Category Archives: Big Govt

The Conformity Crackup of 2021

From Covid lockdowns to crime and cops, the political-media consensus was wrong

The year 2021 that ends this week wasn’t the return to normalcy that President Biden promised, but it was invaluable in one respect. This was the year when the conformity that characterizes American politics and media was exposed for its mistakes as never before.

By conformity we mean the progressive political and media consensus that forms quickly around an issue and then reinforces itself no matter the competing arguments or new information. This isn’t a conspiracy in any formal sense; there are no organized calls or Zoom meetings.

This is about a shared set of political values and preferences that leads people to reach the same conclusions about an event. The reporters and commentators of the major progressive media—the Washington Post, Bloomberg, the Financial Times, the New York Times, the Atlantic, and more—all then reinforce what they now like to call the “narrative” of a story.

Politicians and the press feed the narrative with leaks and the stories they pursue—or, as important, what they don’t pursue. Disagreement is rare to nonexistent because the cost can be ostracism or lost careers.

***

Only when it is exposed over time as false does the conformity break, and typically only if there are negative political consequences for Democrats. The saving grace is that sometimes reality is impossible to ignore, and 2021 was the year this happened on some of the biggest events of our time. It’s worth recounting a few examples to see how the dominant consensus was wrong about so much for so long.

The Wuhan Virology Lab origin theory of Covid-19. In the early days of the pandemic, even raising this as a possibility was taboo. Sen. Cotton was vilified for doing so. The Lancet, a supposedly open-minded scientific journal, published a letter in February 2020 “to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.”

This year we learned that the Lancet letter was part of a coordinated effort to quash the lab theory. We learned about the conflicts of interest of Anthony Fauci and others who provided funding for the Wuhan lab. Eventually even the press noticed that China had blocked an honest inquiry, and that no evidence for a natural origin has emerged.

Lockdowns stop Covid-19. There was no fiercer consensus in the early days of the virus than the belief that locking down the economy to stop the virus was an unadulterated social good. We felt the consensus wrath when we raised doubts, in an editorial on March 20, 2020, about the harm that lockdowns would do to the economy and public health.

Two years later we now know that lockdowns at most delay the virus spread. The damage in lost education for children, lost livelihoods for workers and employers, and damage to mental health is obvious for all to see. Even Randi Weingarten, the teachers union chief who did so much to keep schools closed, now claims she wanted to keep them open all along.

The supply side of the economy doesn’t matter. The Keynesian consensus, which dominates the U.S. and European media, has long held that the demand for goods and services drives the economy. The ability or incentive to supply those goods is largely ignored or dismissed. Spurring demand was the theory behind the trillions of dollars in spending by Congress and easy money from the Federal Reserve.

All that money did spur demand. But the Keynesians ignored the disincentives to increase supply from paying people not to work and restricting work with lockdowns and mandates. The result was the surging inflation that caught nearly all of them by surprise. Their demand-side models never saw it coming.

The Steele dossier and Russia collusion narrative. In 2019 the Mueller report exposed the lack of evidence for the claims that Donald Trump and the Kremlin were in cahoots. This year the indictments by special counsel John Durham have revealed how Democrats and the press worked together to promote the dossier that was based on disinformation.

Yet for four years nearly everyone in the dominant media bought the collusion narrative. One or two of the gullible have apologized, but most want everyone to forget what they wrote or said at the time.

Vilifying police won’t affect crime. The fast-congealing consensus after George Floyd’s murder was that most police were racist, as was most of American society, and violent protests against this were justified—even admirable. Woe to anyone who pointed out that the victims of these riots and crime were mostly poor and minority communities.

Police funding was cut and bail laws eased in many cities. Eighteen months later we see the result in rising crime rates and a soaring murder count. A political backlash now has even many Democrats claiming they really do want more funding for police.

***

We could go on—who can forget the knee-jerk solidarity with fabulist Jussie Smollett? But you get the idea. The reason so many Americans don’t trust the media is because they’ve learned from hard experience that the consensus they are told is unassailable truth will often turn out to be false.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/media-conformity-wuhan-covid-russia-crime-11640805471?mod=hp_opin_pos_1

Share

Elon Musk, Person of the Year, Radicalized by Lockdowns

Hit at least one nail squarely on the head, possibly more nails, and hit them more than once! mrossol

Elon Musk, Person of the Year, Radicalized by Lockdowns

By Jeffrey A. Tucker   December 14, 2021   Economics, Philosophy   7 minute read SHARE | PRINT | EMAILFacebookTwitterRedditLinkedInFlipboardTelegramPrintEmailShare

It’s a good call for Time Magazine: it made Elon Musk the person of the year. It’s actually even a remarkable call, and a great omen. Musk is arguably the most prominent opponent of lockdowns and vaccine mandates in the US. In his official interview, he refused to take back his last-year denunciation of stay-at-home orders as “fascist.” 

He stepped it up even further concerning vaccine mandates. “I am against forcing people to be vaccinated, not something we should do in America.” Yes, the unvaccinated are “taking a risk, but people do risky things all the time. I believe we’ve got to watch out for the erosion of freedom in America.”

True indeed. For some reason, people have a hard time understanding how someone could be for the right to accept the vaccine but also be against imposing it by force. And yet that position is clearly the most reasonable one, the one consistent with freedom, and good public health. 

Something has dramatically changed in the heart and mind of Musk over the several years. At this point, no one can seem to be able to control his mouth. And despite his ambiguous politics of the past, he is increasingly revealing himself to be what he was raised to be: a brilliant and irascible anarchist. 

Only a few weeks ago, he told the Wall Street Journal that the whole of the Democrats’ and Biden’s $1.9 trillion spending bill on infrastructure should be scrapped. All of it. There is nothing worth anything in it. 

“Honestly, I would just can this whole bill.” Further, he said that he doesn’t want any support for his electric charging stations. He pointed out that gas stations don’t need federal subsidies. He is fully confident that Tesla can continue to grow and thrive without any federal support. 

He is certainly right about that. And there is nothing surprising in his conclusion. 

Just about everyone knows that these huge bills are pork for the rich. They balloon the debt to reward political power and the friends of political power. Nothing more. We know that. The debt will find a buyers’ market mostly thanks to the Fed, which in turn manipulates money and drives up inflation. 

What’s surprising is that someone so rich, so influential, so decisive to our present economic lives, would actually say openly what everyone knows. It’s highly unusual, especially these days. Musk is now America’s most honest plutocrat. He is beyond being controlled or contrite at this point. In that way he is a very dangerous man, in the best possible way we can use that term. He had better watch his back. 

In the same context, he presented the traditional view of the state that emerged out of the enlightenment and which, in many ways, served as a foundational principle of the American revolution: “The government is simply the biggest corporation, with a monopoly on violence and where you have no recourse.”

That’s it in a nutshell, the essential insight of traditional liberalism, the one that gave us limits on the state that unleashed human creativity for hundreds of years and built what we call civilization. 

Today, the White House spokesman routinely says that no edicts against rights and freedom are “off the table.” Anything is possible. Anything can happen. They will decide.  No one says a word; the craven press believes this is just normal. It’s not. It’s dangerous. Musk’s warning about government is the antidote. 

There were a number of turning points for Musk personally. A few years back, he got fed up with the dogmatic attacks on crypto and decided to defend it. Then he trolled harder: he promoted Dogecoin and gave that market a lift. Then he said he would accept Bitcoin in selling his cars, before reversing that decision later. Still, he stepped out front of the opinion cartel and shattered the prevailing view that Bitcoin is something all of corporate America should avoid. 

The last two years have been transformative for him. He is a businessman above all else. When the government told him that he had to close his factories for a virus, he balked. He began to look at the data (he is trained in economics and statistics). He saw that the infection fatality rate was not highly unusual for this type of virus, and he was clearly aware of the harms that would come from lockdowns to his company, the country, and the world economy.

On May 11, 2020, he tweeted: “Tesla is restarting production today against Alameda County rules, I will be on the line with everyone else. If anyone is arrested, I ask that it only be me.” By the end of the year, he moved Tesla’s headquarters from oppressive California to emancipate Texas. Good on him. Remarkable really. 

Two years earlier, his dust up with the SEC made a mockery of the agency. He believes that he should have free speech so he tweeted what he wanted to tweet. The SEC reminded him that this is not a free country and that he cannot do that. He faced their investigatory tribunal, and then resigned briefly as CEO so that he could say what he wanted to say. In the end, he outsmarted them all. 

What’s happened to Elon is what has happened to millions of other people. He began to realize that the governing elites in this country are incredibly inept and unwilling to take responsibility for their actions. He noted the completely undemocratic methods and the unscientific rationale that were deployed to bring about lockdowns. For that reason, he has been smeared and put down as a promoter of misinformation. Anyone who has paid attention for the last two years knows exactly what that means: he is telling truths he is not supposed to tell. 

Let’s address his relationship with China, which in many respects pioneered the lockdowns he despises. He has said that despite his good relations in China, he disagrees with many policies of the government, just as he disagrees with policies in the US. This opinion gets him in trouble with both Democrats and Republicans. But we do well to pay attention. 

Musk is aware of a truth not often faced in the West: China is destined to be the world’s largest economy and easily so. The lockdowns of 2020 and 2021 meant that the West gave up any chance of stopping this trajectory. China gave us a gun and we shot ourselves in the foot. Beijing must still be laughing. Elon watched this all unfold and it was this that caused him to lose all respect in the governing leadership in the US. 

So yes, he will continue to maintain close ties to China. The US attempt somehow to decouple US and China in technology and trade was reckless, even delusional. It led to the chip shortage and supply chain breakages, and incentivized the creation of a robust trade pact that China dominates entirely, while excluding the US. Sorry to say, but this was Trump’s doing and it was a disaster, not so much for China, but for the US.

As regards all of these issues – trade, chips, crypto, spending, infrastructure, securities regulation – the single most dangerous thing that Elon has said is that the top goal of the US government now should be to get out of the way. Do nothing. That’s the best path. Laissez-faire. Leave us alone. 

This thought caused the transportation secretary to explode in a rage.

“These are things that don’t happen on their own,” said Pete Buttigieg said in response. “They require policy attention, and that’s part of our focus both in the charging network that is supported out of the infrastructure bill that the president signed, and the tax credits that will make these vehicles more affordable, that are proposed in Build Back Better.”

Musk will have none of it. “The government is simply the biggest corporation, with the monopoly on violence.” 

The person interviewing him interrupted: “Can you explain that last part?”

Apparently this is going to take a lot of explaining in the years ahead. 

For all the controversy, the hypocrisy, and the mixed messaging over the years, Elon Musk has turned into a true American, a resistor, a revolutionary. His influence in business and philosophical outlook offers a real path forward. He deserves every congratulations for refusing to go along with ruling-class ideology and instead demand that most essential thing, the freedom to trade, speak, run a business, and innovate without government interference. 

That he has been named Person of the Year portends more than Time Magazine knows. There is a new spirit of resistance alive in the land, and Musk embodies it as well or better than anyone else in his position. In that case, there are many people and institutions in this country and around the world that should be very worried. 

Share

It’s Madness What Is Happening to College Kids

Pretty simple paradigm, and clearly stated. Also check out Browstone Institute, where it was originally published. mrossol

The Epoch Times, By Vinay Prasad,  December 28, 2021

This is a post about the absolutely insane, crushing restrictions being imposed on young, healthy vaccinated (often booster and often naturally immune) people by institutions of knowledge. In order to prove my thesis that these policies are misguided, let me start with some basics.

When it comes to COVID19, there are only 3 things any of us can do:

  1. We can lower the risk of bad outcomes when we encounter the virus.
  2. We can delay the time to meet the virus
  3. We can engage in theater which does not delay the time to meet the virus

What goes in these buckets?

Category 1 (risk reduction) is easy. You can’t modify your age, a huge risk favor, but you can modify your vaccination status, and you can modify your weight and general health.

Category 2 (delay time to virus) is harder. We don’t have many well done studies, but theoretically if you sealed yourself in a bunker and ate canned food, you would do this. Wearing a snug n95 might also delay the time to meeting the virus. The challenge with these interventions is they are not sustainable by most people, and may lead to fatigue or backsliding, and thus the effect is transient.

Delaying serves two purposes:

  1. For the individual, it makes sense if, by delaying, you can do something for category 1 that you cannot do today. If you are waiting for your vaccine, for instance, by all means delay.
  2. For the community it makes sense, if, by some delaying, the pandemic trajectory is bent and hospitals are less likely to be overwhelmed.

Delaying also has a downside. It may hurt your mental health, particularly when you do it effectively. If you need evidence of this damage: please see twitter.

Category 3 (useless, virtue signaling theater) is the most common. Wearing your mask when you enter a restaurant and walk to your table, but not when you sit there for two hours laughing and drinking is one example. The fact this policy exists reflects serious impairment in thinking and total failure of policy makers.

Making a 2-4 year old wear a cloth mask in day care (which the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends against the advice of the World Health Organization), but, of course, kids take the cloth mask off to nap next to each other for 4 hours in the same room! Theater.

Closing beaches and other outdoor activities. Wearing a mask outside. The list goes on and on, and most things we did fit in this category. On a side note:  Here we review all data on masking.

Enter Young, Healthy College Kids

The vast majority are either double vaxxed or have natural immunity or both, and some are also boosted. They are young (lucky them!), and the majority are healthy. What more can such students do for Category 1? Nothing.

What about category 2? It appears that many universities are making college kids wear masks, restricting their movement, banning gatherings etc. Here is just one example of how extreme they are:

These severe restrictions might actually delay the time till college kids meet the virus! But it does so with a huge disruption to their lives. All the wonderful things of being young require being very close to other people. Many simply cannot occur with a mask on.

Will these restrictions benefit the college kids? Absolutely not. When they eventually meet the virus— and they will— on vacation or next semester— they will just be a little older, but have similar great chances of doing well.

Will the restrictions benefit society? Doubtful. After all, everyone not on a college campus is not following any of these ridiculous rules, and the pandemic trajectory will be dictated by those (aka 99.9% ) of places.

It will likely not even to protect the faculty and staff on campus, who will largely face risks when they leave work and go home and on vacation, and again, if these folks have already optimized Category 1, delay makes little sense.

Will it harm the college kids? Absolutely, it will. Their mental health will surely suffer from this isolation. It has already. I will say again: all of the joys of youth require being close to other people.

What is the net balance? The net balance is these policies are catastrophically detrimental to them. Moreover, there is no countervailing benefit to staff or society to justify the huge imposition. It is morally and scientifically bankrupt.

Truly, I can’t even understand how anyone thinks these policies are justified. I am also surprised college students have accepted them with scant protest. I can only surmise that many have been mislead into thinking this sacrifice serves a broader interest (i.e. believe they are being altruistic), or that the incentives on their lives and career for conformity are so great they are afraid to speak up.

I suspect the strong link between restrictions and political party may also affect them. After all, the youth most strongly leans left (full disclosure: as do i!), and thus adheres to the identity badges of the left (but in my case, sadly, I spent too many years studying & publishing on scientific evidence to turn my brain off).

In short, draconian restrictions on vaccinated young people or those with natural immunity living in tiny pockets of college campus makes no sense, and is a policy that contributes to a harm in societal well-being. The policy is unethical and illogical.

To young people: I am personally sorry that those of us who recognized the futility and harm of these policies could not have done more to shield you from the anxieties and risk aversion of the irrational.

This article was originally published by Brownstone Institute. Republished under Creative Commons License 4.0.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/its-madness-what-is-happening-to-college-kids_4182003.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=Breaking-2021-12-30-1&utm_medium=email

Share

Anthony Fauci and the Creation of the Bio-Security State

The Epoch Times,  12/6/2021  by Roger Kimball

A new populist spirit, represented by Donald Trump, among others, has led to a reshuffling of seemingly settled ideological alliances. The reshuffling is ongoing.

I know this because I find myself approving of at least parts of “The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health,” the new bestseller book by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

It’s odd indeed that I find myself in nodding agreement with an anti-vax climate warrior named Kennedy, but there you are—or, rather, here we are.

Toward the end of a long and riveting interview with Tucker Carlson about his book, Kennedy reflects on the extraordinary—indeed, “totalitarian” isn’t too strong a word—government impositions upon individual liberty in the name of battling the COVID pandemic and issues a critical admonition that we forget at our peril.

“We have to love our freedom,” he said, “more than we fear a germ.” Can we pause for a round of applause?

The risks of COVID to the general population were and are wildly exaggerated.  Everyone knows that now, although not everyone is yet ready to admit it.

‘Safetyism’  But even if the disease was as dangerous as some alarmists at first predicted, Kennedy’s point still stands.

“Even if this was the deadly disease that they say it is,” he told Carlson, “there are worse things than death.”

Indeed, he continued, “We’re lucky that there was a whole generation of Americans in 1776 that said, ‘It would be better to die than to not have these rights written down.’”

Noting the extraordinary assault on our constitutional liberties—a phenomenon that has echoes in other democracies around the world—Kennedy asks us to remember the smallpox epidemic that ravaged Washington’s army during the Revolution and the “malaria contagion that culled the Army of Virginia.”

The Founders were well acquainted with “the deadly and disruptive potential of infectious disease epidemics.”  Nevertheless, they included no references to pandemics in the Constitution.

Over the past couple of years, however, “public health” is wheeled out to rationalize “a string of new exceptions to our Constitution. We are given just one rationale to explain everything that is happening: COVID.”

In other words, Kennedy opposes the spirit of “safetyism” that pervades our culture and gives license to the many corporate and government actors who are only too happy to exploit our abhorrence of risk in order to control us.  Kennedy’s book is full of alarming things.

In some ways, it reads like a 1960s leftist tract against militarized government and “transnational corporations.”

The fact that I find myself nodding in agreement with much of his analysis is part of that ideological reshuffling I mentioned.  It reminds me once again that the categories of “right” and “left” are no longer reliable guides to political filiation.

I also note with some amusement the hysterical (I do not mean “funny”) vituperation directed at the book by the left.  Isn’t there some mistake?

After all, we’re talking about a paid-up eco-warrior here, the son of liberal icon Robert F. Kennedy, for heaven’s sake!

How is it that he has attracted the ire of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who actually asked Amazon and other online emporia to alter their search algorithms so that people looking for books about the CCP virus wouldn’t be directed to Kennedy’s book?

Fauci and ‘Endemic Corruption’

A large part of Kennedy’s book, as its title suggests, is an attack on Dr. Anthony Fauci, who emerges as one of the most malevolent and destructive characters on the public scene in the past five decades. How is it possible that he emerged as “America’s Doctor,” showered with adulation from a terrified but grateful public?

As Kennedy shows in meticulous detail, Fauci’s career has been a litany of greed, incompetence, cruelty, and a callous and unquenchable thirst for power.

He’s joined by a rogues’ gallery of supporting actors, including Microsoft busybody Bill Gates and bioweapons expert Robert Kadlec, a Dr. Strangelove wannabe. Even former MI6 spook Christopher Steele, he of the Trump–Russia “dossier,” makes a cameo appearance here.

But the focus is mostly on Fauci and “the carefully planned militarization and monetization of medicine that has left American health ailing and its democracy shattered.”

In June, Fauci told a reporter, “Attacks on me quite frankly, are attacks on science.”  But what was this “science” of which Fauci spoke?

“As the world watched,” Kennedy notes, “Tony Fauci dictated a series of policies that resulted in by far the most deaths, and one of the highest percentage COVID-19 body counts of any nation on the planet.”  That’s not all.

“Anthony Fauci,” Kennedy writes, “seems to have not considered that his unprecedented quarantine of the healthy would kill far more people than COVID, obliterate the global economy, plunge millions into poverty and bankruptcy, and grievously wound constitutional democracy globally.”  It gets worse.

“We have no way of knowing how many people died from isolation, unemployment, deferred medical care, depression, mental illness, obesity, stress, overdoses, suicide, addiction, alcoholism, and the accidents that so often accompany despair. We cannot dismiss the accusations that his lockdowns proved more deadly than the contagion.”

Consider these facts:

“Between 2018 and 2020, the average Hispanic American lost around 3.9 years in longevity, while the average lifespan of a Black American dropped by 3.25 years.”

Fauci’s lockdown “shattered the nation’s once-booming economic engine, putting 58 million Americans out of work, and permanently bankrupting small businesses, including 41 percent of Black-owned businesses, some of which took generations of investment to build.”

“Dr. Fauci’s business closures pulverized America’s middle class and engineered the largest upward transfer of wealth in human history. In 2020, workers lost $3.7 trillion while billionaires gained $3.9 trillion.

“Some 493 individuals became new billionaires, and an additional 8 million Americans dropped below the poverty line.”

Who won in the COVID Wars?

“The biggest winners were the robber barons—the very companies that were cheerleading Dr. Fauci’s lockdown and censoring his critics: Big Technology, Big Data, Big Telecom, Big Finance, Big Media behemoths (Michael Bloomberg, Rupert Murdoch, Viacom, and Disney), and Silicon Valley Internet titans like Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Eric Schmidt, Sergey Brin, Larry Page, Larry Ellison, and Jack Dorsey.”

All this sounds bad, but I have barely scratched the surface of Kennedy’s indictment.

As he notes, while COVID is certainly a problem, it is “not the problem. … The problem is endemic corruption in the medical-industrial complex, currently supported at every turn by mass-media companies.”

Science

Doubtless, it’s possible to take exception to parts of Kennedy’s analysis and some of his political causes. But his book is exhaustively researched and every assertion is supported by publicly available evidence.

His analysis of the formation of the “bio-security” state in the aftermath of the fall of the Soviet Union makes for chilling reading. What if the security apparatus set up to deal with Islamic terrorism has mutated into a “track and trace” intelligence state whose object is the citizens of the United States?

But perhaps his biggest contribution, which comes in the course of his discussion of Fauci’s chillingly corrupt and incompetent handling of the AIDS crisis in the 1980s, is this pellucid observation about the nature of science.

“While consensus may be an admirable political objective,” he observes, “it is the enemy of science and truth.” This is exactly right. As Kennedy observes, “the term ‘settled science’ is an oxymoron.”

Moreover, “the admonishment that we should ‘trust the experts’ is a trope of authoritarianism.”

Those few sentences are worth the price of “The Real Anthony Fauci.”

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/anthony-fauci-and-the-creation-of-the-bio-security-state_4140998.html

Share

I'm serious… usually. (Martin Rossol)