Why are governments going completely insane? Why are they destroying all our freedoms? These questions bother many, and Michael Armstrong of Armstrong Economics made sure to ask them as directly as anybody.
His organization researches the past so it can predict the future, and it has been doing so with an incredible lack of bias.
Economists are interested in facts. This is the input, this is the anticipated output, this is the real output, and this is the difference.
Economists leave it to sociologists (who leave it to politicians) to fill in the blanks that describe the difference between anticipated and real output as success or failure. Politicians step in to fill in the ideological blanks to try to convince all and sundry their ideas have been noble, and their decisions have been made always in the best interests of the people.
And that is why economists worth their salt, such as Michael Armstrong, must ask: are politicians this stupid? Or have they simply been bought? Are they selling out, and to hell with their voters’ interests?
The latest health scare seems to prove beyond any doubt, reasonable or otherwise, that it has been orchestrated as part of a major operation whose goals are frightfully sinister, to put it mildly.
How do we know?
Easy: by establishing and comparing facts.
For example, not so long ago (just seven years ago, to be precise), the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health concluded its research paper on the topic thus: “No evidence was found on the effectiveness of wearing surgical face masks to protect staff from infectious material in the operating room.”
Science hasn’t developed so much since 2013 as to render the highly specialized Canadian agency’s conclusions obsolete.
So: why do we see situations such as these two, described by Michael Armstrong?
If you do not accept the government-imposed testing and happen to live in New Zealand, you will be dragged to a prison camp. And you will stay there until you relent. And it’s about collective responsibility: the New Zealand government reserve the right to lock up your entire household as well as any other family member who has visited. Using force to take you to their prison camps if you resist will be perfectly kosher.
A reminder: the death camps and other Holocaust paraphernalia were perfectly legal within the Third Reich laws, too.
Just round the corner from New Zealand, in Australia, the government first said that Covid-19 vaccination will be mandatory. But, shortly afterwards, seeing that the population saw no reason to obey, the government backtracked a bit, trying (against all hope) to convince people that the vaccine will definitely not be used until proven safe (by whom? By the companies that would manufacture it?), and that it would be free.
That’s one tip of the iceberg.
The other is the obsession with obligatory face masks.
This has gone so far as a professional hockey team’s physician demanding that players wear face masks during games.
Zurich’s ZSC Lions and SC Rapperswill Jona Lakers of the top Swiss hockey league, the NL, were to meet in a pre-season exhibition game, when Zurich’s team doctor Gery Büsser instructed both sides they had to wear face masks during the game. They would be allowed to move them below their chins while in action on the ice, but, upon return to their respective benches, they would have to pull them up again.
The experiment was over midway through the first period. The players told the good physician in no uncertain words what he can do with those masks, and where.
Never mind, said the good doctor, and suggested that players on the benches should be separated from one another using the plexiglass barriers we now see separating cashiers from customers in stores.
The players’ reaction was immediate, and it wasn’t really too positive, either.
It is not known yet whether Gery Büsser comes up with some more innovative ideas or, as the players suggested, he would be asked to seek employment elsewhere.
Throwing their weight around
Authorities in the Ontario town of Cobourg have closed their public beaches, and they still keep them closed.
Not only that: strolling along those beaches, sunbathing, and (heavens forbid) even diving in for a few swimming laps is a public health hazard.
But: the town has no jurisdiction over the waters themselves. So, the residents decided, why not dive straight from a pier. This resulted in a scandalously interesting war of attrition: if both your ankles peek out of the water, you’re officially back on the beach. The cops can get you.
Is it waste of public money or is it waste of public money?
Worse still: is it abuse of power or is it abuse of power?
What the heck?
While it’s not good manners to quote one’s own words, there can be acceptable exceptions to the rule.
To the very day on the 79th anniversary of Adolf Hitler Germany’s attack on what used to be the Soviet Union, a brand new contribution to humanity’s wisdom appeared, headlined Look for the money trail, and you shall find …
Under the subhead: How did we get here? there is a brief overview of what has become known as the Frankfurt School (die Frankfurter Schule).
Briefly, for those who prefer not to read the entire piece, a group of Marxists, thrown out of Germany by the Nazis, lands in Great Britain and the U.S. It doesn’t take long for these guys to establish themselves, especially in the education system of the U.S., exploiting the Americans’ naïveté to the fullest (we’re all fighting the Nazis, aren’t we? We’re friends with Uncle Joe – meaning Joseph Stalin –, even, aren’t we?). Pretending they’re gung-ho for democracy, and using democracy’s shield to defend their obnoxious views as the right for their own opinions, these Marxists slowly (but distinctly) make their way through to the top of American academic institutions.
In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the Frankfurt School would-be scientists start marching toward what they hope will be their total victory.
Nobody in their right mind loves wars, and American involvement in the Vietnam conflict becomes a perfect starting point in their attempt to destabilize the country that had given them shelter just a few decades ago.
Meanwhile, their alumni start making their way up the ladders of America’s political and economic structures.
What we are witnessing now is a mission almost accomplished.
Still: one would assume with faint hope these people must have at least a bit of grey matter left in their brains. So, how can they not see where their “revolutionary” policies are taking us all?
While it is very doubtful that any of today’s Marxists have ever read Karl Marx’s seminal work, Das Kapital, in its full, unabridged beauty, preferably in German, they believe.
There’s a world of difference between knowing and believing.
While to those who prefer knowledge to ideology Marxism is anathema (something detested and loathed, usually with good reason), to the believers it is panacea (meaning a cure to end all cures by curing everything).
Using Marxist vocabulary, this is a typical example of an antagonistic contradiction (antagonistischer Widerspruch).
Today’s Marxists are aware of the definition, so, they are doing everything to supress opinions they disagree with.
Those who would rather depend on knowledge and want to defend democracy have but one choice: either show their antagonism towards these Marxists, or give up. The usual definition of antagonism speaks of active hostility or opposition to someone and/or something.
Whether today’s politicians and their official and those of the media on their payroll have been bought by some evil forces unseen or not is quickly becoming irrelevant.
The only relevant move we’re left with is stopping them cold now, and figuring the venality question later.
How do we recognize those whom we should be stopping?
Very simple: anybody who wants to limit our basic human freedoms and rights. Even those (especially those) who are trying to do it while claiming they’re doing it for our own good.
Marxism (and everything linked to it) has proven itself unworkable at least once. There exists no need to try it one more time.