Gay Priveledge (Monkeypox Edition)

(The below is from ACE OF SPADES! | Must see TWITCHY as well)

Of course, of course. You can’t tell gays to stop having sex. Or even to stop having sex with multiple partners in a week.

I mean — that’s sacred. That’s holy.

What you can do is forbid people to stop doing non-sacred, non-holy things, things like: Going to church, going to marriage ceremonies, going to funerals, going to christenings, seeing relatives who are in the hospital or on their deathbeds, etc.

But you certainly can’t stop gays from having sex with multiple partners. That is too firmly rooted in this nation’s culture!

Plus, as they say, it just wouldn’t be effective. Gays would just ignore the your “advice.”

Thousands of gay men clad in leather, latex — and often much less — partied along Folsom Street here last weekend during the annual kink and fetish festival. Even after the city had just declared the monkeypox outbreak striking its gay community a health emergency — one day after the World Health Organization urged men to sleep with fewer men to reduce transmission — San Francisco public health officials made no attempt to rein in festivities or warn attendees to have less sex.

As the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention weighs whether to recommend limiting sexual partners, health officials in San Francisco, Chicago, New York and other U.S. cities battling surges disproportionately sickening gay men are avoiding calls for sexual restraint, wary of further stigmatizing same-sex intimacy.

Public health authorities typically emphasize safer sex over abstinence to prevent the spread of diseases through intimate contact. But monkeypox is presenting new challenges in calibrating the right message to stop the rare virus from becoming endemic while limiting government intrusion into the bedroom.

I don’t remember being told to be “safer” at the gym or beach during covid.

I was told I simply was not permitted to go, and if I tried to go, I would be arrested.

There was no “Use Your Best Judgement” under covid. There was no “You can do what you want to do, just put a band-aid over your sores” under covid.

During covid, the health authorities did not merely offer advice. They also sent out the police to arrest pastors that held church services. And to arrest business owners who opened their businesses. And to shutter parks and gyms with gates and chains.

And other coercive means.

But you can’t do that with gay bars and gay fetish parties.

Again, gay fetish orgy parties are simply too rooted in the misty chords of American memory to be subject to state control, unlike petty matters like religion, children’s schooling, children’s sports, adults’ past-times, or commerce of all kinds.

America was founded on two things: unprotected gay multipartner sex, and leftwing riots and murder.

They’re blessings of liberty, bigot.

The FBI and NIH both agree.

People were also fired from their jobs for not complying with The Regime’s dictates on vaccination.

But some people’s liberty is just more sacred than other people’s.

In the Empire of Lies, the truth has a selective utility:

[….]

Can I ask a serious question:

Why are no Republicans in Congress asking Rachel Walensky or Anthony Fauci about this?

Do even our representatives so care about the New York Times’ opinion of them that they won’t ask highly-relevant questions?

Why has not a single reporter at the supposedly-conservative Fox News asked these questions?

Oh right, because Fox News isn’t conservative, it’s as leftwing as CNN and MSNBC. It would be homophobic to ask why gays are allowed to continue having multipartner gay sex during a pandemic spread by multipartner gay sex…..

New York Times Calls Free Speech “Proto-Fascism”

…because we all know that Fascist and Communist countries encouraged “free speech”

Some of the change in positions noted… Musk, like Trump, cause a “coming out” as THE FIVE notes:

Dennis Prager (a little under the weather) shares his thoughts on the New York Times calling free speech “proto-fascism.”

A clip from the NEW YORK TIMES and FOX NEWS also covers it:

This is why his deal to purchase Twitter is so dangerous. In recent years, there has been progress toward positive freedom of speech — real work to give everyone, truly everyone, more meaningful occasion to speak. Mr. Musk apparently wants to shut that down. Instead, in a moment of proto-fascism on the political right, his priority seems to be to undam the flood of bile and bigotry and bullying and disinformation.

The country already faces the very real prospect, starting at noon on Jan. 20, 2025, of a descent toward racist authoritarianism and a protracted slide away from liberal democracy. If your idea of what the country needs in this moment is less clamping down on hate and lies and more rightists gone wild, whew….


MINISTRY OF TRUTH


The only “Fascistic” enterprise from Musk buying Twitter is our government wants to counter with a Ministry of Truth, via ACE OF SPADES:

Good morning, kids. Thursday and information, misinformation, disinformation, dat information and bullshit remains the hot topic of conversation. Elon Musk’s “Grabbe”-ing Twitter by the weeping Vajaya has caused both the wailing and rending of garments on the Left and exultation for us normal people. While I would caution us not to commence a venturi effect on our nether regions just yet, Musk has been saying the right things about economics and taxation for quite some time, earning him the ire of all the wrong people. The actions of the EPA in blocking the construction of a SpaceX launch facility in Boca Chica is textbook government retribution. And that’s just for starters. Whatever his motives may be, he has painted a big fat target on himself.

Our ability to communicate freely via the internet hangs in the balance even now. We barely escaped that Orwellian (what the hell isn’t these days?) “Net Neutrality” Act — for now. The internet absolutely broke the stranglehold on both the crafting and mass dissemination of information that Leftist propagandists had had for decades and, along with talk radio, both confirmed what many had feared to be the true nature of who and what has been running the government and society and, more importantly, revealed those truths to a vast audience that was heretofore unaware.

All of that said, Musk acquiring Twitter, in and of itself, is not going to win the war for free speech. But it may very well be the moral equivalent of the Doolittle Raid on Tokyo. It both absolutely shocked Imperial Japan, who had not been attacked in centuries and electrified American morale, which had taken a pounding since Pearl Harbor. Afterwards, the Japanese set about to finish off America once and for all, or so they had hoped. Same thing with the junta in power.

The Department of Homeland Security is setting up a Disinformation Governance Board in an attempt to combat “misinformation” online.

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas spoke about the “just established” governance board during a congressional hearing on Wednesday, arguing it would help reduce domestic threats to the United States.

Nina Jankowicz, a fellow for the Wilson Center, confirmed reports that she would direct the board, sharing her official government portrait on her social media profile.

“Cat’s out of the bag: here’s what I’ve been up to the past two months,” she wrote.

She claimed the new board was created to “maintain the Department’s commitment to protecting free speech, privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties”…

… Jankowicz has long been an advocate for social media censorship and regulation.

In October 2020, Jankowicz testified to the House Select Committee on Intelligence on the dangers of misinformation and conspiracy theories and how to stop it online.

“Disinformation is a threat to democracy,” she warned and criticized the government and social media platforms who have “all but abdicated their responsibility” to address ”domestic disinformation.”

Just fucking wow. I mean, where does one even begin to try and unpack this hideous farce? Aside from the fact that this hag was pimping the now proven lie that the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation, there’s this thing called THE FIRST AMENDMENT that, like Charlie Gibson, she apparently has never heard of. The government does not get to decide what is and what is not misinformation. There are laws governing things such as slander and libel, as well as this thing called common sense which is supposed to, in theory, give the individual pause before shooting his mouth off as well as the right to discern for oneself what is and what is not truth. The consequences for either of those being on the individual.

Moving on from the philosophical, under what authority does this “politburo” have the right to exist in the first place? What regulatory power, completely illegitimate that it is, will it wield in supposedly maintaining the DHS’ “commitment to protecting free speech, privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties?” Will it amass dossiers – pun absolutely intended – on people who object to the sexualization, disfiguring and brainwashing of their children? On those of us who consider the very government that is forming this commission illegitimate on the basis of the mountain of evidence proving the 2020 election was stollen?

And once it has amassed those dossiers, what is the punishment for spreading disinformation, otherwise known as stating one’s opinion? Considering the Junta and its supporters define what happened on January 6th as the greatest threat to our precious democracy (*vomit*) since the Civil War, Pearl Harbor and 9/11 combined, one assumes there will be 3:00AM raids followed by incarceration in the Garland Archipelago if not Gitmo, incommunicado and indefinitely.

I’m suddenly reminded about the arguments around the limitations or even abolition of the Second Amendment. The Left always insisted that the Founders never anticipated automatic weapons and machine guns back in the 18th century. The counter to that argument was, should we abolish the First Amendment since they never anticipated massive printing presses, television, radio and — wait for it — the internet either? Well, I guess the answer to that is a big old “yes!”

If the Second Amendment was always the final firewall between liberty and tyranny, the First Amendment I guess was the penultimate and, at least in theory, the strongest. Much of this also centers around the battle for who controls the speech. This whole notion of “safe spaces” from being offended has both crippled the last few generations as well as been used as a weapon with which to terrorize us into submission via group coercion, be it at work or even at home. The nature of being free runs antithetical to being safe. Those who argue for safety will hide behind the veneer of being benign and doing things “for our own good.” What was that thing that’s supposed to be paved with good intentions?

That said, I’m not buying that anymore. There are no good intentions with those who seek to silence us. They do these things not for our own good but for theirs. If agents or informants of this pathetic Ministry of Truth are reading this, come and get me and the publishers who wrote my book.

You can also round up Anthony Fauci. He claimed yesterday that the pandemic was over.

Whoops! Did he say the pandemic was over? No! What he really said was it’s NOT over.

Dear Lord how I hate these people. It will be interesting to see how this shakes out, especially if Musk purges the Goebbels acolytes from the Twitter ranks. The Left has already “woke” (heh) a sleeping giant with the assault on children. Let’s see how they react if they are silenced and/or threatened because they use Twitter as a means to communication…..

(More at ACE OF SPADES)

Covid Used As Opportunity To Change Society

For some reason I cannot read at home, so the only time I actually do read is on Friday’s after work I go to a local pub and read at the bar while having a few beers. This was a portion worth adding to the record here:

No one expressed it more clearly than Gregg Gonsalves, an associate professor at Yale University, epidemiologist, and AIDS activist. On March 23, Gonsalves tweeted: “As a friend of mine said this weekend: ‘There are no natural or social laws preventing us from remaking the economy for the next 18 months, the next years, or forever…. There are only political and cultural barriers, barriers we must overcome….‘”

Similarly, Michael Hiltzik, a left-leaning columnist for the Los Angeles Times, wrote in May that the coronavirus could boost plans for universal basic income-government provided welfare payments for all. (In October, actress and liberal activist Jane Fonda would express an even blunter take: “I just think Covid is God’s gift to the left.”)

Alex Berenson, Pandemia: How Coronavirus Hysteria Took Over Our Government, Rights, and Lives (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2021), 113.

Trudeau Gets Called A Dictator In Front Of The Entire EU

THE COUNTER SIGNAL (see also TRUE NORTH) has this delightful update on Trudeau…. and yes, when Mislav Kolakusic is looking back, he is looking directly at Trudeau:

On March 23, PM Justin Trudeau was called a dictator in front of the entire European Union over his response to the Freedom Convoy.

Addressing both the European Parliament and Trudeau specifically, Member of the European Parliament Mislav Kolakusic proceeded to deliver Trudeau perhaps the most humiliating international thrashing of his political career.

“Freedom, the right to choose, the right to life, the right to health, the right to work for many of us are fundamental human rights for which millions of citizens of Europe and the world have laid down their lives,” Kolakusic began.

“…. Canada, once a symbol of the modern world, has become a symbol of civil rights violations under your quasi-liberal boot in recent months. We watched how you trample women with horses, how you block the bank accounts of single parents so that they can’t even pay their children’s education and medicine, that they can’t pay utilities, mortgages for their homes.”

“To you,” he continues, speaking to Trudeau, “these may be liberal methods; for many citizens of the world, it is a dictatorship of the worst kind. Rest assured that the citizens of the world, united, can stop any regime that wants to destroy the freedom of citizens, either by bombs or harmful pharmaceutical products.”

Kolakusic, having once lived under a Communist regime in Croatia, is more than likely only too familiar with authoritarian regimes, their consequences, and the grievances of everyday citizens. And like many who have survived Communist dictatorships, it is apparent that he shares the disdain over Trudeau’s use of Emergency Powers to target peaceful protesters who only wanted their rights back.

And indeed, Kolakusic isn’t the only MEP to suggest Trudeau is acting like a dictator.

“[Trudeau’s] exactly like a tyrant, like a dictator. He’s like Ceaușescu in Romania,” said Romanian MEP Cristian Terhes last month.

(READ AND WATCH THE REST)

Another story that is related via THE COUNTER SIGNAL (a Canadian freedom blog) is one that entails the “Liberals” (the moniker sounds nice, but it has nothing ta do with classical liberalism) which starts out is a startling way by noting: “During a government-run event, the Liberals discussed using digital ID to hunt down the unvaccinated to get their shots in a future pandemic.”

Wow!

I think this falls under an “Eschatology Watch” banner.

Trevor Noah & Other Begin to Realize Lockdowns Are Nuts

Clay Travis and Buck Sexton react to an increasingly more common theme in recent weeks: left-wing comedians sounding more and more like Clay and Buck themselves. Trevor Noah is the latest person to comment on how truly dumb the Kyrie Irving situation is in the NBA. (BREITBART and NEW YORK POST has more on the story)

Big Government, Big Business, Big Problems

Since the start of the Covid crisis, the American economy has been turned on its head. Times are good for the big guys — Big Business and Big Government. But what about for the small business owner, the personification of the American dream? Carol Roth discusses Crony Corporatism/Capitalism and is the author of, The War on Small Business: How the Government Used the Pandemic to Crush the Backbone of America

UPDATED my BAM! What Is Crony Capitalism with this Prager U video.

Sharyl Attkisson: “Anti-Vaxxer” a Very Effective Propaganda Tool

“Definitions now are being rewritten and changed in real-time to fit…whatever the establishment wants people to think,” says five-time Emmy Award-winning investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson. The term “anti-vaxxine” is now used to describe anybody who is opposed to vaccine mandates. In this episode, we discuss how propagandists have taken control of the information landscape.


MINISTRY of TRUTH


TECHNO FROG details the CDC’s emails discussing changing the term “vaccination”

The CDC caused an uproar in early September 2021, after it changed its definitions of “vaccination” and “vaccine.” For years, the CDC had set definitions for vaccination/vaccine that discussed immunity. This all changed on September 1, 2021.

The prior CDC Definitions of Vaccine and Vaccination (August 26, 2021):

Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.

The CDC Definitions of Vaccine and Vaccination since September 1, 2021:

Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.

People noticed. Representative Thomas Massie was among the first to discuss the change, noting the definition went from “immunity” to “protection”.

[….]

CDC emails we obtained via the Freedom of Information Act reveal CDC worries with how the performance of the COVID-19 vaccines didn’t match the CDC’s own definition of “vaccine”/“vaccination”. The CDC’s Ministry of Truth went hard at work in the face of legitimate public questions on this issue…..

(READ IT ALL)

Another note on the Merriam Webster (Ditionary) change to “Vaccine” is elucidated by DECEPTION, SELF-DECEPTION, & DEFACTUALIZATION — who has an excellent subtitle to the site: “Wherever money is insufficient to bury the truth, ignorance, propaganda, and short memories finish the job.” Funny and sad at the same time.

Paraphrasing George Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’ to illustrate a simple concept my mother drummed into my head from as far back as I can remember, ‘Words mean things.’

In his other memorable offering, ‘1984,’ Orwell used a construct called “Newspeak” as a means for his dystopian government to control thought. It did so by limiting the number of words available with which to articulate thought. I suppose elimination of words was to the author a simpler method to use in fiction when compared to that which has been employed in fact by those who seek to control our thoughts and our acceptance of their agendas.

The current pathway to achieving Orwell’s objective in what we like to think of as ‘the real world’ is to keep the words but change their meaning. There can be no more glaring example than Merriam Webster’s treatment of the word ‘vaccine.’ One day the word referred to a substance administered to an individual in order to convey immunity and to stop the spread of a disease. Overnight it was expanded to include Gene Therapy.

Consider the difference this small addition makes. The pushback against ‘vaccine’ is growing in scope and strength, fueled primarily by the revelation that it is not a vaccine but in fact is gene therapy. Now, with the stroke of a pen, it is also a vaccine. For the propagandists this neutralizes all argument based on whether or not the government is being truthful in its vaccine regulations, mandates and other pronouncements. Now that gene therapy is a vaccine it is no longer a lie. Advantage Orwell.

Consider VAERS, that trove of information on the negative aspects of vaccines. This is a useful compilation of information but also illustrates our government’s approach to the entire subject. When reports are helpful to the official narrative they are akin to gospel but when they provide data that runs counter to the narrative they are false information. My reaction to the government’s self-serving position on VAERS is like that of Enid Strict, SNL’s Church lady, “Well, isn’t that special?”….

(READ IT ALL)

FOX NEWS covers the change in “Anti-Vaxxer” in the Merriam Webster dictionary as well, saying,

Merriam-Webster’s online definition of “anti-vaxxer” is spreading on social media this month amid outrage over vaccine mandates. The definition of the term was first added to the online dictionary in 2018 and was updated in late September.

“Redefine words all you want Merriam Webster, but WORDS STILL HAVE MEANING. By this definition, you aren’t pro-vaccine unless you believe the government should force everyone to get a medical procedure?” Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis’s press secretary, Christina Pushaw, tweeted Wednesday morning.

Fox News examined Merriam-Webster’s current definition of “anti-vaxxer” compared to its definition from 2018, and found it omitted the word “laws” in favor of “regulations.” The definition still states, however, that an “anti-vaxxer” includes people who oppose such rules on vaccinations or the vaccines, themselves.

“Definition of anti-vaxxer: a person who opposes the use of vaccines or regulations mandating vaccination,” Merriam-Webster’s website currently states, noting that it was updated on Sept. 29, 2021.

The definition of “anti-vaxxer” was previously defined, according to an archived definition from 2018 examined by Fox News, as: “A person who opposes vaccination or laws that mandate vaccination.”

Editor at large of Merriam-Webster.com, Peter Sokolowski, told PoltiFact in May – after outrage first cropped up over the definition – that the word was first added in 2018.

At the time, Sokolowski said the definition remained unchanged from 2018.

Merriam-Webster did not immediately respond to Fox News’s request for comment on why the definition was updated on Sept. 29.

Fox News also examined the definition of “anti-vaxxer” in the New Oxford American dictionary and found it does not include language on mandates, laws or regulations. 

“A person who is opposed to vaccination, typically a parent who does not wish to vaccinate their child,” the New Oxford American dictionary states.

After the definition was criticized over the summer, critics have taken to Twitter to lambaste the definition again following its update last month. 

[….]

And of course the CDC changes what is required to be considered “vaccinated” regarding Covid Shots — RIGHT SCOOP:

What do you call it when they create an endless set of steps you have to take to remain a part of society? Because that is what is happening. Think about what we’re being told.

We’re told to stay inside and do nothing until there’s a vaccine and then when we get it we can finally start returning to normal life. Except after the vaccines, they say it’s not enough, keep wearing masks and staying six feet apart and also a bunch of industries and private businesses will have to remain out of work.

That’s not good enough for them, though. So, every day someone on cable news, often CNN’s “Dr.” Wen but often just commentators or even reporters and anchors, goes on air and says how we aren’t harsh enough to unvaxxed, they have to be punished more, they have to be driven from society further. That’s still happening every day.

Except vaccination isn’t vaccination, is it? You have to get a booster too. The covid regime forever……

(READ IT ALL)

 

Ministry of Health (Larry Elder Reads Ehud Qimron’s Open Letter)

This is worth reading in it’s entirety. It is written by Professor Ehud Qimron, and must be with a hat-tip to SWISS POLICY RESEARCH and THE LARRY ELDER SHOW:

Professor Ehud Qimron, head of the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at Tel Aviv University and one of the leading Israeli immunologists, has written an open letter sharply criticizing the Israeli – and indeed global – management of the coronavirus pandemic.

Original letter in Hebrew: N12 News (January 6, 2022); translated by Google/SPR. See also: Professor Qimron’s prediction from August 2020: “History will judge the hysteria” (INN).

The full letter is past this video/audio of Larry Elder reading the open letter:


MINISTRY OF HEALTH

It’s Time To Admit Failure


In the end, the truth will always be revealed, and the truth about the coronavirus policy is beginning to be revealed. When the destructive concepts collapse one by one, there is nothing left but to tell the experts who led the management of the pandemic – we told you so.

Two years late, you finally realize that a respiratory virus cannot be defeated and that any such attempt is doomed to fail. You do not admit it, because you have admitted almost no mistake in the last two years, but in retrospect it is clear that you have failed miserably in almost all of your actions, and even the media is already having a hard time covering your shame.

You refused to admit that the infection comes in waves that fade by themselves, despite years of observations and scientific knowledge. You insisted on attributing every decline of a wave solely to your actions, and so through false propaganda “you overcame the plague.” And again you defeated it, and again and again and again.

You refused to admit that mass testing is ineffective, despite your own contingency plans explicitly stating so (“Pandemic Influenza Health System Preparedness Plan, 2007”, p. 26).

You refused to admit that recovery is more protective than a vaccine, despite previous knowledge and observations showing that non-recovered vaccinated people are more likely to be infected than recovered people. You refused to admit that the vaccinated are contagious despite the observations. Based on this, you hoped to achieve herd immunity by vaccination — and you failed in that as well.

You insisted on ignoring the fact that the disease is dozens of times more dangerous for risk groups and older adults, than for young people who are not in risk groups, despite the knowledge that came from China as early as 2020.

You refused to adopt the “Barrington Declaration”, signed by more than 60,000 scientists and medical professionals, or other common sense programs. You chose to ridicule, slander, distort and discredit them. Instead of the right programs and people, you have chosen professionals who lack relevant training for pandemic management (physicists as chief government advisers, veterinarians, security officers, media personnel, and so on).

You have not set up an effective system for reporting side effects from the vaccines, and reports on side effects have even been deleted from your Facebook page. Doctors avoid linking side effects to the vaccine, lest you persecute them as you did with some of their colleagues. You have ignored many reports of changes in menstrual intensity and menstrual cycle times. You hid data that allows for objective and proper research (for example, you removed the data on passengers at Ben Gurion Airport). Instead, you chose to publish non-objective articles together with senior Pfizer executives on the effectiveness and safety of vaccines.

Irreversible Damage To Trust

However, from the heights of your hubris, you have also ignored the fact that in the end the truth will be revealed. And it begins to be revealed. The truth is that you have brought the public’s trust in you to an unprecedented low, and you have eroded your status as a source of authority. The truth is that you have burned hundreds of billions of shekels to no avail – for publishing intimidation, for ineffective tests, for destructive lockdowns and for disrupting the routine of life in the last two years.

You have destroyed the education of our children and their future. You made children feel guilty, scared, smoke, drink, get addicted, drop out, and quarrel, as school principals around the country attest. You have harmed livelihoods, the economy, human rights, mental health and physical health.

You slandered colleagues who did not surrender to you, you turned the people against each other, divided society and polarized the discourse. You branded, without any scientific basis, people who chose not to get vaccinated as enemies of the public and as spreaders of disease. You promote, in an unprecedented way, a draconian policy of discrimination, denial of rights and selection of people, including children, for their medical choice. A selection that lacks any epidemiological justification.

When you compare the destructive policies you are pursuing with the sane policies of some other countries — you can clearly see that the destruction you have caused has only added victims beyond the vulnerable to the virus. The economy you ruined, the unemployed you caused, and the children whose education you destroyed — they are the surplus victims as a result of your own actions only.

There is currently no medical emergency, but you have been cultivating such a condition for two years now because of lust for power, budgets and control. The only emergency now is that you still set policies and hold huge budgets for propaganda and psychological engineering instead of directing them to strengthen the health care system.

This Emergency Must Stop!

Covid-1984 and Democrats

I presume the Left here in the States would love to see.

But first, some polling stats via RIGHT SCOOP:

If you’re unvaccinated, the Democrats want you taken down and taken out, with prejudice. A good word for this situation, which a new poll has laid out in CHILLING detail.

It’s not a complicated result. There’s no nuance. These are the findings. These are the things Democrats want to do. As Rasmussen Reports points out, “Fact Check: True.”

Here are some highlights from Rasmussen.

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Democratic voters would favor a government policy requiring that citizens remain confined to their homes at all times, except for emergencies, if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a proposal is opposed by 61% of all likely voters, including 79% of Republicans and 71% of unaffiliated voters.

Terrible.

Forty-five percent (45%) of Democrats would favor governments requiring citizens to temporarily live in designated facilities or locations if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine.

Ridiculous.

Twenty-nine percent (29%) of Democratic voters would support temporarily removing parents’ custody of their children if parents refuse to take the COVID-19 vaccine.

Insane.

But believe it or not, I think this is the scariest and most dangerous one of all:

Nearly half (48%) of Democratic voters think federal and state governments should be able to fine or imprison individuals who publicly question the efficacy of the existing COVID-19 vaccines on social media, television, radio, or in online or digital publications.

If they polled CNN journalists, or just journalists in general, this number would be even higher. If they polled Google employees or Twitter executives, likewise. Closer to 100%…..

An article worth reading is this one by AMERICAN GREATNESS: The Nazi Next Door: Your Democratic neighbors won’t be ordered to vote for laws that ostracize you from society, steal your property, or send you away to a concentration camp. They will do it burning with pride.

 


AUSTRALIA HAS FALLEN


(Above video description) Scott Morrison’s Calls For FREEDOM at 2021 U.N. General Assembly. Scott Morrison is an Australian politician who is the 30th and current prime minister of Australia The original file comes from DEADACTIVIST, but forces you to watch it on YouTube which is why I uploaded it to my RUMBLE — not to mention it may be nixed at some point due to YT’s aversion to truth and real evil.

RPT’S RUMBLE:

ORWELLIAN APPS

Coercion Made the Pandemic Worse (WSJ + AIER)

I wanted to make sure this WALL STREET JOURNAL article was saved in my feed (Hat-tip to Todd A):

Freedom is the central component of the best problem-solving system ever devised.

By David R. Henderson and Charles L. Hooper

The online Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “anti-vaxxer” as “a person who opposes the use of vaccines or regulations mandating vaccination.” Where does that leave us? We both strongly favor vaccination against Covid-19; one of us (Mr. Hooper) has spent years working and consulting for vaccine manufacturers. But we strongly oppose government vaccine mandates. If you’re crazy about Hondas but don’t think the government should force everyone to buy a Honda, are you “anti-Honda”?

The people at Merriam-Webster are blurring the distinction between choice and coercion, and that’s not merely semantics. If we accept that the difference between choice and coercion is insignificant, we will be led easily to advocate policies that require a large amount of coercion. Coercive solutions deprive us of freedom and the responsibility that goes with it. Freedom is intrinsically valuable; it is also the central component of the best problem-solving system ever devised.

Free choice relies on persuasion. It recognizes that you are an important participant with key information, problem-solving abilities and rights. Any solution that is adopted, therefore, must be designed to help you and others. Coercion is used when persuasion has failed or is teetering in that direction—or when you are raw material for someone else’s grand plans, however ill-conceived.

Authoritarian governmental approaches hamper problem-solving abilities. They typically involve one-size-fits-all solutions like travel bans and mask mandates. Once governments adopt coercive policies, power-hungry bureaucrats often spout an official party line and suppress dissent, no matter the evidence, and impose further sanctions to punish those who don’t fall in line. Once coercion is set in motion, it’s hard to backtrack.

Consider Australia, until recently a relatively free country. Its Northern Territory has a Covid quarantine camp in Howard Springs where law-abiding citizens can be forcibly sent if they have been exposed to a SARS-CoV-2-positive person or have traveled internationally or between states, even without evidence of exposure. A 26-year-old Australian citizen, Hayley Hodgson, was detained at the camp after she was exposed to someone later found to be positive. Despite three negative tests and no positive ones, she was held in a small enclosed area for 14 days and fed once a day. Even the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says quarantine can end after seven days with negative tests. Why didn’t the government let her quarantine at home? And why doesn’t it exempt or treat differently people who can prove prior vaccination or natural infection?

Although U.S. authorities haven’t gone nearly that far, early in the pandemic the Food and Drug Administration used its coercive power to discourage the development of diagnostic tests for Covid-19. The FDA required private labs wanting to develop tests to submit special paperwork to get approval that it had never required for other diagnostic tests. That, in combination with the CDC’s claims that it had enough testing capacity, meant that testing necessitated the use of a CDC test later determined to be so defective that it found the coronavirus in laboratory-grade water.

With voluntary approaches, we get the benefit of millions of people around the world actively trying to solve problems and make our lives better. We get high-quality vaccines from BioNTech/ Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson and Moderna, instead of the suspect vaccines from the governments of Cuba and Russia. We get good diagnostic tests from Thermo Fisher Scientific instead of the defective CDC one. We get promising therapeutics such as Pfizer’s Paxlovid and Merck’s molnupiravir.

With authoritarian approaches, we get solutions that meet the requirements of those in power, regardless of how we benefit. Consider this hypothetical example:

Policy A ends with 1,000 Covid-19 cases, 5,000 people who have completely lost their liberty for two weeks, 1,000 lost jobs, and 300 missed key family events, such as the funeral of a loved one.

Policy B ends with 1,020 Covid-19 cases, 4,000 who have lost some of their liberty for one week, 1,000 who have completely lost their liberty for two weeks, 300 lost jobs, and 100 missed family events.

The government may prefer Policy A because it is focused on one aspect of the problem. You might prefer Policy B because many aspects of life matter to you—not only coronavirus cases—and B is much better on the other dimensions. But your preferences don’t count.

With coercive solutions, you’ll often deal with an official who will absolve himself of responsibility by pinning the rule on those giving the orders. With voluntary solutions, if it doesn’t make sense, we usually don’t do it. And therein lies one of the greatest protections we have to ensure that the solution isn’t worse than the problem.

The supposed trump card of those who favor coercion is externalities: One person’s behavior can put another at risk. But that’s only half the story. The other half is that we choose how much risk we accept. If some customers at a store exhibit risky behavior, then we can vaccinate, wear masks, keep our distance, shop at quieter times, or avoid the store.

Economists understand how one person can impose a cost on another. But it takes two to tango, and it’s generally more efficient if the person who can change his behavior with the lower cost changes how he behaves. In other words, to perform a proper evaluation of policies to deal with externalities, we must consider the responses available to both parties. Many people, including economists, ignore this insight.

By what principle do we throw out the playbook of the more successful country, ours, and adopt one from less successful, more authoritarian countries? The authoritarian playbook has serious built-in weaknesses, while solutions based on free choice have obvious and not-so-obvious strengths. Freedom is beneficial in good times; it’s even more crucial in challenging times.


Mr. Henderson is a research fellow with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He was senior health economist with President Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers. Mr. Hooper is author of “Should the FDA Reject Itself?” and president of Objective Insights, whose clients include pharmaceutical companies.


AIER Bonus


A Perfect Storm of Incentives

It is not yet clear whether history will remember the 2020s more for an outbreak of a deadly virus, or for an outbreak of mass psychosis. No doubt, both were at play, the former because the virus was novel and deadly, the latter because we had no idea how much so. In March of 2020, the World Health Organization estimated Covid’s case fatality rate to be over 3 percent. Some outlets reported case fatality rates above 10 percent. By comparison, the case fatality rate for the common flu is a mere fraction of a percent.

But the early information ranged from sketchy to biased. In the early days, the number of Covid tests was limited, so physicians only tested those who were sick enough to show up at hospitals. This skewed the early data toward showing Covid as being deadlier than it actually was. With no randomized testing, the actual lethality was impossible to know. 

This bias interacted with the media and politicians’ incentives to create a perfect storm of incentives. The media had an incentive to repeat the worst fatality projections and to play down the bias behind the projections because bad news attracts viewers, and viewers attract advertising dollars. Heavy media coverage of the worst Covid projections alarmed voters, and that forced politicians to respond. But the politicians’ incentives were skewed toward a heavy-handed response.

[….]

By late 2020, it became clear that early case fatality rates were overstated, but it was too late for politicians to change course. A feedback loop had ensued wherein the media sold advertising by spotlighting the Covid danger. This made people fearful, and the people pushed politicians to act. Politicians acted and then hid the potential error of unnecessary lockdowns by emphasizing the danger of Covid. This gave the media more material to spotlight and more advertising to sell. Social media then jumped into the fray by anointing itself the arbiter of what was and wasn’t “misinformation.” But social media was as motivated as the mainstream media to attract eyeballs and sell advertising, and so anything that contradicted the official line on Covid was deemed “misinformation.”

The result was mass psychosis in which people’s behaviors toward the real threat of Covid became inconsistent with their behaviors toward other real threats. 

[….]

As with all things, lockdowns do not come without tradeoffs. Some people died of cancer, kidney disease, and other non-Covid causes because they were afraid to go to hospitals out of fear of contracting Covid. In Canada, cancer screening was suspended so that hospital resources could be devoted to Covid care. Early estimates show up to a 10 percent increase in cancer deaths as a consequence. In the US in the early days of Covid, there was a 30 percent decline in the number of people seeking initial treatment for kidney disease.

At the start of the pandemic, calls to suicide hotlines spiked across the country, as did instances of domestic violence. The Centers for Disease Control estimates that the total number of deaths in the US was 450,000 larger than it should have been in 2020. That 360,000 of those were directly due to Covid means that the remaining 90,000 were due to Covid only indirectly or due to the lockdowns themselves.

In addition to the lockdowns costing lives, we expended unprecedented resources maintaining them. These came initially in the form of unemployment and business closures, and later in the form of supply chain problems and inflation and higher taxes to pay for massive stimulus spending. In late 2020, economists estimated that, provided it ended by the fall of 2021, the pandemic will cost the United States around $16 trillion over the next decade. That’s around $40 million for every life saved. 

But how many more lives might we have saved had we done something different with those resources? Around 660,000 people die each year of heart disease in the US. The National Institutes of Health spends around $5 billion each year researching cures for cardiovascular diseases. Americans spend another $330 billion each year for hospitalization, home health care, medication, and lost productivity associated with cardiovascular diseases.

Suppose that, over the next decade, it turns out that the 2020-21 lockdown saved a total of 1.1 million US lives (including people who may have contracted Covid in 2020-21 but died over the subsequent decade from lingering complications). This is three times the 370,000 the lockdown appears to have saved in 2020 alone. We will have spent $16 trillion in direct costs and lost productivity to save those 1.1 million people. But, over the same decade, 6.6 million people will have died of cardiovascular diseases. To save them, we will have spent $3.3 trillion. We are dedicating one-fifth the resources to fighting a disease that kills six times the number of people. That makes no sense.

Of course, Covid and cardiovascular diseases are very different in that heart disease isn’t contagious. And yet, that criticism cuts both ways: because heart disease isn’t contagious, we can’t develop a herd immunity, and so heart disease will remain with us for generations whereas Covid will not.

[….]

As Omicron looms, and as surely as Pi, Rho, and Sigma will follow, voters should meet their fears with reason, view the media with a skeptical eye, and demand that politicians discuss tradeoffs openly and honestly.


Antony Davies is the Milton Friedman Distinguished Fellow at the Foundation for Economic Education, and associate professor of economics at Duquesne University. He has authored Principles of Microeconomics (Cognella), Understanding Statistics (Cato Institute), and Cooperation and Coercion (ISI Books). He has written hundreds of op-eds appearing in, among others, the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, New York Post, Washington Post, New York Daily News, Newsday, US News, and the Houston Chronicle.