en

Lew Rockwell

Latest VAERS Data Show Reports of Blood Clotting Disorders After All Three Emergency Use Authorization Vaccines


Data released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on the number of injuries and deaths reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) following COVID vaccines revealed reports of blood clots and other related blood disorders associated with all three vaccines approved for Emergency Use Authorization in the U.S. — PfizerModerna and Johnson & Johnson (J&J). So far, only the J&J vaccine has been paused because of blood clot concerns.

VAERS is the primary mechanism for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed.

Every Friday, VAERS makes public all vaccine injury reports received through a specified date, usually about a week prior to the release date. Today's data show that between Dec. 14, 2020 and April 8, a total of 68,347 total adverse events were reported to VAERS, including 2,602 deaths — an increase of 260 over the previous week — and 8,285 serious injuries, up 314 since last week.

Of the 2,602 deaths reported as of April 8, 27% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination, 19% occurred within 24 hours and 41% occurred in people who became ill within 48 hours of being vaccinated.

In the U.S., 174.9 million COVID vaccine doses had been administered as of April 8. This includes 79.6 million doses of Moderna's vaccine, 90.3 million doses of Pfizer and 4.9 million doses of the J&J COVID vaccine.

This week's VAERS data show:

Reports of blood clotting disorders in VAERS

Children's Health Defense queried the VAERS data for a series of adverse events associated with the formation of clotting disorders and other related conditions. VAERS yielded a total of 795 reports for all three vaccines from Dec. 14, 2020, through April 8.

Of the 795 cases reported, there were 400 reports attributed to Pfizer, 337 reports with Moderna and 56 reports with J&J — far more than the eight J&J cases under investigation, including the two additional cases added Wednesday.

As The Defender reported today, although the J&J and AstraZeneca COVID vaccines have been under the microscope for their potential to cause blood clots, mounting evidence suggests the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines also cause clots and related blood disorders. U.S. regulatory officials were alerted to the problem as far back as December 2020.

CDC ignores The Defender, no response after 39 days 

According to the CDC's website, "the CDC follows up on any report of death to request additional information and learn more about what occurred and to determine whether the death was a result of the vaccine or unrelated."

On March 8, The Defender contacted the CDC with a written list of questions about reported deaths and injuries related to COVID vaccines. We requested information about how the CDC conducts investigations into reported deaths, the status of ongoing investigations reported in the media, if autopsies are being done, the standard for determining whether an injury is causally connected to a vaccine, and education initiatives to encourage and facilitate proper and accurate reporting.

After many attempts to get a response from the CDC, 22 days after our initial outreach a representative from the CDC's Vaccine Task Force responded, saying the agency had never received our questions — even though the employees we talked to several times said their press officers were working through the questions we sent.

We provided the questions again and set a new deadline of April 7. We've reached out multiple times since, but the representative has not answered our emails or returned our calls.

On April 15 we called the CDC's general media line again and were told they had our list of questions and were unsure why the representative told us she never received them. We were told the COVID response team would be informed and that we should follow up in a few days.

It has been 39 days since we first reached out and have yet to receive answers to our questions.

Johnson & Johnson paused over reports of blood clot

On April 15, The Defender reported that a healthy 43-year old man in Mississippi suffered a stroke hours after being vaccinated with J&J's COVID vaccine. Brad Malagarie, father of seven, had received the vaccine a little after Noon and was found unresponsive by co-workers at his desk.

Also on April 15, the  Cincinnati Enquirer reported that the Ohio Department of Health is monitoring the investigation into what may have caused a 21-year-old University of Cincinnati student to die suddenly last Sunday, about a day after he received the J&J vaccine.

Alicia Shoults, a spokeswoman for the state health department, said the agency is waiting for the completion of a Hamilton County coroner's report, and "if necessary," further guidance from the CDC.

The two news stories came just days after federal health officials paused the J&J vaccine.

As The Defender reported April 13, the CDC and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) called for a temporary but immediate halt to the use of J&J's COVID vaccine while the agencies investigated the vaccine's possible link to potentially dangerous blood clots.

In a joint statement, the agencies said the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) was reviewing clinical data gathered on six women, one who died, between the ages of 18 and 48 years who developed blood clots after receiving the single-dose J&J vaccine.

On April 14, the ACIP held an emergency meeting to vote on whether to lift the pause on J&J's vaccine or change recommendations for its use. As The Defender reported, the ACIP postponed the vote, extending the pause pending further analysis of data relating to blood clots. The ACIP said it would reconvene for a vote in one week to 10 days.

That same day, J&J revealed two more cases of blood clots — one that occurred in a 25-year-old man who suffered a cerebral hemorrhage during a clinical trial and another case of deep-vein-thrombosis in a 59-year-old woman.

In its review of J&J's submission for Emergency Use Authorization in February, the FDA initially urged further surveillance of a slight "numerical imbalance" in blood clotting events after receiving the shot. At the time, it was concluded there was "insufficient" data to determine "a causal relationship" with the vaccine and the drugmaker resumed the trial.

As The Defender reported April 12, the rollout of J&J's COVID vaccine has not been smooth. At the beginning of the month the vaccine maker had to throw out 15 million doses of its vaccine after they were contaminated with AstraZeneca vaccine ingredients at an unapproved manufacturing plant in Baltimore.

The vaccine maker also has been plagued with shutdowns of its vaccine sites prior to the vaccine being paused, multiple reports of COVID breakthrough cases and criticism over its CEO's $30 million pay package while the company pays out billions for its role in the opioid epidemic.

CDC, multiple states report 'breakthrough' COVID cases among fully vaccinated

Cases of fully vaccinated people getting COVID, referred to as "breakthrough" cases, continue to make news.

Calling it a "really good scenario," the CDC yesterday reported 5,800 cases of COVID in fully vaccinated people. Of the 5,800 cases, 396 required hospitalization and 74 people died, the CDC said.

The CDC said it was "keeping a close eye" on the cases, but that breakthrough cases are to be expected. Tara Smith, a professor of epidemiology at the Kent State University College of Public Health in Ohio, told NBC News:

"This is a really good scenario, even with almost 6,000 breakthrough infections. Most of those have been mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic. That's exactly what we were hoping for."

On April 12, the Houston Health Department reported 142 breakthrough cases of COVID that occurred in fully vaccinated people since January, according to ABC 13 News. Vaccine recipients received either two doses of Moderna or Pfizer, or one dose of J&J. The report ruled out those who were said to have contracted the virus 45 days before their second scheduled shot date.

Houston Health Department said there were 2.46 positive cases out of every 10,000 fully-vaccinated people and it was unclear if those who tested positive contracted the original strand of COVID or a newer variant.

Last month, The Defender reported on breakthrough cases in Washington, Florida, South Carolina, Texas, New York, California and Minnesota. On April 6, The Defender reported on 246 breakthrough cases in Michigan, which included three people who died.

Children's Health Defense asks anyone who has experienced an adverse reaction, to any vaccine, to file a report following these three steps.

Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children's Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD's successful mission.

The post Latest VAERS Data Show Reports of Blood Clotting Disorders After All Three Emergency Use Authorization Vaccines appeared first on LewRockwell.

translate | 17 Apr 2021 | 8:47 am

Prince Philip: Farewell to the Stiff Upper Lip


Plenty of observers have remarked that Prince Philip's death marks if not the end of an era, then at least its imminent passing.

After all, the Duke of Edinburgh was of that generation that came of age in the chaotic aftermath of The War to End All Wars, lived through and fought in the war that followed, and approached the rebuilding of a devastated postwar society phlegmatically, determinedly.

His was a unique experience, of course. A descendent of the near incestuous monarchic dynasties that were crumbling at the beginning of the 20th century, he was a very particular product of imperial disintegration and ruling-class disorder – a fact registered in the tallish tales around his infancy, from the kitchen-table birth and his rushed, smuggled exit from Corfu in an orange crate, to his orphan-like youth at Gordonstoun.

Still, as particular as his experience was, there was something inescapably general about it, too. And it is because of this that his death marks the imminent passing not just of his era, but also of the general character forged and cultivated during that era. One defined by a broad Stoicism. By a sense of duty. And by a sense of the importance of self-control. As Tory grandee Nicholas Soames put it this week, Philip was 'the epitome of the stiff upper lip'.

But so were many others of Philip's generation. Because maintaining a stiff upper lip, remaining in control of one's emotions, especially in public, was long considered by many to be a mark of one's character. It was something to be cultivated, worked on. Because it meant that one was able to act according to something beyond one's own impulses. It meant that one was committing oneself to something – a duty to others, perhaps, or to an idea or a cause – over and above one's feelings. To not be in control of one's emotions, to succumb easily to tears or anger, was the mark of a lack of character, a sign of immaturity.

But no more. The character valued and cultivated by those of Philip's generation has now been turned inside out. Maybe this has been a long time coming. To be in control of one's feelings was readily demonised first in high-cultural and then countercultural circles from at least the interwar years onwards. It was seen in the psychoanalytic jargon of the time as a sign of 'repression', an indication of the excessive pressure exerted on the individual by the public, social world. Yet it does seem that the thorough devaluation of self-control – the loosening of the stiff upper lip – is a more recent phenomenon. Its decline has accelerated in recent decades, just as notions of public duty and formality have fallen away.

Read the Whole Article

The post Prince Philip: Farewell to the Stiff Upper Lip appeared first on LewRockwell.

translate | 17 Apr 2021 | 6:01 am

The $2.3 Quadrillion Global Timebomb


Credit Suisse is hours from collapse and the consequences could be a systemic failure of the financial system.

Disappointingly, my dream last night stopped there. So unfortunately I didn't experience what actually happened.

As I warned in last week's article on Archegos and Credit Suisse, investment banks have created a timebomb with the $1.5 quadrillion derivatives monster.

A few years ago, the BIS (Bank of International Settlement) in Basel reduced the $1.5 quadrillion to $600 trillion with a pen stroke. But the real gross figure was still $1.5q at the time. According to my sources, the real figure today is probably over $2 quadrillion.

A major part of the outstanding derivatives are OTC (over the counter) and hidden in off balance sheet special purpose vehicles.

LEVERAGED ASSETS JUST GO UP IN SMOKE

The $30 billion in Archegos derivatives that went up in smoke over a weekend is just the tip of the iceberg. The hedge fund Archegos lost everything and the normal uber-leveraged players Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse, Nomura etc lost at least $30 billion.

These investment banks are making casino bets that they can't afford to lose. What their boards and top management don't realise or understand is that the traders, supported by easily manipulated risk managers, are betting the bank on a daily basis.

Most of these ludicrously high bets are in the derivatives market. The management doesn't understand how they work or what the risks are and the account managers and traders can bet billions on a daily basis with no skin in the game but massive potential upside if nothing goes wrong.

DEUTSCHE BANK – DERIVATIVES 600X EQUITY

But we are now entering an era when things will go wrong. The leverage is just too high and the bets totally out of proportion to the equity.

Just take the notorious Deutsche Bank (DB) that has outstanding derivatives of €37 trillion against total equity of €62 billion. Thus the derivatives position is 600X the equity.

Or to put it in a different way, the equity is 0.17% of the outstanding derivatives. So a loss of 0.2% on the derivatives will wipe the share capital and the bank out!

Now the DB risk managers will argue that the net derivatives position is just a fraction of the €37 trillion at €20 billion. That is of course nonsense as we saw with Archegos when a few banks let $30 billion over a weekend.

Derivatives can only be netted down on the basis that counterparties pay up. But in a real systemic crisis, counterparties will disappear and gross exposure will remain gross.

So all that netting doesn't stand up to real scrutiny. But it is typical for today's casino banking world when depositors, shareholders and governments take all the downside risk and the management all the upside.

So let us look at the global risk picture in the financial system:

The $2.3 quadrillion above is what the world is exposed to when this timebomb explodes.

That is the total sum of global debt, derivatives and unfunded liabilities. When all the dominos start falling, and no one can meet their obligations, this is what governments are left to finance.

Yes, they will print this money and much more as deficits mount exponentially due to collapsing currencies. But the MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) clowns will then find out that printed money rightfully has ZERO value.

If these clowns studied history they would learn that MMT has never worked. Just check the Roman Empire 180-280 AD, France in the early 18th century, or the Weimar Republic, Zimbabwe, Argentina and Venezuela in the 19th and 20th centuries.

So when Fiat money dies, how much gold is required to repair the damage?

If we look at the cube below with all the gold ever produced in history, we see that it is 198,000 tonnes valued at $11 trillion.

Read the Whole Article

The post The $2.3 Quadrillion Global Timebomb appeared first on LewRockwell.

translate | 17 Apr 2021 | 6:01 am

A Battle for Monetary Supremacy… Gold, Bitcoin, and Fiat


International Man: For over 2,500 years, gold has been mankind's most enduring money.

With the emergence of Bitcoin—which has piqued the interest of many—there is a new hard money option.

How do you see the two as governments worldwide are engaged in the most extreme money printing experiment in history?

Nick Giambruno: Let me first say that I am all for free-market competition in money. I say let the best money win.

To really understand what is going on here, it's imperative to have a handle on the basics.

Money is a good, just like any other in an economy. And it isn't a complex notion to grasp.

It doesn't require you to understand convoluted math formulas and complicated theories—as the gatekeepers in academia, media, and government mislead a lot of folks into believing.

Understanding money is intuitive and straightforward. Money is simply something useful for storing and exchanging value. That's it.

The way I see it, three primary monetary goods are competing against each other today: Bitcoin, gold, and fiat currency.

Fiat currency is currently the dominant form of money in the world. But that status is rapidly fleeting as central banks are inflating their currencies at unprecedented and exponential rates.

That's why many millions—soon billions—of people are turning to sound monetary alternatives like gold and Bitcoin.

Fiat currency is a fraud of historic proportions that causes incomprehensible damage. So I am rooting for both gold and Bitcoin.

International Man: Many proponents of gold have taken aim at Bitcoin and have called it a speculative bubble. Can you explain Bitcoin's monetary qualities?

Nick Giambruno: Sure, but first let me say that I'd encourage the Bitcoin people and the gold people to have a temporary truce. It's far wiser not to divide the people who want sound money and instead focus on defeating the bigger problem today, which is the government's monopoly power over money, fiat currency, and central banking.

The sound money people are already a tiny fraction of the population, a rounding error, really. If they are divided and fighting among themselves, it will be far easier for the government to "tag and bag" them and prevail over both gold and Bitcoin.

So I suggest they team up and take on the bigger problem—and then fight it out later. It's the basic strategy in any three-way competition where the two weaker sides team up to take on the more powerful side.

Now, back to Bitcoin's monetary properties.

Bitcoin shares many of gold's monetary characteristics. They're both durable, divisible, consistent, convenient, scarce, and most importantly, they're "hard assets."

"Hardness" does not mean something that is necessarily tangible or physically hard, like metal. It means "hard to produce." By contrast, "easy money" is easy to produce. The best way to think of hardness is "resistance to inflation," which helps make it a good store of value—an essential function of money.

Like gold, Bitcoin does not have counterparty risk. Bitcoin and gold are the only primarily monetary assets that aren't simultaneously someone else's liabilities.

A lot more can be said on this topic, but this sums up the essential points.

It's also important to clarify that none of the other 4,000 or so other cryptocurrencies are genuinely scarce like Bitcoin. They all have key players, insiders, and development teams that can act like central banks and inflate the supply if they choose to. In short, all other cryptos have artificial scarcity. Bitcoin has real scarcity.

With Bitcoin, the current and future supply is finite and known to all. There will never be more than 21 million Bitcoins, and there is nothing anyone can do to change that.

In short, Bitcoin is the only crypto in the same league as gold.

International Man: What do you say to critics who claim that Bitcoin is just a bunch of digits on a computer with no intrinsic value?

Nick Giambruno: One of the first—and most important—lessons that free-market Austrian economics teaches is that all value is subjective.

There is no such thing as inherent or intrinsic value.

Something only has value because individuals subjectively determine it does.

For example, when people didn't understand what crude oil was, they'd find it in their backyards and think it was waste. They'd pay to have it removed from their property.

Later, once people understood the economic potential of crude oil, it was transformed from unwanted waste into "black gold."

The oil didn't change; it was still the same oil. What changed was how people valued it.

Marxists differ in that they falsely believe that labor has inherent or intrinsic value.

But this ridiculous notion is easily debunked.

The great economist Murray Rothbard explains this by asking people to try to make and sell mud pies—not the chocolate desserts, but pies literally made of dirt.

According to the Marxists, the pies have objective and intrinsic value because of the labor someone put into making them. But good luck getting someone to pay for them voluntarily.

The concept that all value is subjective applies to all goods, including monetary goods like gold and Bitcoin.

International Man: The Bitcoin price has reached breathtaking levels. It has also garnered the attention of institutional investors and corporations. Where do you see it going?

Nick Giambruno: What we have with Bitcoin is an entirely new asset that millions of people all around the world are adopting as money because of its superior monetary properties.

The monetization of the new monetary good is genuinely unlike anything anyone alive has ever seen before.

It took gold centuries to achieve monetization. Bitcoin has a good chance of undergoing monetization in a much shorter period.

The market cap for Bitcoin today is around $1.1 trillion, up over 8x in the last year alone.

The market cap for all the mined gold in the world, which took thousands of years to accumulate, is about $11 trillion.

That means Bitcoin has a market cap roughly equal to 10% of gold's and is already well on its way to monetization.

Assuming gold stays flat and Bitcoin goes up 10x, it would then have a market cap roughly equal to gold. At that point, a single Bitcoin would be worth over $500,000. That is a real possibility. Bitcoin has gone up 10x several times in the past, and it can do it again, especially as corporations and institutional investors start buying Bitcoin for the first time.

Bitcoin is not an established money but an emerging one. It's growing rapidly but doesn't have the reliable history that gold does. I like to think of Bitcoin like hard money with a call option attached to it.

International Man: What about Bitcoin's political risks? Can governments stop it?

Nick Giambruno: Bitcoin threatens a major source of the government's power—the power to create money out of thin air and force everyone to use it. There's no question they'll try to protect this racket from Bitcoin. The question is whether they'll be successful.

Remember, the Chinese government has banned bitcoin several times with little to no long-term effects.

That's because it's entirely impractical for governments to ban Bitcoin. They're no match for the economic incentives that attract millions—soon billions—of people, and increasingly, corporations, to a harder and superior form of money. Further, all aspects of Bitcoin are genuinely decentralized and robust. The best that governments can do is play an endless game of global whack-a-mole.

Governments in Argentina and Venezuela have laws restricting their citizens from accessing US dollars. However, these laws have little effect on their citizens' desire and ability to use them. These actions just create a thriving black market, or, more accurately termed, a free market.

Similarly, governments have tried to ban cannabis for decades, which hasn't worked out very well for them.

Bitcoin would be infinitely more challenging for governments to ban than US dollars or a plant.

I would like to see governments try to ban Bitcoin. They'll fall flat on their faces. This will reinforce the value proposition of Bitcoin as a superior form of money that nobody controls.

For example, the government of Nigeria recently banned Bitcoin. It's an interesting case because the ban caused the Bitcoin price to increase, not decrease. After the ban, Bitcoins started selling at up to a 60% premium.

As we clearly saw with the war on (some) Drugs, government prohibitions caused prices of otherwise cheap plants, like cannabis, to rise far higher than they would otherwise in a free market. The same dynamic would be at work with Bitcoin. As counterintuitive as it may seem at first, government bans would be bullish for the price.

I'd also add that it's a terrible, totalitarian notion to think that governments would throw peaceful people in cages for voluntarily exchanging value with Bitcoin. If your government goes down this path, I'd recommend immediately leaving the country as it would portend much worse things to come.

International Man: Is it too late for people to get involved or own some Bitcoin?

Nick Giambruno: Absolutely not. As I described above, Bitcoin has a real chance of reaching parity with gold's market cap. That would imply a 10x move from current prices.

But it's not just Bitcoin's upside that makes it appealing. It's the fact that nobody can inflate the supply, which makes it attractive as a store of value and a savings vehicle even if the price doesn't go up. In a world of government-imposed taxes on savings—otherwise known as negative interest rates—just keeping what you have is a challenge. Fortunately, with Bitcoin, you can put your savings into something that nobody can dilute or inflate.

It's also important to clarify that you don't need to buy an entire Bitcoin. You can own tiny fractions of up to 1/100,000,000 of a Bitcoin. These are "satoshis", and they are the smallest unit of a Bitcoin.

As of writing, you can buy 1,710 satoshis for $1.

In other words, if you have one penny, you can get 17 satoshis.

Reprinted with permission from International Man.

The post A Battle for Monetary Supremacy… Gold, Bitcoin, and Fiat appeared first on LewRockwell.

translate | 17 Apr 2021 | 6:01 am

The Unanimous News Conforms


The rise of television news, and its power over the mind, necessitated an agreement among the major networks:

On most issues, the networks would have to mirror each other's coverage. Otherwise, the audience would experience an unacceptable level of confusion and cognitive dissonance.

This principle of agreement was basically about the rules of propaganda—and nowhere was it more evident than in matters of medical science.

For example, suppose, recently, the COVID PCR test became an occasion for disagreement among NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, and FOX?

Three networks fell into line with the CDC and the WHO in claiming the test was accurate and meaningful, while the other two strenuously reported on the irreparable and fatal flaws in the test. (I've exhaustively detailed those flaws in many articles.)

The network dissonance would upset a huge apple cart smack in the middle of COVID "science." The public wouldn't know where to turn.

Therefore, the truth of the matter had to take a back seat to conformity. All the major networks robotically echoed the CDC/WHO.

And the network anchors had to sell the PCR lies. Lester Holt (Lurch/ the Addams family); David Muir (Sears underwear model); Norah O'Donnell (student council president); Wolf Blitzer ("smart bombs went right down chimneys in Iraq"); a collection of shiny suits at FOX; they all had to pretend they'd looked at more than the opening lines of public health press releases.

The guiding light of network news is unanimity, and social media have adopted that m.o. as well.

Truth is the first casualty of The News.

Long before television secured its hold on the public (1923-1928), Edward Bernays, the father of modern propaganda, wrote: "This is an age of mass production. In the mass production of materials a broad technique has been developed and applied to their distribution. In this age, too, there must be a technique for the mass distribution of ideas."

"Domination to-day is not a product of armies or navies or wealth or policies. It is a domination based on the one hand upon accomplished unity, and on the other hand upon the fact that opposition is generally characterized by a high degree of disunity."

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society."

Today, vast numbers of people DO cooperate; they watch the news, which is a virtual construct.

The network editors, writers, on-air talent, and crews conspire and collaborate, every day, to fulfill Bernays' prescriptions for society. And, for the most part, these plotters are true believers. They think they're presenting fact.

This is what habit does to the mind.

The CIA has played its role in securing network unanimity of coverage. As soon as the Agency was created, in 1947, it set about researching mind control (MKULTRA). It planted agents in newsrooms. It followed the tenets of Bernays.

Human society had to be hypnotized. Otherwise, profound decentralization would occur.

Consider this simple fact about the PCR test—which any news reporter should be able to spot in a minute, but doesn't: a person who tests positive is called "a case of COVID-19."

That isn't even done with HIV/AIDS. A person who tests positive is called "HIV positive." If he develops symptoms, then he's called "a case of AIDS."

Imagine this conversation: "Hi, Phil, how's your son?"

"He has the flu."

Oh. Is he in bed?"

"No. He ran the marathon yesterday."

"What? You said he has the flu."

"He does. He tested positive for the virus."

Absurd.

In 1913, political commentator Walter Lippmann wrote: "Ours is a problem in which deception has become organized and strong; where truth is poisoned at its source; one in which the skill of the shrewdest brains is devoted to misleading a bewildered people."

If the CDC says the sky is falling, all the networks will report it—and will censor the fact that it isn't falling.

"…in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously." Adolph Hitler, 1925

The distortion of the truth applies to the past as well as to the present. As George Orwell puts it, in 1984:

"The past, he reflected, had not merely been altered, it had been actually destroyed. For how could you establish even the most obvious fact when there existed no record outside your own memory?…To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself…That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink."

Why all this subterfuge? In order to produce mass uniformity of belief and consensus. You can be sure that, in the future, the history of COVID will be transmitted in a way that covers up all the lies and obfuscations. COVID will be invoked to prove contradictory propositions (both A and not-A), when it suits the propagandists.

Over the years, in speaking with mainstream reporters, I've gleaned that some of them are aware they're on an Orwellian path. They squelch that perception. But they know they're a) believing what they report is true and b) disbelieving what they report.

They understand they're parrot-performers on a stage under the lights, and yet they accept their roles as absolutely authentic reflections of honesty.

They rationalize this contradiction in the same way that Edward Bernays did in 1928: "Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner [by accepting propaganda as fact] if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society."

Under hypnosis.

Have you ever seen a first-class hypnotist perform his act? The basic requirement—he must appear to know exactly what he's doing. That skill is paramount.

And this is the standard toward which all television news anchors aspire.

Reprinted with permission from Jon Rappoport's blog.

The post The Unanimous News Conforms appeared first on LewRockwell.

translate | 17 Apr 2021 | 6:01 am

Where Have You Gone, Atticus Finch?


In the archives of legal fiction, two characters best embody historic liberal self-perception. One is attorney Atticus Finch of To Kill a Mockingbird fame. The other is Juror #8 in the 1957 film, 12 Angry Men. Today, each is an endangered species.

In his defense of Tom Robinson, a black man accused of rape in 1930s Alabama, Atticus ignored public opinion. He stared down the mobs intent on extra-legal justice and protected his "mockingbird" as best he could. The unlikely mockingbird today is former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin. As Chauvin learned quickly, if he did not know it beforehand, today's vestigial liberals identify not with Atticus but with the mob.

Hell, as even Snopes had to concede Vice President Kamala Harris "encouraged her supporters to donate" to a nonprofit called the Minnesota Freedom Fund (MFF) that was bailing out members of the mob arrested for rioting after George Floyd's death.

Chauvin's crime, like Robinson's, was being of a certain race in a society that increasingly sees justice only through the prism of race. Like the fictional Robinson, the real-life Chauvin represents one of a long and growing line of sacrificial lambs offered on the altar of racial "justice" to expiate the nation's imagined sins.

Ever impatient, the mobs from the very same liberal metro could not wait for Chauvin's official immolation to demand the sacrifice of a new lamb. This time, the mobs have shown no scruple about sating themselves on a female officer. To them, it mattered not a whit that veteran Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, officer Kim Potter clearly showed no racial malice in her accidental shooting of Duante Wright, a troubled archetype from a subculture slowly being crushed under the weight of rigidly enforced dishonesty.

To his good fortune, Chauvin has found his Atticus in defense attorney Eric Nelson. Although he has backstage help from the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association, Nelson has been arguing solo against the snarky Mod Squad of a prosecution team. Calm and dispassionate, the forty-something Nelson has been quietly picking the prosecution case apart these last three weeks.  Viewed from another planet, the unknowing alien might wonder why Chauvin is even on trial. For details, please see the work done by Andrew Branca at Legal Insurrection.  Those who have not followed the case closely would be wise to ignore Big Media and watch the closing arguments, likely on Monday, before forming an opinion.

For all of Nelson's good work, Chauvin has only a slightly better chance of acquittal than Tom Robinson. His best hope lies in having a juror like Juror #8, the character played by Henry Fonda in the liberal fantasy of a movie, 12 Angry Men.

In his screenplay notes, Reginald Rose describes Juror #8 as "a man who sees all sides of every question and constantly seeks the truth. A man of strength tempered with compassion. Above all, he is a man who wants justice to be done and will fight to see that it is." This is how liberals have historically imagined themselves. The willfully blind perhaps still do. Not one for nuance, Rose describes #8's nemesis, Juror #3, played by Lee J. Cobb, in the film, as "a humorless man who is intolerant of opinions other than his own and accustomed to forcing his wishes and views upon others."

Read the Whole Article

The post Where Have You Gone, Atticus Finch? appeared first on LewRockwell.

translate | 17 Apr 2021 | 6:01 am

WHICH Scientific Consensus?


I bet you'd be surprised to discover the overwhelming true scientific consensus is that the official COVID-19 narrative is, shall we say to be polite, "flawed." If we weren't being polite, words like "bogus," "dishonest," "fake," "malarkey," "nonsense," "B.S." might show up.

The evidence for that true scientific consensus — as opposed to the "flawed" one you hear incessantly from Main Stream Media (MSM) — comes from but is not limited to these 13,986 medical and public health scientists and these 42,587 medical practitioners. As of April 11, 2021, that's 56,573 scientists in all and growing. This doesn't include the additional three-quarters-of-a-million+ concerned citizens, who, along with the scientists, all signed The Great Barrington Declaration, dissing the flawed official COVID-19 narrative.

And there are also other groups such as the 1,500+ members of the World Doctor's Alliance who are telling us to "STOP the biggest health scam of the 21st century."

That's more than 58,000 scientists, doctors, and an additional 3/4 million concerned citizens, but forget the concerned citizens for now.

So why haven't you heard from the 58,000+ dissenting doctors and scientists? In fact, since we're supposed to "follow the science," why haven't you heard from them every day?

Either by design or by opportunism — "Never let an emergency go to waste," — the folks who want to control everyone either created or grabbed COVID-19 as a golden opportunity.

Using the deep-state use-and-control-media techniques exposed by left icon, Prof. Noam Chomsky in his aptly named classic, "Manufacturing Consent," the flawed pseudo-scientific narrative we're exposed to hourly was fertilized and nurtured into existence by what appears to be a handful of well-connected refugees from the Club of Rome.

This was done in hopes of, well, manufacturing our consent – – – to unconstitutional government measures such as "lock-downs," appropriate for prisons maybe, but not for a free people under legitimate governments.

Once that pseudo-scientific seed took root, it was passed on to the P.R. disinformation workers and megaphoned into the culture, just as Prof. Chomsky outlined, by a complicit MSM. These days, that includes a complicit facebook, Google, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, and I probably missed a few.

And so we begin to ass-u-me the manufactured pseudo-scientific narrative and the consensus it implies are real, and then confirmation bias takes over.

Pseudo-scientific?

You bet! The Scientific Method absolutely requires opposing opinions in order to function. If there aren't any or they're suppressed for any reason, you can be just about certain it isn't real science.

So the pseudo-scientific "tell" is that we don't hear from those 58,000 doctors and scientists daily. They're the tip of the true consensus iceberg.

Now, just as it's supposed to, especially through confirmation bias and because so many now have their reputations and committed skin in that game — and so it's in their self-interest to keep it going — the "flawed" and bogus pseudo-scientific Narrative Pandemic has taken on a life of its own.

But if the official manufactured consensus is flawed and bogus, why do so many people seem to accept it?

Do they?

Just as Prof. Chomsky nailed, because of all that manufactured one-sided media hype, everyone ass-u-mes everyone else believes and so most are afraid to speak out.

But not everybody – – –

OK, now would be a good time to remember those 3/4 million+ Great Barrington concerned citizens – – –

But among those who are afraid to speak out, it works like this – – –

Apparently unaware that the cameras were rolling, [Ontario, Canada, Premier Doug] Ford delivers the following blunt comment:

"I'm gonna be very frank. There's no politician in this country who's gonna disagree with their chief medical officer. They just aren't gonna do it. They might as well throw a rope around their neck and jump off a bridge. They're done. I'm telling you the facts. It's very simple." –Premier Ford: Fire Your Chief Medical Officer and Reopen the Province!

And there's another problem: medical folks, focusing on their specialty as experts usually do, don't have time to be well-rounded and so are often functionally illiterate when it comes to economics and the Big Picture. They grossly underestimate — or are more likely ignorant of — the much more severe damage done by their myopic untested extra-medical advice, especially the unconstitutional lockdowns — especially when followed by fooled, duped and cowardly politicians, worried about re-election.

With those 13,986 medical and public health scientists, 42,587 medical practitioners and the 1,500+ members of the World Doctor's Alliance etc, how hard would it be for Ontario's Gov. Ford to follow the headline advice and replace his "Chief Medical Officer" with someone from the true documented scientific consensus — and/or ignore his Chief Medical Officer — as 23 U.S. governors with cajones are now doing?

So when was the last time you heard an MSM report from the over 800,000 folks who signed The Great Barrington Declaration — or the 1,500+ members of the World Doctor's Alliance??

They're censoring well over 800,000 folks, at least 58,000 of them doctors and scientists for chrissake!

Like this for example – – –

YouTube Purges Ron DeSantis Video Over Claims Children Don't Need to Wear Masks — thewrap.com

When I first saw that headline, I ass-u-me_d it was Florida Gov. DeSantis who'd suggested "Children Don't Need to Wear Masks."

I was wrong – – –

DeSantis was joined by Oxford epidemiologist Dr. Sunetra Gupta, Harvard professor Dr. Martin Kulldorff, and Dr. Scott Atlas and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya from Stanford University. … a transcript of the discussion can be found on the group's website by clicking here.

A YouTube rep confirmed to TheWrap on Thursday the video was removed due to multiple instances where the doctors said children didn't need to wear masks. This position, a YouTube rep said, violated the Google-owned video site's "COVID-19 medical misinformation" policies, which you can find here…. "We removed AIER's video because it included content that contradicts the consensus of local and global health authorities … " –TheWrap, [bolding emphasis added]

Which medical consensus do you suppose Oxford epidemiologist Dr. Sunetra Gupta, Harvard professor Dr. Martin Kulldorff, Dr. Scott Atlas and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya from Stanford University were censored by YouTube for "contradicting," the ass-u-med and manufactured one or the 58,000+-strong documented tip-of-the-iceberg scientific one?

If you have the slightest doubt, the headline from that Google/YouTube AIER article they censored will remove it:

Great Barrington Declaration Scientists with Gov. DeSantis in Florida — AIER

So the really really big deep-state "tell" is the bogus claim that Alphabet/Google/YouTube censors and disinformation workers are defending "the consensus of local and global health authorities." Clearly what they're defending is the manufactured consensus they're being paid to make you believe.

About now you may be thinking something like, "But people are dying!" True but what are they dying of?

This is where the manufactured consensus is exposed as not only "flawed" and "bogus," but also "dishonest," "fake," "malarkey," "nonsense," and "B.S." If you know where to look – – –

Every once in awhile the more honest and careful newsies will call them "COVID related deaths." Although it sounds subtle, that's seriously different than "COVID caused deaths."

In fact, "COVID caused deaths" are only about 10% of the always officially reported "COVID related deaths." That's right, violating over 120 years of established medical science, epidemiology, and the C.D.C.s own handbook the official COVID-19 death figures are exaggerated by a factor of ten!

And likewise, despite its inventor warning against it, by using the PCR test — which is almost always what's used — to identify infections in the general public and then incorrectly reporting them as "cases," the reported so-called COVID-19 "cases" are also exaggerated into the stratosphere, again violating 120 year-old scienc. This 120 year-old science – – –

"In [epidemiology]– founded by Robert Koch himself — a traditional distinction is made between infection and disease. An illness requires a clinical manifestation. [1] Therefore, only patients with symptoms such as fever or cough should be included in the statistics as new cases. In other words, a new infection — as measured by the COVID-19 test — does not necessarily mean that we are dealing with a newly ill patient who needs a hospital bed." –epidemiologist Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi

Bottom Line: A case requires an infection but an infection is not a case — and neither are the huge numbers of false positives they report as cases.

And there's much deeper misinformation involved too – – –

With any disease — colds, flu, etc. — there are always infected folks who remain unknown to the state because folks with mild or no symptoms don't normally seek medical attention or testing.

Now with all the wide-area geographical blind testing — and a cough or sniffle sending the frightened to a medical facility — they're finding huge numbers of these folks even though they don't even need an asprin let alone medical attention. This has never happened before.

This and misuse of the PCR test is the main reason why over 40% of the hugely increased number of infections — usually misleadingly reported as "cases" remember — are "asymptomatic," that is, don't have symptoms. And because of PCR over-cycling, many are false positives anyway.

And then there's the obvious but rarely mentioned fact that the more tests you perform, the more infections you find. So when they report a jump in "cases" that's almost always because there's been a jump in the number of PCR tests which, at best, find previously undiscovered folks with mild or no symptoms.

So if you want to scare everyone, just increase the number of PCR tests you're giving and report the results — or easier, just jigger the computer simulation you're using. Simulations are now almost always where the numbers come from because of the difficulty of an honest hard count.

So on even cursory inspection — if you know where to look and it hasn't been censored — the manufactured consensus simply can't stand the light of day.

Every once in awhile I have to bitche-slap myself because, given the propaganda full-court-press, I sometimes start believing the malarkey too.

So which consensus do you believe, the scientific one or the manufactured one?

HERE For updates, additions, comments, and corrections.

AND, "Like," "Tweet," and otherwise, pass this along!

The post WHICH Scientific Consensus? appeared first on LewRockwell.

translate | 17 Apr 2021 | 6:01 am

Christian Morality


Thus the good was done to all men, not merely to the household of faith.

–          Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, third century

The Age of Paradise: Christendom from Pentecost to the First Millennium, by John Strickland

In the aftermath of the notorious Spartacus rebellion, for instance, the road leading to Rome had been lined with no fewer than six thousand crucified slaves.

Rome was a cruel society, albeit the Romans did not believe it to be.  They practiced their ethic, finding their behaviors to be quite moral.  As Strickland notes, "Roman statesmen were connoisseurs of cruelty," and this cruelty was not limited to the early Christians.

There is the story of Perpetua and Felicity, a young, aristocratic woman and her slave girl.  In 203, they were rounded up and brought to the central amphitheater to be executed – a fate which could be avoided if they gave up the Christian faith.  They would not.

The two walked into the arena together, hand in hand – the aristocrat with the slave.  Their death was to be especially cruel – first a bear, then a leopard, finally a raging bull.  None having fulfilled their purpose, finally the executioner finished the task.

Strickland notes that this event was one of many that began to shake traditional pagan morality.  The spectators could not help but see the victimization of the Christians and the fact that a slave was held in regard by the noblewoman.  They saw an image of a society far different than their own.

How to contrast some of the key features of the pagan religion and the Christian?  Many gods vs. one God; the world a spiritual prison vs. a world created in goodness; the gods appear as men vs. man created in God's image; a god becoming man is unconscionable vs. the Incarnation.

These differences, coupled with Christ's moral teaching, would present to the Roman world an ethic almost diametrically contrary to their own.  The improvements, which we take for granted today, were remarkable and stunning.  Christianity, blamed by many today for all the ills of the West, instead was the cure.

A noblewoman would hold hands with a slave – this was unbelievable to the Roman world, a shock to the system of values that had to be internalized by many of the watchers.  Blood sport was a normal part of Roman life, but while others were condemned as escaped slaves, murderers, or insurgents, Christians were condemned for being Christian.  And then, once again, the picture of the two young women comes into view.

Roman pagan morality held no meaningful concept of mercy, compassion, or forgiveness – mercy, at best, given some room as long as it didn't interfere with honor.  Even more: concepts such as mercy, and especially forgiveness, were considered disgraceful in Roman society.  Conquest and vengeance were held in high regard – Odysseus would slaughter his wife's host of suiters.

The very question of mercy for the vulnerable and suffering was problematic.  Compassion disrupts the proper functioning of reason; therefore, it was usually treated as a vice.

A truly virtuous Roman could look at the suffering of others without wincing.

Slavery offers another window.  Plato considered it inevitable and appropriate; Aristotle went further: slavery was not only necessary, but expedient.  It was part of the natural order of things.  To ameliorate slavery would have been seen as unethical, as it would subvert a social order that took for granted that some would legitimately dominate over others.

The Christians, on the contrary, were commanded to love.  And the Romans couldn't help but see this played out.  They would care for the poor – Christian or pagan.  During times of plague, the Christians would remain in the cities to care for the suffering, and die with them.

What of women?  The early Church was overwhelmingly female – which seems quite contrary to the patriarchal view of Christianity.  "This is hardly surprising, because Christianity dignified women."  Paganism, on the other hand, assigned a low value to women.

Female humanity was considered naturally inferior to male.  Aristotle would offer that women had no legitimate claim to equality of any kind – not political, not social, not intellectual.  He regarded femininity as a deformity.  For Plato, not only were women physically inferior, but morally and spiritually of less value as well.

Athens denied all rights to women; they were political non-persons.  At marriage, they were basically the property of the husband.  They were not educated, with the primary role to bear children for the husband – who could divorce them for any reason whatsoever.  They were usually consigned to the innermost rooms of the house, living a remote and socially insignificant life.

This led, naturally, to the infanticide of newborn (primarily) girls.  Greek and Roman culture was steeped in this culture.  Aristotle advocated a legal requirement that no child born with a deformity should be allowed to live; Plato found infanticide a necessary part of the ideal civilization.

He argued that if a human being lacks the capacity to reason, he is not really a human being at all, but rather subhuman.

And as females were naturally inferior to males, the practice of killing newborn girls was particularly justified.  The Romans adopted such views.  Seneca would write about the social benefit of killing deformed and unwanted children – grouping such as these with rabid dogs.

Infants could be placed outdoors, to die from exposure; they would be strangled or drowned.  A Roman sewer in Palestine was clogged with the bodies of some one hundred newborn infants.  A similar number had been found near a second-century Roman villa in Britain.

Abortion was also a regular family-planning practice – and, obviously, with no ultrasound or genetic testing available, both male and female, healthy or sickly, were killed in this manner.  Aristotle would encourage abortion for any parents who have too many children.

The practice of infanticide and abortion was so common and accepted, that parents could speak openly to one another about their experiences.  A husband, on travel for business, would write home to his wife: "If you are delivered of a child [before I come home], if it is a boy keep it, if it is a girl discard it."

This husband could not be described as a sinister example.  He ended his letter with a strong expression of affection: "You have sent me word not to forget you.  How can I forget you?  I beg you not to worry."  It is certainly good that the wife's parents did not think of her as this husband thought of his potentially-female child.

Christianity from the beginning forbade all such forms of abortion and infanticide; Christianity treated women with respect.  The Didache (The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations), a first or second century writing dealing with ethics and various practices and rituals, would be unambiguous on these points.

There is more: sexual integrity, chastity, and monogamy:

Sexually speaking, pagan Rome was a man's world in which male promiscuity was broadly celebrated and institutionalized. …Rome's culture of male virility encouraged not only numerous and frequent heterosexual relationships but homosexual ones as well.

Status would be gained especially by engaging in such acts with those of lower status, especially slaves.  Slaves had no legal protection at all from sexual exploitation and abuse.

For the ancients, the body was disposable; the soul was eternal.  Christianity would link the body to the soul, with all of the moral conclusions that this would entail; the body and soul were both hallowed.  The radical changes would come, not from regulations, but from this Christian anthropology.

Conclusion

When we renounce the Christian faith, we abandon all right to Christian morality.

–          From The Twilight of the Idols, by Friedrich Nietzsche

Christian morality did not naturally evolve from the Greek and Roman via an evolutionary process.  It was not an inevitability.  There were many other societies in the world 2000 years ago that did not so evolve; there are many societies today that have never achieved the position offered by Christian morality.

Sure, get rid of Christianity.  Is there any possibility that freedom will ensue?  Is it conceivable, to any but the most irrational, that private property for every individual will survive?

We see the evidence today in reverse.  We have lived for more than 125 years in a West that has suffered through Nietzsche's announcement of the death of God.  One can draw an almost continuous downward sloping line that measures our declining liberty since that time.

Epilogue

Rome would suffer a population decline – too few women and too many men, driven by the infanticide primarily focused on infant girls.

With women joining the Church in greater numbers than men, Christianity would naturally increase, as more children would be born in Christian households.  Even when the father was not Christian, the mother would hold influence given their manner in the family – this as the Apostle Paul and others have written and taught in the many letters of the New Testament.

…many were the men who found in their Christian wives an inspiration that pagan marriage, with its aimless sexuality and debased standards of love, utterly lacked.

Christianity grew rapidly, driven in large part by these significant cultural dynamics: Christianity offered a dignity to the disenfranchised that was completely alien to those in the Greek and Roman world.

Reprinted with permission from Bionic Mosquito.

The post Christian Morality appeared first on LewRockwell.

translate | 17 Apr 2021 | 6:01 am

The Covid Propaganda Continues, Even in the Face of Vaccination Murder


17″There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it."

~ Aldous Huxley – "The Ultimate Revolution". Aldous Huxley's speech at Berkeley Language Center, www.informationclearinghouse.info. March 20, 1962.

Dystopian reality has now taken on a whole new meaning, as the people have become slaves, but they continue in a time of extreme misery, squalor, and oppression, to accept this state of tyranny voluntarily. Many are even excited about this turn of events because they have been given the illegal capability to become completely irresponsible, while collecting extortion money at the expense of their neighbors and countrymen. This of course is a government-designed outcome, as the masses have been fooled over time into believing that they deserve something for nothing. Now that they are ripe for takeover, the plot will thicken, and given the implications of what is possible, we are facing a time of terror.

The now dreaded flu season, which has been turned into the fake 'Covid' pandemic season, is over for the year, but no one would realize this by reading or watching the criminal mainstream media's nefarious narration of current events. As reported, the WHO 'chief' liar, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, said:

"The number of new COVID-19 cases per week has nearly doubled globally over the past two months, approaching the highest rate seen so far during the pandemic."

"Cases and deaths are continuing to increase at worrying rates," Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said in a briefing focused on Papua New Guinea (PNG) and the western Pacific region.

He said he was very worried about the potential for a much larger epidemic in PNG, and it was vital the country received more COVID-19 vaccines as soon as possible.

What is so stark and revealing about these statements, other than that they are outright falsehoods, is the concentration on Papua New Guinea and the western Pacific region. Nothing could be more obvious than this ploy to attack a region that had much lower 'case' and death 'reporting' than much of the rest of the world. Once mass vaccination occurs there, as is being demanded by the head of the evil Bill Gates run WHO, there will be plenty of sickness and death due to this poisonous injection. Of course, the horrible governments of Australia, the U.S., and Germany, have sent emergency 'medical' teams (contract killers) to this region to facilitate spreading toxic and deadly jabs into as much of the population as possible. This is not spreading democracy; it is spreading death. I am very surprised that Tedros and his ilk have not gone after Tanzania in the same manner, after the likely murder of their president John Magufuli. He realized early on that this was all a fraud, and proved that the testing was completely phony, and then suspiciously died only to be replaced by an insider for Klaus Schwab's heinous World Economic Forum, the home of the "Great Reset."

While in the midst of leaving the season of most sickness, the mainstream headlines continue to claim that the infection rate nears 'pandemic' highs. If these sensationalist headlines do not cause the "proper" amount of panic among the herd, then stronger and more direct measures will be used in order to stoke and perpetuate the fear until later this year when the next flu season begins. The tactics most certainly already planned are not totally clear as of yet, but they will be as this year progresses.

If the powerful and their organized crime accomplices in government can carry the fear into the fall, all hell will break loose. By that time, and after nearly two years of lockdowns, a constantly masked populace, and psychological and economic destruction, the death rates coming will be exponential in nature. With that high level of stress among the masses, completely destroyed immune systems, and a much higher injection rate of deadly pathogens, the state will revel in its ability to take over once and for all.

As so-called 'vaccines' of all approved companies are being shut down in the U.S. and around the world due to horrible side effects and death, the state, the media, and the illegitimate 'health' organizations are continually recommending more 'vaccinations' of poisons be given. This obviously defies logic and sanity, but it should make evident to many more that this is a plot meant only to control and kill, and has never been meant to stop or cure any 'virus.' The only goals of this deception called 'Covid' are to cause sickness and death in order to accomplish depopulation and set the stage for technocratic control over all of humanity.

As people are confronted with blood clots, auto-immune disease, stroke, heart attack, horrible allergic reactions and anaphylactic shock, and many other dilapidating effects from these virulent and even fatal 'Covid' injections, including immediate death, Pfizer is already calling for a third vaccine within the year. The push for all to be injected is going forward, even as many claim they will not take these shots. What will the government and its handlers do to attempt to get a high percentage of Americans to accept the unacceptable? What is coming to enhance the numbers of people willing to accept this jab? What possible set of events will be forthcoming to frighten the public into running to get this shot of poisonous, mind and body controlling, RNA/DNA altering inoculation? Will it be a variant lie, claimed mutations, or other reasons, and will this government purposely release toxins on the public to cause mass panic? As I have stated in the past, nothing will be off the table when it comes to gaining total control over this country's citizens.

The adverse reaction rate is supposedly calculated by a front organization for the CDC and FDA called the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). This is akin to having the fox guard the henhouse, as the government desires all to be 'vaccinated,' regardless of the consequences, and then also is in charge of monitoring these events, and deciding what they want to report or not report. Less than 10%, possibly much less, of all adverse reactions and death due to 'vaccines,' are being reported, and the state through this VAERS system decides on its own which cases to report. Given the history of government monitoring and policing itself, these numbers are certainly only a tiny fraction of reality, and are manipulated by the promoters of this fraud. In fact, the CDC is basically a vaccine company, and gets most of its revenue from vaccines, and has many patents on the toxic concoctions. What a scam!

According to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.:

"The CDC is a subsidiary of the pharmaceutical industry. The agency owns more than 20 vaccine patents and purchases and sells $4.1 billion in vaccines annually. Congressman Dave Weldon has pointed out that the primary metric for success across the CDC is how many vaccines the agency sells and how successfully the agency expands its vaccine program—regardless of any negative effects on human health."

Actually, the number of vaccine patents held by the CDC is much higher, as noted in the source links below, this regardless of the lies put out by the state and media sponsored "fact checkers."

The truth about the deadly nature of the U.S vaccination programs, and especially this 'Covid' scam injection, is becoming abundantly clear, but more need to shun not only this lethal shot, but others as well. This is especially true concerning the very young, and all children that are subject to any public school system. They are the targeted ones, because if all are injected over their lives, they will be little more than state-controlled robots in the future. With that accomplished over the next generation or two, there will be no freedom whatsoever left to consider in this land called America.

"Never have so many been manipulated so much by so few."

~ Aldous Huxley, Robert S. Baker, James Sexton (2002). "Complete Essays: 1956-1963, and supplement, 1920-1948", Ivan R. Dee Publisher

Source links:

WHO Chief and 'Covid' propaganda

Tanzanian president winds up dead

Guide to the Great Reset

Covid 'vaccine' genocide

Several states shut down J&J Covid 'vaccine'

Pfizer CEO recommending third 'Covid' doze within year

CDC owns more than 50 vaccination patents

Vaccine patents assigned to CDC

The post The Covid Propaganda Continues, Even in the Face of Vaccination Murder appeared first on LewRockwell.

translate | 17 Apr 2021 | 6:01 am

The Inverted Yield Curve and Recession


[This article is part of the Understanding Money Mechanics series, by Robert P. Murphy. The series will be published as a book in 2021.]

The "yield curve" refers to a graph showing the relationship between the maturity length of bonds—such as one month, three months, one year, five years, twenty years, etc.—plotted on the x axis, and the yield (or interest rate) plotted on the y axis.1 In the postwar era, a "normal" yield curve has been upward sloping, meaning that investors typically receive a higher rate of return if they are willing to put their funds into longer-dated bonds. A so-called inverted yield curve occurs when this typical relationship flips, and short-dated bonds have a higher rate of return than long-dated ones.

Investors and financial analysts are very interested in this phenomenon, because an inverted yield curve (defined in a particular way) has been a perfect leading indicator of a recession going back at least fifty years. If we look at the last eight recessions, beginning with the downturn that began in December 1969, an appropriately defined yield curve inversion preceded all of them about a year ahead of time. Moreover, during this same fifty-one-year period the (appropriately defined) yield curve has only inverted when there would soon be a recession. (See the endnotes for citations to the scholarly literature.2) The following chart illustrates the yield curve's apparent predictive power:

In the above chart (which only goes back to the early 1980s and so doesn't cover the full extent of the yield curve's successful track record), we have charted the difference (or "spread") between the implicit interest rate on ten-year Treasury bonds and three-month Treasury bills. The normal state of affairs is for the yield on the longer ten-year security to be higher than the yield on the very short three-month security. (That's why the line in the chart is typically above the black horizontal line at the 0 percent notch.)

However, every once in a while the yield curve inverts, meaning that the line in the chart dips below the 0 percent threshold, corresponding to a situation in which the yield on three-month T-bills is actually higher than the yield on ten-year Treasury bonds. Notice in our chart that whenever that happens—and only when that happens—the economy soon goes into a recession (indicated by the gray bars).

Economists have tried to explain the mechanism by which an inverted yield curve signals an impending recession. As we will see, the conventional attempts—such as the one offered by Paul Krugman—do not fit the actual facts. In contrast, the Misesian explanation of the business cycle quite easily explains the pattern we observe in interest rates during the "normal" boom time and shortly before the bust.

Paul Krugman on the Inverted Yield Curve

In his New York Times column and associated blogging platform, Paul Krugman over the years has clearly singled out investor expectations as the driving force behind the historical pattern. Here is Krugman in late 2008:

The reason for the historical relationship between the slope of the yield curve and the economy's performance is that the long-term rate is, in effect, a prediction of future short-term rates. If investors expect the economy to contract, they also expect the Fed to cut rates, which tends to make the yield curve negatively sloped. If they expect the economy to expand, they expect the Fed to raise rates, making the yield curve positively sloped. (bold added)3

Then, in his column from mid-August of 2019—commenting on the then recent inversion of the two-year and ten-year yields, which was spooking investors—Krugman applied his framework to the data:

An old economists' joke says that the stock market predicted nine of the last five recessions. Well, an "inverted yield curve"—when interest rates on short-term bonds are higher than on long-term bonds—predicted six of the last six recessions. And a plunge in long-term yields, which are now less than half what they were last fall, has inverted the yield curve once again, with the short-versus-long spread down to roughly where it was in early 2007, on the eve of a disastrous financial crisis and the worst recession since the 1930s.

Neither I nor anyone else is predicting a replay of the 2008 crisis. It's not even clear whether we're heading for recession. But the bond market is telling us that the smart money has become very gloomy about the economy's prospects. Why? The Federal Reserve basically controls short-term rates, but not long-term rates; low long-term yields mean that investors expect a weak economy, which will force the Fed into repeated rate cuts.  (bold added)4

As the above quotations make clear, Krugman argues that the yield curve flattens/inverts before a recession because investors forecast trouble ahead. There are two problems with this approach.

First, why would an inverted yield curve spook investors if the reason it inverts is that investors already know a recession is coming?

Second and more significant: Krugman's explanation would make sense if yield curve inversions typically occurred when the long bond yield collapses. But in fact, as the following chart makes clear, the yield curve inverts primarily because the short rate spikes upward before a recession:

In the above chart, particularly for the middle three recessions, it is clear that the yield curve inverted because the three-month yield (black line) rose rapidly to surpass the ten-year yield (green line). This is the opposite of what Krugman's readers would have expected to see.

An Austrian Explanation

In contrast to Krugman's story, standard Austrian business cycle theory—which we explained in chapter 9—is quite compatible with the evidence presented in the above figure. In the Misesian framework, the unsustainable boom is associated with "easy money" and artificially low interest rates. When the banks (led by the central bank, in modern times) change course and tighten, interest rates rise and trigger the inevitable bust.5 (It is standard in macroeconomics to assume that the central bank's actions affect short-term interest rates much more than long-term interest rates.)

In fact, as Ryan Griggs and the present author have demonstrated, changing growth rates in the Austrian "true money supply" (TMS) monetary aggregate correspond quite well with the spread in the yield curve:

In the above chart, the green line (corresponding to the left axis) is the difference between the ten-year Treasury bond yield and the three-month T-bill yield. The black line (corresponding to the right axis) is the twelve-month percentage growth in the true money supply as defined by Rothbard and Salerno (and which we briefly discussed in chapter 5).

As the chart indicates, these two series have a remarkably tight connection. Specifically, when the money supply grows at a high rate, we are in a "boom" period and the yield curve is "normal," meaning the yield on long bonds is much higher than on short bonds. But when the banking system contracts and money supply growth decelerates, then the yield curve flattens or even inverts. It is not surprising that when the banks "slam on the brakes" with money creation, the economy soon goes into recession.

In summary, the standard Austrian explanation of the business cycle has, as a natural corollary, a straightforward explanation for the apparent predictive power of an inverted yield curve.

1.The material in this chapter draws on a forthcoming QJAE article authored by Ryan Griggs and Robert P. Murphy.

2.Perhaps the first systematic exploration of the inverted yield curve's ability to forecast recessions was Campbell Harvey, "Recovering Expectations of Consumption Growth from an Equilibrium Model of the Term Structure of Interest Rates" (PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1986), https://faculty.fuqua.duke.edu/~charvey/Research/Thesis/Thesis.pdf. For a more recent discussion, see Arturo Estrella and Mary R. Trubin, "The Yield Curve as a Leading Indicator: Some Practical Issues," New York Fed: Current Issues in Economics and Finance, July/August 2006, pp. 1–7, https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/current_issues/ci12-5.pdf.

3.See Paul Krugman, "The Yield Curve (Wonkish)," Paul Krugman blogs, New York Times, Dec. 27, 2008, https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/the-yield-curve-wonkish/.

4.See Paul Krugman, "From Trump Boom to Trump Gloom," New York Times, Aug. 15, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/15/opinion/trump-economy.html.

5.Paul Cwik's work explains the inverted yield curve's predictive power in light of Austrian business cycle theory. See for example Paul Cwik, "The Inverted Yield Curve and the Economic Downturn," New Perspectives on Political Economy 1, no. 1 (2005): 1–37; and "An Investigation of Inverted Yield Curves and Economic Downturns," (PhD diss., Auburn University, 2004).

The post The Inverted Yield Curve and Recession appeared first on LewRockwell.

translate | 17 Apr 2021 | 6:01 am
Text to Speech by: ResponsiveVoice-NonCommercial licensed under 95x15
website no use cookies, no spying, no tracking
to use the website, we check:
country: US · city: Arlington · ip: 18.204.2.190
device: computer · browser: CCBot 2 · platform:
counter: 1 · online:
created and powered by:
RobiYogi.com - Professional Responsive Websites
00:00
00:00
close
 please wait loading data...