We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Why have a US government at all?

Mark Steyn wrote the other day,

Indeed, what difference would it make if it closed down its military? Obviously, it would present a few mid-life challenges for its corrupt Pentagon bureaucracy, since that many generals on the market for defense lobbyist gigs and board directorships all at once would likely depress the going rate. But, other than that, a military that accounts for 40 per cent of the planet’s military spending can’t perform either of the functions for which one has an army: it can’t defeat overseas enemies, and it’s not permitted to defend the country, as we see on the Rio Grande.

So what’s the point?

Good question. But why only ask it about the army?

While many here are distrustful of governments in general, most agree that if a government must exist at all it exists for the purposes listed in the preamble to the Constitution of the United States:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I wish I could say “President Biden is failing at all these objectives”. Mere ineffectiveness would be so nice. He is worse than useless on every one of them. He is worse than the British government on every one of them, which is quite an achievement. ‘America is back’, all right, back to 1975. That affects us, too. Sharks attack when they smell blood in the water.

In a spirit of open-mindedness I invite American readers more familiar with their local situation than I am to suggest any mitigating factors which might raise Mr Biden’s score to zero on any of: forming a more perfect union, establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defence (Yanks could spell in those days), promoting the general welfare (promoting welfare dependency doesn’t count), and securing the blessings of liberty to himself and his posterity… on second thoughts, I must grant that he is doing OK at keeping Hunter Biden out of jail.

67 comments to Why have a US government at all?

  • Myno

    If Biden’s manifest malfeasance stirs the voters to even temporarily mimic intelligence, it will have been a gain.

  • bobby b

    “In a spirit of open-mindedness I invite American readers more familiar with their local situation than I am to suggest any mitigating factors which might raise Mr Biden’s score to zero . . . “

    Now you’re just rubbing it all in. (All I’m left with is “no mean tweets.”)

    Of course, given that he hastens the overdue end of an era, perhaps he serves a function.

    In that spirit:

    https://tinkzorg.wordpress.com/2021/08/16/farewell-to-bourgeois-kings/

  • bobby b

    “If Biden’s manifest malfeasance stirs the voters to even temporarily mimic intelligence . . . “

    It won’t. It’s never the fault of progressivism. True progressivism has never been tried. Until we have world progressivism, progressivism will always be sabotaged. Damned Kulaks and wreckers . . .

  • Snorri Godhi

    Had it been up to me, i would have edited the Preamble as follows:

    We the Elites of the United States, hoping that we are not wrong in presuming to act in the interests of the People: in Order to form a more perfect Union, provide for the common defence, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    A more perfect union, common defen(c)e, and Blessings of Liberty: what more can one ask from a federal government?
    The rest should be left to the States.

  • Exasperated

    This is cobbled together from different things I read around 2012: Not sure of the author.

    In the USA:
    Like the current president, Woodrow Wilson was supposed to be the second coming, the be all and end of all of American progress; the progressives were in ecstasy(tingle up the leg). But it all went wrong. “During the presidential election of 1916, many leftists had embraced Woodrow Wilson as an almost supernatural leader of near messianic promise, but in the wake of repression at home and revolution and diplomatic disappointment abroad, he came to be seen as a Judas, and his affected rhetoric came to be seen as mere mummery.”
    Michael McGerr (U of Ind and historian of the Progressive Movement) writes, “Amid race riots, strikes, high inflation, and a frenzied Red Scare, Americans rejected the Progressive blueprint for the nation. The climax of Progressivism, World War I, was also its death knell.” Modern Republicanism — in the form of Presidents Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover? — and modern liberalism both emerged as reactions to the excesses of Progressivism.

    Historical note for post above: It’s almost 100 years ago that the be all and end all, of Woodrow Wilson’s presidency, thoroughly discredited the Progressive agenda. I don’t know if history will repeat; government dependency is exponentially greater today, and not just by individuals. It would require making adult choices. But the elites cannot grapple with the offensiveness of their overreach or their increasingly glaring incompetence coupled with a perverse and schoolmarmish pomposity.
    They can’t connect the two phenomena and are too blind to the causal relationship to change course.

  • Ferox

    providing for the common defence

    I know several people who had never even thought of owning a firearm prior to January of this year, who have armed themselves.

    One of them went from zero firearm experience or interest to being the owner of a pretty nice set of matching AR-15s for himself and his wife.

    Sniffy Ghostrider is pretty directly responsible for the sharpening of local attitudes around armaments.

  • The Wobbly Guy

    Sniffy Ghostrider is pretty directly responsible for the sharpening of local attitudes around armaments.

    Not just that, but he pretty much proved that you don’t need F-15s, tanks, or nuclear weapons to take on the government if the government has no political will or competency.

    Of course, we know that the democrats will behave differently in the US towards its own citizens since it’s their own power that is directly threatened, but the lack of competency is baked into their system.

  • George Atkisson

    A Republic, if you can keep it. – Benjamin Franklin

    President Wilson did, in fact, end the actuality of the American Republic. The exponential growth of the federal government was deliberately started by him and those progressive supporters. It was slowed by succeeding Presidents, but none of it was reversed. Progressives in Congress and the Courts kept ratcheting up the scope of federal power, eventually giving unelected bureaucrats in federal agencies the ability to write “Rules and Regulations” with the force of law that never crossed a legislator’s desk. The goal was one-size-fits-all uniformity and top-down control. It has succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. A Fauci/CDC can lock down the entire nation without debate or consequences to themselves. It will take a massive effort to wrest power away from those who have seized it with the blessings of their own hubris. Anyone who has tried to wrestle away that last piece of candy from a child knows what I’m talking about.

  • Shlomo Maistre

    A Republic, if you can keep it. – Benjamin Franklin

    President Wilson did, in fact, end the actuality of the American Republic. The exponential growth of the federal government was deliberately started by him and those progressive supporters. It was slowed by succeeding Presidents, but none of it was reversed. Progressives in Congress and the Courts kept ratcheting up the scope of federal power, eventually giving unelected bureaucrats in federal agencies the ability to write “Rules and Regulations” with the force of law that never crossed a legislator’s desk. The goal was one-size-fits-all uniformity and top-down control. It has succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. A Fauci/CDC can lock down the entire nation without debate or consequences to themselves. It will take a massive effort to wrest power away from those who have seized it with the blessings of their own hubris. Anyone who has tried to wrestle away that last piece of candy from a child knows what I’m talking about.

    Indeed. SQOTD.

  • The Wobbly Guy

    Part of it was also due to the promulgation of a professional civil service instead of relying on a spoils system. At the time, everybody (except the recipients of the spoils) thought it was a great idea.

    We now know better. A spoils system may be corrupt, but at least it’s an open corruption and people were directly accountable for their successes and failures. The connections a leader needs to make for trustworthy lackeys also constrains the number of positions he can fill, so this actually limits government, and no leader worth his salt will delegate key positions to people he does not trust, and would even seek to eliminate these positions entirely to avoid them threatening his core support base.

  • Schrodinger's Dog

    Isn’t there just a possibility some good might come of this? It’s now got to be obvious to all but the most willfully ignorant that America’s elites are not fit for purpose (Britain’s too, for that matter) and need to be replaced by people who are, at a minimum, competent.

  • Shlomo Maistre

    To answer Natalie’s question: “so, what’s the point?”

    It’s really an important question to ask and to answer based on evidence, not wishful thinking.

    One knows a tree by its fruit.

    Based on the evidence it seems that the primary purpose of the American federal government is to advance an oppressive, left-wing, corporatist, globalist, progressive, liberal, totalitarian agenda as quickly as possible while simultaneously always keeping secession just outside the Overton Window.

    So basically, this.

  • “Asked in a TV interview if he made any mistakes with the Afghan exit, US president Biden says, ‘No’.” (BBC roundup this morning)

    Above in this thread, Schrodinger’s Dog (August 19, 2021 at 2:51 am) asked

    Isn’t there just a possibility some good might come of this?

    A possibility, yes.

    It’s now got to be obvious to all but the most willfully ignorant

    The most wilfully ignorant exist in numbers, as do the wilfully greedy, the miserably cowardly, etc. – and above all, the arrogantly stupid. Every conman knows his mark’s vanity is his greatest ally.

    At many times in history, it has been ‘obvious’ (on some but not all occasions correctly so) to all but the ignorant that “something needs to be done”. Possibilities become actualities when the passive voice becomes someone’s active voice. The more right they are that ‘something needs to be done’ the more probable that “I need to be one of those doing it” means facing no small degree of risk. After the American War of Independence was won, many a “Give me liberty or give me death” speech was declaimed, but during it the undeniably brave fighters usually sought slightly better odds than that. Calculating such odds is less of a science than calculating the statistics of vote fraud. Usually, in the end, one’s feelings decide more than one’s intellect.

    Meanwhile,

    Mr Biden was also asked about images that went viral this week of Afghans falling from an American military plane as it gained altitude over Kabul. The US president grew defensive, saying, “That was four days ago, five days ago.”

    The BBC is finally noticing that Biden is very rude to the press if they press him on anything. Others may notice more fundamental issues.

  • Snorri Godhi

    The most wilfully ignorant exist in numbers, as do the wilfully greedy, the miserably cowardly, etc. – and above all, the arrogantly stupid.

    I should think that ‘wilfully ignorant’ and ‘arrogantly stupid’ are both misnomers for people who are better described as delusionally insane.

    (Similarly, Nassim Taleb defines the IYI as ‘intellectual yet idiot’. I prefer ‘intelligent yet insane’. I used to be one… maybe i still am?)

  • bobby b

    Austin Bay is angry, and answers Ms. Solent’s question in his own way:

    https://strategypage.com/on_point/202108172241.aspx

    (For my own part, and after some consideration, I’d answer the question “Why have a US government at all?” by saying that a competent government that serves my own set of moral beliefs is worthwhile, and so we continue to strive to achieve such a thing, while trying to survive when things fall short. This will all pass, hopefully in my lifetime.)

  • bobby b

    “I should think that ‘wilfully ignorant’ and ‘arrogantly stupid’ are both misnomers for people who are better described as delusionally insane.”

    Most “woke” people that I know seem to value the psychological security of being part of the “good” group much more than they care about specific economic theories, the place in society of minorities, rights called out in founding documents, etc.

    To them, the harm found in being wrong in the face of facts about those technical questions pales beside the urgency of remaining in the good graces of the more-woke – of being a right-thinking person.

    So I’d not label them “insane.” They are addressing, logically, the issues that to them take priority. They primarily need to belong, and to feel more virtuous than others. We believe that our own set of questions are more important than theirs. To them, we likely present as being just as insane as they seem to us.

  • A more perfect union, common defen(c)e, and Blessings of Liberty: what more can one ask from a federal government?
    The rest should be left to the States.

    They are under the 10th Amendment. What the issue is, is that the Federal Government starting in WW1 began to usurp the perogotives of the various states. This was enhanced by the 17th Amendment (direct election of Senators) removed Senators from being responsible to their state legislatures and allowed them to ignore what is in the best interest of their state, and permitted them to build fiefdoms (sitting Congressritters rarely lose elections, with current office holders being reelected nine out of ten times).

    Now, we have an Imperial Presidency wherein the President can virtually ignore the legislative branch as well as the judiciary and rule by executive fiat. Biden has ignored the Supreme Court’s ruling that a moratorium on evicting squatters for not paying rent is unconstitutional. Something Trump never did, though accused of regularly. When you toss in the loss of respect for the “expert class” (our ruling elites-who purport to be smarter and better educated than the unwashed masses, you set up a loss of faith in the ability of the government to do the jobs they are supposed to do.

  • Timbofin

    “that was four or five days ago”

    This is the same concept as the Hilderbeast’s “What difference, at this point, does it make?”.
    I see it as evidence of the same empathy bypass. It’s not the same as pathetically blaming others or denying a problem. It’s where a narcissist gaslights you into ignoring the bodies they leave behind them by virtue of the mere passage of time.

  • Snorri Godhi (August 19, 2021 at 9:11 am), Robert Conquest’s phrase was “intellectual without intellect”.

  • Natalie Solent (Essex)

    Timbofin writes, “It’s where a narcissist gaslights you into ignoring the bodies they leave behind them by virtue of the mere passage of time.”

    And so little time. I could understand it better if years had passed; but he would have us believe that the past ceases to matter after a few days.

    Either that or he really does struggle to keep memories of a few days ago in his head. He didn’t even get the number of days right.

  • Snorri Godhi

    Robert Conquest’s phrase was “intellectual without intellect”.

    As long as intellect is clearly understood to mean more than mere IQ, i can agree with that.

  • Snorri Godhi

    Bobby:

    Most “woke” people that I know seem to value the psychological security of being part of the “good” group much more than they care about specific economic theories, the place in society of minorities, rights called out in founding documents, etc.

    […]

    So I’d not label them “insane.”

    Hmm…
    I cannot say for sure that i have ever got to know any truly “woke” person.
    But i dare to assert that:
    If you come to privately accept ideas blatantly at odds with reality, or even basic logic, then you are insane;
    and if you publicly accept ideas that you privately realize are blatantly at odds with reality or logic, then you will eventually become insane.

  • Snorri Godhi

    Rich Vail:

    Now, we have an Imperial Presidency wherein the President can virtually ignore the legislative branch as well as the judiciary and rule by executive fiat.

    Well… that is true as long as the President is a Democrat!

  • Jacob

    To Shlomo Maistre Aug 19, 4.51 am
    1. People already died of Covid before there was a vaccine.
    2. About the vaccine being a huge experiment on human beings: every medicine is that.
    I mean the video you linked to is totally insane, including any person who promotes it.

  • Paul Marks

    At this point anyone who still supports Mr Biden (who was no more elected President of the United States than I was) is irrational.

    And according to the opinion polls some 46% of Americans are irrational. Let us say the opinion poll companies are liars (which they may well be) and that many people are afraid to state their true opinions anyway (which is also true) – that still means even if it is (say) half that number, 23% of Americans, there are still tens of millions of irrational people in the United States.

    People so brainwashed by the (Collectivist dominated) education system and the “mainstream media” that they think that up is down, wet is dry, and Mr Biden is a doing good job.

    In such a situation, where there are TENS OF MILLIONS (again even if it is 23% not 46%) of savage (barely human) Collectivists – the question becomes one of survival.

    Get out of the big cities – and get of them now. The economy is going to collapse over the next few years – and you do want to be anywhere near vast numbers of irrational people when real economic hardship hits.

    This will not be like the 1930s – economic depression, but a relatively calm society. At least in the Big Cities things are going to be savage.

    As for a new government – to counter the threat of People’s Republic of China regime and so on.

    The trouble with that is that it takes two thirds of the States to call a Constitutional Convention (to bypass the worthless filth that make up the Federal Government) and three quarters of the States to ratify what that Convention agrees.

    That is a very toll fence to climb – indeed two fences to climb. Getting two thirds of the States to agree to a Constitutional Convention (to get rid of the “general welfare” and the “regulate interstate commerce” words from the Constitution) and then getting three quarters of the States to ratify the new Constitution – or modifications of the existing one.

    Amendment is even harder than Convention – as Amendment involves the Congress vermin (a Convention bypasses the Congress).

    So it looks like the People’s Republic of China is going to dominate the world – as the United States collapses over the next few years.

    Unless there is a miracle – and the believers among us are praying for one. However, “my Kingdom is not of this world” – we must not expect God to intervene to sort out what humans beings (with our Free Will) have messed up.

  • Paul Marks

    The blindness (or worse) of the international establishment elite is astonishing.

    The People’s Republic of China overtook the industrial strength of the United States as far back as 2010 – and is now vastly more powerful.

    Yes the establishment continue to look at “GDP” – CONSUMPTION (not production).

    A population can not keep consuming more (vastly more) than they produce – just creating money (from NOTHING) and using it to import goods.

    President Trump understood the problem (even if his solutions were not perfect) – the establishment do not even grasp the problem, they are totally (utterly) clueless.

  • Paul Marks

    I repeat – get out of the major cities.

    Go to a small town (far away from the big cities) where there are people you trust. And make sure you have practical skills. Being on your own is not good either – a single family is weak (they might as well have “target” written on their foreheads) – go to a local community of like minded people who can help protect each other and uphold PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS.

    Even if you are a farmer – you need other people near by who can help defend your private property, just as you can help them defend their private property.

    Let us hope that the bad times in the United States last only a few years – but no one can be sure of that.

  • Paul Marks

    As for the film that Jacob rejects as “insane”.

    There are many very well qualified medical doctors and academic epidemiologists in that film – some of whom I have made it my business to read over the last year.

    What I do NOT like is short clips from each person spliced together.

    That is not just a good way of representing someone’s opinions. I am NOT accusing the film maker of dishonesty – but it is not a good method of showing the opinions of people. It tends to exaggeration.

    Do not “over egg the pudding”.

    “That is a bit much from you Paul – you always assume the worst, see your previous comments”.

    True – but “do not do as I do – do as I say” may be hypocritical, but it is also TRUE.

  • Jacob

    “There are many very well qualified medical doctors and academic epidemiologists in that film”

    Could it be that medicine is a little bit like economy? That you can find “well qualified” doctors on both sides of any issue?

  • Shlomo Maistre

    Jacob,

    Could it be that medicine is a little bit like economy? That you can find “well qualified” doctors on both sides of any issue?

    Are there well qualified doctors who think that antibiotics never work? No. So clearly there are not well qualified doctors on both sides of any issue, right?

    Why are the doctors and scientists who are dissent from the mainstream narrative on COVID almost never debated in public by the “mainstream” scientist and doctor? Why can’t they face the “mainstream” scientists and doctors in open debate via transparent, public dialogue? If their ideas are so easily debunked, why the censorship? Why not just permit open, honest, transparent dialogue between the “mainstream” scientists and these dissenting scientists and doctors?

    What happened to “dissent is patriotic”?

    How many well qualified doctors and scientists need to speak out for you to be open to changing your mind?

  • Shlomo Maistre

    Jacob,

    Instead what happens is this:

    1. They are censored from social media platforms
    2. They are disappeared from most of the internet
    3. Their ideas are censored/labeled/disappeared by social media platforms
    4. Their ideas are labelled as misinformation by the Fake News Media
    5. Their ideas are intentionally mischaracterized and disingenuously smeared by the Fake News Media
    6. Their data and evidence are delegitimized by a corrupt media that uses dishonest rhetoric and incomplete analysis to supposedly debunk their theories, but without permitting the doctors or scientists the opportunity to publicly defend against the fake smears, dishonest rhetoric, and mischaracterizations
    7. Fact checkers eagerly and uncritically label their ideas “dangerous” “unfounded” “without evidence” “conspiracy” “theories” “fringe” “unsubstantiated” by citing Fake News Media articles and “mainstream” scientists/doctors – and these are the same “mainstream” scientists/doctors who almost always refuse open, transparent dialogue or discussion and the media never questions this curious lack of open, transparent dialogue
    8. Their wikipedia pages are changed to hurt their reputations, minimize their contributions, and make them seem fringe
    9. They often lose their jobs or are censured/punished by professional bodies for voicing DISSENT or lose future career opportunities
    10. There is a massive chilling effect as TENS OF THOUSANDS OF OTHER doctors and scientists around the world do not wish to speak out against the mainstream narrative for fear of facing the same consequences. And they are right to fear.

  • Shlomo Maistre

    Jacob,

    Just for your information, I support vaccines. I support science. I believe in science. I respect doctors and scientists.

    I accepted the COVID narrative in March 2020 and I have accepted the COVID narrative continuously until only the last few months. I supported the lockdowns last year.

    Over the past few months my perspective has changed drastically. Why? Many reasons, but the main reason is that I learned what was being said by HUGE numbers of qualified and respected scientists and doctors all around the world. I simply did not know that so many doctors and scientists were dissenting from the “mainstream” COVID narrative based on evidence and data.

    I was ignorant, just like you are now. I was ignorant of the massive quantity of data and evidence and scientific studies that delegitimize the “mainstream” COVID narrative.

    And then I saw that instead of open dialogue with dissenting scientists and dissenting doctors, there was just CONSTANT CENSORSHIP, DEMONIZATION, and VILIFICATION… nearly EVERYWHERE. And it was constant. Every single day.

    The dissenting scientists and doctors’ ideas and data and evidence were being censored by big tech, mischaracterized by the media, and their reputations were being smeared by the media ONLY AFTER they speak out against the narrative but not before they speak out against the COVID narrative. Wikipedia pages of eminent scientists and doctors were being modified in HUGE WAYS right after they voice dissent. Again. And again. And Again.

    Instead of facilitating open dialogue and transparent debate between “mainstream” scientists and doctors and the thousands of scientists and doctors who dissent from the “mainstream” narrative, I saw media, government, bureacracy, corporations, and Big Tech demonize dissent, stifle dialogue, shut down debate, smear the dissenting voices, censor the ideas and data from social media platforms, and suppress open discussion.

    I do not know the truth about what is actually happening.

    I do not know the veracity of every claim or counter-claim by the “mainstream” scientists and doctors and the thousands of scientists and doctors who dissent from the “mainstream” narrative.

    But I do know one thing: I do NOT accept the mainstream narrative on COVID anymore. Not. At. All.

  • Mr Ed

    The only way I see Biden rescuing his reputation from the Afghanistan crisis is by taking a bold step to ensure that someone takes personal command of the evacuation on the spot in Kabul airport, and to show the Taliban that his commitment to women’s rights hasn’t gone away, he should send the Vice-President.

  • Jacob

    “delegitimize the “mainstream” COVID narrative.” “I do NOT accept the mainstream narrative on COVID anymore.”
    What do you mean “delegitimize”? Is there no such illness? Are there no more than 3 million deaths? What do you mean?
    I think the Covid pandemic is a fact. I think those who try to deny it or belittle the threat are insane.
    You can believe like Paul in “early treatment” (which I don’t) but you cannot deny the pandemic.
    You can believe that the lockdowns were idiotic or unwarranted (I could sympathize with this).

  • Jacob

    You need to form in your mind an alternative narrative. Not accepting the main one is not enough.

  • Just for your information, I support vaccines. I support science. (Shlomo Maistre, August 19, 2021 at 5:53 pm)

    Jacob might say the same, but, like the word ‘racism’ in today’s public domain, the word ‘science’ has two incompatible meanings.

    – Many people say ‘I support science’ to mean ‘I support what(ever) Dr Fauci says, what(ever) Professor Ferguson says, what(ever) the science bureaucracy says.’

    – The belief that I would call science is:

    “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” (Richard Feynman)

    The first demands we accept the mainstream narrative by definition. The second warns us not to accept a narrative curated by a science bureaucracy that rejects Feynman’s definition.

  • bobby b

    Mr. Ed, given the order for presidential succession, I’m confident Ms. Pelosi is working on your very idea as we type.

    But *Biden is likely fighting hard to keep Ms. Harris safe and sound. She has no constituency, no popularity, and in fact the idea of empowering her scares the crap out of everyone. She’s there to block Pelosi.

  • Shlomo Maistre

    Jacob,

    Is there no such illness?

    Of course COVID 19 exists.

    Are there no more than 3 million deaths?

    Of course there have been millions of deaths from COVID 19.

    You need to form in your mind an alternative narrative. Not accepting the main one is not enough.

    I don’t need to do anything. And in order to reject the mainstream narrative I certainly do NOT need to “form in my mind an alternative narrative”.

  • Shlomo Maistre

    Jacob will not answer the important questions:

    1. Why are the doctors and scientists who are dissent from the mainstream narrative on COVID almost never debated in public by the “mainstream” scientist and doctor?
    2. Why are the dissenting scientists and doctors not permitted to defend themselves publicly against their mainstream counterparts via transparent, public dialogue?
    3. If their ideas are so easily debunked, why the censorship?
    4. Why do the government, media, universities, Big Tech, federal bureaucracies, NGOs, media etc BASICALLY NEVER just facilitate open, honest, transparent dialogue between the “mainstream” scientists/doctors and these dissenting scientists and doctors?
    5. Since when is science about shutting down open discussion, censoring data, disappearing information, silencing dissent, shaming well qualified doctors and reputable scientists for speaking out?
    6. Since when is following the science more important than open minded, transparent dialogue?
    7. Since when does following the science mean shutting down debate, constant censorship of dissenting voices, deleting data and evidence from most of the internet and demonizing scientists and doctors who are guilty of drawing the wrong conclusions?

  • bobby b

    Jacob
    August 19, 2021 at 4:59 pm

    “Could it be that medicine is a little bit like economy? That you can find “well qualified” doctors on both sides of any issue?”

    I believe that that was partially SM’s point – that we are not allowed to see or hear any of those “well qualified” people who are on the “wrong” side. The video you decried was intentionally done as a mix of many qualified people dissenting from the proper Covid position to make the point that they are being intentionally excluded from public discourse, not to present the science of their views.

    Anyone is free to follow up on that video and inspect the foundation of their science. A proper critique of their views should now focus on the merits of those views, not on this quick summary video that merely demonstrates their existence. The fact that most people are ignorant that these views even exist in the scientific community is proof of the need of such videos.

  • Shlomo Maistre

    Like the vast majority of humans, Jacob does not have sufficient time, curiosity, confidence, or inclination.

    It takes a lot of all four to go about researching what has been covered up and hidden from the public eye. Obviously you absolutely cannot use Google’s search engine to find the important links – I have tried and almost none of the important links will appear. So one must use other search engines. And there are hundreds of important links to find.

    These hundreds of links document the censorship, the evidence, the data, the context, the studies, the background, etc. On everything – masks, vaccines, early treatments, lockdowns, etc. The coverup is more extensive and powerful than anything in human history that I’m aware of.

  • SteveD

    President who?

  • Jacob

    Shlomo,
    You questions are valid, and answers may be lacking. So what? What is your point? So far – the only claim you made is that the scientific debate was suppressed. Maybe. Maybe that it’s wrong and worth criticizing.
    But it says nothing about the main topic which is: the nature of the Covid pandemic.

    And I repeat : that video was nuts.

  • Shlomo Maistre

    Jacob,

    You questions are valid, and answers may be lacking.

    Well, that’s the trouble you have, right there. Are the answers lacking or is your willingness to logically deduce what the obvious answers to the questions are the thing that is lacking?

    Was it Churchill who said that most men, when they stumble upon a difficult truth, pick themselves up and continue walking as if nothing happened?

  • Jacob

    Luckily, I have you, so could you please explain what you think is going on?

  • Shlomo Maistre

    I really don’t know what is happening, but I do not trust the mainstream narrative on COVID anymore.

    For most of the past 18 months, I have attributed things that have been happening to a mixture of factors:
    1. COVID is real. People are dying of COVID. It’s something we as a society should take seriously, especially given how very transmissible it is.
    2. We need to take common sense measures, including lockdowns, social distancing and other things in order to reduce deaths by slowing the spread and flattening the curve to prevent too much strain at the hospitals. Also these measures, early on, buy our countries time to build ventilators, get PP&E, and start developing treatments and therapeutics to get ready for big influxes of patients at hospitals.
    3. The media wants more money and better ratings. Nothing drives $ and ratings like a scary crisis so they are bound to overstate the danger COVID 19 poses in the tone of their coverage to get more $ and ratings.
    4. Lockdowns are partly driven by the lobbyists of mega corporations like Walmart, Amazon, and Target who want to squeeze their smaller competitors out of business who do not have online presences. Politicians of all stripes listen to lobbyists due to campaign contributions.
    5. Politicians and bureaucrats in governments like to increase their own power and control. No bureaucrat looks at a problem in society and suggests that the solution should be less bureaucratic control, less regulation, less restrictions on liberty.

    I still think these five factors explain much of what happening.

    But the more I have read recently about the uniform and extraordinary silencing of eminent scientists and doctors around the world who dissent from the mainstream narrative, the more I have wondered about what factors explain that censorship. The constant censorship. Of top scientists at Harvard, Oxford, Stanford, etc. All around the world. Doctors and scientists from Israel, Canada, Australia, UK, Sweden, Germany, Brazil, India, Japan…. the list goes on and on.

    TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOCTORS AND SCIENTISTS speaking out and losing their online identities, being censored out of existence, being attacked personally by media that do not know them and will not interview them, and having their data-packed videos presenting evidence REMOVED FROM YOUTUBE AND TWITTER. Many of these doctors and scientists are hugely reputable, top guys in their fields. Many of them literally wrote the textbooks in their fields, are widely cited in the scientific literature, and have even won awards. And they are being silenced. Now, is it the case that most scientists who dissent are being silenced and censored most of the time? NO. ALL OF THEM WHO DISSENT ARE BEING SILENCED AND CENSORED ALL OF THE TIME. It’s uniform censorship across the board, consistent and nearly-perfectly executed across platforms and across time. It’s exhaustive censoring of eminent scientists, obviously a cover-up unlike anything I have ever seen or thought even remotely conceivable outside of dystopian novels.

    And has this exhaustive silencing and massive censorship campaign by Big Tech been accompanied by a diligent and skeptical press who have fairly and reasonably investigated the claims of the dissenting scientists and doctors? No. Have the press held public debates between the dissenting scientists and doctors with their “mainstream” counterparts on such matters as the efficacy of the lockdowns or mask mandates? No. Has the media held public debates between scientists who disagree about the vaccines? No.

    Instead, the media has acted like a pack of hyenas, working seemingly hand in hand to destroy the reputations of the dissenting scientists and doctors that their brothers in Big Tech have censored out of the public consciousness. The media have castigated and demonized these previously well-regarded and eminent scientists and doctors for their “fringe conspiracy theories” and “unfounded claims” that are “without evidence”. These drive-by shootings by journalism majors hardly ever even give these scientists and doctors the opportunity to defend themselves and their ideas publicly. Why has the man who invented the mRNA vaccine and spoken out against its blanket use not ever appeared on CNN or NBC to defend his opinion? Is this not a bit bizarre?

    I think a debate between our Great and Merciful Lord and Savior Anthony Fauci any one of the following: John Ioannidis or Martin Kulldorff or Sucharit Bhakdi or Robert Malone or Michael Yeadon (or any one of THOUSANDS OF OTHERS of scientists who dissent from the mainstream) on the efficacy of the vaccine or the lockdowns or masks would be the most highly rated television WORLDWIDE since the World Cup. But no major TV network will even consider this. Why doesn’t NBC or CNN want TOP RATINGS and massive loads of $? Why??

    And then I have seen with my own eyes how the CULTURE has changed permanently. Politics is downstream of culture. And I have thought about all the ways (there are too many to list here) in which society has changed culturally and permanently. Just as one example: I can remember when personal medical decisions were considered, you know, private. I can remember when it would have been taboo to even SUGGEST that one’s medical records should be checked to participate in civil society. Just two short years ago that would have been taboo, but now my mayor not only is suggesting it but implementing just that sort of policy in NYC. And if you think it’s only in NYC, you are very much mistaken. New Orleans and San Fran are following suit, as are countries around the world. Where is the outrage from the media?

    And I see how so many of these measures to fight COVID seem to align with long-term goals of elites. Read Klaus Schwab’s books, I IMPLORE YOU. He is the Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum and a famous economist and key globalist. He has written books about what the globalists want to do and are doing now. “The Fourth Industrial Revolution”. “COVID-19: The Great Reset” Have you read those books?

    I don’t know what’s going on.

    But I do not accept the mainstream narrative on COVID anymore, that is for damn sure.

  • Shlomo Maistre

    I ask again:

    I think a debate between our Great and Merciful Lord and Savior Anthony Fauci (or any of the “mainstream” scientists/doctors) and any one of the following: John Ioannidis or Martin Kulldorff or Sucharit Bhakdi or Robert Malone or Michael Yeadon or Li-Meng Yan or Bret Weinstein or Martin Makary or Peter McCullough (or any one of thousands of other scientists/doctors who dissent from the mainstream) on the efficacy of the vaccine or lockdowns or masks or school closures or early treatment would be the most highly rated television WORLDWIDE since the World Cup.

    But no major TV network will even consider this. Why doesn’t NBC or CNN want TOP RATINGS and massive loads of $? Why not????

    I just cannot for the LIFE of me fucking understand this.

    It just does not add up for me. I cannot accept the mainstream narrative on COVID anymore.

    Klaus Schwab is Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum and a famous economist and key globalist. He wrote “The Fourth Industrial Revolution” and “COVID-19: The Great Reset”. Have you read those books? I implore you to do so.

  • Shlomo Maistre

    I can remember this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEmKIRqz9AI&t=336s

    Paul Krugman and Ron Paul debating monetary policy on Bloomberg TV.

    Polite, informed, transparent, and public debate facilitated by the mainstream media. Remember when we had that?

  • Shlomo Maistre

    The Paul v. Paul debate was a debate between two men who genuinely disagree philosophically and ideologically on fundamental economic theory and monetary policy. They are polar opposites on matters of monetary policy and economics.

    Their genuinely held opinions on monetary policy are MUTUALLY INCOMPATIBLE. And yet, the mainstream media facilitated a transparent, polite, informed, and public debate between these two men.

    Where is that transparent, polite, informed, and public debate facilitated by the mainstream media…
    1. between scientists who disagree about how dangerous COVID 19 actually is?
    2. between scientists who disagree about the mRNA vaccines?
    3. between scientists who disagree about masks?
    4. between scientists who disagree about early prevention?
    5. between scientists who disagree about lockdowns?
    6. between scientists who disagree about school closures?
    7. between scientists who disagree about social distancing?
    8. between scientists who disagree about the efficacy of ivermectin?
    9. between scientists who disagree about the efficacy of monoclonal antibodies?
    10. between scientists who disagree about the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine?
    11. between scientists who disagree about school closures?
    12. between scientists who disagree about the vaccines’ long term impact?
    13. between scientists who disagree about the PCR test?
    14. between scientists who disagree about vitamin D, vitamin C, and zinc?
    15. between scientists who disagree about spike proteins?
    16. between scientists who disagree about whether COVID 19 treatments are so poor that Pfizer should really qualify to gain legal immunity from liability associated with their vaccine, as they have?
    17. between scientists who disagree about how the body actually fights COVID 19?
    18. between scientists who disagree about whether COVID 19 impacts different people differently?
    19. between scientists who disagree about the booster shot?
    20. between scientists who disagree about the psychological impact on children of mask mandates in schools?
    21. between scientists who disagree about how rates of suicide have changed due to lockdowns around the world?
    22. between scientists who disagree about how rates of alcoholism, domestic violence etc have changed due to lockdowns?
    23. between scientists who disagree about the importance of sunlight and being outside?
    24. between scientists who disagree about how important seeing human faces are psychologically?
    25. between scientists who disagree about how dangerous COVID 19 is compared to the Spanish Flu?
    16. between scientists who disagree about whether we have reached herd immunity?
    27. between scientists who disagree about the risks involved in taking any one of the COVID 19 vaccines?
    28. between scientists who disagree about the methods used in studying the efficacy of the COVID 19 vaccines?
    29. between scientists who disagree about what the science says?
    30. between scientists who disagree regarding whether censorship of their colleagues should happen on social media?
    31. between scientists who disagree about what the data show on any number of dozens of issues?
    32. between scientists who disagree about what the risk-reward trade-offs of different policies being implemented are?

    Besides wars and slavery, we are experiencing the largest, most severe, and most systematic violation of basic human rights globally since….

    And this massive, systematic violation of human rights around the world has been and is being accompanied right now by a mainstream media throughout the entire world that almost always:
    1. refuses to facilitate any open, public debate between scientists who disagree on anything related to COVID 19 even though doing so would INCREASE THEIR REVENUES, RATINGS, AND PROFITS
    2. denies scientists who disagree with the “mainstream” narrative on COVID the opportunity to defend their ideas and their arguments publicly and fairly
    3. misrepresents and mischaracterizes the reasoning of the scientists and doctors who disagree with the policies of governments all around the world
    4. refuses to interview the scientists who disagree with the “mainstream” narrative on COVID in a fair, reasonable, polite manner without smears or ad hominem attacks
    5. constantly, zealously smears the reputation of any scientist or doctor who dissents from the “mainstream” narrative or disagrees with the solutions being implemented by governments all around the world
    6. minimize the objections and qualms of human rights advocates
    7. constantly under-report the harms caused by the policies being implemented by governments all around the world, including higher rates of depression, suicide, domestic violence, alcoholism, and social isolation
    8. constantly under-report the widespread censorship happening on social media platforms against the same scientists and doctors who the media themselves demonize and refuse to give a fair hearing to
    9. refrains from investigating in a serious way the data regarding adverse consequences of these horrible policies
    10. refrains from criticize the politicians in a serious way
    11. refrains from investigating the powerful business interests that stand to gain massive wealth from many of these policies being implemented worldwide
    12. refrains from reporting much on the largest transfer of wealth in human history from small businesses and ordinary people to mega corporations happening largely as a result of the policies that the media constantly shields from criticism and cheerleads
    13. refrains from interview the ordinary people whose lives have been ruined by the policies being implemented
    14. refrains from investigating many basic things, such as the origins of COVID 19
    15. refrains from asking any big questions, the big-picture questions that might bring up issues that could change the narrative of COVID 19 – not for people like me, but for ordinary low-curiosity and weak-minded people who “follow the science”

    I do not know what the fuck is going on.

    None of this makes the least bit of sense at all.

  • Shlomo Maistre

    Looking back, Jacob started this by saying:

    1. People already died of Covid before there was a vaccine.
    2. About the vaccine being a huge experiment on human beings: every medicine is that.
    I mean the video you linked to is totally insane, including any person who promotes it.

    […]

    Could it be that medicine is a little bit like economy? That you can find “well qualified” doctors on both sides of any issue

    A question that troubles me, because it betrays a real lack of both curiosity and imagination.

    A good example of just simply not considering the unseen. Let us point out one of millions of things that Jacob did not see which led him to ask his question: are there well-qualified doctors on both sides of the question of whether antibiotics never work?

    I do not think like most people. I do often wonder how most people think. I do not know Jacob. He reads Samizdata so he almost certainly has an IQ that is well above average.

    Of course, it is not intelligence that most people are lacking that leads them to accept the “mainstream” narrative – it is their lack of time, curiosity, confidence, and inclination that leads them to accept the “mainstream” narrative. Perhaps wisdom, as well.

    Most important thing for us all is to point out what is actually happening. And to keep pointing it out. Was it Orwell who said that “to see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle”?

  • Shlomo Maistre

    John Ioannidis or Martin Kulldorff or Sucharit Bhakdi or Robert Malone or Sunetra Gupta or Michael Yeadon or Cody Meissner or Li-Meng Yan or Bret Weinstein or Martin Makary or Peter McCullough or David Livermore or Ariel Munitz or David Martin or Knut Wittkowski or Pierre Kory or Simone Gold or Dan Erickson or Artin Massihi or Ryan Cole or Charles Hoffe or Byram Bridle or Abrien Aguirre or Joseph Mercola or Patrick Phillips or Dolores Cahil or Vladimir Zelenko or Ellen Townsend or Scott Atlas or Francis Christian or Paul Marik or Charles Hoffe or Eyal Shahar or Jay Bhattacharya or Kamran Abbasi or Gianfranco Umberto Meduri or Peter Daszak or Marta Entrenas Castillo

    That is just the tip of the iceberg. This is less than 1% of the doctors and scientists that have spoken out against the “mainstream” narrative on COVID 19 that only I am aware of.

    They have many different specialties, different backgrounds, different data, different evidence, different reasoning, different opinions on different topics.

    They all have spoken out against at least one part of the COVID 19 “mainstream” narrative – for some it is vitamin D, for some it is lockdowns, for some it is masks, for some it is vaccines, for some it is ivermectin, for some it is COVID 19 itself, etc, etc etc.

    All have been censored in various ways. Many of their twitter accounts have been removed. Their wikipedia pages have been altered. Their viral videos on youtube have been disappeared. Their presence on facebook has been deleted. Their groups on facebook have been deleted. Their twitter accounts have been censored. Their ability to reach the public online has been cut off. Most of them are not heard of or seen in the mainstream press hardly ever. At least one has even been arrested.

    And then the media… their scientific assertions based on evidence have been labelled as “fringe” by the press, and they have been demonized and misrepresented. Their data have been misrepresented. Their evidence has been under-reported. Their reasoning has been mischaracterized. Their opinions have been vilified. Their reputations have been smeared. Their professional credentials have been minimized. Their professional biographies have been modified to taint and distort their past professional achievements.

    They have not been given a fair hearing in full view of the public to defend themselves or their ideas. The press, Big Tech, government, NGOs, bureaucracies, and corporations have consistently denied these scientists and doctors the opportunity to defend themselves and their ideas publicly and politely in full view of the public.

    How many professors, doctors, and scientists all around the world are too scared to speak out because they see what has happened to these brave men and women?

    Why is the greatest, most severe, most thorough, most systematic human rights violation besides war or slavery happening at the same time as the greatest, most severe, most thorough, most systematic censorship campaign in human history (outside of actual wars)? To say that this is “worthy of criticism” is much like saying that the Nuremberg Laws of Nazi Germany were “worthy of criticism”. Well, yes. That’s all, though? Really?

  • Shlomo Maistre

    “Peter Daszak”

    Meant Peter Doshi. David.E.Martin. Not good to mix up those Peter’s! Very different Peters indeed….

  • Jacob

    And then I have seen with my own eyes how the CULTURE has changed permanently. Politics is downstream of culture. And I have thought about all the ways (there are too many to list here) in which society has changed culturally and permanently.
    Yes, culture, politics, they have all changed very much, and quite suddenly in the last – say – 5 years. Enormously.
    And not for the better.

  • Jacob

    Thanks Shlomo for taking the time and effort to state your views.

  • Jacob

    Talking about antibiotics – maybe some consensus will be reached (in the medical profession) about Covid in some 20 year’s time… it takes time…and even then it’s not a sure thing…
    For example – I read about prostate treatments. There are some 10 or 20 possible ways to treat prostate problems, and no consensus about the best way. I read a comment of a rich and educated person which had this problem. He consulted about 10 of the greatest specialists available and each recommended an different treatment. He studied the problem and found no good answers in the literature. In the end he choose randomly, the doctor he liked best.

    About Covid – I don’t think any out of normal or funny thing happens. We don’t know much about it, and behave accordingly…. doing what can be done under the circumstances. Not every doctor who pretends to have a miracle cure indeed has it. Most of them are just crazies. It’s possible sometimes to miss the real thing from among all those crazies. It happens sometimes… I don’t buy the conspiracy theories and don’t think something special is happening in this case.

    But in general – yes, crazy rules. At least in the US. Government, media, corporations – they are stark crazy.

  • Jacob

    A relative, working at General Motors, received this e-mail (sent to all employees):

    “Mary Barra (she/her/hers) ….
    Seeing our EV future come to life…. etc.”
    Mary Barra is CEO of General Motors.
    Crazy.

  • Shlomo Maistre

    maybe some consensus will be reached (in the medical profession) about Covid in some 20 year’s time

    Well, you are right that there is no yet a consensus in the medical profession about COVID.

    But one of the many things you seem to not be seeing is that the majority of Americans believe that there ALREADY IS a consensus in the medical profession about COVID.

    Let me repeat that: a majority of Americans believe that there ALREADY IS a consensus in the medical profession about COVID.

    And there is not.

  • Shlomo Maistre

    Thanks Shlomo for taking the time and effort to state your views

    You are welcome. Not to be a pest, but I frankly am unaware of anything I said that is an opinion.

    Granted, “views” and “opinions” do not necessarily carry the same meaning. But I do want to clarify:

    I made simple, obvious observations about reality.

    For example, I noted that Klaus Schwab is Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum and a famous economist and key globalist. He wrote “The Fourth Industrial Revolution” and “COVID-19: The Great Reset”. Buy these books and read them, I beg you.

  • Jacob

    “a majority of Americans believe”
    A majority of Americans believe a lot of wrong things – things that ain’t so. Go, try to reeducate them.

  • Shlomo Maistre

    A majority of Americans believe a lot of wrong things – things that ain’t so

    I said that “a majority of Americans believe that there ALREADY IS a consensus in the medical profession about COVID” in response to you saying “maybe some consensus will be reached (in the medical profession) about Covid in some 20 year’s time”. Let me ask you again:

    Why is the greatest, most severe, most thorough, most systematic human rights violation besides war or slavery happening at the same time as the greatest, most severe, most thorough, most systematic censorship campaign in human history (outside of actual wars)?

    The problem with your perspective is you are not seeing the whole picture still.

    Klaus Schwab is Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum and a famous economist and key globalist. He wrote “The Fourth Industrial Revolution” and “COVID-19: The Great Reset”. Please buy them and read them.

  • Jacob

    Well, there is Klaus Schwab (I have no idea why he is singled out), and there is Bernie Sanders, and that French Marxist which is now popular, and a lot of other Marxists writers out there.
    Luckily, for me, I can afford to ignore them and read what I like. It’s my time.

    Yes, the Marxists used skillfully the George Floyd incident and Covid and carried out a Marxist revolution in the US in 2020.
    Sorry America, I can’t help you.
    I mean – yes, I’m shocked. Still I can’t help them.

  • Jacob

    Of course, the Marxist Revolution in the USA isn’t similar to other Marxist revolutions of the past. Maybe it resembles a little Venezuela’s Marxist regime. It has it’s peculiar characteristics. A big crazy component. I mean – it’s a mix of Marxism and Crazy. A unique mix.
    There is still some resistance, resistance hasn’t been crushed yet as suddenly and as violently as in other revolutions… Each case is unique…

  • What is happening in USA is indeed socialist but not Marxist socialism by any reasonable definition. Moreover, the establishment embracing radical identitarianism, the hysterical obsession with race, and using huge corporations as a vector for their ideology makes this far, far more like some lunatic strain of gonzo fascism really.

    The Woke anti-fascists really truly are far closer to fascism than 99% of the people they call fascist (which is pretty much everyone who is not them).

  • Jacob

    “far more like some lunatic strain of gonzo fascism really.”

    OK, I’ll accept this definition.
    Also, since they don’t formally nationalize big corporations – which is a characteristic of Marxism – it’s probably more accurate to call in a Fascist Revolution.
    Let’s christen it “Lunatic gonzo fascism”. (all rights reserved to Perry).
    But what happened in the US in 2020 was a Revolution.

  • Kim du Toit

    “In a spirit of open-mindedness I invite American readers more familiar with their local situation than I am to suggest any mitigating factors which might raise Mr Biden’s score to zero”

    Would like to; can’t.

    In fact, as each day passes, the Biden government seems to be intent on increasing the speed of descent.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>