shtfplan--2020-11-10--AG Barr Approves Probe Into Election Fraud & Almost Immediately DOJ Election Crimes Chief RESIGNES

Almost immediately upon the announcement that attorney general William Barr approves an investigative probe into election and voter fraud , the acting Department of Justice Election Crimes Chief resigns .
It shouldn ’ t matter what side you are on , that ’ s telling .
Most readers understand I no longer participate or believe in the left vs. right paradigm , and therefore , have no dog in this fight , so to speak .
However , this election isn ’ t over just yet , and we should have known that this one would be contested .
After @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scenario : As we ’ ve mentioned before , do not be surprised if this thing goes one way ( which it appears to have gone to Joe Biden ) only to turn around and go back the other way ( Donald Trump . )
This would cause huge societal upheaval .
But is looking more likely by the day .
Barr authorized federal prosecutors to pursue “ substantial allegations ” of irregularities in the 2020 presidential election , the head of the DOJ ’ s Election Crimes Branch has decided to resign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new policy and its ramifications , ” Richard Pilger wrote in an email to his colleagues , obtained on Monday by the New York Times , “ I must regretfully resign from my role as director of the Election Crimes Branch.
” Pilger reportedly said he would move to a different role at the DOJ , working on corruption prosecutions .
The policy change mentioned by Pilger was outlined by Barr in a memo on Monday , in which the AG argues that it is “ imperative that the American people can trust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a way that the outcomes accurately reflect the will of the voters.
” Previously , the Electoral Crimes Branch would not take overt investigative steps until the election was over , its results certified and all recounts and other contests concluded , Barr wrote , but “ such a passive and delayed enforcement approach can result in situations in which election misconduct can not realistically be rectified.
” Barr ’ s new policy authorizes inquiries and reviews if there are “ clear and apparently credible allegations ” of irregularities that , “ if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a federal election in an individual state.
” The mainstream media is continuing to cast doubt on the possibility of election fraud saying these claims are “ unfounded.
” While Democrat Joe Biden declared victory on Saturday after mainstream media reported that he has more than the 270 electoral votes needed , President Donald Trump has challenged that in court .
None of the states have yet certified their election results , and Trump ’ s lawsuits seek an audit of the vote in multiple states where his early lead was wiped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Election Day .
–RT Stay alert to what ’ s happening .
If this election swings back to Donald Trump , the left is going to lose their minds and we could see chaos like never before on the streets .
Perhaps that was the plan all along… More Preplanned Election Chaos : Trump Says The Supreme Court Will “ Sort Out ” The Election

Almost immediately upon the announcement that attorney general William Barr approves an investigative probe into election and voter fraud, the acting Department of Justice Election Crimes Chief resigns. It shouldn’t matter what side you are on, that’s telling.
Most readers understand I no longer participate or believe in the left vs. right paradigm, and therefore, have no dog in this fight, so to speak. However, this election isn’t over just yet, and we should have known that this one would be contested. After all, the elitists modeled this exact scenario:
Another Secret Model: A Contested 2020 Election
As we’ve mentioned before, do not be surprised if this thing goes one way (which it appears to have gone to Joe Biden) only to turn around and go back the other way (Donald Trump.) This would cause huge societal upheaval. But is looking more likely by the day.
Barr authorized federal prosecutors to pursue “substantial allegations” of irregularities in the 2020 presidential election, the head of the DOJ’s Election Crimes Branch has decided to resign. “Having familiarized myself with the new policy and its ramifications,” Richard Pilger wrote in an email to his colleagues, obtained on Monday by the New York Times, “I must regretfully resign from my role as director of the Election Crimes Branch.”
Pilger reportedly said he would move to a different role at the DOJ, working on corruption prosecutions.
BREAKING: Attorney General William Barr has authorized federal prosecutors to pursue “substantial allegations” of voting irregularities before the 2020 presidential election is certified. (Per AP) — Jenn Franco KESQ (@jennfranconews) November 9, 2020
The policy change mentioned by Pilger was outlined by Barr in a memo on Monday, in which the AG argues that it is “imperative that the American people can trust that our elections were conducted in such a way that the outcomes accurately reflect the will of the voters.” Previously, the Electoral Crimes Branch would not take overt investigative steps until the election was over, its results certified and all recounts and other contests concluded, Barr wrote, but “such a passive and delayed enforcement approach can result in situations in which election misconduct cannot realistically be rectified.”
Barr’s new policy authorizes inquiries and reviews if there are “clear and apparently credible allegations” of irregularities that, “if true, could potentially impact the outcome of a federal election in an individual state.” The mainstream media is continuing to cast doubt on the possibility of election fraud saying these claims are “unfounded.”
While Democrat Joe Biden declared victory on Saturday after mainstream media reported that he has more than the 270 electoral votes needed, President Donald Trump has challenged that in court. None of the states have yet certified their election results, and Trump’s lawsuits seek an audit of the vote in multiple states where his early lead was wiped out by mail-in votes counted long after Election Day. –RT
Stay alert to what’s happening. If this election swings back to Donald Trump, the left is going to lose their minds and we could see chaos like never before on the streets. Perhaps that was the plan all along…
Secret Models of “The Darkest Winter”
More Preplanned Election Chaos: Trump Says The Supreme Court Will “Sort Out” The Election


shtfplan--2020-11-11--Lockdowns Coming: 22 States Already Locking Down Again

Anyone who understands that these lockdowns were never about health , but about control , know that the first lockdowns didn ’ t quite devastate the middle class to the point that the elitists needed them to .
Now , another round of lockdowns is coming in order for the rulers to usher in the New World Order through chaos and poverty .
This is straight up nothing short of economic terrorism and it ’ s being done by the government .
These lockdowns serve two purposes .
One , they keep up the facade and continue to keep the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And two , they finish off the middle-class impoverishing enough people that they will willingly enslave themselves for the universal basic income pittance in the form of a digital dollar that the elites can track , trace , and control .
But in order to keep the show going and get people to buy into this scam , states are locking down again .
Twenty-two states have issued additional orders that trample people ’ s basic human rights .
Those states are : The destruction of rights is well underway for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to keep up this scam at all costs .
This has never been about health .
The elitists do not care about our health and whether we continue to live on this planet or not .
They only want power .
Wake up and stay prepared .
If your state is not on the list above , do not assume you will escape this hell .
It is on .
We are being played like a grand piano and most people are too brainwashed to even realize how enslaved they already are .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ frankly , we don ’ t deserve the freedom which is our birthright as human beings .
This is all planned .
This is a part of their game .
The only way to win is to refuse to play .
Rise up and live freely .
That ’ s what terrifies these psychopaths : our realization that we don ’ t need their permission to be free .

Anyone who understands that these lockdowns were never about health, but about control, know that the first lockdowns didn’t quite devastate the middle class to the point that the elitists needed them to. Now, another round of lockdowns is coming in order for the rulers to usher in the New World Order through chaos and poverty.
This is straight up nothing short of economic terrorism and it’s being done by the government.
Greg Mannarino: “They Want People Desperate. People Aren’t Desperate Enough”
These lockdowns serve two purposes. One, they keep up the facade and continue to keep the masses in a panicked state of fear. And two, they finish off the middle-class impoverishing enough people that they will willingly enslave themselves for the universal basic income pittance in the form of a digital dollar that the elites can track, trace, and control.
But in order to keep the show going and get people to buy into this scam, states are locking down again. Twenty-two states have issued additional orders that trample people’s basic human rights. Those states are:
1. Minnesota
2. Maryland
3. California
4. Iowa
5. Wisconsin
6. Utah
7.Rhode Island
8. Michigan
9. Connecticut
10. Massachusetts
11. Illinois
12. Colorado
13. Idaho
14. Florida
15. New York
16.New Jersey
17. Pennsylvania
18. Texas
19. Kentucky
20. Mississippi
21. Nebraska
22. New Mexico
The destruction of rights is well underway for a second time. They are really desperate to keep up this scam at all costs. This has never been about health. The elitists do not care about our health and whether we continue to live on this planet or not. They only want power. Wake up and stay prepared. If your state is not on the list above, do not assume you will escape this hell.
It is on.

We are being played like a grand piano and most people are too brainwashed to even realize how enslaved they already are. If we let this happen again, frankly, we don’t deserve the freedom which is our birthright as human beings.
This is all planned. This is a part of their game. The only way to win is to refuse to play. Rise up and live freely. That’s what terrifies these psychopaths: our realization that we don’t need their permission to be free.


shtfplan--2020-11-11--Real Clear Politics: “The Media Should NOT Have Called This Election!”

Sometimes it feels like 2020 is out to get all of us .
Especially those of us who can and @ @ @ @ @ Canning jars are impossible to come by and if you do find some , the @ @ @ @ @ ’ s why , and what you can do about it .

Information from Real Clear Politics declaring that the mainstream media should not have called the election for Joe Biden is being buried, while they whine about Donald Trump’s refusal to concede. There’s some very interesting information to be made aware of.
President Trump is contesting the reported results in those states where the race is close, and the conduct of election officials and the processes used appear suspicious. He is clearly within his rights to contest the results; his supporters generally want him to do so. After all, Trump was winning by wide margins until the media decided he wasn’t…

If you would like to see Real Clear Politics live election map for yourself, please click here. Biden is still below the 270 electoral votes needed to win and several states are too close to call.
This move by the media was one to foster division, and that’s ovbious. Calling the race for Bden means there’s no trust from those on the right that elections were fair or that Biden actually won. If this goes back to Trump, the left will lose their mids. There is no unity now at this point, no matter what Biden says.
Unity is much less likely, however, when the media simply declares a winner before the matter is resolved. In 2012, many Republicans felt disappointed when Mitt Romney lost to President Obama. Very few felt cheated. That will not be the case in 2020 if the current president’s supporters believe that the media preempted the official process so as to disparage or prevent a full investigation of the president’s claims. –Real Clear Politics
This is a tactic to divide and deceive using the left vs. right paradigm that is clearly keeping the masses from realized who is really in control and enslavin them.
Again…any conversation about national elections that does NOT include the control that bankers and corporations have over politicians in Washington’s District of criminals is, at best FANTASY and at worst DISHONESTY. Bankers control both PUPPETS and both PARTIES. Banksters want us distracted, deceived and divided so that we don’t bring them to justice. –Brian, Higgh Impact TV
The New York Times exacerbated this problem when it announced in an odd Election Day tweet, later withdrawn, that “the role of declaring the winner of a presidential election in the U.S. falls to the news media.” Of course, it does not. That responsibility falls on Congress. But that tweet told the president’s supporters all they needed to know about the media’s intent, which is to deceive and divide.
If this election swings back to Donald Trump, then brace yourself. The left will not act rationally after the media declared their puppet the new master. Be safe. Stay aware and alert. This could get interesting.


shtfplan--2020-11-11--No Wonder the Super-Rich Love Inflation

No Wonder the Super-Rich Love Inflation

This article was originally published by Charles Hugh Smith at Of Two Minds Blog.
Asset inflation benefits the super-rich more than anyone else because they own the vast majority of these assets.
With the reflation euphoria running full blast, maybe central banks will finally get all that inflation they’ve been pining for. So let’s ask cui bono–who will benefit from inflation?
The Super-Rich love inflation and the money-printing that generates it. Longtime correspondent Michael M. explains the dynamic behind billionaires’ adoration of inflation:
“Why does a game of Monopoly work? Because there is a zero-boundary for every player’s net worth.
If you were given endless credit (so negative net worth is allowed without limit), the game becomes pointless.
Is there also an upper bound at Monopoly?
Well, the bank at Monopoly can run out of money, I had that happen a few times while playing. But we didn’t treat it as an upper boundary, but wrote the richest player an IOU and took that amount of cash bills from him and put them back in the bank to continue.
Rolling it around in my head, how else could you solve that problem? Confiscate the same amount from every (remaining) player and put it back in the bank instead? That would be pointless if most wealth is with one player and you want the game to continue.
Another option is to go Keynesian [in its true practical implementation] and confiscate 10% of each player’s net worth to “re-liquidate” the bank. This is very similar to “printing money,” just more explicit. Now we’re getting somewhere.
But that’s linear (a fixed percentage), so why not go with progressive confiscation rates, and take a higher percentage of the wealthier players’ net worth?
Wait a second, did I just stumble over the reason why the filthy rich love Keynesian economics? Because printing money only “taxes” everybody linearly, which is much better for the rich than progressive taxation, which is the global standard in income tax policies.”
Let’s explore this profound insight a bit more. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) holds that central banks/states can print as much money as they want without any adverse effects. From this, it’s a small step to sending every household a monthly stipend (Universal Basic Income–UBI) paid by freshly issued currency.
Given the unfairness of the income tax system, as the super-rich buy tax breaks, tax shelters, and subsidies via lobbying and political contributions, it’s just one more tiny step to eliminating income taxes entirely and printing all the money the state needs.
Why would this enrich the super-rich and impoverish the rest of us? Printing money in excess of the goods and services being generated creates inflation, which is a “tax” on all cash and wages, both of which have been losing ground for decades.
Inflation is best defined as a loss of purchasing power. With 10% inflation, $1 only buys 90 cents of real-world goods and services. Thus it’s the exact equivalent of a 10% tax not just on wages but on all cash.
The super-rich don’t rely on wages or cash savings; they own productive assets whose yields rise with inflation. The super-rich own apartments, so they can jack rents up 10%, matching inflation. They own assets which tend to retain their purchasing power even as inflation reduces the purchasing power of cash and wages.
Markets place a premium on any assets that keep pace or outpace inflation, so the value of the assets owned by the super-rich soar, further enriching the few who own these assets.
Asset inflation benefits the super-rich more than anyone else because they own the vast majority of these assets. So money-printing and the inflation it generates is a win-win for the rich. The “tax” rate of inflation / money-printing barely touches their incomes or wealth, both of which are tied to assets that rise along with inflation. All that money-printing pushes the value of their assets higher, making them even richer, which the inflation “tax” impoverishes everyone who depends on wages and cash.
No wonder the super-rich love MMT, money-printing and Keynesian giveaways of freshly printed currency–inflation makes them richer while it makes everyone else poorer. Going back to Michael’s analogy of a Monopoly game: inflation takes 10% of every player’s cash, but doesn’t touch their property holdings. So the wealthiest players’ net worth is barely dinted while players with fewer assets will find it difficult to survive as their cash is “taxed” away by inflation.


shtfplan--2020-11-12--Deutsche Bank Proposes A 5% “Work From Home” Privilege Tax

This article was originally published by Tyler Durden at ZeroHedge .
At a time when the Fed is already monetizing the entire US budget deficit thanks to helicopter money , sparking conversations about the utility of taxation , and when a Biden administration is set to at least try and roll back most of the Trump tax cuts , the last thing the population wants to hear about is even more taxes .
Yet in a “ modest proposal ” from Deutsche Bank , the bank argues that in a time of pervasive covid shutdowns , “ those who can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ direct and indirect financial benefits and they should be taxed in order to smooth the transition process for those who have been suddenly displaced.
” In other words , the argument goes that working from an office is somehow punitive , and since WFH during the pandemic leads to “ many benefits ” as a resulting “ disconnecting themselves from face-to-face society ” a 5 % tax for each WFH day “ would leave the average person no worse off than if they worked in the office.
” The bank calculates that such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year in the US , €20bn in Germany , and £7bn in the UK .
“ That can fund subsidies for the lowest-paid workers who usually can not work from home.
” In the report written by DB strategist Like Tumpleman , he argues that the popularity of WFH was growing even before the pandemic : “ between 2005 and 2018 , internet technology fuelled a 173 percent increase in the number of Americans who regularly worked from home .
It is true that the overall proportion of people working from home before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 5.4 percent based on census data , but the growth was still way ahead of the growth in the overall workforce.
” Naturally , the covid shutdowns have turbocharged that growth , and as a result the proportion of Americans who worked from home increased ten-fold to 56 % during the pandemic .
Many of these people will continue to work remotely for some time .
Indeed , two-thirds of organizations say that at least three-quarters of their staff can work from home effectively , according to S & P Global Markets .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , after the pandemic has passed , more than half of people who tried out WFH want to continue it permanently for between two and three days a week .
This sudden shift to WFH means that , for the first time in history , “ a big chunk of people have disconnected themselves from the face-to-face world yet are still leading a full economic life ” as if that is somehow a bad thing .
It gets crazier : the bank claims that working in the comfort of one ’ s own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ benefits including : • financial savings on expenses such as travel , lunch , clothes , and cleaning .
• indirect savings via forgone socializing and other expenses that would have been incurred had a worker been in the office .
• intangible benefits of working from home , such as greater job security , convenience , and flexibility .
• There is also the benefit of additional safety .
As if it is difficult to find someone who also sits in front of a computer all day long in Bangladesh and has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a fraction of the pay .
Yet those people who are working remotely are , according to DB , the equivalent of social parasites as they “ contribute less to the infrastructure of the economy whilst still receiving its benefits ” potentially extending the slump in national growth .
In other words , the mere act of working from home makes you guilty of not propping up the economy !
That , according to Templeman “ is a big problem for the economy as it has taken decades and centuries to build @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that supports face-to-face working .
If a great swathe of assets lie redundant , the economic malaise will be extended.
” In short , those who failed to develop the appropriate skill set and are “ forced ” to work in society – mostly employees of service companies – and who were unable to refuse to educate and train themselves to be able to “ enjoy ” the benefits of work from home jobs which incidentally include sitting in front of a computer for hours on end and in some notable cases masturbating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , have to be rewarded monetarily by all those who are lucky enough to not have to work in public .
While it would be easy to laugh and merely brush this idea off as another ridiculous policy proposal from a bank whose very existence would be very much in question had it not been for several rounds of generous taxpayer-funded bailouts , since this is yet another grossly socialist proposal we are concerned it has a very high probability of passage not only in Europe but also in the US , especially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Blue wave ” sweep in Georgia in January .
So far a WFH tax has merely been floated by a handful of Wall Street strategists ; however once this idea gets more popular coverage , expect a groundswell of support for the idea which will promptly lead to yet another tax .
Below we republish the Deutsche Bank note in its entirety because it is clearly a blueprint for what ’ s to come : For years we have needed a tax on remote workers – covid has just made it obvious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not set up to cope with people who can disconnect themselves from face-to-face society .
Those who can WFH receive direct and indirect financial benefits and they should be taxed in order to smooth the transition process for those who have been suddenly displaced .
The popularity of WFH was growing even before the pandemic .
Between 2005 and 2018 , internet technology fuelled a 173 percent increase in the number of Americans who regularly worked from home1 .
It is true that the overall proportion of people working from home before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 5.4 percent based on census data , but the growth was still way ahead of the growth in the overall workforce .
Covid has turbocharged that growth .
During the pandemic , the proportion of Americans who worked from home increased ten-fold to 56 percent .
In the UK , there was a seven-fold increase to 47 percent .
Many of these people will continue to work remotely for some time .
Indeed , two-thirds of organizations say that at least three-quarters of their staff can work from home effectively , according to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a DB survey shows that , after the pandemic has passed , more than half of people who tried out WFH want to continue it permanently for between two and three days a week The sudden shift to WFH means that , for the first time in history , a big chunk of people have disconnected themselves from the face-to-face world yet are still leading a full economic life .
That means remote workers are contributing less to the infrastructure of the economy whilst still receiving its benefits .
That is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has taken decades and centuries to build up the wider business and economic infrastructure that supports face-to-face working .
If a great swathe of assets lie redundant , the economic malaise will be extended .
WFH offers direct financial savings on expenses such as travel , lunch , clothes , and cleaning .
Add to these the indirect savings via forgone socializing and other expenses that would have been incurred had a worker been in the office .
Then there are the intangible benefits of working from homes , such as greater job @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There is also the benefit of additional safety .
The newly-discovered gains of home working , both tangible and intangible , all have value .
And they generally outweigh the costs .
The latter have mostly come in the form of additional mental stress of juggling work and children and dealing with an imperfect home-office setup .
These costs should not be underestimated , however , they usually pale in comparison with the gains .
Hence why the vast majority of homeworkers want to continue remote working , on at least a part-time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ First , the tax will only apply outside the times when the government advises people to work from home ( of course , the self-employed and those on low incomes can be excluded ) .
The tax itself will be paid by the employer if it does not provide a worker with a permanent desk .
If it does , and the staff member chooses to work from home , the employee will pay the tax out of their salary for each day they work from home .
This can be audited by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The tax rate ?
Those who can work from home tend to have higher-than-average incomes .
If we assume the average salary of a person who chooses to work from home in the US is $ 55,000 , a tax of five percent works out to just over $ 10 per working day .
That is roughly the amount an office worker might spend on commuting , lunch , and laundry , etc .
A tax at this rate , then , will leave them no worse off than if they had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If we apply the same tax rate to workers in the UK with an assumed average WFH salary of £35,000 , it works out to just under £7 per day .
In Germany , a WFH salary of €40,000 leads to a tax of just over €7.50 per day .
A tax at this level means that neither companies nor individuals will be worse off .
In fact , companies may be far better off as the savings from downsizing their office will more than makeup for the cost of the WFH tax @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the tax raise ?
First the US .
Of the 104m Americans who work full time , half worked from home during the pandemic .
That is up from the 5.4 percent who already worked from home before the pandemic .
Of that additional 45 percent , our survey shows that three quarters want to work from home to some degree post-covid with 16 percent wanting one day a week , 33 percent two days , 19 percent three days , 4 percent four days , and 4 percent five days .
Adding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new days every year being worked from home post covid .
With an additional 394m days for those part-time and full-time staff who already work from home and are not self-employed , that gives 4.6bn WFH days per year .
At an average salary of $ 55,000 and a tax rate of five percent , the WFH tax will raise $ 48bn per year .
The same calculation in the UK and Germany ( using country-specific WFH data and the salary levels assumed above ) yields a tax take of £6.9bn and €15.9bn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with this money ?
In the US , the $ 48bn raised could pay for a $ 1,500 grant to the 29m workers who can not work from home and earn under $ 30,000 a year ( excluding those who earn tips ) .
Many of these people are those who assumed the health risks of working during the pandemic and are far more ‘ essential ’ than their wage level suggests .
Similarly , in Germany , the €15.9bn raised could fund a €1,500 grant to the bottom 12 percent of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of living equivalent to €12,600 ( after adjusting for the size of their household ) .
Similarly in the UK , the £6.9bn raised could provide a grant of £2,000 to 12 percent of those aged over 25 who work for the minimum wage .
Of course , the exact amount of the grant could be based on an asymmetric tapering system .
Some will argue against the tax .
They will say that engagement with the economy is a personal choice and they should not be penalized for making that decision .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ governments have always backsolved taxes to suit the social environment .
Consider that in centuries past , when it was socially unpalatable in the UK to introduce an income tax , the government implemented a window tax .
As society changed , the window tax was abolished and , eventually , an income tax was introduced .
In the same way , as our current society moves towards a state of ‘ human disconnection ’ , our tax system must move with it .
Best of all , a WFH tax does not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ future .
If , for example , a city-center sandwich shop is no longer needed , it does not make sense for the government to support the business in the medium term .
But it does make sense to support the mass of people who have been suddenly displaced by forces outside their control .
Many will have to take low-paid jobs while they retrain or figure out their next step in life .
From a personal and economic point of view , it makes sense that these people should be given a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to recognize that essential workers assume the covid risk for low wages .
Those who are lucky enough to be in a position to ‘ disconnect ’ themselves from the face-to-face economy owe it to them .

This article was originally published by Tyler Durden at ZeroHedge.
At a time when the Fed is already monetizing the entire US budget deficit thanks to helicopter money, sparking conversations about the utility of taxation, and when a Biden administration is set to at least try and roll back most of the Trump tax cuts, the last thing the population wants to hear about is even more taxes.
Yet in a “modest proposal” from Deutsche Bank, the bank argues that in a time of pervasive covid shutdowns, “those who can work from home (WFH) receive direct and indirect financial benefits and they should be taxed in order to smooth the transition process for those who have been suddenly displaced.”
In other words, the argument goes that working from an office is somehow punitive, and since WFH during the pandemic leads to “many benefits” as a resulting “disconnecting themselves from face-to-face society” a 5% tax for each WFH day “would leave the average person no worse off than if they worked in the office.” The bank calculates that such a tax could raise $49bn per year in the US, €20bn in Germany, and £7bn in the UK. “That can fund subsidies for the lowest-paid workers who usually cannot work from home.”
In the report written by DB strategist Like Tumpleman, he argues that the popularity of WFH was growing even before the pandemic: “between 2005 and 2018, internet technology fuelled a 173 percent increase in the number of Americans who regularly worked from home. It is true that the overall proportion of people working from home before the pandemic was still small, at 5.4 percent based on census data, but the growth was still way ahead of the growth in the overall workforce.”
Naturally, the covid shutdowns have turbocharged that growth, and as a result the proportion of Americans who worked from home increased ten-fold to 56% during the pandemic. Many of these people will continue to work remotely for some time. Indeed, two-thirds of organizations say that at least three-quarters of their staff can work from home effectively, according to S&P Global Markets. Meanwhile, a DB survey shows that, after the pandemic has passed, more than half of people who tried out WFH want to continue it permanently for between two and three days a week.
This sudden shift to WFH means that, for the first time in history, “a big chunk of people have disconnected themselves from the face-to-face world yet are still leading a full economic life” as if that is somehow a bad thing.
It gets crazier: the bank claims that working in the comfort of one’s own home leads to a slew of financial benefits including:
financial savings on expenses such as travel, lunch, clothes, and cleaning.
indirect savings via forgone socializing and other expenses that would have been incurred had a worker been in the office.
intangible benefits of working from home, such as greater job security, convenience, and flexibility.
There is also the benefit of additional safety.
As if it is difficult to find someone who also sits in front of a computer all day long in Bangladesh and has the exact same skillset but would work for a fraction of the pay.
Yet those people who are working remotely are, according to DB, the equivalent of social parasites as they “contribute less to the infrastructure of the economy whilst still receiving its benefits” potentially extending the slump in national growth. In other words, the mere act of working from home makes you guilty of not propping up the economy!
That, according to Templeman “is a big problem for the economy as it has taken decades and centuries to build up the wider business and economic infrastructure that supports face-to-face working. If a great swathe of assets lie redundant, the economic malaise will be extended.”
In short, those who failed to develop the appropriate skill set and are “forced” to work in society – mostly employees of service companies – and who were unable to refuse to educate and train themselves to be able to “enjoy” the benefits of work from home jobs which incidentally include sitting in front of a computer for hours on end and in some notable cases masturbating in front of a zoom conference call, have to be rewarded monetarily by all those who are lucky enough to not have to work in public.
While it would be easy to laugh and merely brush this idea off as another ridiculous policy proposal from a bank whose very existence would be very much in question had it not been for several rounds of generous taxpayer-funded bailouts, since this is yet another grossly socialist proposal we are concerned it has a very high probability of passage not only in Europe but also in the US, especially if Democrats manage to pull of a “Blue wave” sweep in Georgia in January.
So far a WFH tax has merely been floated by a handful of Wall Street strategists; however once this idea gets more popular coverage, expect a groundswell of support for the idea which will promptly lead to yet another tax.
Below we republish the Deutsche Bank note in its entirety because it is clearly a blueprint for what’s to come:
A work-from-home tax, by Luke Templeman
For years we have needed a tax on remote workers – covid has just made it obvious. Quite simply, our economic system is not set up to cope with people who can disconnect themselves from face-to-face society. Those who can WFH receive direct and indirect financial benefits and they should be taxed in order to smooth the transition process for those who have been suddenly displaced.
The popularity of WFH was growing even before the pandemic. Between 2005 and 2018, internet technology fuelled a 173 percent increase in the number of Americans who regularly worked from home1. It is true that the overall proportion of people working from home before the pandemic was still small, at 5.4 percent based on census data, but the growth was still way ahead of the growth in the overall workforce.
Covid has turbocharged that growth. During the pandemic, the proportion of Americans who worked from home increased ten-fold to 56 percent. In the UK, there was a seven-fold increase to 47 percent. Many of these people will continue to work remotely for some time. Indeed, two-thirds of organizations say that at least three-quarters of their staff can work from home effectively, according to S&P Global Markets. Meanwhile, a DB survey shows that, after the pandemic has passed, more than half of people who tried out WFH want to continue it permanently for between two and three days a week
The sudden shift to WFH means that, for the first time in history, a big chunk of people have disconnected themselves from the face-to-face world yet are still leading a full economic life. That means remote workers are contributing less to the infrastructure of the economy whilst still receiving its benefits.
That is a big problem for the economy as it has taken decades and centuries to build up the wider business and economic infrastructure that supports face-to-face working. If a great swathe of assets lie redundant, the economic malaise will be extended.
WFH is financially rewarding
WFH offers direct financial savings on expenses such as travel, lunch, clothes, and cleaning. Add to these the indirect savings via forgone socializing and other expenses that would have been incurred had a worker been in the office. Then there are the intangible benefits of working from homes, such as greater job security, convenience, and flexibility. There is also the benefit of additional safety. The newly-discovered gains of home working, both tangible and intangible, all have value. And they generally outweigh the costs. The latter have mostly come in the form of additional mental stress of juggling work and children and dealing with an imperfect home-office setup. These costs should not be underestimated, however, they usually pale in comparison with the gains. Hence why the vast majority of homeworkers want to continue remote working, on at least a part-time basis, after the pandemic passes.
First, the tax will only apply outside the times when the government advises people to work from home (of course, the self-employed and those on low incomes can be excluded). The tax itself will be paid by the employer if it does not provide a worker with a permanent desk. If it does, and the staff member chooses to work from home, the employee will pay the tax out of their salary for each day they work from home. This can be audited by coordinating with company travel and technology systems.
The tax rate? Those who can work from home tend to have higher-than-average incomes. If we assume the average salary of a person who chooses to work from home in the US is $55,000, a tax of five percent works out to just over $10 per working day. That is roughly the amount an office worker might spend on commuting, lunch, and laundry, etc. A tax at this rate, then, will leave them no worse off than if they had chosen to go into the office. If we apply the same tax rate to workers in the UK with an assumed average WFH salary of £35,000, it works out to just under £7 per day. In Germany, a WFH salary of €40,000 leads to a tax of just over €7.50 per day.
A tax at this level means that neither companies nor individuals will be worse off. In fact, companies may be far better off as the savings from downsizing their office will more than makeup for the cost of the WFH tax they will incur.
How much will the tax raise?
First the US. Of the 104m Americans who work full time, half worked from home during the pandemic. That is up from the 5.4 percent who already worked from home before the pandemic. Of that additional 45 percent, our survey shows that three quarters want to work from home to some degree post-covid with 16 percent wanting one day a week, 33 percent two days, 19 percent three days, 4 percent four days, and 4 percent five days.
Adding this up, there could be 4.2bn new days every year being worked from home post covid. With an additional 394m days for those part-time and full-time staff who already work from home and are not self-employed, that gives 4.6bn WFH days per year. At an average salary of $55,000 and a tax rate of five percent, the WFH tax will raise $48bn per year. The same calculation in the UK and Germany (using country-specific WFH data and the salary levels assumed above) yields a tax take of £6.9bn and €15.9bn respectively.
What can the government do with this money?
In the US, the $48bn raised could pay for a $1,500 grant to the 29m workers who cannot work from home and earn under $30,000 a year (excluding those who earn tips). Many of these people are those who assumed the health risks of working during the pandemic and are far more ‘essential’ than their wage level suggests.
Similarly, in Germany, the €15.9bn raised could fund a €1,500 grant to the bottom 12 percent of people in the country who have a standard of living equivalent to €12,600 (after adjusting for the size of their household). Similarly in the UK, the £6.9bn raised could provide a grant of £2,000 to 12 percent of those aged over 25 who work for the minimum wage. Of course, the exact amount of the grant could be based on an asymmetric tapering system.
Some will argue against the tax. They will say that engagement with the economy is a personal choice and they should not be penalized for making that decision. Yet, these people should remember that governments have always backsolved taxes to suit the social environment. Consider that in centuries past, when it was socially unpalatable in the UK to introduce an income tax, the government implemented a window tax. As society changed, the window tax was abolished and, eventually, an income tax was introduced. In the same way, as our current society moves towards a state of ‘human disconnection’, our tax system must move with it.
Best of all, a WFH tax does not merely subsidize businesses that have no long-term future. If, for example, a city-center sandwich shop is no longer needed, it does not make sense for the government to support the business in the medium term. But it does make sense to support the mass of people who have been suddenly displaced by forces outside their control. Many will have to take low-paid jobs while they retrain or figure out their next step in life. From a personal and economic point of view, it makes sense that these people should be given a helping hand. It also makes sense to recognize that essential workers assume the covid risk for low wages. Those who are lucky enough to be in a position to ‘disconnect’ themselves from the face-to-face economy owe it to them.


shtfplan--2020-11-12--The Absurdity of Lockdown 2.0

The Absurdity of Lockdown 2.0

This article was originally published by Shane J. Coules at The Mises Institute .
“ A man walks through an eerily quiet , once-busy street lined with closed-down stores and burnt-out vehicles .
Some of the storefronts display boarded-up windows , others with spattered red paint on the glass-like blood on a wrecked car ’ s windshield .
Some of the stores have been victims of looting , the shards of glass on the ground a diamond-like reminder of the recent mayhem .
Our protagonist takes a deep breath ; the sound audible in the vast silence .
He releases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
His nostrils flare .
He detects a familiar smell in the air : something ’ s burning .
His ears twitch as he hears the distant roar of a mob , the volume rising with each step he takes .
He sees in the distance a fiery orange glow growing larger ; the fire that has been raging for months , continuing to spread.
” The above scene may sound like the prologue of an apocalyptic novel by , say , Stephen King .
But it could easily be a blend of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a nightmarish year—the end of which most of us will be happy to see .
And as countries throughout Europe and some states in the US move into a second wave of covid-inspired lockdowns , it ’ s worth reflecting on what we ’ ve encountered thus far in this surreal year , and ruminating on the absurdity of a second lockdown .
If I had a dollar for every time I heard or saw those three short statements bandied about on- and offline , I ’ d have quite a few , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rich .
But I ’ d likely be in a better position than many small businesses that have been thrown into the unforgiving sea by their government only to be tossed a meager life vest by the same people who wrestled them overboard in the first place .
It ’ s worth noting that the life vest hasn ’ t been enough to save some from sinking to the murky depths—with many more to follow suit .
Let us take a moment to consider those three regularly regurgitated phrases : Stay at home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order given by many governments around the world , telling their citizens that they should venture outside only if it is “ essential ” or for a spell of light exercise .
Limits on how far you can travel ( in Ireland , for example , it ’ s within a five-kilometer radius of your home ) , and how many people from other households you can invite into your privately owned property ( again , in Ireland this number is zero as of this writing , and that includes your front and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the powers that be .
Fines , public shaming ( do not dare question these measures or partake in anti-lockdown protests ! )
, and a bad reputation await those who break these rules .
Wear a mask .
While this writer personally has no problem wearing a face mask if a business owner requests it , it is interesting to note that years of scientific analyses on the effectiveness of face masks when it comes to hampering the spread of infectious respiratory illnesses like the flu , have shown it to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s ( Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ) website right now and you ’ ll read that “ no recommendation can be made at this time for mask use in the community by asymptomatic persons , including those at high risk for complications , to prevent exposure to influenza viruses.
” While Covid-19 and flu are similar illnesses , they come from different viruses , and the former is more infectious than the latter .
It is also worth noting that the science around face masks is indeed still disputed by experts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argued that wearing masks can enhance the spread of the virus because people can be less mindful of social distancing while touching their nose and mouth more than they would when not wearing one .
But even if we accept that masks are definitely effective in slowing the spread of the disease—as recent studies have indeed claimed—overconfidence and inconsistency from experts and public figures throughout the pandemic has left public trust in them wanting to say the least .
For instance , the US surgeon general in February urged citizens ( in all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ BUYING MASKS !
, ” adding that they weren ’ t effective in preventing the general public from catching coronavirus .
Even as late as March , New York mayor Bill de Blasio told residents to “ get on with your lives ” and “ go out on the town despite coronavirus , ” while the UK chief medical officer told UK denizens to not wear face masks .
Meanwhile , the WHO and the CDC had both argued against the use of masks in the early months of the outbreak .
While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ due to the aforementioned new studies , we still have countries like Sweden not mandating mask-wearing as we approach the end of this bizarre year ( note : Sweden ’ s daily number of covid deaths hasn ’ t risen above ten since mid-July and has since generally been below five ) .
Can you really blame people for being just a little skeptical of those in positions of power ?
Science is real .
To end so emphatically ( and condescendingly ) , you would hope that the person speaking those patronizing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But as one of the world ’ s most senior epidemiologists , Johan Giesecke , advisor to the Swedish government , said back in April : UK and European policies on lockdown are not evidence-based .
And then we can remind ourselves of the now infamous Neil Ferguson–led Imperial College London study which determined that up to five hundred thousand lives could be lost in the UK alone .
It was later revealed that the modeling used for the study was outdated , and thus the calculations dramatically inflated .
For what it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back in 2005 that 150 to 200 million people could die from the bird flu .
The number of worldwide fatalities from bird flu between 2003 and 2009 was…282 .
So , science is real .
Stop being a bad person .
Listen to the experts and do not question them .
Ever .
Another common line that has been doing the rounds over the last nine months is “ placing the economy above society is wrong.
” This statement brings to mind F.A .
Hayek ’ s famous words regarding socialists : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fail to understand how societies—and markets—function .
Economies are essentially societies , and societies are essentially economies ; a healthier economy is conducive to a healthier society .
Of course , there will still be problems brought on by bad government policy ( e.g.
, the war on drugs ) , individual behavior ( e.g.
, poor choices ) , and misfortune ( which can be alleviated by support networks and charities ) .
Societies will always have issues : utopias are impossible .
By calling for lockdowns , people are essentially welcoming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countless societal ills—in case that hasn ’ t already been made evident by the depressions of the past .
If government measures are about ensuring the well-being of the people , plunging a country into a recession and piling up debt sure is a strange way to go about it .
At the national level , lockdowns and recessions cause sometimes irreparable damage to people ’ s livelihoods , their mental health , and their physical well-being .
At the global level , widespread lockdowns are predicted to greatly exacerbate third-world famines , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ child deaths each month.
” With tragedies like these , lockdowns are indeed a strange way to go about protecting the most vulnerable people .
Pandemics like covid-19 are unusual for Europe and the United States .
Being 100 percent prepared for them is impossible , because while tax-funded research is regularly conducted in the hope that countries can be as pandemic ready as possible , each new virus brings with it an air of mystery , and fears of the unknown aren ’ t completely irrational , after all .
But , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forced lockdowns—in the hands of people who pay a negligible price for being wrong ( some political damage , maybe ) is not only asinine , it is plain wrong .
Coercion is wrong .
Taking the freedom of choice away from people by force is wrong .
Tell the old woman living with a terminal illness that she must spend the final months of her life in isolation ; that she can ’ t take a trip to the lake she ’ s visited since she was a child ; that she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loved ones during the remaining time she has left .
Tell a business owner that their business isn ’ t essential .
Tell the man who ’ s prone to depression and lives alone in a tiny studio apartment that this lockdown is for his own good .
Tell the woman whose cancer diagnosis will be delayed—and thus her chances of survival reduced—that this lockdown is for her own good .
This is no different from telling an individual driver that “ speed kills , ” so tough—you can ’ t drive a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of the biggest yearly killers , so tough—you can ’ t enjoy a beer anymore .
Or that more than two hundred thousand children alone are treated in hospital every year from accidents related to bike riding , so tough—you can ’ t enjoy cycling anymore .
The role of government isn ’ t to keep people safe from themselves or the dangers that come with living freely ; there ’ s no reason why this shouldn ’ t apply to covid-19 .
For months now , data and experts have raised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in stopping the spread of the coronavirus and highlighted the damage caused by them .
In the words of the Great Barrington Declaration ( led by infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists ) , “ lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short- and long-term public health .
The results ( to name a few ) include lower childhood vaccination rates , worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes , fewer cancer screenings , and deteriorating mental health—leading to greater excess mortality in years to come , with the working class and younger members of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the WHO has said that lockdowns should be a very , very last resort .
Argentina recently entered its two hundredth day of nationwide lockdown , yet daily new cases have been hovering between ten thousand and twenty thousand since August .
These and countless other examples and warnings have gone unheeded in many countries as they enter another lockdown—all the while not giving people a say in the matter .
For many of us , the latest covid calamity is just another disappointing chapter in the dreadful tome that is big government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can not violate moral and economic laws without having to pay a price , and that one violation will , according to the ‘ logic ’ of state action , lead to more violations until the price that must be paid becomes intolerable , ” more scenes of social unrest are likely .
The scene we opened with today maybe a collage of moments from 2020 ; if things keep going in the same direction , it may be a glimpse into the not-too-distant future .
But there ’ s still time for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bloated , bureaucratic government made up of people who pay little to no price for being wrong and wreaking economic havoc—covid or not—on its citizens ( far from being punished , those in charge regularly reward themselves with hefty taxpayer-funded pensions ) .
Gross mismanagement by distended governments that leads to further social unrest and far worse doesn ’ t have to be the future .
As Ludwig von Mises said , “ Whoever wants peace among nations must seek to limit the state and its influence most strictly.
” Those wise words @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too .

This article was originally published by Shane J. Coules at The Mises Institute.
“A man walks through an eerily quiet, once-busy street lined with closed-down stores and burnt-out vehicles. Some of the storefronts display boarded-up windows, others with spattered red paint on the glass-like blood on a wrecked car’s windshield. Some of the stores have been victims of looting, the shards of glass on the ground a diamond-like reminder of the recent mayhem. Our protagonist takes a deep breath; the sound audible in the vast silence. He releases the breath slowly and continues to walk. His nostrils flare. He detects a familiar smell in the air: something’s burning. His ears twitch as he hears the distant roar of a mob, the volume rising with each step he takes. He sees in the distance a fiery orange glow growing larger; the fire that has been raging for months, continuing to spread.”
The above scene may sound like the prologue of an apocalyptic novel by, say, Stephen King. But it could easily be a blend of scenes from 2020: moments pulled from a nightmarish year—the end of which most of us will be happy to see.
And as countries throughout Europe and some states in the US move into a second wave of covid-inspired lockdowns, it’s worth reflecting on what we’ve encountered thus far in this surreal year, and ruminating on the absurdity of a second lockdown.
“Stay at Home. Wear a Mask. Science Is Real.”
If I had a dollar for every time I heard or saw those three short statements bandied about on- and offline, I’d have quite a few, although admittedly I wouldn’t be rich. But I’d likely be in a better position than many small businesses that have been thrown into the unforgiving sea by their government only to be tossed a meager life vest by the same people who wrestled them overboard in the first place. It’s worth noting that the life vest hasn’t been enough to save some from sinking to the murky depths—with many more to follow suit.
Let us take a moment to consider those three regularly regurgitated phrases:
Stay at home. This was and still is the order given by many governments around the world, telling their citizens that they should venture outside only if it is “essential” or for a spell of light exercise. Limits on how far you can travel (in Ireland, for example, it’s within a five-kilometer radius of your home), and how many people from other households you can invite into your privately owned property (again, in Ireland this number is zero as of this writing, and that includes your front and backyard), have been declared by the powers that be. Fines, public shaming (do not dare question these measures or partake in anti-lockdown protests!), and a bad reputation await those who break these rules.
Wear a mask. While this writer personally has no problem wearing a face mask if a business owner requests it, it is interesting to note that years of scientific analyses on the effectiveness of face masks when it comes to hampering the spread of infectious respiratory illnesses like the flu, have shown it to be negligible. Go to the CDC’s (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) website right now and you’ll read that “no recommendation can be made at this time for mask use in the community by asymptomatic persons, including those at high risk for complications, to prevent exposure to influenza viruses.” While Covid-19 and flu are similar illnesses, they come from different viruses, and the former is more infectious than the latter. It is also worth noting that the science around face masks is indeed still disputed by experts, and it’s even been argued that wearing masks can enhance the spread of the virus because people can be less mindful of social distancing while touching their nose and mouth more than they would when not wearing one.
But even if we accept that masks are definitely effective in slowing the spread of the disease—as recent studies have indeed claimed—overconfidence and inconsistency from experts and public figures throughout the pandemic has left public trust in them wanting to say the least. For instance, the US surgeon general in February urged citizens (in all caps no less) to “STOP BUYING MASKS!,” adding that they weren’t effective in preventing the general public from catching coronavirus. Even as late as March, New York mayor Bill de Blasio told residents to “get on with your lives” and “go out on the town despite coronavirus,” while the UK chief medical officer told UK denizens to not wear face masks. Meanwhile, the WHO and the CDC had both argued against the use of masks in the early months of the outbreak. While things may have changed in recent months due to the aforementioned new studies, we still have countries like Sweden not mandating mask-wearing as we approach the end of this bizarre year (note: Sweden’s daily number of covid deaths hasn’t risen above ten since mid-July and has since generally been below five). Can you really blame people for being just a little skeptical of those in positions of power?
Science is real. To end so emphatically (and condescendingly), you would hope that the person speaking those patronizing words has science on their side. But as one of the world’s most senior epidemiologists, Johan Giesecke, advisor to the Swedish government, said back in April: UK and European policies on lockdown are not evidence-based. And then we can remind ourselves of the now infamous Neil Ferguson–led Imperial College London study which determined that up to five hundred thousand lives could be lost in the UK alone. It was later revealed that the modeling used for the study was outdated, and thus the calculations dramatically inflated. For what it’s worth, Ferguson also said back in 2005 that 150 to 200 million people could die from the bird flu. The number of worldwide fatalities from bird flu between 2003 and 2009 was…282. So, science is real. Stop being a bad person. Listen to the experts and do not question them. Ever.
Prolockdowners Are de Facto “Pro-recession”
Another common line that has been doing the rounds over the last nine months is “placing the economy above society is wrong.” This statement brings to mind F.A. Hayek’s famous words regarding socialists: people who don’t understand economics fail to understand how societies—and markets—function. Economies are essentially societies, and societies are essentially economies; a healthier economy is conducive to a healthier society. Of course, there will still be problems brought on by bad government policy (e.g., the war on drugs), individual behavior (e.g., poor choices), and misfortune (which can be alleviated by support networks and charities). Societies will always have issues: utopias are impossible.
By calling for lockdowns, people are essentially welcoming a recession. And with recession come countless societal ills—in case that hasn’t already been made evident by the depressions of the past. If government measures are about ensuring the well-being of the people, plunging a country into a recession and piling up debt sure is a strange way to go about it. At the national level, lockdowns and recessions cause sometimes irreparable damage to people’s livelihoods, their mental health, and their physical well-being. At the global level, widespread lockdowns are predicted to greatly exacerbate third-world famines, with “virus-linked hunger tied to 10,000 child deaths each month.” With tragedies like these, lockdowns are indeed a strange way to go about protecting the most vulnerable people.
The Immorality of Lockdowns
Pandemics like covid-19 are unusual for Europe and the United States. Being 100 percent prepared for them is impossible, because while tax-funded research is regularly conducted in the hope that countries can be as pandemic ready as possible, each new virus brings with it an air of mystery, and fears of the unknown aren’t completely irrational, after all.
But, putting such life-altering power—over matters such as forced lockdowns—in the hands of people who pay a negligible price for being wrong (some political damage, maybe) is not only asinine, it is plain wrong. Coercion is wrong. Taking the freedom of choice away from people by force is wrong. Tell the old woman living with a terminal illness that she must spend the final months of her life in isolation; that she can’t take a trip to the lake she’s visited since she was a child; that she can’t be surrounded by her loved ones during the remaining time she has left. Tell a business owner that their business isn’t essential. Tell the man who’s prone to depression and lives alone in a tiny studio apartment that this lockdown is for his own good. Tell the woman whose cancer diagnosis will be delayed—and thus her chances of survival reduced—that this lockdown is for her own good.
This is no different from telling an individual driver that “speed kills,” so tough—you can’t drive a car anymore. Or that alcohol is one of the biggest yearly killers, so tough—you can’t enjoy a beer anymore. Or that more than two hundred thousand children alone are treated in hospital every year from accidents related to bike riding, so tough—you can’t enjoy cycling anymore. The role of government isn’t to keep people safe from themselves or the dangers that come with living freely; there’s no reason why this shouldn’t apply to covid-19.
The Absurdity of Lockdown 2.0
For months now, data and experts have raised major questions around the efficacy of lockdowns in stopping the spread of the coronavirus and highlighted the damage caused by them. In the words of the Great Barrington Declaration (led by infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists), “lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short- and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings, and deteriorating mental health—leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden.” Even the WHO has said that lockdowns should be a very, very last resort. Argentina recently entered its two hundredth day of nationwide lockdown, yet daily new cases have been hovering between ten thousand and twenty thousand since August. These and countless other examples and warnings have gone unheeded in many countries as they enter another lockdown—all the while not giving people a say in the matter.
The Future Is a Choice
For many of us, the latest covid calamity is just another disappointing chapter in the dreadful tome that is big government. When we consider that “one cannot violate moral and economic laws without having to pay a price, and that one violation will, according to the ‘logic’ of state action, lead to more violations until the price that must be paid becomes intolerable,” more scenes of social unrest are likely. The scene we opened with today maybe a collage of moments from 2020; if things keep going in the same direction, it may be a glimpse into the not-too-distant future.
But there’s still time for people to see the major failures of bloated, bureaucratic government made up of people who pay little to no price for being wrong and wreaking economic havoc—covid or not—on its citizens (far from being punished, those in charge regularly reward themselves with hefty taxpayer-funded pensions). Gross mismanagement by distended governments that leads to further social unrest and far worse doesn’t have to be the future. As Ludwig von Mises said, “Whoever wants peace among nations must seek to limit the state and its influence most strictly.” Those wise words are applicable to peace within nations, too.


shtfplan--2020-11-12--Fauci Warns: Wear Your Mask, Or We Will Lock You Down Again

Dr. Anthony Fauci is continuing his tyrannical approach with new warnings .
He says that if we want to avoid being locked down again , we should be wearing the ritualist shame muzzles the political parasites keep pushing .
Dr. Fauci says he doesn ’ t believe the United States will need to go into lockdown to fight the coronavirus scam if people double down on wearing masks and social distancing .
The nation ’ s top medical tyrant says “ the cavalry is coming ” in the form of vaccines and that “ Help is really on the way.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vaccine Distribution Fears The Public Won ’ t Take It Based on statements from Donald Trump that the military will be distributing the vaccine , the use of the word “ cavalry ” isn ’ t that surprising .
The fact that anyone is lining up for this vaccine after these psychopaths have already told us it won ’ t return our lives to “ normal , ” is surprising .
They Moved The Goalposts…AGAIN !
: “ It ’ s Not Over When The Vaccine Arrives ” Fauci says there are fundamental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spread of the coronavirus .
They include “ universal and uniform ” wearing of masks , avoiding crowds , keeping social distance , and washing hands .
He says that sounds simple against a very difficult challenge but “ it really does make a difference.
” This is an absolutely absurd and ridiculous notion that we can somehow stop all humans from ever getting a cold ever again .
As The Mises Institute points out , this is not about a virus or health .
This is about control and power .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their draconian edicts , the more power they have .
But , putting such life-altering power—over matters such as forced lockdowns—in the hands of people who pay a negligible price for being wrong ( some political damage , maybe ) is not only asinine , it is plain wrong .
Coercion is wrong .
Taking the freedom of choice away from people by force is wrong .
Tell the old woman living with a terminal illness that she must spend the final months of her life in isolation ; that she can ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she ’ s visited since she was a child ; that she can ’ t be surrounded by her loved ones during the remaining time she has left .
Tell a business owner that their business isn ’ t essential .
Tell the man who ’ s prone to depression and lives alone in a tiny studio apartment that this lockdown is for his own good .
Tell the woman whose cancer diagnosis will be delayed—and thus her chances of survival reduced—that this lockdown is for her own good .
–The Mises Institute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simple because they violate the consent of those being forced on house arrest even though they have done no wrong .
And they are coming .
It doesn ’ t look like we will avoid a second lockdown at this point .

Dr. Anthony Fauci is continuing his tyrannical approach with new warnings. He says that if we want to avoid being locked down again, we should be wearing the ritualist shame muzzles the political parasites keep pushing.
Dr. Fauci says he doesn’t believe the United States will need to go into lockdown to fight the coronavirus scam if people double down on wearing masks and social distancing. The nation’s top infectious disease expert medical tyrant says “the cavalry is coming” in the form of vaccines and that “Help is really on the way.”
Army General In Charge Of COVID-19 Vaccine Distribution Fears The Public Won’t Take It
Based on statements from Donald Trump that the military will be distributing the vaccine, the use of the word “cavalry” isn’t that surprising. The fact that anyone is lining up for this vaccine after these psychopaths have already told us it won’t return our lives to “normal,” is surprising.
They Moved The Goalposts…AGAIN!: “It’s Not Over When The Vaccine Arrives”
Fauci says there are fundamental things Americans can do to stem the spread of the coronavirus. They include “universal and uniform” wearing of masks, avoiding crowds, keeping social distance, and washing hands. He says that sounds simple against a very difficult challenge but “it really does make a difference.”
“The best opposite strategy to locking down is to intensify the public health measures short of locking down.” Dr. Fauci speaks on the COVID crisis and the possibility of a second lockdown as U.S. cases soar to new records. https://t.co/U6hIuaJiY1 pic.twitter.com/FmZpA2mpWj — Good Morning America (@GMA) November 12, 2020
This is an absolutely absurd and ridiculous notion that we can somehow stop all humans from ever getting a cold ever again. As The Mises Institute points out, this is not about a virus or health. This is about control and power. The more they can get people to obey their draconian edicts, the more power they have.
But, putting such life-altering power—over matters such as forced lockdowns—in the hands of people who pay a negligible price for being wrong (some political damage, maybe) is not only asinine, it is plain wrong. Coercion is wrong. Taking the freedom of choice away from people by force is wrong. Tell the old woman living with a terminal illness that she must spend the final months of her life in isolation; that she can’t take a trip to the lake she’s visited since she was a child; that she can’t be surrounded by her loved ones during the remaining time she has left. Tell a business owner that their business isn’t essential. Tell the man who’s prone to depression and lives alone in a tiny studio apartment that this lockdown is for his own good. Tell the woman whose cancer diagnosis will be delayed—and thus her chances of survival reduced—that this lockdown is for her own good. –The Mises Institute
Lockdowns are immoral, plain, and simple because they violate the consent of those being forced on house arrest even though they have done no wrong. And they are coming. It doesn’t look like we will avoid a second lockdown at this point.


shtfplan--2020-11-12--Election Fraud USPS Whistleblower Stands Against MSM Saying He “Recanted”

In a video posted Tuesday evening , Richard Hopkins , a United States Postal Service worker in Pennsylvania who said voter fraud was rampant denied taking back his statements when speaking to authorities .
“ I ’ m here to say I did not recant my statements .
That did not happen , ” said Richard Hopkins , standing against the mainstream media ’ s allegations .
The plan to say Hopkins recanted is backfiring , but it was probably one last-ditch effort by Democrats to maintain control of public perception about the outcome of the election , which should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clear Politics .
According to The New York Post , congressional Democrats and a major US newspaper claimed had recanted his allegations of mail-in-ballot tampering is denying that he walked back his words .
Hopkins is standing against the lying and propagating mainstream media .
Hopkins ’ allegations — first reported by conservative activist group Project Veritas — were included in a federal lawsuit filed Monday by Trump ’ s campaign .
The suit alleges that Keystone State officials created “ an illegal ‘ two-tiered ’ voting system ” that unfairly favors mail-in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tampering.
” “ It has been reported by Project Veritas , in a release on November 5 , 2020 , that carriers were told to collect , separate and deliver all mail-in ballots directly to the supervisor , ” the suit says .
–The New York Post “ It has been reported by Project Veritas , in a release on November 5 , 2020 , that carriers were told to collect , separate and deliver all mail-in ballots directly to the supervisor , ” the suit says .
After news of Hopkins recanting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tim Murtaugh weighed in as well , arguing that Hopkins “ filed a very detailed affidavit .
He named names .
He described explicitly what it is that he experienced.
” Murtaugh also suggested that Hopkins ’ recantation may not have been entirely voluntary .
“ Earlier today , we saw our own attorney , in some cases , doxxed on Twitter and public invitations to harass attorneys who have been involved in pursuing the president ’ s lawful avenues through the courts and also connected to what we will eventually pursue in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Post Real Clear Politics : “ The Media Should NOT Have Called This Election !
”

In a video posted Tuesday evening, Richard Hopkins, a United States Postal Service worker in Pennsylvania who said voter fraud was rampant denied taking back his statements when speaking to authorities. “I’m here to say I did not recant my statements. That did not happen,” said Richard Hopkins, standing against the mainstream media’s allegations.
The plan to say Hopkins recanted is backfiring, but it was probably one last-ditch effort by Democrats to maintain control of public perception about the outcome of the election, which should not have been called according to Real Clear Politics.

According to The New York Post, congressional Democrats and a major US newspaper claimed had recanted his allegations of mail-in-ballot tampering is denying that he walked back his words.

Hopkins is standing against the lying and propagating mainstream media.
Hopkins’ allegations — first reported by conservative activist group Project Veritas — were included in a federal lawsuit filed Monday by Trump’s campaign.
The suit alleges that Keystone State officials created “an illegal ‘two-tiered’ voting system” that unfairly favors mail-in ballots and “encourages ballot fraud or tampering.” “It has been reported by Project Veritas, in a release on November 5, 2020, that carriers were told to collect, separate and deliver all mail-in ballots directly to the supervisor,” the suit says. –The New York Post
This situation seems strange.
“It has been reported by Project Veritas, in a release on November 5, 2020, that carriers were told to collect, separate and deliver all mail-in ballots directly to the supervisor,” the suit says. After news of Hopkins recanting was initially reported, Trump campaign spokesman Tim Murtaugh weighed in as well, arguing that Hopkins “filed a very detailed affidavit. He named names. He described explicitly what it is that he experienced.” Murtaugh also suggested that Hopkins’ recantation may not have been entirely voluntary. “Earlier today, we saw our own attorney, in some cases, doxxed on Twitter and public invitations to harass attorneys who have been involved in pursuing the president’s lawful avenues through the courts and also connected to what we will eventually pursue in recounts,” he said. -NY Post
Real Clear Politics: “The Media Should NOT Have Called This Election!”


shtfplan--2020-11-12--Biden’s “COVID Advisor” Says U.S. Should Lockdown AGAIN For 4-6 Weeks

These people will not stop committing economic terrorism on entire populations .
Dr. Michael Osterholm , who is a “ coronavirus advisor ” to Joe Biden , said a nationwide lockdown would help bring the virus under control in the U.S. As a quick reminder , the mainstream media has declared Biden the winner of the 2020 election , however , he hasn ’ t been officially given the title of president-elect .
The media has definitely jumped the gun on this one and when that is known , things could get really ugly really fast .
But Biden has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ run with it , appointing all kinds of tyrants to positions of power .
This particular tyrant , Dr. Osterholm , has threatened economic terrorism to stop a virus from spreading .
But if we have a vaccine now ( thank , Pfizer ) what are lockdowns needed for ?
Osterholm says the federal government will make the economic terrorism better by borrowing more money to cover lost income , aka , destroying the dollar so it ’ ll be worthless by the time you get it .
He said the government could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ package that would cover lost income for individuals and governments during a shutdown .
Osterholm , who serves as director of the Center of Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota , said earlier this week that the country is headed toward “ COVID hell.
” Cases are rising as more people grow tired of wearing masks and social distancing , suffering from so-called “ pandemic fatigue , ” he said Wednesday .
Colder weather is also driving people indoors , where the virus can spread more easily .
–CNBC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ahead , bringing up a phrase we have heard from these psychopaths before : the dark winter .
Osterholm said the U.S. is headed for dark days before a vaccine becomes available .
He said health-care systems across the country are already overwhelmed in places such as El Paso , Texas , where local officials have already closed businesses and the federal government is sending resources to handle a surge in deaths caused by Covid-19 .
–CNBC “ Pandemic fatigue ” is real , in fact , people are sick and tired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ avoid getting a cold .
This medical tyranny is overblown and almost everyone knows it by now .
But as we have said in the past several times , do not assume there won ’ t be another lockdown .
If these power-hungry political parasites can get away with enslaving us for their banking overlords , they will do so .
Be aware that several states are looking into , have threatened to , or are already in various stages of locking the population down once again .
Stay prepared and aware .

These people will not stop committing economic terrorism on entire populations. Dr. Michael Osterholm, who is a “coronavirus advisor” to Joe Biden, said a nationwide lockdown would help bring the virus under control in the U.S.
As a quick reminder, the mainstream media has declared Biden the winner of the 2020 election, however, he hasn’t been officially given the title of president-elect. The media has definitely jumped the gun on this one and when that is known, things could get really ugly really fast. But Biden has taken the media’s coronation and run with it, appointing all kinds of tyrants to positions of power.
This particular tyrant, Dr. Osterholm, has threatened economic terrorism to stop a virus from spreading. But if we have a vaccine now (thank, Pfizer) what are lockdowns needed for? Osterholm says the federal government will make the economic terrorism better by borrowing more money to cover lost income, aka, destroying the dollar so it’ll be worthless by the time you get it.
He said the government could borrow enough money to pay for a package that would cover lost income for individuals and governments during a shutdown.
Osterholm, who serves as director of the Center of Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, said earlier this week that the country is headed toward “COVID hell.” Cases are rising as more people grow tired of wearing masks and social distancing, suffering from so-called “pandemic fatigue,” he said Wednesday. Colder weather is also driving people indoors, where the virus can spread more easily. –CNBC
Osterholm also spoke of “dark days” ahead, bringing up a phrase we have heard from these psychopaths before: the dark winter.
Osterholm said the U.S. is headed for dark days before a vaccine becomes available. He said health-care systems across the country are already overwhelmed in places such as El Paso, Texas, where local officials have already closed businesses and the federal government is sending resources to handle a surge in deaths caused by Covid-19. –CNBC
“Pandemic fatigue” is real, in fact, people are sick and tired of being told what to do to avoid getting a cold. This medical tyranny is overblown and almost everyone knows it by now. But as we have said in the past several times, do not assume there won’t be another lockdown. If these power-hungry political parasites can get away with enslaving us for their banking overlords, they will do so.
Be aware that several states are looking into, have threatened to, or are already in various stages of locking the population down once again. Stay prepared and aware.


shtfplan--2020-11-13--What’s Wrong with Trump’s Investigating Election Fraud?

This article was originally published by Jacob G. Hornberger at The Future of Freedom Foundation .
For the life of me , I just don ’ t get the mainstream media ’ s vehement objections to President Trump ’ s desire to investigate whether Joe Biden ending up winning the election through fraud .
Their argument , repeated from the very moment that Biden was declared the winner and ever since is that Trump ’ s claims of fraud are “ false ” and “ baseless.
” But secrecy is normally at the core of fraud .
While there might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a person is caught voting twice , it ’ s rare that massive fraud manifests itself immediately .
It usually takes an investigation to ferret it out .
Notice what happens if the logic of mainstream media , most of which was vehemently in favor of Biden ’ s election , holds sway .
If there is massive , sophisticated fraud , it is never discovered because there is never an investigation to determine whether there was fraud .
The reason there is no investigation is because there is no evidence of fraud @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only way to discover the existence of electoral fraud is to conduct an investigation , which isn ’ t conducted because there is no evidence of fraud immediately after the election .
Let ’ s assume , for example , that there was election software that corrupt officials were able to use to manufacture whatever number of votes Biden needed to win .
How could anyone be expected to ferret out that fraud immediately after the election ?
One would need an investigation to discover fraud on that sophisticated level .
But the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there should be no investigation because there is no immediate evidence of the fraud .
Thus , if the mainstream media ’ s argument is accepted , the fraud succeeds because there is never an investigation into the matter .
The mainstream media asserts that there is nothing unusual about the massive number of votes that poured in for Biden after the election .
But the fact is that it was unusual .
Nothing like that has ever happened in U.S. presidential election history .
Democrat Lyndon Johnson ’ s 1948 U.S. Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the day before the Trump-Biden election , is instructive .
Johnson won that election by 87 votes out of almost a million votes cast .
Johnson ’ s position was the same as that of the mainstream media today .
Immediately after the election , he was asserting that there was no evidence of fraud .
But as I indicated above , oftentimes election fraud is hard to ferret it .
It takes an investigation to do so .
Even with an investigation , Johnson ’ s opponent , Gov .
Coke @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his election contest .
Does that mean there was no fraud ?
No , it doesn ’ t .
In fact , many years later , after Johnson had served as John Kennedy ’ s vice president and then as president , his electoral fraud rose to the surface .
It turned out that Johnson had told a South Texas crony named George Parr to keep his poll tabulations open after the election , just in case Johnson needed more votes to win .
Several days after the election , when Johnson was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him , which gave Johnson the win .
This New York Times article , which is worth reading , details Johnson ’ s election fraud , which became known as the “ Box 13 ” scandal ( Google “ Box 13 scandal.
” ) In 1977 , after Johnson and Parr were dead , an election judge in charge of Jim Well County ’ s Box 13 , Luis Salas , came forward and confessed that he was part of the fraud .
He said that Johnson told Parr that he needed 200 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Parr instructed Salas to produce the additional 200 votes , which Salas did .
The last 200 signatures on the election tally were all in the same ink , which was different from the ink of the other signatures , the signatures were in the same handwriting , and the names were in alphabetical order .
Johnson went on to become U.S .
Senator .
If he had lost the race , there is no chance he would have become president in November 1963 .
It ’ s certainly possible that Joe Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s also possible that it ’ s not .
What ’ s wrong with Trump investigating it now rather than have the fraud surface 30 years from now , as it did in the case of Lyndon Johnson ?
Surely , the mainstream media wouldn ’ t want another illegitimate Democrat president , would it ?

This article was originally published by Jacob G. Hornberger at The Future of Freedom Foundation.
For the life of me, I just don’t get the mainstream media’s vehement objections to President Trump’s desire to investigate whether Joe Biden ending up winning the election through fraud. Their argument, repeated from the very moment that Biden was declared the winner and ever since is that Trump’s claims of fraud are “false” and “baseless.”
But secrecy is normally at the core of fraud. While there might be isolated cases where, say, a person is caught voting twice, it’s rare that massive fraud manifests itself immediately. It usually takes an investigation to ferret it out.
Notice what happens if the logic of mainstream media, most of which was vehemently in favor of Biden’s election, holds sway. If there is massive, sophisticated fraud, it is never discovered because there is never an investigation to determine whether there was fraud. The reason there is no investigation is because there is no evidence of fraud immediately after the election. But the only way to discover the existence of electoral fraud is to conduct an investigation, which isn’t conducted because there is no evidence of fraud immediately after the election.
Let’s assume, for example, that there was election software that corrupt officials were able to use to manufacture whatever number of votes Biden needed to win. How could anyone be expected to ferret out that fraud immediately after the election? One would need an investigation to discover fraud on that sophisticated level. But the mainstream media’s argument is that there should be no investigation because there is no immediate evidence of the fraud. Thus, if the mainstream media’s argument is accepted, the fraud succeeds because there is never an investigation into the matter.
The mainstream media asserts that there is nothing unusual about the massive number of votes that poured in for Biden after the election. But the fact is that it was unusual. Nothing like that has ever happened in U.S. presidential election history.
Democrat Lyndon Johnson’s 1948 U.S. Senate campaign in Texas, which I wrote about the day before the Trump-Biden election, is instructive. Johnson won that election by 87 votes out of almost a million votes cast.
Johnson’s position was the same as that of the mainstream media today. Immediately after the election, he was asserting that there was no evidence of fraud. But as I indicated above, oftentimes election fraud is hard to ferret it. It takes an investigation to do so.
Even with an investigation, Johnson’s opponent, Gov. Coke Stevenson, was unable to prevail in his election contest. Does that mean there was no fraud? No, it doesn’t. In fact, many years later, after Johnson had served as John Kennedy’s vice president and then as president, his electoral fraud rose to the surface.
It turned out that Johnson had told a South Texas crony named George Parr to keep his poll tabulations open after the election, just in case Johnson needed more votes to win. Several days after the election, when Johnson was losing, Parr delivered 200 votes to him, which gave Johnson the win.
This New York Times article, which is worth reading, details Johnson’s election fraud, which became known as the “Box 13” scandal (Google “Box 13 scandal.”) In 1977, after Johnson and Parr were dead, an election judge in charge of Jim Well County’s Box 13, Luis Salas, came forward and confessed that he was part of the fraud. He said that Johnson told Parr that he needed 200 more votes to win the election. Parr instructed Salas to produce the additional 200 votes, which Salas did. The last 200 signatures on the election tally were all in the same ink, which was different from the ink of the other signatures, the signatures were in the same handwriting, and the names were in alphabetical order.
Johnson went on to become U.S. Senator. If he had lost the race, there is no chance he would have become president in November 1963.
It’s certainly possible that Joe Biden’s election is legitimate. But it’s also possible that it’s not. What’s wrong with Trump investigating it now rather than have the fraud surface 30 years from now, as it did in the case of Lyndon Johnson? Surely, the mainstream media wouldn’t want another illegitimate Democrat president, would it?