Michael Yeadon has speculated that the simultaneous abandonment by the major nation states around the world of established pandemic protocols for policies of mandatory mask wearing by the public, lockdowns and lockouts of commerce and general sociality, and then the pushing on the whole of the public a handful of experimental ”vaccination” treatments during a pandemic, requires special, coordinated action and agency. Extraordinary evidence demands extraordinary explanation. Conspiracy was what he came up with, though he was not privy to the insider information that would allow him to point to the culprits — of whom the conspiracy might consist.

If that be a reasonable extrapolation, then the mind lurches to motive.

Given the opportunity of insider players like Antony Fauci and Peter Daszak and a manure-spreader full of other bureaucrats and politicians and science-technicians on the make, a financial motive must be considered. But the mind reels. Could this really be ”all about” the moolah? Surely power lust and the insiders’ itch for a Great Reset to a new technocratic totalitarianism is the driving passion!

But maybe it really is all — or mostly, or (crucially) effectively — a plunder scheme, a public fraud for pecuniary reasons. And this low-down dirty element has risen to public attention. Now. It is happening first Down Under.

I almost never quote other people’s blog posts whole. But I feel a need to call attention to a news development of great significance, and one way to do that is to mirror others’ work here. This story is huge in its implications.

October 2, 2021:

Former Australian Member of Parliament Says Pfizer and AstraZeneca Paid Lobbyists to Direct Australia’s Leaders to Push Vaccine Mandates

By Cristina Laila 
Published October 2, 2021 at 9:06pm

A former Australian member of Parliament came out and said Pfizer and AstraZeneca are paying lobbyists to direct Australia’s leaders to push vaccine mandates.

Clive Palmer, leader of the United Australia Party claimed ousted New South Wales Premier Gladys Berejiklian was told she wouldn’t be charged in a corruption probe if she imposed a vaccine mandate.

Palmer made these statements a couple weeks ago but it has garnered a lot of attention this weekend after Berejiklian resigned in disgrace following a corruption probe.

Two weeks ago, Palmer said Pfizer and AstraZeneca were paying lobbyists tens of millions of dollars to direct Australia’s liberal leaders to push the double jab.

According to Palmer, Berejiklian, who was under a corruption probe by the ICAC at the time, was told if she imposed strict lockdowns and vaccine mandates, she wouldn’t be charged.

Shortly before Berejiklian resigned, she told Sydney residents that if they don’t take the Covid jab, they face total social isolation indefinitely after the stay-at-home order ends in December.

Berejiklian made history for overseeing one of the most fascistic regimes in modern history like nothing we have witnessed in the Western world.

It appears she was bowing to Big Pharma lobbyists and special interest groups once again proving Covid mandates have NOTHING to do with science or saving lives.

Clive Palmer told reporters of Berejiklian: “The only way she gets out of the inquiry is if she pushes the double jab.”

A lefty reporter pushed back on Clive Palmer: “You think the premier of New South Wales is trying to destroy businesses?”

“I do,” Palmer replied. “She’s being directed by lobbyists in Sydney, who is being paid by AstraZeneca and by Pfizer tens of millions of dollars to get these policies through, to make sure the vaccines get pushed…that’s my personal knowledge and I’m happy to make a statement here, to police, to anyone.”

The Gateway Pundit, October 2, 2021.

October 4, 2021:

Domino Effect: New South Wales Sinks Into Political Disarray and Chaos After Six Officials Including its Premier and Deputy Premier Exit

A total of six officials have resigned in the span of three days following tyrannical New South Wales Premier Gladys Berejiklian’s difficult resignation on Friday.  Berjiklian announced her ‘difficult decision’ to resign after a corruption watchdog announced it was looking into her ‘alleged misconduct.’  It was the corruption charges that finally brought the tyrannical leader to step down.

Following NSW Premier Berejiklian’s exit, her Deputy Premier John Barilaro also announced his resignation and will leave parliament. Barilaro said the constant pressure from media scrutiny and his defamation case against YouTuber Jordan Shanks is a ‘big reason’ for his departure from politics.

YouTube star Jordan Shanks responded to Barilaro’s departure and attacks.  Barilaro accused the YouTube star of “vile racism” after Shanks called him ‘a conman to the core, powered by spaghetti.’  “FriendlyJordies” accused Barilaro of using his press conference to smear him as racist.

News.com reported:

New South Wales is in a state of political disarray and chaos, facing multiple costly and distracting by-elections and an uncertain path towards post-Covid freedom.

In the space of three days, NSW has lost its Premier and Deputy Premier, a senior Cabinet Minister, three veteran Coalition members of parliament and will likely need to find a new Treasurer in coming weeks.

The shock resignation on Friday of Premier Gladys Berejiklian, both from the state’s top job and parliament representing the seat of Willoughby, has sparked a domino effect of departures.

Following her today is Deputy Premier John Barilaro, who announced he’s stepping aside from the role as well as quitting as Nationals leader and exiting politics, leaving vacant his regional seat of Monaro.

And on Sunday, Transport Minister Andrew Constance confirmed he would leave the NSW Cabinet and quite state politics for a tilt at a federal seat.

Those three departures will each require a by-election.

Speculation is mounting that more departures from the Coalition ranks could come within days.

Now, just a week away from the end of Sydney’s lockdown and the beginning of a new era in the coronavirus pandemic – one the rest of the country is closely watching – the focus is firmly on the government’s internal woes instead.

Apparently, the judicial system still works in Australia.

The Gateway Pundit, October 4, 2021.

October 4, 2021:

Ok, We’ll Ask The Question, If New South Wales PM Resigned For Pushing VAX With Millions From Pfizer, What About Old Joe?

by L Todd Wood October 4, 2021

We Already Know Biden Crime Family Takes Bribes…Just Read Hunter’s Laptop

Please Follow us on GabMindsTelegramRumbleGab TVGETTR

This morning saw six more politicians on the staff of former New South Wales, Australia Premier Gladys Berejiklian resign over corruption allegations. The crux of the issue is that Berejiklian has reportedly been taking tens of millions of dollars for pushing the big Pharma vaccines on the Australian people, locking them down, and destroying lives and businesses. 

A former Australian member of Parliament came out and said Pfizer and AstraZeneca are paying lobbyists to direct Australia’s leaders to push vaccine mandatesreported The Gateway Pundit.

Clive Palmer, leader of the United Australia Party claimed ousted New South Wales Premier Gladys Berejiklian was told she wouldn’t be charged in a corruption probe if she imposed a vaccine mandate.

We at CDMedia believe we are at just the beginning of further revelations of politicians across the globe taking bribes for acting in big pharama’s interest at the expense of their citizens, even to the point of murder. These actions were taken in conjunction with the globalist CCP virus information operation which also murdered millions, pushed by the Chinese Communist Party and enabled by collaborators in leadership positions in the West. Andrew Cuomo’s actions regarding nursing home deaths in NYC come to mind. 

CDMedia has been reporting on Biden Crime Family corruption since early 2019 in Ukraine, and then the revelations from the Hunter Biden laptop. That investigation showed in fine print Hunter and Joe taking billions from the CCP and 10% going to ‘the big guy’, and Hunter saying he has given his father half his earning for decades. The laptop showed the Biden Crime Family using State Department officials and FBI agents to pursue deals and bribes overseas. The Daily Mail reported much of this. 

Are we to believe that Old Joe has not also taken millions from big Pharma in order to push vaccines, and lockdowns on the American people?

Enquiring minds want to know. It’s a reasonable question.

CDMedia, October 4, 2021.

And then when you realize that Big Pharma is not just an outsider company bribing its way into the federal government’s inner sanctum, to make an extra-big ”killing” on the market — when you realize that Big Pharma is as closely tied to the federal regulatory apparatus as military contractors are to the Pentagon — then you may have stumbled on to the clue to the biggest swindle and power grab of the ”democratic” west.

It is not just bribes and graft and payoffs, at least not in America. The crime here is integral to the progressives’ beloved Administrative State.

So we can expect the center-left, at least, to fight these accusations hard. Not only are their fortunes at stake, so also are their ”sacred” [profane] honor, and — considering the torch-and-pitchfork potential — their very lives.

Not to mention their vision of ”social democracy.”

The far left will increasingly break away from this crowd, along the lines of thought leaders like Jimmy Dore and Glenn Greenwald. But what will the core grifter set do?

Find your pitchfork, and the pitch to keep torches burning, for if we do not hold all the grifters to account — and take the legal proceedings, perhaps, all the way to The Hague, for crimes against humanity — and make charges stick, it will merely embolden them.

And of our progressive friends? Do to them what they have done to individualists, and what must be done to progressive pols: Ridicule them; marginalize them. Tar them with the same brush as the insiders. For it is their ideas that have justified the institutions that have enabled this Crime of the Millennium. Now is no time for squeamishness. All these people must be humiliated and driven from political life, completely removed from power.

That, or this will all just fizzle.

twv

Where do human rights come from?

as . . . answered on Quora. . . .

Rights are human instruments, in law and ethics.

Where do they come from?

Well, they come from human beings’ need to control themselves and others, and from our expressions, judgments, claims, counter-claims, etc. But that isn’t the whole of the story, for just “being an instrument” of purpose and need does not mean that the instrument in question cannot be abandoned, or that all instruments are created equal.

There is something about the inherent concept of a right that disallows many common conceptions. Philosophers and jurists and politicians have been working on the ideas for centuries or longer, but I am going to skip most of that. Suffice it to say that the rightness of a right, so to speak, is not its instrumentality alone.

But let us not forget what a right is, sans its utility, goodness, or justification — let us remember what even an unacceptable right would be.

right is a claim to obligatory treatment. For every right there is at least one obligation — so understanding a right requires understanding obligation, or duty.

Rights are a way of articulating duties.

In law, the obligation marshaled by a right amounts to a legally enforceable — by coercion, compulsion — performance. Or, outside of law but in ethics, legitimately required, with sanctions for non-compliance. If I have a right to liberty, you have a duty not to initiate force upon me. If you have a right to health care, then I must supply you medical aid. When someone fails or refuses to perform the specified duty, at law a case will be somehow made, in criminal or civil court, or merchant law, or the like, to compel the performance of the duty, with penalties.

Now, I wrote above that it is coercion or compulsion that is threatened in the articulation of the right. Well, the threat can be something less than force, but in political philosophy we are usually talking about force, so let’s restrict ourselves to that.

Oh, and I just wrote that word “threat.” Human social systems are dominated by two types of interaction, threats and enticements. Rights are civilized threats. Since we do not like to be threatened, there is a reason that rights that are promoted universally, that all may have, are commonly favored, and, indeed, narrow the field and winnow out many forms of posited duties. Rights that only some may have at the obligation of all are suspect.

So, we can expand our definition somewhat: a right is the positive, beneficiary focus of the articulation of a threat that has as its targeted focus an obligation.

Now we have to make some distinctions. For there are dimensions to rights and obligations: who has the right? who is obligated? what is obligated? To be brief and hastily move through an ideascape that Jeremy Bentham should have covered but did not quite, we have specific rights when the number of rights-bearers are few and the numbers of the duty-bound are few, or singular (I have a right to $1000 from a client; the phone company has a right to $200 from me) and we have rights that all have and to which all are obliged. We have several names for these kinds of rights:

  • natural rights
  • universal rights
  • basic rights
  • human rights

There is something to be said for and against each of these. If one were of a certain type of mind (as I am, on Tuesdays) we could treat each as a distinct term of art. But suffice it, here, to say that these very elementary and foundational rights are what we are most interested in political philosophy, and which deserve most of our attention.

I believe that because of the very construction of this tool, “a right,” most propounded universal rights fail to pass muster.

A human right should make sense in most human societies, and should be performable without causing social chaos and conflict rather than social stability. I have argued, and will argue again, that many of the “rights” some people most desire are mere imposition farded up with the lipstick of effrontery. A right to “healthcare” for example. Folks who talk about these types of rights demand too much of others, literally. For every obligation there is coercion, and it is not reasonable to promote universal servitude. The more rights you propound, the more coercion you thrust into our social reality.

Which is why the right to liberty strikes me as the best contender for a universal, basic, fundamental right: all of us having it at baseline personhood means that all of us have a very simple obligation set, a sort of “do no harm” duty: to not initiate force. This is an easy burden, as obligations go. It requires mainly defensive force for their maintenance in society. Not offensive. It is not imperialistic. It rests upon a tolerant, undemanding, liberal stance.

So you can see where the “imperativeness” comes from, what makes this right a right indeed: universalizability, and a reasonable enticement to all not to promote violence. To reduce the degree of threats in society.

A right to liberty works better than all other contenders because the threat element in the substance of the right is reduced to a minimum for the benefit of all.

Yes. There you have it. Rights are threats, sure, but they must also offer an enticement to reasonable, peaceful people.


I avoid a number of issues of extreme interest to me, but they are not really germane to the question at hand — though they are not utterly tangential, either. These include, especially, what is so “natural” about a “natural right”? and how do we “have” rights?

twv

Related on this blog:

When confronting an unknown, it strikes me that a proper assessment must begin not merely by figuring out “the likeliest” suspect causes but also a much more complete list of the possible suspects.

One of the interesting things about a programmed society is that people reflexively know precisely what they must not even consider.

For example, when COVID broke out in China, we quickly learned that there were virology institutes there. So of course we should have considered, immediately, the possibility of not only gain-of-function research going on, but also its use as bioweaponry.

That is, a rational person would immediately know that an act of war may have occurred.

But fine, upstanding citizens in the west are so fearful of looking foolish, so fearful of a real war with real consequences at home, so phobic even about identifying anyone “outside” as a possible enemy (this is the leftist prejudice), that we all immediately feel the taboo against talking about these possibilities. Even I, who thought these thoughts immediately, hesitated to make much of them.

This is programming.

Whether said programming is the result of psychological warfare from the Chinazis, from the CIA, from the old Soviet legacy, or whether it is an invisible hand result of the memes themselves — the egregori of the noösphere — I don’t know. I suspect a little of each.

In any case, right now, there is the Delta variant and a few other strains of the ’rona percolating through society. As soon as we heard this, what did we think?

Well, the likeliest provenance?

1. Normal mutation of a virus. Zoonotic, that is the technical term few of us could remember before 2020.

But we should have considered two other possibilities, at least:

2. Immune escape from leaky vaccines (Geert Vanden Bossche’s warning) or perhaps even poorly implemented therapeutics; or

3. Just the latest wave of bioweaponry release by the CCP/globalist cadres to effect a political restructuring, giving it some breathing room to avoid calamity that they sit upon, nervously.

These more minatory possibilities should be considered for the same reason that the panicky folk insisted on theorizing about the death of many, many more millions of people: the precautionary principle.

But the thing is, when you consider all options in the face of an unknown, not just the one actually pushed (zoonotic origin and worldwide decimating plague), the policy response would be radically different.

How so? Well, from a war scenario perspective, what the world’s nations have done is surrender.

They have done so by crippling their productive capacity and sapping their will to fight. Instead of encouraging bravery, our rulers shepherded us like bleating sheep. And these sheep? They began mobbing for salvation, suppressing independent thinkers in the herd who might (horrors!) somehow jinx the shepherds’ plan to save us. The one thing no one considered was prepare for a fight. To become stronger not weaker. To become active not indolent. To become fearsome not fearful.

The thing is, actual courage would have made us all healthier.

Despair and lethargy need not have been the ineluctable social result of the new disease. I say that, even if — as appears now wildly unlikely — the disease proved of zoonotic origin, and that the death toll sans mitigation efforts would have been much larger, we would have wound up better off regardless. But I don’t believe either of those two iffy suppositions. I believe the evidence that has been accumulating — that this pandemic was the result of gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China — and I suspect that it may very well have been purposely leaked for political or strategic reasons. I also would bet (were a counterfactual gamble a live option) that a reaction of courage would have spurred us to do what we should have done immediately: engage in OPEN DISCUSSION of a wide variety of treatments, and thereby save millions of lives. Indeed, much of the death count of the last year and a half was preventable not by mitigation but by evidence-based medical treatments (accommodating some good-old-fashioned medical artistry). Sadly, the upshot of the frightened reaction has been massive destruction on multiple levels.

I chiefly blame Donald Trump, whose platforming of the man who funded the virus led to the general panic and to the vaxx-craze — his temptation appears to have been his pathetic, narcissistic need to play Savior.

We cannot really blame the Democrats, who surely capitalized on the leadership collapse, for they are ideological cultists, and cultists gonna cult. Their whole philosophy is servility and the promotion of a gimme-gimme culture, not a culture of courage. One shouldn’t blame them, exactly. One should scorn them as quisling fools. But Republicans have hardly been much better. It is the nature of the GOP to tag along behind the Democracy like the whining mutant crying “too fast! too fast!” but never effectively stopping the parade of decline.

Now, you might be wondering — hey, Republicans tend to be opposed to the lockdowns, why couldn’t they have led better?

Well, Republicans are not leaders. They are followers by nature. Their “leaders” have been heavily over-burdened with ignoramuses and fools. President “W,” Sarah Palin, and Donald Trump all showed amazing degrees of ignorance about the world, and all three push a down-homey simpleton intellectual stance. This sort of cultural preference does not encourage people to courageously think through a problem.

When faced with an unknown, as the pandemic was for the first year, at least, you have to look to more intellectual types.

But our intelligentsia has been almost wholly captured by the cult of the omnipotent state, and the wider smarties class has so convinced itself of its self-groomed status as “the wise” that nearly the whole lot of them has become a herd of fools.

This much we know.

twv

N. B. I am not saying that the bioweaponry possibility is likely. I do not believe the conjecture. But I have explained before why it is not “stupid,” why it is not “tinfoil hat,” as has been asserted. Smart people lay on this predictable anti-conspiracy chatter — most especially trotting out the related notion, the tired cliché that “big conspiracies are too difficult to keep secret” — because they do not research how psychological operations by disinformation artists actually work. That being said, recent reports about a Chinese plan to take their research to infect bats with an agent to prevent a zoonotic upgrade to a human-infecting strain suggests that the Chinese may be innocent. But that does not exonerate a possible (but still not likely) globalist sabotage to leak the virus. In the face of unknowns, one should be humble enough not to throw out dismissive theories unbacked by study. It is better to advance conjectures requiring further study.

On Inauguration Day, fans of Q should’ve read Leon Festinger’s When Prophecy Fails. They didn’t, alas.

Democrats: if you want to outdo Republicans in savvy, I suggest you read that book right about now. The next few months are going to test your devotion.

Hey, we can read it together. Let’s form a book club!

twv

Jew love and Jew hate and the state of debate

“This is extremely low-IQ and evil,” tweeted historian Thomas E. Woods.

The “this” was a tweet by StopAntiSemitism.org (@stopantisemites) featuring a picture of a sneering Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky) with “JEW HATER” festooned over it. The commentary attached says

Why is @RepThomasMassie our ‘Antisemite of the Week’? 

– Only R to vote against Iron Defense Dome funding

– Only R to vote against labeling BDS as antisemitic

– Voted AGAINST Holocaust education 

– Trivializes Holocaust with vile COVID comparisons

Tom Woods insists that “They know he isn’t an ‘anti-Semite.’ They just want to destroy him. . . .”

Why?

Because, to paraphrase Woods’ words, he won’t fund what they want him to fund.

Massie hasn’t proved himself fearful of the Israel lobby, which is indeed a powerful influence in Washington, and maybe, just maybe, he could have taken more care to explain past votes. But it’s hard not to see more innocent rationales for each offending vote.

Mostly, Massie is against 

  • excessive spending, 
  • subsidizing the rich (and Israel is rich), and 
  • against most federal education programs.
  • Etcetera.

He votes No, and often.

You could call him anti-almost-anything. But he is really, quite clearly, anti-big spending.

@RepThomasMassie, for his part, tweeted against a less odious attack — by AIPAC, which focused on Israel’s subsidized-in-the-USA “Iron Dome” defense system.

AIPAC stands for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Massie blundered here, big time, though: AIPAC is an American organization. In defending Massie, Glenn Greenwald put up a well-earned cringe emoji.

But being clumsy about issues that concern them is not just a Massie problem. Going to the StopAntisemism.org website, I see this oddity: “Startling results show Jewish employees are not included in diversity initiatives amongst corporate giants as a whole” — about as startling as seeing Germans as generals or Indians as moteliers.

While none of this is very consequential — congressional Democrats include more than one obvious anti-Semite (first to mind? Ilhan Omar), and they breeze right past the accusations — it is indicative of the sad state of political rhetoric.

twv

This was the splash pic for my first podcast with this libertarian luminary.

A few more minutes with the Great Dennis Pratt:

The Locofoco Netcast always sports a video version. This short episode, however, can be found as video only on LocoFoco.Locals.com.

Meanwhile, on Paul Jacob’s podcast, I get a few words in, if edgewise:

This Week in Common Sense, Sept. 20-24, 2021. Also on SoundCloud.

twv

There is a distinction, current in sociobiology, that is worth noting for our understanding of racism: the difference between positive and negative ethnocentrism.

As I understand it, positive ethnocentrism is the tendency to prefer your own kind over others, to give them special consideration. This is basically family love and commonality taken beyond clan and to the tribal and even national level. Negative ethnocentrism is the tendency to disfavor, discount or even hate members not of your kith and kin and country.

The importance of positive ethnocentrism to the survival and progress of our species can hardly be under-estimated. Negative ethnocentrism is a much more difficult subject, and it would be worth knowing how much of it is a mere extrapolation from positive ethnocentrism and how much derives from the same or quite distinct impulses/instincts.

Of course, one value of negative ethnocentrism is fairly obvious: it bolsters positive ethnocentrism. But it presents also a danger, for negative ethnocentrism can embroil societies in warfare that advances no group’s welfare. Internecine conflict bought on hatred, loathing or mere fear is just that, internecine, unprofitable for all parties. The obvious problem with negative ethnocentrism is that it leads to negative sum interactions.

Now, it is obvious that both forms require a regulatory propensity, tradition, or law. Or something. One can be too positively ethnocentric as well as too negatively ethnocentric. I suspect the lack of any kind of ethnocentrism is also a vice.

Now, racism takes the group particularism beyond nation (shared genes and language and culture) to a larger grouping based on certain morphological markers of no small but often less definite significance — shared genes are fewer, several language groups could be involved, and the cultures can be startlingly different. Anti-racism started out as an attack on racism as a negative ethnocentrism unbounded by nationalism. But ideas don’t stay put, and hidden in each memeplex lies the seed of its own destruction . . . when the “infected” take one salient element to an unwarranted extreme. We witness just this in current woke attacks upon racism that have led to attacks upon any kind of positive ethnocentrism (at least by powerful white people). The result is a bizarre altruism: the fear and hatred not of the outsider but of one’s own kind.

There are few mind viruses more loopy than white intellectuals hating on whites . . . in general. This cultural development is ridiculous, in that it is anti-racism carried to the unwarranted extreme of an inverse (rather than reverse) racism.

It is probably worth mentioning that one impetus for the development of this inverse racism is likely quite simple: noticing that racism-as-hatred entails fallacious discriminatory treatment against individuals because of an invidious distaste or distrust of members of their race in general, it crosses one’s mind that discriminatory treatment for individuals because of a valorized love of one’s own kind is also kind of fallacy. And it can be. But a predisposition for one’s own kind is not on the same level of error, for a number of reasons. Like what? Well, one of them is our limited capacity for altruistic action, which requires us to expect limitations in fellow-feeling, and, by a small step in reasoning, we should expect it to flourish most in cases of similarity and commonality (not “identity”); it is in family, clan, community and culture where we should expect to see altruism first flourish, and if we do not see it here, we are unlikely to see it elsewhere. A moralistic duty to cultivate altruism for people furthest from us is likely to induce a pharisaic sense of love and a heightening of ugly moralism in culture.

Which we do in fact see.

Whereas positive ethnocentrism is an oikophilia, the reversal stemming from fanatical attachment to anti-racist ideas is sometimes called oikophobia; whereas negative ethnocentrism is called xenophobia, the inverse racism valorizing others over “ours” gets the moniker xenocentrism.

So far I have not taken up the philosophical account of racism. That defines racism as the taking into the realm of justice the errors of fools: namely, the errors of judging parts by wholes and wholes by parts, the misconstruing of the relationship between sets and members, the fallacies of ad hominem and guilt by association, and even the genetic fallacy.

These are obviously complex subjects, but it has to be useful to draw out the full continua on which the concepts associated with racism and anti-racism belong. While I am aware of some of the phenomenological literature on this, and have read a few relevant papers in sociobiology, I am obviously a beginner here. But I do notice something: many well-regarded experts seem laggard in this endeavor to draw out the full range of key concepts.

So, though there has to be much good work done on this subject, it remains regrettable that it is the shoddy, beginner-level work that too often stands out. This apparent fact, however, does not mean that the subject is suspect. Merely that most participants are.

Oh, and it is OK to be white. If you think otherwise, on what grounds? That some who say this are racist? That is illogical, as we say: fallacious. The fallacy is guilt by association.

For the record, I rarely think of myself as “white.” But because I am of solid Yamnaya genetics, hailing from Finland with genetic markers labeling that heritage at about 96 percent, I sometimes express commonality with my fellow Finns and Finnish-Americans. But because I am also an individualist, my particular flavor could be called Finndividualism.

There are not many of us Finndividualists, but perhaps more in America than in the woke home country.

twv

Why were the ideas of the Austrian School of Economics never implemented?

. . . as answered on Quora. . . . 

The “Austrian School” is a movement of social scientists sharing similar method while working out a rigorous analysis that first flowered in late 19th century Vienna. The tradition started with Carl Menger’s Grundsätse in 1871, and carried on in several major works by Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk and Friedrich Freiherr von Wieser in the 1880s, till their deaths. Böhm-Bawerk’s work quickly became world-famous, especially his writings on capital and interest, his extremely clear explanations of Menger’s price formation theory, and his understanding of subjective value in the concept of what Wieser called Grenznutzen (“marginal use” or, more commonly, marginal utility). Wieser formulated the crucial concept of opportunity cost, building on work of the French Liberal School economists Frédéric Bastiat and Courcelle-Seneuil. Menger, Böhm-Bawerk, and Wieser were all Austrians, as were a great number of the next generation of the movement — Eugen Philippovich von Philippsberg, Viktor Mataja, Richard Strigl, Hans Mayar — and, of course, the two that remain the most famous, Ludwig von Mises and F.A. Hayek.

Menger gave up academia for tutoring the crown prince of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire. He hoped to influence policy — and it is policy that is meant by “ideas” to be “implemented” in the OQ, right? — through his instruction of that one man. Who committed suicide for murky reasons, making Menger’s career bet a bad one. But both B-B and Wieser held major positions in the government. B-B was even on currency.

They did implement Austrian ideas on policy, B-B especially. Later on, Mises, working for the Chamber of Commerce, advised the government. Some say he helped save as much of the old liberal order that could have been, by fighting inflationism. Mises developed a coherent and powerful theory of the business cycle (trade cycle) which was taken up by the younger scholar, F.A. Hayek, who predicted America’s Great Depression while the great Irving Fisher asserted it was all roses just on the eve of disaster in 1929. Hayek went to the London School of Economics, where he elaborated the Misesian theory in interesting and perhaps ungainly ways, caused quite a furor (convincing many), but was then outdone by Keynes.

Why did Keynes “win” this debate? He offered a few very enticing things, the most important being an excuse for politicians and ideologues-on-the-make to engage in governmental fiscal recklessness, spending more than revenue and increasing the levels of debt, and push monetary inflation, as well. Austrian policy is designed to restrain government and serve the greatest number of people through stability. That is, politically, no match for the Keynesian Temptation. Besides, Keynes’s General Theory, his second big book to push his favorite policy (Hayek “destroyed” the first one, which almost no one reads any more), was such a conceptual mess it gave academics whole careers trying to make sense of it and defend it. Hayek was late in the game with his behemoth failure, The Pure Theory of Capital, which could have had a similar effect, except that the Austrians never encouraged elaborate mathematical formalism, and economists hoping to become court wizards to the emerging welfare state order needed that bit of hocus pocus to advance their social position.

Mises, meanwhile, belatedly fleeing Austria from the Nazis (who hated Mises for being a liberal and a Jew), moved to Switzerland and then the States, in which he could not get a good teaching position through normal means: the crowding-out effect of the order of wizards meant that the universities had no interest in this pioneer theorist of ordinal utility, money, boom-bust and banking, and the impossibility of economic calculation in a socialist commonwealth — he was shut out. He was left to pick up just a few students who carried on this now quite fugitive and subversive work: Israel Kirzner and Murray N. Rothbard are the two great Austrians who came out of the 1960s.

Mises was considered an “intransigent,” occasionally embarrassing fellow liberal/libertarians like Milton Friedman (who was not Austrian in approach). Like in the case of business cycle theory, the Mises-Hayek critique of socialist calculation (another of Hayek’s LSE projects) was said to have been “won” by their enemies. Then, after the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union collapsed, the Austrian position triumphed. Even the egregious Robert Heilbroner admitted that “Mises was right.”

Every time a socialist state dies, replaced by something more market oriented, I tip my hat to Mises’ shade and smile when I say “now that is a kind of implementation of Austrian policy; step in the right direction, anyway.”

twv

I’ve heard a number of theories about why the vaxxed want to force the vax upon the unvaxxed.

All have some merit, perhaps, including the one I just encountered: “they want you dead!”

But I think a somewhat more subtle and occult rationale is more likely at play: the vaxxed know there are huge unknowns, and that the resolutely unvaxxed claim that the vax may be [“is”] deadly. This makes the vaxxed uncomfortable. They hate the unvaxxed, despise the unvaxxed. But they fear the unvaxxed may be correct. So one reason for universal forced vaccination may be to ensure that if their enemies are right, their enemies die too. They have made their gamble, and wish to make sure everyone shares the risk.

Which is the essence of left statism, now that I think of it.

Universal vaccination may serve, psychologically, as the most outlandish defense against falsifiability and a partisan ”we told you so” in human history.

twv

What we know, pretty much for sure:

1. Fauci funded Daszak to create SARS-CoV-2 via gain-of-function research ostensibly to develop a robust mRNA vaccine in case of a zoonotic outbreak — but the carelessness or evil of folks on the ground at the Wuhan Institute for Virology (the Chinese who circuitously received U.S. tax funds) means that an iatrogenic leak preëmpted the “expected” breakout and “necessitated” a hasty and under-studied deployment of said treatments.

2. Democrats — from at least the Bill Clinton Administration on — have had tight, and quite suspicious, relationships with the “communists” in China.

Joe Biden’s son and brother received millions for their . . . influence peddling . .. from Chinese “businesses.” Biden was anti-Russia and pro-China as a campaign strategy. Democrats generally lambasted Trump for his half-quarantining travel embargo on China (early 2020) and for calling the new pathogen “the China virus,” saying it was “racist”to do so — even after they had been parlaying hatred and distrust, dangerously, at “Russia” for four years, on trumped-up (excuse me) evidence, now quite clear in the Mueller Report and later investigations.

What we must, therefore,* speculate:

3. Insiders in and around the Democratic Party and within the Administrative State (both Deep and Wide) have been working for decades to shift American power to China, in a great baton hand-off of imperialist power (let’s call it “The Mandate of Heaven”), just as British liberals and bankers did to America in the first half of the 20th century. Their reaction to the pandemic has fit in with this agenda, though most stumbled into it by Invisible Hand influences.

I think this is a pretty good surmise. It may not be true. I think it probably is, but am willing to drop it if falsified.

But the Democrats’ general preference for the Chinese commies is quite clear, and despicable. Further, the corruption of the Clintons was clear in the 1990s, just as the corruption of the Bidens is clear today.

Since the 1990s, to repeat, America’s globalist role has been deprecated in favor of China’s reëmergence. By whom? Name the suspects. Whoever; whomever. In any case, even our generals need to signal their willingness to go along with this transfer of power, hence the alleged call of General Milley to his counterpart in the Celestial Kingdom. These American leaders have to jockey for survival even as they negotiate the greatest power hand-off of all time.

What the precise machinations are I’ve barely a clue. But the American nation state is bankrupt financially and culturally — it is pretty much over.

The key drivers behind all this may be a tad more mundane than a conspiracy, I do not doubt:

  1. Big Pharma profits;
  2. Groupthink on a grand scale, a lemming stampede based on fear and disinformation
  3. The statist presumption of salvation by State intervention;
  4. Trump Derangement Syndrome and all the ideological baggage that entailed;
  5. The leftist assumption that ”we” (westerners; Americans) are bad and ”they” (whatever the Other of the Day may be) are innocent, victims of ”our” oppression;
  6. Media and political gains from dividing people against each other;
  7. A complete lack of leadership to marshal courage in Americans, whose experience is key worldwide;
  8. Civilizational Death Wish?!?!

But these underlying forces, which sure seem operative everywhere these days, do not explain everything. The existence of international elites as well as partisan American elites cannot be doubted, but their exact agenda? How coordinated is it? I suspect that there has been coordination at key moments all through the pandemic. But hey! Can all this be proven?

Well, not when evidence is deliberately lied about and suppressed, and dissidents de-platformed. And not, especially, while thought leaders continually accept stonewalling evasion as dissuasive of guilt, when it should be regarded as indicative of same. We have to accept common standards of evidence to prove something, and American politics has abandoned any shared standard of evidence since at least Reagan’s time, when GHWB and friends engaged in Iran-Contra.

twv

* The imperative, here, lies in the Precautionary Principle, if applied in ways not accepted by those who usually try to implement it.