ללא מחבר No Author

The Media Clowns BELIEVE [Some of] Their Lies!

When Fools Rule

The Z Man

May 10, 2021

It is axiomatic that uninformed people are the easiest to deceive. A corollary to this rule is that people are most certain about the things they understand the least. Scientists are well aware of the gaps in their knowledge, but the evangelist is absolutely certain about the truth of whatever he is peddling. Taken together, intelligence and experience lead to prudence, while stupidity and ignorance lead to foolhardiness.

Working backward from this understanding, we can begin to understand why the American ruling class is going insane. The defining feature of this age is that the people in charge are certain about things that are imaginary. The government, for example, has denied Christians a permit to assemble for the National Day of Prayer, because they fear invisible White Nationalists will launch a revolution.

They think this because they are sure the January protest at the Capitol was part of a plot to overthrow the government. The nation saw mostly flag-waving boomers taking selfies and laughing with the cops. The political class is told it was cover for an invisible army of white supremacists. These white supremacists are lurking out there on the other side of the razor wire, waiting for the chance to pounce.

“The defining feature of this age is that the people in charge are certain about things that are imaginary.”

There is no question that the country is at odds with itself and its ruling class over a long list of issues. The race issue remains as troublesome as it was when Lincoln gave the Gettysburg Address. Our politics are a disaster of fraud and corruption. These are true things, but the ruling class talks about them from a position of ignorance. They sound so weird, because they have no idea what life is like for the rest of us.

This starts with Joe Biden, a man who has spent his adult life in government. His “private sector experience” was at a political law firm for a year fifty years ago. Now, of course, his brain is scrambled eggs, but even if he were still in control of his faculties, he would have no reason to question the claims about invisible Nazis hiding around the capital. Why would he? Everything he knows comes from government.

His second-in-command and future leader of the free world (stop laughing) is Kamala Harris, who has never sullied herself in the dreaded private sector. She spent the first four years of her “work life” making sure Speaker of the California Assembly Willie Brown was feeling groovy. Then she ran for office and it has been twenty years of uninterrupted life in one elected office after another.

Arguably, the third most powerful person in America is Nancy Pelosi. Under the section titled “Private Sector” on her Wikipedia page is nothing but a string of emoticons to indicate hilarious laughter. Pelosi has never had a real job. In fact, she comes from a family of taxeaters. Her father was a lifelong politician. Her brother was also a lifelong taxeater, largely credited with ruining Baltimore while mayor.

The second banana in the House is the octogenarian Steny Hoyer, who, like his boss, has avoided the private sector his entire life. According to his bio, he was a mediocre student, so he naturally chose politics. He was a Senate staffer while attending law school and then ran for an open seat upon graduation. He has spent 55 years without ever having worked a real job.

It is not just Democrats who are allergic to honest labor. The top Republican in the House is Kevin McCarthy. His first job out of college was as a staffer for Congressman Bill Thomas of California. Then he was chairman of the Young Republican National Federation. He was elected to the California State Assembly in 2002 and then won a House seat in 2006. He has been in Congress ever since.

The GOP’s second-in-command in the House is Steve Scalise, a man who appears to have started out in life with the hope of making himself a productive citizen. He majored in computer science at LSU. He must have fallen in with a bad crowd along the way, as he never made it to the dreaded private sector. Instead, it was time in the Louisiana state legislature and then off to his current spot in Washington.

The No. 3 Republican is the most amusing. Liz Cheney, the daughter of former vice president Dick Cheney, is the Republican Conference Chair. Unlike her bosses, she technically had a job in the dreaded private sector. She worked at a law firm that is called White & Case LLP. Granted, it is just a cat’s paw for the American empire, but it technically counts as the private sector. After that short run, she was on the dole in one government job after another before landing in Congress.

Of course, these people are surrounded by an army of staffers and consultants who have also avoided real work. The people who occupy the staff spots for elected officials and the congressional committees are just as committed to avoiding honest labor as their bosses. They start as interns, get a staff job out of college, then maybe a trip to law school and then it is back on the government payroll.

This is why these people sound so weird. How could Liz Cheney know anything about the concerns of the people she is supposed to represent? Wyoming is just a place she has read about and visited on vacation. The people of the state would be better off hiring a Frenchman who once went on holiday to Jackson Hole. That Frenchman would know he knows nothing about Wyoming and would maybe hire some locals to help him out. Liz Cheney’s staff is all pod people from the Washington hack-a-rama.

This phenomenon is not exclusive to politics. The media is stocked with carnies who maybe waited tables once, but otherwise have no contact with present reality. Their life is on stage, playing the role written for them by equally obtuse and ignorant people. The mass media is a circus, but the audience is out of sight from the performers. The media carnies cannot hear the laughter and jeering. It is nothing but piped-in applause, which they assume is the real thing.

This brings us back to those axioms of life. The people in charge are running around spouting crackpot conspiracy theories because they know little about the people they govern. They are easily fooled, because they are so ignorant. Why would they question the Russian conspiracy? Everyone they know thinks it is true. Those ants they see through their telescope, the people the rest of us call neighbors, sure seem to be doing what the Russian experts have claimed.

This is why they are so certain of these crackpot theories. They have barricaded themselves behind razor wire and armed men because they are absolutely sure the crackpot theories are true. Again, people are most certain of the things they least understand. The Cloud People know so little of the Dirt People, they will believe anything about them, because they have no way to know otherwise. It is why we find ourselves ruled by increasingly foreign fanatics spouting bizarre conspiracy theories.

History says that when the gap between the reality of the ruling class and actual reality gets too wide, there is a break. The French Revolution and the Bolshevik Revolution are two examples. The ruling class became detached from the people they ruled, so they could not see what was coming. Similarly, the credentialed naïfs of the managerial class are blind to present reality. They do not know what they do not know, but they are absolutely certain of it and it will not end well.

From Taki Mag, here.

SATIRE: You Can’t Be Loony Leftist & Support Covid Vaccine, Too!

The COVID Vaccine Is a Product of Systemic Racism

By Walter Block

(This op-ed is written by a politically correct analyst, who will remain anonymous, but brought to you by Walter E. Block.)

I cannot in good conscience take the COVID vaccine. Why not? Because its producers are mainly toxic white males.

We wokesters want a COVID vaccine created in a more inclusive manner. Yes, yes, we will include a few token toxic white male supremacists, evil though they be, but we want laboratories that “Look Like America.” That means proportional representation by blacks, Hispanics, women, the transgendered, the queer, the bisexuals, the handicapped (both mentally and physically), young people, old people, people of color, Indigenous Americans, Asian Americans, and the vertically challenged.

But the COVID vaccines have not been created in anything approaching an inclusive manner. Unless and until this occurs, we pledge not to avail ourselves of these vaccines.

Why is this important? We the downtrodden will not feel safe until and unless the laboratories of the nation are emptied of most (not all—we are moderates, not radicals) cisgender white males. They are exploitive wherever they go; they have colonized; they have enslaved; they have exploited workers. These capitalists have ruined the economy and the environment.

The reason minorities are not proportionately represented among chemists, biologists, epidemiologists, and medical scientists is that they have all too few role models to emulate. Given our boycott, this will soon change. On that happy day, future consumers will not have to be bitterly disappointed that these occupations are non-inclusive.

Here are the details. After a pause in the distribution of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, there are two COVID vaccines currently making the rounds. They are produced by Pfizer and Moderna, respectively. Who are the people associated with the creation of these COVID vaccines?

Pfizer lists the following individuals as being involved with vaccines: Nanette Cocero, William C. Gruber, Kathrin U. Jansen, Luis Jodar, and Nicholas Kitchin. Pfizer’s immunologists are Jean Beebe, Jeremy D. Gale, and Thomas A. Wynn. Those who study and cure rare diseases include Seng H. Cheng, Katherine L. Beaverson, Michael Binks, Christian Czech, Sarah Grimwood, Greg Larosa, John Murphy, and Clark Pan. Pfizer’s medical experts are Aida Habtezion and Mace L. Rothenberg. The team studying cardiovascular and metabolic diseases is comprised of Kendra K. Bence, Morris J. Birnbaum, Albert Kim, and Bei B. Zhang.

Of these people, only Habtezion, who is from Eritrea, is African-American.

Over at Moderna the executive committee consists of Stéphane Bancel, Stephen Hoge, Juan Andres, Marcello Damiani, Tracey Franklin, Lori Henderson, Ray Jordan, Corinne Le Goff, David Meline, and Tal Zaks. Moderna’s board members are listed as follows: Noubar Afeyan, Stéphane Bancel, Stephen Berenson, Sandra Horning, Robert Langer, Elizabeth Nabel, François Nader, Paul Sagan, Elizabeth Tallett, and Henri A. Termeer. Those on the scientific advisory board include Jack Szostak, Ulrich H. von Andrian, Michael Diamond, Ron Eydelloth, Rachel Green, Paula T. Hammond, Robert Langer, Sander G. Mills, Melissa Moore, and Ralph Weissleder.

An examination of their pictures reveals that only one of them, Hammond, is black. If this is not clear evidence of racism, then nothing is.

Blacks and African Americans comprise roughly 13 percent of the population of the United States. If their representation were even 10 percent of the people involved in creating COVID-19 vaccines, I would be satisfied. Exact representation is not required. After all, the National Football League and the National Basketball Association could never be considered racist, and their black representation greatly exceeds 13 percent. But this atrocious level of underrepresentation for black Americans in the COVID vaccine initiative cries out to the heavens for social justice.

“Equity” has not been even approximately achieved.

So, our conscience dictates that we boycott Moderna and Pfizer’s products until and unless they engage in sufficient amount of skin color diversity and inclusiveness.

Walter Block

Walter Block is an economics professor at Loyola University and a Mises Institute senior fellow. He is author of several books, including Defending the Undefendable (1976).

From Chronicles Mag, here.

Charles Dickens Supported Private Philanthropy, Not Public Welfare 

Was Dickens Really a Socialist?

Far from being an early proponent of the welfare state, he was sounding alarms for all of us.
Friday, December 1, 2006
William E. Pike

have been an avid fan of Charles Dickens’s works since before entering high school. I have also adhered to the freedom philosophy for about as long.

Therefore, as the years passed and I read more and more commentators lauding Dickens as a catalyst for collectivist economics and state-centered social programs, I grew discouraged and disquieted. I have come to find, however, that by and large these commentators were not interpreting Dickens at face value, but were in effect putting words into his mouth.

Did Dickens stand up for the poor? Yes. Did Dickens speak out on the conditions in his time? Yes. Was he anti-capitalist? Were his views socialist? Did he advocate for government welfare programs? No.

Compared to most great novelists, Dickens has inspired an inordinate mass of biographies, and interest in his life, apart from his works, has been unceasingly strong. One reason for this is simply that Dickens lived life fully. He traveled abroad often and made many public appearances. He was an oft-seen figure (though many times anonymous) in the streets of London, exploring the city and meeting people of all backgrounds and walks of life. He was comfortable among England‘s highest society and among its lowest classes. His understanding of the human condition, therefore, was comprehensive.

Dickens meant to force us to face the plight of society’s least members, but he did not prescribe a collectivist solution to ending their miseries. 

It is no surprise, then, that in both his fiction and his nonfiction Dickens went to great lengths to present his readers with the full range of English society, including many of its most downtrodden. We should not draw political conclusions from the fact that Dickens had a heart — that he painted vivid pictures of those suffering poverty, disability, abuse, and homelessness. That he would try to win his readers’ hearts to the likes of these says nothing about his views on how they should be helped. Such inferences are made today by self-serving ideologues eager to enlist an ever-popular writer into their ranks.

Dickens presented his readers with some of literature’s most touching characters: Tiny Tim, whose handicap would doom him to a youthful death without costly treatment; Oliver Twist, the orphan forced to endure hunger, cruelty, and childhood labor; Mr. Micawber, the genial debtor tragically forced into prison; Little Nell and Jo, who would die well before their time. In presenting such characters, Dickens meant to force us to face the plight of society’s least members, but he did not prescribe a collectivist solution to ending their miseries.

Nor does he blame their plight on the still-evolving capitalist economy of his day.

We are used to thinking of Dickens as an enemy of capitalism largely because of his timeless lampooning of certain men of business. What he was really doing, however, was attacking the vice of greed. In Our Mutual Friend, he blasts the Lammles, who marry each other solely for money (only to find out that neither has any). In the same novel, he forced the “mercenary” Bella Wilfer to undergo a transformation before finding happiness. In Martin Chuzzlewit, relatives of the title character are ridiculed for their scheming at inheritance.

And then there is the prototype of the heartless capitalist — Ebenezer Scrooge. But as with other characters, Dickens does not attack Scrooge as a capitalist but as a miser. As Daniel T. Oliver put it in The Freeman (December 1999):

Scrooge’s character defect is not so much greed as miserliness. He hoards his money even at the expense of personal comfort. While many remember the single lump of coal that burns in the cold office of his assistant Bob Cratchit, the fire in Scrooge’s own office is described as “very small.” … Dickens gives us no reason to believe that Scrooge has ever been dishonest in his business dealings. He is thrifty, disciplined, and hard-working. What Dickens makes clear is that these virtues are not enough.

Though the protagonist throughout A Christmas Carol might be Bob Cratchit, there are sympathetic characters who are, in fact, capitalists. Fezziwig, a man of business, nevertheless treats his employees like family. And then there are the easily overlooked “portly gentlemen, pleasant to behold,” collecting money to “buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth.”

Indeed, Scrooge himself, on that transformative Christmas morning, does not renounce capitalism. Instead, he promises to be a better man. He will live a fuller life and share his good fortune with those close to him.

Many libertarians and other supporters of the free market will interject that Scrooge is already benefiting society as an effective businessman. The argument is also made that in lampooning Scrooge’s personality, Dickens also distorts the realities of the labor market. Michael Levin has written:

Let’s look without preconceptions at Scrooge’s allegedly underpaid clerk, Bob Cratchit. The fact is, if Cratchit’s skills were worth more to anyone than the fifteen shillings Scrooge pays him weekly, there would be someone glad to offer it to him. Since no one has, and since Cratchit’s profit-maximizing boss is hardly a man to pay for nothing, Cratchit must be worth exactly his present wages.

Both arguments have merit — Scrooge, like your local banker or financier, benefits society through his business. And yes, Dickens does not express, and most likely did not fully comprehend, the realities of the labor market. But the tale of Scrooge is of personal redemption. It is not particularly realistic nor well-versed in economics. Dickens is not attempting to argue against capitalism, nor is he arguing against a free market for labor. He is arguing against personal callousness and against misanthropy.

In chapter 33 of Socialism, Ludwig von Mises lamented Dickens’s characterizations of utilitarianism and of true liberalism. However, if Dickens’s words were later co-opted to promote a socialist agenda, that is hardly his fault. Utilitarianism can be the basis of a solid capitalist economy. It can also be mutated into a communist state. Dickens might not have understood that, but he did know that utilitarianism without reasonable judgment can turn society — and the state — into something monstrous.

A Christmas Carol exemplifies, on a personal level, what Dickens was really arguing for. He was not calling for state intervention, nor for economic regulations. Instead, he argued on behalf of personal philanthropy. In the end, Scrooge helps Tiny Tim, not because of socialist ideals, but because his humanity is reawakened, causing him to care for this child. Quite frankly, he does the right thing.

Continue reading…

From FEE, here.

Reality Hurts People’s Feelings

Doctor Criticized For ‘Smoker Shaming’ After Telling Man He Has Lung Cancer

May 10th, 2021 – BabylonBee.com
Excerpt:

Dr. Vo has been put on administrative leave as the medical center investigates his “hurtful words” that harmed the patient’s self-esteem and suggested that he needed to change his habits or very soon suffer a painful death. Experts say smoker shaming is all too common in the medical community, with thousands of doctors callously informing patients they are objectively unhealthy, despite them feeling healthy while they suck down cartons of cigarettes each week.

Sadly, the patient died shortly after. The county coroner has been fired for smoker shaming after hatefully listing his cause of death as lung cancer.

See the rest here…