Governance

by

The Miserable Pseudo-Science Behind Face Masks, Social Distancing And Contact Tracing | Technocracy News

man-behind-mask-777x437By Patrick Wood

Once upon a time, there was something called science. It included the discovery of truth about nature, the elements, the universe, etc. It was practiced by honest and accountable practitioners called scientists and engineers. They often invented cool new things as a result of their studies, but generally they had no primal urge to use their knowledge to dominate other people, groups or even entire societies.

Then certain other scientists and engineers rose up and made a discovery of their own. If true science was ever-so-slightly skewed and engineering disciplines were applied to society at large, then they could indeed use their “knowledge” to dominate and control other people, groups, entire societies or even, heaven forbid, the entire planet.

The first group pursued science. The second group pursued pseudo-science.

Merriam-Webster defines pseudo-science as “a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific.”  The Oxford dictionary clarifies by stating, “a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.“

Pseudo-science quickly emerged as the principal domain of Technocrats, but they soon found that scientific debate with those promoting real science was most inconvenient to their social engineering goals. The solution was simple: claim that their own pseudo-science was indeed the real science, and then refuse debate by excluding all other voices to the contrary.

In the context of pseudo-science, this report will examine the three primary tools of fighting COVID-19: face masks, social distancing and contact tracing.

Face masks

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) website plainly states that cloth face masks “Will not protect the wearer against airborne transmissible infectious agents due to loose fit and lack of seal or inadequate filtration.” 

But, what about surgical masks? OHSA is clear here also that they “will not protect the wearer against airborne transmissible infectious agents due to loose fit and lack of seal or inadequate filtration.”

But then right under these statements, OSHA furiously backpedaled by adding an FAQ section on COVID-19 directly underneath and stated,

OSHA generally recommends that employers encourage workers to wear face coverings at work.Face coverings are intended to prevent wearers who have Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) without knowing it (i.e., those who are asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic) from spreading potentially infectious respiratory droplets to others. This is known as source control.

Consistent with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendation for all people to wear cloth face coverings when in public and around other people, wearing cloth face coverings, if appropriate for the work environment and job tasks, conserves other types of personal protective equipment (PPE), such as surgical masks, for healthcare settings where such equipment is needed most.

So, wearing a face mask cannot protect you from getting COVID, but it is supposedly able to keep someone else from getting it from you? OSHA is speaking out of both sides of its mouth. What it calls “source control” likely puts the real motive out in the open: since you are the source, it’s about controlling YOU. There is no true scientific rationale for anyone but the sick and medical workers to wear masks.

The truly healthy have no business wearing a mask, period.

But, what about asymptomatic carriers?

On June 8, 2020, Maria Van Herkhove, PhD., head of the World Health Organization’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit released a compilation of a number of contact tracing programs from various nations and plainly stated “From the data we have, it still seems to be very rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual.”

This writer hates to think what happened to Dr. Herkhove overnight at the hands of her WHO handlers, because the next day she also furiously backpedaled and stated “I used the phrase ‘very rare,’ and I think that that’s misunderstanding to state that asymptomatic transmission globally is very rare. I was referring to a small subset of studies.”

It is clear that Dr. Herkhove’s first statement that naively repeated the clear facts of the matter did not follow the WHO’s justification for non-infectious people to wear masks. In fact, the entire mask wearing narrative hangs on the single pseudo-scientific idea that asymptomatic people can spread the virus.

In a recent Technocracy News article authored by highly-respected neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock, MD titled Face Masks Pose Serious Risks To The Healthy, he concluded, “there is insufficient evidence that wearing a mask of any kind can have a significant impact in preventing the spread of this virus.” (Blaylock represents real science.)

Nevertheless, in the face of clear evidence of the worthlessness of face masks for preventing disease,

  • States and municipalities are mandating that face masks be worn by all citizens when outside their home
  • Large and small companies are forcing their employees to wear masks
  • People at large are scared to death to not wear a face mask for fear of getting sick or being mask-shamed by others if they take it off.

A Matter of Oxygen

Face masks lower the percentage of oxygen available for inhaling.

Normal fresh air contains 20.95% oxygen. OSHA defines an oxygen deficient atmosphere as an “atmosphere with an oxygen content below 19.5% by volume.”  The reason we breathe air is only for our lungs to harvest the oxygen it contains so that we don’t suffocate and die.

OSHA documents the effects of the first level of oxygen deficiency from 16% to 19.5%:

At concentrations of 16 to 19.5 percent, workers engaged in any form of exertion can rapidly become symptomatic as their tissues fail to obtain the oxygen necessary to function properly (Rom, W., Environmental and Occupational Medicine, 2nd ed.; Little, Brown; Boston, 1992). Increased breathing rates, accelerated heartbeat, and impaired thinking or coordination occur more quickly in an oxygen-deficient environment. Even a momentary loss of coordination may be devastating to a worker if it occurs while the worker is performing a potentially dangerous activity, such as climbing a ladder.

This writer has already encountered several store employees, forced to wear a face mask during work hours, who exhibit one or more of these exact symptoms. When asked if they relate their symptoms to wearing the mask, every single one has emphatically said “Yes!”.

Every employer and government entity that mandates the wearing of face masks are required to do two things: first, they must provide atmospheric testing to each person to measure average oxygen levels inside the mask when it is being worn and second, if oxygen is below 19.5%, they must be provided with an oxygen enriched breathing system.

To this writer’s knowledge, there has been zero testing of oxygen levels anywhere in the country even though it is plainly clear that many people are experiencing symptoms of oxygen deficiency.

Many state-level politicians are now mandating the wearing of face masks for all citizens in public places. That they have fallen prey to pseudo-science is now putting entire populations at risk for physical harm that has nothing to do with the COVID-19 virus.

Social Distancing

Adding to the fear of contagion, people across the nation are driven to practice social distancing, or staying 6 feet apart at all times. This is practiced to excess in almost every commercial establishment with markers taped or painted on the floor and shopping isles converted into one-way travel only.

Yet, two real scientists at the University of Oxford in Britain, Professors Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson, wrote in The Telegraph (UK) recently that “the two-metre rule has no basis in science.” Their article was titled There is no scientific evidence to support the disastrous two-metre rule.

According to these scientists,

The influential Lancet review provided evidence from 172 studies in support of physical distancing of one metre or more. This might sound impressive, but all the studies were retrospective and suffer from biases that undermine the reliability of their findings. Recall bias arises in research when participants do not remember previous events accurately, and it is problematic when studies look back in time at how people behaved, including how closely they stood from others.

More concerning was that only five of the 172 studies reported specifically on Covid exposure and proximity with infection. These studies included a total of merely 477 patients, with just 26 actual cases of infection. In only one study was a specific distance measure reported: “came within six feet of the index patient”. The result showed no effect of distance on contracting Covid.

Heneghan and Jefferson further noted,

On further independent inspection of 15 studies included in the review, we found multiple inconsistencies in the data, numerical mistakes and unsound methods in 13 of them. When assumptions over distance were made, we could not replicate any of them.

This is the hallmark of modern pseudo-science: inconsistencies in the data, numerical mistakes, unsound methods and inability to replicate results.

What is the real purpose of social distancing? It certainly is not to curtail contagion. The only other possibility is to curtail economic activity and prevent social cohesion. Humans are social beings, after all, and lack of close proximity leads to depression, anxiety and even serious health consequences.

Contact Tracing

Contact tracing is an established practice in modern medicine. It is useful for the early stages of serious infectious diseases like Ebola, tuberculosis and sexually transmitted diseases like chlamydia.

Every credible expert on contact tracing says that it is effective only up to the point of mass distribution. In other words, during the early stages of a contagion or a slow moving or very serious disease.

In the case of COVID-19, the horse has already left the barn. Except to harass people, there is nothing useful that contact tracing can accomplish.

Yet, almost every state in America is implementing a wide-ranging contact tracing program that may ultimately employ some 300,000 tracers.

The Center for Disease Control website states that “Contact tracing will be conducted for close contacts (any individual within 6 feet of an infected person for at least 15 minutes) of laboratory-confirmed or probable COVID-19 patients.”

Furthermore, CDC complete definition of “close contact” is,

Someone who was within 6 feet of an infected person for at least 15 minutes starting from 2 days before illness onset (or, for asymptomatic patients, 2 days prior to specimen collection) until the time the patient is isolated.

If you are “exposed” to such a person, your personal information will be collected and you will be contacted by the “tracer” to be instructed to quarantine for up to two weeks. The infected person could have been mistaken about having contact with you. They could be someone who just wants to get you in trouble. If you live in Washington state, where all restaurants are now required to record the contact information of every patron, you might not have a clue who was infected, but you will be quarantined anyway.

Now, the CDC’s declaration of “6 feet” above takes us back to social distancing, where we just learned above that there is “no effect of distance on contracting COVID” in the first place.

Thus, find that contact tracing misses the mark on two main points: first, the virus is too widespread throughout the population to make tracing effective and second, the criteria of six feet for defining a “contact” is bogus.

So, why are governors, mayors and health departments ramping up for a nationwide exercise in obtrusive contact tracing? Again, pursuing a path of pseudo-science, the intended outcome is control over people.

Conclusion

The American public is being spoon-fed a steady diet of pseudo-science in order to justify the wearing of face masks, social distancing and contact tracing. Yet, the actual science points in the polar opposite direction.

Furthermore, those who try to present the real science are shamed, ridiculed and bullied for having such narrow-minded views.

This is a clear sign of Technocrats-at-work. Instead, these are the ones who should be exposed, shamed and ridiculed.

In sum, these dangerous and destructive policies are designed to curtail economic activity, break down social cohesion and control people. Moreover, they fit the original mission statement of Technocracy as far back as 1938:

Technocracy is the science of social engineering, the scientific operation of the entire social mechanism to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population…

It is highly doubtful that most state and local leaders understand the lack of real and verified science behind their actions and mandates. Nevertheless, they are implementing policies that are destructive to our economic system, harmful to our personal health and ruinous to personal liberty.

This writer suggests that you print multiple copies of this report and deliver it to every political leader, every commercial establishment, all family and friends, etc.

Permission is granted to repost or reprint this article with original credit and direct link back to Technocracy.news. A PDF version suitable for printing may be downloaded here. 

Patrick Wood is editor of Technocracy News & Trends, and a leading and critical expert on Sustainable Development, Green Economy, Agenda 21, 2030 Agenda and historic Technocracy.

He is the author of Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order (2018), Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation (2015) and co-author of Trilaterals Over Washington, Volumes I and II (1978-1980) with the late Professor Antony C. Sutton.

Wood remains a leading expert on the elitist Trilateral Commission, their policies and achievements in creating their self-proclaimed “New International Economic Order” which is the essence of Sustainable Development and Technocracy on a global scale.

Source: Technocracy News

by

“Mounting Evidence” Suggests COVID Not As Deadly as Thought. Did the Experts Fail Again? | Foundation for Economic Education & NPR

ConsiderEvidenceBy Jon Miltimore

In April 2005, Charles Duelfer, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq, admitted in the CIA’s final report that after an extensive search, no weapons of mass destruction could be found.

“After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted,” wrote Duelfer, the leader of the Iraq Survey Group. “As matters now stand, the WMD investigation has gone as far as feasible.”

Today it’s generally accepted that the presence of WMD was the primary basis for the Iraq War. Naturally, the absence of such weapons shook the world. The media blamed the politicians, the politicians blamed US intel, and the intelligence actors involved mostly defended their work.

The official word, chronicled in the Robb-Silberman report, concluded that “the Intelligence Community didn’t adequately explain just how little good intelligence it had—or how much its assessments were driven by assumptions and inferences rather than concrete evidence.”

The Iraq War WMD debacle is arguably the greatest expert “fail” in generations. The holy triumvirate—lawmakers, bureaucrats, and media—all failed to sniff out the truth. If any of them had, a war that cost trillions of dollars and claimed the lives of 100,000-200,000 people likely could have been avoided.

It would be difficult to surpass the Iraq blunder, but emerging evidence on COVID-19 suggests the experts—again: lawmakers, bureaucrats, and media—may have subjected us to a blunder of equally disastrous proportions.

A new NPR report suggests the global response to COVID-19 may have been reached on a flawed premise.

Mounting evidence suggests the coronavirus is more common and less deadly than it first appeared.

The evidence comes from tests that detect antibodies to the coronavirus in a person’s blood rather than the virus itself.

The tests are finding large numbers of people in the US who were infected but never became seriously ill. And when these mild infections are included in coronavirus statistics, the virus appears less dangerous.

“The current best estimates for the infection fatality risk are between 0.5% and 1%,” says Caitlin Rivers, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.

That’s in contrast with death rates of 5% or more based on calculations that included only people who got sick enough to be diagnosed with tests that detect the presence of virus in a person’s body.

Many people will recall the fatality risk debate that took place prior to and in the early stages of the lockdowns. There was much discussion over how deadly the virus was and what the collective response to the virus should be.

Some voices exercised caution.

“The public is behaving as if this epidemic is the next Spanish flu, which is frankly understandable given that initial reports have staked COVID-19 mortality at about 2–3 percent, quite similar to the 1918 pandemic that killed tens of millions of people,” Jeremy Samuel Faust an emergency medicine physician and an instructor at Harvard Medical School, wrote in Slate. “Allow me to be the bearer of good news. These frightening numbers are unlikely to hold.”

Similarly, on March 5 vaccine expert Paul A. Offit, who holds the Maurice R. Hilleman Chair of Vaccinology at the University of Pennsylvania, told Factcheck.org that he believed that the World Health Organization’s 3.4 percent fatality rate figure was too high, suggesting it was well below 1 percent.

“We’re more the victim of fear than the virus,” Offit said, adding that the world was witnessing a “wild overreaction” to the disease.

Voices like those of Faust and Offit were quickly drowned out, however. The 24-hour news cycle fanned collective fear and outrage that more was not being done. Runs on toilet paper and masks ensued. Neil Ferguson, professor of mathematical biology at Imperial College London, predicted millions would die in the “best-case scenario.”

Following the example of China, one of the most authoritarian regimes in the world, most of the developed world was placed in indefinite lockdown by their own governments.

The social and economic costs of the lockdowns soon became apparent. The US alone has seen 40 million jobs lost, many of which aren’t coming back. Recession looms. Hundreds of thousands of businesses have already been wiped away. The federal debt has surged to $26 trillion.

Unfortunately, the COVID disaster and the aforementioned Iraq War fit a familiar pattern. As the historian Paul Johnson has observed, most of the worst events of the 20th century were perpetrated by experts who used collective power to shape world events in a direction they believed was beneficial.

“One of the principal lessons of our tragic century, which has seen so many millions of innocent lives sacrificed in schemes to improve the lot of humanity, is—beware intellectuals,” Johnson wrote in The Intellectuals. “Not merely should they be kept away from the levers of power, they should also be objects of particular suspicion when they seek to offer collective advice.”

Nobody denies the immense cost of the lockdowns, but what was gained by them remains a subject of contention.

A May report from JP Morgan, as well as other evidence, suggests the lockdowns had little to no impact on the spread of COVID-19.

Marko Kolanovic, a physicist and strategist for JP Morgan, pointed out that a majority of nations saw declines in infection rates after the lockdowns were lifted.

“Unlike rigorous testing of new drugs, lockdowns were administered with little consideration that they might not only cause economic devastation but potentially more deaths than Covid-19 itself,” Kolanoviche said.

Similarly, a Bloomberg analysis in May found “little correlation between the severity of a nation’s restrictions and whether it managed to curb excess fatalities.” Meanwhile, Norway’s top health official recently stated that lockdowns were not a necessary step to tame the virus.

On the other hand, the Washington Post this week cited studies claiming the lockdown orders prevented hundreds of millions of COVID-19 infections and saved millions of lives.

These findings come with caveats, however. First, one of the studies was submitted on March 22—well before the vast majority of COVID cases had even occurred. The other study was conducted by researchers at the Imperial College of London, the same school from which Ferguson hailed. (He has since resigned after it was discovered that he broke the lockdown protocol he helped design by allowing his married lover to come to his home.)

Ferguson, who in 2005 said up to 200 million might die from bird flu (about 100 did), was asked by The New York Times in March what the best-case scenario was for the US during the COVID pandemic.

“About 1.1 million deaths,” he responded.

As of June 10, Ferguson is off by about a factor of ten. Why we should continue to listen to schools that have already proven to be so disastrously wrong is anyone’s guess. The “chicken little” story comes to mind.

In 2003, state actors led the world into a bloody, years-long struggle in Iraq to protect the world from nuclear weapons that didn’t exist—only to eventually learn how little US intel experts actually knew about Iraq’s nuclear capabilities.

In 2020, central planners from around the world decided to shut down the global economy to protect people from an invisible, highly contagious virus that will result in no or mild symptoms for up to 90 percent of its carriers.

Some lessons, it seems, are hard to learn.

Source: Foundation for Economic Education

by

Tracing systemic racism | Facebook

Screen Shot 2020-06-11 at 8.21.47 AMBy Xochi Raye Elysian

“We’ve been existing under this facade, this lie that the Democrats have orchestrated because they consider us (black voters) a low information voter market….Blacks are ideological slaves and pawns to the Democratic party….Racial division and class warfare are central to the Democratic platform.” ~ Candace Owens

I have been a registered Democrat since I was 18. Except for 2016, when I voted Green, I have always voted Democrat, and considered myself a liberal.

Turns out, white supremacy and systemic racism literally has its roots, stems, branches and blossoms from and through the Democratic Party. Since its founding in 1829, the Democratic Party defended slavery, created the “Jim Crow” laws, started the Civil War, opposed Reconstruction, manipulated the 13th amendment, invented the “Black Codes,” founded the Ku Klux Klan, imposed segregation, perpetrated lynchings, fought against the civil rights acts of the 1950s and 1960s, and created crime and immigration legislation that would result in the incarceration of a highly disproportionate population of people of color within a private prison industry. How can a country not be systemically racist when this is literally the fabric of the system?

The slave-operated plantations in the south were owned by Southern Democrats.

The “Jim Crow” laws were created and enacted by Southern white Democratic legislature, and were enforced until 1965.

In the 1857 case Dred Scott v. Sandford, the court ruled that slaves weren’t citizens, they’ were property. The seven Democratic justices of the court all voted in favor of slavery. The two Republican justices voted against.

Abraham Lincoln was killed by a Democrat. Andrew Johnson, Lincoln’s successor was a Democrat. Johnson and the Democratic Party were unified in their opposition to the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery; the 14th Amendment, which gave blacks citizenship; and the 15th Amendment, which gave blacks the vote.

When the 13th amendment was passed, it was opposed at great length by House Democrats, and was not passed until there was a clause attached that made sure blacks could still be used as slaves. “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.”

At the same time, white Southern Democrats began creating “Black Codes,” new types of offenses for black people to be arrested for. They then “leased” prisoners to work on their plantations, coal mines and railroad yards as slaves for decades after slavery was abolished.

The Ku Klux Klan was founded in 1865 by a Democrat, Nathan Bedford Forrest. According to historians, “In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party.”

The White Supremacy Campaign, the seed of all white supremacy campaigns, was created by the Democratic party in N. Carolina in 1898 as a political platform.

President Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, shared many views with the Klan. He was pro-segregation, re-segregated many federal agencies, and even screened the first movie ever played at the White House, the racist film “The Birth of a Nation,” originally entitled “The Clansman.”

Democrats did not elect a black man to Congress until 1935. 22 black Republicans served in the US Congress by 1900.

Under Franklin Roosevelt, the Public Works Administration’s efforts to build housing for people displaced during the Great Depression focused on homes for white families in white communities. Only a small portion of houses were built for black families, and those were limited to segregated black communities.

The Housing Act of 1949 was proposed by Democrat Harry S. Truman to solve a housing shortage caused by soldiers returned from World War II. The act subsidized housing for whites only, even stipulating that black families could not purchase the houses even on resale. (He also dropped atomic bombs on Japan and initiated the US in the Korean War.)

80 percent of Republicans in Congress supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964, compared to 61 percent of Democrats. Democratic senators filibustered the bill for 75 days.

Democrat President Lyndon Johnson opposed the Civil Rights Act, even though he did pass it. He was purported to have said, “I’ll have them n… voting Democrat for two hundred years,” after setting up a welfare program to create dependency by people of color on the system. At the same time, the Democrats started a persistent campaign of lies and innuendo, falsely equating any opposition to their welfare state with racism.

Democrat Robert Byrd was a senator from 1952-2010. He also started a chapter of the KKK in W. Virginia, and led that group as their Exalted Cyclops.

Although he denies it, records show he was involved with or in support of the KKK for several years. He called non-white people “race mongrels,” voted against The Civil Rights Act and voted twice against the Voting Rights Act. Byrd added language to Homeland Security’s spending bill that required the Federal government to “maintain a level of not less than 34,000 detention beds at all times.” Yet Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama and Joe Biden all considered this man a dear friend. Hillary even called him her mentor, and a “man of unsurpassing eloquence and beauty.” Bill Clinton went so far as to excuse Byrd’s involvement with the KKK.

The former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke is also a Democrat. He created the National Association of White People, and ran for President as a Democrat in 1988. Democrat Senator Al Gore Sr. voted against the Civil Rights Act.

Democrat Senator Sam Ervin was a segregationist who voted against both the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. Yet he continues to be hailed as a hero of the liberal Left, mostly for his role in the Watergate hearings.

William Fulbright was another Democrat that filibustered the Civil Rights Act and also signed the Southern Manifesto, which opposed de-segregation and racial integration. He was honored by Bill Clinton in 1995 as someone who “changed our country and the world for the better…and stood against the 20th century’s most destructive forces.”

Bill Clinton and Joe Biden drafted and passed the 1994 Crime Act. The largest crime legislation in history, this bill gave the federal stamp of approval for states to pass even more tough-on-crime laws, and encouraged even more punitive laws and harsher practices on the ground, including by prosecutors and police, to lock up more people and for longer periods of time. It instituted the death penalty for nearly 60 more crimes, and even encouraged the prosecution of young people as adults.

The bill also included $8.7 billion for prison construction for states that enacted “truth-in-sentencing” laws, which required people convicted of violent crimes to serve at least 85 percent of their sentences, and mandated life sentences for criminals convicted of a felony after two or more prior convictions, including drug crimes. Not surprisingly, between 1992 and 2003, the number of people serving life sentences increased by more than 80 percent. He also signed into law the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which permits law enforcement to arrest and detain non-citizens believed to be in violation of immigration laws. These two acts literally clasped hands with the private prisons industry.

Hillary Clinton received money from the private prison industry. Although she said she was rejecting donations from prison lobbyists, that included only direct donations to Clinton’s campaign, and did not stipulate supportive super PACs or state and federal Democratic committees. Richard Sullivan of Capitol Counsel, a lobbyist for the for-profit prison operator GEO Group, bundled $274,891 in donations for Clinton in 2016.

Hillary Clinton has also made several public racist statements. She said that white people would prefer to vote for her over Obama. She spoke of black young men as “super predators,” insisting that we “need to bring them to heel.” She minimized Dr. Martin Luther Kings Jr.’s work, saying things only changed because Johnson passed the bill, and stating “It took a president to get it done.” She once “joked” in an interview, that “they all look alike,” referring to black men. She also said, “Some groups of people are almost always highly successful given only half of a chance, Jews, Hindus/Sikhs and Chinese people, for example, while others Muslims, blacks and Roma, for instance, fare badly almost irrespective of circumstances.”

As a young senator, Joe Biden was originally for desegregation, but changed his stance in 1972 because of pressure from his white constituents. He helped write the Crime Act of 1994, and still defends it today. When asked in the recent Democratic debates about the legacy of slavery, he went on a rant, insinuating that black people don’t know how to raise their children. He also recently told people of color that if they don’t vote for him, they “ain’t black.”

Although private prisons had been functioning in America since 1844, the official private prison industry was started by Democrat Terrell Don Hutto in 1983, when he founded the Corrections Corporation of America. Before founding the CCA, now known as Core Civic, this man ran a cotton plantation the size of Manhattan, and used unpaid convicts to work his lands. After creating the CCA, he was president-elect of the American Correctional Association.

Two other for-profit systems comprise the rest of the private prison industry…GEO Group and Management Training Corporation. Private prisons, according to a 2016 Department of Justice Study, are consistently more violent that their already-dismal public counterparts. In 2016, about 19 percent of federal prisoners were held in private prisons. In fewer than 20 years, Core Civic (CCA) has seen its revenue increase by more than 500 percent, from roughly $280 million in 2000, to $1.77 billion in 2017.

It seems to me there are three incredibly important, inextricably linked, pieces driving racial inequality in America…the incarceration clause of the 13th Amendment, the Crime Bill of 1994 created by Bill Clinton and Joe Biden, and the for-profit prison industry. These artifacts of history, even woven into our constitution, sustain all mentalities of prejudice and racism, whether blatant or subconscious. It all dominoes from the compromised 13th Amendment. To my view, it doesn’t seem like defunding the police is the answer, but focusing on reforming these aspects, as well as many others in our Department of Justice.

Clearly the corrupt and abusive law enforcement system is also inextricably linked to these pieces, and also requires an absolute reconstruction. Police should be once again called and considered Peace Officers, rather than Correction Officers. They must be carefully screened before being accepted, selected according to stringent mental and emotional standards. They should be trained in non-violent conflict resolution, psychology, anger management, stress management, etc. Any cop not wearing a body cam at the time of any incident should be suspended. Most importantly, there must be swift and strict justice for any cop who abuses any citizen physically or verbally. Quotas must be abolished. Police Departments must work collaboratively and democratically with ALL of the communities they serve, increasing transparency, accountability, fairness, and public safety.

Also, as you know, billionaire establishment Democrats essentially own the media and make sure that the vast majority of what you see, hear, feel and believe comes from them.

So what makes anyone think the Democratic party cares about black or brown lives, other than to gain more votes? What makes anyone think their support for Black Lives Matter is anything more than further manipulation? Malcolm X warned against white liberals. He also warned against the manipulation of the media. This is an election year. Last week was an election week. They want your votes. I encourage us all to vote consciously, considering each individual candidate’s history and position carefully.

By no means should anyone read this and think that I am now all about the Republican Party.

Although the GOP was a strong ally for people of color for many years, created specifically to oppose slavery, as it stands now it has plenty of issues I contend with, including racist people in offices and white supremacists in support of the party. At this point both parties are arms of the same system, and it extends far beyond the US. But in terms of “systemic racism,” and why things are the way they are in this country, the reason why each of us are grappling with these issues of racism, to whatever degree…a world that exists to serve rich white people has always been, and still is, the Democratic agenda, whether that be overt, as it was up until Jimmy Carter, or insidious and manipulative, as it has been since then.

Source: Facebook

by

Black Lives Matter Don’t Care About Black People | SOTS

12302430_16x9_xlargeBy Amir Pars

I will lose many friends over what I’m about to say.

I will possibly be called a racist or even a white supremacist (even though I’m a brown man, who’s been beaten to a pulp by neo-Nazis wearing steel toed boots).

But maybe, just maybe, the fact that I am getting 100% of my information from the black scholars in the picture – The Great Thomas Sowell, Glenn Loury, Shelby Steele, John McWorther, Coleman Hughes, Kmele Foster and Thomas Chatterton Williams, allows me some room for thought?

I’ve been watching the narrative play universally over the heinous killing of George Floyd, and the complete and utter lack of facts about African Americans in The US has been infuriating.

Unfortunately, anyone who doesn’t submit to the dominant narrative will be called a heretic, a racist, a whites supremacist etc. Still, I can’t stop myself.

Black Lives Matter don’t care about black people

Want evidence? Name me a single time – just once – when they’ve protested against black people being killed by other black people? Whether in America or elsewhere?

Why is this relevant? Because the biggest cause of death for black men aged 15-45 in USA is… other black men. Compare to white people, where it’s traffic accidents for the younger portion and heart attacks for those over 35.

Or how about the black lives in Sudan, East Timor, Libya? Why do we only ever hear from BLM when it’s a white person killing a black person?

Speaking of which – imagine if white people started doing the reverse. Imagine every time a white person was killed by a black person, there’d be protests, riots, looting and social media campaigns. First thing to notice is that it would be more frequent, because African Americans kill more white people in the US than white people kill African Americans. Now what? Should we really start applying the race card every time there’s a murder involving more than one pigmentation? Where will it end?

Police killings

The video of the murder of George Floyd is so visceral, by showing the casual evil with which officer Derek Chauvin kills George Floyd. People are rightly outraged, and no one can honestly defend the officer, who rightly has been arrested and hopefully will spend his remaining years behind bars (although the prosecutor has been idiotic in moving the case from 2nd degree to first degree murder – a burden of proof they will most likely fail to provide).

But… The only reason people are up in arms about these is that the social media and MSM attention focuses disproportionately on these incidents when the victim is black and the officer isn’t. Don’t believe me? Let me prove it:

You’ve all heard of Tamir Rice – a 12 year old black boy who was murdered when brandishing a toy gun. It was all over the news, there were riots and marches, hashtags and universal condemnation all over the media.

But how many of you have heard of Daniel Shaver? A white man who was showing his friends a scoped air rife used to exterminate birds who entered his store, and was killed for this?

You may remember the case of Sam DuBose, a black man who was shot dead for driving his car away from from the police. The exact same thing happened to before that to Andrew Thomas, a white man driving away from the police. None of you have heard of him.

Alton Sterling was a black man shot dead by the police when reaching into his pocket for his wallet – a travesty. The same thing happened to a white guy named Dylan Noble. Sterling made national headlines, none of us heard a word about Noble. Loren Simpson was a white teenager who was shot dead by the police in eerily similar circumstances as George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin. You’ve not heard of the former, but demanded justice for the latter. You’ve not heard of James Boyd, Alfred Redwine, Brandon Stanley or Mary Hawkes.

But you’ve heard of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile. Because the only times police killings make the news is when the victim is black and the officer isn’t.

Here are the FBI, NCJRS and BJS statistics:

For every 10, 000 black people arrested for violent crime, 3 are killed by the police. For every 10,000 white people arrested for violent crime, 4 are killed by the police.

In 2019, 49 unarmed people were killed by the police. 9 were black. 19 were white.

The likelihood for a black person being shot by the police is as high as being struck by lightning. Yet, we are seeing riots, every single post on Instagram and Twitter is in support of Black Lives Matter and denunciation of police in America…

“Systemic Racism” / “Institutionalised racism”

Sound good, don’t they? Such powerful words… and completely inaccurate. First, let’s see what the claims being made are:

Both insinuate built-in racism within various official institutions (police, law, governments etc). Yet, when they are challenged, by asking the proponents to provide *evidence* for these, nothing is provided. Name one single law that is targeting exclusively black people. Just one. There isn’t one. If the police is “systematically” anti-black, explain how it is possible that 20% of the Police Force in America is black (African Americans in America constitute roughly 14% of the population, meaning that blacks are *overrepresented* within the police force!)? Now, imagine how incredibly racist it is to say that the 100, 000 plus black police officers are too stupid to know that they are working inside and within a racist institution? That really is racism. And none of them have come out and said anything??? None of them have gone on 60 Minutes and said “We are being trained to be racists”? Seriously?

How about governments? Well, let’s leave aside the fact that America just had a two-term black president (whose second name was Hussein, by the way). Some of America’s worst run cities have black mayors, black governors and majority black councils. Look at two of the worst cities in America to be black in:

Baltimore and Chicago. Why is it that a place where the people in power are black can be *worse* for the African American Community, than cities that aren’t run by black politicians? This is a knock-down argument.

Disparity

People often look at the economic disparities between blacks and whites, and claim it to be evidence for institutionalised racism. It says something about the power of a narrative, when it has been debunked decades ago – by BLACK ECONOMISTS (like The Great Thomas Sowell) – yet the myth persists.

First of all, at no point in human history has any two groups of people had the same level of wealth or income as each other. It would be an absolute miracle to expect that people with different backgrounds, cultures, histories, values and ethics to have the same level of wealth.

This is even true within so called races – compare for example Black Americans (generational) vs Black Immigrants… particularly the ones from West Indies (Jamaica, Barbados etc.).

You couldn’t tell these people apart, just by looking at them, and whatever racism is in place for one group must by definition be applied for the second group. But what they have is completely different values and work ethics (the Jamaicans arriving in the US does so commonly to achieve greater heights than what he or she can in their home country). Whatever level of systemic racism exists, they are subjected to it as much as the African American.

Yet, already in the 1970’s (!!!), when racism was far more prevalent than it is today, Black Americans from the West Indies were earning 58% more than the Black American whose generations go back centuries in the United States. How could that be, if there’s supposed to be such a thing as “systemic racism”?

Disparities are only proof of disparities. Just because Group X doesn’t have the same as Group Y, doesn’t mean that it’s explained by racism. And why does this so called “White Supremacy” only run against one group of Black Americans? Why doesn’t it run against Asian Americans, who out earn White Americans by over 60%? Why doesn’t it apply to Jewish Americans? Or Indian Americans, all of whom earn more than… White Americans??

Maybe there’s something else going on…?

In 1965, Daniel Patrick Moynihan published his report “The Negro Family: The Case For National Action”, where he saw that African American households were 25% single mothers – a frightening statistic that would have devastating consequences. Since then, Jim Crow laws and Red Lining have all been removed from the books, Martin Luther King Jr. and The Civil Rights Movement made tremendous strides and we’ve now even had a black two-term president.

But, today, black households with no paternal figure, and only a single mother constitute SEVENTY FIVE PERCENT of all black households in America!!! SEVENTY FIVE!!!!

Now you tell me, which is the better explanation for young black children ending up in a life of crime – the lack of a father figure, or the mythical, non-explainable entity known only as “institutional racism”, which for some reasons doesn’t apply to Nigerian immigrants, to black immigrants from West Indies, to Indian people, to Jewish people, to Asian Americans…?

Criminality

“Why are blacks being disproportionately imprisoned? There’s a racist Prison Industry Complex!”

The key word here is “disproportionately”. Because it most certainly is true that African Americans make out the majority of prisoners in America, but what is the evidence that this is disproportionate? It’s non-existent.

Let’s look at the stats:

Black Americans constitute roughly 14% of the population in America, yet they commit 50% of all the murders. But, this is misleading – because it’s not the elderly, nor the children nor the women who commit the murders. It’s almost exclusively the young men (15-40). That constitutes about a fourth of the black population, which means that about 3.5% of the American population are responsible for 50% of all the murders!

Read this again: 3.5% of Americans are responsible for 50% of all murders.

You will find similar astonishing figures for drug related crimes, armed robberies, breaking and entering and gang violence.

So, even though it is true that black people make up the majority of the prison population, the incarceration rates are only proportionate against the crime rate, not the population.

History of slavery, Jim Crow and Red Lining

“Well, that maybe so, but it’s because of the history of slavery and Jim Crow!”

I don’t doubt the good intentions of those making these arguments, but they don’t actually see how it is a classic case of Racism of Lower Expectations.

No one has been able to provide a logical link between historical racism and the plight of people today.

First of all, what’s unique about racism in America (and Britain, for that matter) is that these countries abolished slavery when they did! They were among the first countries in the world to do so, and America even fought a bloody civil war to implement the 13th Amendment. Almost every country in the world practiced slavery, and there are many – particularly in Subsaharan Africa – who still do to this day.

And it most certainly is true that racism didn’t end with slavery, and evil practices such as Jim Crow, segregation and Red Lining were practiced until the 70’s. But – and here is the most astonishing fact of all – African American’s had *more* wealth and less unemployment during those times than today, when such practices have been abolished and are rightly considered moral evils.

Now, before anyone makes the nonsensical claim that “You’re saying we should oppress them then, because they had it better!?”, let me explain that correlation does not mean causation. But just as facts don’t care about feelings, reality won’t comply with narrative.

“America is a White Supremacist society!”

This is one of the most egregious claims out there. First of all, compared to what? Show me a country where blacks are a minority, but still get to be elected presidents, have more than 50 Mayors, congressmen and women, run city councils and have had multiple presidential candidates. Show me one.

America (and Britain) are two of the least racist societies on earth and in history. For god’s sake, look at the response from the murder of George Floyd! Just look at the outpouring of support for black people, the universal condemnation of racism from exactly all corners of the political spectrum, the complete solidarity from every white person with a social media account.

“Black Lives Matter”

This is a big one. Because I don’t know of many organisations who care less about black lives than Black Lives Matter. 93% of all killings of black people are done by other blacks – BLM are completely silent on this. BLM has never – not a single time – had a march or campaign black people being killed en massé in places like Sudan, Eritrea, Somalia or Libya.

Instead, what they have done is to have chants like “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon” (about the police), which inspired a lunatic in Dallas to murder 3 police officers.

During the current riots, a 77 year old, black former Police Captain – David Dorn – was murdered by rioters. BLM has not said a word.

BLM reject Martin Luther King Jr.’s sentiment that people should “…be judged based on the content of their character, not the colour of their skin”. If you’ve actually listened to the “I have a dream” speech, that line is the one which got the loudest cheers and applauses. BLM believe people who aspire to apply this principle of colour blindness are racists.

Conclusion

I can go on and on. I’ve provided my sources below, and I can point to the works of economists and criminologists and historians for further data. But I don’t [think] it will matter – the narrative is too strong, and people are too emotionally invested. Facts don’t stand a chance.

People are so keen to use the tragic murder of George Floyd to wave their anti-racism badges and flags. It makes them feel good. Black friends of mine, who are incredibly successful in their fields, are talking about how they’ve been victims all their lives, even though they are some of the luckiest people who have ever lived, regardless of race.

All I ask of you, if you’re reading this (and I doubt many will, certainly not to the end) is to ask yourself “What if what Amir is saying is true?”

That’s all I can hope for.

References:

Source: SOTS

by

Protests Expose Lockdowns And Social Distancing Shaming As A Farce | The Federalist

Lockdown-Farce-1024x705By Tristan Justice

It was just more than a week ago that crowds gathered at Missouri’s Lake of the Ozarks to enjoy the Memorial Day weekend. With the celebrations however, came sharp criticism over the lack of social distancing featuring fearmongering elites shaming those relishing the springtime sunshine.

Former Missouri Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill was among those quick to demonize the apparent selfish behavior as “embarrassing” for her home state.

“Hope none of them have parents fighting cancer, grandparents with diabetes, aunts and uncles with serious heart conditions. Because clearly they could care less,” McCaskill wrote on Twitter.

When it comes to the massive protests in the wake of George Floyd’s death in police custody however, McCaskill is cheering them on, retweeting somber images of the demonstrations and calling Missouri’s decision to deploy the National Guard to Washington D.C. after days of rioting as “disgusting.”

The densely crowded protests would soon draw the attendance of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren, both over the age of 65 putting them at higher risk of serious complications from the Chinese virus.

The sudden disregard for social distancing from avid lockdowners expose the extreme measures that tanked the nation’s economy and destroyed the nation’s psyche to be nothing more than deeply unserious methods to combat a virus that poses nearly no danger to low-risk groups.

More than 40 million Americans have now filed for unemployment. An estimated 100,000 small businesses have already permanently shut down. About 1 in 3 Americans are experiencing signs of clinical anxiety and depression. Thousands of others have put of critical health procedures so hospitals could build adequate capacity for an overwhelming surge in cases that never came in most of the country.

Yet while thousands gather in protest against police brutality across the country, no one seems to care about the ongoing public health pandemic after chastising those who dared break social distancing rules to reopen their states and reclaim their livelihoods.

In today’s America, churches can’t host socially distanced sermons including more than ten people but a violent mob can burn it down in the name of social justice. States had already made their priorities clear providing bars and casinos with greater freedom than houses of worship it deems nonessential, illustrating just how far we’ve strayed from faith even as millions of Americans desperately need it.

Floyd’s funeral is slated to take place in Houston on June 9 and is expected to draw an attendance of thousands, including prominent figures such as former Vice President Joe Biden. Many in the rest of the country however, were barred from properly saying their goodbyes to lost loved ones because the government declared it too dangerous, even this week and in the coming days.

But the media doesn’t care. Before downplaying the violence from days of lawless anarchy terrorizing a dystopian nation because the message fit their own progressive agenda, legacy media painted the anti-lockdown protestors as heartless grandma killing rubes. These Americans, the media said, were reckless, selfish, dangerous, suicidal, racist because they could spread the virus to black people, and didn’t deserve medical attention. One would be hard pressed to find that kind of reporting on even larger protests today, because it doesn’t exist.

If nothing else is clear in the aftermath of these time-defining protests, it’s past time to end the lockdowns. Shut down the nursing homes, insulate the at-risk population and move on.

Source: The Federalist

by

The Moral Authority of the Lockdown Fetishists Is Gone. Thank the Protestors and Rioters | Ron Paul Institute & MISES

nyc-riotBy Ryan McMaken

Six weeks ago, when thousands around the nation took to state capitols to protest the human rights abuses inflicted by coerced “stay-at-home orders,” lockdown supporters reacted with sanctimonious outrage.

Declaring the protestors to be “covidiots” who failed to appreciate the virtue and necessity of police-enforced lockdowns, news outlets and lockdown advocates on social media declared the protests would cause outbreaks of disease, and nurses declared the protests were “a slap in the face” to those trying to treat the disease. One political cartoon featured an image of an emergency room nurse saying “see you soon” to anti-lockdown protestors.

Now, with far larger numbers of protestors amassing in larger groups, we hear none of the lofty moralism coming from the media or lockdown enthusiasts in social media. Yes, there are still some token attempts to express worry over how the riots and protests of recent days might spread the disease. But the tone is quite different. Concerned over COVID-19 are now phrased in the formula of ” if you protest, take these measures to minimize risk. ” It’s all very polite and deferential to the protestors.

Politicians like Kamala Harris have even joined the protestors in the streets, thus doing what she demanded other avoid just a few weeks earlier. Where are the nurses denouncing these protests as a “slap in the face”? They’re nowhere to be seen.

Of course, those who support the current protests, but oppose last month’s protests, claim there is no equivalence. Many would likely say “we’re now protesting against people being killed in the streets!” followed by “those other protestors just wanted haircuts!”

The reality, of course, was far different. Most of those who oppose the COVID lockdowns are well aware that the lockdowns kill. They lead to severe child abuse, to more suicide, and to more drug overdoses. They lead to denial of medical care because lockdown edicts have ridiculously labeled many necessary medical procedures to be “elective.” Lockdowns have rendered tens of millions of Americans unemployed while robbing people of their social support from family and community groups. Lockdowns increased police abuse and harassment of innocent people who were guilty of no crime but leaving their homes or trying to earn a living.

Lockdown advocates, however, declared all of this to be “worth it” and demanded that their ideological opponents just shut up and “#stayhome.”

Lockdowns for Thee, But Not For Me

But now the current spate of protests and riots have made it clear that lockdowns and social distancing are all very optional so long as the protestors are favored by a leftwing narrative.

While the pro-lockdown/anti-lockdown conflict can’t be defined by any neat left-right divide, it is nonetheless largely true that the most enthusiastic advocates of COVID lockdowns are found on the left side of the spectrum.

And that’s why things have now gotten so interesting. It was easy for the pro-lockdown left to oppose protests when those protest were seen as a rightwing phenomenon. But now that the protests are favored by the left, then it’s all perfectly fine outside of a handful of politely expressed “concerns” that protests might spread disease.

The left’s about-face on the sacredness of social distancing will have significant effects on the future enforcement of stay-at-home orders and social distancing laws.

After all, on what grounds will governors, mayors, and law enforcement officers justify continued attacks on religious groups who seek to assemble in the usual fashion? If one group of people are allowed to gather by the hundreds to express one set of beliefs, why are other groups not allowed the same?

Politicians will no doubt soon invent new rationales for this inconsistency. Indeed, we already have one case. New York mayor Bill DeBlasio has come right out and said people who protest racism are allowed to assemble. DeBlasio likes them. But how about religious gatherings? DeBlasio doesn’t like those, so they’re still prohibited.

The Moral Authority of the Lockdown Advocates Is Gone

The current riots and protests have accelerated this sort of disregard for coerced social distancing, although things were already headed in this direction anyway.

The lockdowns initially were imposed with so little resistance because the legacy media and government bureaucrats managed to convince a sizable portion of the public that virtually everyone was in grave danger of death of serious disability from COVID-19. Many people believed these experts.

By May, however, it had become clear the doomsday scenarios predicted by the official technocrats greatly overstated the reality. Certainly, there were many vulnerable groups, and many died of complications from disease, just as many died during the pandemics of 1958 and 1969. But there’s a difference between a spike in total deaths, and a civilization-stopping plague. The experts promised the latter. We got the former. And we would have gotten the former even without lockdowns. Those jurisdictions that imposed no general lockdowns — such as Sweden — never experienced the sort of apocalyptic death predicted by lockdown advocates. Yes, they had excess deaths, but Sweden’s hospitals never even went into “emergency mode.” In the US, those states that imposed limited lockdowns for only a short period never experienced overloaded hospitals and overflowing morgues and was claimed would happen.

Could this yet happen in the future? It’s certainly possible, but how will we know? The lockdown advocates have already been so wrong about masks, about fatality rates, about the models, and about so much more, that we have no way of knowing if we should believe them the next time they show up and swear “this time, the situation is truly dire!”

But we’re not out of the lockdown woods yet. This fall, politicians and other lockdown advocates are likely to start up again with demands that new laws be passed requiring people to stay home, shut down their businesses, and otherwise put life on hold in the name of stopping COVID-19.

But it’s unlikely the public will fall for the same routine twice in a row. At least not to the same extent. The reaction of many will likely be “we’ve heard this song and dance before. Besides, social distancing didn’t matter to these experts very much back during the riots. Why should we believe them now?”

It’s a good question.

Source: Ron Paul Institute & MISES

by

Memo to My Liberal/Progressive Friends | Liberty International

SABy Johnny Liberty, Author of the Global Sovereign’s Handbook

“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in the mind at the same time.” ~ F. Scott Fitzgerald

So sorry, but my “liberal/progressive” friends who blindly hate Trump have lost their minds (and their souls in the process).

My friends are so deceived by digesting and parroting years of negative, liberal/leftist media (e.g, New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, etc) that they are no longer able to think outside the box of their own mental conditioning. 

The critical thinking skills of many of my liberty/progressive friends are impaired. They do not think for themselves. They do not read news sources from a conservative perspective. They do not read Trump’s tweets directly. Thus they are blind to what’s actually going on.

My friends have willingly given up their sovereignty and now complain daily about everything beyond their control. They believe they are victims instead of empowered individuals with the power to make a difference.

My friends place their daily angst on Trump and use him as a convenient scapegoat for all that’s wrong in our world (and there are many more powerful players than Trump). They forget  who is actually responsible for what’s wrong in our world. We the People are responsible.

My friends can believe it or not, but Trump is a freedom fighter, the first sovereign President in your lifetime who has pledged his life and honor to defend this country against its many enemies, both foreign and domestic. Other Administrations have come and gone, but they’ve all been cohorts amongst those globalists bent on destroying this country. 

Now, many of my “liberal/progressive” friends are now domestic enemies blindly and foolishly allied with these forces towards destroying this country ~ the last free country on this earth.

My friends, take a good look at where you stand!

The violence ravaging the streets of America is no longer a protest about race. This is a declaration of war by forces bent on destroying the USA, a country which has blessed you with the right to freedom and liberty your entire life. 

Take notice of who is allying with these forces.

These riots are an organized attack against the people of the USA and my “liberal/progressive” friends are on the wrong side of this battle contributing en masse to America’s destruction. 

Would you prefer living in Nazi Germany or Communist China? Do you wish for your children to live in The Matrix wired to a machine like a robot without a soul?Take a good look at where you stand.

For without freedom and sovereignty in the USA there will be hell to pay for many generations beyond your life. Take a hard look at where you stand.

I stand for freedom and liberty.
I stand for sovereignty for all the people.
I stand for sovereignty for the USA and every nation of the world.

Where do you stand?

~ Johnny Liberty, Author of the Global Sovereign’s Handbook (who dedicated thirty years of his life fighting for your freedom and sovereignty)

Source: Liberty International

by

Three Ways Lockdowns Paved the Way for These Riots | MISES

160209115236-24-mong-kok-riot-0209-exlarge-169By Ryan McMaken

There were many reasons to oppose the COVID-19 lockdowns.

They cost human lives in terms of deferred medical treatment. They cost human lives in terms of greater suicide and drug overdoses. Domestic abuse and child abuse have increased. There is also good reason to believe that lockdowns don’t actually work. The lockdown activists capitalized on media-stoked fear to push their authoritarian agenda based not on science, but on the whims of a handful of experts who insisted that they need not present any actual evidence that their bizarre, draconian, and extreme scheme was worth the danger posed to human rights, health, and the economic well-being of billions of human beings.

Those who lacked the obsessive and irresponsible tunnel vision of the prolockdown people warned that there were other dangers as well, in terms of social and political conflict.

[RELATED: “COVID Panic: The New War on Human Rights” by Ryan McMaken.]

It didn’t require an especially clear crystal ball to see that destroying the livelihoods of countless millions while empowering a police state to harass and arrest law-abiding citizens would create a situation that maybe—just maybe—could lead to greater social and political conflict.

Specifically, there are three ways in which the lockdowns laid the groundwork for our current state of unrest.

The Lockdowns Created an Economic Disaster

The COVID-19 stay-at-home orders, business closures, and other forms of coerced social distancing have so far led to job losses for well over 30 million Americans. The unemployment rate has risen to levels not seen since the Great Depression. Food banks are under strain as Americans line up for free food. Thanks to government moratoria on evictions in many areas, it is still unknown to what extent homeowners and renters are unable to pay mortgages and rents, but a wave of delinquencies is almost certainly coming.

To advocates of lockdowns, this is all “worth it” even though these sorts of economic stresses often lead to suicide, stress-induced disease, and death. But impoverishment, unemployment, and financial ruin are all merely “inconvenient,” as described by head lockdown advocate Anthony Fauci.

To someone who isn’t enamored of lockdowns, however, it is clear that millions of job losses are likely to worsen a variety of social ills, sometimes even resulting in violence. Moreover, the current job losses appear to be affecting the young and those who earn lower incomes most.

Lockdown advocates have attempted to avoid responsibility for all this by claiming that it is the pandemic itself that has caused the current economic disaster, and not the lockdowns. This is a baseless assertion. As has been shown, neither the pandemics of 1918 or 1958 led to the sorts of job losses and decline in economic growth that we’re now seeing.

The Lockdowns Destroyed Social Institutions

Another outcome of the lockdowns has been the destruction of American social institutions. These institutions include schools (both public and private), churches, coffee shops, bars, libraries, barbershops, and many others.

Lockdown advocates continue to claim that this is no big deal and insist that people just sit at home and “binge watch” television shows. But researchers have long pointed to the importance of these institutions in preserving peace and as a means of defusing social tensions and problems.

As much as lockdown advocates may wish that human beings could be reduced to creatures that do nothing more than work all day and watch television all night, the fact is that no society can long endure such conditions.

Human beings need what are known as “third places.” In a 2016 report, the Brookings Institution described what these places are:

the most effective ones for building real community seem to be physical places where people can easily and routinely connect with each other: churches, parks, recreation centers, hairdressers, gyms and even fast-food restaurants. A recent newspaper article on McDonald’s found that for lower-income Americans, the twin arches are becoming almost the equivalent of the English “pub,” which after all is short for “public house”: groups of retirees meeting for coffee and talk, they might hold regular Bible study meetings there, and people treat the restaurant as an inexpensive hangout.

Third places have a number of important community-building attributes. Depending on their location, social classes and backgrounds can be “leveled-out” in ways that are unfortunately rare these days, with people feeling they are treated as social equals. Informal conversation is the main activity and most important linking function. One commentator refers to third places as the “living room” of society.

The lockdown advocates, in a matter of a few days, cut people off from their third places and insisted, in many cases, that this would be the “new normal” for a year or more.

Yet, these third places cannot simply be shut down—and the public told to just forget about them indefinitely—without creating the potential for violence and other antisocial behavior.

Indeed, third places act as institutions that provide a type of social control that is key to a well-functioning society. In his trenchant book The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy, historian and social critic Christopher Lasch described the importance of third places in communicating political and social values and conventions to young people, and in setting the bounds of acceptable behavior within the community. Lasch notes that these institutions are also important in defusing violent impulses among the young. Also of great importance is the fact that third places provide a means of social control that is voluntary and not a form of state coercion.

Writing in the 1990s, Lasch was lamenting the decline of third places, although he emphasized their importance even in their modern reduced form. Thanks to the lockdowns, however, these places have been crippled far beyond what Lasch might ever have imagined.

The Lockdowns Empowered the Police State

The lockdowns have created a situation in which millions of law-abiding citizens have been deemed criminals merely for seeking to make a living, leave their homes, or engage in peaceful trade.

In many areas, violations of the lockdown orders have been—or even still are, in many places—treated as criminal acts by police. This has greatly increased negative interactions between police and citizens who by no moral definition are criminals of any sort.

Many have already seen the stories: police arresting mothers for using playground equipment, police arresting business owners for using their own property, police beating people for the “crime” of standing on a sidewalk.

Complicating the issue is the apparent fact that police have not enforced social distancing edicts “uniformly.” Some have alleged, for example, that the NYPD has lopsidedly targeted nonwhites in enforcement:

Of the 40 people arrested [for social distancing violations in Brooklyn between March 17 and May 4, 35 were African American, 4 were Hispanic and 1 was white. The arrests were made in neighborhoods—Brownsville, Bedford-Stuyvesant, Cypress Hills and East New York—which have large concentrations of blacks and Latinos.

This may or may not reflect the reality of the general situation, but the fact is that the lockdowns created theperception among many that this is just yet another case of law enforcement targeting certain populations over small-time violations.

Moreover, it is quite plausible that lower-income populations have more often been on the receiving end of state harassment in the name of social distancing. After all, compliance with lockdowns is something of a luxury reserved for higher-income, white-collar residents who can work from home and remain comfortable for long periods in their roomy houses. Working-class people and those with fewer resources are far more likely to need to find income and venture outside during lockdowns. This attracts the attention of police.

Lockdown advocates, apparently in their usual state of extreme naïvete, perhaps believed that further empowering police to violently enforce government decrees against petty infractions would not lead to any unfortunate side effects down the road. Yet criminalizing millions of Americans and subjecting them to heightened police harassment is not a recipe for social tranquility.

Worsening a Volatile Situation

Of course, my comments here should not be interpreted as making excuses for rioters. Smashing up the property of innocent small business owners—or worse, physically harming innocent people—is reprehensible in all circumstances. But this isn’t about making excuses. We’re talking about avoiding extreme and immoral government policies (i.e., police-enforced lockdowns) that remove those institutions and conditions which are important in helping minimize conflict.

Some may insist that the riots would have occurred no matter what, but it’s easy to see how the lockdowns made a bad situation worse. Yes, some of the rioters are lifelong thugs who are always on the lookout for new opportunities to steal and maim. But experience suggests that the pool of people willing to engage in riots is often larger during periods of mass unemployment than during other periods. In addition, those people who exist on the margins of criminality—the sorts of people for whom third places serve an important role in moderating their more antisocial tendencies—are more likely to be swept up in these events when third places are abolished. And, as we have seen, lockdowns also create more opportunities for police abuse that ignite riots of the sort we’ve seen in recent days.

It’s true the responsibility for the riots lies primarily with the rioters. But we cannot deny that policymakers fuel the flames of conflict when they outlaw jobs and destroy people’s social support systems by cutting them off from their communities. It’s also wise to not provoke people by pushing for widespread human rights violations and additional police harassment. But this is what lockdown advocates have done, and their imprudence should not be forgotten.

Source: MISES

by

Black Lives Matter Organizer, Chaziel Sunz Exposes the agenda – Justice For George Floyd – Antifa | YouTube

Source: YouTube

by

The Truth about Police Brutality, Riots & the New World Order Agenda by Young Pharaoh | YouTube

Source: YouTube