For Your Safety

Say, we can go where we want to
To a place they will never find
And we can act like we come from out of this world
Leave the real one far behind
--Men Without Hats

Freedom is ours by birth. Security is a good that must be purchased. Because its core competence is force, government naturally seeks to sell its strong arms to willing buyers who want to feel safe.

It's been going on for millenia. Live inside our fortress walls in exchange for your labor. Our knights will protect you for tribute. We will confiscate your weapons to keep you safe. Variations of the classic protection racket that exploits fear.

The most heinous regimes in world history have commonly been built with protection planks.

A new one is under construction before our very eyes.

Evolutionary Pressure

Look in the mirror
And see that you've been taken
Oh, you won't surrender
And now your heart is breakin'
--John Waite

The Darwinian perspective of evolution famously highlights processes of variation, selection, and retention that bring about adaptive change. These processes are often assumed to unfold gradually. When something is said to 'evolve,' the pace of change is commonly seen as slow and measured.

However, research in biology, scientific progress, organizations, and other domains suggests that evolutionary change is commonly not gradual, but abrupt (Gersick, 1991). Following long periods of relative stability, radical change occurs in brief periods of upheaval. Surviving these disruptive periods requires timely adaptive response.

This 'punctuated equilibrium' view of adaptation suggests that pressure for change exerted by environments varies temporally. Most of the time, pressure is relatively mild and necessitates only minor, incremental responses. During periods of upheaval, however, pressure is acute and demands major reorientation in order to adapt. 

Stated differently, 'evolutionary pressure' increases dramatically in disruptive environments. As evolutionary pressure grows, so does impetus for radical response.

Among the interesting points made in this article is the notion that public health policies, particularly those related to mandatory vaccination, create disruptive environments for CV19 that increase evolutionary pressure for adaptation. Vaccinating large groups of people, particularly groups that generally do not benefit from the vaccine (e.g., young people) puts strong evolutionary pressure on the virus to become vaccine resistant. To become more vaccine resistant, viruses must develop new characteristics that enable them to infect hosts--a process that may make adaptive forms of the virus more dangerous.

If vaccines were instead administered only to the elderly and other at-risk groups, then evolutionary pressure on the virus would have been reduced and, plausibly, the vaccines would have been effective for longer periods of time. Moreover, with less motivation to mutate radically, the virus would be prone instead to follow a path of incremental change as it adapts to a less threatening environment. As hosts contract less acute forms of the virus, natural immunity increases and infection severity decreases, leading to dissipation of the public health threat.

Reference

Gersick, C.J.G. (1991). Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Academy of Management Review, 16: 1-36.

Exposing the Splinter

"Let me tell you why you're here. You're here because you know something. What you know you can't explain, but you feel it. You've felt it your entire life--that there's something wrong with the world. You don't know what it is, but it's there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad."
--Morpheus (The Matrix)

I increasingly suspect that this chain of logic may be true.

For restless minds bothered by the feeling that there has been something wrong with the course of events over the past 18 months, this may be the splinter.

Causes of Crisis

"Gentlemen, we have a crisis situation."
--Jester (Top Gun)

Interesting discussion of how we've evolved into a Constitutional Crisis situation. Especially liked the review of the negative influence of the Progressive movement.

I thought that the author missed the mark on a couple of points, however. He correctly notes that the Three Fifths clause which legitimized slavery was not a principle of the Constitution, but a compromise. But the author implies that it was a necessary compromise to close the deal that ultimately led to the union of states. Furthermore he argues, using some cites from Frederick Douglass, that the Constitution was ultimately and anti-slavery document. Because it was grounded in the 'all men created equal' principle set forth in the Declaration, tension was created by the compromise that ultimately led to slavery being thrown off.

Very neat, but what if enough anti-slavery framers had the cojones to stand their ground at the convention? Might the union have included fewer states in the beginning? Yes. But the principle would have stood from the outset. And millions of lives would have subsequently been saved. Indeed, it can be argued that willingness to 'compromise' ranks highly in the factors that have led to the Constitutional Crisis that we face.

Before lambasting Progressives for wanting to consolidate power in the executive branch, the author claims that there are times when the president rightfully should wield such power. In the event of war and crises, he suggests, the president must be able to circumvent constitutional balances of power to, essentially, 'preserve the union.' He is undoubtedly covering for Lincoln, whom he is sympathetic to and quotes liberally in the article despite Lincoln's abuse of power during his administration.

Lincoln and other presidents have used 'emergency powers' to do precisely what the author seems to argue against--i.e., the durable confiscation of liberty by an authoritarian state. Although he quotes work by both Jefferson and Locke that appear sympathetic to concentrating authority with the executive branch in times of crisis, there is no provision for doing such in the Constitution itself.

Indeed, the inconsistencies demonstrate by the author suggest that there is plenty of blame to go around for our present crises. The actions of many so-called 'conservatives' have done as much to denigrate the Constitution as those of Progressives.

Constitution Day

Benjamin Martin: May I sit with you?
Charlotte Selton: It's a free country. Or at least it will be.
--The Patriot

Two hundred and thirty four years ago, 39 delegates to the Constitutional Convention signed the document that would be debated among the states and, ultimately, ratified through supermajority approval nine months later.

Its contents remain exceptional and, unfortunately, unknown to most Americans. 

If you count yourself among them, then it's a fine day to throw off your ignorance.

Paging Dr Galt

Any place is better
Starting from zero, got nothing to lose
Maybe we'll make something
Me, myself, I've got nothing to prove
--Tracy Chapman

Example of many articles discussing shrinking hospital capacity as vaccine mandates drive health care workers to hit the silk.

No surprise. This is ECON 101 type stuff. 

Impose regulations that limit producers and raise their costs and, inevitably, supply will leave the market.

This will mean reduced access to care and higher prices.

Paging Dr Galt.

Hypothetical Threats

Professor Groeteschele: Do you believe that Communism is NOT our mortal enemy?
Brigadier General Warren A. Black: You're justifying murder.
Professor Groeteschele: Yes, to keep from being murdered.
--Fail Safe

A common argument among the pro vax mandate crowd goes like this. If you are not vaccinated, then you might infect others with the CV19 virus. Therefore you must get vaccinated to mitigate the threat that you pose.

Let's set aside the scientific issue of vaccine effectiveness for now--an issue that calls into question individual capacity to convey the virus regardless of vaccination status, and the extent to which vaccination protects individuals from infection.

Instead, let's focus on the legal issues. The argument proposes a hypothetical threat: that an individual could be carrying a virus that might be conveyed to others in a manner that could lead their infection. This of course, is purely speculation and conjecture. Accusations of wrongdoing framed in this manner would be quickly dismissed in courts of law.

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals and their property against unreasonable search and seizure by government. Any search and seizure must be preceded by a warrant, affirmed by a judge, that articulates the rationale (i.e., 'probable cause') that justifies government invasion, specifies the particulars of the invasion--e.g, the place to be searched, or the individuals or items to be seized.

The Fifth Amendment prohibits the deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

The Fourteenth Amendment extends these protections from the federal down to the state level.

It should be clear that a hypothetical threat, where someone wants to forcibly interfere with the pursuits of another individual out of speculation that the individual might harm them is not a legitimate reason for government intervention. Any forcible interference that does take place under such circumstances must be deemed as a criminal act of aggression.

The forced vaccination argument therefore proceeds along similar lines as the forced quarantine argument.

The pro vax crowd want to preempt a hypothetical threat by imposing forced vaccinations on individuals--with no probable cause nor due process. Similar to preemptive military strikes, such action is characteristic of aggression rather than of self-defense.

Premeditated Destruction

There's a room where the light won't find you

Holding hands while the walls come tumbling down

When they do, I'll be right behind you

--Tears for Fears

Since the beginning of the pandemic, reasoned minds worldwide have been disturbed by how events have unfolded, and by the illogical nature of policy response. Personally, I theorized about an initially random but increasingly organized movement among various factions to advance their interests as authoritarians inevitably perceive that crisis presents opportunity.

Here is an alternative theory proposed by a German analyst. I am going to list key aspects of his theory below.

The pandemic and associated events over the past 18 months were not random or accidental but planned.

The master planners consist of a complex of large IT companies (discretionary power over huge data pool), global asset managers (raw financial power), and various policymakers (state power).

This is a plan hatched out of desperation to combat threats to the complex that have been many years in the making. 

The central threat to the complex stems from increasingly futile efforts of central bankers to inflate money supplies through evermore credit creation. With interest rates now effectively at the 'zero bound' since the 2008 credit collapse, the complex have lost the primary tool for advancing (read: funding) their interests.

Because driving interest rates negative to keep the wheels on the wagon would be socially unacceptable to the people at large, the complex requires a strategy that people would accept. Their solution: create a new system using a veil of economic and social chaos.

The system involves digital currency controlled by central banking authority. No more paper money. All money would be digital. Such a system provides power over money creation, surveillance over all monetary transactions; control over what money can purchase; where and with whom money can be spent, and the times that govern purchase; power to set and collect taxes; the power to impose fines; ability to distribute funds to whomever is deemed worthy. 

Such a system is seen by the complex as necessary to keep their interests (both economic and social) alive.

Under 'normal' conditions, the disenfranchisement that such a system would create would make it subject to huge pushback by the general populace.

Therefore, under the textbook authoritarian assumption about the crisis-opportunity relationship, the complex has determined that the most likely way that their the new system can be implemented is by a premeditated series of events that create economic and social chaos.

Enter CV19. Years of prior discussion and scenario planning informed the complex that a health crisis presented the best opportunity for creating fear and submission necessary for widespread acceptance of the new digital control system. Beginning late 2019, the complex began to implement the plan.

The plan's essence has been to implement policy responses to the pandemic that disturb economic and social fabrics in a manner that gradually escalates to the point of rupture. When the system collapses, people will beg for a policy solution like the digital currency and control system.

The author is careful to note influential role of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in the complex's preparation and execution of the plan. The WEF has 'trained' nearly all leaders of the complex, and has populated the ranks with thousands more like minds set on the goal of premeditated destruction.

On an optimistic note, the author suggests that the complex's plan is destined to fail. The 'deadly virus' narrative is already collapsing, leading to increasingly illogical arguments for pandemic countermeasures that even half wits are waking up to. Protests and pushback are growing.

Put differently, the complex's plan depends on chronic ignorance among a great majority of the world's people. But in order to advance its plan, the complex must resort to increasingly absurd measures certain to alert multitudes to the crimes being committed.

Truth will win. Evil will lose.

New Resistance

I won't be coming home tonight
My generation will put it right
We're not just making promises
That we know we'll never keep
--Genesis

When Trump was elected as president four years ago, signs saying 'Resist' sprung up. Under the new administration, slogans and signage using the R word are surfacing again.

The new resistance clearly opposes a socialistic state hostile toward freedom and liberty.

Twenty Years

When my teeth bite down I can see the blood
Of a thousand men who have come and gone
Now we grieve 'cause now it's gone
Things were good when we were young
--Von Bondies

Twenty years to the day. Yet, when I see a still or video of that day, I'm right back there. Like so many others, my world changed that day. 

Digesting events on that day, I was given marching orders from my Higher Power: Get smart on the founding of the America. Understand just how radical, and disruptive, a nation conceived in liberty was--and continues to be. Familiarize yourself with arguments pitting freedom vs security and how the framers addressed this tension. Prepare yourself for an assault on liberty.

Thus began a journey that continues to this day. I started with our key founding documents. Declaration. Constitution, Bill of Rights. The founding context. Federalist papers. Anti-federalist papers. Austrian economics. Mises. Rothbard. Hayek. Previous assaults on liberty. Civil War and Lincoln. Marx and Engels. Wilson and WWI. FDR and the New Deal. WWII. Studies of the Great Depression. Garrett. Nock. Paterson. Chodorov. Hazlitt. It goes on...

At first, I thought my orders were meant to lend understanding to declines in freedom seen since 9/11. Travel restrictions. The Patriot Act. Huge increases in deficit spending, debt, and monetary inflation.

However, recent events find me suspecting that the last twenty years were just prep--a warm up for what's coming.

The real assault on liberty may lurk dead ahead.