Big Corporations Now Deploying Woke Ideology the Way Intelligence Agencies Do: As a Disguise, by Glenn Greenwald

By draping itself in the finery of political activism, the corporatist class consolidates political power, corrupts democracy and distracts from its real functions.

In my very early days in the Libertarian movement I encountered a publication entitled The Libertarian Handbook 1973 (Vincent McCaffrey and Mark Frazier, editors; published by Avenue Victor Hugo, Boston, Massachusetts). It was a useful catalog/guide of organizations, services, publications, and related pre-Internet networking tools. It also had a few essays or articles of a philosophical bent. One of these has firmly stuck in my mind since I first read it decades ago. It vigorously put forth the case that the Libertarian movement would remain merely a side show academic exercise or parlor game until it focused upon the real nature of the military hierarchical command structure of obedience and deference to higher authority of  the National Security State. Until legions of Libertarian “George Pattons” within the military who seriously took their Oath of Allegiance “to defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic” arose to challenge state usurpation and tyranny  — the movement would remain impotent and sterile.

Talk about cognitive dissonance or contradictory concepts to grasp!

Libertarians throughout history have been in the forefront of the anti-militarist tradition, opposed to standing armies and imperial aggression and aggrandizement. Would the very survival and defense of the diminished remnants of the American republic from a deep state “fifth column” coup d’état come down to championing a counter-coup by an Oliver Cromwell and his military cohort as republican defenders of rights and liberties against this globalist leviathan?

Since September 11, 2001 the Constitution of the United States has been suspended and we have been operating under extra-constitutional Continuity of Government.

This is no longer an idle or academic question to casually ignore.

The existential day of reckoning under the usurper Biden administration has arrived. Massive widespread implementation of duplicitous “woke” changes in the orientation and make-up of the military hierarchal command structure of obedience and servile deference to higher authority of  the National Security State is occurring, coupled with belligerent calls for putting this mechanism on a war footing, marshalling for eminent intervention abroad. It is something that everyone must give high priority of serious reflection and commitment to action.

For additional background resources on Continuity of Government (COG) see: Continuity of Government? by Ron Paul; Continuity of Government: Is the State of Emergency Superseding Our Constitution? by Peter Dale Scott; The Doomsday Project and Deep Events: JFK, Watergate, Iran-Contra, and 9/11; by Peter Dale Scott; 9/11, Deep State Violence and the Hope of Internet Politics, by Peter Dale Scott;  911 and Continuity of Government (COG); U.S. MILITARY CIVIL DISTURBANCE PLANNING: THE WAR AT HOME;  National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive;  REX 84;  Rumsfeld Updated Army’s Continuity of Operations Plan before 9/11; HOW THE DOOMSDAY PROJECT LED TO WARRANTLESS SURVEILLANCE AND DETENTION AFTER 9/11;  Executive Orders; Executive Order — National Defense Resources Preparedness; and Fema Continuity of Operations.

Headline today is that the Fear and Death Administration (FDA) has “temporarily” banned the Johnson and Johnson “vaccine” because too many people who have taken the vaccine have dropped dead from blood clots caused by the concoction.

(Did Fauci take that one or the other one?  Inquiring minds want to know).

Letter 1

From: Klaus Schmidt

Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 3:16 PM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: “Morality” with regard to the initial of force

Dr. Block,

My name is Klaus Schmidt and I’m an Ancap who is a great fan of your work. You’ve always stated that capitalism is an amoral system and is not concerned with moral beliefs. My question is, would determining when it’s acceptable to aggress against another individual be included in the realm of “morality”? I’ve read so much of your work but have yet to come across an explanation and my guess is that the conduct of how we deal with aggression has more to do with ethics as opposed to morality. It seems that other writers may have gotten this confused? I know Michael Huemer made a comment about that in an article regarding your view on animal rights. Clarification on this would be greatly appreciated.

All the best,

Klaus

(more…)

Dear Gregg:

Thanks for this fascinating analysis of yours. I don’t agree or disagree with it. I’m not sure. I believe in the division of labor and specialization, and this data is a bit out of the realm I usually operate in. In other words, I’m too lazy to delve into this with the limited effort I can call upon. Sorry.

Best regards,

Walter

(more…)

From: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 7:09 PM

To: ‘David Chávez Salazar’

Subject: RE: Hello Professor Block

Dear David:

Thanks for your kind words. I really appreciate them.

Trump is very good on reducing regulations, taxes and creating peace in the Middle East; he is bad on protectionism, deficits. I vastly prefer him to Biden who is a socialist.

If populism helps promote liberty I favor it to that extent. If Biden wins in 2020, this is still a question, I hope Rand Paul becomes president in 2024.

Best regards,

Walter

(more…)

From: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 6:33 PM

To: ‘Jon Trollston’

Subject: RE: Private law and international trade.

Dear Jon:

That’s quite a few good questions.

All voluntary trade is mutually beneficial in the ex ante sense, intra national or international. It would bring costs down since there’d be more goods and services, thanks to a greater specialization and division of labor. Under anarcho capitalism transactions and all other costs would be lower than under statism and central planning. I presume payment could be made in whatever the free enterprise money is: gold, crypto currency, or something else.

Best regards,

Walter

From: Jon Trollston

Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2020 9:35 AM

To: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Subject: Private law and international trade.

Hello mister block, i am looking for sources on how costs would be distributed concerning international trade in a private law society.

My question is would we expect to see higher costs at say the post office? Given that the government would no longer produce law and police? Would it be the case that whatever firm protects me would communicate with whatever firm protects the seller or buyer in the case of a dispute? Would this even be feasible in terms of transaction costs? What are the costs that all participants are bearing here for this transaction to happen? Am i correct in assuming the issue of payment is a non issue? Given that we can bring in a website like paypal or some other form of escrow like it’s done with crypto payments.

Thank you in advance.

From: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 5:11 PM

To: ‘Sebastian Ortiz’

Subject: RE:

Dear Sebastian:

Thanks for sharing with me your important thoughts.

I’m a firm believer in specialization and comparative advantage. I’m into peaceful protest not violence, except when it comes to shaking that last bit of ketchup out of the bottle. Then, watch out!

Best regards,

Walter

From: Sebastian Ortiz

Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 12:28 AM

Subject:

Juan Sebastian Ortiz Madriz

From the standpoint of human psychology and political science:

The extreme naivety and stupid, neophyte intellectual arrogance of libertarians comes from thinking that statism is the result of bad ideas and not of violent action, and that the sheeplike compliance of statist joes with violent people is essentially different from the reason why they, the libertarians try to counter violent action with peaceful argument: cowardice.

If anything the difference at any given time is that the violent in power are the most intelligent among the violent and that the violent in jail are the least intelligent among violent and that the majority inside and outside of jail (which under statism isn’t much different) are simply those who are either less intelligent or equally intelligent and less violent.  To have the arrogance of saying “I, innocent, condemn your injustice.” is worthy of a ten year old who has watched too many fairy tale movies.  Whoever wants to implement a “more just” system to their own whim will first have to prove to be more violent and intelligent than those who he aims to overthrow.  That is how it’s always been and there are serious doubts cast on whether it’ll be different in the future, it certainly isn’t these days.

Due Process, Adult Sexual Morality and the Case of Rep. Matt Gaetz, by Glenn Greenwald

The Florida Congressman has not been charged with any crimes. But the reaction to this case raises important questions of political, legal and cultural judgments.

Assuming that he actually did get it like he said. Fauci says that he still won’t eat indoors at a restaurant or go to a movie theater. He still avoids “indoor, crowded places where people are not wearing masks.” He says “his day-to-day life remains essentially unchanged from the way it was before he got his shots.” So what he is afraid of? I thought the vaccine protected him?

David M. Hart is second to none in researching and elucidating upon the historic critiques of Karl Marx and Marxism. Scroll down here for exemplary examples.

See his Socialism: A Study Guide and Reader, and the discussion by authoritative scholars concerning the seminal article, Virgil Storr, “Marx and the Morality of Capitalism.”

• Karl Marx, The Man Behind the Communist Revolution — Richard M. Ebeling article.

Excellent concise biography of the man whose evil ideas were responsible for the deaths of over 100 million persons by their own governments in the 20th Century.

• Karl Marx: Communist as Religious Eschatologist — Murray N. Rothbard article.

Murray N. Rothbard’s brilliant online essay, “Karl Marx: Communist as Religious Eschatologist,” is the most powerful indictment of Marxism ever written.

• Karl Marx, Racist, Book by Nathaniel Weyl

Marx was a vicious racist and anti-Semite. His demonic apocalyptic vision of genocide and destruction led to the deaths of over 100 million victims by their murderous Marxist regimes.

Reviewed by Dr. Gary North: “This is an irrefutable book. Not many books in history are. I have a Ph.D. in history. I wrote a book on Marx’s thought, which was published in 1968. I went through more primary source documents by Marx and Engels than most professional historians ever do. This book is a compilation of direct citations from primary source documents. Weyl assembled the citations in one book, for which historians should be grateful. The one-star ratings are offered by readers who cannot bear the thought that their beloved Marx wrote what he very clearly did write. If you have any doubts, buy this book and read it.Then follow the footnotes. This book was dropped down the academic memory hole from the day it was published. Marxism was still a faith shared by academics in the West. Deng abandoned the faith in the year this book was published: 1979. In December 1991, the experiment in Marxism was abandoned by the USSR. This left the aging holdouts in the West high and dry. The few Western Marxists who had read Weyl’s book never forgave him for writing it. Weyl was one of theirs who abandoned the faith early. This always outrages the faithful in any religion, which Marxism was — a religion of revolution.”

• Requiem for Marx — Book by Yuri N. Maltsev (editor).

After the fall of communism, and certainly after this wide-ranging demolition of Marxism by Austrian scholars, who can possibly defend Marxism? Plenty of people, many of them smart otherwise but uneducated in economics. This book is the antidote, covering the whole history of this nutty and dangerous system of thought. It begins by an alternately hilarious and tragic introduction by the editor Yuri Maltsev. He describes in vivid detail life in the Soviet Union, which, he points out contrary to myth, was indeed an attempt to realize Marx’s vision. Of course the system moved away from the strict doctrine, lest everyone in the country be reduced to the most primitive possible economic conditions. He describes a society in which nothing works, ethics and morals collapse, and absurdities abound in every aspect of daily life. It is a priceless first-hand account.

Next come sweeping essays by David Gordon and Hans-Hermann Hoppe that get into the guts of the Marxian system and show where it went wrong from both a philosophical and economic perspective. Hoppe in particular here shows how Marx took classical liberal doctrine on the state and misapplied it in ways that contradicted all logic and experience.

Gary North provides a devastating look at Marx the man, while Ralph Raico zeros in on the Marxian doctrine of class. Finally, and as a triumphant finish, Rothbard offers a wholesale revision of the basis of Marxism. It was not economics, he says. It was the longing for a universal upheaval to overthrow all things we know about the world and replace it with a crazed fantasy based secular/religious longings. Rothbard finds all this in the unknown writings of Marx and his post-millennial predecessors in the history of ideas.

• Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis — Book by Ludwig von Mises.

Socialism is the most important critical examination of socialism ever written. Socialism is most famous for Mises’s penetrating economic calculation argument. The book contains much more however. Mises not only shows the impossibility of socialism: he defends capitalism against the main arguments socialists and other critics have raised against it. A centrally planned system cannot substitute some other form of economic calculation for market prices, because no such alternative exists. Capitalism is true economic democracy. Socialism addresses the contemporary issues of economic inequality and argues that wealth can exist for long periods only to the extent that wealthy producers succeed in satisfying the consumers. Mises shows that there is no tendency to monopoly in a free market system. Mises analyzes reform measures, such as social security and labor legislation, which in fact serve to impede the efforts of the capitalist system to serve the masses. Socialism is a veritable encyclopedia of vital topics in the social sciences, all analyzed with Mises’s unique combination of historical erudition and penetrating insight.

• Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth — Ludwig von Mises article.

This is the essay that overthrew the socialist paradigm in economics, and provided the foundation for modern Austrian price theory. When it first appeared in 1920, Mises was alone in challenging the socialists to explain how their pricing system would actually work in practice. Mises proved that socialism could not work because it could not distinguish more or less valuable uses of social resources, and predicted the system would end in chaos. The result of his proof was the two-decade-long “socialist calculation” debate.

• Collectivist Economic Planning — Book by F. A. Hayek (editor).

In 1920, Ludwig von Mises dropped a bombshell on the European economic world with his article called “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth.” It argued that socialism was impossible as an economic system. It set off two decades of debate, so by the time the essays appeared in English, in this very book here, in 1935, the debate was still raging. This volume edited by F.A. Hayek dug the knife into socialism’s heart unlike any book to ever appear. It contains essays by Mises along with a foreword and afterword by Hayek. It also contains more commentary by N.G. Pierson, George Halm, and Enrico Barone. It is exceptionally well edited and beautifully argued, and has not been in print for many years. The contents are nothing short of prophetic. The so-called “Calculation Argument” has never been answered. It shows that without private property in capital goods, there can be no prices and hence no data available for cost accounting. Production becomes random at best, and completely irrational. Mises had convinced his generation and this book completely devastates the whole socialist apparatus from a theoretical point of view.

• Karl Marx and the Close of His System –– Book by Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk.

The great economist takes on Karl Marx, and his fundamental failure to understand the workings of the capital market and its relationship to value. The criticism was devastating, so much so that a leading Marxist responded, and thus herein is Rudolf Hilferding’s response. It is very weak, as you will undoubtedly notice. The book is introduced by the socialist Paul Sweezy, and he too tries to rescue the Marxists from the corner into which Böhm-Bawerk drives them. So this book makes for great drama, and it is a pleasure to see the Austrian come out on top despite every effort by the compiler of the book to prevent it.

• Marxist Dreams and Soviet Realities — Article by Ralph Raico

(more…)

In this powerful excerpt above from the award-winning documentary, The Soviet Story, it focuses upon the egregious notion that mass killing or genocide is a necessary pretext for implementing the socialist terror utopia, whether in the international socialist construct of Marxism-Leninism, or the National Socialist state of Adolf Hitler. Socialism = Genocide. In fact, as the film decisively points out this destructive idea of genocide originated with Karl Marx and his collaborator Friedrich Engels. This is an inconvenient historical fact not found in Raoul Peck’s laudatory biopic, The Young Karl Marx, or in his recent HBO four part documentary series, Exterminate All the Brutes.

Last night I watched the new HBO documentary series, Exterminate All the Brutes, conceived and directed by Raoul Peck. It has received rave, enthusiastic reviews from all the usual suspects. Wikipedia notes:

 Exterminate All the Brutes received positive reviews from film critics. It holds a 82% approval rating on review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, based on 17 reviews, with a weighted average of 8/10. The site’s critical consensus reads, “While Exterminate All the Brutes perhaps packs a little too much into its limited runtime, it remains a powerful, necessary examination of the horrors of historical colonialism and its lingering impact on the world today.”  On Metacritic, the series holds a rating of 82 out of 100, based on 12 critics, indicating “universal acclaim”

Visually stunning and cinematically innovating, this four episode personal visual screed is exactly what one would expect from the director of a laudatory biopic on The Young Karl Marx.  Ideologue Peck is the Leni Riefenstahl of our time. Her personal epic, Triumph of the Will (Triumph des Willens) the 1935 documentary is considered the propaganda feature film of all time, deifying Adolf Hitler as the Aryan messiah and liberator of the German people. Raoul Peck is now her rival in producing such agitprop.

His powerful film consciously manipulates selected ahistorical distortions of world history concerning its singular focus upon white supremacy, colonization, and genocide to outrage and misinform its target audience. In its discussion of genocide and indigenous peoples, there is nothing about the horrific murderous conduct of pre-Columbian indigenous peoples such as the Aztecs or Incas in reference to other peoples of the Americas, nothing concerning the barbarism of Genghis Khan and his imperial conquests stretching across Asia to the borders of Europe. Nothing about the genocidal seven century Trans-Saharan Arab slave trade prior to the Europeans where tens of millions were captured and transported to the Middle East to await horrific servitude and death (young boys selected as future eunuchs were brutally castrated, both penis and scrotum without antiseptic — millions died en route, while young women were taken to the harem/rape rooms and their newborn babies slaughtered) or about the continual Arab Muslim enslavement of Europeans long after slavery had been abolished in the Americas. Nothing about the populating of the North American colonies and the West Indies with millions of white slaves, sold on the action block, and treated with abominable and callous disregard.

In its focus on more recent history there is nothing about the genocidal campaign of the virulently racist Japanese empire in the Second World War in China, where over ten million persons deemed inferior were slaughtered, nothing about the Rape of Nanking, the singular atrocity which surpassed the Nazis’ European genocide in intensity and concentrated extermination of “the other.” And of course there is nothing in the documentary series of the incalculable genocide of Communist regimes of the Twentieth Century targeting over 100, 000, 000 of their own citizens for slaughter and destruction. Nothing about the alliance of Hitler’s National Socialist Germany and the Socialist Soviet empire under mass murderer Joseph Stalin and their mutual culpability for creating the greatest catastrophe of slaughter in world history, with over seventy million slain, and millions more having their lives shattered and irreparably damaged.  No, an ideologue such as Raoul Peck would never bring attention to these inconvenient and inescapable brutal facts of history.

In this Chris Williamson interview it is pointed out that leftist Ta-Nehisi Coates has featured the philosophy of someone suspiciously like Jordan Peterson in Marvel Comics’ new Captain America. Is Jordan Peterson actually a magic super-Nazi? What do Red Skull, 12 Rules For Life and Order & Chaos have in common? Are Marvel playing a joke or taking this seriously? Is Jordan releasing a Red Skull themed clothing line? Below are more commentary concerning this vicious absurd attack.

“The mouthpieces of the scientific establishment have identified the latest global security threat: antiscience. So what does that mean, exactly? Whatever they want it to mean, of course! This week on The Corbett Report podcast, James explores the game of Science Says that the self-appointed experts are playing with the public and outlines how that game is about to get a whole lot darker.”

Documentation

(more…)

As I (and many other persons) have strongly and repeatedly emphasized, this is the most important issue facing our immediate future.

 Juan Despierto reports

a strange occurrence from yesterday afternoon at the local university developmental school (it is a k-12 school) here. My son had a tennis match there (he plays for a small Christian school). About halfway through the match, 5:30 p.m., a woman with a red pull-along cooler appears at the tennis courts with a young child walking next to her. Upon first impression she looked like a drink vendor (back when there used to be sporting events that people attended en masse) with a bright red shirt on to gain attention. Then she opened her mouth and to everyone’s surprise she was not hawking drinks or refreshments but “vaccines”. 

To paraphrase her pitch: “I’ve got vaccines, anyone want a vaccine? Pfizer. Moderna. Available here. Anyone want a vaccine?” According to her, they were leftovers from the day’s lot and would be thrown out if not used. Most of the 20 adults and 30 kids in attendance were in shock that this was actually happening. No, it was not some kind of hidden camera moment. One adult male actually volunteered to be jabbed with the experimental treatment. The jabber did not give any disclosures or warnings as far as I could tell, and the jabbee only asked one question, “Do I have to pay for it?” She replied “No”, the health department is furnishing the treatments. After completing the injection, she made one more call to action that was again ignored by everyone, followed by the comment, “I’ll go to Walmart to get rid of the rest of these,” and then disappeared the same way she seemed to appear from nowhere.

The bright side for me is that most people were in no rush to be jabbed, at least in the group we were with. Also seems to poke a hole in the shortage narrative since they are throwing away doses.

Juan, are you alleging that Our Rulers lied to us? What are you, some kinda conspiracy nut?

When a sane and decent person learns that his actions harm others—even if he intends otherwise, even if his behavior would ordinarily earn plaudits—he desists.

When a sociopath learn that he’s hurting others, he doubles down. 

Which brings us to a story out of Colorado:

Operations at the mass vaccination event at Dick’s Sporting Goods Park in Commerce City have been put on pause after multiple adverse reactions to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine Wednesday, according to a spokesperson for Centura Health.

“Put on pause”? How about “discontinued”?

Following the administration of the vaccine and during observation onsite, a “limited number” of adverse reactions to the vaccine occurred, the spokesperson originally said. The spokesperson later confirmed 11 people who were vaccinated Wednesday had an adverse reaction. Medical staff on site determined two individuals required additional observation and were taken to nearby hospitals out of an abundance of caution.

Hmmm. “An abundance of caution” is the TSA’s pro-forma excuse for its atrocities, too. 

“We know it can be alarming to hear about people getting transported to the hospital, 

Bingo. It also warns folks of even minimal intellect about The Jab’s dangers.

and we want to reassure Coloradans that the CDC and public health are closely monitoring all the authorized vaccines continually. 

Well, that explains the “adverse reactions,” doesn’t it?

From what we know, today’s side effects were consistent with what can be expected,” 

Then count me out.

said Scott Bookman, COVID-19 Incident Commander. 

“COVID-19 Incident Commander”? Good gracious! Is that side-splittingly funny or ominous and creepy?

“Getting a vaccine is far safer than getting severely sick with COVID-19.”

So says the “Incident Commander,” thereby demonstrating that he’s as risible as his title.

From: Klaus Schmidt

Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 3:16 PM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: “Morality” with regard to the initial of force

Dr. Block,

My name is Klaus Schmidt and I’m an Ancap who is a great fan of your work. You’ve always stated that capitalism is an amoral system and is not concerned with moral beliefs. My question is, would determining when it’s acceptable to aggress against another individual be included in the realm of “morality”? I’ve read so much of your work but have yet to come across an explanation and my guess is that the conduct of how we deal with aggression has more to do with ethics as opposed to morality. It seems that other writers may have gotten this confused? I know Michael Huemer made a comment about that in an article regarding your view on animal rights. Clarification on this would be greatly appreciated.

All the best,

Klaus

(more…)

From: igorwysocki

Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2020 2:22 PM

To: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Subject: a kind request?

Dear Walter,

how are you doing? Are you safe and healthy?

Incidentally, Łukasz Dominiak and I are preparing a paper on blackmail. Would you be so kind to send me your output on blackmail? And possibly fraud too?

We would appreciate it.

With best wishes

Igor

(more…)

Letter 1

From: The NAPster

Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2020 7:59 AM

To: Kenn Williamson ; Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Subject: Typhoid Mary

Walter and Kenn:

Interesting discussion that you two are having.

I agree with Kenn in principle: libertarianism does not allow for punishing pre-crime (to use the term made popular in the movie, The Minority Report).  Pre-crime is how most state regulation works: the state posits that action A might lead to damage, and thus prohibits action A, but that unnecessarily and immorally constrains all of those using their own property engaging in action A who don’t cause the theoretical damage.  Only when damage is actually caused, or is imminent, is responsive force justified.

However, I would raise a slight issue with one thing Kenn said, namely, “Any person has the right to regulate who is coming into their property but they do not have the right to regulate the activity of others on their own property.” I think that it would be compatible with libertarianism to “regulate” (by which I assume Kenn means “use force against”) the activity of others on their own property if that activity were itself causing an invasion of one’s own property.  So, to use Kenn’s example, if A had a fan that was blowing VINE-19 seeds onto B’s property, then B could use reasonable force to try to stop this.  It would be no different than if A were firing bullets at B from A’s property.

Applied to Typhoid Mary, private-property owners could always exclude her from coming onto their property, but could only enter her property if she were somehow spewing forth her infectious disease from there.

Zack Rofer

Check out my book: Busting Myths About the State and the Libertarian Alternative

—

Kenn Williamson

Kenngineering LLC

(more…)

From: Infodorado

Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 6:46 AM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: Typhoid Mary, Covid, quarantines and masks

Dear Walter,

I just read another exchange relating to this, but I’ll keep it short this time.

If Napolitano (or even you) says “the government” has a “right” to forcibly quarantine somebody who carries a disease at any level (serious, deadly, or just highly infectious, for example), then all we have to do is look at the real information available on-line from libertarian web sources to see the problem with this.

Andrew Napolitano has taken to speak in strict legalese (albeit somewhat “laicized”) and you speak in theories.

But if you allow the government to do something like that, in view of what they have done in 2020 in the non-theoretical real world, it should be obvious that you have just given them the excuse to do absolutely anything in the name of a disease that they full well know does not merit the scare they claim it does.

(more…)

Dear Folks:

In Tommy’s mother, Sarah’s very eloquent eulogy for her son, she mentions me at the 40 minute mark. Note the name and job title of Tommy’s dad.  What a strange world. Who’d have thought that a Democratic Congressman would be “me.”

Read from the bottom up

Best regards,

Walter

(more…)

From RT:

The World Health Organization (WHO) has rejected the use of Covid passports over fairness concerns and fears they would not prevent the spread of the virus, as experts worry vaccinated people could still transmit the disease.

Speaking at a press briefing on Tuesday, WHO spokesperson Margaret Harris ruled out supporting the use of Covid passports due to “the question of discrimination” and because they “are not certain at this stage that the vaccine prevents transmission.”

The woke corporatist oligarchs are engaging in a suicidal strategy which will result in a decisive populist backlash/avalanche by tens of millions of enraged voters/consumers who will reach the pivotal breaking point, the line drawn in the sand, crossing over in a determined effort of revenge and vengeance to the engendered insidious racism and government/corporate tyranny and oppression foisted upon them and their families. The counter-revolution will not be pretty or delicate, but decisive and wrenching.

In a seminal 1934 book by John McConaughy, entitled Who Rules America: A Century of Invisible Government, we find

“‘Invisible Government’ is a phrase for which it would be difficult to formulate a dictionary definition without sacrifice of accuracy to brevity. It may perhaps be best described as the political and economic control of the community — or the political control for selfish, if not sinister, economic purposes — by individual men, or groups or organizations, who are careful to evade the responsibility which should always accompany power. They operate behind a mask or puppets in politics and business, and these must take the blame in courts of law, and before the bar of public opinion, for any errors in the technique of knavery.” — John McConaughy

Author McConaughy impiously rips the masks off our elitist ‘Funding Fathers’ and their ‘invisible government’ for special privilege.

In what is one of the finest and most powerful histories of the early years of the American state, McConaughy demonstrates that the adoption of the Constitution amounted to a coup d’etat by these forces of ‘invisible government’.

Although the names and faces have changed over time, this is the same predatory plutocracy behind the Federal Reserve’s monetary meltdown and the Wall Street bankster bailouts of today.

McConaughy discusses how Federalists George Washington, Robert Morris, Alexander Hamilton, and John Marshall believed in nationalism — a strong, consolidated national government, weak states, an elastic interpretation of the Constitution, a central bank with special privileges creating an elite ‘paper aristocracy,’ and ‘internal improvements’ (corporate welfare at the national level).

By contrast, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Taylor of Caroline County, Virginia, John Randolph of Roanoke, Virginia, etc. composed the Republicans. They believed in a constitutional Republic, not an Empire.

The Republicans opposed Hamilton’s vicious system of public finance.

The Republicans believed in true federalism (a delegation of explicit limited powers to the central government, the bulk of power residing with the states and local government), a strict interpretation of the Constitution limiting the power of the central government, no central bank created by the ‘Funding Fathers’ benefitting a financial elite, no paper currency (gold was ‘the people’s money’), no special privileges, no corporate welfare.

Yet in perhaps the most instructive portion of the book, McConaughy shows how Jefferson and Madison compromised and caved in to expediency. It is here he vividly contrasts Republican John Taylor (who held fast to principle) and nationalist John Marshall. He writes in summation:

In this writer’s view, it is not to Hamilton and Jefferson that we should look to see how the battle-lines were at last firmly drawn between the champions of the people and the forces of invisible government, but rather to John Marshall and to John Taylor. Marshall, by virtue of his unique position and his swift boldness, backed by one of the most adroit and incisive minds of history, was easily victorious in that early and all-important conflict. Those who should have been Taylor’s leaders refused to be even his followers. They surrendered in the hour of victory.

Yet Taylor has millions of followers today — millions who have never even heard of John Taylor of Caroline. Beneath the sham-battles of our current politics the intuitive wisdom of the mass of men may be temporarily doped, but it does not die. And this power may at any time again break forth to bring about a sharp re-alignment of the only two forces which have ever existed in our polity — those who believe in a free and individualistic commonwealth, and those who believe in government for special privilege. Nothing savoring of the Marxian socialization of those fields of human action which we hold to inherently individualistic has ever gained a place in our political psychology, save in those instances where the servants of invisible government have held it to be the duty of the national Government to subsidize a favored few in their economic activities, and to come to their aid with the tax-funds of the people when corruption and incompetence have brought these favored ones to the edge of ruin.

John Taylor’s courageous spirit is indeed alive today in the millions who resist the invisible government’s destructive corporate welfare-warfare state, its unconstitutional preemptive wars, its overstretched empire overseas, its police state tyranny at home, and its Federal Reserve — the predatory enabler of it all.

Growing up under the “disaster” and “Hell on earth” that are Communism inspired Artur Pawlowski, the Canadian pastor, to throw the cops out of his church. In this heartening interview, he verbally advises other ministers, “Open the churches”—but his example shouts louder than any words can.

He also testifies from experience what the rest of us only theorize: the tyrants this plandemic has empowered will never voluntarily relinquish their power. Instead, we must take to the streets and wrest our freedom away from them, a la “Lech Walesa” and “Solidarity.”

This Saturday, April 10, at 3 PM in Fort Lauderdale, Florida at the corner of  A1A and Los Olas Blvd.  Don’t forget to bring masks and matches.

Tom Woods and Laurence Vance, can you spell “road trip”?