Tom Woods and I recently discussed the Coronapocalypse and Questioning the Company Line: Critical Thinking in Hysterical Times:
The Tom Woods Show Episode 2378: Contradictions and Stupidities of Public Health
A generous donor has offered to match all contributions dollar-for-dollar for the next $10,000 raised, doubling the impact of your donation and helping us reach our fundraising goal faster.
Tom Woods and I recently discussed the Coronapocalypse and Questioning the Company Line: Critical Thinking in Hysterical Times:
The Tom Woods Show Episode 2378: Contradictions and Stupidities of Public Health
In 1947, Brigadier General SLA Marshall made an announcement that shocked the military world and changed combat forever.
The startling news came when Marshall published “Men Against Fire: The Problem of Battle Command,” a study that he conducted during his service as a military historian during WWII.
The study’s bombshell finding was that, in any given engagement with the enemy, only 25% of US servicemen fired their weapons.
Marshall made this conclusion after conducting a survey of individual soldiers soon after returning from combat. The results were uniform across hundreds of combat units.
Was there something unique about American GIs that their firing rates were so low?
Indeed, not.
After military tacticians the world over began to review Marshall’s observations, they found a bevy of historical evidence corroborated him.
So what did the US Military do?
Everything it could to get firing rates up—and it worked.
In this newsletter, we have been learning about ways to discover “what they’re not tellin’ you.” One way is to indulge your own curiosity!
When I first heard of Marshall’s study, I just had to figure out why most soldiers, despite their training, just would not fire their weapons in combat.
When I found out, I produced a short documentary film presenting what I’d found. Watch it below.
This article first appeared in Patrick MacFarlane’s email newsletter. If you think this content, sign up here for free.
During WWII, a children’s author and cartoonist smeared American’s largest political organization opposing US involvement in WWII.
It may surprise you that this children’s author was none other than Theodor Seuss Geisel, or Dr. Seuss.
But just what was this group Dr. Seuss was smearing? And why was he smearing it?
The American First Committee brought together a broad coalition of different political groups. Because local chapters had a great deal of autonomy, it was difficult for the higherups to vet who was being admitted. This resulted in a number of members joining the American First Committee because they supported international fascism or communism.
The below image is an example of one of Dr. Seuss’ cartoons painting the entire America First Committee as fascists and communists for the presence of these members in the movement, either desired or undesired by the whole.
To those of us who oppose US involvement in Ukraine and point out American actions that provoked Russia’s invasion, this treatment should be familiar. Especially after the Rage Against the War Machine rally this Spring.
This smearing persists despite the fact that explaining why something happened is not the same as justifying it.
Ironically, in crushing the America First Committee, Dr. Seuss aided and abetted the rise of the American fascistic war state.
If you want to hear more of this fascinating story, and how it relates to today, Brandan Buck joins us in next week’s episode of Vital Dissent. Brandan is a contributor to the Libertarian Institute and Responsible Statecraft. He is a PhD candidate in History at George Mason University.
This post first appeared in Patrick MacFarlane’s email newsletter. If you want more content like it, sign up here.
In 1987, a columnist at a small New Mexico newspaper discovered a story that would win her the 1994 Pulitzer Prize.
How did she do this? She had a superpower. She actually read things.
But, Patrick, you’re thinking to yourself, almost everyone can read.
Yes, but do they actually do it?
In 1987, Eileen Welsome was reading an otherwise boring report on the Air Force’s effort to clean up its nuclear waste sites. While reading, she discovered an inventory list of radioactive materials buried at Kirkland Air Force Base. The list included animal carcasses.
This discovery made her wonder why the animal carcasses were radioactive. To find out, she called the records custodian at Kirkland. He assembled a stack of reports about the experiments and welcomed her to come on base to read them.
When she read the reports, she discovered, buried in a footnote, that the experiments included not just animal, but also human experimentation. The footnote described a specific set of experiments where government scientists injected humans with Plutonium, in most cases without their knowledge or consent.
Ms. Welsome spent the next several years reading and researching. Through her work, she was able to track down and identify individual test subjects, despite the fact that government documents chillingly identified them as “HP,” for “Human Product.”
Now, I am citing Ms. Welsome’s work to make my documentary series “The Truth About Oppenheimer.”
In this Newsletter, we will be studying ways to uncover dark history and geopolitics—and discovering interesting stuff along the way.
The very first lesson that I can teach you, is to actually read things. Like Ms. Welsome, you’d be surprised where this will take you.
For instance, I cannot tell you how many times lawyers assume that a law or procedure is the way it is because that is the impression they have.
Two days ago, Supporting Members got early access to my latest episode of Vital Dissent, “How to Stop Your Ex from Vaxxing the Kids.” In it, I describe how I won a vaccine custody case because I read the case law and the other lawyer did not.
So yes, you can turn a skill as mundane as the commitment to ACTUALLY READ THINGS into a superpower.
This post first appeared in Patrick MacFarlane’s email newsletter. If you want more content like it, sign up here.
Last night, I finally got around to watching the terrifying 1984 film “Threads” by Barry Hines and Mick Jackson. The film was a straight-to-TV production that punches way beyond its £400,000 budget.
Through the lens of the film, it is easy to see how the spiraling escalation over Ukraine could reach its final destination. It makes this worst case scenario look plausible.
In the film, the Soviet Union invades Northern Iran in response to a US-backed coup. The US reacts by occupying the South. Spiraling escalation culminates with a tactical nuclear exchange after the Soviets allegedly destroy an American submarine.
The potential similarity between this and the crisis in Ukraine should already be obvious to the reader.
Much like real life, the film’s geopolitical escalation takes place in the background of daily life via news broadcasts and headlines. The citizens of Sheffield, UK, where the film takes place, at first try to ignore the crisis, but begin to panic when the Soviets break an American ultimatum—reminiscent of the UK’s own declaration of war against Germany in WWII.
During this time, antiwar and antinuclear activists demonstrate in the streets, but are shouted down as Soviet apologists. Soon after, the missiles rain down.
Many people assume that everyone within a certain radius of a nuclear explosion would instantly die. As the film realistically demonstrates, this is not true. Many people in Sheffield survive for days with grotesque blast burns. They suffer horribly from radiation sickness.
This depiction, which includes civil unrest and irradiated drinking water, was scientifically accurate.
The latter half of the film realistically depicts the effects of nuclear winter. World population and conditions are reduced to the sub-medieval. Even the survivors’ language devolves to the point of being unrecognizable.
Ultimately, the film is a disturbing reminder of just how bad things could get. The comments are full of Brits recounting how they were made to watch it in school—perhaps we should all be watching it? What do you think?
As people opposed to nuclear escalation, I think we can learn something from the activists who made this film. It’s clearly an effective piece of media.
How can we use tone and revulsion in our own work, to propagate a pro-peace message? God knows the other side is using it for war.
This post first appeared in Patrick MacFarlane’s email newsletter. If you want more content like it, sign up here.
Terms to search:
Brad Pearce (@thewaywardrabbler at Substack) has written a substantial (~4K word) and pensive essay on Questioning the COVID Company Line: Critical Thinking in Hysterical Times.
Opening Excerpt:
“Trust the science!” they said. “Listen to the experts!” During the “Coronapocalypse” we heard the same tired refrains until we wanted to gouge out our eardrums. In reality, the “experts” were incredibly wrong about their own narrow specialties, and even had they been right about the medical side of things, they are not experts on the costs of public policy. The covid cultists called us “grandma killers” and said we “only cared about the economy,” as if grandma couldn’t herself easily stay home and the economy only impacts the rich. There is a proverb of unknown provenance which says “truth is the first casualty of war,” and indeed, once they declared war on a coronavirus, there was a blare of propaganda the match for any dystopian film, whipping the public up into a fury of irrationality. Those of us standing against the wind from the beginning were at the greatest of disadvantages when the only things informing decision making were an unwarranted fear of the “unknown” and a bias for action. By the time more were on our side, our enemies were hopelessly dug in. In Questioning the COVID Company Line: Critical Thinking in Hysterical Times, Laurie Calhoun presents a series of essays spanning from August of 2020 through March of 2023, a period after the initial panic but which covers the rise and fall of the vaccines and ultimately the end of the years-long “state of emergency.”
Calhoun, who has a background in chemistry and philosophy, is different from the “expert” class in that she has a well-rounded intellect and is able to thoroughly consider what is right and wrong, apply logic, and examine the ethics of the costs of government policies. Perhaps more importantly, as a long-time foreign policy writer who has written a book about the drone war, she understands the costs and counterproductive nature of America’s real wars and why they should not be a model for a figurative war on infectious respiratory disease. This collection provides profound and useful insight from two and a half years in the life of a sane and sagacious woman in a mad and foolish world. We should all strive to follow Calhoun’s path of critical thinking and common sense instead of letting fear drive us into trusting the crackpot theories of a specialist class.
To start with the physical book itself, everything is well put together and of impressive quality, especially for having been independently published by a small non-profit. I was offered a free advanced PDF in the knowledge that I would review the text, however, as I have the spirit of an elderly person who fears technology, I insisted on buying a “dead tree” copy. The acknowledgements say the book was put together by Ben Parker, Mike Dworski, and Grant Smith, who did a wonderful job of turning this collection of online essays into a proper text- it does not at all have the feel of something which was simply copied off the internet. The citations have all been converted from the original hyper-links into convenient end notes. There is also a thorough index of place and personal names for easy reference. It is refreshing to see a new book from an independent publisher so well put together, given the gate-keeping from the neurotic “woke” women at mainstream commercial publishers. Books which encourage people to think critically and question the most deranged aspects of our society are more important than ever, and The Libertarian Institute has done a good thing by getting this one into print….
CONTINUE READING THE COMPLETE REVIEW ESSAY
People are REALLY liking my new documentary “The Truth About Oppenheimer.” This is what they’re saying about it:
An absolutely riveting start to a documentary series and I can’t wait for the next part. –@erosmangr74
This was more enlightening than I ever expected. Very well done. Utterly fascinating. I can’t wait for part II. The illustration of the depths to which this government can dive in its quest for domination is beyond belief. Thank you for this education. –@revzef
I’m seeing people on podcasts talking about Oppenheimer I’m right now because of the film coming out but this was my favorite presentation. Great job, Patrick. –mikedunn9310
Came over from Horton’s show. I think I’ll skip the fictional Hollywood biopic nonsense and just watch this and the forthcoming sequels. –Krusty222
Hell is full of capable scientists –klausineliebtpeter
My God –bobotheclown1634
Amazing Job! Very Professional! –sldl
Awesome work mate –Kym Robinson
Fascinating and very well done. Bravo, Patrick! –Laurie Calhoun
You are awesome –Scott Horton
If you’d like to see the Libertarian Institute creating more professionally produced work like “The Truth About Oppenheimer, please support it with a tax-deductible donation today.
Watch “The Truth About Oppenheimer” right now for free: