Blog
9/27/21 Scott Horton on Kennedy Nation
As the Wise Man Said…
[T]the obvious and simple system of natural liberty establishes itself of its own accord. Every man … is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest in his own way…. The sovereign is completely discharged from a duty [for which] no human wisdom or knowledge could ever be sufficient; the duty of superintending the industry of private people, and of directing it towards the employments most suitable to the interest of the society.
–Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Book 4, Chapter 9
The Antiwar Comic: The New Narrative
The Narrative changes, but the delivery system is always the same.
Jeff Deist On The Prospect For Soft Secession In America
The Covid Network
A German IT project manager, who wishes to remain anonymous, has spent months creating an extensive and unique network document, labeled “The COVID Network Complex”.
For the first time, it shows you the complex network of relationships between non-governmental organizations (NGOs), companies, documents, and people.
There are 6,500 objects and over 7,200 links, including the financial flows, and in parts also the amounts that have flowed.
Only publicly available sources were used in the analysis.
In the case of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, you can already see on page 4 of the document that this foundation spent around 43 billion dollars in the period from 1994 to 2021 in the USA alone and distributed around half a billion in funds in Germany during this period.
The dossier is 170 pages long.
First, you will get some general information about people from government agencies, companies, and non-governmental organizations, as well as some important events or groups. Further on in this document, you will find a link analysis of these “stakeholders”.
The dossier can be download in PDF format here:
More at here Disclose TV
I Did Not Come To Lead Lambs, I Came To Awaken Lions
Not speaking clearly may be the first problem of politics. It is much like the old axiom, often misattributed to Burke, that for evil to triumph it is only necessary for good men to do nothing. In much of the world, conservatism has been living in fear since the last century. In Latin America, social-communism remains a plague because too many of its nations are beaten down day after day by years of compliance, of life without freedom, of criminal inertia and “populist” mafias.
From Venezuela to Argentina, they have had no chance of standing up to the Bolivarian monster of the sickle, the coca leaf, and the hammer. Argentina, only recently so wealthy, should have been the exception, but it was not: because the fears and complexes of the right outweighed the inefficiency and larceny of the Kirchnerist left wing. And that is saying something.
But there is light. A light that brings with it lessons for any country that aspires to live in freedom. It comes from a disheveled-looking guy, with a hint of old rock star in his expression, thoroughly unashamed. He is an economist and lecturer; his name is Javier Milei. He shouts like an angry bear, and he is a political outsider who decided a year ago that he would run as candidate for the Argentine national congress for the City of Buenos Aires.
Milei’s most repeated catchphrase during this summer’s campaign, unprecedentedly harsh against Kirchnerism and cultural Marxism, is a bombshell that resounds throughout the country: “I did not come to lead lambs, I came to awaken lions”.
And it has awakened them. Last September 12, in the open, simultaneous, and mandatory primary elections (PASO by its acronym in Spanish), Kirchnerism suffered a painful electoral fiasco in the ever decisive city of Buenos Aires, with 24.66 percent of the votes, while the moderate former President Macri’s Juntos por el Cambio (Together for Change) grew to 28.19 percent, and, against all odds, the newcomer Milei’s party La Libertad Avanza (Freedom Advances) became the third most voted force with 13.66 percent of the vote. Between now and the next elections, Milei has a vast field in which to grow, continuing his trend of the last few months.
The primary result is a symptom of something larger, not just an anecdote. Milei has been the most mentioned politician on the social networks; he has pulverized all the audiences during the campaign; and with his vehemence and casual style he has enticed a growing crowd of young voters to whom never before had anyone spoken to so outrightly against socialism, communism, and what Milei calls the “political caste.”
“We are going to overthrow the model that the political caste have defended,” he said at the closing of the campaign, “as all it has achieved is to turn the richest country in the world into one of the poorest countries in the world.” He has repeatedly hollered from half the stages in Argentina: There is not a single leftist model that offers good results, because “everywhere they have been applied, it has brought economic, social, and cultural disaster.” It may seem like stating the obvious to say this in Argentina. But Milei does not just state it, he screams it with his eyes bulging out of their sockets.
Dozens of headlines can be extracted from any of his speeches. “We, who love liberalism,” he said a few days ago, “operate on the basis of unrestricted respect for the life projects of others, based on life, property, and freedom. The others claimed that they loved the poor, but they multiplied them.” At the end of the day, he makes no secret of his one-hundred-percent liberal recipe for pulling nations out of the abyss of poverty.
More here at The American Conservative
Why Do Climate Alarmists Dislike Climate Realist-Optimists So Much?
F. A. Hayek, the Nobel-Prize-winning economist of the Austrian tradition, provided a possible answer to the question posed in the title. Although Hayek (1899-1992) to my knowledge had nothing to say about the climate controversy, his views on macroeconomics met with a similarly critical attitude from those who practiced economics at a level far, far removed from individual action. He too was in essence called a science denier, in this case the science was economics. Here’s what he said when contrasting the method of the natural sciences of “simple phenomena” with the methods of social and other sciences of “complex phenomena” (transcribed from an interview at 33:00):
All the things I have stressed–the complexity of phenomena in general, the unknown character of the data, and so on–really much more points out limits to our possible knowledge than our contributions which makes specific predictions possible. This incidentally [is] another reason why my views have become unpopular. Conception of scientific method became prevalent during that period [the 1930s, when he worked on his “pure theory of capital”] which valued all scientific theories from the nature of specific predictions at which it would lead. Now somebody who pointed out that specific predictions which it could make were very limited and that at most it could achieve what I sometimes call “pattern predictions,” or predictions of the principle, seemed to the people who were used to the simplicity of physics or chemistry very disappointing and almost not science. The aim of science in that view was specific prediction, preferably mathematically testable, and somebody who pointed out that when you applied this principle to complex phenomena, you couldn’t achieve this seemed to the people almost to deny [!] that science was possible.
Of course my real aim was that the possible aims must be much more limited once we’ve passed from the science of simple phenomena to the science of complex phenomena. And there people bitterly resented that I would call physics a science of simple phenomena, which is partly a misunderstanding because the theory of physics [runs?] in terms of very simple equations. But that the active phenomena to which you have to apply it may be extremely complex is a different matter…. [On the other hand, in “intermediate fields” such as biology and the social sciences] their complexity becomes, I believe, an absolute barrier to the specificity of the predictions that we can arrive at. Until people learn themselves that they cannot achieve these ends, they will insist [on] trying and think somebody [who] believes it can’t be done is just old-fashioned and doesn’t understand modern science.
The relevance to the climate debate ought to be clear. Climate realist-optimists often point out that climates are too complex–with too many interacting and moving parts–to be spoken of and “projected” in the simplistic way that the alarmists routinely try to do. So they naturally dislike when credentialed scientists come along and point this out. This is why alarmists outrageously call the realist-optimists “deniers” and worse.
Podcasts
