatia was allowed to compete at the 1992 Summer Olympics , despite that nation ’ s military involvement in the Bosnian Civil War .
During the 1992 Summer and Winter Olympics , the former USSR participated in individual and team sports as the Unified Team ( with the exception of the three former Soviet Baltic republics , who competed under their respective nation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the ban on team sports from Yugoslavia at the 1992 Summer Olympics , under a neutral name , appears to be hypocritical and ethically challenged .
BS aside , the reality is that geopolitical clout ( in the form of might making right ) , is what compels the banning of Yugoslavia , unlike superpowers engaged in behavior which isn ’ t less egregious .
Although a major world power , contemporary Russia lacks the overall geopolitical influence of the USSR .
Historian Stephen Cohen and some others , have noted that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same ( for lack of a better word ) respect accorded to the USSR .
This aspect underscores how becoming freer , less militaristic and more market oriented doesn ’ t ( by default ) bring added goodwill from a good number of Western establishment politicos and the organizations which are greatly influenced by them .
On the subject of banning Russia from the Olympics , Canadian sports legal politico Dick Pound , continues to rehash an inaccurate likening with no critical follow-up .
( An exception being yours truly . )
Between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Olympic banning of South Africa , as a basis for excluding Russia .
South Africa was banned when it had apartheid policies , which prevented that country ’ s Black majority from competing in organized sports .
Russia has a vast multiethnic participation in sports and other sectors .
As previously noted , the factual premise to formally ban Russia from the Olympics remains suspect .
The Court of Arbitration for Sport ( CAS ) is set to review Russia ’ s appeal to have the recommended WADA ban against Russia overturned , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sports politicos like Pound continue to push for a CAS decision against Russia .
The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation .

There’ve been ongoing propaganda pieces that skirt over some inconvenient realities, for those seeking to unfairly admonish Russia in the Olympic movement. One case in point is the January 2 Reuters article “Use 1992 Yugoslavia Precedent for Russians in Tokyo – Historian“. With a stated “some Russians“, that article suggestively under-represents the actual number of 2018 Russian Winter Olympians at Pyeongchang, while supporting a hypocritically flawed aspect, having to do with Yugoslavia in 1992.
The downplaying of Russian participation at Pyeongchang, is seemingly done to spin the image of many Russian cheats being kept out. At the suggestion of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), the International Olympic Committee (IOC) closely vetted Russians for competition at the 2018 Winter Olympics. In actuality, the 2018 Russian Winter Olympic participation wasn’t so off the mark, when compared to past Winter Olympiads – something which (among other things) puts a dent into the faulty notion that Russia should be especially singled out for sports doping.
At the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics, Russia had its largest ever Winter Olympic contingent of 232, on account of the host nation being allowed a greater number of participants. The 168 Russian Winter Olympians at Pyeongchang is 9 less than the Russians who competed at the 2010 Winter Olympics. Going back further, Russian Winter Olympic participation in 2006 was at 190, with its 2002 contingent at 151, 1998 having 122 and 1994 (Russia’s first formal Winter Olympic appearance as Russia) 113. Amazon.com Gift Card i... Buy New $10.00 (as of 08:25 UTC - Details)
The aforementioned Reuters piece references a “historian“, Bill Mallon, who is keen on using the 1992 Summer Olympic banning of Yugoslavia (then consisting of Serbia and Montenegro) as a legitimate basis to ban Russia from the upcoming Summer Olympics. In this instance, Alan Dershowitz’s periodic reference to the “if the shoe is on the other foot” test is quite applicable. Regarding Mallon, “historian” is put in quotes because his historically premised advocacy is very much incomplete and overly propagandistic.
For consistency sake and contrary to Mallon, Yugoslavia should’ve formally participated at the 1992 Summer Olympics. The Olympic banning of Yugoslavia was bogus, given that the IOC and the IOC affiliated sports federations didn’t ban the US and USSR for their respective role in wars, which caused a greater number of deaths than what happened in 1990s Bosnia. The Reuters article at issue references a United Nations resolution for sanctions against Yugoslavia, without any second guessing, in support of the preference (at least by some) to keep politics out of sports as much as possible.
Mallon casually notes that Yugoslav team sports were banned from the 1992 Summer Olympics, unlike individual Yugoslav athletes, who participated as independents. At least two of the banned Yugoslav teams were predicted to be lead medal contenders.
Croatia was allowed to compete at the 1992 Summer Olympics, despite that nation’s military involvement in the Bosnian Civil War. During the 1992 Summer and Winter Olympics, the former USSR participated in individual and team sports as the Unified Team (with the exception of the three former Soviet Baltic republics, who competed under their respective nation). With all this in mind, the ban on team sports from Yugoslavia at the 1992 Summer Olympics, under a neutral name, appears to be hypocritical and ethically challenged.
BS aside, the reality is that geopolitical clout (in the form of might making right), is what compels the banning of Yugoslavia, unlike superpowers engaged in behavior which isn’t less egregious. Although a major world power, contemporary Russia lacks the overall geopolitical influence of the USSR. Historian Stephen Cohen and some others, have noted that post-Soviet Russia doesn’t get the same (for lack of a better word) respect accorded to the USSR. This aspect underscores how becoming freer, less militaristic and more market oriented doesn’t (by default) bring added goodwill from a good number of Western establishment politicos and the organizations which are greatly influenced by them.
On the subject of banning Russia from the Olympics, Canadian sports legal politico Dick Pound, continues to rehash an inaccurate likening with no critical follow-up. (An exception being yours truly.) Between 2016 and 2019, Pound references the Olympic banning of South Africa, as a basis for excluding Russia. South Africa was banned when it had apartheid policies, which prevented that country’s Black majority from competing in organized sports. Russia has a vast multiethnic participation in sports and other sectors.
As previously noted, the factual premise to formally ban Russia from the Olympics remains suspect. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) is set to review Russia’s appeal to have the recommended WADA ban against Russia overturned, as Western mass media at large and sports politicos like Pound continue to push for a CAS decision against Russia.
The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.


lewrockwell--2020-01-13--Did NASA Know Back in 1958 That Our Sun and Not CO2 Was Causing Climate Change?

Coincidence ?
Across the top of the stamp is the wording ‘ International Geophysical Year 1957-1958 , ’ arranged in two lines , and across the bottom is ‘ U.S .
Postage 3c.
’ All the lettering is in white-face Gothic .
Philosophy of Science Portal It is undeniable , climate change is real , however , Liberals , the establishment , most of the world leaders and leading media outlets want us to believe the reason behind climate change is the fault of human beings using fossil fuels and our high use of CO2 , Carbon Dioxide .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through it than oxygen or nitrogen , and therefore becomes hotter , much like a black substance like tar becomes hotter than a white one like concrete .
This has the effect of increasing the overall temperature of the Earth .
as we add more carbon dioxide to the air , the temperature will continue to rise .
Actually , the records of temperature and CO2 over the past 650,000 years indicate that Earth ’ s temperature always rises first , followed by a rise in Carbon Dioxide .
Published papers , clearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first by at least several hundred years and then the carbon dioxide responds .
The records of temperature and CO2 over the past 650,000 years indicate that Earth ’ s temperature always rises first , followed by a rise in Carbon Dioxide .
Graph izzit.org In their seminal paper on the Vostok Ice Core , Petit et al ( 1999 ) note that CO2 lags temperature during the onset of glaciations by several thousand years .
They also observe that CH4 and CO2 are not perfectly aligned with each other .
At the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to glacial values before CO2 begins to fall suggesting that CO2 has little influence on temperature modulation at these times .
Ladies and gentlemen , if I was to tell you , major earthquakes , volcano eruptions , floods , cyclones and natural disasters , all mirror that graph above and they all spike after Christmas Eve and Christmas Day 1957 , you would come to the conclusion our Sun is causing climate change/disaster change and not humans , see graph below .
Every graph , they all provide the same data .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ... Tim Ball PhD Best Price : $ 7.88 Buy New $ 11.99 The Deliberate Corrupt ... Tim Ball Check Amazon for Pricing .
Not by Fire but by Ice ... Robert W. Felix Best Price : $ 15.49 Buy New $ 19.95 Magnetic Reversals and ... Robert W. Felix Best Price : $ 35.94 Buy New $ 19.95

Coincidence? Across the top of the stamp is the wording ‘International Geophysical Year 1957-1958,’ arranged in two lines, and across the bottom is ‘U.S. Postage 3c.’ All the lettering is in white-face Gothic. Philosophy of Science Portal
It is undeniable, climate change is real, however, Liberals, the establishment, most of the world leaders and leading media outlets want us to believe the reason behind climate change is the fault of human beings using fossil fuels and our high use of CO2, Carbon Dioxide. They claim Carbon dioxide absorbs more sunlight passing through it than oxygen or nitrogen, and therefore becomes hotter, much like a black substance like tar becomes hotter than a white one like concrete. This has the effect of increasing the overall temperature of the Earth. as we add more carbon dioxide to the air, the temperature will continue to rise. Actually, the records of temperature and CO2 over the past 650,000 years indicate that Earth’s temperature always rises first, followed by a rise in Carbon Dioxide. Published papers, clearly show it is always temperature which rises first by at least several hundred years and then the carbon dioxide responds.
The records of temperature and CO2 over the past 650,000 years indicate that Earth’s temperature always rises first, followed by a rise in Carbon Dioxide. Graph izzit.org
In their seminal paper on the Vostok Ice Core, Petit et al (1999) note that CO2 lags temperature during the onset of glaciations by several thousand years. They also observe that CH4 and CO2 are not perfectly aligned with each other. At the onset of glaciations, the temperature drops to glacial values before CO2 begins to fall suggesting that CO2 has little influence on temperature modulation at these times.
Credit WUWT
Credit NASA
Ladies and gentlemen, if I was to tell you, major earthquakes, volcano eruptions, floods, cyclones and natural disasters, all mirror that graph above and they all spike after Christmas Eve and Christmas Day 1957, you would come to the conclusion our Sun is causing climate change/disaster change and not humans, see graph below.
Every graph, they all provide the same data. Credit Wikipedia.
Read the Whole Article
Human Caused Global Wa... Ball PhD, Tim Best Price: $14.00 Buy New $11.99 (as of 12:30 UTC - Details) The Deliberate Corrupt... Ball, Tim Buy New $9.95 (as of 12:25 UTC - Details) Not by Fire but by Ice... Felix, Robert W. Best Price: $18.37 Buy New $19.95 (as of 01:30 UTC - Details) Magnetic Reversals and... Felix, Robert W. Best Price: $17.91 Buy New $19.95 (as of 11:32 UTC - Details)


lewrockwell--2020-01-13--Tesla’s 14th Victim…So Far

Tesla’s 14th Victim…So Far

Tesla may have just killed its 14th victim ; there are at least 13 confirmed kills so far – as the result of Autopilot .
Excluding auto-immolation .
But no FBI investigation – or even a recall .
Instead , an “ advisory ” from the National Highway Traffic Safety ( sic ) Administration that drivers of Autopiloted Teslas must always “ keep their hands on the steering wheel and pay attention at all times ” – which is right up there with Don ’ t Squeeze the Charmin .
What is the point of Autopilot and “ autonomous ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to pay any attention at all ?
Amazon.com Gift Card i ... Buy New $ 25.00 If , on the other hand , it is necessary for them to pay attention – which NHTSA concedes by warning of its necessity – then Autopilot is inherently dangerous precisely because it is inevitable that people won ’ t pay attention .
Do the passengers on a cruise ship go below to check whether the ship is taking on water ?
Are they expected to visit the bridge , to make sure the ship is headed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ captain isn ’ t drunk or asleep on the sofa ?
The whole point of being a passenger is to not have to pay attention – whether you ’ re a passenger on a cruise ship or a passenger in an Autopiloted/automated car .
But Tesla gets away with building cars designed to encourage drivers to become passengers ; to take their hands off the wheel – and their eyes off the road – and then blames the driver when the car drives itself into something .
It ’ s as ridiculous , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Costa Concordia ’ s passengers responsible for the ship wandering too close to shore and onto the rocks .
So why does Tesla get away with what amounts to the same thing – only worse because , it ’ s not just the passengers on these electric Costa Concordias that end up on the rocks but any poor soul who has the misfortune to be in the vicinity .
Who didn ’ t sign up to be a passenger , or take his hands off the wheel .
Or rather , because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a project that can not be interrupted by petty concerns about the cars being dangerous .
The actual concern being to replace all non-electric cars with electric cars – no matter what it takes .
And then to replace the driver .
The Best of Eric Peters

Tesla may have just killed its 14th victim; there are at least 13 confirmed kills so far – as the result of Autopilot. Excluding auto-immolation.
This qualifies Tesla for serial killerhood.
But no FBI investigation – or even a recall.
Instead, an “advisory” from the National Highway Traffic Safety (sic) Administration that drivers of Autopiloted Teslas must always “keep their hands on the steering wheel and pay attention at all times” – which is right up there with Don’t Squeeze the Charmin.
What is the point of Autopilot and “autonomous” – automated – cars if you have to pay any attention at all? Amazon.com Gift Card i... Buy New $25.00 (as of 06:10 UTC - Details)
If, on the other hand, it is necessary for them to pay attention – which NHTSA concedes by warning of its necessity – then Autopilot is inherently dangerous precisely because it is inevitable that people won’t pay attention. Do the passengers on a cruise ship go below to check whether the ship is taking on water? Are they expected to visit the bridge, to make sure the ship is headed in the right direction? That the captain isn’t drunk or asleep on the sofa? The whole point of being a passenger is to not have to pay attention – whether you’re a passenger on a cruise ship or a passenger in an Autopiloted/automated car.
But Tesla gets away with building cars designed to encourage drivers to become passengers; to take their hands off the wheel – and their eyes off the road – and then blames the driver when the car drives itself into something.
Or someone.
It’s as ridiculous, perplexing – and unjust – as holding the Costa Concordia’s passengers responsible for the ship wandering too close to shore and onto the rocks.
So why does Tesla get away with what amounts to the same thing – only worse because, it’s not just the passengers on these electric Costa Concordias that end up on the rocks but any poor soul who has the misfortune to be in the vicinity. Who didn’t sign up to be a passenger, or take his hands off the wheel.
Because it’s Tesla.
Or rather, because Tesla sells electric cars exclusively and that is a project that cannot be interrupted by petty concerns about the cars being dangerous.
The actual concern being to replace all non-electric cars with electric cars – no matter what it takes.
And then to replace the driver.
Read the Whole Article
The Best of Eric Peters


lewrockwell--2020-01-13--Why Is Meghan Ditching Her Duchess Role?

So Harry and Meghan are stepping back .
They ’ re resigning from The Firm .
They ’ re ducking out of the Sovereign Grant and royal duties and going it alone .
They ’ re going to split their time between the UK and North America – think of all the CO2 !
– and become more ‘ independent ’ .
Why ?
Come on , we all know why .
Forget the tripe about them fleeing the racism of the UK tabloids and the nonsense about the first DOC ( duchess of colour ) not being made to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House of Windsor .
No , H & M , the most right-on royals in history , are breaking off so that they can foist even more woke bollocks on the plebs without having to worry about receiving a tutting phone-call from Her Maj ’ s press secretary reminding them that they ’ re royalty and not virtue-signalling Hollywood celebs .
Megxit , as this royal bombshell is wittily being called , is a striking sign of the times .
What Harry and Meghan are doing is virtually unprecedented in the history of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their jobs ( I say jobs ) as senior royals and pursuing a more ‘ financially independent ’ path that will allow them to earn , travel and – this is important – jabber on about their pet concerns and causes as much as they like .
Amazon.com Gift Card i ... Buy New $ 10.00 Even leaving aside the fact that they won ’ t actually be financially independent – they ’ ll still get wads of cash from the Duchy of Cornwall and will still stay in that Frogmore Cottage us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – still their move is a startling and concerning one .
What it fundamentally reveals is the incompatibility of the modern culture of narcissism with the values of duty , loyalty and self-negation traditionally associated with royal life .
To someone like Meghan , who sprang from celebville , who sees herself as the embodiment of right-on goodness , and who loves nothing more than advertising her eco-virtue and performing her PC credentials , life in the British monarchy was never going to be a good fit .
Yes , the woke agenda @ @ @ @ @ @ @ common with the old-world elitism of the monarchical system .
Both obsess over inherited characteristics ( the woke bang on about race and gender , the monarchy is all about bloodline ) .
Both have a penchant for looking down their noses at the little people .
And both have an instinctive loathing for modernity , from Charles ’ longstanding conservationism to H & M ’ s humanity-bashing eco-hysteria .

So Harry and Meghan are stepping back. They’re resigning from The Firm. They’re ducking out of the Sovereign Grant and royal duties and going it alone. They’re going to split their time between the UK and North America – think of all the CO2! – and become more ‘independent’.
Why? Come on, we all know why. Forget the tripe about them fleeing the racism of the UK tabloids and the nonsense about the first DOC (duchess of colour) not being made to feel welcome in the stiff, white House of Windsor. No, H&M, the most right-on royals in history, are breaking off so that they can foist even more woke bollocks on the plebs without having to worry about receiving a tutting phone-call from Her Maj’s press secretary reminding them that they’re royalty and not virtue-signalling Hollywood celebs.
Megxit, as this royal bombshell is wittily being called, is a striking sign of the times. What Harry and Meghan are doing is virtually unprecedented in the history of the royals. They are jacking in their jobs (I say jobs) as senior royals and pursuing a more ‘financially independent’ path that will allow them to earn, travel and – this is important – jabber on about their pet concerns and causes as much as they like. Amazon.com Gift Card i... Buy New $10.00 (as of 08:25 UTC - Details)
Even leaving aside the fact that they won’t actually be financially independent – they’ll still get wads of cash from the Duchy of Cornwall and will still stay in that Frogmore Cottage us British taxpayers just splashed 2.4million quid on – still their move is a startling and concerning one.
What it fundamentally reveals is the incompatibility of the modern culture of narcissism with the values of duty, loyalty and self-negation traditionally associated with royal life. To someone like Meghan, who sprang from celebville, who sees herself as the embodiment of right-on goodness, and who loves nothing more than advertising her eco-virtue and performing her PC credentials, life in the British monarchy was never going to be a good fit.
Yes, the woke agenda Meghan expresses so well shares much in common with the old-world elitism of the monarchical system. Both obsess over inherited characteristics (the woke bang on about race and gender, the monarchy is all about bloodline). Both have a penchant for looking down their noses at the little people. And both have an instinctive loathing for modernity, from Charles’ longstanding conservationism to H&M’s humanity-bashing eco-hysteria.
Read the Whole Article


lewrockwell--2020-01-13--Thief Who Robbed Four Banks Is Freed on New York’s No-Bail Policy

A serial bank robber targeted four New York banks , was released under the city ’ s new law which requires no bail for holding suspects , only to strike a fifth financial institution , police claim .
The suspect , Gerold Woodberry , 42 , is alleged to have robbed banks in New York ’ s Midtown Manhattan , Harlem , West Village and the Upper West Side , since December 30 , sources said .
However , under the new ‘ no bail ’ law , he was released on Thursday .
‘ I can ’ t believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said he was overheard saying on the way out of the New York Police Department ’ s headquarters , reports the New York Post .
‘ What were they thinking ?
’ he added , allegedly striking a fifth bank in Downtown Brooklyn on Friday , the sources told the Post .
Amazon.com Gift Card i ... Buy New $ 10.00 Woodberry passed paper notes each time he struck one of the financial institutions , and stole $ 1,000 , it is claimed .
A police spokesperson told DailyMail.com that the matter has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s office .
The new law , designed to reduce jail overcrowding and which went into effect in the new year , drops the bail requirement for most misdemeanors and non-violent felonies , including robberies .
Critics , however , argue that some suspects should be required to post bail before they are back on the street after they are detained .
Woodberry is alleged to have first struck a bank in Midtown and got away with $ 1,000 , sources said .
He then was alleged to have hit up banks in @ @ @ @ @

A serial bank robber targeted four New York banks, was released under the city's new law which requires no bail for holding suspects, only to strike a fifth financial institution, police claim.
The suspect, Gerold Woodberry, 42, is alleged to have robbed banks in New York's Midtown Manhattan, Harlem, West Village and the Upper West Side, since December 30, sources said.
However, under the new 'no bail' law, he was released on Thursday.
This man, says the New York Police Department, is wanted for bank robbery in the city. He is pictured on bank surveillance
The same suspect is pictured in another surveillance image taken while he allegedly committed a bank robbery
Another image of the suspect was released by the NYPD from surveillance footage taken while the man is alleged to be committing a bank robbery
'I can't believe they let me out,' sources said he was overheard saying on the way out of the New York Police Department's headquarters, reports the New York Post.
'What were they thinking?' he added, allegedly striking a fifth bank in Downtown Brooklyn on Friday, the sources told the Post.
Woodberry passed paper notes each time he struck one of the financial institutions, and stole $1,000, it is claimed.
A police spokesperson told DailyMail.com that the matter has been forwarded to the District Attorney's office.
The new law, designed to reduce jail overcrowding and which went into effect in the new year, drops the bail requirement for most misdemeanors and non-violent felonies, including robberies.
The suspect was identified by sources as Gerold Woodberry, 42, who was released under the city's new no-bail law, which doesn't require bail for holding certain suspects. 'I can't believe they let me out,' sources claim Woodbery said while leaving police headquarters
Woodberry left the NYPD's headquarters at 1 Police Plaza and is alleged to have robbed a bank in Downtown Brooklyn, allegedly his fifth heist since December 30, sources said
Critics, however, argue that some suspects should be required to post bail before they are back on the street after they are detained.
Woodberry is alleged to have first struck a bank in Midtown and got away with $1,000, sources said.
He then was alleged to have hit up banks in Harlem on January 3.
Sources said he got away with $1,000 from a bank in the West Village on Monday, but walked away empty-handed after passing a note to a teller on the Upper West Side two days later.
He is accused of targeting a bank in downtown Brooklyn after he was released from NYPD headquarters at 1 Police Plaza on Friday.
'Once the banks start complaining, hopefully the politicians will listen and change the law,' a source told to the Post.
Anyone with information is urged to contact the NYPD's 'Crime Stoppers Hotline' at 800-577-8477) or for Spanish, 1-888-577-4782.
The public can also submit their tips by logging onto the CrimeStoppers website at www.crimestoppers.com, on Twitter @NYPDTips.
All calls are strictly confidential.


lewrockwell--2020-01-13--Documentary: High Mowing Organic Seeds for a New Food System

Tom Stearns , who has both an entrepreneurial spirit and a desire to get back to the roots of where his food comes from , started saving seeds when he was 18 years old .
The drive to connect to the source of his sustenance in the most direct way possible led him to begin exploring how to grow seeds .
“ Growing food wasn ’ t enough , ” he said in an episode of “ Growing a Greener World , ” a PBS series .
“ I was curious about the growing seeds and saving seeds part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of food production that many people overlook , yet it ’ s among the most important .
Growing a Greener World creator and host Joe Lamp ’ l makes a good point in that you can buy a seed or seedling and raise it organically with care , without any pesticides or other chemicals .
And you can call it organic — but is it really ?
Not many people think about the seed that starts their plants , but Stearns did — deeply .
As he began his hobby of saving seeds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than he needed , and some of the varieties weren ’ t commercially available .
With a desire to share the unique seeds with others , he packaged them up in small envelopes , learned about germination tests to ensure the seeds would grow and sold $ 2,000 worth of seeds in the first year .
EMF*D : 5G , Wi-Fi & Cel ... Dr. Joseph Mercola Buy New $ 22.49 “ It was from those humble beginnings , 28 varieties planted in his own backyard , that one of the leading seed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Lamp ’ l said .
In 1997 , Stearns ’ second year in the organic seed business , he grew 50 varieties and sold $ 8,000 worth of seeds .
The year after that it grew to $ 18,000 in sales , then $ 34,000 — while still very much a hobby business .
Clearly there was a strong demand for organic seeds from people eager to know where their food , including the seeds , comes from , and by Year Four , Stearns reached a decision point regarding what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high-quality , organic seeds .
The company continued to take off from there , becoming a half-million-dollar company by Year Seven or Eight .
“ And we had just barely gotten out of hobby stage at that point , ” Stearns said .
The company ’ s name , High Mowing Organic Seeds , has roots in northern Vermont , a hilly region that once centered on an agricultural term known as “ high mowing.
” The company noted:1 High Mowing Organic Seeds has become one of the only companies producing organic seeds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies don ’ t even grow their own seeds , which made High Mowing Organic Seeds stand out even more from its competitors , as it grows all of its seeds .
Similar to going to a farmers market to meet the farmer behind the food , this back-to-its-roots seed company allowed people to see where their seeds were coming from — going back to the source of their sustenance .
The company now has 60 acres of land , which is about the length of 40 football fields .
Their mission is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an organic source ; that have high disease and insect resistance ; that have a high yield ; and that produce high-flavor crops .
They now grow over 600 heirloom , open-pollinated ( seeds that are pollinated by insects , birds , humans , wind or other natural mechanisms ) and hybrid seeds , including vegetables , fruits , herbs and flowers , for home gardeners and commercial growers.2 What ’ s more , Stearns notes in the film that choosing organic seeds is very important , as while there are rules regarding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ re more lax when it comes to growing conventional seeds , which technically aren ’ t a food product : Neonicotinoids are one such example .
A majority of soybean , corn , canola and sunflower seeds planted in the U.S. are precoated with these insecticides,3 which have been shown to threaten the entire food chain , having toxic effects on pollinators such as bees as well as invertebrates , birds and other wildlife .
For instance , researchers tested how exposure to these chemicals influenced the behavior of migrating songbirds.4 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had reduced feeding and accumulation of body mass and fat stores , leading to delayed departure from stopover sites that could affect breeding and population levels .
Most Organic Crops Are Grown With Nonorganic Seeds Another eye-opening fact revealed by Stearns is that 95 % of the acreage of organic vegetable farms is planted with conventional seeds .
This isn ’ t necessarily by choice , as the organic seed industry is still in its infancy , which means there isn ’ t always enough to go around or the correct varieties aren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , half the vegetables grown today have no commercial sources — you have to get them through seed trades.5 High Mowing Organic Seeds is trying to bring more organic seed varieties to organic farmers , which they say makes a major difference compared to using conventional seeds .
Stearns states in the film : Conventional seeds used on organic farms are not bred for the conditions in which they ’ re being grown , which means you ’ re missing out on the full potential of the organic crop .
So why aren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
It ’ s a very different process from growing plants for food , as it requires them to stay in the ground for much longer .
This means they ’ re even more susceptible to damage from diseases and pests , which conventional growers use chemicals to ward off .
High Mowing Organic Seeds is focused on growing seed varieties that can grow in varied conditions across the U.S. , varieties that will be hearty , robust and resilient in changing climates .
They grow seeds thoughtfully , carefully selecting for plants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resilient to stress .
Bolting is defined as the rapid shift in a plant ’ s growth from leaf production to flower and seeds .
It ’ s a process that many gardeners are eager to slow down .
The company removes plants that are quick to bolt , which is a sign that the plant may be less tolerable to stress .
Paul Betz , sales manager , explains why this selection process makes a difference in the resulting plants ’ tolerance to stress:6 Stearns believes growing seeds organically and focusing on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keys to rebuilding an entire food system : KetoFast : Rejuvenate Y ... Dr. Joseph Mercola Best Price : $ 7.56 Buy New $ 9.65 Toward that end , High Mowing donates over 100,000 seed packets annually to community gardens , school gardens , church gardens , food bank gardens , summer camps , seed libraries and disaster relief groups , helping to spread organic seeds across the U.S.7 While there ’ s increasing focus on the importance of growing food crops organically , it all starts with a seed .
So , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comes from , remember to ask where the seed that grows that food came from as well .
If you garden , seeking out high-quality organic seeds will help you produce the most robust plants and healthiest food .
Another alternative , however , is to save seeds from your own plants .
When you save seed from your own best performing plants , on your land and in your own ecosystem , you gradually develop varieties better adapted to your own soil , climate and growing conditions .
Large seed suppliers rarely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out inferior or off-type plants , so the open-pollinated seeds they sell have inferior specimens in the mix .
High Mowing is one of the rare seed companies that does do this , but you can also select your own seed for uniformity and quality .
You can control the gene pool for optimal germination , ripening time , flavor , storage , disease resistance and color .
After a few seasons , more and more of your plants will have all of your personally selected traits .
The Best of Joseph Mercola

Tom Stearns, who has both an entrepreneurial spirit and a desire to get back to the roots of where his food comes from, started saving seeds when he was 18 years old. The drive to connect to the source of his sustenance in the most direct way possible led him to begin exploring how to grow seeds.
“Growing food wasn’t enough,” he said in an episode of “Growing a Greener World,” a PBS series. “I was curious about the growing seeds and saving seeds part of it.” It’s an aspect of food production that many people overlook, yet it’s among the most important.
Growing a Greener World creator and host Joe Lamp’l makes a good point in that you can buy a seed or seedling and raise it organically with care, without any pesticides or other chemicals. And you can call it organic — but is it really? Not many people think about the seed that starts their plants, but Stearns did — deeply.
As he began his hobby of saving seeds, he realized he was saving more than he needed, and some of the varieties weren’t commercially available. With a desire to share the unique seeds with others, he packaged them up in small envelopes, learned about germination tests to ensure the seeds would grow and sold $2,000 worth of seeds in the first year. EMF*D: 5G, Wi-Fi & Cel... Dr. Joseph Mercola Buy New $22.49 (as of 09:53 UTC - Details)
“It was from those humble beginnings, 28 varieties planted in his own backyard, that one of the leading seed companies in the United States was born,” Lamp’l said.
High Demand for Organic Seeds
In 1997, Stearns’ second year in the organic seed business, he grew 50 varieties and sold $8,000 worth of seeds. The year after that it grew to $18,000 in sales, then $34,000 — while still very much a hobby business.
Clearly there was a strong demand for organic seeds from people eager to know where their food, including the seeds, comes from, and by Year Four, Stearns reached a decision point regarding what he saw as a clear demand for high-quality, organic seeds.
The company continued to take off from there, becoming a half-million-dollar company by Year Seven or Eight. “And we had just barely gotten out of hobby stage at that point,” Stearns said. The company’s name, High Mowing Organic Seeds, has roots in northern Vermont, a hilly region that once centered on an agricultural term known as “high mowing.” The company noted:1
“When the early European settlers came to New England, they brought with them their livestock-based agriculture. The practice of mowing hayfields and storing winter feed was well-established, and became even more important when they encountered the long winters in northern New England.
But instead of calling such a field a “hayfield” like we do today, they called it a “mowing”. These fields, or mowings, were usually further identified by a descriptor referring to location: the “back mowing” was behind the farm, the “low mowing” was in the valley, and the “high mowing” was up on the hilltop.”
Organic Seeds From Organically Grown Plants
High Mowing Organic Seeds has become one of the only companies producing organic seeds from organically grown plants. Most seed companies don’t even grow their own seeds, which made High Mowing Organic Seeds stand out even more from its competitors, as it grows all of its seeds.
Similar to going to a farmers market to meet the farmer behind the food, this back-to-its-roots seed company allowed people to see where their seeds were coming from — going back to the source of their sustenance.
The company now has 60 acres of land, which is about the length of 40 football fields. Their mission is to grow organic seeds that come from an organic source; that have high disease and insect resistance; that have a high yield; and that produce high-flavor crops.
They now grow over 600 heirloom, open-pollinated (seeds that are pollinated by insects, birds, humans, wind or other natural mechanisms) and hybrid seeds, including vegetables, fruits, herbs and flowers, for home gardeners and commercial growers.2
What’s more, Stearns notes in the film that choosing organic seeds is very important, as while there are rules regarding chemical usage for commercial food crops, they’re more lax when it comes to growing conventional seeds, which technically aren’t a food product:
“When you’re growing food conventionally, there are rules about all the different chemicals you can use and not use. When you’re growing seeds conventionally, there’s also rules, but there are a lot more chemicals that are allowed.
So seed crops get sprayed with a lot of things, because it’s not a food crop, so it’s not going to translate into that risk for people, but of course it’s still poisons in the environment. So when you grow seeds organically, you don’t have those poisons, and it’s a major reduction of them compared to the conventional comparison.”
Neonicotinoids are one such example. A majority of soybean, corn, canola and sunflower seeds planted in the U.S. are precoated with these insecticides,3 which have been shown to threaten the entire food chain, having toxic effects on pollinators such as bees as well as invertebrates, birds and other wildlife.
For instance, researchers tested how exposure to these chemicals influenced the behavior of migrating songbirds.4 Birds that ingested realistic amounts of neonicotinoids had reduced feeding and accumulation of body mass and fat stores, leading to delayed departure from stopover sites that could affect breeding and population levels.
Most Organic Crops Are Grown With Nonorganic Seeds
Another eye-opening fact revealed by Stearns is that 95% of the acreage of organic vegetable farms is planted with conventional seeds. This isn’t necessarily by choice, as the organic seed industry is still in its infancy, which means there isn’t always enough to go around or the correct varieties aren’t always available.
In fact, half the vegetables grown today have no commercial sources — you have to get them through seed trades.5 High Mowing Organic Seeds is trying to bring more organic seed varieties to organic farmers, which they say makes a major difference compared to using conventional seeds. Stearns states in the film:
“If you’re producing a seed organically for organic farms, it’s going to be better adapted for those conditions.
So when you’re planting a certain crop, you can do it when the weather and the soil conditions are favorable for that crop, so that you don’t need to come in with some ‘rescue’ chemical to help solve an issue that you shouldn’t have in the first place if you are paying attention to those things.”
Conventional seeds used on organic farms are not bred for the conditions in which they’re being grown, which means you’re missing out on the full potential of the organic crop. So why aren’t more companies growing organic seeds?
It’s a very different process from growing plants for food, as it requires them to stay in the ground for much longer. This means they’re even more susceptible to damage from diseases and pests, which conventional growers use chemicals to ward off.
Growing Robust, Resilient Organic Seeds for a New Food System
High Mowing Organic Seeds is focused on growing seed varieties that can grow in varied conditions across the U.S., varieties that will be hearty, robust and resilient in changing climates. They grow seeds thoughtfully, carefully selecting for plants that are slower to bolt and more resilient to stress. Bolting is defined as the rapid shift in a plant’s growth from leaf production to flower and seeds. It’s a process that many gardeners are eager to slow down.
The company removes plants that are quick to bolt, which is a sign that the plant may be less tolerable to stress. Paul Betz, sales manager, explains why this selection process makes a difference in the resulting plants’ tolerance to stress:6
“If you think about what the plant is doing when it’s bolting … the plant feels threatened, so that plant translates into “life is getting a little bit tough, and so it’s time to make some seeds.
And so if you can do anything to reduce the stress that the plant is under, that will prolong how long it grows before it starts to bolt. And your job as a gardener is to create the easiest environment for the plant to grow in.”
Stearns believes growing seeds organically and focusing on the health of soil and water are keys to rebuilding an entire food system:
“This new food system that we need to create needs to think deeply about how we take care of the soil, the water, the air, what tools we use, what types of seeds we use, what the nutrition is that goes into the soil, and then into the food and then into people.
And so this new food system that I feel to be a part of changing through these seeds is something that I think has a global effect and a global requirement. If we don’t try, we’re losing our capacity to grow food here …
It is the single biggest way that we engage with this Earth, and we are doing it wrong. There’s no arguments about that among people. We just need the courage to figure out the new ways of doing it.”
KetoFast: Rejuvenate Y... Mercola, Dr. Joseph Check Amazon for Pricing. Toward that end, High Mowing donates over 100,000 seed packets annually to community gardens, school gardens, church gardens, food bank gardens, summer camps, seed libraries and disaster relief groups, helping to spread organic seeds across the U.S.7
While there’s increasing focus on the importance of growing food crops organically, it all starts with a seed. So, in addition to asking where your food comes from, remember to ask where the seed that grows that food came from as well.
You Can Save Seeds
If you garden, seeking out high-quality organic seeds will help you produce the most robust plants and healthiest food. Another alternative, however, is to save seeds from your own plants. When you save seed from your own best performing plants, on your land and in your own ecosystem, you gradually develop varieties better adapted to your own soil, climate and growing conditions.
Large seed suppliers rarely “rogue” the fields to pull out inferior or off-type plants, so the open-pollinated seeds they sell have inferior specimens in the mix. High Mowing is one of the rare seed companies that does do this, but you can also select your own seed for uniformity and quality.
You can control the gene pool for optimal germination, ripening time, flavor, storage, disease resistance and color. After a few seasons, more and more of your plants will have all of your personally selected traits.
Sources and References
The Best of Dr. Joseph Mercola


lewrockwell--2020-01-13--700 + American Doctors Given Over $1M Each From Pharma To Push Drugs & Medical Devices

In a very thorough and revealing analysis of statistical industry payment data , ProPublica disclosed that more than 2,500 physicians have received at least half a million dollars apiece from drugmakers and medical device companies in the past five years alone , while more than 700 of those doctors received at least $ 1 million , and that doesn ’ t include money for research or royalties from inventions .
In their article , the authors note that their previous analysis in 2013 , which found out that 1 doctor had made $ 1 million and 21 doctors had made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , was expected to be a wake-up call for more effective scrutiny , oversight , and challenges to these payments .
Instead , these types of payments have become much more commonplace .
To identify the latest pharma millionaires and other spending trends , ProPublica analyzed more than 56 million payments made from 2014 to 2018 — the first five full years of the federal Open Payments initiative , which requires companies to publicly disclose the payments as part of the 2010 Affordable Care Act .
Amazon.com Gift Card i ... Buy New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the exposure might cause companies to rethink making payments and doctors to rethink taking them .
A flurry of studies matched the payment data with doctors ’ prescribing choices and found links between the payments and the products doctors chose .
But ProPublica ’ s new analysis shows that the public reporting has not dampened the enthusiasm of the drug and medical device industry for having doctors deliver paid dinner talks and sponsored speeches or paying them to consult on products .
In fact , there has been almost no change in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Each year from 2014 to 2018 , drug and medical device companies spent between $ 2.1 billion and $ 2.2 billion paying doctors for speaking and consulting , as well as on meals , travel and gifts for them .
It turns out , even if this information needs to be disclosed , even if many studies found links between the payments and the products doctors chose to foist upon their patients , there doesn ’ t seem to be any rush to curtail or prevent such an arrangement between doctors and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recommendations to their patients and to other doctors be based solely on their own research and conscience , and not on the potential for a lavish secondary income ?
One would think so .
But that isn ’ t the current sentiment .
There seems to be a fairly universal acceptance among doctors in the U.S. of the idea of receiving remuneration from industry to speak favorably about their products .
As the latest analysis points out , Why It Matters .
While there is transparency in these payments , there is no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doctors for a huge conflict of interests .
If they can make a secondary yearly salary greater that what they earn as a doctor simply by using their ‘ authority ’ as doctors to promote products , would many doctors be able to choose to pass this up simply because they were not certain the product was safe or effective ?
How many would actually do the arduous work of researching the product they would be promoting , with the only reward being a clear conscience if they ended up choosing not to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that in fact the industry doesn ’ t care if doctors like or approve of their products–the bottom line is that they pay doctors to use and recommend their products , sometimes in clearly unethical or illegal ways : The article then goes on to examine some prominent examples .
The Conscious Takeaway .
Take a look at this short video of an old advertisement for Camel cigarettes from 1949 : Whenever I think about today ’ s relationship between Western doctors and the Western medical industry , I think back to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ads to promote cigarettes .
While in this ad from 60 years ago these are likely actors and not real doctors promoting cigarettes , I can ’ t help but think that little has changed over the years , and that many of the doctors today who take vast sums of money to go ahead and promote harmful products like pharmaceutical drugs and recommend them to other doctors and to their patients are not ‘ real ’ doctors but actors , phonies , choosing money over the Hippocratic oath to ‘ do no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doctors as the trusted authority in matters of health .
How many people have to die of opiod and other pharmaceutical drug use before we say to ourselves that we can not rely on doctors to be the authority on our health ?
Certainly there are good doctors out there , and many more are well-meaning , but can we not see that the entire Western medical system was designed so that Western doctors ( MDs ) have been fiercely promoted as the true authorities on health , while other traditional healers have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their traditional methods denigrated as pseudoscience ?
Seeing the truth behind this narrative has allowed many people to regain sovereignty in the area of their health .
More and more people are taking responsibility for their health rather than naively trusting a doctor ’ s recommendation simply because that doctor has a ‘ medical license.
’ Looking Deeper .
The Western medical establishment has been set up as a business , and has tried to establish itself as the sole authority on health in order to maximize profits for its products .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact , and the analysis above is one of many examples of it .
For those conscious individuals who dig a little deeper into the effects of Western medicine versus traditional Eastern practices such as acupuncture , naturopathy , and energy healing , they see very quickly that it is the latter that holds true to the oath to ‘ do no harm.
’ At CE we have written hundreds of articles on the deceptions inherent in Western medicine and some of the safe and miraculous results of holistic healing .
Below is @ @ @ @

In a very thorough and revealing analysis of statistical industry payment data, ProPublica disclosed that more than 2,500 physicians have received at least half a million dollars apiece from drugmakers and medical device companies in the past five years alone, while more than 700 of those doctors received at least $1 million, and that doesn’t include money for research or royalties from inventions.
In their article, the authors note that their previous analysis in 2013, which found out that 1 doctor had made $1 million and 21 doctors had made over $500,000 for the same reasons, was expected to be a wake-up call for more effective scrutiny, oversight, and challenges to these payments. Instead, these types of payments have become much more commonplace.
To identify the latest pharma millionaires and other spending trends, ProPublica analyzed more than 56 million payments made from 2014 to 2018 — the first five full years of the federal Open Payments initiative, which requires companies to publicly disclose the payments as part of the 2010 Affordable Care Act. Amazon.com Gift Card i... Buy New $10.00 (as of 08:25 UTC - Details) Some academics and physicians predicted that the exposure might cause companies to rethink making payments and doctors to rethink taking them. A flurry of studies matched the payment data with doctors’ prescribing choices and found links between the payments and the products doctors chose. But ProPublica’s new analysis shows that the public reporting has not dampened the enthusiasm of the drug and medical device industry for having doctors deliver paid dinner talks and sponsored speeches or paying them to consult on products. In fact, there has been almost no change in how much the industry is spending. Each year from 2014 to 2018, drug and medical device companies spent between $2.1 billion and $2.2 billion paying doctors for speaking and consulting, as well as on meals, travel and gifts for them.
It turns out, even if this information needs to be disclosed, even if many studies found links between the payments and the products doctors chose to foist upon their patients, there doesn’t seem to be any rush to curtail or prevent such an arrangement between doctors and the industry. Shouldn’t doctors’ recommendations to their patients and to other doctors be based solely on their own research and conscience, and not on the potential for a lavish secondary income?
One would think so. But that isn’t the current sentiment. There seems to be a fairly universal acceptance among doctors in the U.S. of the idea of receiving remuneration from industry to speak favorably about their products. As the latest analysis points out,
Over the course of five years, 1 million doctors, dentists, optometrists, chiropractors and podiatrists received at least one payment, most often a meal, from a company. Of those practitioners, more than 323,000 received at least one payment every year. About 240,000 received a payment in only one year. And the rest received payments in more than one year but in fewer than five. For context, there are about 1.1 million doctors in the United States. Amazon.com Gift Card i... Buy New $25.00 (as of 06:10 UTC - Details)
Why It Matters. While there is transparency in these payments, there is no denying that this arrangement sets up many doctors for a huge conflict of interests. If they can make a secondary yearly salary greater that what they earn as a doctor simply by using their ‘authority’ as doctors to promote products, would many doctors be able to choose to pass this up simply because they were not certain the product was safe or effective? How many would actually do the arduous work of researching the product they would be promoting, with the only reward being a clear conscience if they ended up choosing not to promote that product?
The article notes that in fact the industry doesn’t care if doctors like or approve of their products–the bottom line is that they pay doctors to use and recommend their products, sometimes in clearly unethical or illegal ways:
There is a perception among many physicians, including some in academia, that drug company payments are fairly benign — a moonlighting gig that educates other doctors about important medications. But since ProPublica began looking at physician payments, one drugmaker after another has paid tens, or even hundreds, of millions of dollars to resolve allegations of improper, or illegal, marketing tactics. In fact, drug company whistleblowers and federal prosecutors have said explicitly that in some cases the payments were actually bribes and kickbacks. And this behavior has continued despite tools like Dollars for Docs.
The article then goes on to examine some prominent examples.
The Conscious Takeaway. Take a look at this short video of an old advertisement for Camel cigarettes from 1949:

Whenever I think about today’s relationship between Western doctors and the Western medical industry, I think back to the time when doctors were being used in ads to promote cigarettes. While in this ad from 60 years ago these are likely actors and not real doctors promoting cigarettes, I can’t help but think that little has changed over the years, and that many of the doctors today who take vast sums of money to go ahead and promote harmful products like pharmaceutical drugs and recommend them to other doctors and to their patients are not ‘real’ doctors but actors, phonies, choosing money over the Hippocratic oath to ‘do no harm.’
Meanwhile, people still see doctors as the trusted authority in matters of health. How many people have to die of opiod and other pharmaceutical drug use before we say to ourselves that we cannot rely on doctors to be the authority on our health? Certainly there are good doctors out there, and many more are well-meaning, but can we not see that the entire Western medical system was designed so that Western doctors (MDs) have been fiercely promoted as the true authorities on health, while other traditional healers have long been marginalized as quacks, with their traditional methods denigrated as pseudoscience?
Seeing the truth behind this narrative has allowed many people to regain sovereignty in the area of their health. More and more people are taking responsibility for their health rather than naively trusting a doctor’s recommendation simply because that doctor has a ‘medical license.’
Looking Deeper. The Western medical establishment has been set up as a business, and has tried to establish itself as the sole authority on health in order to maximize profits for its products. This is not conjecture, this is obvious fact, and the analysis above is one of many examples of it.
For those conscious individuals who dig a little deeper into the effects of Western medicine versus traditional Eastern practices such as acupuncture, naturopathy, and energy healing, they see very quickly that it is the latter that holds true to the oath to ‘do no harm.’ At CE we have written hundreds of articles on the deceptions inherent in Western medicine and some of the safe and miraculous results of holistic healing. Below is a small sample.
Reprinted with permission from Collective Evolution.