His Excellency, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò makes his first on-camera appearance in two years, addressing the crisis in the Catholic Church and specifically the connection between Vatican II and the revolution of Pope Francis. He explicitly discusses the role of “the deep church” (counterpart to the concept of the deep state), in fomenting this modernist subversion of true Catholicism, and the roles of Francis I and George Soros in expediting this New World Order globalist revolution.

Archbishop Viganò, has written an open letter to President Donald J. Trump on these serious matters. Read it in its entirety. It is available in PDF by clicking here.

The archbishop served as the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States from 2011 to 2016. He previously severed as Secretary-General of the Government of Vatican City from 2009 to 2011, He is best known for having occasioned two major Vatican scandals. These were the Vatican leaks scandal of 2012, in which he revealed financial corruption in the Vatican, and a 2018 letter in which he accused Pope Francis and other Church leaders of cover up sexual abuse allegations against former cardinal Theodore McCarrick.

In his recorded video remarks he mentions Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who was a French Roman Catholic archbishop who founded in 1970 the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) as a small community of seminarians in the village of Écône, Switerland, with the permission of Bishop Francois Charriere of Fribourg. In 1975, after a flare of tensions with the Holy See, Lefebve was ordered to disband the society, but ignored the decision. In 1988, against the expressed prohibition of Pope John Paul II, he consecrated four bishops to continue his work with the SSPX. The Holy See immediately declared that he and the other bishops who had participated in the ceremony had incurred automatic excommunication under Catholic canon law.

I met Archbishop Lefebvre around this time when he came to Tulsa to celebrate a Tridentine Mass in Latin. I had not seen a traditional Latin rite mass performed since I was child when the Church was beginning to undergo the Vatican II changes in its liturgy.

This is a first stab at explaining why the Swedish herd immunity approach has worked out better than the lockdown approach. If this is understood, then the people advocating lockdowns cannot defend their approach. It means that putting a country through more lockdowns is the wrong thing to do. The explanation here is not the harm caused by lockdowns per se in causing depression, unemployment, suicides, and related problems. Those effects are not being considered here. They add significantly to the overall argument but they are not the substance of the reasoning that follows. It is this reasoning that appears to be absent from public discussion at this time. The goal of this blog is to persuade that the herd immunity approach makes a great deal of sense, but the lockdown approach does not.

In this context of herd immunity vs. lockdown, success in defending against a contagious disease means fewer people having to be hospitalized and fewer people dying. This success occurs when fewer vulnerable people contract the disease. The population as a whole has vulnerable people, which in this case means older people with co-morbidities, mainly people of age 80 and older, but also the age bracket 70-80 cannot be ignored, or younger people who have serious co-morbidities.

The difference between herd immunity and lockdowns is in the exposure that the vulnerable have to the invulnerable people who catch the disease but survive it handily. The invulnerable people can pass on the disease by contagion during its earlier stages of attack on them and while they are fighting it off and recovering. After recovery, their contagion effect goes way down. They’ve battled the bug and it’s eliminated from their bodies. At that point, they don’t or can’t pass it on to the vulnerable. They’re not contagious.

The herd immunity strategy is to get the invulnerable people in and through the contagious stage as soon as possible, so that they can no longer pass it on to the vulnerable elderly people. Herd immunity is mainly a matter of the young and healthy getting the bug and whipping it so that they cannot give it to the elderly and less healthy.

The older people MUST come into contact with younger people, even with lockdowns. This is a necessity. The idea of herd immunity is that this contact be with younger people who’ve beaten the bug by their immune responses, so that they are no longer able to spread it. Its contagious property is nil from them as a source.

Everything the older people need cannot be delivered to the older by walling them off in their homes or nursing homes or whatever. In general, the elderly interact with younger people for all sorts of services. Suppose something needs to be repaired inside the home, and there are many such things, such as gas furnace, dead car battery, electric circuit, hot water heater, sump pump, refrigerator, etc. Then they will be dealing with younger people coming into their homes. The elderly need to shop for food, and every such interaction brings them into contact with younger people in stores, be they the help or other customers. If they eat out, again they must interact. If they need something that is sold in a hardware store or any number of other kinds of stores, they interact with younger people. To get some services, they must present themselves at offices of doctors.

All of these types of interactions will be far safer once these younger people have achieved herd immunity, which for the latter younger group has relatively low risk in the present case of COVID. But the same considerations apply to the older people within this relatively invulnerable group. The people in their 30s, 40s and 50s have somewhat elevated risk but if the younger people with whom they interact have already been exposed and survived, then they too will be safer in dealing with them because the contagion has been diminished greatly.

With the herd immunity approach, in a rather short period of time (say 2 weeks) that the contagion spreads among the younger, the elderly can avoid contacts. After that, there is much less chance of the elderly catching the disease from their contacts with the younger, and such contacts are unavoidable, because lockdowns can’t go on indefinitely.

In the lockdown approach, the spread of the disease is slowed down among the invulnerable. But this means that as time passes and the older people necessarily have contacts with younger people, they are more likely to come into contact with younger people who have not yet gotten and beaten the disease. This means there is a greater chance with lockdowns of a vulnerable person coming into contact with a contagious younger person. That means a greater risk of catching the disease, being hospitalized and dying. The more non-contagious people there are in the population, the lower the chance of vulnerable people meeting contagious people. Recall that meetings of old and young cannot be avoided in the nature of how exchange economies work. Older people depend heavily on younger people. Lower chances of vulnerable older people interacting with younger contagious people is precisely why herd immunity works. Locking everyone up for weeks and weeks and weeks accomplishes nothing but spreading out in time and place the presence of contagious people!

This explains why lockdowns fail and why herd immunity succeeds.

Many states in America have “managed” or “graduated” lockdown strategies. They look for “hot spots” where COVID cases are appearing and then they try to stem them by locking down specific areas or places. This is exactly the wrong thing to do if herd immunity is superior to lockdowns for the reasons cited, the main reason being that herd immunity lowers the chance that a vulnerable member of the population comes into contact with an invulnerable younger person who happens to be in the contagious stage. The idea is to get these younger people into and through the contagious stage as quickly as possible, not to prolong the uncertainty by selective lockdowns.

More cases are not bad if they are among the invulnerable. They are troublesome when they are among the vulnerable. Indeed the more cases there are among the sturdy and young invulnerable (because they have strong immune systems) the faster that herd immunity is approached, and the less the chance of the vulnerable being infected at some point in the future by interacting with a contagious case.

If, for whatever reason, real or specious, there arises a second wave or third wave or fears of such things, their presence confirms that failure of lockdowns, and further lockdowns will be completely uncalled for. They’ll make the situation worse. They won’t remedy it to any degree. The correct thing to do is to end the lockdown mentality and method with the understanding that herd immunity is the sensible way to go.

Daniel R. Hopkins writes me that he’s

not saying the COVID-1984 vaccine is the mark of the beast as forewarned in the Book of Revelation.

However, in my search to discover who is “on our side” in the Third World War, my investigation has led me to input the following words into the (very much biased) Google search engine: “covid 19 mark of the beast”

And what should I find but multiple articles written by so-called “Christians” already assuring their readers that the COVID-1984 vaccine is…not the mark of the beast.

 

Wait a second. Is the vaccine out? No? Didn’t think so. Then how do they know what it is and what it isn’t? And specifically, which vaccine of the several being produced is not the mark of the beast? These sucking-up-to-the-state Judases are essentially writing reviews for a product that’s not even out yet!

Again, I ain’t saying it is, but no one can tell me it isn’t.

One giant COVID Alcatraz.

FBI now all but an explicit subsidiary of DNC.

Lockdowns kill people, not viruses.

Black Americans took the back seat of the bus during Jim Crow, now taking it in their alliance with progressives behind feminists and LGBTQ.

In Part 2 of the TLAV+Unlimited Hangout Election Special, Ryan Cristián and Whitney Webb discuss the glaring conflicts of interest between the very government agencies charged with protecting critical infrastructure and a web of intelligence agencies and corporations that would massively benefit in the event of a seemingly imminent wave of cyber attacks.

Here is Part One below —

In this 2020 election special, a collaboration between Unlimited Hangout and The Last American Vagabond, Ryan and Whitney discuss recent and unsettling warnings from US intelligence officials that the US is “at the doorstep of another 9/11”, while many of those same intelligence agencies are directly tied to tight-knit group of shady companies that have been simulating “doomsday” scenarios for the 2020 US election for over 2 years, including scenarios that mainstream media have recently portrayed as inevitable with less than a week to go before the election.

More tall tales from a CNN host. Jussie Smollett must be shaking his head.

Extramarital shenanigans are a crime in many Middle Eastern countries, including Qatar. Not surprisingly, then, “female migrant workers have hidden pregnancies and tried to travel abroad to give birth, while others have anonymously abandoned their babies to avoid prison.” 

So when someone found  a newborn “concealed in a plastic bag and buried under garbage” at Hamad International Airport in Qatar,  “officials” compelled women aboard ten departing flights to disembark. They subjected these victims “to an invasive search …. a ‘strip search’ in an ambulance parked on the tarmac…,” culminating in “forced vaginal examinations in an attempt to identify the child’s mother.” 

Dr. Wolfgang Babeck was among the … passengers aboard [one] flight … and attested that the carrier instructed all women on board to deplane … Most of the women were in shock when they returned, he said.

Oh, I bet.

“When the women came back, many of them or probably all of them were upset. One of them was in tears, a younger woman, and people couldn’t believe what had happened,” Babeck said. “They told me they had to take their underwear off or their clothes from the bottom and then it was inspected whether they had given birth.”

I know: shades of the TSA. Its excuses for gate-rape differ from Qatar’s, but the two are the same in their degradation and sexual assault of passengers. 

And had the TSA pulled this stunt in the ol’ Homeland, the goons involved would doubtless enjoy promotions and raises. But not in Qatar:

The Qatari government has announced that the officials responsible for the forced medical examinations of women at Hamad International Airport … have been referred to prosecutors for possible charges. 

Say what?! Leviathan will actually hold some of its henchmen responsible for their atrocities? Noooooo!

It gets better: 

“While the aim of the urgently decided search was to prevent the perpetrators of the horrible crime from escaping, the state of Qatar regrets any distress or infringement on the personal freedoms of any traveler caused by this action,” Qatari leaders said …

That prompted Mike, who sent me this story, to demand, “What is wrong with the government of Qatar? Don’t they know that strip searches and vaginal probes are what keep us all safe from terrorism? What are they doing prosecuting the airport security officials who ordered them? If those officials lose their jobs and suffer criminal penalties short of execution, they can at least rest assured that they can always find employment with the TSA.”

I smell management material.

I am on RT’s Crosstalk with the great journalist Patrick Lawrence discussing the obsession with “RUSSIA!” and how it has ruined mainstream journalism:

Earlier in a recent LRC blog I referred to Joe Biden’s ominous “Dark Winter” Dog Whistle in the final 2020 presidential debate with Donald Trump. Since that debate the mainstream regime media fake news networks, as well as monopolistic Big Tech social media giants such as Facebook, Google, Twitter, and YouTube, have been actively suppressing speech of dissenting scientists, doctors, and health authorities on COVID-19, as well as any mention of the Hunter Biden laptop/corruption scandal and the culpable/criminal involvement of his father, Democrat presidential aspirant Joe “the Big Guy” Biden.  This momentous destructive erosion of free speech and draconian suspension of civil liberties is exactly like what is discussed in the described bio war game simulation/exercises or scenarios outlined in the above video.

Hate speech of course is any idea that the progressive establishment feels threatened by.

Once upon a time progressives were skeptical of the CIA and vigorously opposed foreign wars (according to Glenn).  Today they have enthusiastically joined a frightening authoritarian alliance including Bush-Cheney retreads and Silicon-Valley oligarchs whose first tools against dissenters are suppression and intimidation.

It is not surprising that Tucker Carlson is the number one, highest rated, most watched news program ever. This episode fully demonstrates the trust and confidence the American people place on Carlson’s veracity as a journalistic commentator in speaking truth to power.

In particular, Tucker has as his principal guest Glenn Greenwald, the award-winning investigative reporter who resigned today after being censored on The Intercept, the internet news platform he co-founded.

Greenwald presents the most powerful, damning and searing indictment of the deep state intelligence complex, Silicon Valley’s Big Tech, the Democrat Party, the Bush-Cheney operatives, the neocons, Wall Street, and the craven presstitutes of the regime media in their active sedition and suppression against free speech and the survival of the American Republic.

I’ve previously mentioned Coronavirus and the Leadership of the Christian Church: A Sacred Trust Broken by  Ernest Springer III, Joel E. Yeager, MD, and Daniel O’Roark, DO, FACC; if you’ve finished reading your copy by now, I urge you to pass it on to your local Parson Goat.

Meanwhile, Leviathan’s orders to anti-social distance directly contradict such Biblical commands as “Greet one another with an holy kiss” (variants of which appear four times in the New Testament) and “Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.” And yet Faux-chi and his ilk expect us to withdraw into our cocoons for Thanksgiving and Christmas…

You needn’t be a scholar of Scripture to recall that Jesus Christ’s example also rebukes anti-social distancing. But I appreciate the way that Dr O’Roark fleshes this out, so to speak, in Chapter 4 of A Sacred Trust Broken: 

…look at the actions of Jesus (as the God-Man) during His earthly life and ministry as they relate implicitly to the concept of “social distancing” when asymptomatic. The Lord Christ, as the Creator and Sovereign over every microbe in the universe, has perfect understanding of disease, pestilence, and plague. He sends and stops them and to His own glory mostly keeps them quiescent.  

Prior to His resurrection, Jesus had the fully human body of natural man. He bled. He became tired and hungry. He slept. He had emotions. He had daily bodily elimination functions. He had normal bacterial flora on His skin and, like modern men, probably trillions of viruses as part of His microbiome. 

Plagues in the ancient World during this time were well known and relatively frequent.

Given these considerations, we see in the sinless, earthly behavior of Jesus that He made no effort to “social distance” nor was there any teaching to encourage it or promote its need. 

Large crowds followed Him (Luke 14:25), pressed in on him (Luke 5:1), touched Him (Mark 5:27, 31), and came to Him for healing (Luke 9:11) of a multitude of diseases, some of which were contagious as determined by the priests. He healed the mother-in-law of Peter from fever (Matthew 8:14). …

Interestingly, He engaged in practices that some may consider unhygienic. He washed the certainly filthy, microbial-laden feet of His disciples (John 13:4-5). He allowed His feet to be kissed, bathed by tears, and then dried by a woman’s hair (Luke 7:44-46). He even cured a man’s blindness with spit-laden mudballs (John 9:6-7). …

Our Lord, by His example, did not endorse the principle of self-protection by isolation of self or others in the name of social distancing.

I don’t know about you, but when it comes to heeding Christ or “Public Health” commies, I’m going with the former.

Clay worships at a Lutheran church outside Chicago. He forwarded me an email from Parson Goat to the hapless congregation:

In this 45-minute podcast, Tho Bishop and I discuss Rothbard’s vision for a populist laissez-faire movement, his fondness for the free-market Democrats of the nineteenth century, and why a small minority of powerful elites present such a problem for American democracy. (You can also listen at Spotify.)

Anthony Fauci, call your office.  JP explains.  (Thanks to Jerome Barber).

The mayor of Plymouth, Ohio, “dismissed all speeding tickets” issued within her jurisdiction! And she’s working on ridding her town of its “standard mayor’s court as laid out by the Ohio Dept of Justice”; in fact, she campaigned on that promise: “…the mayor has a ridiculous amount of power. [Cassandra] Fryman ran for office to limit that power by attempting to dismantle the Plymouth Mayor’s Court.”

In case you haven’t guessed, Ms. Fryman is a Libertarian. Thanks to Bill Martin for sending this thrill of a story!

This powerful interview is damning and decisive in demonstrating the base criminality and lying of the Biden Crime family.

From: Edmund

Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2020 7:29 AM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: Yellowstone

Hi Walter,

I’ve just begun watching a fascinating new tv series called Yellowstone that describes the quarrels of Indians and cowboys in the modern day fighting over who is the rightful owner to the land. The cowboys have had the land for 6 generations and the Indians claim the land was stolen which the cowboys don’t seem to refute. Given that this fact seems to be accepted by both sides what should be the resolution of this dispute under libertarian law. I understand that you support reparations if one can prove that they are the rightful beneficiary from property that was stolen from their ancestors. But what constitutes enough proof? What forms of reparations would you consider reasonable in today’s society with groups like native Americans, African Americans etc.

Thanks

Edmund

(more…)

Letter 1

From: S

Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2020 6:28 PM

To: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Subject: Action axiom

Dr Block,

When you start from the action axiom and then start deducing propositions, where do you think the point is where the original axiom ends and the first deduction begins? Because I’ve heard the process described in slightly different ways by different Austrians. Does it depend on how you define “purposeful”? Because if we define action as purposeful behavior, and the action axiom is “humans act” (“humans behave purposefully”), if we take “purposeful” to mean “intentional”, then the fact that people have ends has to be deduced from the axiom, right? But if we take “purposeful” to mean “done with a purpose in mind”, then the fact that people have ends is actually a part of the axiom, right?

In other words, what would you say is the full extent of the presuppositions that are a a part of the action axiom, before any propositions are deduced from it?

S

(more…)

Letter 1

From: Steve

Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 9:33 AM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: Typhoid Mary

Prof. Block:

As a physician I’ll allow that forced isolation and even, compulsory directly observed treatment may have a justifiable role in very limited circumstances, as for example when an actively contagious individual has been found to deliberately and repeatedly sicken other individuals with grave outcome. This may have been the case with Mary Mallon, and if so, her misconduct could have been addressed through judicial procedures. I hardly believe this to be the case with “Covid-19” or any other epidemic I’ve dealt with in 40 years of practice. “IF covid is that serious, it was certainly widely thought to be in March of this year”. ‘Widely thought’ is insufficient reason to forcibly deny an individual their due process. It is widely thought that guns and bullets are the cause of civil unrest. Cars are related to thousands of deaths annually. Should we forcibly disarm the entire citizenry, or ban all motor vehicles or any number of other  risky activities that may be widely thought to threaten ‘the public health”? I think not. My point is that the civil response to any threat or contagion is a matter of the degree of the danger and should be a rational nuanced response. The political response to “Covid-19” including mass quaranteen has been anything but rational and nuanced, and the more serious danger is the deliberate manipulation by the state of a widely feared but mostly benign infection to crush a population into submission. Curiously, the proven threat of  biological weapons research seems to rate low on the state’s danger scale. Rather than permanently quaranteening this loathsome and sickening enterprise, it is surreptitiously encouraged and funded or concealed off shore.

Steve, MD

Brooklyn, NY

(more…)

From: The NAPster

Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2020 9:01 AM

To: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Cc: Kenn Williamson

Subject: Re: Typhoid Mary

Walter:

Yes, and I said so at the end of my second paragraph.

For Typhoid Mary, I see three cases.

Case 1: she is on her own property.  In that case, only in the instance that I mentioned above — where she is spewing forth her infection onto another property — could the impacted person or his agent come onto her property and use force against her.  I don’t think that it would be legitimate to just assume that because she has typhoid, she is necessarily going to spew forth the infection onto neighboring properties.  That would be like disarming someone who owns a firearm because he might use the gun violently.  Now, if she stood at the property fence and was about to cough, then I think this could be regarded as an imminent threat (there might be instances where it is not, but let’s not deal with those), worthy of action.  If this is what you mean, then yes, I agree with you.

Case 2: she is on A’s property with A’s consent and is not threatening to impart her infection to anyone not on A’s property.  A could of course revoke that consent and throw her off his property, but he could do so for any reason, not just because she has typhoid or is acting in a threatening manner.  If X is also on A’s property and is worried about Mary, then what X could do depends on the terms on which he is on A’s property.  X’s best, peaceful course of action is simply to leave A’s property.

Case 3: she is on A’s property with A’s consent, and is standing at A’s fence with B, spewing forth her infection onto B’s property.  In that instance, unless A and B have an agreement to the contrary, B could legitimately use force against Mary and, if necessary, A and his property, to prevent this.  And if Mary were standing there about to cough, then similarly.

Are there any areas in which we disagree?

Zack Rofer

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

(more…)

From: The NAPster

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

To: Kenn Williamson

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

(more…)